Personal Beliefs (Taken from "I need enlightenment" thread)

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

I was really enjoying this little side debate, but I didnt want to hijack the thread so I started a new one. The relevant conversation went something like this:

(whatever) feels right in your heart that is what you should follow

if a person believes that murdering children is their new belief than that is good for then as long as they believe it and it is good for them to murder children because they believe that is right for them

Of course, I would like to ammend my previous statement to say that you should follow whatever religion feels right in your heart as long as you do not harm anyone else.

One thing fifth, in your ammendment you are still saying the same thing because in saying you can believe in any thing as long as it doesn't hurt anyone is again in -accurate because your interpretation of "hurting someone else " is guided by "your " beliefs which could incorporate pain as a wonderful thing so we go by the Truth and not our interpretation of the Truth . Sincerely, Mooskee.

Opinions anyone?

 

[earl]

Actually this topic touches on one of the core dilemmas that has been discussed here in various ways: "Truth" with a big "T" and how it can devlove into dogmatic, sectarianism/fundamentalism-a my Truth is the only Truth. I believe more goes into twisting religion into a black parody of itself than this-but if you look at all those who have justified murder in the name of their "God," their God has always been very rigidly defined. Ultimately, since all religion has as part of its essence the desire to deepen love and stewardship of Life, any doctrinal interpretation which works against this isn't "True" at its foundation. If you examine the ethical positions of nearly all the world's religions, there are some common elements which include this. So, if one's Truth isn't honoring this part of the Truth, it ain't the Truth. Take care, Earl

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

Thanks so much for starting this thread Fifth! I so wanted to continue this conversation with you guys!

I honestly do believe that if you believe something with all your heart to be true, then that is what is right for you. No, that does not mean I advocate murder, rape, or anything that causes harm to another person, but I believe that faith and morals and life paths are a personal choice and not something that you can be "told" by others.
Mooskee,
From what I understand, true Satanists believe that children are the "perfect part of life" and should be honored and protected. I have never found a true satanist writing to advocate any harm to children and/or minors. Therefore, I have to believe that the people who you speak of, that murder children as part of their religious beliefs, are not true Satanists.

(I'm not sure if I stuck to the thread Fifth, please excues me if i didn't, i'm still not sure how to figure that out.)

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

(I'm not sure if I stuck to the thread Fifth, please excues me if i didn't, i'm still not sure how to figure that out.)

No no, you're right on topic. Im hoping Mooskee will get involved too.

Personally, I couldn't agree more with you freedom,

I not only believe that we should follow the beliefs in our hearts, I believe we can do nothing else!

And I also believe that, contrary to Mooskee's opinion, human's are inherrantly moral beings, and given the choice, no one would follow a religion which commanded them to murder children (if such a religion even exists).

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

Great point fifth!
If we don't follow the the beliefs in our hearts, than what else are we to follow?

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

Accepting what you said as different is okay, however what kind of world would it be like if everyone thought that way . We would not have any justice if anyone did whatever they believed was right . There seems to be a somewhat internal belief that we all have a right to live in peace but if your beliefs hinder my rights to a healthy normal life then perhaps that belief may not be right even though you believe it is right for you. So there is a reason to follow a faith that is just and safe for all and not just what the believer believes is safe but what is actually safe. Why do you believe that ? Sincerely, Mooskee.
(I'm not sure how to Quote a post from another thread, so this came from the "I need enlightenment" thread)

Mooskee,
I'm sorry, but I'm not exactly sure what your saying here. Are you saying that by following our own beliefs we have no structure to life? Or that man's personal beliefs would only be self-serving and therefore harmful to others?
Please help me out!

I believe that we all have a will to do good in the world and help others, not drag them down for our own gain, therefore I do not agree that most personal beliefs would hinder anyones right to a healthy normal life.

thx

 

[Mooskee]

Thank you all for sharing theories, beliefs , and l do want to discuss with you . I am extremely busy right now and l must comment on what many of you have stated in this new " thread ." So, l will be back soon and re read the posts here and respond and l look forward to. Have a great day.

