Jump to content

How Everyone Could Be Right....


des

Recommended Posts

...thus in a Imperfect world or age or relm it is NOt possible to have  a prefect understanding of God nor a prefect grasp of theology/doctrine.

Coming from the perennial/mystical angle, I'd add that, while theological concepts and ideas about God can be relatively true -- and it's important to discover these relative truths -- they are all ultimately false because God is beyond all understanding. When the veil is lifted and "we know as we are known" -- whether that occurs at some eschatological future event, or in mystical union -- what we get is not a perfect grasp of theology or doctrine, but a direct inward knowledge of God that is beyond concepts and ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then there's no way of knowing whether the theology of Jim Jones or Pat Robertson or Marcus Borg is better or worse.

 

Ultimately, when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing. Not in the sense that I know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea.

 

Belief is an opinion (something which can not be proven or disproven). I obviously (and you obviously) believe that our progressive stances are right or at least headed in the right direction versus going in the wrong direction. Just as Jim Jones and Pat Robertson believe that their stances are right and we are wrong. While I can disprove some of the "facts" they use to support their beliefs (ie inerrancy) there is know way of knowing in the factual sense that I am right and they are wrong.

 

 

Also, your comment "No single one corners the market on who God is or isn't" is a religious statement that must itself be subjected to your criterion of being partially false.

Not following your logic.

The logic is, if all religious statements are partially false, then your statement that "No single one corners the market on who God is or isn't" is, by definition, partially false too. Indeed, "all religious statements are partially false" is also, by definition, partially false. This is the self-defeat of strong post-modernism in a nutshell -- as soon as you say, "We can't know the truth," you've shot yourself in the foot, because then we have no way of knowing that "We can't know the truth" is true. If it's true, then it isn't.

 

:)

 

The logic doesn't fit.

 

I said that all religions, not religious statements, contain truth (and also untruth, if that is a word).

 

I didn't say we can't know truth. I said (or at least was trying to say, maybe not too clearly) that we can't know that what we think is truth. We can only believe it to be true.

 

BTW I got tired of waiting for the original poster to respond to my statements so I decided to go ahead and respond to your interpretation of what s/he said.

Edited by October's Autumn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW I got tired of waiting for the original poster to respond to my statements so I decided to go ahead and respond to your interpretation of what s/he said.

Fred responded to your initial inquiry pretty much the same way I would have, so I didn't feel the need to be redundant.

 

In regards to your follow-up:

 

Ultimately, when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing. Not in the sense that I know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea.

 

Belief is an opinion (something which can not be proven or disproven). I obviously (and you obviously) believe that our progressive stances are right or at least headed in the right direction versus going in the wrong direction.

This is of course your belief, i.e. just your opinion by your standard. Nevertheless, I think you're dichotomizing "facts" and "beliefs" far too much. To say that "when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing" sounds (to me) like people take a blind leap of faith when embracing a religion. This is not so.. people have reasons for believing the way they do, but not all reasoning is created equal. On what basis do you believe your "progressive stance" to be right? I presume that you think you're progressing toward some kind of objective truth and not just emoting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW I got tired of waiting for the original poster to respond to my statements so I decided to go ahead and respond to your interpretation of what s/he said.

Fred responded to your initial inquiry pretty much the same way I would have, so I didn't feel the need to be redundant.

 

 

Except the response didn't make sense. I said all religions have truth in them, not all religious statements. I still haven't seen an acknowledgement to that misreading of my original comment.

 

 

Ultimately, when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing. Not in the sense that I know that 2 + 2 = 4 or that a noun is a person, place, thing, or idea.

 

Belief is an opinion (something which can not be proven or disproven). I obviously (and you obviously) believe that our progressive stances are right or at least headed in the right direction versus going in the wrong direction.

This is of course your belief, i.e. just your opinion by your standard. Nevertheless, I think you're dichotomizing "facts" and "beliefs" far too much. To say that "when it comes to religion there is no way of knowing" sounds (to me) like people take a blind leap of faith when embracing a religion. This is not so.. people have reasons for believing the way they do, but not all reasoning is created equal. On what basis do you believe your "progressive stance" to be right? I presume that you think you're progressing toward some kind of objective truth and not just emoting.

