Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Oooookaaaay... *subtle suspicious glaring*

Not YOU at ALL!!! I really respect your openmindedness and fairness to people of ALL beliefs and opinions. I think you are a standard-setter in this regard on Entmoot, and all of us can learn from you

*hands Nurv anti-embarassing-blush cream*

I really mean that!

Of course there were a lot of stupid things said - it was leading up to an election! .... We're all individuals here, in the end it only matters what the people in the discussion are saying.

True, altho sometimes it's interesting to discuss, with people here, what people outside the Moot are saying.

[Nurvingiel]

I see what you mean now.

Of course it's fun/useful/interesting to discuss the culture outside of the Moot. We kind of have to. Tolkien, alas, doesn't live here. (It was just when it comes to what people say, but never mind now since that wasn't the part of what you posted. I don't think. How am I still confused? )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

So do you mean that agnostics are "above" religious people? If so, in what way? Could you please explain in more detail? I'd really like to hear your opinion on this. Seriously!

Submitting to a single religion can easily confine your thinking. Thats been my clear observation. Ive also noticed some members of some religions tend to like to try to confine any kind of thinking to a form of a religion because that way they can try to make a one to one comparison (as in 'my religion can beat up your religion' type of scenario). I think thats either missing the point or refusing to see things as they really are. But I guess its human nature.

Now dont get me wrong, some practicioners of some religions have a good grasp on things even through the vale of their religion. they are in touch with the overt symbolism involved and how it impacts their real world. and are less caught up with simply making religion into a never ending argument about always being literally correct. which really profoundly misses the point of religion.

[inked]

IR,

It is entirely possible that religion as practiced by intelligent and informed and thoughtful persons is not a veil to understanding but a mode of understanding that enables one to pierce the veil of this world and see beyond it.

It is the contention of Christianity that such an explanation is to be had in the Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension of the God-Man Jesus of Nazareth. And it is to be realized in the life of the believer. That there are persons who have limited comprehension of the outworkings of this reality in intellectual, moral, and sociological, cultural, and interpersonal relations, as well as spiritualality is NOT a limitiation imposed on the individual under consideration by the belief, but a limitation of the belief system by the individual.

See the difference?

And for that matter, a thorough-going repudiation of religion on the grounds of materialistic philosophical grounds may be well elucidated by thoughtful atheists or promulgated by individuals of less learning, moral, sociological, cultural, or interpersonal ability. Denying the existence of the other-than-sensibly-detectable (by individuals or instrumentation aiding them), they deny the supra-natural with vehemence or violence (cf the militant atheism of Stalin et alia) or more moderately (cf the public arena in EU or USA) or more learnedly (cf GB Shaw and successors).

One's world-view in either case is to be judged on its rational basis so far as is possible and then some sort of "leap into the consequences" as regards its outworking in the individual life. It should come as no surprise that the expression of that outworking is susceptible to all the faults of the persons in whom the event takes place.

The consequences of these choices and their outworkings are then reasonable data points to consider for other individuals in making their own assessments. "By their fruits you shall know them" is an observation applicable to all - not just "religious people" but everyone.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR,
That there are persons who have limited comprehension of the outworkings of this reality in intellectual, moral, and sociological, cultural, and interpersonal relations, as well as spiritualality is NOT a limitiation imposed on the individual under consideration by the belief, but a limitation of the belief system by the individual.

See the difference?

I agree with that completely. My comment was not meant as a blanket condemnation of certain religions in whole form but more that some practicioners of some religions tend not to "get it" while some of the same religion certainly seem to transend the limitations of others and DO "get it". Christianity in specific contains many individuals who do have a profound grasp on how the divine relates to reality and to their being specifically as a direct consequence of being christian. those people get it. but a lot of em dont. a lot of em get caught up on literalism and mind control and social neighbor following. and whats sad is that it tends to be the ones that dont get it that are the loudest and therefore seem to represent the whole.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

(subscription post)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

which really profoundly misses the point of religion.

What, IYO, is the point of religion?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

suppression, oppression and control usually

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I agree with that completely. My comment was not meant as a blanket condemnation of certain religions in whole form but more that some practicioners of some religions tend not to "get it" while some of the same religion certainly seem to transend the limitations of others and DO "get it".

What do you think is to be "got"?

Christianity in specific contains many individuals who do have a profound grasp on how the divine relates to reality and to their being specifically as a direct consequence of being christian.

