|
|
|
|
|
| |
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 12/31/2006 5:04:34 PM | Dang... forgot to add this and time ran out for Editing.
I have Christian - other for my profile. I guess because I don't believe in the 'rapture' in the traditional sense of how Christian churchs teach it.... and other new age Christian premises. I do accept Christ as my Savior because of God's message thru him and his teachings with Savior representing the message; therefore, I'm not Jewish because I believe the Messiah has already come... &, as stated, I don't believe in all the Christian Bible teachings and the closest which defines my belief is Muslim actually. This has been an evolving process in my life. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 12/31/2006 7:33:21 PM | The personal compliment aside (and thank you): outstanding post Vorpal Bunny.
Hilbert Space: outstanding contrast to Obliq's position; very informative.
Sombient: you didn't apply a label to your beliefs. Based on your description, I have to ask: are you a deist or a theist or something in between (is there something in between)?
JediSuzie: a Christian Muslim? I would be very interested in hearing an expansion of this position. I know that as a muslim I am taught that Jesus is the Messiah; personal savior? I don't know about that.
I think that there are people who consider themselves Jewish who believe in Jesus the Messiah (Messianic Jews); there are those who are Christian but reject the standard translations of the New Testament (Gnostics); there are those who blend elements of Christianity and Islam together (Druze). Muslims (if we are talking about practicioners of Islam as opposed to simple monotheists; both definitions are valid) take as their first scriptural authority the Qur'an (the key being they accept a scriptural authority).
I'd really like to hear much more about your beliefs but more in a format that I can easily follow, such as the one I presented and those that have been utilized by others in this thread. When you say 'rapture', are you referring to the events that are prophesied in the Book of Revelation? | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 12/31/2006 7:57:42 PM | I don't think in terms of labels, NWH. Maybe it qualifies as being a deist:
Deism is a religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries. Deists typically reject supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things. Instead, deists hold that correct religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, and that these sources reveal the existence of one God or supreme being.
See..I don't believe that there is intended creation per se. More like something drooled into the void space, occupying it to a critical density, and BANG (quite literally).
What followed was not intentional creation.
Plus, this idea of god existing separate somehow, doesn't ring true with observation.
That god is this fundamental stuff of the Universe - yeah, I can accept that.
A bigger plan, intentional guidance in what followed? No.
Is there a larger omnipotent, omniscient being in the Universe? No.
Thus, there is no teleological argument here - no ultimate design or godlike objective.
I follow the ethics and practical living proscriptions of Taoism. To me, modern Taoist interpretation of this ultimate connectivity between all things, and of personal purpose and motive to practice basic good (follow positive tenants to many religions) seems to be a 'a good thing'.
And, I believe I have critical evidence for elegant biological drivers for spiritual practice - and I've never heard these espoused before. And there are social drivers for morals and ethical practice. Therefore, there a practical reasons for religious belief and spiritual practice.
You will never hear me decrying religion or spirituality as wrong. There are many reasons for tolerance and encouragement of belief systems.
Edit: Late has followed with a beautiful summation. Thank-you. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 12/31/2006 8:01:01 PM | Sombient: you didn't apply a label to your beliefs. Based on your description, I have to ask: are you a deist or a theist or something in between (is there something in between)?
Though our take on things may differ in many ways, the closest thing I can come to putting a name to this one is:
A "take" on Einstein's "take" on Spinozza's God.
What can be more than "all"?
A math prof asked our class what the largest number was they could think of (he wanted to illustrate, scientific notation as a "power of ten") Before anybody could answer, I said, "One!", ...he laughed and said, "What?"
I said, "One, ...and I can prove it"
He said, "Go ahead."
I asked him, "Consider everything, how many is there of everything, there is only one everything, and there cannot be more than everything, ergo; 1 X everything = 1° ....QED"
He thought that was cool, but he didn't "get" the spiritual possibility.
I just call it, "Everything", or "All".
....note, this is inclusive.