 

First, I didn't write the definitions of fact vs. opinion or belief. I have, however, taught it starting with second graders going all the way up to 6th graders.

 

Secondly, I already addressed that. Some opinions are simply opinions. For example: Blue is my favorite color. Other opinions have facts to support them. For example: Bush is evil.

 

Beliefs are just glorified opinions. They can be good example of opinions with facts to support them. They are also often a blind leap of faith.

 

My liberal beliefs are based on a mix of experience and facts. I'm well aware that my views can change. I know they won't change to conservative views because I've already seen too many facts that discount those. But they could change nonetheless.

 

To assume that I'll someday reach an "objective truth" with my beliefs would be arrogant on my part. I saw way too much of that growing up to not be skeptical of it.

 

BTW, opinion is not about emotions.

Edited by October's Autumn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Except the response didn't make sense.  I said all religions have truth in them, not all religious statements.  I still haven't seen an acknowledgement to that misreading of my original comment.
You originally said "there is truth in all religions and there are lies in all religions." When I inquired about how we distinguish between the two, you said "We can't. Nor are we meant to." It seems that you are asking us to be agnostic when it comes to others' religious claims, but not your own.

 

To assume that I'll someday reach an "objective truth" with my beliefs would be arrogant on my part.
But, isn't an objective knowledge indicated in your statements above? How else could one claim to know that "there is truth in all religions and there are lies in all religions"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about all religions are false and true, including atheism.  That is to say there is truth in all religions and there are lies in all religions.  No single one corners the market on who God is or isn't.

That might be accurate, but it doesn't help us determine which religious claims are true or false.

 

For instance, Christianity claims that "man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," whereas Eastern religions favor reincarnation. Which is true? Christianity is founded upon the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, but Islam teaches that Jesus was taken into heaven and not crucified. These are contradictory truth claims that lie at the heart of the major religions.

 

Also, your comment "No single one corners the market on who God is or isn't" is a religious statement that must itself be subjected to your criterion of being partially false.

 

I don't know, I just don't go along with that type of reasoning. Author, Daniel Quinn , dealt with this issue in one of his books. Quinn often says" there is no one right way for people to live". His critics will say " isn't your saying there is no one right way to live, telling us the one way to live". He regards such arguments as meaningless . Its like saying that there is no one right way to cook an egg, is telling you how to cook an egg, or saying there is no one right time to go to bed, is telling you when to go to bed .

 

Even the statement " Christianity is based upon the death , burial and resurrection of Jesus " would be open to debate by scholars like Bart Ehrman or Burton Mack. They would argue that is just the form of Christianity that became dominant, for various reasons in the 4th century.

 

MOW

Edited by MOW
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I messed up my last post , so I thought I'd redue it .

 

I don't know , I just don't go along with that type of reasoning. Author Daniel Quinn dealt with this issue in one of his books. Quinn often says" there is no one right way for people to live". His critics will say" isn't your saying there is no right way for people to live ,telling us the one way to live". He regards such arguments as meaningless. It's like saying "'there is no one right way to cook an egg", is telling you how to cook an egg or "there is no one right time to go to bed " is telling you when to go to bed.

 

Even the statement " Christianity is based on the death ,burial ,and resurrection of Jesus " would be open to debate by scholars like Bart Ehrman or Burton Mack . They would probably argue that that is just the form of Christianity that for various reasons became dominant in the 4th century.

 

 

 

MOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I messed up my last post , so I thought I'd redue it .

 

I don't know , I just don't go along with that type of reasoning. Author Daniel Quinn dealt with this issue in one of his books. Quinn often says" there is no one right way for people to live". His critics will say" isn't your saying there is no right way for people to live ,telling us the one way to live". He regards such arguments as meaningless. It's like saying "'there is no one right way to cook an egg", is telling you how to cook an egg or "there is no one right time to go to bed " is telling you when to go to bed.

 

Even the statement " Christianity is based on the death ,burial ,and resurrection of Jesus " would be open to debate by scholars like Bart Ehrman or Burton Mack . They would  probably argue that that is just  the form of Christianity that  for various reasons became dominant in the 4th century.