Sincerely, Mooskee.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

A little late to this I see, and I missed the other thread entirely. But if I may be allowed, I have a quick observation. I think this floats in general terms from Kantian philosophy, which is pretty much in agreement with "do unto others what you would have done unto yourself." I think in order for our philosophy and life outlook to be most valid, it has to be valid for others as well. Not so much that others must follow, but that if they did follow, and were to do the same actions to you that you do to them, that there would be no offense to either party. In this regard, I suppose I am trying to say that if I were to somehow "believe" I have the right to harm others, then I better not quarrel when others harm me. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Freedom!

(I'm not sure how to Quote a post from another thread, so this came from the "I need enlightenment" thread)

It looks to me like you have copy and paste down OK, so I would say put [ quote ] pasted material [ /quote ], without the spaces between the [ ]. Hope that helps.

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

Thanks Juan!

 

[Mooskee]

freedom of opinion, if our beliefs are in a realm of self-destruction then, our beliefs would have a maladaptive structure to life .
however, if man's beliefs were " directed " to his spititual creator his " self-serving " would be directed totally toward his spiritual creator, our Lord . Most people do not follow false beliefs as you stated and l agree with you .
Sincerely, Mooskee.

 

[Mooskee]

Thanks Earl , l just read your reply to mine .

 

[Mooskee]

freedom of opinion, You, again, as l re- read what you wrote ,bring , to me a good point that you made. With all due respect to Man , l regret that it is difficult for some to realise right from wrong .Even if they would never " harm a flea " they still , l regret, are unable to manifest in themselves , as normal, what "normal" actually is . And this is a major problem we face . However if we discuss "normal" in our worlds collective assumption of "normal " we can form a base as earl suggested to create freedom of religion and personel beliefs albeit in the realms of world wide collective basic acceptance of basic right and wrong beliefs and application of beliefs in respect to "normal "
Sincerely, Mooskee.

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

Mooskee,
I'm not sure if I'm understanding you correctly, don't we already, as a general society, have a collective assumption of what is "right and wrong"?

 

[dharmaraj02]

Wow, there's a lot of good stuff here to respond to, but I'll have to pick and choose.

Of course, I would like to ammend my previous statement to say that you should follow whatever religion feels right in your heart as long as you do not harm anyone else.

I don't know what you mean by 'feel' here, but if you mean it in its normal use, then this is extremely problematic. If people feel differently about a moral issue, one of them is more right and one of them is more wrong, or else it is not a moral issue. If someone wants to murder someone else, we all judge it to be wrong, not just because we don't 'like' murder but because we think it goes against a moral truth.

Take, for example, a pacifist nazi, one who hates non-Aryans but doesn't hurt anyone. You can't possibly believe that his belief is right, even if it feels right in his heart and he doesn't hurt anyone.

There are lots of simple logic problems with your stance, Awaiting. For example, let me ask if you think your statement is true. If so, what if Adam 'feels' that the your statement above is false. Is he right, or wrong. If right, then you're statement is false. If wrong, then the statement suggests Adam should not believe it even though it's true. Maybe you could amend your statement again by saying:

you should follow whatever religion feels right in your heart as long as you do not harm anyone else or disagree with this statement

but I think you can see that these amendations are getting a little ridiculous and arbitrary.

Actually this topic touches on one of the core dilemmas that has been discussed here in various ways: "Truth" with a big "T" and how it can devlove into dogmatic, sectarianism/fundamentalism-a my Truth is the only Truth.

I think a 'my truth is the only truth' is really the only reasonable position, or better stated, 'I believe my beliefs are true and mutually exclusive statements are false.' If this isn't the case, the word 'belief' really has no meaning. Believing something means taking it as a truth. If someone has a contrary position to your belief, you can allow for the possibility of their being right, but you can't 'believe' they're right. For example, I disagree with your following statement:

all religion has as part of its essence the desire to deepen love and stewardship of Life

Deepening love and stewardship of life, I would contend, is not part of the essence of religion. Now, assuming we're not suffering from semantic problems, one of us is right, one of us is wrong. If you _believe_ what you say, you have to _believe_ I'm wrong, even if you allow the possibility of my being right.

Concisely put, truth without exclusivity is nonsensical.

