How would interfaith work with those who are not into worship?

RabbiO said:
Considering that @muhammad_isa is a Muslim and considering that the Islamic view of Hebrew and Christian scripture is that both have been corrupted, if you want to continue to argue your position with him you might want to use passages from the Qu’ran.
Click to expand...
Not necessary. The only part of the Bible which presents a significant problem is the Gospel of John, who starts off with his own "creation story". :)
 
seattlegal said:
The "ifs" are based upon the assumption that the deity is a sentient being. If the deity is non-sentient, then it would be wholly different.
Click to expand...
Sentience is simply the ability to perceive or feel things . . . it doesn't assume omniscience or omnipotence (common deity traits) nor the inability to discern between 'voices'.
 
To be honest, I don't know. I think my moral values are probably quite opposite of whoever views worship as harmful. I think it's important to believe in and serve something greater than yourself.

This doesn't have to be a god, though. Humanists tend toward viewing humanity itself as the collective that they strive to serve. The important parts are altruism and humility, which even anti-theists can demonstrate in spades (and many are better at it than me!), as strange as that might sound to those who only know anti-theists from arguing with them.

As such, I think they have a lot to say about worship, even if they don't call it such.
 
muhammad_isa said:
I don't think so.
When any of us read scripture, we are not very likely to all get the same understanding from it.
We start with preconceived ideas in our minds to start with .. so do the translators .. so do the authors.

If we read all of the scriptures as a whole, we are a lot more likely to understand what's going on.
Quoting a few verses here and there to shore up our likes and dislikes is not particularly enlightening.

Why should an omniscient, omnipotent G-d who created all, need us to tell Him how great He is? o_O
Click to expand...
"Why should an omniscient, omnipotent G-d who created all, need us to tell Him how great He is? "
He wouldn't . . . that's the point.

God Doesn't Exist

  • If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  • If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  • If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  • If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  • Evil exists.
  • If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore . . .

Therefore god doesn’t exist
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
"Why should an omniscient, omnipotent G-d who created all, need us to tell Him how great He is? "
He wouldn't . . . that's the point.

God Doesn't Exist

  • If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
  • If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
  • If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
  • If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
  • Evil exists.
  • If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore . . .

Therefore god doesn’t exist
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:
 
As a Left Hand Path adherent, the only thing I/we worship is our Greater Self/GodSelf, not any external deity or Humanistic Collective.
 
RJM Corbet said:
That's all, lol?
(Ducks for cover ...)
Click to expand...

Well, amusingly, I know a lot of Gnostics that feel the exact opposite way. They see the Gospel of John as the only genuinely Gnostic text in the entire Christian Bible, rejecting the Old Testament out of hand and preferring other Gnostic gospels and texts to the rest of the New Testament canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Ella S. said:
Well, amusingly, I know a lot of Gnostics that feel the exact opposite way. They see the Gospel of John as the only genuinely Gnostic text in the entire Christian Bible, rejecting the Old Testament out of hand and preferring other Gnostic gospels and texts to the rest of the New Testament canon.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It stands out from the rest of the Bible.
One man's "orthodox" is another man's "sectarian".
 
Ella S. said:
Well, amusingly, I know a lot of Gnostics that feel the exact opposite way. They see the Gospel of John as the only genuinely Gnostic text in the entire Christian Bible, rejecting the Old Testament out of hand and preferring other Gnostic gospels and texts to the rest of the New Testament canon.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, the idea that John was influenced by 'Gnosticism' has now been abandoned by scholars, as our understanding of Hebrew mystical speculation has increased in the last 50-odd years, thanks to Christians actually listening to Hebrew scholars!

Having said that, from the standpoint of gnosis – rather than a narrow-perspective 'Gnostics' (a la Cerinthus, perhaps), then I can see that.

Do they not favour Paul at all?
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Sentience is simply the ability to perceive or feel things . . . it doesn't assume omniscience or omnipotence (common deity traits) nor the inability to discern between 'voices'.
Click to expand...
Sentient beings are those who have a subjective mind.

Having a subjective mind makes one vulnerable to delusion (mistaking subjective content for the objective.) Therefore, a sentient being can be recognized by its capacity for delusion. The same thing that gives rise to delusion (a subjective mind) is also the means by which a deluded sentient being may free themselves from delusion.

So, if any given deity is sentient, that given deity is also vulnerable to delusion. If the given deity is non-sentient, then the whole scenario changes.
 
seattlegal said:
Sentient beings are those who have a subjective mind.

Having a subjective mind makes one vulnerable to delusion (mistaking subjective content for the objective.) Therefore, a sentient being can be recognized by its capacity for delusion. The same thing that gives rise to delusion (a subjective mind) is also the means by which a deluded sentient being may free themselves from delusion.

So, if any given deity is sentient, that given deity is also vulnerable to delusion. If the given deity is non-sentient, then the whole scenario changes.
Click to expand...
Last I checked a Sentient Being is something that is able to feel and perceive, and show awareness or responsiveness. Nothing about subjective reality.
 
seattlegal said:
Alright, beings with a subjective mind can be recognized by their capacity for delusion.
Click to expand...
Delusion is the belief or impression that someone firmly maintains despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational. Our Subjective Universes cannot be contradicted, therefore there can be no delusion.
 
'Amir Alzzalam said:
Delusion is the belief or impression that someone firmly maintains despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational. Our Subjective Universes cannot be contradicted, therefore there can be no delusion.
Click to expand...
I wrote "subjective mind" not "subjective universe." No one else can contradict your qualia (you might be able to, though.)
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
Not necessary. The only part of the Bible which presents a significant problem is the Gospel of John
Click to expand...
A very interesting remark. Bishop John Shelby Spong eventually decided (I believe) that John was the most important gospel. Grounds for a fascinating interfaith discussion perhaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top