Interesting...

Originally posted by Bardock42
How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.

Really and truly they dont contradict each other because they are not supposed to be taken literially.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Really and truly they dont contradict each other because they are not supposed to be taken literially.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.

[edit] Btw you are right digi. It's Alyson Hannigan

You did not understand what I wrote. 🙄

They are equal; equally correct and equally incorrect. I did not say what parts where right and or wrong. I simply said that the some total of rights and wrongs are equal. One religion is not better then any other. They are all inventions by humans that work within a culture. I am not counting cults in this, but only organized religions.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You did not understand what I wrote. 🙄

They are equal; equally correct and equally incorrect. I did not say what parts where right and or wrong. I simply said that the some total of rights and wrongs are equal. One religion is not better then any other. They are all inventions by humans that work within a culture. I am not counting cults in this, but only organized religions.

I understood that, I said it is unlikely. And not counting cults is even weirder. Why do you assume Religions that they fundamentally such different things (except if you interpret the shit out of them maybe) when added up have the exact same amount of truth. And how would you even count how much truth they have.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I understood that, I said it is unlikely. And not counting cults is even weirder. Why do you assume Religions that they fundamentally such different things (except if you interpret the shit out of them maybe) when added up have the exact same amount of truth. And how would you even count how much truth they have.

I never said anything about truth.

I believe that religion is a natural process that gives humans an evolutionary advantage because it allows us to cooperate within a social structure. A religion that has lasted over time, has only done so because it has found an equilibrium. Cults or new religions that are unstable, will find equilibrium or fail.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said anything about truth.

I believe that religion is a natural process that gives humans an evolutionary advantage because it allows us to cooperate within a social structure. A religion that has lasted over time, has only done so because it has found an equilibrium. Cults or new religions that are unstable, will find equilibrium or fail.

Yes you did my friend. By saying correct you inevitably say something about truth:

–adjective
8. conforming to fact or truth; free from error;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=correct

Now you are making a different point. Religions might be useful. But that doesn't mean they have to be "correct".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes you did my friend. By saying correct you inevitably say something about truth:

–adjective
8. conforming to fact or truth; free from error;

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=correct

Now you are making a different point. Religions might be useful. But that doesn't mean they have to be "correct".

When I say "truth" in reference to religion, I am not talking about ordinary truth, like A+B=C. I am using the "code" word "truth" that most fundamentalist use. That is why I internally did not use the word truth in this case. The word correct and incorrect or right and wrong are relative terms that depend on what you are talking about.

I never said how correct, or even if they are correct. 0=0 is still correct and equal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When I say "truth" in reference to religion, I am not talking about ordinary truth, like A+B=C. I am using the "code" word "truth" that most fundamentalist use. That is why I internally did not use the word truth in this case. The word correct and incorrect or right and wrong are relative terms that depend on what you are talking about.

I never said how correct, or even if they are correct. 0=0 is still correct and equal.

Still, your view is not very reasonable at all. Nor very clearly portrayed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Which was my point all along. Good job getting it at last.

Still, your view is not very reasonable at all. Nor very clearly portrayed.

Your insults are of no value. I see by your turn around that you finally get what I was saying.

Originally posted by Nellinator
1) Obviously.

2) Actually no. Judaism didn't start until after the Torah was written. I believe it is the preservation of the original faith which dates back to Adam. Obviously, there are many faiths that are too old to be accurately dated as the faith must precede the text and nearly all texts speak of people that followed their faith long before the text was written.

3) Yes.

1) Then you are blind, violence and conflict have been very common aspects of Christianity and Judaism for millenia. Are not violence and conflict forms of corruption ?

2) Okay, atleast we can come to some agreement there. Judaism is not the oldest religion. There were religions prior to it.

3) There's absolutely no evidense to support Adam and Eve's existance though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your insults are of no value. I see by your turn around that you finally get what I was saying.

I did not turn around. What you said initially is still idiotic. What you added now is trivial. But you don't even grasp half of what you are saying yourself. You might just be the most illogical poster on all of these forums.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did not turn around. What you said initially is still idiotic. What you added now is trivial. But you don't even grasp half of what you are saying yourself. You might just be the most illogical poster on all of these forums.

