Agree to disagree to some extent

[A Cup Of Tea]

I have been away a little because a lot of the discussions annoy me quite a bit. I had a thought the other day I would like to run it past you guys.

One of the never ending battles in religious discussion is the correct meaning of a text. It's a good thing to have a discussion about such things but people get really fired up about this. What the correct meaning is depends on the context, I think.

This is a) what the creator intended, b) what the author intended, c) what our church have agreed upon, d) what I have decided woks best for me, and so on.

Do you think that we all, as a human race, can agree that one can interpret text differently. Not because the text is written necessarily esoterically or otherwise unprecise, but because people are, in fact, interpreting religious text differently. Never mind the reason, perhaps some people are just stupid, or uneducated, perhaps they have an active imagination. If we can only agree that this is what people do, they think differently then you, perhaps we can move forward in some way? If we accept the inherent flaw that is the human minds ability to perceive the world and interpret it the same way as everyone else ("correctly"). I don't know what the next step would be, but isn't this the most stupid thing to lose ones temper over?

One thing that I can lose my temper over is when someone from one belief system corrects someone else about that persons own belief system. As I just wrote, people obviously interpret these thing differently, how can someone be incorrect about their own belief? You can be incorrect about the exact wording, but the intent of the man holding the pen? We can see tendencies in the whole of a text, but it's always partly interpretation. I don't consider this an opinion but a fact based on what people are doing. We can always play the God-told-me card but generally people don't do that a lot (outside this forum).

I genuinely hope people will discuss this and not just agree with me even if they do. I hope to hear from people like Thomas and bananabrain, I think they will probably disagree with me on some points and I'm curious where my (their) reasoning could be flawed.

 

[wil]

(nice post....worth looking at the similar thread links at the bottom as well)

By my reckoning we have to agree to disagree. We ought to have a permanent .sig file under EVERYONE's posts that says 'in my opinion, according to my understanding, and I reserve the right to change my thoughts as new information arises which alters my understanding" (on this post place that .sig just before the last sarcastic response.

Everyone, that stamps their foot or pounds their fist and says "This is the way that it is" Is disagreeing with the majority of the population.

After all there are 7 billion people on earth a billion of them are Christians, and those 40,000 denominations don't agree.... another billion are Muslims, and those dozens of sects don't agree.

Will our various belief systems ever agree whether Jesus was a smart feller, son of G!d, prophet or even existed? Nah.

So we can goto war, kill each other over it, all the while thinking we are going to see our reward in heaven or not for doing so.

Or think that we know more than everyone else, our gurus, our books, our thougths are so important that it is our mission to save each other and make everyone else believe as we do.

But after all, I am right, G!d wrote it, I saw him, and he told me so.

 

[wil]

But what if it goes against my creed, my dogma, my tradition, my books, my interpretation, my preacher, my philosophy, my belief, my tenants, which I have sworn to believe and protect???

If you are so blatantly wrong, how do I agree to even disagree?

This is where the religious divides come in, eh?

 

[wil]

duplicate............

 

[wil]

Seemingly appropriate

I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or to coerce people along any particular path. If you first understand that, then you will see how impossible it is to organize a belief. A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it. If you do, it becomes dead, crystallized; it becomes a creed, a sect, a religion, to be imposed on others. This is what everyone throughout the world is attempting to do. Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down, rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it. You cannot bring the mountain-top to the valley. If you would attain to the mountain-top you must pass through the valley, climb the steeps, unafraid of the dangerous precipices.

and

But those who really desire to understand, who are looking to find that which is eternal, without beginning and without an end, will walk together with a greater intensity, will be a danger to everything that is unessential, to unrealities, to shadows. And they will concentrate, they will become the flame, because they understand. Such a body we must create, and that is my purpose. Because of that real understanding there will be true friendship. Because of that true friendship–which you do not seem to know–there will be real cooperation on the part of each one. And this not because of authority, not because of salvation, not because of immolation for a cause, but because you really understand, and hence are capable of living in the eternal. This is a greater thing than all pleasure, than all sacrifice.

there is more if you are interested.

Dissolution Speech - J. Krishnamurti Online

 

[Thomas]

I hope to hear from people like Thomas and bananabrain...

I can only speak from my own perspective.

Traditions produce texts, so if you really want to understand a text, turn to the tradition. In philosophy it's called sitz im leben, it means one has to look at a text in its contextual setting. This seems to me common sense, yet if one applies the rule to Scripture, there is an assumption that it belongs to everyone, and everyone claims the right to their own interpretation of the text.

Today, the over-arching philosophy in the West is the Philosophy of Relativism that renders truth second to personal narrative. (It's Adam's flaw in its contemporary guise. People ignore this, but they really shouldn't. We went to war with Iraq because of it, and it's making itself evident in the scandals rocking our institutions. So it's not just something that effects this forum ...)

Axiomatic to that philosophy is the idea that what matters is not what the text says, nor even what the text was intended to say, what matters most is what I make of the text, and my assumed right to do so. It's a Tower of Babel.

You know how I contend with people here, most of the time it's for one of two reasons:
A: Please don't make asinine statements about what you would like others to think we believe;
B: Please don't spout polemic and propaganda, or worse, just invent to suit your argument.

