User Tag List

First 61415161718 Last

Results 151 to 160 of 176

  1. #151
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    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.
    The problem is that we're dealing with very broad topics here: religion, philosophy, ideology, etc. that they can't be clearly defined per se, at least not totally and certainly not within 50 words or less.

    At best, you can give a rough idea of what you're talking about in order to gain a basic understanding, but one should use that as a foundation to move forward. The further you move along in the discussion, the more clear the concept becomes.

    That's problem as I see it when you're constantly asking me to define these broad concepts. Not only that, you do so when we haven't even scratched the surface of discussing one of the concepts mentioned.

    Seriously, explaining the relationship between religion and philosophy will take up more than enough time in of itself. Same goes for the relationship between religion and spirituality. To discuss both to a comprehensive length is one discussion is literally impossible - there's simply too much to discuss!

    It's better to deal with one topic at a time - which I see as the basic relationship between religion and philosophy mostly. There'll be plenty of time later to discuss religion and spirituality.

    Also bear in mind, INFJs have the common trait of being abstract in communication.

    Have I suggested that the Bible ought to be interpreted independently of context?
    In many ways yes. I brought up the historical context of Christianity emerging out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism, and you dismissed that as an irrelevant anecdote. In fact any type of historical context I bring up you dismiss as an irrelevant anecdote.

    If one is to understand the Bible on any scholarly basis, then one must take into account the historical contexts in which it emerged. And how one understands the Bible is also related to such.

    There's plenty of discussion within Christian circles on how this relates to the truth of scriptures. There are those who insist the Bible is true 100% "true"(as in error free), since it comes directly from God. There's also the perspective that the Bible is inspired literature, that the spiritual truths it contained are directly from God, but since it was composed through human vehicles - errors do occur, but they are irrelevant.

    And plenty more. Yet whenever any of this is ever brought up, you immediately are dismissive of it - which betrays an unwillingness(if not just plain stubborness) on your part to address this issue on a more comprehensive level.

    That's the basic difference between you and me and Owl): Owl and I are willing to discuss this more comprehensively, while you seem determined to narrow the discussion as much as possible.

  2. #152
    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
    The problem is that we're dealing with very broad topics here: religion, philosophy, ideology, etc. that they can't be clearly defined per se, at least not totally and certainly not within 50 words or less.

    At best, you can give a rough idea of what you're talking about in order to gain a basic understanding, but one should use that as a foundation to move forward. The further you move along in the discussion, the more clear the concept becomes.

    That's problem as I see it when you're constantly asking me to define these broad concepts. Not only that, you do so when we haven't even scratched the surface of discussing one of the concepts mentioned.

    Seriously, explaining the relationship between religion and philosophy will take up more than enough time in of itself. Same goes for the relationship between religion and spirituality. To discuss both to a comprehensive length is one discussion is literally impossible - there's simply too much to discuss!

    It's better to deal with one topic at a time - which I see as the basic relationship between religion and philosophy mostly. There'll be plenty of time later to discuss religion and spirituality.

    Also bear in mind, INFJs have the common trait of being abstract in communication.



    In many ways yes. I brought up the historical context of Christianity emerging out of the allegorical traditions of Hellenic Judaism, and you dismissed that as an irrelevant anecdote. In fact any type of historical context I bring up you dismiss as an irrelevant anecdote.

    If one is to understand the Bible on any scholarly basis, then one must take into account the historical contexts in which it emerged. And how one understands the Bible is also related to such.

    There's plenty of discussion within Christian circles on how this relates to the truth of scriptures. There are those who insist the Bible is true 100% "true"(as in error free), since it comes directly from God. There's also the perspective that the Bible is inspired literature, that the spiritual truths it contained are directly from God, but since it was composed through human vehicles - errors do occur, but they are irrelevant.

    And plenty more. Yet whenever any of this is ever brought up, you immediately are dismissive of it - which betrays an unwillingness(if not just plain stubborness) on your part to address this issue on a more comprehensive level.

