Religion vs. Religion

[cwes99_03]

You know I just realized what I had failed to realize earlier. You have hit the nail on the head, Pyro.

 

Religion vs Religion

 

The problem lies not in the religous belief, but in the inclusion of human philosophy and private interpretation. Well done, Pyro.

[Turtle]

Why did the founding fathers of America feel that religion was more than just a human philosophy?

 

To clarify, yet again, many of the Founders were NOT believers in any organized religion. They - out of pragmatism and reason - allowed that folks can and will believe in the supernatural but that these beliefs belong outside the power of government.

 

We are not talking about what makes these different from each other but what makes one Hindu's beliefs different from another Hindu's beliefs.

 

Uhmm....yes we are. What makes Cristianity right and Mayan religion wrong? What makes any one religion right and all the others wrong? This is entirely the point of this thread.

[cwes99_03]

No kidding Turtle. Care to read more of the thread?

 

The founding fathers saw a difference between religion and philosophy. I did not say they believed in any organized religion, though that has been discussed in depth elsewhere and many have said your thought here is wrong. However, the originators of the bill of rights obviously thought there was a difference between religion and philosophy, enough so that they ammended the constitution to prevent the government from instating a state religion.

 

Furthermore this thread is not about right and wrong per se. Again, I invite you to read the original post of this thread. While it invites a discussion of how one might reconcile the vast differences between one religion and another (as you say christian and mayan as an example). The we I mentioned in that post was Pyro and myself. It was a clarification of what he and I were talking about not what you or anyone else on this thread was discussing. I was asking about the intra-faith beliefs of Hindus et al.

 

Certainly this thread is a discussion of both. However, as you like to do, it is not a place where we tear down one another. It is a discusison of whether there are different ways people reconcile their beliefs with the beliefs of another. Thus there is more than one point to this thread, as illucidated by Buffy in enumerating a 1 and a 2.

 

My question for this thread is two fold (which may mean splitting rather quickly, although they are intertwined):

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

So as Buffy rightly pointed out, there are two issues. One is intra-faith, the other is inter-faith. Two people professing the same basic religion hold very different beliefs, how does each one view the other? Two people of different religions hold very different beliefs, how does each one view the other? You have touched on only the second, Pyro and I were discussing the first.

[Turtle]

The founding fathers saw a difference between religion and philosophy. I did not say they believed in any organized religion, though that has been discussed in depth elsewhere and many have said your thought here is wrong.

It is not my thought except as I accept the actual letters and other writings of the Founders. As always on this point, I refer you to the Pulitzer Prize winning book The Radicalism of the American Revolution by James Wood wherin the misbegotten idea the Founders were Christians is shown erroneous.

 

Furthermore this thread is not about right and wrong per se.

The implication and connotation of the word versus (vs.) in regard to religion in the title most certainly is a right or wrong issue.

 

Certainly this thread is a discussion of both. However, as you like to do, it is not a place where we tear down one another.

Sure it is; that is what versus means.

 

By all means, proceed with your babble as it does provide some measure of jocularity.;)

[Eilizsia]

While most of the wheel spinning in this still very young forum to date has taken the spin of "Science vs. Religion", a clear spin off from this that has shown up several times is the issue of Religions natural conflict with one another based on differences in beliefs both large (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism) or small (e.g. interpretations of requirements for salvation within Christian sects).

 

My question for this thread is two fold (which may mean splitting rather quickly, although they are intertwined):

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

Discuss.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

People today. Care about their Own world views, and they Tell everyone else that doesnt follow, Your Inadiquate because I think i know truth other your truth...

 

My Answer..

 

We all want the same things.....We seem to lack the ability to recognise the fact.....We all like being paraniod about other cultures, Because they are different....An if they are different from me or you our someones beliefs, they obviously dont deserve to have free choice.... after all they are insects and not human beings,,, So lets treat them that way....

 

;) Confused.

 

I guess we all are.

 

Finalising

 

Just Because you say Your Right, It doesnt mean Im Wrong.

Just because you say Im Wrong, It doesnt mean you right.