On the other hand, BobX was always a challenging, he knew what he was talking about because it was based on solid research and not opinion. I could rely on him to send me back to my researches, and more than once he's rocked me back on my heels.

I miss him.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Snoopy]

Long established religions may have begun as oral teachings and subsequently been subject to various translations and transliteration. This alone can mean ongoing scholarly examination of texts is required.

The seven billion of us demonstrate our differences of interpretation every day and it's on the daily news. And then we as neighbours cannot even agree on more trivial matters.

ACOT, what do you mean by the mind's flaw? It is my understanding that each mind-body creates an ongoing world from apparent birth to apparent death.

Anyway...the truth is ungraspable with words! 

 

[Paladin]

ACOT, your "tend and befriend" attitude is both admirable and refreshing. I've read quite a few posts here over the years and I see people agreeing and disagreeing all the time. Some think that they understand something called "objective truth" but for some reason this needs to be defended against people not believing in it. Some defend their ideas because they have heavily invested their sense of self in them. Then there are those who wield their religion like a weapon to boost their self-esteem and to punish others for their own pleasure. The ones I like the most are those who embrace their religion in their heart, and are the most pure in coming to their God with empty hands and open heart. These last types are the most rare however.

My own opinion is that as long as we live in a dualistic environment there will always be contention, it seems the nature of reality. If everyone agreed on something, it might very well open a rift in the fabric of time and space destroying the entire universe. Therefore the people arguing here online are helping to maintain the cosmic balance. I fully expect disagreement on this point. As a matter of fact I dearly hope so.

 

[Snoopy]

Paladin,
I'm reminded of your rush to be right thread. A diatribe of arrant nonsense, as I recall.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-rush-to-be-right-5648.html

 

[seattlegal]

My own opinion is that as long as we live in a dualistic environment there will always be contention, it seems the nature of reality. If everyone agreed on something, it might very well open a rift in the fabric of time and space destroying the entire universe. Therefore the people arguing here online are helping to maintain the cosmic balance. I fully expect disagreement on this point. As a matter of fact I dearly hope so.

Oh can't we all agree on something? I wanna see the space-time rift!

I'm sure we are all creative enough to sew it back up afterwards. Maybe all that working on Lunamoth's patchwork quilt will come in handy!

 

[Paladin]

Oh can't we all agree on something? I wanna see the space-time rift!

I'm sure we are all creative enough to sew it back up afterwards. Maybe all that working on Lunamoth's patchwork quilt will come in handy!

According to the ancient prophesy which I just made up, Lunamoth is the only one who can stop the rift from widening. She is in fact, "the one"

 

[Paladin]

Paladin,
I'm reminded of your rush to be right thread. A diatribe of arrant nonsense, as I recall.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-rush-to-be-right-5648.html

Incredible coincidence, my social psych prof described my last paper as a diatribe of arrant nonsense, but I think consistency is soooo important don't you?

 

[wil]

Incredible coincidence, my social psych prof described my last paper as a diatribe of arrant nonsense, but I think consistency is soooo important don't you?

Wouldn't any social psych degree candidate be required to be converant in arrant nonsense?

Back to the topic..... Out beyond ideas of right and wrong doing, there is a field. I will meet you there. ~ Rumi

 

[Ahanu]

Ah, yes, the field of silence . . . where we stand dumbstruck before the universe?

 

[Ahanu]

I don't know what the next step would be, but isn't this the most stupid thing to lose ones temper over?

I don't know, Cup Of Tea. Christian girls have turned down a date with me over a particular interpretation of the Bible. Wouldn't you lose your temper if you were judged negatively or positively on the basis of your interpretation of a text?

 

[radarmark]

Do you think that we all, as a human race, can agree that one can interpret text differently. Not because the text is written necessarily esoterically or otherwise unprecise, but because people are, in fact, interpreting religious text differently. Never mind the reason, perhaps some people are just stupid, or uneducated, perhaps they have an active imagination. If we can only agree that this is what people do, they think differently then you, perhaps we can move forward in some way? If we accept the inherent flaw that is the human minds ability to perceive the world and interpret it the same way as everyone else ("correctly"). I don't know what the next step would be, but isn't this the most stupid thing to lose ones temper over?

One thing that I can lose my temper over is when someone from one belief system corrects someone else about that persons own belief system. As I just wrote, people obviously interpret these thing differently, how can someone be incorrect about their own belief? You can be incorrect about the exact wording, but the intent of the man holding the pen? We can see tendencies in the whole of a text, but it's always partly interpretation. I don't consider this an opinion but a fact based on what people are doing. We can always play the God-told-me card but generally people don't do that a lot (outside this forum).

Quite remarkable post. I feel the same way but have never had the cajones to say so here. It is when one person forces or tries to force their opinion (how the Bible is to be read or how hatred is bad or how jews, or blacks, or muslims are the enemy) that I, too get mad (you probably remember my tirades). So I have never posted that. Good job, lady!