 

 

 

MOW

 

My husband is big on logical fallacies. I explained to him the discussion, he said that the term (I knew there had to be one, but didn't know what it was) is called "straw man." Basically shooting down a psuedu-related point to say that the other point is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except the response didn't make sense.  I said all religions have truth in them, not all religious statements.   I still haven't seen an acknowledgement to that misreading of my original comment.
You originally said "there is truth in all religions and there are lies in all religions." When I inquired about how we distinguish between the two, you said "We can't. Nor are we meant to." It seems that you are asking us to be agnostic when it comes to others' religious claims, but not your own.

 

No, I'm suggesting we all be humble and realize we could be wrong and others could be right and vice versa. I don't believe God is caught up in the orthodoxy but more concerned with the orthopraxy.

 

To assume that I'll someday reach an "objective truth" with my beliefs would be arrogant on my part.
But, isn't an objective knowledge indicated in your statements above? How else could one claim to know that "there is truth in all religions and there are lies in all religions"?

 

It is a reasonable and logical conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wikipedia:

 

Orthopraxy is a term derived from Greek meaning "correct practice". It refers to accepted religious practices and may include both ritual practices as well as interpersonal acts. Some religions, notably Judaism and Islam, are more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy (though the latter may also be considered important). Thus some argue that equating the term "faith" with "religion" presents a Christian-biased notion of what the primary characteristic of religion is.

 

An example of primacy of orthopraxy in Islam: Of the Five Pillars of Islam fundamental to Sunnis only Shahadah (profession of faith) deals with belief, the four others deal with practice.

 

 

Of course I also found this:

Or·tho·prax·y

n.

(Med.) The treatment of deformities in the human body by mechanical appliances.

 

 

:unsure::D But I'm thinking she meant the first one!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the theological circles I've been in the contrast between orthopraxy and orthdoxy is the contrast between having to believe the "right things" vs. doing the "right things." Again, in the circles I've been in it is a contrast between reading the bible every day, praying before meals, having the right set of beliefs (anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro- death penalty, etc.) vs. advocating for the poor -- in all of its various forms, walking along side someone who is in emotional or physical pain (like hospice or helping people who are stricken with AIDS) or taking in a pregnant teen who has decided to have her baby but has been kicked out of her home. The emphasis is on being God or Jesus to those who are in need in just about any way you can think of.

 

Cythia's definition is a more broad (and technically correct) definition. My use is more narrow as defined by above. For me it is the difference between the church I grew up in and the church I go to now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. I guess I understood the concept on other levels, but I'd just not heard or read the word before, and if I did I forgot where or when. I for one would lean towards the doing of works as opposed to the telling and measuring of works. I'm just too practical I guess.

 

However, I really groove on the concept of the manipulation of body parts by mechanical devices. I believe that some massage parlors here in sin city may have the latest models.

 

flow.... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks OA for the information on the "Straw Man" logical fallacy. I had to take logic as an ellective in college ,but that was over twenty years ago.

 

A variation of the "Straw Man " is something I would call the "Hatchet Man " fallacy. For you who don't know, the hatchet man was a trick used by some high school basketball coaches back in the day. The hatchet man was one of the bad players on the end of the bench . In tight games the coach of the team that was behind would send "the hatchet man " into the game. He would then get in a fight with the other teams best player and the ref would throw them both out of the game.

 

The so -called mainstream media does this often to liberal and progressive personalities. Likening people like Bill Moyers , Noam Chomsky amd Michael Moore to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, and then dismissing them all as "extremists" .

 

 

MOW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MOW

 

I like your analogy.

 

Today adversarial relations are played out on the public stage with the corporate media serving as the zebras (referees ) ostensibly there to separate the combatants ( like the guys in black on Jerry Springer ) when the sweaty clinches gety too lengthy or unmanageable.

 

It brings to mind an old Chicago joke that is still one of my favorites. " What do you call 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the Chicago River ? A good start ! "

 

With today's news of CBS suing Howard Stern due to his success on Sirius, we have another episode in the Megastruggle, IMO.

 

flow.... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service