 

Fear leads people to expect the worse to Prevent the worse....But they Pretend that they Didnt Create the worse By Preventing the Worse. Example....America and UK, Set Out to Stop A war And suffering...The answer misslead thousands to believe that they prevented a war, when infact Thousands have suffered because of the war they started to prevent someone else from starting.....Thier excuss is, If someone is going to start to gain something from it, Then Its us, HHA HHa Ha, I Name this here Land America, foramly known as Iraq. HA HA:naughty:

[cwes99_03]

By all means, proceed with your babble as it does provide some measure of jocularity.B)

 

By all means re-read the forum rules for posting in the theology section. Then if you cannot follow them, kindly remove yourself from it.

[cwes99_03]

People today care about their own world views, and they tell everyone else that doesnt follow, "You're inadequate because I think I know the truth..."

 

My answer..

 

We all want the same things. We seem to lack the ability to recognise the fact... We all like being paraniod about other cultures, because they are different... If they are different from me or you or someonelse's beliefs, then they obviously don't deserve to have free choice. After all, they are insects and not human beings. So let's treat them that way.

B) Confused.

 

I guess we all are.

 

Finalizing

 

Just because you say you're right, doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Just because you say I'm wrong, doesn't mean you're right.

 

Fear leads people to expect the worst, in order to prevent the worst. But they pretend that they didn't create the worst by preventing the worst. Example:

America and the UK, set out to stop a war and suffering. The answer mislead thousands to believe that they prevented a war, when infact thousands have suffered because of the war they started to prevent someone else from starting.....Their excuse is, "If someone is going to start to gain something from it, then it's us, HHA HHa Ha. I Name this here land, America, formerly known as Iraq. HA HA :)

 

1) See all the red. That doesn't include all the mistakes you made that I had to correct. Do you think that I was right but you weren't wrong? Do you think that I was just wrong for correcting your mistakes?

The answer to both questions should be, "No." The truth is they were mistakes and they deserved correcting, and the original person was wrong and the editer was right. Now, was the editer perfect? Perhaps, but most likely no. Most likely he either corrected one or two things that didn't need correcting, or missed one or two things that did. However, he was right a major portion of the time.

Now perhaps someone else can come along and likewise edit it further and perfect it a little more, perhaps editing it for content as it seemed to stray off subject at times, or perhaps editing the section on your answer, as your answer strayed back into the previous section of your accusation and didn't really have anything to do with an answer (seemingly, I highlighted that section in blue).

 

2) I think you make a mistake in logic. You assume we all want the same things. However, this is most likely false. Many people want to be rich, many people just want to be happy. Some people want others to be below them so they can feel better, others want everyone to be equals. Some people want to live in a world where no one else can bother them, some people want to live in a world where they are surrounded by hundreds of different cultures and experiences. Some people want to be right while others are wrong.

I want to live in a world without pain, death, suffering, sorrow, jealousy, strife, wickedness, war..... a world in which all peoples know what is best for all peoples and they all work in one accord. That this will happen, and it is not too far away is not my philosophy, it is my religious belief, my theology.

 

Again, I think you make the mistake of confusing human philosophy with religion. Perhaps you could read that other thread?

[Pyrotex]

You know I just realized what I had failed to realize earlier. You have hit the nail on the head, Pyro.

 

Religion vs Religion

 

The problem lies not in the religous belief, but in the inclusion of human philosophy and private interpretation. Well done, Pyro.

Thank you. Any accolade from you must be profoundly earned. [bows deeply] From this day hence, ye shall be known as "the loyal opposition".

 

Now, I have a question for you. Is it possible to have religion WITHOUT the inclusion of human philosophy and private interpretation?

 

I say, "no".

[cwes99_03]

You of course know that I disagree.

[Turtle]

By all means re-read the forum rules for posting in the theology section. Then if you cannot follow them, kindly remove yourself from it.

 

See, you can be funny!

