lol, whatever helps you sleep at night man. :icon14:
It was right after I made you look like an idiot in R&R when you posted your nerdy jab at me and linked to a definition of hairy gay men as bears. :lol:
All I said was that I find you boring and you're trying to turn it into a flame war. Stop being so defensive. You really shouldn't care so much about what I think of you.
Catholics :lol:
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
my take on religion (from a post i made on another msgboard)
I think there is a certain arrogance in religion, in its common practice, and this shows through in its epistemology. The same could be said about science, as it is commonly practiced.
Many religions hold that their way is the best (though not necessarily exclusive) means to enlightenment/salvation/the life of the good/etc.
To me, I think honesty is the fundamental key to spiritual enlightenment, insofar as spiritual ascension implies progress toward enlightenment/salvation/etc. Furthermore, I think that the fundamental notion of honesty is not to be found in reason, but in an attitude of consciousness. It is the attitude of consciousness that allows you to cease deceiving yourself in your daily life. It is the attitude that fosters the humility required to accept you're wrong. From this attitude emerges characteristics that we commonly perceive as "good".
I think there is something special in religion that can facilitate such spiritual ascension - it is to do with the infinite nature that is ascribed to god. This infinite nature can inspire a humility of existence, which in turn allows for this honest conscious attitude to develop.
But, in this analysis, there is nothing divine about the tools that facilitate such an attitude. One may reasonably call the attitude divine, or even god divine, but to ascribe scriptures and doctrines themselves a status of divinity, or perfection, is from my point of view, a sin.
The problem with many existent doctrines, is that they are quite explicit in their "sins":
there are portions of the qur'an that articulate explicitly its status of perfection. It does so self referentially. People ascribe divine status to jesus, instead of focusing on the transcendental consciousness that the idea of him inspires. But these ideas are arbitrary in a sense. I believe that one can attain enlightenment/salvation alone in the ocean, by communing with nature, and being inspired by the infinite aspects of it.
In ascribing divine status to the symbolic tools that can catalyze us, we are jeapordizing our spiritual abilities. If there is a truth out there, then it cannot be captured in symbols; yet assigning symbols a divine status makes it very hard not to think within the terms of the arbitrary narratives, when trying to conceive of the infinite nature of reality.
One pathological manifestation of this are people who would call themselves extremely religious, yet do not show many signs of what we would commonly perceive as enlightenment. Religious terrorism is one manifestation. Obsession with religious rituals, at the expense of any deeper theological insight is another. There is a clinging to these tools that is hard to let go.
This is not to say we cannot have a relationship with these tools - it just requires a different attitude toward them, one which will actually allow us to use them better.
I think there is a certain arrogance in religion, in its common practice, and this shows through in its epistemology. The same could be said about science, as it is commonly practiced.
Many religions hold that their way is the best (though not necessarily exclusive) means to enlightenment/salvation/the life of the good/etc.
To me, I think honesty is the fundamental key to spiritual enlightenment, insofar as spiritual ascension implies progress toward enlightenment/salvation/etc. Furthermore, I think that the fundamental notion of honesty is not to be found in reason, but in an attitude of consciousness. It is the attitude of consciousness that allows you to cease deceiving yourself in your daily life. It is the attitude that fosters the humility required to accept you're wrong. From this attitude emerges characteristics that we commonly perceive as "good".
I think there is something special in religion that can facilitate such spiritual ascension - it is to do with the infinite nature that is ascribed to god. This infinite nature can inspire a humility of existence, which in turn allows for this honest conscious attitude to develop.
But, in this analysis, there is nothing divine about the tools that facilitate such an attitude. One may reasonably call the attitude divine, or even god divine, but to ascribe scriptures and doctrines themselves a status of divinity, or perfection, is from my point of view, a sin.
The problem with many existent doctrines, is that they are quite explicit in their "sins":
there are portions of the qur'an that articulate explicitly its status of perfection. It does so self referentially. People ascribe divine status to jesus, instead of focusing on the transcendental consciousness that the idea of him inspires. But these ideas are arbitrary in a sense. I believe that one can attain enlightenment/salvation alone in the ocean, by communing with nature, and being inspired by the infinite aspects of it.
In ascribing divine status to the symbolic tools that can catalyze us, we are jeapordizing our spiritual abilities. If there is a truth out there, then it cannot be captured in symbols; yet assigning symbols a divine status makes it very hard not to think within the terms of the arbitrary narratives, when trying to conceive of the infinite nature of reality.
One pathological manifestation of this are people who would call themselves extremely religious, yet do not show many signs of what we would commonly perceive as enlightenment. Religious terrorism is one manifestation. Obsession with religious rituals, at the expense of any deeper theological insight is another. There is a clinging to these tools that is hard to let go.
This is not to say we cannot have a relationship with these tools - it just requires a different attitude toward them, one which will actually allow us to use them better.
Falliblism does not seem to be a core component of any theistic religion. To the extent this is realized in a "my way or the highway" attitude among practitioners, I have zero inclination to discuss or explore any of it with them. If the truth of an actual, existing God is not an ecumenical one, I'll gladly join my brothers and sisters in hell...because this has been one fucked up cosmic ant-farm that is, frankly, unworthy of us all.
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
I feel privileged to exist on this particularly ant-farm at this particular point in it's development. The coming century should be very interesting.
As long as other religious beliefs aren't imposed upon me, they can believe whatever they want. This isn't as much of a problem here as it is in the US.
As long as other religious beliefs aren't imposed upon me, they can believe whatever they want. This isn't as much of a problem here as it is in the US.
[url=http://www.marxists.org/][img]http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3050/avatarmy7.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1736/leninzbp5.gif[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/1076/modulestalinat6.jpg[/img][img]http://img506.imageshack.us/img506/9239/cheds1.jpg[/img][/url]
Very nicely said.Hannibal wrote:Falliblism does not seem to be a core component of any theistic religion. To the extent this is realized in a "my way or the highway" attitude among practitioners, I have zero inclination to discuss or explore any of it with them. If the truth of an actual, existing God is not an ecumenical one, I'll gladly join my brothers and sisters in hell...because this has been one fucked up cosmic ant-farm that is, frankly, unworthy of us all.
My statement pertained only to the (hypothetical) case where (1) God exists, and (2) he chooses the followers of ONLY one particular iteration of religious ideology for salvation. Know what I'm sayin? If there is no (theistic) God, then my rant has no target.Massive Quasars wrote:I feel privileged to exist on this particularly ant-farm at this particular point in it's development. The coming century should be very interesting.
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
I pulled your ant-farm analogy, and that may have led to some confusion, but my post wasn't directed at you (solely).Hannibal wrote: My statement pertained only to the (hypothetical) case where (1) God exists, and (2) he chooses the followers of ONLY one particular iteration of religious ideology for salvation. Know what I'm sayin? If there is no (theistic) God, then my rant has no target.
Julios brought up his take on religion, that religion is often arrogant in practice. While on the topic, I voiced my indifference toward religious beliefs that aren't imposed upon me, arrogant or not.
My apologies for the confusion.