How do you think the divine relates to reality?

those people get it. but a lot of em dont. a lot of em get caught up on literalism and mind control and social neighbor following. and whats sad is that it tends to be the ones that dont get it that are the loudest and therefore seem to represent the whole.

sad but true ...

[inked]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

suppression, oppression and control usually

Sorta like Communism, Socialism, and any form of capitalism, eh?

I disagree, LCoU!

I would say rather to conform the individual to the intent of the Creator, but I agree that human institutions suffer the consequence of humans in them!

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What, IYO, is the point of religion?

to fuse the self with the unknowable. by means of myth and ritual and generalization.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What do you think is to be "got"?

that understanding the divine takes looking beyond oneself. ignoring the self and the ego. so many people build religion as a law and a mirror for themselves. so they can admire themselves. or loathe themselves. and decide who is right and wrong and order their world accordingly. they dont seem to realize that this is just a system theyve built themselves. and it blinds them.

How do you think the divine relates to reality?

you got me. Im agnostic remember? Its above my head.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by inked

I disagree, LCoU!

*unlurk*
i thought you might
*lurk*

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

to fuse the self with the unknowable. by means of myth and ritual and generalization.

IR,

You are on to something there! I would rather say to engage the incomprehensible because human intellect and being cannot grasp the totality of the Person of the Godhead! Check out THE IDEA OF THE HOLY by Rudolph Otto.

Of course, if the Godhead has revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus, then we have the maximum expression of the Personality Of God in human terms by His own act.

An honest consideration of Jesus and His claims is worthwhile, though I freely concede that not all come to my belief. And I freely admit that there is much in his followers that does not rise to a full appreciation of Him or His teaching, much less His meaning. But, shouldn't one give consideration to the Person and His claims and the best exemplars ot that (say, Mother Theresa, St. Francis of Assisi, and all those martyred for their faith) rather than concentrating on the imperfections of the worst examples? One does do that with other areas of human knowledge and experience.

[Rían]

*trying to catch up after a very busy few weeks*

Several notes -

On death and how some people think one reason "religion" was made was to have a comforting thought that you'll see your loved ones again one day - as far as I can tell, the ancient Jewish religion (the root of Christianity) did NOT believe in an after-life of that sort. I think their basic beliefs could be summed up in what is placed in their mezuzah - the shema, which contains Deuteronomy 6:4-9 and 11:13-21; basically the call "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your would and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house ...." and a few more verses about teaching, followed by the 10 Commandments.

It seems as if the ancient Jewish religion was basically that God was One, and He created the universe, and that He cared about moral behavior. There was not any particularly "comforting" aspect about it, or things like "you'll see your beloved departed on the farther shores," or things like that. It's just kind of in your face. I'd be interested in hearing from Rad on this!


(note to self - address IRex's and Earni's posts)

[Rían]

EDIT - this could be a rather touchy post; please picture me with an interested and sincere and thoughtful look on my face I really want to understand your thoughts.

Originally Posted by IRex

Agnosticism is neither a church or a formal philosphy.

I don't quite understand what's the relevance of that statement? Is there something, IYO, about churches or formal philosophies that makes them less than things that are NOT churches or formal philosophies? (I say "less" because of your use of the word "down" that started this discussion.) If something happens to be a church or a formal philosophy, does that have any weight when evaluating if it's true? What are your thoughts?

its simply a description and nothing more.

Fine We need descriptions so we can talk.

i never once sat down with furrowed brow and said HM... I THINK I WILL BELIEVE THAT I CANT KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS!

What does that have to do with the topic? I don't understand. I would imagine you've come up with your set of beliefs in the same way I have - by looking around you and thinking about things (and perhaps even occasionally furrowing your brow! ) I don't think I know all the answers, either

Nor was I ever indoctrinated by other agnostics as to the "truth" about the world.

I've heard lots of claims as to what the "truth" is, and what constitutes sufficient evidence (or lack of evidence). I chose the one I think is right because IMO there was enough evidence for it (altho not "proof" of it) to act upon it. I continue to evaluate it, as well as other belief systems I come across, and I'll change my mind if I find sufficient evidence (or lack of evidence) to do so. I wasn't "indoctrinated" by anyone - I believe what I think is true, based on lots of thought and observation. Lots of people grow up surrounded by certain beliefs and then change them.

Nor did i pick up a book about agnosticsm by its founder and find it touched my soul with its words and meaning.

What does the source of a person's belief have to do with anything? Whether the thought to be considered comes from a book, a conversation, or wherever, it needs to be evaluated carefully. Is there anything wrong with getting ideas out of a book?

