If all religions are true, then it is equally fair to say all are completley false. Truth is truth, error is error. If we paid are bills using erred math for one (To High) and (to low) for falsehood then those with the false math would be ripping off those doing it correctly.
Major world religions are fundamentally the same- and true!
- Thread starter babamcrib
- Start date
No, that doesn't follow. There is a more apt analogy that works better in this case: a series of photographs of the same scene taken from different perspectives. Not a one of them is going to be false, but they are each different from all the others because the camera has been placed differently in each case.
Operacast
But what if one religion offers a photograph of a scene not offered by the others?
Thomas
Jayhawker Soule
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
... or an artist offering a unique or uniquely compelling perspective.
Operacast,
Just wanted to say thanks for all that you’ve put into these two long posts. Very interesting indeed. Worthy of its own thread I think. The work you’ve put in assessing them against the 4 criteria is to be commended. I can see why it is important to look at the person themselves: it’s no good teaching one thing if you regularly do the opposite. I would however like to add a comment. The “truth” is not dependent upon any one individual. For me, the murky details missing from Daoism do not affect what “it” is. The “truth” is transmitted through a person, like music through a player. It does not reside in the person. If the proverbial apple had not fallen on Newton’s head this would not change whether or not gravity existed.
Oh, and which are the “other 7”?
Of the scintilla I know a little about I just thought I’d add a lepton to! >>
Giving up the householder lifestyle to become an ascetic was an established strand in the society of Gotama’s time. This is of course what he himself did; leaving his arranged marriage to Yashodhara. Eventually both she and his son Rahula became members of his sangha (community).
s.
No unique perspective, however unique, contradicts the plain likelihood that two or three other perspectives can still give accurate glimpses of something plainly factual. If one perspective can show something unique, that has no bearing whatsoever on two other images that can be equally accurate in showing something equally factual.
If someone is holding a hand behind him hiding a birthday present, two photos showing him from the front are equally accurate when they only show one hand in plain view. The photo from behind can show what the present is, but it can't show the man's face or his other hand.
Of course, unique perspectives are valuable because by definition a unique perspective will show things no other perspective can. That's why, at the end of the day, I lean so heavily on multiple attestation and modern scholarship in determining the consistency, the probity and the integrity of each frail human being making his own "snapshot of the divine". Where _he_ is standing is inevitably the key question, of course. That's one reason why modern scholarship remains invaluable.
But that doesn't change the fact that something of the divine will always be visible from any perspective. Any perspective will always yield something, no matter how partial.
Operacast
I appreciate Snoopy's good wishes here. Thank you. If I may ==========>
===============> I agree there is an ultimate truth independent of any person revealing it. At the same time, while Daoism, just as one example, strikes most reasonably literate readers of the Tao-te-king as a sufficiently self-contained core of ideas with an inner integrity to them, it is still often the case -- I feel -- that inconsistencies crop up in a number of other doctrines where the frailties of human individuals need to be properly weighed before we can get our arms properly around the core value behind those inconsistencies, frequently involving profoundly unethical traps.
My bad. I didn't make it clear that the "other 7" were simply the remaining ones already cited in my list but short of the 6 who make the cut (Urukagina, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Christ) according to the four criteria I submitted. Thus, the remaining 7 are Krishna, Wen Wang, Hesiod, Zarathustra, Lao-tze, Mohammed and Bahá’u’lláh. It is entirely likely that a few of these 7 may have been just as worthy as any of the six who make the cut. It's just that our documentation on them is simply too insufficient in certain cases for us to be as sure of them as we can be of the other 6.
Best,
Operacast
===============> I agree there is an ultimate truth independent of any person revealing it. At the same time, while Daoism, just as one example, strikes most reasonably literate readers of the Tao-te-king as a sufficiently self-contained core of ideas with an inner integrity to them, it is still often the case -- I feel -- that inconsistencies crop up in a number of other doctrines where the frailties of human individuals need to be properly weighed before we can get our arms properly around the core value behind those inconsistencies, frequently involving profoundly unethical traps.
