User Tag List

First 51314151617 Last

Results 141 to 150 of 176

  1. #141
    Senior Member Nonsensical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Posts
    4,010

    Default

    I feel that science, as is everything else "concrete" on this earth, is merely a raindrop on a flower in the field that is God. Sure, you can rationalize everything you want, but science only goes a few millimeters on the scale in which irrationality wins by a mile. How can we be sure there is no God? For all I know, there is..I feel it..others feel it..and of course, some don't and try to restrain it with words and concepts that is science. Science only covers a small portion of the ever existing spirit that is divided into each and everyones souls..those who can find it hold the light close to them, those who don't want to believe that it's true, try to make up excuses for it, try to cage it..almost like trying to restrain air in a cage..there is simply, simply no way to hold it back..and sure, you don't have to believe it..we're meant to question, but sometimes you have to feel..feel with your heart instead of your mind..and once you do, you can become high..you know, you have the feeling, you light the ever lighten candle deep inside your soul that will stay with you through this fraction of a lifetime and for eternity. After all, science covers such a small overview of this world. This world is pin-point in an ever extending sea of a million suns, that sea is a bead of dew on a blade of grass that grows in the ever rolling hills that is far beyond anything that anyone can ever describe with words, farther then any science concept can ever brush, yet something so simple that if you light your candle, hold it dear to you, will lead you into this field where you will rejoice in the blissful tranquility of the one superior being..the creator of everything that is, will be, and ever was on this pin-point of a place that we call Earth.

    I feel strongly about my point, and sure, you can say it's idealistic, you can say it's only in my head, you can say what you want, but my candle is lit..nothing in this fraction of a lifetime will extinguish things, I'm off to far bigger and better things!
    Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?

  2. #142
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Savages rely on religion for a worldview.
    This is largely an ad hominem attack. Whether or not savages rely on religion is besides the point, and does not disprove religious claims. Not to mention it is grossly inaccurate. Religious people come in all shapes and forms.


    Those thinkers did not, they relied on their own thinking, religion was but an unnecessary burden for them imposed upon them purely incidentally. They were religious as a result of errors of thought they incurred due to the kind of education and culture that was ingrained upon them.

    If they were able to extricate themselves from such biases, they would renounce their religion upon the realization of the implausibility of such views.
    And you somehow have secret access to their minds, to discern what they really thought about matters religious?

    Ideology need not be complex as they are today, it is merely a guide of political and social behavior for people to abide by. They have existed ever since people functioned in a group, as obviously they always needed to organize their activities.
    You're confusing ideology with social-political philosophy. As far that ditchomy is concerned, religious thinkers have clearly favored the latter over the former. Some examples off the top of my head: Karl Barth, Jacques Maritain, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, etc.


    All the religious wars that were fought in the name of the holy text?
    Wars occur for endless reasons, religion is but one. And often religious conflicts were heavily mixed in with political and econonic disputes. Yet we could look at this from a different perspective: religious wars involve men fighting for what are their deepest held beliefs.

    Rousseau himself made some interesting comments about this:
    "Fanaticism, though sanguinary and cruel, is nevertheless a great and powerful passion, which exalts the heart of man, which inspires him with a contempt of death, which gives him prodigious energy, and which only requires to judiciously directed in order to produce the most sublime virtues. On the other hand, irreligion, and a reasoning and philosophic spirit in general, strengthens the attachment to life, debases the soul and renders it effeminate, concentrates all the passions in the meanness of private interest, in the abject motive of self, and thus silently saps the real foundations of society; for so trifling are the points in which private interests are united, that they will never counterbalance those in which they oppose one another."

    No, not really. Modern Christianity is different from Islam because it was heavily influenced by the Western Culture which values independency of thought and action.
    That doesn't make any sense, since Western culture has it's birth in the early Medieval period when the Christian faith was spreading across Europe in wake of the collaspe of the Roman Empire. Along with the faith, missionaries also brought with them the Classical heritage of Greece and Rome. This is why Novalis once remarked that Western culture is built on three main pillars: the philosophy of Greece, the laws of Rome, and the spirituality of Christianity.

    Religion in itself offers a very short leash. The fence encompasses a very small area.
    Maybe according to your definition of religion, which is nothing more than a strawman you set up in order to knock down.

    What does making referrences to philosophy have to do with endorsing philosophical thought?
    I honestly amazed you would even ask such an absurd question.



    Scripture is the cornerstone of religious literature as it is the description of what a religion is like and how it ought to be observed. All else is irrelevant
    You're obviously taking too much of a Protestant and "Minimalist" approach to religion. This does not apply to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.