This version of God is not a "personal" God, ...it is nothing less than, "All", we are inclusive to it, and there IS no way not to "be".
It's the lightning that strikes a golfer, not because he sinned, but because he was the best conductor in a electo-static potential.
It's the tornado that destroys the house and kills a family, not because they were bad, but because the house was in its path
It's the star that explodes way off in the distance, not for any other reason save the laws of physics.
It's the breath-taking sunset that coaxes a tear from my eye, not to please me, but because light refracted that way, on that dusk.
It's the first sound an infant makes, not because it is even aware of the infant, but because that's what infants do.
I deliveredy my only child, I was the first to hold her when she made her journey from the womb. I experienced joy, awe, and epiphany, ...not because of anything other than what I participated in.
Sometime, ...seeing IS believing.
It's a God which doesn't NEED me to make it great, it's a God that all are part of, ...and it treats all equally, without expectations, spite, or anything other than "being".
It's the only version of "God" I can even remotely "get along" with, ...it doesn't even care one way or another what we do or think.
But what happens "after death"?
Who can know?
What does an electron look like?
Who can know?
We can only see the influence of its passing.
What I know is, there is legacy, memories of friends and loved ones, and there is the influence we had that continues after.
Aside from that, we return to God in our componant pieces and parts, we give back to ...the All from which we for a brief time, derived sustanence from, and from which we never left and we are eternally part of as long as it All exists.
There is no loss
There is no end, save Entropy.
Ahhh... the afterlife.
I wish I could find comfort in such a concept, but I don't.
I already have my mom and dad in me, they live on, I will live on in my daughter, my music, the things I have created, and the influence I've had.
The problems I have with the Abrahamic view of "souls" and "afterlife" is:
If there is a heaven, the only way that a "God" can be a kind entity is if everyone gets in free.
If "God" is not a kind entity, I want nothing to do with him. > My answer to Pascal's Wager.
Either way, I will live my life as if it is the only one I get, because in the final analysis, it's the only one I KNOW I get.
I have a view of ethics, morality, and justice that I learned from my father. I do not harm others, unless there is no other option to prevent a greater harm. I respect others right to self-determination. I don't steal because it's wrong, and I do not judge others because of the actions of a few.... And I accord all people the basic human dignity we are all due.
And in my world, one IS the biggest number....
My conception of "God" is not the creator of the universe, it is "of it". Both the parts we can quantify and qualify, and those we have yet to even notice.
To most who recognize a the word "God" as meaning a "personal God" who is anything other than indifferent on the whole, ....I'm just an "Atheist", as I'm indifferent to everything save that which I can influence or consider in at least some small way. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 12/31/2006 8:21:47 PM |
JediSuzie: a Christian Muslim? I would be very interested in hearing an expansion of this position. I know that as a muslim I am taught that Jesus is the Messiah; personal savior? I don't know about that.
I think that there are people who consider themselves Jewish who believe in Jesus the Messiah (Messianic Jews); there are those who are Christian but reject the standard translations of the New Testament (Gnostics); there are those who blend elements of Christianity and Islam together (Druze). Muslims (if we are talking about practicioners of Islam as opposed to simple monotheists; both definitions are valid) take as their first scriptural authority the Qur'an (the key being they accept a scriptural authority).
I'd really like to hear much more about your beliefs but more in a format that I can easily follow, such as the one I presented and those that have been utilized by others in this thread. When you say 'rapture', are you referring to the events that are prophesied in the Book of Revelation?
First, I'd have to explain my travels and the people I know personally...so, summary,
I have quite a diversified 'friends' circle. Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Messianic Jews, = the main core.
1. I believe in the God of Abraham and Moses. I personally take Jesus as my own personal Savior but, that I answer to God, my Father. That Jesus, taught the Word of God as did other Messiahs.
2. You ready for this one.... I believe that the 'state' of present day Israel is the 'deceiver' and the seat of Satan. Because God's covenant with 'Israel' changed... from the 'chosen Jewish population' and given to Abraham. This is why I do not support the USA's stance with Israel.