My bad. I didn't make it clear that the "other 7" were simply the remaining ones already cited in my list but short of the 6 who make the cut (Urukagina, Moses, Buddha, Confucius, Socrates, Christ) according to the four criteria I submitted. Thus, the remaining 7 are Krishna, Wen Wang, Hesiod, Zarathustra, Lao-tze, Mohammed and Bahá’u’lláh. It is entirely likely that a few of these 7 may have been just as worthy as any of the six who make the cut. It's just that our documentation on them is simply too insufficient in certain cases for us to be as sure of them as we can be of the other 6.
Best,
Operacast
Jayhawker Soule
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
So these blind men sidle up to this elephant and ...
... and the existence of multiple perspectives is obviously in no way an indication of something being plainly factual.
Who made up that rule? I always envy those who discuss the preternatural with such amazing certitude.
<curiosity> BTW, are you ********. </curiosity>
Last edited by a moderator:
So these blind men sidle up to this elephant and ...
... and the existence of multiple perspectives is obviously in no way an indication of something being plainly factual.
Who made up that rule? I always envy those who discuss the preternatural with such amazing certitude.
<curiosity> BTW, are you *******. </curiosity>
I have just lodged an inquiry of the moderators here as to whether or not this is one of those forums where inquiries as to posters' alternate identities on other boards constitutes a breach of the Rules of the Road for readers posting here. I know that there are certain fora where this is considered a breach of posters' rules, while it isn't on others'. If I receive a reply here in the affirmative -- that a nosy inquiry of this sort is indeed a breach of forum rules here -- you'll definitely be hearing from me, and most likely from one of the moderators as well.
Operacast
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayhawker Soule
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
sorry ...
Last edited by a moderator:
So? The points I drew up seemed worthwhile in this thread. I posted these thoughts in one other place where the response was relatively tepid. Big deal.
I read somewhere that 5 copies is generally considered the number at which one flirts with spamming. I'm nowhere near that, and furthermore, I'm always around to follow up on responses, which _very_ few spammers even bother to do.
Now, it _is_ considered bad form in some fora to dredge up posts in other venues by a local poster. I still don't know if that applies here. If you're really sorry, then I accept your apology.
Operacast
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayhawker Soule
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
And, it _is_ considered bad form in most 'fora' to issue personal threats, no matter how childish. Please refrain from this sort petulant behavior in the future.
As for my initial point, I continue to prefer artist's rendering to photographer's picture since I believe it more accurately captures the subjective nature of the result. Those who believe in revelation would obviously disagree.
No prob. And you've given me some stuff to go off and research.
(But not your opera site
)s.
N
Native
Guest
Hello to All,
- I think that all religions and mythological telling of creation origin from the very fact that we all live on the same planet, in the same solar system and in the same galaxy.
- The myths can be understood in comparison to modern science - and they even can improve the modern cosmology.
- Visit my Mytho-Cosmological site, click on my username and "Visit Native´s homepage", and give some feedback here on the contents.
Kind regards from Ivar Nielsen
- I think that all religions and mythological telling of creation origin from the very fact that we all live on the same planet, in the same solar system and in the same galaxy.
- The myths can be understood in comparison to modern science - and they even can improve the modern cosmology.
- Visit my Mytho-Cosmological site, click on my username and "Visit Native´s homepage", and give some feedback here on the contents.
Kind regards from Ivar Nielsen
Hey if anyone wants to take a look at something I have been working on for a few years now, I could use some feedback:
UniversalSync
The thesis is the title of this post. Major world religions are fundamentally the same- and true!
Feel free to be (constructively) critical.
UniversalSync
The thesis is the title of this post. Major world religions are fundamentally the same- and true!
Feel free to be (constructively) critical.
It's the sort of forum where third-party website issues are considered nothing to do with us.
I have no interest in getting into an inter-site flame war on any issue - issues from other websites stay there.
As for identities - it's worth remembering that everything here is in the public domain, and many other communities will also have the same policy. Therefore as with all issues relating to privacy, only put up what you want seen online.
It's the sort of forum where third-party website issues are considered nothing to do with us.
I have no interest in getting into an inter-site flame war on any issue - issues from other websites stay there.
As for identities - it's worth remembering that everything here is in the public domain, and many other communities will also have the same policy. Therefore as with all issues relating to privacy, only put up what you want seen online.
Thanks. Very cogent and clear.
Best,
Operacast