    Christians preach the message explicitly. You are rotten. Only God is good. Man is dead in his sins. Submit, you wicked sinner. The purpose of this mentality is to teach man to devalue his inner being so he may be more docile to the will of authority.
    I think Pascal summs up the Christian message better:
    "What kind of freak is man! What a novelty he is, how absurd he is, how chaotic and what a mass of contradictions, and yet what a prodigy! He is judge of all things, yet a feeble worm. He is repository of truth, and yet sinks into such doubt and error. He is the glory and the scum of the universe!"
    Man is indeed a sinner, but he is also created in God's image. Christ became man in order to save man, which shows how important man is to God and the closeness between human and divine natures. Vladimir Soloviev even taught how the God-Man(ie Christ) showed the way to God-Manhood.


    Very irreligious. Those are rebels against Conventional religious thought.
    Catholicism is an irreligious tradition? Am I understanding you correctly?

    Rebels.
    :rolli:

    Non-literalist perspective is not an accurate interpretation of the word.
    That's absurd especially considering the various forms of literature contained within the Bible. Not only historical books like Judges, but even "Wisdom" literature like Job, Proverbs, Psalms, and Song of Songs.

    How can one apply a literalist approach to Pslams or even especially Song of Songs- which is an allegorical telling of God's love for Israel through the prism of the love between a man and a woman.

    ??????

    I do not get what relevance all your anecdotes have to this.
    So you fail to see how the historical origins of Christianity are relevant to this discussion?

    Obviously.
    How can a religious thinker be secretly irreligious? That's pure bullshit, and you know it!

  3. #143
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This is largely an ad hominem attack. Whether or not savages rely on religion is besides the point, and does not disprove religious claims. Not to mention it is grossly inaccurate. Religious people come in all shapes and forms.



    And you somehow have secret access to their minds, to discern what they really thought about matters religious?



    You're confusing ideology with social-political philosophy. As far that ditchomy is concerned, religious thinkers have clearly favored the latter over the former. Some examples off the top of my head: Karl Barth, Jacques Maritain, Russell Kirk, Michael Oakeshott, etc.



    Wars occur for endless reasons, religion is but one. And often religious conflicts were heavily mixed in with political and econonic disputes. Yet we could look at this from a different perspective: religious wars involve men fighting for what are their deepest held beliefs.

    Rousseau himself made some interesting comments about this:





    That doesn't make any sense, since Western culture has it's birth in the early Medieval period when the Christian faith was spreading across Europe in wake of the collaspe of the Roman Empire. Along with the faith, missionaries also brought with them the Classical heritage of Greece and Rome. This is why Novalis once remarked that Western culture is built on three main pillars: the philosophy of Greece, the laws of Rome, and the spirituality of Christianity.


    Maybe according to your definition of religion, which is nothing more than a strawman you set up in order to knock down.



    I honestly amazed you would even ask such an absurd question.





    You're obviously taking too much of a Protestant and "Minimalist" approach to religion. This does not apply to either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.




    I think Pascal summs up the Christian message better:


    Man is indeed a sinner, but he is also created in God's image. Christ became man in order to save man, which shows how important man is to God and the closeness between human and divine natures. Vladimir Soloviev even taught how the God-Man(ie Christ) showed the way to God-Manhood.




    Catholicism is an irreligious tradition? Am I understanding you correctly?


    :rolli:



    That's absurd especially considering the various forms of literature contained within the Bible. Not only historical books like Judges, but even "Wisdom" literature like Job, Proverbs, Psalms, and Song of Songs.

    How can one apply a literalist approach to Pslams or even especially Song of Songs- which is an allegorical telling of God's love for Israel through the prism of the love between a man and a woman.



    So you fail to see how the historical origins of Christianity are relevant to this discussion?


    How can a religious thinker be secretly irreligious? That's pure bullshit, and you know it!
    1) If you think my definition of religion is inaccurate provide your own with reasoning to support the definition you propound, otherwise do not comment on this matter.

    2) Show the distinction between ideology and social-political theory.

    3) You can make dozens of referrences to philosophy without thinking like a philosopher as means of political propaganda. This technique is often employed by preachers and politicians in order to use the authority of the philosopher they are referring to in order to justify their ideas.

    4) Biblical claims which cannot be interpreted directly or literally must be dropped altogether as they do not make a clear and a coherent statement. Attempting to interpret them invariably leads to the misunderstanding of the perpsective of the author.

    You need to define your terms clearly, if you do not do this you are merely uttering non-sense. A claim is meaningless outside of the specific context it is mentioned in. The onus is on you to clearly explicate your context and establish the definitions of your terms.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  4. #144
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    That's a pretty weak response Bluewing, considering all that I mentioned.

    I was in the middle of posting a response to your latest, untill my computer shut down my window unexpectedly.