3. I don't trust the present day Bible per se'. There's too much left out and too many translations over the years.
4. The 'rapture' is a man made theory. Who's to say that the example used to represent the 'rapture' (two in the field, one snatched away and the other left behind) is that the one snatched is the 'righteous'. Does the Word of God not say that the harvest will leave the wheat and take away the weeds. It's all in translation/interpretation and the mainstream Christian churches are dogmatic that the 'rapture' has to be a key ingredient and we should expect it to happen. What if it doesn't and is another 'deceiver' being used. So, when it doesn't happen, how many will curse God for leaving them on Earth to suffer thru tribulations and turn from God..which is what Satan wants.
The above is just a start of what I believe... will post more later if warranted. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 4:13:53 PM | I don't know how I feel about what I'm sure many would view as 'negative' tenets of your belief Jedi. You may or may not have a valid position with your feelings about Israel, I know that there is support for your statements; are they really necessary parts of a belief system?
I find this very similar to the way Obliq approached the elaboration of his beliefs.
It just seems to me that for everything that can be said in a negative light, there's probably a positive way to make the point you're trying to illustrate.
I find your positions extremely interesting, but I fear that the manner with which you present them will invite debate if not open ridicule. It would be so nice if we could keep this thread clean of that sort of digression and merely accept what people state as their beliefs as their own beliefs.
Perhaps... here's an idea: since I created this thread so that people could freely express their opinions regarding their beliefs without fear of being ridiculed, if you feel like debating or discussing a given position taken in this thread, could you perhaps create another thread for the purpose?
That's a suggestion for everyone reading this thread that I probably should have included in my original post. Not all threads remain civil, but perhaps we can keep this one that way; for the purpose for which it was made. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 4:59:37 PM | ^^^^^
You are most sincere in your search, It is most plain for all to see.
But holy smokes, is there no time for humour? Don't you think the good Creator would like someone in his company to just relax?
I like Count Ibli's spaghetti monster. Why not? I've personally seen it. Have you never shared a spaghetti dinner with a two year old? Scary stuff.
And a person probably will not share with you as you have stated that "the manner with which you present will invite debate if not open ridicule". I myself will not share. I do not care to present my beliefs in a thread which allows room for only one "right" way. All religions require a leap of faith, and as such, have their own peculiar idiosyncracies. You sir, come across to me as angry.
But good luck with this, I truly hope you find the answer you're looking for.
Cheers, Raven | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 5:44:43 PM | I have heard many myths regarding Count Ibli's spaghetti monster and would love to hear the story behind this enigma. He pops up often on different threads, but never is much spoken of him. Count Ibli has been around a lot longer than I have, perhaps his earliest epistles on this monster have eluded my detection.
I'm actually not much of an angry person, I just fear sometimes when I see statements that I cringe at because I think they'll make someone else angry; next thing you know the thread's going off in a dozen different directions.
If you had read all the posts in this thread, you would see that 'one right way' is absolutely not the premise of this thread. In fact, if anything, this thread is a testament to the fact that there is 'no right way'; or, conversely, to show that almost all belief system share certain commanalities that we might not have previously realized. Perhaps this is why we have not had the fortune of having our presence graced with a Christian statement of belief; they tend to like thinking that there's something unique (other than their misrepresentations of scripture) about their faith.
I wasn't criticizing Jedi; I was trying to prevent anyone from criticizing her. Perhaps you misunderstood the reason for my last message.
I think I may have had an encounter with the spaghetti monster as a child. I'm not sure. You know how faulty childhood memories can be. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 6:08:08 PM | My beliefs are similiar to JMars. I am a Pagan as well and follow the Wiccan path. I adopted the old code from the movie Exacalibur and try and live by that. I liked it and thought it had a very strong spiritual message. I try to follow the way of the Peaceful Warrior for the most part. Spiritual warrior that is, not a sword swinging kind!  And soon, I am hoping to start training in Druidism, friend and keeper of the trees. No, I am not a tree hugger! We also believe we have the right to defend ourselves as self defence is natural behaviour.
