Why is one religion any better than any other?

[URAVIP2ME]

Correct. One religion is better than another by how well it keeps time.

.... and how 'well it makes time count' such as how that neighborly good Samaritan wisely used his time to help another in distress, and how wisely Jesus used his time in telling others about God's Kingdom of Daniel 2:44 as per Luke 4:43.

 

[dfnj]

I find it interesting that you assume that the reader's response would be in this direction and use that as a pretense to lecture the reader as to why this isn't so. I suppose it makes for a good piece of narrative (which was well-written, by the way), but it was a little off-putting to have such assumptions projected onto me as a reader.

I was just going to say "one religion is better than any other because it works better in your life than any other you've tried."

I'm sorry your faith is so weak that you are so easily put off. If you read my OP my comment is about people's dogma. There are not many people willing to accept other people's dogma's as possible being equal to their own. Are you such a person? What exactly is your dogma? Do you believe in God and if so, do you believe there is only true path to personal salvation?

I think there is more to a religion than if it just "works better in your life". The purpose of having religion is for answering the four great existential questions:

1. Who am I?
2. Why am I here?
3. What does it all mean?
4. What is going to happen to you after you die?

Religion is a map for how to live ones life with meaning and purpose. There thousands of maps. My OP had to do with how people decide which map is the best map. Or is there a way to compare all religions in such a way as to determine which map provides the best results for answer the four great existential questions.

 

[dfnj]

.... and how 'well it makes time count' such as how that neighborly good Samaritan wisely used his time to help another in distress, and how wisely Jesus used his time in telling others about God's Kingdom of Daniel 2:44 as per Luke 4:43.

Kingdom and Kings, before those words have any true meaning you have to first understand what the word "King" really means:

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sorry your faith is so weak that you are so easily put off.

I'm sorry that you can't avoid making erroneous assumptions about others. Opening with nonsense like this ruins what was otherwise a good post. I understood the OP just fine - I think it could have done without the presumptions. Rather like this post could have done without the presumptions.

 

[shunyadragon]

The food at their gatherings, I think. By that measure, the Sikhs and the UUs are in the lead.

I would give the Baha'i Faith the edge with Persian food at the gatherings.

 

[dfnj]

I'm sorry that you can't avoid making erroneous assumptions about others. Opening with nonsense like this ruins what was otherwise a good post. I understood the OP just fine - I think it could have done without the presumptions. Rather like this post could have done without the presumptions.

It could have been done without it but I just presumed you were stronger than anything offensive I might say. What is interesting is why are you attributing such base motives to my presumptions. Maybe if you stopped attributing such base motives to my presumptions you might see what I was saying in a better light.

As I said in my previous post to you, If you read my OP my comment is about people's dogma. There are not many people willing to accept other people's dogma's as possible being equal to their own. Are you such a person? What exactly is your dogma? Do you believe in God and if so, do you believe there is only true path to personal salvation?

But if you don't want to talk about what your dogma is or why you prefer it over other dogma we can keep having a pissing contest over what a terrible human being I am.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is one God, many covenants. Differing religions are expressions of faith. If they were really lived up to there would be no sense of 'better than'. We ought not to judge another's faith, but the corruption of that faith that creeps in over time.

Sounds very much like, in fact it is the belief, of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[dfnj]

I would give the Baha'i Faith the edge with Persian food at the gatherings.

You would think the Baha'i Faith would be more popular than it is in the World. People tend to prefer their own religion over others.

Many religions have the idea of the "chosen people" which is the antithesis of Baha'i Faith. The "chosen people" are chosen by God and are more sacred than everyone else by definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

It could have been done without it but I just presumed you were stronger than anything offensive I might say. What is interesting is why are attributing such base motives to my presumptions. Maybe if you stopped attributing such base motives to my presumptions you might see what I was saying in a better light.