Again you have dodged the issue, where as I keep my humor to the point. You have declared yourself a Christian, therefore you believe the Muslims, and the Jews, and the Mayans, and the others are wrong. By the title of the thread I conclude you ought to say why you have the right religion and the others don't. Where's the beef? According to Revelations if you go lukewarm on me then you're gonna get spewed out of Gods mouth. :)

[cwes99_03]

I never said I didn't believe, and as I have already stated in this very thread I think they are wrong. But this thread isn't about my opinions or calling each other wrong, it was about studying what each religion thinks about others (inter faith) and what each sect, whatever, of a religion thinks about the other sect (intra faith.) Dude, you're arguing something that's already been answered. Learn to read.

[Turtle]

I never said I didn't believe, and as I have already stated in this very thread I think they are wrong. But this thread isn't about my opinions or calling each other wrong, it was about studying what each religion thinks about others (inter faith) and what each sect, whatever, of a religion thinks about the other sect (intra faith.) Dude, you're arguing something that's already been answered. Learn to read.

 

Nonsense! Vs. is as versus does. To go against. Religion going against religion. Fact is, I don't think you know enough about the Koran or the Bhagavad-gītā to say why you are right and they are wrong and that is why you keep dodging. :)

[cwes99_03]

Reread the thread, man. You haven't, so you can't even say what you just said, with authority.

[Turtle]

Reread the thread, man. You haven't, so you can't even say what you just said, with authority.

I knew you would dodge. You don't have the strength of your convictions. :)

[cwes99_03]

I knew your only purpose here was to sling mud. You don't have any convictions.

[Turtle]

I knew your only purpose here was to sling mud. You don't have any convictions.

Contraire! I have the conviction to challenge you to fess up that you haven't read the texts I mentioned so you can't set your religion against them in any comparitive way. Just say, 'no, I haven't read them' or 'yes I have read them and they are wrong because___.'

 

Religion Vs. Religion

Because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth. --Rev. ii. 16.

[cwes99_03]

Fact is, I don't think you know enough about the Koran or the Bhagavad-gītā to say why you are right and they are wrong and that is why you keep dodging.

Turtle, sometimes I look at you like you are on your back flailing to get your neck far enough out to flip yourself over. But every time you do, you use it to flip yourself further onto your back if that is possible.

 

I did not answer that joust because I did not see it as a joust. You accused me of dodging. Dodging what, I don't know. Now you say I was dodging your challenge, but that wasn't a challenge the first time you accused me of dodging.

I believe your sole intent on this thread is to take it off topic. You like to accuse people of dodging all the time, as you dodge and weave (haha, your title is weaver) every thread you don't like by taking it off on your own little tangent and turning it into Turtle's world, where only turtle can have an opinion and everyone else is wrong.

I never have claimed to read them. Likewise, in order to tell you whether or not a fake $100 bill is real or not, I do not have to study every possible fake $100 bill in the world. I simply have to have full knowledge of what a real $100 bill looks like.

 

How would I know that the bill I am examing is a real one, you ask? I'm glad you did. You would know by going to the source. Hmm, I believe I said that. Let's see. Yep. Right here.

 

You know how I knew that? Because I've been participating in the post and have read all the other posts here. Why don't you give it a try and then come back and join the discussion, instead of trying to divert it to your own universe.

 

So that you might understand, here's a few snippets.

 

Religions natural conflict with one another based on differences in beliefs both large (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism) or small (e.g. interpretations of requirements for salvation within Christian sects).

 

My question for this thread is two fold (which may mean splitting rather quickly, although they are intertwined):

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

The two questions are very broad, and one can only hope to tackle spotted issues, instead of answering them in toto.

 

My point is that true faith prevents the acknowledgement of alternatives.

What does all that mean? Yes, people will either adopt the words of others or invent their own belief systems from fear and the desire to conquer fear. The claim current mainstream religions have on thought and action I believe is weakening - people are getting smarter and are exposing the constraints, contradictions, corruption and segregation that seem inherent to religious institutions.

 

How do you deal with the notion that "he may have been a liar or deranged"? How do you deal with others who say so based on their religious beliefs? How do you address your beliefs to those with opposing ones? I think its great that you can admit the possibility that your beliefs may be unfounded, but you don't seem to want to walk through what that means for how you interact with others. That's the point here.