For the most part, it is respect for nature, for spirit and for each other. To harm none but do as you will. Which is much more stricter than most people think as thoughts too can harm. JMars said it quite nicely, we respect honesty, courage and wisdom in both friend and foe alike. If a person stands by what they believe in even in the face of adversity and alone, then that deserves respect. How did the saying go? " I may not agree with what you belief, but I defend your right to believe it! ".
I have different dieties though, both Celtic and Scottish I pay tribute to as well as General Kwan Kho of Chinese origin. I plan on building a small outdoor shrine to him once life settles down and also an outdoor altar of rock and other natural substances. Maybe even my own scaled down Stonehenge!
I will add something though to what JMars wrote, we also try to not judge others. We believe in equality for all living things and treating others as our equal. Anyway, JMars sums it up for the most part about the dieties quite nicely so no need for me to go into more depth on it. I am of other beliefs though on certain things he did wrote. But that is okay...all good stuff.
And I might add, during the Esbats and Sabbats, we have big parties! Sabbats are feasts for sure!
Brightest Blessings!
Ad | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 6:22:37 PM | | My "religion" is based on the concept of conscience. Where it differs with traditional religion is almost everywhere. It didn't need evoking from scriptures and it's purely based on and by my own philosophic outlook on life. Deism of a kind, if you like. Hope this answers your question. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 6:35:49 PM |
Perhaps this is why we have not had the fortune of having our presence graced with a Christian statement of belief; they tend to like thinking that there's something unique (other than their misrepresentations of scripture) about their faith.
Given the tenor and subject of your post, I think this statement doesn't belong - it's sort of a cheap shot given during an otherwise ecumenical posting.
I have heard many myths regarding Count Ibli's spaghetti monster and would love to hear the story behind this enigma.
Unless I'm mistaken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is one of Dawkins' arguments (I believe he made it up, but if not, he sure uses it a lot). It is intended to be a ridiculous fabrication that serves as a reductio ad absurdum. The point behind it is generally that, for instance, it's a logical fallacy to support the Christian point of view by quoting the Bible, if your target audience doesn't concede the correctness of the source. I cringe most of the time people use it, as it is in danger of becoming something of a straw man. I also don't particularly agree with Dawkins' evangelistic characterization of religion as a strongly negative factor in human history. His enthusiasm for the subject tends to betray an otherwise sound mind, and his arguments often strike me as sophomoric - given his general presentation, he would not have stood up against the likes of C.S. Lewis or Chesterton. Perhaps he would be able to rise to the occasion if needed, but his general arguments are often less sound than they should be. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 7:46:56 PM | No, no, no, and no. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not a fabrication by Dawkins, it is the central deity in the Saritic religion called "Pastafarianism". Wikipedia has some good information on it (or it did the last time I checked). Dawkins uses it because the arguments for its abilities mirror some of the attributes commonly associated with the judeochristian God. Even worshippers of the judeochristian God can see the rediculous premises of the FSM, often unaware that it parallels their own.
Here's the cncept: A study of European schoolchildren, ages 9-11 was done to dtermine what the perceptions of evil were. Bibical passages of the Hebrew campagins to retake Canaan, including the slaughter of Jericho, for instance, and passages where God tells the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and beast. he children were then asked if any of these actions were wrong. Most said no, because the Israelites were obeying God.
Simliar tales of slaughter and conquest from the Orient were then told to the children. They were universally opposed, saying that it was wrong to kill so many people just to take their land.
The children hought the latter conquests were wrong because the notion of Divine Mandate didn't enter into them. Since God had told the Israelites to kill in the first series of readings, the children assumed it was ok to, without being able to discern the parallel. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 8:39:32 PM | Hare,
You're quite correct - I had forgotten about Pastafarianism.
However, it still strikes me as a straw man - even more of one in the canonical presentation you mention.