As I said in my previous post to you, If you read my OP my comment is about people's dogma. There are not many people willing to accept other people's dogma's as possible being equal to their own. Are you such a person? What exactly is your dogma? Do you believe in God and if so, do you believe there is only true path to personal salvation?

But if you don't want to talk about what your dogma is or why you prefer it over other dogma we can keep having a pissing contest over what a terrible human being I am.

Over my 50+ years of search I have found the question of which belief is better? problematic, but I have found that the narrower one believes in relationship to what the diversity of other possible beliefs in history and the world, the more likely they are wrong. Exclusive ancient beliefs, that reject the alternatives are the least unlikely candidates. For an organized effort to believe I have narrowed the choices down UU, humanist, and the Baha'i Faith, Theist. I am presently a Baha'i, but everything is in pencil. I am a philosophical agnostic, because of the problematic issues of the fallibility of human perspectives and choices including my own.

My observations have determined that the nature of human spirituality evolved over time. This can be explained by both 'Progressive Revelation,' the Baha'i view, or the natural evolution of the nature of being human. What cannot explain the evidence is the exclusive claim of any one of the older religions, that reject other possible belief choices based on the justification of their own belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

You would think the Baha'i Faith would be more popular than it is in the World. People tend to prefer their own religion over others.

Many religions have the idea of the "chosen people" which is the antithesis of Baha'i Faith. The "chosen people" are chosen by God and are more sacred than everyone else by definition.

The bottom line is that fallible humans make the choices, and not God. The tug of ones generations of belief remains the thread that holds the elephant to the tree. Unfortunately one's desire for a 'sense of community' over rules most alternatives based mostly on their own heritage.

 

[Quintessence]

@dfnj I would simply appreciate it if you'd knock it off with the erroneous assumptions. Please don't assume the person talking to you has a faith, and definitely don't pejoratively assume that because a person disagrees with some small aspect of what you said, that somehow means they are offended or are weak. I have little respect for the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" sort of rubbish.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some religious views myth the point, to coin a phrase. Is a miracle really an axom?
consider the Baal myth versus the Elijah account
A posited debate - The Super Baal

Baal is the 'god of fire and rain' but who rides the chariot to heaven in the end and who
turns the rain on and off and calls down fire really?

Baal does miracles for rich people but Yahweh shows kindness to poor widows
and it's just better.

Or am I just grinding an axiom?

 

[shunyadragon]

View attachment 19845

Some religious views myth the point, to coin a phrase. Is a miracle really an axom?
consider the Baal myth versus the Elijah account
A posited debate - The Super Baal

Baal is the 'god of fire and rain' but who rides the chariot to heaven in the end and who
turns the rain on and off and calls down fire really?

Baal does miracles for rich people but Yahweh shows kindness to poor widows
and it's just better.

Or am I just grinding an axiom?

Your making assumptions about the mythology of ancient world views to justify you belief that Yahweh is the better God. Based on the evidence in ancient references Yahweh is a vague concept of either a descriptive adjective for God or one of a number of Gods..

 

[Ponder This]

"There Is No Such Thing As Time"

Looks like we better enjoy it while we have it then!

You should all convert and follow me since I cook better than anything you find at the religious gatherings.
No offense.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Your making assumptions about the mythology of ancient world views to justify you belief that Yahweh is the better God. Based on the evidence in ancient references Yahweh is a vague concept of either a descriptive adjective for God or one of a number of Gods..

Of course if one did miracles or foretold the future that would set it apart from the stuff of legend

 

[dfnj]

I find it interesting that you assume that the reader's response would be in this direction and use that as a pretense to lecture the reader as to why this isn't so. I suppose it makes for a good piece of narrative (which was well-written, by the way), but it was a little off-putting to have such assumptions projected onto me as a reader.

I was just going to say "one religion is better than any other because it works better in your life than any other you've tried."

Given the content of the original post I think you are ignoring the topic in order to be argumentative. You would have gotten a much better response from me if you did not start off by assuming the most base motives of the point I was trying to make.