I understand that people like the idea of everyone having their own truths so we don't have abuses of majority beliefs over minority beliefs. But everyone having their own truths makes ZERO sense. In fact, this stance encourages abuses, because some people believe in terrible things and our not judging them means terrible consequences. Abuses happen, not because someone believes they're right and others are wrong, but because people can be very wrong in what they think and what they think they can do. The Nazi's were terrible because they were wrong, not because they believed in the exclusivity of truth. The method to resolve disputes is discourse and investigation, not writing off the concept of truth.

 

[earl]

Hi dharmaraj02. Is Truth exclusive? Well just to point out some theoretical possibilities to show how there could be (& I emphasize could as theory ain't reality but maybe that's another thread) a sense of multiple Truth(s) you could look at the chief 2 competing theories in an area of study known as transpersonal psychology, (the study of spiritual experience from academic perspective). 1 is that by Ken Wilber whose model essentially says that as one's spiritual awareness deepens one has different types of experiences- one might encounter personalized/idealized forms representative of "deeper" spiritual truths and then pass into more impersonal "truths." In that sense, truth would depend on the stage of one's spiritual journey and therefore would reflect at least "partial" truth along the journey to "absolute" Truth. Then there's Jorge Ferrer's view that there may not be 1 Absolute Truth, but rather multiple revelations of the Truth. But as to essence, when you consider the Dalai Lama speaking of his own religion indicated that his religion was human kindness and Jesus' chief message included to love thy neighbor, I'd say by their fruits shall ye know them &, yes, if our beliefs aren't fundamentally making us better people, I'd say we're definitely not making much progress. The contemporary religion writer Karen Armstrong had written that to her religion wasn't so much about having beliefs but being changed by one's religion. Take care, Earl

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Tell me, dharmaraj02, if you do not follow what is in your heart, what will you follow?

Will you simply follow the path you are told to follow?

And as for the pacifist nazi, yes, as long as he hurts no one, he is free to believe whatever he wishes.

 

[dharmaraj02]

Hi dharmaraj02. Is Truth exclusive? Well just to point out some theoretical possibilities to show how there could be (& I emphasize could as theory ain't reality but maybe that's another thread) a sense of multiple Truth(s) you could look at the chief 2 competing theories in an area of study known as transpersonal psychology, (the study of spiritual experience from academic perspective). 1 is that by Ken Wilber whose model essentially says that as one's spiritual awareness deepens one has different types of experiences- one might encounter personalized/idealized forms representative of "deeper" spiritual truths and then pass into more impersonal "truths." In that sense, truth would depend on the stage of one's spiritual journey and therefore would reflect at least "partial" truth along the journey to "absolute" Truth. Then there's Jorge Ferrer's view that there may not be 1 Absolute Truth, but rather multiple revelations of the Truth. But as to essence, when you consider the Dalai Lama speaking of his own religion indicated that his religion was human kindness and Jesus' chief message included to love thy neighbor, I'd say by their fruits shall ye know them &, yes, if our beliefs aren't fundamentally making us better people, I'd say we're definitely not making much progress. The contemporary religion writer Karen Armstrong had written that to her religion wasn't so much about having beliefs but being changed by one's religion. Take care, Earl

Earl, I think a problem here is semantic. It may be responsible for our entire disagreement, or maybe not.
There is certainly such a thing as multiple perspectives of a certain truth, different imagery used to represent a truth, different artistic expressions of a truth, and there are obviously many truths insofar as there are many true statements. However, there are no two true statements that are contradictory. Truth is truth, or else there is no truth.

In Wilber's model, truth is gradually revealed, which is fine. Ferrer's view is more problematic. If he denies the uniqueness of truth, ie. that contradictory truths can't both be true, he definitionally doesn't make sense. Plenty of religions and much of religious experience has exclusivist messages. Those religious beliefs and more pluralistic religious beliefs can't both be true. Even pluralistic beliefs have to deny exclusivist beliefs or else they don't make sense.