To a believer, the study you mentioned might seem neither inconsistent nor ironic. The notion of Divine Mandate in this case would be analogous to what is discussed in Just War theory - in the same sense that killing in self-defense is a different act than murder.
That's not to say that a concept like Divine Mandate can't (or hasn't) become a slippery slope. Rather, I'm simply saying that granting the legitimacy of Divine Mandate opens the possibility for such an analysis to be self-consistent within a school of philosophy.
The FSM is, likewise, relying on the observer of the argument forgetting the context of the target, and so is a weak argument. It might be an amusing anecdote while preaching to the choir, but it's not exactly going to shake the faith of a Jesuit... | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/1/2007 8:49:10 PM | From the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
The Eight "I'd Really Rather You Didn'ts"
1. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Act Like a Sanctimonious Holier-Than-Thou Ass When Describing My Noodly Goodness. If Some People Don't Believe In Me, That's Okay. Really, I'm Not That Vain. Besides, This Isn't About Them So Don't Change The Subject.
2. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Use My Existence As A Means To Oppress, Subjugate, Punish, Eviscerate, And/Or, You Know, Be Mean To Others. I Don't Require Sacrifices, And Purity Is For Drinking Water, Not People.
3. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Judge People For The Way They Look, Or How They Dress, Or The Way They Talk, Or, Well, Just Play Nice, Okay? Oh, And Get This In Your Thick Heads: Woman = Person. Man = Person. Samey - Samey. One Is Not Better Than The Other, Unless We're Talking About Fashion And I'm Sorry, But I Gave That To Women And Some Guys Who Know The Difference Between Teal and Fuchsia.
4. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Indulge In Conduct That Offends Yourself, Or Your Willing, Consenting Partner Of Legal Age AND Mental Maturity. As For Anyone Who Might Object, I Think The Expression Is Go F*** Yourself, Unless They Find That Offensive In Which Case They Can Turn Off the TV For Once And Go For A Walk For A Change.
5. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. Eat, Then Go After The B*******.
6. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Build Multimillion-Dollar Churches/Temples/Mosques/Shrines To My Noodly Goodness When The Money Could Be Better Spent (Take Your Pick):
Ending Poverty
Curing Diseases
Living In Peace, Loving With Passion, And Lowering The Cost Of Cable
I Might be a Complex-Carbohydrate Omniscient Being, But I Enjoy The Simple Things In Life. I Ought To Know. I AM the Creator.
7. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Go Around Telling People I Talk To You. You're Not That Interesting. Get Over Yourself. And I Told You To Love Your Fellow Man, Can't You Take A Hint?
8. I'd Really Rather You Didn't Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You If You Are Into, Um, Stuff That Uses A Lot of Leather/Lubricant/Las Vegas. If the Other Person Is Into It, However (Pursuant To #4), Then Have At It, Take Pictures, And For The Love Of Mike, Wear a CONDOM! Honestly, It's A Piece of Rubber. If I Didn't Want It To Feel Good When You Did It I Would Have Added Spikes, Or Something.
Pastafarians believe that heaven has beer volacanos as far as the eye can see and a stripper factory. They've offered a $250,000 cash reward to anyone who can empirically prove that Jesus isn't the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
They say 'Ramen' instead of 'Amen'.
*****
To a believer, the study you mentioned might seem neither inconsistent nor ironic.
Hilbert is correct; a divine mandate versus the desires of men makes all the difference to a believer in western religions. While I, as a muslim, definitely see the parallel presented, I also see the difference an atheist doesn't.
Not to bash on atheists; not my intention. I'm much more concerned that Christians don't seem to understand the difference between 'fight' and 'harm'; sort of like not understanding the difference between 'struggle to illustrate what is correct' as opposed to 'shut them up by shooting them in the face'.
I don't mean that as a cheap shot, and certainly there must be Christians that understand the difference; I would consider myself honored if one had posted in this thread.
