Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

The Oldest and Most Powerful Religion

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    OK, so the Gnostics also had an "I know something you don't know" outlook. Fair enough.

    Why is half the forum trying to tease meaning out of James Stewart's posts? I am beginning to wonder if he/she/it is just leading us all on a wild goose chase.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    christianity 100%
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Stewart)
    First of all, with respect to religion, some (many) people do ACT on the basis of decisions made within their psychology and their physiology, on faith in the truth of their religious ideology. But if the ideas are not correct or based themselves on 'non-facts,' the consequences can be somewhat damaging to the innocent.

    So, at least we should mostly all be able to agree that to approach matters of god we ought to proceed with care and not be cavalier. Even though there is a paradoxic concept contained in many religious systems: that it is, on the one hand difficult to approach the truly divine or even to 'see' god, and yet on the other hand god is always very near...

    'Men of old, less sophisticated than we are today, were content to hear the truth, if even from a tree(!), so long as it were in fact true, unlike us who wish to have pomp and extravagant places to have as temples.' Plato.

    The first religion is that of a word, unable to be qualified to hold its own essence: we can speak of true love, but there is no such thing as false truth; such a thing is merely false. The first religion of Man, is the religion of truth. And it ought cause no fear to anyone, to confront truth about anything within their own customs and practices of religion. Time itself is very aged. It is certain that many things taken to be certainties inherited to us from the distant past, are full of error, sometimes made that way by the wildly tyranical - despotic rulers who were well aware of the effects of knowledge in the hands of large numbers of the public.

    One thing when looked at in one light appears as one thing, and when rotated appears as another. Today, we have inherited not several major religions, but several POLITICAL complexions of ancient religion that are CONNECTED by a single political struggle.

    I take the people here to be responsible, motivated by desire for knowledge and truth, and not fanatical or blind followers of slogans and propaganda. Before you proceed further, you should 'google' (or whatever!) the following, to see the DEPTH of political intrigue and emotional violence, that is the the background of much of today's religious dynamic. You can even go into how far Sanskrit is involved with Semitic culture, and so Sanskrit Vedantic or Zend theology is not disconnected here either. However, the following in particular:

    Blood Libel
    Appolonius Molon
    Harrapan Civilisation
    Pali Prophecy on the Human Race
    Seth-typhon
    Yazidism
    Mevllana Rumi

    All these will give a dimensionality to understanding why politicial intrigue enters into all modern religious arguments. And that's just a beginning.

    It is further, virtually impossible to trawl through all the so-called authorities on ancient writing, to discover who does and who doesn't have an ideological agenda.

    But whatever the outcome of these investigations by people here - is there anyone here who wishes to stand outside the circle of truth, to promote his or her understandings about the divine? Would you rather be a Jew a Muslim a Christian a Hindu a Shaman a Sikh a Buddhist FIRST, before you wish to be a supporter of truth?

    What does your god tell you in this regard?

    About your truth theory, because truth is always a theory, inevitably, for we have no way of proving anything- it has one fundamental flaw.

    Every religion says what they say is the truth... And in the end, it's up to you to decide which way you believe is the truth.

    Truth isn't definitive, it's faith. Even science is a religion, to an extent. You can proove something wrong, but you can never proove that it's the 'truth'.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    Truth isn't definitive, it's faith. Even science is a religion, to an extent. You can proove something wrong, but you can never proove that it's the 'truth'.
    The difference is, science tries to prove its theories wrong, while religions just move the goalposts (apply metaphorical meaning to stuff) to make their 'theories' right again.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nysh)
    About your truth theory, because truth is always a theory, inevitably, for we have no way of proving anything- it has one fundamental flaw.

    Every religion says what they say is the truth... And in the end, it's up to you to decide which way you believe is the truth.

    Truth isn't definitive, it's faith. Even science is a religion, to an extent. You can proove something wrong, but you can never proove that it's the 'truth'.
    Absolute truth is faith, relative truth isn't. ie. science usually only believes something is true 'for a given value of true'(tm. pratchett).

    This may sound odd coming from a religious person, but that what I like about science(mostly physics).
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The idea that science continually questions itself, while religion claims to know the answer regardless of what the question was? Some religions could benefit from a bit of that - critical self-assessment. Sorry, did I say 'some'? I meant 'all'.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    Well, he's pretty much saying not to put all your trust in any religion (or should I say, writings) or take them as the final truth. If you lean too much on it for support, you might find that the pillar you took for granted is not really there, or at least may not be there in the same form you thought it would be. I think critical self-assessment does come into play here.