 

[Bhaktajan II]

Originally Posted by A Cup Of Tea
as a human race,

one can interpret text differently.

to perceive the world and interpret it

about the exact wording,

During the course of writting and reading responses, I always am reading responses that are:
a] tangential many times and/or
b] a response that addresses a 'nuance' that was not neccessarily intended in an OP or later sub-topic.

It always stuns me to see how maliable the english language is, thus, how 'wording' can be exacting yet still be comprehended by an other person with differing reading of the very same text.

IMO not all world languages are equiped with suffient vocabulary that expresses whole ranges of contexts.

Eskimos et al are not so involved with adding new words to next year's Dictionary.

Rules for stand up comics is to 'be sure the audience knows the context of one's references'.

It would seem to me that everything in the World is ABSOLUTE & Universal to each living entity ---except for "interpretation(s)" ---IMO aside from "interpretation(s)" of living entities, all else [ie material matter & energy] is absolutely self-evident and real.

isn't this the most stupid thing to lose ones temper over?

I can lose my temper
when one belief system corrects someone else's belief system.

But the 'system' is absolute?
I see tempers rise only in ONE situation:
"Larceny"

I do not agree that many wars were fought due to religion ---IMO wars are a form of "Grand Larceny". Wars are fought over Real resources.
Covetousness enacted is "Larceny".

Even if the "Larceny" is one's ego ---it hurts to be robbed of one's subjective reconcilations.

But honest politians gain fame they carry out the heavy duty of 'keeping order' amongst the competing masses.

 

[wil]

I don't know, Cup Of Tea. Christian girls have turned down a date with me over a particular interpretation of the Bible. Wouldn't you lose your temper if you were judged negatively or positively on the basis of your interpretation of a text?

A come on Ahanu.... hold off on bible interpretation discussions prior to asking them out. (me, in my youth, I fully agreed with all their interpretations, of whatever religion they believed, till we shouted hallelujia together...)

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Just to be clear, I don't expect to change any minds here, people think the way they do and I have very little to do with that. Sometimes we can hope to expand other minds, oh so slightly, by sharing. But mostly I was trying to understand those who differ from me.
I tried to tackle the subject from a purely rational perspective. Saying that there is nothing to gain from this conflict as their are no winners.

If you are so blatantly wrong, how do I agree to even disagree?

I don't know, I thin we are very different on this point, because I only think "What else can one do?". Do you have an example? Something extreme that will force me to see your point?

Traditions produce texts, so if you really want to understand a text, turn to the tradition.

Yes, this I agree with.

what matters most is what I make of the text, and my assumed right to do so. It's a Tower of Babel.

I agree on the danger it could bring. But, for me, the key to strong, free individuals is choice. And every individuals right to make whatever they want with the world.

I was thinking, if we let people follow their own whim and have tradition inform every individual of it's interpretation of texts. I think this is more or less the way it is where I grew up, but what we learned about each tradition was stereotypes and shallow understanding of something very deep. Perhaps there should be a greater focus on understanding and less on knowing (memorizing). It sounds like a place where I would like to grow up anyway.

On the other hand, BobX was always a challenging, he knew what he was talking about because it was based on solid research and not opinion. I could rely on him to send me back to my researches, and more than once he's rocked me back on my heels.

Oh yes, I found him too cynical most of the time, but he had a lot to share and I would much rather have him here then not.

ACOT, what do you mean by the mind's flaw? It is my understanding that each mind-body creates an ongoing world from apparent birth to apparent death.

Yes, if I understand you correctly I think we are in agreement. I tried to put us all in the same boat, as if all our understandings are flawed. If we start our discussion like this, there can be none who are right as there can be none who are wrong.

My own opinion is that as long as we live in a dualistic environment there will always be contention, it seems the nature of reality. If everyone agreed on something, it might very well open a rift in the fabric of time and space destroying the entire universe. Therefore the people arguing here online are helping to maintain the cosmic balance. I fully expect disagreement on this point. As a matter of fact I dearly hope so.

Oh I do! I also think that we live in a world of constant conflict, as long as we disagree there is a sort of conflict that can effect choices you and I make for ourselves, or others in this world. And I think it is our right to to do so. But lets duel in the right battlefield. If your "flawed" view effects choices you make for me or others I care about I will engage you there. Not because you have a difference of opinion but because of your actions. I want you to have different opinions then me, how else could I expand my own mind if I don't probe and experience yours?

Oh can't we all agree on something? I wanna see the space-time rift!

Agreed!

I don't know, Cup Of Tea. Christian girls have turned down a date with me over a particular interpretation of the Bible. Wouldn't you lose your temper if you were judged negatively or positively on the basis of your interpretation of a text?

I disagree! I can only think, good for him, he caught that one early!

(you probably remember my tirades)

I do, is I wrote then, I feel the same way at times. I post sparsely because it is so easy for me to get sucked into a dark vortex.

During the course of writting and reading responses, I always am reading responses that are:

I'm sorry to say that I always find it impossible to understand what you are trying to say.

 

[Bhaktajan II]

I'm sorry to say that I always find it impossible to understand what you are trying to say.

Don't be sorry to say what you think no matter that I always find it sorryful.
Yet all impossible to understand topics are what you are really trying to say.

That is, when speaking tongue in cheek.