Ok then be done with god and religion then if you truly want to forsake it all. Looks like your interested in using your time to get involved with religious debates.
You are free to not pay attention to these threads if you dont like what Im saying.
Can God be known without reference to existing theistic tradition?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
Ok then be done with god and religion then if you truly want to forsake it all. Looks like your interested in using your time to get involved with religious debates.
You are free to not pay attention to these threads if you dont like what Im saying.
I make a clear seperation between what is law and what is my own creed. I teach what I was instructed to teach, my own personal opinions I have to hold back when I reveal the teachings.
I dont like saying its ok to eat halal and kocher meat for example, but It is the way of nature and godf has given animals other animals as food it is a part of this system and it works well. But personaly i refuse to eat meat or make sacrifices of blood. Eve though I wont condemn these acts as I was told not to.
Peace.
When Jesus (Isa) Taught his Closest companions and friends, he didnt only teach them the LAw you know, He taught higher levels of living for the most Devout, He taught his Students who wanted to follow his patht he ways Of total peace, Akin To Buddhist teachings actualy, But he realized that he needed to keep this seperate from the Law.
Peace.
Peace.
The Law of Many, The Law of Seven, The Law of Three, The law of One.
Peace.
Peace.
You are a strange one ^_^/
peace.
peace.
Yes and yes.
It would require independence and omniscience, or a deterministically given knowledge (which one would not (be able to) doubt) to know, in advance, which religious tradition has it right (because it is prohibitively difficult to set out on a course of trying out all religious traditions).
So in such a case, it appears we need a different way to address the question.
Either put it aside, if we can.
Reframe it into a question that logically has chances to be answered.
Or address the motivations for seeking an answer to it.
(I feel deflated now.)
Generally, I agree.
Given His definition, God, however, might be a kind of entity that when a person has knowledge of it, the person knows to have such knowledge and knows it to be correct; IOW, a person knows they know God.
Other entities are such that our knowledge of them clearly depends on references (and a number of epistemic issues).
At least theoretically, it might be an error to place God in the same category as other entities, and knowledge of God into the same category as knowledge of other entities - given that God is defined as the original entity, the cause of all knowledge, the cause of all causes (and thus also the cause of our knowledge of Him).
In amongst the din, a mother penguing can directly recognise her baby's call.
My points?
We do not know the extent of our
aparatus.
jan.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
More and more people do seem to have become free-lance religious seekers. It's very visible here in California. It's common for people to kind of try-out a succession of religious traditions, however superficial that exposure is, before they settle on one that that they find particularly congenial.
Other people kind of invent a form of religiosity that's personal to them. We see them congregating at 'new age' bookstores that stock rather credulous low-brow takeoffs on just about every religious tradition on earth, the more esoteric-seeming the better. So somebody might mix aspects of ritual magic and gnosticism and Vedanta and Celtic paganism and contemporary feminism, and then dress everything up with Buddhist iconography, crystals and 'channeling'. At the end it's just a credulous mish-mash (in my opinion at least) but it probably fits that particular person like a glove.
That's one reason why I spoke in an earlier post about world religion turning into a spiritual supermarket. People push their carts down the aisles and select whatever they want. (I think that the internet really facilitates that tendency, by bringing everything together for everyone in one virtual 'place'.)
But getting back to your point, I agree that it's probably not possible for people to know before they select a religion which traditions are true and which ones are false. I'd even go further than that and suggest that people probably have no way of knowing whether their tradition is true, even if they've been part of that tradition all of their lives. They may or may not have a greater liklihood of being fully convinced by their religion, but the question whether that faith is true and their confidence justified still remains. It always remains. I would question whether or not human beings can have cognitive knowledge of transcendental things, just on philosophical principle.
There's another problem as well, this time with how the question is framed. When we ask questions or make statements about 'God', presumably we mean something by the word, we have something in mind. But the definitional content has to come from somewhere. It's going to be a description native to a theistic religious tradition, or perhaps to the academic philosophy of religion, which in English-speaking philosophical discourse seems to typically be derived from Christian natural theology. So significant questions are being begged big-time, simply by talking about 'God'. By using the word we are typically already implicitly assuming monotheism, human-like "personal" divine psychology, the various 'divine attributes' like omniscience and omnipotence, and so on.