    Search for the truth; don't act as if you have the truth.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saichu)
    Well, he's pretty much saying not to put all your trust in any religion (or should I say, writings) or take them as the final truth. If you lean too much on it for support, you might find that the pillar you took for granted is not really there, or at least may not be there in the same form you thought it would be. I think critical self-assessment does come into play here.

    Search for the truth; don't act as if you have the truth.
    He's being somewhat poncy about it though, isn't he?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Sounds to me, going particularly on Ayaan and Agent Smith's last two posts here, that you have comprehended my points rather successfully, really...

    I refer to it as 'functional truth' although some people have employed 'relative truth' as a way of describing scientific thinking. Repeatability is one of the parameters of functional truth. I mean, you can spend a lot of years carrying on as if you're smart being anti-everything that has some certainty attached to it - but in the end it starts to look like every statement that ype of person makes is a 'bald statement:' 'we have no way of proving anything...'

    ...This is what I mean by sloppy definitions and gratuitous assumptions. 'WE' (big assumption lumping people all together whether they want to be or not) 'have no way' (that's just being a misologist; speak for yourself about 'having no way' please) 'of proving anything...' (I don't need to PROVE anything - just want to hit your head against a brick wall very hard and see how you love it. If that's okay with you, Nysh? ...And that'll serve my hypothesizing well enough for me!)

    It's all about the difference between holding opinions dangerous and harmful to others dressed up as holy writ, and meagre but honest human attempts at studying ourselves and the Cosmos. Often, science SEEMS more relativistic than it is because of the pace of discovery and the confusion of outcome with underlying principle. Today, we often forget that Pythagoras was a religious figure, just as much as he was a mathematician or scientist.

    One certainly cannot use Newton versus Einstein as an example of the 'only relative truth' of science. Newton would have conceded to Einstein had he been able to compare those sections of his principles that conflict with modern physics. If one learns to trust ideas and reliable methods of thinking, sooner or later one understands the Cosmos as being vastly, vastly more complex, richer, more liberating, and more intrinisically powerful than brand-name religious texts. The materially functional Words of God, are written in the stones at your feet; in one single pebble, are all the Words of which the entire Universe is composed. Find the emotion in the stone, and you will find God.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's not what you say it's the way that you say it.

    This is a forum of(mainly) 14-21 year olds.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Weejimmie)
    Will you check up on what you think before you say it? You could quickly find out- via google- that the old testament was written in Hebrew and the new in greek.
    The roman catholic church doesn't call itself that. It claims to be the Catholic- meaning universal- Church, with the implication that you should accept no [inferior] substitute. The Orthodox Churches call themselves orthodox for the same reason. The head of the roman catholic church, the Pope, alias Old Red Socks, is Bishop of Rome, so people who don't recognise his claim to be head of the universal church call his followers roman catholics or papists.
    I said that I thought it was written in Latin- I don't really know much about the original Bible. :rolleyes:
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by giordano)
    Not knowing anything about the Bible is understandable, but ignorance about the Illuminati is unforgivable. Who do you think is running the world?

    http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Illuminati.htm
    Oh you think it is those world dominating maniacs- but the Lord also plans, for He is the Best of Planners. Ha
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Does James Stewart know something I dont....?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NathanL)
    You know, like that guy who thought he was the Son of God? No, not Jesus, he said this in the 1980's.
    I did think you were talking about Jesus(pbuh) when you said that...
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Basilisk)
    Oh you think it is those world dominating maniacs- but the Lord also plans, for He is the Best of Planners. Ha
    That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Stewart)
    Sounds to me, going particularly on Ayaan and Agent Smith's last two posts here, that you have comprehended my points rather successfully, really...

    I refer to it as 'functional truth' although some people have employed 'relative truth' as a way of describing scientific thinking. Repeatability is one of the parameters of functional truth. I mean, you can spend a lot of years carrying on as if you're smart being anti-everything that has some certainty attached to it - but in the end it starts to look like every statement that type of person makes is a 'bald statement:' 'we have no way of proving anything...'

    ...This is what I mean by sloppy definitions and gratuitous assumptions. 'WE' (big assumption lumping people all together whether they want to be or not) 'have no way' (that's just being a misologist; speak for yourself about 'having no way' please) 'of proving anything...' (I don't need to PROVE anything - just want to hit your head against a brick wall very hard and see how you love it. If that's okay with you, Nysh? ...And that'll serve my hypothesizing well enough for me!)

    It's all about the difference between holding opinions dangerous and harmful to others dressed up as holy writ, and meagre but honest human attempts at studying ourselves and the Cosmos. Often, science SEEMS more relativistic than it is because of the pace of discovery and the confusion of outcome with underlying principle. Today, we often forget that Pythagoras was a religious figure, just as much as he was a mathematician or scientist.