Take a look at the main point of the post: "In order to have meaningful language, you have to have a set of assumptions or axioms you consider to be true without proof. From that point. you are then able to make statements in the language you can identify as being true or insane."

The point is most people I have found do not share the exact same set of beliefs or assumptions that make up ones own personal dogma. I was trying to find and illicit a response about why people choose to believe what they believe. If you are offended by the word "better" or the phase "better than mine" that is a very precise level of nitpicking. I would argue your response to my post was bordering on ad hominem attack. I was not projecting anything onto you as a reader. I just assumed you have a different set of beliefs than I do and that there are good reasons or intuitions why you would choose the ones you did to be better over all the others. Where as you were projecting that I was projecting as if I was looking at you as a lesser person than I was which I think says much more about you than it does me. I was not assuming you or anyone else was a lesser person. I was pointing out something about how we determine what other people are saying is insane.

Also, I did not force you to post to this thread. I was just trying to get a response to an idea about how people think their own belief system is the "right" one. I'm sorry I use the phase "yours is better than mine" and that you found that to be so strongly offensive. Most people believe other people are insane if they do not share the same axioms of belief. You could have simply said, "I agree with you" or just not respond at all.

At this point I have to rethink what I've been posting here. I never imagined people would be so sensitive at such a refined level. I can understand direct ad hominem attacks and moderating explicity language for the purpose of having polite conversation. However, eliminating ALL possible conflicts including pejorative intent is a lot of egg shells for me. It's too bad I really liked this place too.

 

[dfnj]

@dfnj I would simply appreciate it if you'd knock it off with the erroneous assumptions. Please don't assume the person talking to you has a faith, and definitely don't pejoratively assume that because a person disagrees with some small aspect of what you said, that somehow means they are offended or are weak. I have little respect for the "have you stopped beating your wife yet?" sort of rubbish.

I went back to your original criticism and made a more detailed response in my previous post.

 

[blü 2]

The purpose of having religion is for answering the four great existential questions:

You don't need a religion to answer those questions. For example:

1. Who am I?​

I am a member of H sap sap. I am my body including my brain. Consciously I am my sense of self.

2. Why am I here?​

Because all critters have evolved to survive and propagate, and the members of H sap sap, including my parents, are critters.

3. What does it all mean?​

Objectively, nothing. Subjectively, whatever you think it means (given that you think it means anything).

4. What is going to happen to you after you die?​

Nothing. Your death is the end of everything.

None of that should stop you being a good friend, neighbor or citizen, a good child, partner or parent.

 

[blü 2]

In order to have meaningful language, you have to have a set of assumptions or axioms you consider to be true without proof.

I assume (a) a world exists external to the self (b) the senses are capable of informing us of that world, and (c) reason is a valid tool. (Of course, I have to assume them, since I can't set out a justification of any of them without already having assumed it's true.)

Or are you talking about some other category of assumptions? If so, what are some examples of those assumptions?

just like the word God is used in religion, science has the word "Time". Time doesn't exist anywhere.

Time exists. We live in a sequence of nows which disclose change to us and allow us to generate change. (I also strongly disagree with the Platonist notion innate in the article you linked that reality is mathematics.)

why is one religion better than any other.

Better in what sense? Has more members? Or simply greater subjective appeal, individual by individual?

 

[Revoltingest]

In order to have meaningful language, you have to have a set of assumptions or axioms you consider to be true without proof.

I disagree. We don't need things which are "true", only things which are useful.
Even scientific facts aren't true...they're subject to change, but still useful.
And this allows for a common language.

"There Is No Such Thing As Time"

This is an example of rejecting something useful, ie, the concept of time.
Time is an extremely useful set of relationships between matter & space.
Were there no time, there would be no....
V=D/T
F=MA
Without such simple useful relationships, we'd be mired in the stone age.
But at least we wouldn't waste time coping with balky modern technology.