[Freddy]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

In my opinion religion is a projection from within. It is a way to map out the inner psyche within humans. One thing that is different are the names of the symbols.

A good analogy is an English speaking person saying that my head rests on my neck, while a French speaking person calls it ma tete. Religions sometimes fight over the words as though it represents two different things, never realizing they both are saying the same thing in different ways.

The other difference is what each religion is plotted out with respect to the inner psyche. Polytheism isn't centered but focuses on intermediate dynamics between the thalamus (center) and cerebral, i.e, ventrical eddies or personality software. Monotheism, is centered in the thalamus or central region of the brain, i.e, inner self. Christianity uses the center or thalamus but also includes the dynamics between the left, i.e., rational and right, i.e, spatial, hemispheres to get a trinity. Judeo-Christianity, helps keep the process centered at the inner self while also allowing an interaction between the two hemispheres. This seems to be the most advanced pic of the human psyche because it is the basis of the dominant human influences on the earth over the past 230 years, i.e., 1776.

Absolutely not. Here is what Jefferson himself had to say on the subject. From the article:

When Jefferson was Vice President, just two months before the election of 1800 in which he would become President, he wrote to his good friend, the physician Benjamin Rush, who started out as an orthodox Christian and ended up, later in his life, a Deist and Unitarian. Here, in a most surprising context, we find the true basis of one of Jefferson's most famous quotes:

"DEAR SIR, - ... I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten," Jefferson wrote, noting that he knew to discuss the topic would add fuel to the fires of electoral politics swirling all around him. "I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum [the angry poets] who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened.

"The delusion ...on the [First Amendment] clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists.

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they [the preachers] believe that any portion of power confided to me [such as being elected President], will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough too in their opinion."
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0303-30.htm

[InfiniteNow]

cwes, you claim that others are venturing off point, then spend 3 posts arguing non-thread specifics. You claim to have the only true answer as to the point of the thread, yet you didn't open it. You accuse others of what you are doing yourself, and clearly have let another member enter your subcutaneous realm... If you hang out with pot smokers, people are going to think you're one too. When you associate with a religion, you often get painted with the broader brush which paints others of same faith...

That said, reglions are like ice cream flavors, and there is not a best one or one better than another on anything more than a personal and subjective level... There are no clear metrics making one more ideal than another, and it's all interpretation. If an individual likes green and I like blue, it doesn't mean that one is right and the other is wrong, it just means we like different things which have a degree of semantic overlap...


Cheers.

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by Theology Forum Rules

This is not the place to discuss Bible verses, nor is it the place to explain why your religion is much better than the alternatives. There are plenty of forums for that on the web already. Please respect our wishes to maintain a forum which first and foremost concerns the scientific aspects of religion, and not the faith aspects of it.

It seems to me that this thread, like many others in the forum, is set up in such a fashion as to make those of faith the objects of ridicule.

Originally Posted by Original Questions of the Thread

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?
2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

It is fact that many religions around the world profess to be the only truth. And that when examined it is shown that they conflict each other is such fashions that not all of them can be the truth. So people are asked how they reconcile this. Now we will get two types of responses to this. We will get atheist responses that all religion is bullshit. And we will get answers from people who are believers who make an effort to actually explain the faith based logic to the question. The question asks for a faith based answer, an answer that by definition will fall short of scientific scrutiny.

I have my own question about this thread and this forum.

Originally Posted by Theology Forum Rules

This is not a forum for preaching the word of God (regardless of which one you may subscribe to).

Preaching the word of "no God" is the same as preaching the word of God. Statements to the effect that all religion is a blight to humanity and should be wiped out is as big a violation of the preaching rules as coming here and saying that atheism is leading to the fall of humanity.

Originally Posted by Turtle

Which is my ultimate point that every religion is as slippery as snot on a porcelein doorknob, similarly infectuous, and it is justifiable to make every effort to wipe it away.

