What's your favorite Myth?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

prothero
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 12:01 am
@Extrain,
Extrain;156292 wrote:
IAnd you said in previous posts we all believed in the same Divine Being, just different aspects of it...Are you recanting now?
No, there is one divine reality. I am a strict monotheist.
A more precise or accurate statement, would be that our conceptions or perceptions of the nature of god and how god acts in the world are different.
I am sure actually we have some common ground although it is our differences which seem to be the focus.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 12:12 am
@prothero,
prothero;156297 wrote:
No, there is one divine reality. I am a strict monotheist.
A more precise or accurate statement, would be that our conceptions or perceptions of the nature of god and how god acts in the world are different.
I am sure actually we have some common ground although it is our differences which seem to be the focus.


But you said my god was "small"...then it follows your god is small, too.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 12:34 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156282 wrote:
My favorite is Orpheus and Euridice, which makes such a cogent case for self-control. My least favorite (in fact the one I hate most) is The Matrix which is low nonsense.

I usually think of the Matrix and Plato's Cave as metaphors more about the construction of social reality and nothing more literal than that. Do you think Plato's Cave is as "low" as the Matrix?

What is possibly dismissible about Plato's chains and Matrix's evil robots is that it may be a case of attributing to the malice of the select few that put on the show what should probably be attributed to a general ignorance that keeps the masses staring at the shadows on the TV screen.

Still, as the Nazis proved, it is possible for an elite group of truly evil creatures to brainwash large populations of human beings into "just following orders" There is no reason to think that this is not still going on to some degree. There are cunning high functioning and very successful psychopaths out there and until you've met a few of them face to face it's easier to take the blue pill and pretend they don't exist.
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 01:32 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156296 wrote:
Search me. ........It was enough to read another modern variant (the brain in the vat).


Oh, duh......SurprisedSurprised

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 01:46 AM ----------

Deckard;156306 wrote:
I usually think of the Matrix and Plato's Cave as metaphors more about the construction of social reality and nothing more literal than that. Do you think Plato's Cave is as "low" as the Matrix?


I don't think Ken would be opposed to that interpretation. I thought He was referring to the movie, too. He wasn't, necessarily, since he hasn't even seen it. I think it has more to do with his distaste for idealism or strict philosophical brain-in-a-vat kind of skepticism....at least that's how I understand him now. maybe I'm wrong.
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 03:51 am
@VideCorSpoon,
The myth that one of the members in this forum found a way to travel faster than light and reach the edges of our universe and save humanity from...
 
prothero
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 01:37 pm
@Extrain,
[QUOTE=Extrain;156303]But you said my god was "small"...then it follows your god is small, too.[/QUOTE]
Well, yes, in some sense all human conceptions of ultimate reality in the case of science and divine reality in the case of religion are "too small" and give only a limited or partial (through a glass darkly) picture of truth. I am not offended by the suggestion that my view of god is "too small". It is the title of a somewhat well know book on religious pluralism.

Since science represents our common objective experience and view of reality and religion represents our subjective personal view of reality, religious views which directly conflict with scientific "knowledge" should be reviewed and probably revised. For me this includes (young earth creationism vs. the deep time of cosmology, special creationism (fixity of species) vs. evolution, god as supernatural interventionists vs. god as working through nature; etc.).

My view is ultimately one of religious pluralism (embracing the diversity of religious experience and expression) as opposed to mere tolerance of other faiths. I take delight in the various religious offerings, the diversity of views and have respect for the participants in the world's great religious traditions. I object to religious exclusionary teachings (my religion is true yours is false, adherents to my faith are going to heaven those of yours to hell, etc.). I regard such notions of the exclusive truth of one faith as opposed to another to be hubris and to inherently lack the loving respect due those with alternative experiences of divine reality. All the world's great religious traditions embrace love and compassion as the basis of ethics. Almost by definition this makes love and mutual respect primary over differences of doctrine, creed or dogma (love over law). The "we are all children of god, we are all brothers and sisters, our common humanity, etc) approach to faith. In this sense then I guess I would claim my vision is "larger, more inclusive, a bigger tent" than the vision that divine reality is captured, or the truth about god is contained, in one faith as opposed to other faiths "god is too big for one religion".

If the claim is that your particular religion represents your path to the truth of the divine reality and your understanding of gods nature and gods action in the world, I do not see how that could possibly be a problem. If the overriding principle of your faith is loving respect for god and for your fellow humans (love over law) and appreciation for creation we have much common ground. No faith gets in trouble for feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, healing the sick or comforting the afflicted. It is exclusive claims to truth, god and salvation that generates conflict between faiths.

So if love and respect are the primary features of your faith, there is no difference between us that cannot be discussed in the manner of polite exchange and reasoned conversation.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 02:06 pm
@prothero,
prothero;156495 wrote:
My view is ultimately one of religious pluralism (embracing the diversity of religious experience and expression) as opposed to mere tolerance of other faiths. I take delight in the various religious offerings, the diversity of views and have respect for the participants in the world's great religious traditions. I object to religious exclusionary teachings (my religion is true yours is false, adherents to my faith are going to heaven those of yours to hell, etc.). I regard such notions of the exclusive truth of one faith as opposed to another to be hubris and to inherently lack the loving respect due those with alternative experiences of divine reality. All the world's great religious traditions embrace love and compassion as the basis of ethics. Almost by definition this makes love and mutual respect primary over differences of doctrine, creed or dogma (love over law). The "we are all children of god, we are all brothers and sisters, our common humanity, etc) approach to faith. In this sense then I guess I would claim my vision is "larger, more inclusive, a bigger tent" than the vision that divine reality is captured, or the truth about god is contained, in one faith as opposed to other faiths "god is too big for one religion".