Your childish personal attacks are of no value and are off topic. Please go to the Off topic forum with your immature rantings.

Originally posted by Bardock42
How? The only reasoning I would see is that the universe we life in is so complicated that it is extremely unlikely any of the religions got it right, so they are all equally incorrect. But to assume that two Religions that say extremely opposing things are bot correct similarly (not incorrect) is not very reasonable to me. It seems to contradict most things we can observe in the world actually.

I think you misunderstand my opening statement (although I know this post was addressed to shakymunison and not myself).

I am not suggesting that all religions are 100% correct. You already know that I have intense doubts in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And I don't take Hinduism literally, yet respect the lessons of the mythologies.

What I am suggesting is that the essence of each religion is a reflection of truth that we may or may not inheritantly know. Fiction isn't "false". Fiction is our intepretation of non-fiction.

Christianity beleives in God, while Buddhism doesn't. Yet both claim that each and every human being is responsible for his or her own life/fate.

Buddhism forbids violence while Islam may utilize it as a last resort. However, both religions teach the value of self control.

What I am trying to say is that when we hear or read far-fetched stories from a religious source (such as gods and goddesses), we need to look at them as mythology. Mythology is meant to reflect human nature and the nature of the recognizable world. They can still very much apply to our lives.

I have a more focused idea of why I beleive all religions link to some common truth, but in order for me to explain I would have to go into my own personal beliefs, and I'd rather not do that unless asked to.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I think you misunderstand my opening statement (although I know this post was addressed to shakymunison and not myself).

It was indeed addressed at Shakya, good of you to realize. That's probably why you shouldn't judge in how far I understood your post.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I am not suggesting that all religions are 100% correct. You already know that I have intense doubts in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. And I don't take Hinduism literally, yet respect the lessons of the mythologies.

Never thought you did.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What I am suggesting is that the essence of each religion is a reflection of truth that we may or may not inheritantly know. Fiction isn't "false". Fiction is our intepretation of non-fiction.

Fiction can also just be fiction without any interpretation of non fiction. That being the way it is anyways, of course Religions try to explain what they see, that's trivial.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny

Christianity beleives in God, while Buddhism doesn't. Yet both claim that each and every human being is responsible for his or her own life/fate.

Calvinists don't. Oh my me, calvinists don't count I take it.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Buddhism forbids violence while Islam may utilize it as a last resort. However, both religions teach the value of self control.

Satanism does not. (so do a bunch of other religions, I suppose)

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
What I am trying to say is that when we hear or read far-fetched stories from a religious source (such as gods and goddesses), we need to look at them as mythology. Mythology is meant to [b]reflect human nature and the nature of the recognizable world. They can still very much apply to our lives. [/B]

Trivial point. They can also absolutely not apply to our lives.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I have a more focused idea of why I beleive all religions link to some common truth, but in order for me to explain I would have to go into my own personal beliefs, and I'd rather not do that unless asked to.

Well, they try to explain a truth that might be common.

I just don't see how the point is important at all. It is either likely wrong in the extreme or absolutely fundamental and unimportant in the watered down version.

[edit] Also, you are a dodging idiot, Shakya.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...[edit] Also, you are a dodging idiot, Shakya.

😛

Originally posted by Bardock42
It was indeed addressed at Shakya, good of you to realize. That's probably why you shouldn't judge in how far I understood your post.

But your argument sort of contradicts my own. That is why I responded.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Fiction can also just be fiction without any interpretation of non fiction. That being the way it is anyways, of course Religions try to explain what they see, that's trivial.

All art is influenced. You cannot create something new without having already been exposed to prior experience.

Whether or not fiction is intended to be based on non-fiction, it still always will reflect recognizable truth, to some person somewhere.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Calvinists don't. Oh my me, calvinists don't count I take it.

Satanism does not. (so do a bunch of other religions, I suppose)

Well...I could have made my post even longer by including the hundred other religions which also exist 🙄

Originally posted by Bardock42
Trivial point. They can also absolutely not apply to our lives.

It depends who you are. I am sure that if you read up on Greek/Hindu mythos, or mythos of any culture, or read into the Bible, Quran, Vedas, or Lotus Sutra, you can find something that applies. In some way.