 

Reminder "opposing views" in this thread are not "science." Question here is how we deal with for example, Jews not believing that Jesus was the Messiah (who is yet to come).

 

With controlled equanimity that ofttimes betrays your views by accident! There are a wide variety of views among the Christians here, and I don't think its hard to see the differences in both approach and form, and the discussion of those differences is the point in this thread, which it seems by this statement you are denying. As a simple and concrete example, if you inspect some of the posts on the site there those that would disagree with your opinion that Catholics are Christians...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southtown

You want me to admit that I might be wrong about Jesus being Savior, and I simply don't believe that.

 

I have no desire to do so and that is not the point. The point is how you *interact* with those who do. So while you say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southtown

However, I will not deride you (or anyone else) for disagreeing with me. And I am perfectly willing to walk interested people through my beliefs, and discuss any part of them.

 

This avoids the critical issue here of how the *differences* influence your world-view. Many religions contain teachings that "unbelievers" will not receive the same benefits of "believers", yet these religions in many cases come with lists of "exceptions" to handle the most egregious cases of "unfairness" that this causes, for example some Christian faiths support the notion that an exception is made for all people who died before Christ, and they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven anyway because they couldn't do anything about being born too soon. This is an example of a faith attempting to deal with the cognitive dissonance of "good" being treated as "evil" because it does not have the right beliefs.

 

This is your approach, and I'm pretty sure I've got it. A critical difference between your approach and most others is that you do not rely on any external church or authority for interpretation of the scriptures. What you very clearly imply is that your own interpretation is the only one you consider to be the "truth", and while you do--I think correctly--state that all should go through this process themselves (a very scientific approach if you ask me!), this is *exactly* the issue you are avoiding: This approach still begs the question posed by this whole thread: how do you reconcile *your* interpretations from *someone elses*, given they have taken the exact approach you advocate?

In short, yes. It is possible for both to be right... in the sight of God. The essence of salvation by faith is that you don't have to be perfect. God is interested in sincerity. God is interested in the heart. And He is the only one who can know the reasons in a person's heart, anyway.

This is the core problem. If a religion is gospel, by the very definition, it cannot be independently interpreted, and when it is - conflict.

The varying beliefs generally have to reconcile their existence by themselves, not with eachother but with the natural world and if they are unable to do so, they probably have something wrong.

This, of course, being the problem with strict doctrine: an inability to shift beliefs without some Crusade or vast revolution.

 

Of course, it is only if their own religion provides unsatisfactory answers to everything that they begin to see other religions in an open-minded fashion.

 

If I asked you what a trabilidon is...

And then there is you. Your misguided first step into this thread.

 

A lot of debate here of late, but no good religion vs. religion the title promises. Let's kick 'er up a notch and make some reasoned and impashioned attacks against the religion you don't believe in.

 

I would like to line up the Mayan religion against its contemporaries, but unfortunately the Wholly Fodder saw fit to burn their sacred writings wholesale. Hey, did you know the Mayans used zero? Whether this knowledge came from God, transport from India, or secular cleverness of their own, it is a power the Jews, Christians, and Muslims lacked in the same age.

 

So I told you to check into forum rules, you slung some mud. I told you to grow up, so on and so forth.

 

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to). It is a forum for rational discussion of religious thought, and varieties thereof. How does science and religion interact? How does religion impact society? What is the role of religion in education? Why are wars fought over religious ideas? These are examples of topics we hope to see here.

 

This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, nor is it the place to explain why your religion is much better than the alternatives. There are plenty of forums for that on the web already. Please respect our wishes to maintain a forum which first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it.

 

Preaching will not be tolerated, and all our usual rules apply.

 

Note that posts made in this forum do not show up in the "Lastest topics" bar in the right column, because most topics here tend not to be of a scientific nature.

 

By extension this is not the place to discus why your non-religion is better than other's religions.

 

Wow, sorry to everyone who thinks this was going off topic. I'm hoping this will bring it back.