Philosophers of religion and natural theologians are fond of trotting out abstract philosophical functions as well -- first-cause, ground-of-being, teleological end. The identification of whatever fulfills these functions with the monotheistic personal 'God' concept is typically just kind of assumed without justification and without very much discussion.
I think so.
I've put it aside in terms of my own personal religiosity. But it's hard to put the 'God' question aside entirely, since it plays such a central role in so many mythologies that remain very influential today. I find myself confronting it every day, certainly whenever I log onto Sciforums, because it dominates all religious discussion here and in many other places. There's a widespread popular conviction that 'religion' is synonymous with 'belief in God', and that no other kind of religiosity is even possible. You even see university professors saying that.
If the question is the transcendental truth-question, then I'd question whether that's even possible.
Right. Whether or not a religion is true, it's still true that many people believe that it is.
Academically speaking, it's possible to address a particular religion in terms of understanding its doctrines and cataloguing its texts, in terms of understanding the history and evolution of its ideas, in psychological terms, in sociological terms, in terms of art history, in ethical terms, and in many other ways as well.
But that arms-length 'religious studies' approach doesn't really address the seeker's question that we started out with, does it? The seeker doesn't just want to describe other people's religion, no matter how detailed the description. The seeker is seeking something much more fundamental and transformative for him or herself.
God: The Non Role Model
‘Tis lucky for us that God doesn’t exist,
For in breaking the rules he’d ever persist.
Even His own commandments wouldn’t be sacred
Since he’d murder His own forms created.
Well, this would be goof, big time—a mistake,
So then a joyous rainbow He might make,
To show He’d no more make a worldly lake,
But He could still destroy us all by earthquake!
He’d slay by flame and flood excruciate;
He’d entrap; he’d blame us for His mistake;
He’d hold grudges for our ancestors’ sins;
He’d throw tantrums and fits—his name, God’s Sake!
Other loves would not allowed by this jealous One,
For He’d be the only one to enjoy the fun.
For His low esteem our adoration would be required,
This request being much like singing to the choir.
Would He have to rest on the 7th day,
After working 24-6 on making universal hay?
Or would He have boundless energy reserves,
Such that He could do it all through some instant blurb?
Would God’s last name be known as ‘Dammit’,
With ‘Herald’ His name on Earth’s planet,
And would be ‘Art’ named—when up in Heaven?
Would we swearest in vain these names never taken?
We’d have to be so lazy on the Sabbath day,
Not even lifting up a finger or even wave a bug away,
Keeping holy and wholly the laundry on Sunday,
Even avoiding football, as the Pope did say.
Cripes, He’d be in the right place at the right time,
Not ever having been made, not even costing a dime.
What luck to be unborn with so much talent;
Never having earned His spot with any effort spent.
Well, we’d still humour our dear parents,
Not telling them where we’d been apparent,
(Honoring her offer, on her and off her),
Yet, we’d soon learn, through human nature.
If this non God we’d emulate, we could kill
Those who solicitate—with our free will,
Even time, spouses, bugs, microbes and other swill,
And, of course, outlaws, and, especially, in-laws.
Ah, but the concept of reward and punishment
Handed out by this omnipotent, omniscient God,
Is but derivative of family experience—
The child and parent—a conception of our world.
So, if God’s a good role model, a leader,
Someone that we would follow, imitate,
Emulate, be like, adore, or follow,
Then what would his fine example allow?
We could jail people for the sins of their
Ancestors, exterminate humanity,
Allow known evil to exist and tempt,
And devise devious entrapment plans.
We could have temper tantrums and outbursts,
Envy, or not permit competitors,
Grant free will only it matched our own,
And covet worship, adoration, and praise.
The Christian God is vengeful, demands of,
And tortures us with threats of Hellish shove.
Well, if I were a God and ruled above,
You could remove all my powers but love.
Now, back to the commandments sultry;
Yes, we should surely admit adultery.
But, we’d banish all thoughts impure?
Well, that’s simply our human nature.
Now, if He’d wanted us to be naked, say,
Then surely we’d have been born that way.
As for padding, that would false witness be,
So, please, please keep abreast of reality.
