FredP Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Gee Fred, How thoroughly radical and Eastern. I Love it !! flow.... Well, the churches were in Asia, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 ...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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted January 19, 2006 Share Posted January 19, 2006 Well-stated Fred!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted January 20, 2006 Share Posted January 20, 2006 YUP ! flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Ok, perhaps it is better worded to say that we are equally wrong, in most cases. :-) --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des Posted January 20, 2006 Author Share Posted January 20, 2006 Ok, perhaps it is better worded to say that we are equally wrong, in most cases. :-) --des Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 (edited) 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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 January 21, 2006 by October's Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachOfEden Posted January 21, 2006 Share Posted January 21, 2006 I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 I agree. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks, Beach. I at least *think* you were talking to me I'm ever waiting for a response. This is the one thing I hate about posting a board, waiting for responses. *sigh* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FredP Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Thanks, Beach. I at least *think* you were talking to me I'm ever waiting for a response. This is the one thing I hate about posting a board, waiting for responses. *sigh* DCJ doesn't really post that often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 (edited) 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 February 1, 2006 by October's Autumn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJ Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 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"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOW Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 (edited) 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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 February 19, 2006 by MOW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOW Posted February 19, 2006 Share Posted February 19, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 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 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 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"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It is a reasonable and logical conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 OA "orthopraxy" ? Please translate for those of us who are unfamiliar with the term. Is it some kind of weird bone specialist or something ? flow.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 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. But I'm thinking she meant the first one!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October's Autumn Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOW Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowperson Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.