I counter with this...

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Atheism is a virus that infects the human soul killing the natural (God given) sense of morality, and it is justifiable to wipe it away through the preachings of Jesus.

If I or anyone were to come out with such a statement I would be read the riot act in short order. The purpose of this discussion, and this thread, and this forum is not the wholesale elimination of religion, and the harrasment of believers in the attempt to either make them leave or get them to convert. The active purification of mankind from the influence of religion is not tolerated in this forum any more than the wholesale conversion of mankind to any single religion.

I will leave with a story...

There is a shipwreck. Survivors are in several rafts. There is no sign of land, and could cover that will sustain for months. With no stars or sun to guide by the survivors try to come up with stratagies for rescue. For a while the boats cling together and people argue about what to do. Some want to stay with the wreckage. Others want to row in another direction because they recall that was the direction the ship was going. Others want to row in another direction because that is where they claim the ship came from. Still others want to row perpendicular to the ship's path reasoning that it was running alongside land. Others want to row in the other direction because they think land is on the other side of their path. So after some time the five groups decide to each go in their own direction.

There is no better reason for picking any one of these reasons instead of another. Yet every person had an urge to survive, and needed to latch onto some hope through some action. That is the nature of religion. People pick their boat, and they row in hope that it will be better for them in the long run than another. Even those who choose not to row are making a choice. But in the end there is no concrete way of saying that any decision was better than any other. But lack of obvious reasons is not an obstacle for the human mind or the human spirit. And those looking for justification of their own choice will find their answers. And those looking to ridicule the choices of others will find those reasons too.

In the end it just doesn't matter which boat you got into or why. Nobody knows for sure who survived. But that is no reason to disrespect those who are in a different boat.

Bill

[Boerseun]

This thread is falling to pieces, and mudslinging.

However, participants have failed to answer the question posed in the initial post. Believers are taking this as an attack on their personal faith. Statements such as 'preaching no religion is the same as preachhing religion' is bandied around, wilst flat-out false. Preaching no religion is all-encompassing, preaching religion, on the other hand, is religion-specific and have a chance of 1/n (where n is the total number of religions in the world). Preaching no religion is either 100% correct or 100% wrong. It is clearly not the same thing.

People believe things, and what they believe in are elitist and mutually exclusive. Christians and Muslims are both commanded through their Bible and Q'uran to beware of false prophets and religions, for they, and only they, are the practitioners of the one and only True Faith. They can clearly not exist together without both religions being flexible in certain basic principles of their teachings.

Say a Christian and a Muslim are friends and neighbours. The Muslim is commanded to put the non-believing infidel to the sword, but he's making an exeption here because killing his neighbour on biblical grounds won't stand up in court. Or is it because its his friend? Is this Muslim going to hell for putting civil law and institutions above Allah's commands?

How do we expect to proceed into the future whilst catering for theocracies like Afghanistan (and Israel?) If we want to make things happen smoothly in terms of international politics and human relations, there is only one possible answer: religion should be completely and utterly ignored. Else we're only going to keep the murmadons happy by pissing in the fobblydak's eyes.

If we want to do the whole Muslim bit, and we want to be consistent about it, we have to kill each and every person on this Earth who don't profess to being a muslim. Same with christians. Same with basically everyone else. So, for the most consistency and least effort, wipe 'em all off the table.

And TheBigDog, I have to take you to task on your liferaft story:

As well-intended as the analogy might be, you have to keep in mind that whilst those boats are floating around picking up people, they are actively denying the truth of the other boats. Some are even actively trying to sink the others.

The original question of how to reconcile the fact that there are plenty religions out there claiming to be the One and Only Truth, have still not been answered. Believers are saying that they are being set up; rather, I see the question being dodged. Clearly, one must be right and the other wrong. There simply is no other way. And religion, to the best of my knowledge, isn't a democracy. The one with the most adherents won't necessarily be the right one, either.

