butchersapron
Bring back hanging
To ask what btw? I would like an answer on this.
God Allah Yahweh Jehovah Tao
- Thread starter Gmart
- Start date
To ask what btw? I would like an answer on this.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Eh? You get odder by the post.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why would i when, as i've explained to you already (twice now), that i've never claimed any such thing, but emphasised the exact opposite?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
Going round in circles a bit, innit.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I did ask you to take especial note of my use of 'also' above GM - why you didn't i do not know.
*shakes head*
*shakes head*
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Thus stating two sides, neither of which you seem keen to comment on.
What is it if not personal?
Give an example.
Do you even HAVE an opinion, you voted that you believe, but say nothing...
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
My emphasis.
It looks as though butchers is saying that a personal set of mores is not a religion in the commonly accepted meaning of the word.
Could be wrong.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Who on earth has said that it's not also personal - i've said that unambiguously three times now. Please don't ask me to give an example of a religion that's not persoanl agian. Thank you.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Well if I've got the wrong end of the stick than fine, please explain what on earth you're going on about???
You must have had a point to make I presume, or were you just waffling rubbish???
You seem keen to state that religion is personal and impersonal now, do you mean an absolute??
Whatever you mean, you seem completely unable to state it clearly...
You must have had a point to make I presume, or were you just waffling rubbish???
You seem keen to state that religion is personal and impersonal now, do you mean an absolute??
Whatever you mean, you seem completely unable to state it clearly...
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Can someone explain the dual nature of religion to GM please - the social and the personal. It's not hard to grasp is it?
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
1) Here's a person with a personal belief in God, them being a person and all. That makes it personal.
2) They choose to articulate this personal belief in God by visiting a big cold building once a week or so. For the sake of brevity, let's call it a church.
3) Now, as well as being a building, this "church" is also big enough to contain other people who amazingly might not agree 100% with the content of person at point (1) above's personal belief in God.
4) It's almost as if the crowd of people with their respective personal beliefs in God create something different and something other than the sum of their personal respective beliefs. The "church" then becomes a social institution.
Ta da!
Will that do?
2) They choose to articulate this personal belief in God by visiting a big cold building once a week or so. For the sake of brevity, let's call it a church.
3) Now, as well as being a building, this "church" is also big enough to contain other people who amazingly might not agree 100% with the content of person at point (1) above's personal belief in God.
4) It's almost as if the crowd of people with their respective personal beliefs in God create something different and something other than the sum of their personal respective beliefs. The "church" then becomes a social institution.
Ta da!
Will that do?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
It will, let's see if he grasps the nettle.
i-am-your-idea
pretty vacant
does god have to exist or not exist? maybe he is beyond existence itself.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
I'm sorry, am I being an idiot here?
I was just commenting on the neo-puritanism of people moralising at others. I don't like it when others decide to tell me what I should and shouldn't do, and furthermore I think it is down to the adult concerned to decide what is moral for them, not up to others to take it upon themselves to moralise at people.
It is so disrespectful and they should mind their own business!!!
Which is why religion is considered to be a personal issue only and not worth talking about until one of the faithful decide to turn to violence.
Im certainly not telling you what to do, or attempting to force anything on you. It's a discussion, ideas and thoughts are meant to be shared - if you're going to be offended by them, then you're in the wrong place my friend!
No.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Did i hear the cock crow? 
Oversimplifying
It seems to me that most believing people have a clearer idea of the God they don't believe in, than the force or God or power that they do.
You'll be hard pressed to find any Christian who believes in a God who is an actual physical old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud. Perhaps the traditional imagery is trying to convey something that made metaphorical sense in the society of the time (God has authority, old men have authority, therefore it makes sense to depict God as an old man...)
Whether a God or power exists or not, though, doesn't change what we should do to one another. Irrespective of theology, we should treat one another respectfully and lovingly. Any God that tried to change that would be a fraud by definition.
It seems to me that most believing people have a clearer idea of the God they don't believe in, than the force or God or power that they do.
You'll be hard pressed to find any Christian who believes in a God who is an actual physical old man with a long beard sitting on a cloud. Perhaps the traditional imagery is trying to convey something that made metaphorical sense in the society of the time (God has authority, old men have authority, therefore it makes sense to depict God as an old man...)
