Comparative Religion - a meaningless term?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Obviously not a strength with you if you think that God isn't a single and solitary part of the general class of gods. Your approach is akin to saying that although Norway is a part of the much larger set of nations, in fact only one nation exists and that's Norway.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

You have to decide whether you want gods to be cheeky wee chappies who fly about the universe(more like leprechauns or fairies) or whether you want them to be the One of Platonism, or the supreme reality sought by philosophy, The perfect being, the ground of being , the necessary being, etc, etc, etc.
Owlswing is quite clear his gods are more like humans and not at all like the Christian conception.

''They're all shit'' isn't a good start for basic set theory is it Shaker?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's unpick the Hans Christian Anderson story.

We have a king, a crowd who know the king is bollock naked but are too frightened, a boy who doesn't realise the possible retribution that could be visited on them if they spill the beans.Pretty piss poor analogy.

Not only does Myers not understand the story he casts Dawkins as the antitheist equivalent of Private(stupid boy)Pike.

What a fucking disaster.

The only fucking disaster here is in your woeful misapprehension of the story and the calamitously inept analogy you've just used. In Dad's Army Pike was a likeable but simple soul, long on heart and short on nous, an amiable duffer. In Andersen's tale the small boy is the one with the courage to pipe up and speak the truth irrespective of consequences.

Sometimes it's almost as though you expend effort to get things as bollock-twistingly wrong as this.

I think you are confusing the boy in the story with antitheist hagiography.

[Shaker]

Obviously not a strength with you if you think that God isn't a single and solitary part of the general class of gods. Your approach is akin to saying that although Norway is a part of the much larger set of nations, in fact only one nation exists and that's Norway.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

You have to decide whether you want gods to be cheeky wee chappies who fly about the universe(more like leprechauns or fairies) or whether you want them to be the One of Platonism, or the supreme reality sought by philosophy, The perfect being, the ground of being , the necessary being, etc, etc, etc.
Owlswing is quite clear his gods are more like humans and not at all like the Christian conception.

No Vlad; I don't have to decide any such thing. Only those who purport to believe in such things have to decide exactly what they mean by it.

Something for us all to look forward to, eh Vlad

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Starting from a premise that life is accidental and a product of random gene variations and NS....religions will be seen as human constructs born out of fear and human imagination. In this situation, the subject of comparative religions will only be a matter of preparing a multi column chart with various religions and their respective teachings listed down side by side....to be committed to memory.

No one can make any sense of it all except perhaps in the respective social, political and cultural contexts.

On the other hand, if life is seen as a spiritual journey then the first requirement is to understand spirituality, its philosophy and its mechanisms....common to all humans and to all life.   Once this is done, understanding religions is a cakewalk. All teachings from the Upanishads, to the Gita to Moses to Buddha to Jesus to Mohammad...and even modern day teachings can all be understood very clearly in a common context relevant to specific social & cultural differences.  Everything will fall into place.

Cheers.

Sriram

   

[Gonnagle]

Dear World,

A quote from Jeremyp.

There's no point in understanding theology if there isn't a god.

So Vlad wins this debate.

Nice.

Or, or, Shaker might want to argue that Jeremyp is wrong.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

P.Z. Myers coined the Courtier's Reply for that, didn't he?



I don't know? What is the courtiers reply?


It's what one courtier said when the small boy observed the emperor had no clothes. He criticised the boy's lack of knowledge of tailoring.

There's no point in understanding theology if there isn't a god.

This is the basis of most of the things I've posted on this forum.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the basis of most of the things I've posted on this forum.

ippy

Yes....we gathered that. But what we are waiting for is an explanation for your positive assertion that there is a God free reality.

[BashfulAnthony]

Which is probably why you are unable to join in, in a meaningful way.

You have to believe in something before you can discuss it.

Well not everyone is like you.

A good point, Rose.  I might add to your point,  before you can discuss it with any credibility.

[ad_orientem]

Not sure how you can dismiss the option that different religions are partially true, i.e. contain 'bits' of the truth.

Oh, even false religions can contain some truth. The devil is clever like that.

Regardless, how does this bear on comparative religion?

All religions are not equal, therefore they should not be treated equally.

[ad_orientem]

Ad O

What a terrible view you have of other religions

As I said earlier, they cannot all be true. Quite clearly Mohammed, for instance, who most likely came from some sort of Arian sect received his revelation from a demon; and that pagans worship idols and demons; and that the Jews apostatised. One could not in good conscience treat false religions equally.

[ekim]

As I said earlier, they cannot all be true. Quite clearly Mohammed, for instance, who most likely came from some sort of Arian sect received his revelation from a demon; and that pagans worship idols and demons; and that the Jews apostatised. One could not in good conscience treat false religions equally.

All religions are false.  The truth will set you free from them.

[Owlswing]

As I said earlier, they cannot all be true. Quite clearly Mohammed, for instance, who most likely came from some sort of Arian sect received his revelation from a demon; and that pagans worship idols and demons; and that the Jews apostatised. One could not in good conscience treat false religions equally.

And the one FACT that you cannot change is that ypour religion is a Johnny-come-lately, paganism having existed at least 20,000 years before your Jesus was born or thought of!

And THAT sticks in your craw like a fishbone.

[ad_orientem]

And the one FACT that you cannot change is that ypour religion is a Johnny-come-lately, paganism having existed at least 20,000 years before your Jesus was born or thought of!

And THAT sticks in your craw like a fishbone.

Eh? The truth was known from the time of our first parents Adam and Eve. That humanity departed from that truth, except for a few righteous people, is neither here nor there.

[Shaker]

Eh? The truth was known from the time of our first parents Adam and Eve.

Didn't happen. No such people.

Now try not to be such a credulous gimp.

[ad_orientem]

Didn't happen. No such people.

So you say.

[BeRational]

So you say.

Not really.

So the scientific method which lets us 'know' anything reveals to us.

[Shaker]

So you say.

I think you'll find it's a bit more than just me on this one.

[ad_orientem]

Then the scientific method has serious flaws.

[Shaker]

Does it? Go on then: let's hear what somebody who believes in Adam and Eve thinks these serious flaws are.

[BeRational]

Then the scientific method has serious flaws.

Perhaps.

But you will need to show where it is wrong, rather than just assert.

[Owlswing]

Eh? The truth was known from the time of our first parents Adam and Eve. That humanity departed from that truth, except for a few righteous people, is neither here nor there.

Adam and Eve are as much fiction as are Han Solo and the Gummi Bears!

[jeremyp]

There is a point, it helps you understand where other people are coming from, and how they see the world. Also it helps in your understanding of other subjects such as art, and history.

In the narrow context of "is there a god" there is no point in understanding (for example) what sin is.

I agree that if you want to understand a religion or a culture, their theology can provide a valuable insight. However, no theology is built on sure foundations because nobody has yet determined that there is a god.