So - any takers?

[hallenrm]

Dear Boerseun, I think you are going overboard in your assertions. Not every Muslim swears by the name of Allah to eliminate every other non-Muslim, this is at best limited to a few fundamentalists, who will never become a majority as long as sense prevails in the adherents of other religions, say Christianity, who because of certain circumstances enjoy visibly more privileges. The root cause of the tension amongst adherents of different religions is economic inequalities between communities sharing a common religion, not really the religious teachings.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by hallenrm

Dear Boerseun, I think you are going overboard in your assertions. Not every Muslim swears by the name of Allah to eliminate every other non-Muslim, this is at best limited to a few fundamentalists, who will never become a majority as long as sense prevails in the adherents of other religions, say Christianity, who because of certain circumstances enjoy visibly more privileges. The root cause of the tension amongst adherents of different religions is economic inequalities between communities sharing a common religion, not really the religious teachings.

The Q'uran clearly states that it should be done. Therefore, if a muslim doesn't do it, he's not following the teachings of Mohammed to the letter.
Christians are told to stone homosexuals, to not eat shellfish or pork, NOT to shave, etc., but they don't stone gays, and they do eat shellfish and pork, and most of them have taken up shaving. Have they fallen prey to Satan?
The mere fact that there are fundamentalist muslims blowing up non-muslims, and moderate muslims not doing it, also plugs into the initial question in this thread. It is not reconcilable. The one's interpretation of the Q'uaran is right, and the other's wrong. Which one is it, though? Don't dodge the topic through semantics now, hallen...

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Christians are told to stone homosexuals, to not eat shellfish or pork, NOT to shave, etc., but they don't stone gays, and they do eat shellfish and pork, and most of them have taken up shaving. Have they fallen prey to Satan?

You're thinking of the Jews. The law preserved the nation of Israel until the Messiah was born. Jesus then fulfilled the law for everyone. The law was never meant to save people through obedience.

Originally Posted by Boerseun

The mere fact that there are fundamentalist muslims blowing up non-muslims, and moderate muslims not doing it, also plugs into the initial question in this thread. It is not reconcilable. The one's interpretation of the Q'uaran is right, and the other's wrong. Which one is it, though? Don't dodge the topic through semantics now, hallen...

You're right. But there is a difference between which is the right interpretation and which is the preferable interpretation. Be careful not to confuse the concepts.

[Spiked Blood]

Originally Posted by Southtown

You're thinking of the Jews. The law preserved the nation of Israel until the Messiah was born. Jesus then fulfilled the law for everyone. The law was never meant to save people through obedience.

What? God had to wait for the stars to align before he sent his son to earth? Your argument is bereft of logic.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by Spiked Blood

What? God had to wait for the stars to align before he sent his son to earth? Your argument is bereft of logic.

More transpired in Jesus' lifetime than his birth. The crucifixion is also important. In order for that to occur, there had to be a very specific environment and very specific players all converging into a very precise pattern of interaction. Think of it like calling the 8-ball on the break.

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it." -- Isaiah 46:9-11

Are you familiar with the Passover at all?

[Spiked Blood]

Originally Posted by Southtown

More transpired in Jesus' lifetime than his birth. The crucifixion is also important. In order for that to occur, there had to be a very specific environment and very specific players all converging into a very precise pattern of interaction. Think of it like calling the 8-ball on the break.

"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure; calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country; yea, I have spoken, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed, I will also do it." -- Isaiah 46:9-11

Are you familiar with the Passover at all?

So basically what you are saying is that God manipulated, interfered with events on Earth to get humanity to a point where we would kill his son? To pay for our sins... Seems to me the biggest sinner is your god. Also your argument just doesn't make sense.

This also contradicts what I was raised to believe about God proving to Satan that man couldn't rule himself. Clearly with greater beings manipulating events, we're screwed.

All this time I thought it was Satan I had to look over my shoulder for!