Whether a God or power exists or not, though, doesn't change what we should do to one another. Irrespective of theology, we should treat one another respectfully and lovingly. Any God that tried to change that would be a fraud by definition.
On the other hand...
...the Divine is something intrinsically too huge for humans to grasp. So humans try to find something to grasp it with that is intelligible.
It could be a humanlike form. Look at how every culture anthropomorphizes Jesus to look like their idea of what a Son of God should look like.
They might use human words to describe God, which is no less contingent.
You can't, as a human, capture the Divine in objective and accurate terms. But it's quite human to try, and I don't think it's bad, provided one is aware of the contingent and metaphorical nature of what one is doing.
...the Divine is something intrinsically too huge for humans to grasp. So humans try to find something to grasp it with that is intelligible.
It could be a humanlike form. Look at how every culture anthropomorphizes Jesus to look like their idea of what a Son of God should look like.
They might use human words to describe God, which is no less contingent.
You can't, as a human, capture the Divine in objective and accurate terms. But it's quite human to try, and I don't think it's bad, provided one is aware of the contingent and metaphorical nature of what one is doing.
Human beings are storytellers. We tell stories to understand the world with.
God no more "is" humanlike than "he" "is" like a nine-tentacled suckerplant. But I don't see the conspicuous harm in trying to understand him using human terms - and I think we would deceive ourselves if we thought that, using human language and concepts, we could actually do otherwise. Referring to God as being humanlike simply formalizes the metaphor. There's no way for us, as humans, to speak about God without using metaphor. The metaphors we use are no more "poppycock" than the blind man feeling an elephant's tail and describing what he feels. His experience is real and, so far as he can manage, is accurate.
You may not need a story that's like the one that Christianity has constructed. That's fine. But there's no way to talk about such things without filters of any kind, which brings it down to a choice of filters.
You think of the Divine as a "force", perhaps? What makes that more or less valid, more or less rational, than thinking of it as a person?
God no more "is" humanlike than "he" "is" like a nine-tentacled suckerplant. But I don't see the conspicuous harm in trying to understand him using human terms - and I think we would deceive ourselves if we thought that, using human language and concepts, we could actually do otherwise. Referring to God as being humanlike simply formalizes the metaphor. There's no way for us, as humans, to speak about God without using metaphor. The metaphors we use are no more "poppycock" than the blind man feeling an elephant's tail and describing what he feels. His experience is real and, so far as he can manage, is accurate.
You may not need a story that's like the one that Christianity has constructed. That's fine. But there's no way to talk about such things without filters of any kind, which brings it down to a choice of filters.
You think of the Divine as a "force", perhaps? What makes that more or less valid, more or less rational, than thinking of it as a person?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Why have such filters? We can exist without them if we dare...
I DO use the term force but it would be more accurate to say that no words could describe etc:
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
ie pointless to talk about it. Purely a personal thing.
If you truly thought that it was pointless to use words to talk about the Divine...
...there would be no point in starting this thread.
There is a point. It's just that the point is not to establish an accurate way for humans to talk about the Divine. There isn't one that is accurate from the Divine perspective. There are only ways that make more or less sense to other human beings.
What would an unfiltered discussion of the Divine (in your terms) look like? How would you discuss anything without using human words and concepts, and without bringing your and my contingent human understanding to bear?
...there would be no point in starting this thread.
There is a point. It's just that the point is not to establish an accurate way for humans to talk about the Divine. There isn't one that is accurate from the Divine perspective. There are only ways that make more or less sense to other human beings.
What would an unfiltered discussion of the Divine (in your terms) look like? How would you discuss anything without using human words and concepts, and without bringing your and my contingent human understanding to bear?
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Very true...
max_freakout
Nothing matters
there should be a poll option for 'neither exists, nor doesnt exist'
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Yeah, we could call it 'The Max Option'
I believe in a great force that holds and binds the galaxy together...electromagnetism...I don't think it's conscious tho...I also believe in gravity, but again, I don't think it's concious in any way, shape or form.
I believe in a great force that holds and binds the galaxy together...electromagnetism...I don't think it's conscious tho...I also believe in gravity, but again, I don't think it's concious in any way, shape or form.
Gmart
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