    One certainly cannot use Newton versus Einstein as an example of the 'only relative truth' of science. Newton would have conceded to Einstein had he been able to compare those sections of his principles that conflict with modern physics. If one learns to trust ideas and reliable methods of thinking, sooner or later one understands the Cosmos as being vastly, vastly more complex, richer, more liberating, and more intrinisically powerful than brand-name religious texts. The materially functional Words of God, are written in the stones at your feet; in one single pebble, are all the Words of which the entire Universe is composed. Find the emotion in the stone, and you will find God.
    It's funny that during an argument, you become so defensive. Hitting my head against the wall, having had experienced it, is not such a bad ordeal.

    I believe you know very little apart from the ritual aspects of different religions, and only seem to be making reference to perhaps the more widely known, or the "western" religions that follow the simplistic idea of anything. An argument could be that simplicity can be so simple that it becomes complex, or that complexity is so complex that it can only be defined in simplicity.

    In terms of "We have no way of proving anything". Perhaps, for the supposed complexity of your mind, I can definite my argument more clearly:

    By agreeing the above statement, I am also saying that I cannot prove that the above statement is true. It's kind of like- "Wisest is he who knows he knows not" by Socrates. To believe in that statement, you have to believe that you don't even know if that's true.

    Inevitably there is no certainty.

    And in terms of ayaan's summary, religion (isn't it annoying when millions of different strands of belief are string into one pathetic word, thus generalising the whole lot?) is open to interpretation. For example, if you're Christian (another huge generalisation), you could vary from KKK to a World Vision leader, depending on how you interpreted the Bible.

    I think what you've done is generalised religion. You assume that "religion" does not allow room for change, and different interpretation. You have assumed that all faiths believe in absolute truths, or single interpretations.

    Indeed, one could argue that everything is a facet of the truth, and that truth has infinite meanings, thus discrediting, and at the same time, crediting every single belief that each human being has. But then again, that could be "the oldest and most powerful religion".
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is a very interesting thread, having jumped into it quite late and having no emotional attachment to the subject.

    James Stewart isn't saying much different than "The DaVinci Code" honestly. I think blindly adhering to every single word of your religion is not the smartest thing, and that you have to accept that certain changes were made by the powers-that-be. I don't follow any particular conspiracy theory but I find them interesting.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Stewart)
    Sounds to me, going particularly on Ayaan and Agent Smith's last two posts here, that you have comprehended my points rather successfully, really...

    I refer to it as 'functional truth' although some people have employed 'relative truth' as a way of describing scientific thinking. Repeatability is one of the parameters of functional truth. I mean, you can spend a lot of years carrying on as if you're smart being anti-everything that has some certainty attached to it - but in the end it starts to look like every statement that ype of person makes is a 'bald statement:' 'we have no way of proving anything...'

    ...This is what I mean by sloppy definitions and gratuitous assumptions. 'WE' (big assumption lumping people all together whether they want to be or not) 'have no way' (that's just being a misologist; speak for yourself about 'having no way' please) 'of proving anything...' (I don't need to PROVE anything - just want to hit your head against a brick wall very hard and see how you love it. If that's okay with you, Nysh? ...And that'll serve my hypothesizing well enough for me!)

    It's all about the difference between holding opinions dangerous and harmful to others dressed up as holy writ, and meagre but honest human attempts at studying ourselves and the Cosmos. Often, science SEEMS more relativistic than it is because of the pace of discovery and the confusion of outcome with underlying principle. Today, we often forget that Pythagoras was a religious figure, just as much as he was a mathematician or scientist.

    One certainly cannot use Newton versus Einstein as an example of the 'only relative truth' of science. Newton would have conceded to Einstein had he been able to compare those sections of his principles that conflict with modern physics. If one learns to trust ideas and reliable methods of thinking, sooner or later one understands the Cosmos as being vastly, vastly more complex, richer, more liberating, and more intrinisically powerful than brand-name religious texts. The materially functional Words of God, are written in the stones at your feet; in one single pebble, are all the Words of which the entire Universe is composed. Find the emotion in the stone, and you will find God.
    LOL, THIS LAST BIT IS FROM THE FILM STIGMATA
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Really? lol

    You mean JS copied a bit of Stigmata for his response?

    Does anyone have a copy of said film to verify this... ? :confused:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Stigmata ending goes 'lift a stone and you will find me, split a piece of wood and I'll be hanging out in there too'...or something along those lines.
Updated: September 10, 2005
New on TSR

Personal statement help

Use our clever tool to create a PS you're proud of.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.