You aren't that special Bardock. Your life is still connected to everyone else's, past and present.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, they try to explain a truth that might be common.

okay

Originally posted by Bardock42
I just don't see how the point is important at all. It is either likely wrong in the extreme or absolutely fundamental and unimportant in the watered down version.

You don't see the point to religion, or you don't see the point to trying to coorelate them ?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Also, you are a dodging idiot, Shakya.

😆 Holy sh*t I didn't see this coming..why do you attack him so ?

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
But your argument sort of contradicts my own. That is why I responded.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
All art is influenced. You cannot create something new without having already been exposed to prior experience.

Whether or not fiction is intended to be based on non-fiction, it still always will reflect recognizable truth, to some person somewhere.

Maybe, but that is a very different point to "All fiction interprets non-fiction".

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Well...I could have made my post even longer by including the hundred other religions which also exist 🙄

Yeah, the ones for example that contradict what you meant to show.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
It depends who you are. I am sure that if you read up on Greek/Hindu mythos, or mythos of any culture, or read into the Bible, Quran, Vedas, or Lotus Sutra, you can find something that applies. In some way.

That's what I was saying. Some applies some doesn't.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You aren't that special Bardock. Your life is still connected to everyone else's, past and present.

Never said I was.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
You don't see the point to religion, or you don't see the point to trying to coorelate them ?

I see a point in looking for similarities. I don't see the point in claiming they are all the same though. To believe in logically contradicting believes and saying it's just different interpretations is something I don't subscribe to. That's why I concede to some of your points, cause I agree with them, the full picture as given by your first post I deny though, same with Shakya, what he said I did not fully agree with, I did agree with some of the additions he gave later though (usually because they are so fundamental and unnecessary to mention). On top of that a problem Shakya has in my opinion is that he lacks the ability to express himself accurately (it might be on purpose, I have seen it before), that's why I get into arguments with him partly and partly because his views are usually unfounded and ridiculous.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
😆 Holy sh*t I didn't see this coming..why do you attack him so ?

I finished my (on-topic) post to you and then went back only to see his idiotic evaluation of my posts. I found it unfair and decided to explain to him what I think of him and that not I am the one that goes off-topic, but that he does so by dodging valid points. He also annoys me, but that's beside the point.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
[b]please meditate

silence

God is beyond human understanding

All religions are true
they speak of different aspect of the

One Reality
Onewithout a second

you cannot know yourself
the Subject cannot be objectified
never

it all started with the I...
who am I?
Egoless silence

That (Self) is ultimately formless

be joyful be blissfull be graceful

just be
but unfortunately this natural state has been lost
and it has been replaced with all this hogwash

just be as Heart

are you born?

you are not divided from That

if you are born you have to die

we are all one

- bal

I found this message interesting. I found it on a Hindu/Kali dedication forum. Could it be true that all religions are essentially right ? Perhaps the evolution of religions caused the contradiction of details, but perhaps the essense of every religion truly coincides ?

I spoke to a man who is both Christian and Hindu. He worships Jesus Christ and Mother Kali. He beleives that God, in its true form, is unidentifiable by any individual human being.

He beleives that God manifests in different forms: Jesus, Kali, Buddha, Krishna, Apollo, Shiva- different archetypes which are diverse minds can understand and relate with.

HE feels it is okay to recognize God/Universe in different ways. We all have different perspectives, even those of us with same religions/outlooks.

What say you ? [/B]

I'd say that as long as a person is trying to improve themselves, or rather, makes themselves a better person and have better control over negative human traits, they are on right path to righteousness. I could care less about religions of people as long as their religions is helping them become better people, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Even then, there are some negative religions out there that profess righteousness and kindness when they are spreaders of hate...not my idea of benevolence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'd say that as long as a person is trying to improve themselves, or rather, makes themselves a better person and have better control over negative human traits, they are on right path to righteousness. I could care less about religions of people as long as their religions is helping them become better people, mentally, physically, and spiritually.

Even then, there are some negative religions out there that profess righteousness and kindness when they are spreaders of hate...not my idea of benevolence.

👆 👆 👆 👆 👆

😄 😄 😄 😄 😄

Originally posted by Bardock42
[b]Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.

- Bill Hicks

My New Age crap pwns yours. [/B]