    That's the basic difference between you and me and Owl): Owl and I are willing to discuss this more comprehensively, while you seem determined to narrow the discussion as much as possible.
    I am an Intuitive too. I do enjoy and think it to be very important to discuss abstractions, see the big picture as you may say, to approach ideas 'comprehensively'. However, in order for us to have a clear and logically rigorous perspective of those abstractions, we must start with something very simple, concrete and very basic. Such as the definitions of the fundamentals of the ideas we are interested in. Slowly, we can work our way up to clearly defining even the most complex of our ideas. This way, we do not sacrifice a big picture view for clarity, we have both. But first, we must postpone dealing with complex issues until we have very clearly defined the basics, we will get to the complexities eventually, almost certainly.

    It is possible to discuss complex ideas with great clarity and logical rigor. Consider theoretical mathematics. Arguably the most complicated intellectual enterprise a human mind has embarked upon, yet also the clearest and exactest of representations of human thought. I speculate that most concepts in pure mathematics is far more complex than the idea of religion, philosophy and spirituality, or even a concept that intricately interplays all 3 amidsts each other. Thinkers were able to bring clarity and rigor to the former, I see no reason why they should not be able to do so with respect to the latter. Mathematics works from the concrete to the abstract, by first defining the basics and then proceeding onto the complexities, this is precisely how we ought to attempt to bring clarity and rigor to philosophy, religion and spirituality. Quite clearly we could discover the basic axioms for all 3 of those, from which we could deduce the answers to all the complex questions our mind may pose with regard to those subjects.

    In conclusion, it is not the case that I adamantly resist contemplating abstract notions which you invite us to, but only insist on postponing doing so until we have clarity and logical rigor with respect to the basics of those ideas and a method which will allow us to remain clear and exact in our thinking as we embark upon the more complicated ideas.

    We know things because of the clear-cut and logically rigorous definitions attached to them. The definitions for complex ideas could only be devised through establishment of definitions to the simple ideas first, from which the definitions of the complex ideas shall derive. Accordingly, it is meaningless to talk of complexities like religion, philosophy and spirituality (as you invite us to) until we have carefully worked out (from simplicities to complexities) the definitions of those terms. If we were to do as you invite us to, we would not know exactly what we are talking about. We would be simply entertaining vague hunches and sentiments which likely harbor incomplete and often contradictory notions. This is an inevitable consequence of omitting a careful organization of one's thinking, as indeed it will not organize itself, if you do not organize it, it will be disorganized. Disorganized thoughts tend to be in most cases in complete, and in the few cases they are complete often attached to ideas contradictory to their identity.

    Thus, this justifies my choice to forego the discussion you have initiated until the prerequisite for such a discourse has been fulfilled.
    "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/

  3. #153
    Senior Member riel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Science deals with what we can inquire into, hence what is within the bounds of reason. Religion claims to give us insight into what science can not grasp.
    Yes, I totally agree with you. For example, how can we explain miracles?

    They can't clash into one another because they are exploring totally different fields.
    So true! Science explains things that pertain to Mother Nature, its compositions and everything under Mother Nature. As for Religion, it pertains to abstract ideas like 'heaven', 'angels', and 'God'...things that we can't physically see, but must be drawn upon faith.

  4. #154
    Senior Member uberrogo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    istj
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wyrdsister View Post
    In our age of scientific discovery I would like to pose the question...

    Why is religion still relevant in out time?

    Obviously in past centuries it was a form of mind control and personality cults. Myths and legends to explain our Earth and the Universe and why we were here and to be good people or we shall rot in hell or be reborn as amoebas... but now in the year 2007, why is religion still relevant?
    Mind control and power acquisition will always be relevant.

  5. #155
    Senior Member ColonelGadaafi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    Si
    Socionics
    ESTP
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Faith is a essential need for humans, given the fact that we posses conciousness in a reality ruled by sub-conciousness(Animalia kingdom) and unconciousness(fabric of reality, the cube we call the universe, the ultimate force).

    We as the possibly only sapient beings in existence, need to believe that we have a meaning or a purpose. When we realize that we are but a mistake of the unconcious eco-system that surrounds us, a coincidental mistake in another wise sterile world. We become depressed and empty, totally meaningless.

    Thus we need to believe to thrive and be happy, we need the obscure and unanswerable, to have a quest of spirtuality, to avoid the abyss of questioning our very own existence.