    Oh well I was about to link you to Pierre Manant's take on the issue of political philosophy and ideology, which was written in a journal dedicated to spreading religious ideals in the public square.
    FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life

  5. #145
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    That's a pretty weak response Bluewing, considering all that I mentioned.

    I was in the middle of posting a response to your latest, untill my computer shut down my window unexpectedly.

    Oh well I was about to link you to Pierre Manant's take on the issue of political philosophy and ideology, which was written in a journal dedicated to spreading religious ideals in the public square.
    FIRST THINGS: A Journal of Religion, Culture, and Public Life

    You have said almost nothing because you never defined your terms clearly.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  6. #146
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    You have said almost nothing because you never defined your terms clearly.
    Nothing, you say huh? I could've swore I just typed out several long posts in this discussion. Must've been my imagination.

  7. #147
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Nothing, you say huh? I could've swore I just typed out several long posts in this discussion. Must've been my imagination.
    Define religion, ideology, spirituality and philosophy. Each one seperately.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  8. #148
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Define religion, ideology, spirituality and philosophy. Each one seperately.
    Im not Webster's dictionary.

  9. #149
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    Under this definition, what exactly is not religion? As all of science, mythology, philosophy you name it, try to interpret their experiences.

    Essentially my definition of religion is meant to depict what we traditionally refer to as religion, where worldviews such as Islam, Christianity and Buddhism are traditionally regarded as religious. I ask, why such views are the quintissence of religion.
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    1) If you think my definition of religion is inaccurate provide your own with reasoning to support the definition you propound, otherwise do not comment on this matter.

    4) Biblical claims which cannot be interpreted directly or literally must be dropped altogether as they do not make a clear and a coherent statement. Attempting to interpret them invariably leads to the misunderstanding of the perpsective of the author.

    You need to define your terms clearly, if you do not do this you are merely uttering non-sense. A claim is meaningless outside of the specific context it is mentioned in. The onus is on you to clearly explicate your context and establish the definitions of your terms.
    If you two don't mind, I'll wedge in another response...

    BW, your definition of religion does a good job of capturing a broad range of religious traditions, but should you visit the religious studies department at your local university, you'd surely meet some teachers and students there who were studying worldviews that fell outside of your definition. (Peguy and myself are good examples of religious persons you'd label as "rebels", yet, I assure you, both he and I are religious).

    You might say that my definition is too broad, because it means everyone is religious. This is fine with me--it's just a word, and I'm more interested in what it means to be "human" than in what it means to be "religious". According to your definition, I'm not religious. Great! I'd be offended if you called me "religious", because I know what you mean. Indeed, anyone who is religious according to your definition has failed at being human according to mine.

    In response to #4 above: thought is presuppositional--some concepts are prior epistemologically or ontologically to other concepts--thought is contextual, and so the bible ought to be interpreted contextually. Trying to interpret the bible dircetly apart from context is impossible, and interpreting it literally when the context calls for another method ignores the nature of thought.

  10. #150
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    If you two don't mind, I'll wedge in another response...

    BW, your definition of religion does a good job of capturing a broad range of religious traditions, but should you visit the religious studies department at your local university, you'd surely meet some teachers and students there who were studying worldviews that fell outside of your definition. (Peguy and myself are good examples of religious persons you'd label as "rebels", yet, I assure you, both he and I are religious).

    You might say that my definition is too broad, because it means everyone is religious. This is fine with me--it's just a word, and I'm more interested in what it means to be "human" than in what it means to be "religious". According to your definition, I'm not religious. Great! I'd be offended if you called me "religious", because I know what you mean. Indeed, anyone who is religious according to your definition has failed at being human according to mine..
    Comrade! My admiration of Spinoza's worldview and lifestyle renders me an observer of a religious tradition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    In response to #4 above: thought is presuppositional--some concepts are prior epistemologically or ontologically to other concepts--thought is contextual, and so the bible ought to be interpreted contextually. Trying to interpret the bible dircetly apart from context is impossible, and interpreting it literally when the context calls for another method ignores the nature of thought.

    That is correct. As I have stated to Peguy, his ideas are meaningless unless he clearly defines his terms and sheds more light on the context he presents them in.

    Have I suggested that the Bible ought to be interpreted independently of context? I cannot imagine such an exegesis of literature of any kind.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. What Religion Do You Practice/Not Practice and Why?
    By Evastover in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 589
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 03:24 AM
  2. so why don't you have religion?
    By miss fortune in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 12-11-2011, 07:21 PM
  3. Why do religions hate gays so darn much?
    By Kasper in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: 09-11-2010, 03:27 AM
  4. [NT] NTs why did you embrace religion?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 125
    Last Post: 02-19-2009, 03:56 PM
  5. Why?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO