REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Mercutio]

Someting in today's newspaper appropriate for the Christians around here...

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Well... yes!
The truth is different for everyone. Or at least, people's perception of the truth is different, depending on what truth you're talking about.

I tend to think that's because we're each, subjective, having an original (and let's face it, selfish) standpoint from which to view the world, my interests for example always being at odds, even fractionally, with the person I'm closest to. We're none of us conscripted to exactly the same bias (this sometimes loosely called 'the truth').

[And despite my assertion that the phrase "one true religion" doesn't work for me ... "one truth" does, - I speculate, but I think our universe probably operates in line with one set of natural laws - the extent of which even scientists are unaware.]

And tentatively ( until someone demolishes my argument ) 'selfish' is not especially a dirty word. Given that a total lack of selfishness would maybe produce a person who is altogether naive and easily led, without opinions, convictions, direction or self-determination - instead being the 'fuel for the fire' to further the aims of the less than scrupulous.

Perhaps the individual seeking (and finding) a balance somewhere between the two states, selfish/ unselfish would be the key to provide for communal harmony (which surely would be one aim of religion, wouldn't it?). Even selfishness having its uses since it's the other end of the spectrum to selflessness.

The negative needed to provide a behavioural spectrum, giving us a range of movement choices.

*climbs down from her soapbox*

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Someting in today's newspaper appropriate for the Christians around here...

I thought the cartoon was irreverent, cynical, insensitive, (funny) and it leans towards why Good Friday might be named this way, based on what I've heard (and thought sounded reasonable) that Christ's resurrection was 'good news'.

Ergo, Good Friday celebrates Christ (prospectively) demonstrating that physical death is not an end to life.

(Am I allowed to mention Tolkien here? Who proferred the thought in The Silmarillion that death might be a release from a burdensome life.)

It's like a friend of mine once said, though, What do people think they're going to do with themselves for all eternity?

[Arien the Maia]

Originally posted by Esswen


(Am I allowed to mention Tolkien here? Who proferred the thought in The Silmarillion that death might be a release from a burdensome life.)

ahh, but don't forget that Tolkien was a fervent Catholic, and the Catholic standpoint is that we were never ment to die. I think that Tolkien liked the idea (for a story) just to have something different, than everlasting life.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Esswen
I thought the cartoon was irreverent, cynical, insensitive, (funny) and it leans towards why Good Friday might be named this way, based on what I've heard (and thought sounded reasonable) that Christ's resurrection was 'good news'.

Ergo, Good Friday celebrates Christ (prospectively) demonstrating that physical death is not an end to life.

(Am I allowed to mention Tolkien here? Who proferred the thought in The Silmarillion that death might be a release from a burdensome life.)

It's like a friend of mine once said, though, What do people think they're going to do with themselves for all eternity?

I'm not saying that this would be the reason Good Friday was named as such. Rather, it points out one understanding of the reason for the death of Christ.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Esswen
If there was one and only one religion on the planet then it might be possible to generalise and talk about 'one true religion' but where there are many religions, doesn't that fact cause that term to be pretty much meaningless?

Just my opinion

I have to agree with this. It's most probable that none are the "one true religion" and they are all just making stuff up.

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Arien the Maia
ahh, but don't forget that Tolkien was a fervent Catholic, and the Catholic standpoint is that we were never ment to die. I think that Tolkien liked the idea (for a story) just to have something different, than everlasting life.

And in a story anything can be made possible, even everlasting life.

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I'm not saying that this would be the reason Good Friday was named as such. Rather, it points out one understanding of the reason for the death of Christ.

Well, we've each got our own point of view. What I read in the cartoon was that there was a play on words, on the word 'good'. But then I'm not thinking from a Christian perspective, I guess.

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I have to agree with this. It's most probable that none are the "one true religion" and they are all just making stuff up.

We might both be misunderstanding what people are meaning by the term, when they talk about "one true religion".

I'm looking at it from the position of there being many religions and, logically speaking, given that situation, how can one be singled out and elevated to become truer than the rest?

Instead, maybe what's being said is that in the heart of the believer, his or her religion is the one immutable truth. Could it be something to do with feelings rather than logic or the mind?

[Orli17]

i think that religion is actually a hope for all of us to cling on to in crisis. There may be no one god or a god at all but all of us have our dark days and when we do, we look to religion for hope and do good deeds for good luck to come our way(karma theory)... religion is very intense and in my opinion, never understandable.

[Mercutio]

If we understood everything about God, and what he does, and how he works. If everything was understandable on a human level, he wouldn't be much of a God, would he?

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If we understood everything about God, and what he does, and how he works. If everything was understandable on a human level, he wouldn't be much of a God, would he?

i think god/religion is understandable... it is a rationalization of the unknown... if there ever ceases to be an unknown element in our existance, it may no longer be necessary, but i don't see this happening anytime soon, if ever

this does not necessarily make anyone right or wrong... in fact, right and wrong are somewhat irrelavent... it's a way of viewing the world, and as such, will always be personalized, and should be allowed to remain personalized

[Esswen]

Religion (Part 1) - a security blanket and a pragmatic cover for emotional insecurity to aid and abet the rise of hope
God - a mystic who works in mysterious ways, who makes the unknown unfathomable, and yet the mind still soars
Religion (Part 2) - a rationalisation of the unknown and a way of bridging the gulf of ignorance on reality we're beset by

Interesting choices.

The first two approaches appear, to me, to suggest a passive acceptance of humanity's ignorance on reality and an indifference to discovering the universe's secrets.

The third approach talks to me about striving for greater knowledge.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Esswen
Religion (Part 1) - a security blanket and a pragmatic cover for emotional insecurity to aid and abet the rise of hope
God - a mystic who works in mysterious ways, who makes the unknown unfathomable, and yet the mind still soars
Religion (Part 2) - a rationalisation of the unknown and a way of bridging the gulf of ignorance on reality we're beset by

Interesting choices.

The first two approaches appear, to me, to suggest a passive acceptance of humanity's ignorance on reality and an indifference to discovering the universe's secrets.

The third approach talks to me about striving for greater knowledge.

Are those your own definitions? They sound a bit condescending.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Valandil
Are those your own definitions? They sound a bit condescending.

*is a bit tempted to try her hand at a definition of atheism and agnosticism in the same style*

[Esswen]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
it's a way of viewing the world, and as such, will always be personalized, and should be allowed to remain personalized

Amen to that.

[Esswen]

Originally posted by Valandil
Are those your own definitions? They sound a bit condescending.

I'm absolutely not being condescending. I'm just being a smart alec

[Esswen]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
*is a bit tempted to try her hand at a definition of atheism and agnosticism in the same style*

Perhaps, but I would have said defining atheism, theism and agnosticism. You would be able to tell me what you mean by, in the same style.

[Valandil]

Be careful then... are you an agnostic who has been a born-again Christian? Because I'm a born-again Christian who has been an agnostic!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Esswen
You would be able to tell me what you mean by, in the same style.

In your own words, a "smart alec" style

Were those "Religion (Part 1)" and "Religion (Part 2)" definitions your own, or did you quote someone else? I was assuming they were your own. Whoever wrote them, they sounded v. condescending to me.