    Hence religion comes into the equation. It is a tool for us humans to keep ourselves spiritually healthy, A blockage of spiritual rationality. It offers a haven and a teacher for our existence, in whatever form.

    It is there to satisfy the urge.
    "Where can you flee? What road will you use to escape us? Our horses are swift, our arrows sharp, our swords like thunderbolts, our hearts as hard as the mountains, our soldiers as numerous as the sand. Fortresses will not detain us, nor arms stop us. Your prayers to God will not avail against us. We are not moved by tears nor touched by lamentations."

  6. #156
    Senior Member hokie912's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    271

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riel View Post
    Yes, I totally agree with you. For example, how can we explain miracles?
    The fact that we can't currently explain something scientifically doesn't mean that it's miraculous. It just means that we can't currently explain it. A lot of people seem so uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, but I think it's dangerous to take the vast scope of things we don't understand and lump them all under the "religion, not science" umbrella. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. A few thousand years ago, people had a complex system of beliefs to explain things like the rising of the sun (Apollo in his chariot, for example) that we now understand on a scientific level. Personally, I'm okay with admitting that there are things that we can't understand or even comprehend, but that doesn't mean I think we should say that it must be God at work and stop trying.

  7. #157
    it's a nuclear device antireconciler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    Intj
    Enneagram
    5w4 so
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    867

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hokie912 View Post
    A lot of people seem so uncomfortable with the idea of uncertainty, but I think it's dangerous to take the vast scope of things we don't understand and lump them all under the "religion, not science" umbrella. Our understanding of the world is constantly changing. A few thousand years ago, people had a complex system of beliefs to explain things like the rising of the sun (Apollo in his chariot, for example) that we now understand on a scientific level. Personally, I'm okay with admitting that there are things that we can't understand or even comprehend, but that doesn't mean I think we should say that it must be God at work and stop trying.
    This is true, and it can feel threatening to a theist to think that the whole of religious experience may be explainable within a system consistent with empirical science, but this fear is, AS WE HAVE JUST ADMITTED, irrational.

    Only systems and relationshipsare rational, and negation is a preserving relation. This is a short and powerful demonstration against the fear of loss of ANYTHING. The theist, thus, has nothing to fear. He assumes that all of the wonder and awe of religion will be destroyed by science, but since nothing can be negated without being preserved, wonder and awe must be preserved...

    Hahaha, do you understand the implication? By the very virtue of the fact that wonder and awe and miracles and such CAN be negated by reason, they can only be themselves preserved in reason, AS reason-class content. Negation could not touch the irrational because there could never be communication between the reasonable, which has the power to negate, and the unreasonable. The two would be split absolutely into non-existence EVEN IN CONCEPTION.

    That you can THINK, that you can PERCEIVE of anything is sufficient to guarantee its preservation in reason. Hegel said it so wonderfully: "the real is rational and the rational real." Negation only touches itself!

    *dances around excitedly* It's magnificent!
    ~ a n t i r e c o n c i l e r
    What is death, dies.
    What is life, lives.

  8. #158
    Senior Member plaguerat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    195

    Default

    I think it has something to do with the evolution of concious "human" thought. Maybe some form of expression of the collective whole (or whatever 'whole' practices the religion) and has been used as both a community catalyst and tie, and a source by which to manipulate the masses. Some sort of deep expression of human nature or something.
    VI VERI VENIVERSUM VIVUS VIVCI
    "By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe."

  9. #159
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Yes we have science... but science can't explain everything. For example it can only look at whether something exists or not, the mechanics how something works. It cannot and will never explain the "why questions". Why are humans the only dominant species on this planet? What's the purpose of life etc. The mind craves explainations for everything... I suppose that's why many people turn to religion.
    Yes the mind does crave for an explanation. But if we crave it then won't we search for it? Going into religion won't give us the detail we need to find but just some bullshit one (sorry offending religous people) to make our "fear" go awat or make us feel secure.

  10. #160
    Lasting_Pain
    Guest

    Default

    Wow after reading 10 or so pages, I only have one question, why are we arguing religion?

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