I fear we're approaching an end to the testimonials and a beginning of the digressions; but such cannot be helped, I suppose. Perhaps they will trickle in from time to time and continue to serve as education for us all. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/2/2007 4:44:24 AM | The FSM is a strawman - in fact it is far worse than this; it is a conscious deceit that is willingly perpetuated by those (such as Dawkins) who claim they are searching for truth.
In this they abuse their position as scientists, their trust and the intelligence of those of us who can still think.
This is why:
The Prophets such as Muhammad, Moses, Noah, perhaps even Jesus, all had an experience which they believed was from God.
Whether it was genuine or not (ie Divine or psychological) is not the point...the point is they had an experience.
The correct scientific approach would be to analyse and debate this initial experience as it is from such experiences that human religious endeavour springs. But this is never done - instead we get nonsense like the FSM.
For the analogy of the FSM to be correct and useful then someone would have had to had a conscious revelation that they believed to be from the FSM. No-one has ever claimed this and if they did they would be lying because it did not happen.
Someone made it up.
So the two things are not only not equivalences, they are not even remotely similar phenomena and in fact are poles apart.
And that is the dishonesty and actually, propaganda: people like Dawkins and others continually use the FSM as an equivalence even though they know it is not based on an actual event. It is created.
Of course Dawkins may well believe that Muhammad or Moses also created their 'religion' consciously in the same way but this is tantamount to claiming religion is a fraud in every case.
This may be so theoretically but it is the refusing to countenance other alternatives and the conscious deceit that is the problem.
It is essentially saying: ghosts are not real because I dress up in a white sheet and jump out at people and they always think I am a ghost.
It's just bad logic. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/2/2007 5:00:18 AM | | It may also be (read: is) satirical, as its original intent no doubt was. I get a laugh whenever anyone mentions Pastafarians or the FSM, as does just about everyone I mention it to. It is indeed a Strawman, and a humorously absurd one, and it serves its function well: illustrating to those of doubting or flagging faith some of the more rediculous notions they are asked to accept. It may not turn any fundies into Pastafarians, but for those who lean towards atheism/agnosticism/freethinking, it can be an amusing starting-off point. From my own experience leaving the fold, as it were, a little humor really does work wonders. It's much easier to avoid the temptation to play along to a religion that you don't feel if you can spot the nonsensical in them. | |
|
| |
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/2/2007 11:56:14 AM | I am a pagan. Most closely representing a form of Celtic paganism since that is where I find myself migrating to. This is in part due to the fact that a part of my heritage lies within Celtic ancestry but also because that is simply where my interests have been centered since I was young.
The following is from an article
Our path is polytheist and animist. We believe there are many deities and that they are separate entities worthy of worship. We believe that the ancestors and land/nature spirits are also individual entities worthy of recognition, petition and reverence. These entities exist on a continuum and are not separate groups firmly divided into categories. Most CR's believe that deities and spirits are active in the world and their personal lives, influencing them and responding to prayer, offerings and sacrifice. We believe the world is inspirited. Some believe that not just animals and trees have souls, but that mountains, streams, holy wells and other natural phenomena have spirits as well. Some believe that created objects can be imbued with spirit. Individuals and groups frequently follow one or more deities that they consider special or tutelary, or particularly linked with their region or their focus of activities. Many individuals dedicate themselves to one or more patron/matron deities.
If you’d like to read the rest of the article, the link is http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usma&c=trads&id=6645
While some of the things in this article are different from my personal beliefs I think it’s a pretty good jumping off point. I don’t actually consider myself a Celtic Reconstructionist… I simply don’t know enough about the history yet to bode such a title. I am working on it, though, and I think in any faith the constant thirst for knowledge and understanding is ever important. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/2/2007 12:51:56 PM |
The correct scientific approach would be to analyse and debate this initial experience as it is from such experiences that human religious endeavour springs. But this is never done - instead we get nonsense like the FSM.
To be perfectly fair, you cannot say that this is never done.
Do a Google search on religious experience and temporal lobe epilepsy.
