• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The only difference between religions.

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
But aren't the lizard men known for their arrogance and air of superiority?
But they are not God nor superior and as such not relevant for discussion of a superior being.

No, the Christian God is considered benevolent, but this isn't a common trait among Gods.
"Gods" is logical impossibility, if there are multiple Gods, which one is superior?

The God of Abraham reveled in war, conquest and and killing.
Lack of understanding of scriptures leads to such rushed conclusions.

In some Abrahamic interpretations, non-believers should not be allowed to live.
Yes, in "Abrahamic" interpretations.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I kind of agree with your Elephant example, but scriptures are beasts on their own.

But you know what? In the field of sociology of religion, this word "truth" is always taken subjectively. For example, the Americans Santa Claus is white, but an Indian Santa Claus could be brown or light brown. The Southeast asian Buddha is south East Asian, but the Japanese buddha is Japanese. ;) Even their eyes are different.

They go deeper. They use words like "reasonable". That means, the faith A and faith B are both true, but A is more reasonable to me. Because truth is subjective in their paradigm. Thats a very interesting discussion, but I dont mean to drag you into something else. Just thought it would be fun to put that in your mind.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But you know what? In the field of sociology of religion, this word "truth" is always taken subjectively. For example, the Americans Santa Claus is white, but an Indian Santa Claus could be brown or light brown. The Southeast asian Buddha is south East Asian, but the Japanese buddha is Japanese. ;) Even their eyes are different.
Yes, these are cultural differences, but we're talking about ontology -- absolute, objective Truth.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member

paradox

(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
But you know what? In the field of sociology of religion, this word "truth" is always taken subjectively. For example, the Americans Santa Claus is white, but an Indian Santa Claus could be brown or light brown. The Southeast asian Buddha is south East Asian, but the Japanese buddha is Japanese. ;) Even their eyes are different.
haha, I don't know what to say, I never saw a Japanese Buddha lol, but I have arguments for santa claus although I would refrain from sharing it here.

They go deeper. They use words like "reasonable". That means, the faith A and faith B are both true, but A is more reasonable to me. Because truth is subjective in their paradigm.
Even "reasonable" is subjective.
What is reasonable to me doesn't have to be reasonable to you because when it comes to defending ones faith reason can become second to faith.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
haha, I don't know what to say, I never saw a Japanese Buddha lol, but I have arguments for santa claus although I would refrain from sharing it here.


Even "reasonable" is subjective.
What is reasonable to me doesn't have to be reasonable to you because when it comes to defending ones faith reason can become second to faith.

Absolutely. Thats just how Phd's in the field of Sociology of Religion are trained to think.

But that's not relevant to your earlier point. This is absolutely one field, irrelevant to your discussion.
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Absolutely. Thats just how Phd's in the field of Sociology of Religion are trained to think.

But that's not relevant to your earlier point. This is absolutely one field, irrelevant to your discussion.

For clarification, it is your position that faith takes precedence or priority over reason. In other words, when faith and reason conflict, it is faith that controls and is to be relied upon. Is this a correct assessment of your position?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
For clarification, it is your position that faith takes precedence or priority over reason. In other words, when faith and reason conflict, it is faith that controls and is to be relied upon. Is this a correct assessment of your position?

Nope.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Yeah, absolute objective Truth is not possible in the following sense. We human are not absolute nor objective as having reality independent of our minds. The only possible being would could have that is God.


Yeah, pretty much this. To paraphrase philosopher Julian Baggini, there is no view from everywhere, and there is no view from nowhere; every (human) view is from somewhere. Any truly objective view must by definition be a universal, God’s eye view
 
Top