No. Nothing even close to any of that. I follow no agnostic tenants or commandments. I do not have a lick of faith in any agnostic foundations of belief. Because here ARE no agnostic foundations of belief. Theres only lack of evidence.

You believe that the evidence is insufficient to decide on whether there is a god or gods or not, and/or which god/gods exist, if any, right? That's your belief, right? Or your opinion, if you like. I have a different opinion - my opinion is that Christianity is true. I don't KNOW it's true, but it's my opinion it's true, and it's a strong enough opinion that I have decided to act upon it.

And morality is not at all related to agnosticism.

Sure it is. If you changed wholeheartedly from agnostic to, say, fundamentalist Christian or Buddhist, wouldn't your morals change at least in some areas? If I were to ask you if you thought killing was wrong because we're made in the image of God (among other reasons), you would say that you don't BELIEVE that is right. Your objection to killing is NOT based on that people are made in God's image; you don't BELIEVE that.

Many agnostics have different points of view regarding morality.

I agree. Since they don't BELIEVE in a particular "religious" worldview, they BELIEVE it is right to come up with their own morality, right? And if that's the case, IMO they certainly have NO grounds to object to anyone else's morality! After all, if the right thing to do is come up with your own morality, how can you object to other people's morality if it's different than your own?

So how would you explain this if ALL agnostics get their ideas for morality from one single source of beliefs like Christians?

I'm not saying agnostics get their ideas for morality from one single source (and btw, there's nothing that says that a single source HAS to be wrong; perhaps this "one single source" is right! IOW, there's not necessarily anything wrong with getting your ideas for morality from one single source, IMO; it depends upon the source.) I AM saying that they get their ideas of morality from their beliefs, just like Christians and everyone else. They BELIEVE that since there is a lack of evidence (using your phrase) to decide for any particular "religion" being true, that they should come up with their own ideas of morality, right?

You are attempting to pull me down to the level of religion and slap me with a nice big label: CHURCH OF AGNOSTICISM.

"down" - a very interesting choice of words! I mean, if there's a lack of evidence for you, how do you know a particular religion isn't right? Why is believing in a particular religion necessarily "down"?

I find this attitude, btw, in many "non-religious" people; that they are somehow automatically superior (at least in some ways) to "religious" people. I'm very surprised that YOU seem (because of the use of the word "down") to hold this belief, IRex! Is this true? I don't see how your opinion that there is a lack of knowledge available automatically makes you above (since others are "down" below you) others. Perhaps they see more than you do, and their conclusion is perfectly valid based on what they see. Or maybe I just misunderstand how you're using "down".

I think a person can disagree with someone and think they're wrong without looking down on them. You seem to think religious people are wrong AND you seem to look down on them. Is that right?

Well I reject the label. Thats the part I find insulting.

Do you think you're being insulting to me and other "religious" people by saying you don't want to be pulled "down" to the level of religion? It seems like you think ANY religious person is automatically below you and/or other agnostics; is that right? If so, why?

Now if you want to say science has influenced the way I think then that could be better argued. Although I tend to think of science as reality which makes its comparison to religion a bit pointless.

I don't think I'll touch the science issue right now, except to say that I think it is a god for you in the same way that the God of the Bible is god for me.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Millane

when am i ever right?

I think you're fairly perceptive, Millane.

Altho I think you're wrong about your generalization about religious people! As I said, I think it's because the silly ones are the noisy ones.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Morals do not uniquely belong to religion. I think you can have morality and morals without accepting the presence of a devine being.

I totally agree!! EVERY person has morals, altho they may be different. I think they're surprisingly similar, tho. I think the evidence shows pretty strongly that we are highly moral beings.

It's late and I feel that I'm not expressing myself well, so I'll address the other parts of your post tomorrow.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I totally agree!! EVERY person has morals, altho they may be different. I think they're surprisingly similar, tho. I think the evidence shows pretty strongly that we are highly moral beings.

I believe morality is a result of our living together in societies -we have to be moral to live this way. I don't think morality is related to agnosticism.

[HOBBIT]

Jews do believe in a heaven. Not sure on the details, but there is definitely an after-life heaven type of thing not dissimilar to the one in Christianity.

There just is definitely no hell, which is cool . No purgatory and nothing from the new testament :P

If you don't make it into heaven, you just ... hang around on the earth, maybe as a spirit/ghost or something.

Not very religious. :P


There is nothing conforting in the torah (old testament)? *Shrug*
The ancient Jewish religion is the same as the Jewish religion today. It hasn't changed.