In my experience, such things don't generally bring a lot to the table as far as furthering discussions, but it is explicitly what you're asking for... To paraphrase the work, epileptic seizures in the temporal lobe are associated with hyper-religious experiences, including visions and the feeling of "hearing God." The hypothesis is that this phenomenon explains historical religious prophets, saints, and similar persons.
Dawkins occasionally mentions these studies, but in his more recent book he's more interested in explaining religion according to what one might call the Selfish Meme theory - that certain aspects of organized religion cause it to be maintained and propagated despite it having a net negative effect as far as societal fitness is concerned. I think where he errs is in sometimes poor argument construction (which comes from a preaching to the choir mentality), and from his overly negative view on the contribution of religion (where I think his objectivity is betrayed by his enthusiasm). When I called the book sophomoric, I meant that literally - the arguments generally lack sophistication.
It's disappointing, because Dawkins is a powerful thinker. But it's probably not unlike hearing religiously educated people talk about evolution or science in general - competency or even brilliance in one field doesn't automatically translate into all others. | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/2/2007 1:09:52 PM | ^^^^ yes, I am familiar with this theory but like you, I doubt it's applicability. It seems to be used as a catch-all fall-back position in cases that are 'fringe' like UFOs, ghosts, abductions etc. Perhaps this is why Dawkins fights shy of it....it is maybe the numinous itself he fears in any form.
Another goodie is the 'Bicemeral Mind' but again, I think they are more frantic attempts to find an answer to the elephant in the room (God or the concept of what might be called God) than actual relevant discoveries.
I agree with your view on Dawkins. It is a shame. In one sense he has allowed himself to commit to playing the game on the fundies terms...he didn't need to engage them at all. Now he has chosen to and has lost ground..... | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/3/2007 9:29:56 AM | Perhaps Dawkins' arguments are sophomoric because theology is not his area of expertise. Say you are a baker. But every day, many times a day, religious zealots are hasslin' you about your bread: it's not leavened the way it ought, it violates some vague biblical passage about what grains to use, etc. I'm sure after a while, you'd get pissy and tell them off. And if you made heaps of money doing it, why stop?
I equate him to a clever, yet curmudgeony, individual, and leave it at that.
So does anyone else have something to add that is more akin to the original topic? Not that this isn't fun, but arguing about Dawkins and the FSM doesn't seem to fit witgh the separate personal views of POF-forum members. I could be wrong, though, maybe there's a Pastafarian or Sub-Genius cadre on the boards... | |
|
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/3/2007 9:48:08 AM |
...arguing about Dawkins and the FSM doesn't seem to fit witgh the separate personal views of POF-forum members. I could be wrong, though, maybe there's a Pastafarian or Sub-Genius cadre on the boards...
Kudos for keeping us on-topic. The tangent (if it was one - I think it's related) was followed as a response to an FSM-based challenge to faith. It gets into the idea of what constitutes a legitimate response to another's beliefs, and, more importantly, what constitutes a legitimate way of thinking about another person's beliefs. The argument, whether lamenting Dawkins' theology or the FSM parody, was that a straw man picture does a disservice to your own thinking, and makes you low hanging fruit if it comes down to arguing with someone else. The same holds true, of course, for people arguing against something like evolution on the basis of photocopied tracts or Jack Chick comic strips. | |
|
| |
| What Religion Are You And What Are The Fundamental Tenets Of Your Beliefs?
Posted: 1/3/2007 10:34:08 AM |
We follow Qur'anic law (called 'shari'a')...
I think using the name Sharia to mean Quranic Law only is misleading and you should either avoid using the name Sharia here or elaborate it somewhat to explain the usage of the word in many Islamic countries. There are those who reject the Hadiths and only stick to the Quran as the ultimate source of guide, and as far as I understand, the contemporary meaning of the word Sharia includes both Quranic laws, Sunnah and Hadiths.
As far as the opening post is concerned, I don't label myself and it will take way too long to respond to it properly for me. But I don't follow any Scripture and neither does any Scripture follow me. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