As for the essence of religion, it sounds like you are saying that the essential part of most religions are the promotion of love. That I don't deny. If you contend that the essential part of the concept of religion is the promotion of love, then I disagree. Religion can be conceived as an effort to accurately describe non-physical spiritual reality, and love is not an essential component of that. A religion devoid of love is entirely conceivable, if not desirable. The other point I was trying to make was that our discussion here presupposes exclusive truth. Otherwise, argument is nonsensical.

Tell me, dharmaraj02, if you do not follow what is in your heart, what will you follow?

Awaiting, I don't know what you mean by heart? If you mean a person should do what he most wants to do, it's obviously problematic. If you mean that a person should do as his passions suggest as opposed to his intellect, I think that's obviously problematic too. I think you mean something else, but I'm not sure what. You can only be right if the heart you describe is some unfailing moral compass, but I'm not sure who has one of these or where to get one.

Will you simply follow the path you are told to follow?

It depends. Let me ask you, if someone's heart told him to do as he's told, should he? Does the heart never give wrong messages? Are rapists and murders not following their hearts? I know they're not following their intellects, and I know they're not doing what they're told, so how do you explain it? I'm really getting confused, Awaiting. You're the one that seems to suggest that people should just believe what they feel is right, and I think people should approach their beliefs with intellectual criticism. Who's being simple?

And as for the pacifist nazi, yes, as long as he hurts no one, he is free to believe whatever he wishes.

Certainly, anyone should be able to believe what they want. My question is whether the Nazi should believe what he wants to believe. Do you believe the Nazi is right? I imagine not. If you believe a person should only believe true statements (which is probably a truism), it would follow that we should not believe what we want to believe, but after intellectual inspection, we should believe what we critically and intellectually determine to be right. If someone doesn't have the time (because many issues are very non-trivial), then they should find someone who does and take his/her cue. Many people do this, e.g. kids, and it's much better than believing whatever one wants which often has very little reliability.

A multiplicity of contrary truths literally makes no sense, and the path toward truth being a matter of feelings doesn't make much sense either. Maybe by 'heart', you mean something different, but I'm not sure what.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

Let me ask you, if someone's heart told him to do as he's told, should he? Does the heart never give wrong messages? Are rapists and murders not following their hearts?

Remember, what I said was that you should believe what is in your heart AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT HURT ANYONE ELSE

Awaiting. You're the one that seems to suggest that people should just believe what they feel is right.

What they feel is right? Isn't that what belief is? How can you possibly believe anything else?

and I think people should approach their beliefs with intellectual criticism.

If we did, then none of us would have religion. We have already ascertained in another thread that it is impossible to prove the existence of any God.

Certainly, anyone should be able to believe what they want. My question is whether the Nazi should believe what he wants to believe. Do you believe the Nazi is right? I imagine not.

No, I do not believe that the nazi is right, but I do not believe that Christians or Hindus or Wiccans etc are right either. I do however respect their right to believe whatever they believe.

If you believe a person should only believe true statements (which is probably a truism), it would follow that we should not believe what we want to believe, but after intellectual inspection, we should believe what we critically and intellectually determine to be right.

If you can prove it, it ceases to be a belief and becomes a fact.

"You believe because you have seen. Happy are those who have not seen and yet believe"

If someone doesn't have the time (because many issues are very non-trivial), then they should find someone who does and take his/her cue.

I could not possibly dissagree more. If you refuse to believe what you feel, why would you believe what someone else feels.

Maybe by 'heart', you mean something different, but I'm not sure what.

By heart, I mean mind, soul, spirit, your conscience, your subconscious whatever you want to call it. That central core of your being, the essence of you.

 

[Freedom of Opinion]

What a long and detailed conversation one person's thoughts can lead to.

I think the point here is more that as long as your actions are not hurting others, no one has the right to judge you or your beliefs and tell you they are wrong. Everyone is allowed his or her own differing(sp) opinion. Of course, it is always better to have reasoning to back it up in case of discussion (such as this), but as Awaiting explained,

[QUOTE]If you can prove it, it ceases to be a belief and becomes a fact.[/QUOTE]

I believe that personal beliefs are exactly that, PERSONAL, and not something that you can gain from someone else. Sure, others might influence the path your thoughts take, but they can't tell you how to think, just as they cannot prove your beliefs are false.