If the claim is that your particular religion represents your path to the truth of the divine reality and your understanding of gods nature and gods action in the world, I do not see how that could possibly be a problem. If the overriding principle of your faith is loving respect for god and for your fellow humans (love over law) and appreciation for creation we have much common ground. No faith gets in trouble for feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, healing the sick or comforting the afflicted. It is exclusive claims to truth, god and salvation that generates conflict between faiths.

So if love and respect are the primary features of your faith, there is no difference between us that cannot be discussed in the manner of polite exchange and reasoned conversation.
I totally agree. God is far too big to be narrowed down to one specific religion or interpretation. God is an infinite corridor in a finite direction. Depending on your level of spiritual maturity, where you are born, your upbringing, when you were born, and your general personality type, each persons individual position along that corridor will be different.

I have never bought the argument that since all these religions claim to have this or that or be, the way, that this somehow falsifies them all. On the contrary I would expect nothing more than there to be differences. Why? Because as I've been saying God is far too big to be narrowed down to this or that. I am a Christian because that is where God spoke to me, but who am I to claim that God has not spoken to individuals of other faiths? God, if He exists, IMO, is just; and it seems off, to me, to think that God would judge someone unjustly. We are not dealing with something that can be seen with the eyes or measured with a ruler, so it seems quite likely to me that each individuals conception of such a thing is going to pass through the prism of the culture in which they come. This is not a bad or good thing, merely a fact.

One thing I will say is there is a big difference between, Christianity, the "franchise" and Christianity as espoused by Jesus and the saints and as lived by many Christians. While I don't agree with it, I can understand why a religion would want to make an exclusivity claim, and this has caused tons of problems through the centuries. At the same time though, I can read between the lines of the words preached in the bible and understand that the last thing I ought to be doing is claiming I've found the way while everyone else is doomed. Afterall, as Paul says, "it's not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves,."
 
Extrain
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 04:20 pm
@prothero,
prothero;156495 wrote:

Well, yes, in some sense all human conceptions of ultimate reality in the case of science and divine reality in the case of religion are "too small" and give only a limited or partial (through a glass darkly) picture of truth. I am not offended by the suggestion that my view of god is "too small". It is the title of a somewhat well know book on religious pluralism.

Since science represents our common objective experience and view of reality and religion represents our subjective personal view of reality, religious views which directly conflict with scientific "knowledge" should be reviewed and probably revised. For me this includes (young earth creationism vs. the deep time of cosmology, special creationism (fixity of species) vs. evolution, god as supernatural interventionists vs. god as working through nature; etc.).

My view is ultimately one of religious pluralism (embracing the diversity of religious experience and expression) as opposed to mere tolerance of other faiths. I take delight in the various religious offerings, the diversity of views and have respect for the participants in the world's great religious traditions. I object to religious exclusionary teachings (my religion is true yours is false, adherents to my faith are going to heaven those of yours to hell, etc.). I regard such notions of the exclusive truth of one faith as opposed to another to be hubris and to inherently lack the loving respect due those with alternative experiences of divine reality. All the world's great religious traditions embrace love and compassion as the basis of ethics. Almost by definition this makes love and mutual respect primary over differences of doctrine, creed or dogma (love over law). The "we are all children of god, we are all brothers and sisters, our common humanity, etc) approach to faith. In this sense then I guess I would claim my vision is "larger, more inclusive, a bigger tent" than the vision that divine reality is captured, or the truth about god is contained, in one faith as opposed to other faiths "god is too big for one religion".

If the claim is that your particular religion represents your path to the truth of the divine reality and your understanding of gods nature and gods action in the world, I do not see how that could possibly be a problem. If the overriding principle of your faith is loving respect for god and for your fellow humans (love over law) and appreciation for creation we have much common ground. No faith gets in trouble for feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, healing the sick or comforting the afflicted. It is exclusive claims to truth, god and salvation that generates conflict between faiths.

So if love and respect are the primary features of your faith, there is no difference between us that cannot be discussed in the manner of polite exchange and reasoned conversation.


But you won't engage in reasoned conversation! You're just repeating your opinions, and I am reading a "cut-and-paste" of the same thing you've said over 4 times now. I've already asked you to give me good arguments for your expressed beliefs above, and you still can't give me any. Instead of engaging with each hasty, misinformed generalization piece by piece, you prefer to repeat to me your entire Ideology instead. This same old stuff is rehashed over and over again by teenagers and the mainstream politically correct society at large. This kind of Ideology is FILLER. There's no logic, no empirical sensibility, no respect for the actual disputes concerning all the myriad of topics you raised all at once. Forget it.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 08:07 am
@VideCorSpoon,
:duke-it-out::baloons:Fair Trade
 
Deckard
 
Reply Sun 9 May, 2010 04:30 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;160362 wrote:
Fair Trade

Don't you mean "free" trade?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 03/24/2019 at 02:09:02