And no loving thy neighbors much too much,
By coveting their Heavenly bodies such,
But thy own ass do covet—it’s not free;
Follow Moses, by always tying it to a tree.
There are stealers about, another shalt not,
Who take office supplies home a lot,
And take various and sundry restaurant items,
As well as keeping every pen, never buying them.
Now, really, never do one to others, too,
Before they can do one to you,
And never lie in court; no, not you—
Just let your lawyer do it for you!
Now, walking on water is very much out,
Unless there is solid ice—winter, no doubt,
And ever know that sin is fun’s evil twin,
And ever enter that evil Sin-a-God.
So what more would this invented God be,
The One with neither paternity nor maternity?
Would we then be made so specially
That we’d be rewarded for all eternity?
If we’d worship Him from fear of Hell,
Then He’d rightly cast us into it;
If we’d worship Him from a desire for Paradise,
Then he’d deny us entrance into it.
He’d say to Adam and Eve in Eden:
“Do what you like, but don’t eat the apple”.
(Well, we know that when you tell children
Not to touch something, they certainly will!)
Only a Fool would blame His own creations
For the flaws therein, for His poor craftsmanship,
So rejoice, there’s no Maker of Man—these ‘flaws’
Provide for interesting character types!
Well, He’s still on prozac, so they say,
For He works in mysterious [insane] ways.
The free will to us given is always free,
Unless it doesn’t match His own entirely
So, we’d still think that ills, or sins, of a
Mental nature are caused by the Devil,
An evil tempting spirit; however, now
We know of brain chemistry gone astray.
He’d still detest evil so totally completely,
That he’d allow the Devil to tempt us mercilessly.
And sins, even the most horrible ones, well,
No big deal; just repent them to avoid Hell.
Rigged and jigged, God’s perfect plans would be done,
But he’d long for some surprises yet to come,
So He might even roll the dice, it being random;
“Darn!” he’d say, I already knew the outcome!”
One-night stands with engaged young virgins
Would be OK, but those are not good urgins;
And no fighting, especially if you are weak;
So, when one kisses your ass, turn the other cheek!
Thus, a God-who-is-a-being would, like us,
Be dependent on, and exist after,
The Ground of Ultimate Reality,
And so could not, in Himself, be His own cause.
The Diviner would just sit around, with nothing else to do,
His mind already full with what would become as new.
He couldn’t play dice, scrambling the forecast,
For He would knew all of which the die was cast.
Now Hail the All and the One, omnipresent,
For it’s eternal and can neither be
Created nor destroyed, being its own cause
And the Ground of All—it is Energy!
‘Tis lucky for us that God doesn’t exist,
For in breaking the rules he’d ever persist.
Even His own commandments wouldn’t be sacred
Since he’d murder His own forms created.
Well, this would be goof, big time—a mistake,
So then a joyous rainbow He might make,
To show He’d no more make a worldly lake,
But He could still destroy us all by earthquake!
He’d slay by flame and flood excruciate;
He’d entrap; he’d blame us for His mistake;
He’d hold grudges for our ancestors’ sins;
He’d throw tantrums and fits—his name, God’s Sake!
Other loves would not allowed by this jealous One,
For He’d be the only one to enjoy the fun.
For His low esteem our adoration would be required,
This request being much like singing to the choir.
Would He have to rest on the 7th day,
After working 24-6 on making universal hay?
Or would He have boundless energy reserves,
Such that He could do it all through some instant blurb?
Would God’s last name be known as ‘Dammit’,
With ‘Herald’ His name on Earth’s planet,
And would be ‘Art’ named—when up in Heaven?
Would we swearest in vain these names never taken?
We’d have to be so lazy on the Sabbath day,
Not even lifting up a finger or even wave a bug away,
Keeping holy and wholly the laundry on Sunday,
Even avoiding football, as the Pope did say.
Cripes, He’d be in the right place at the right time,
Not ever having been made, not even costing a dime.
What luck to be unborn with so much talent;
Never having earned His spot with any effort spent.
Well, we’d still humour our dear parents,
Not telling them where we’d been apparent,
(Honoring her offer, on her and off her),
Yet, we’d soon learn, through human nature.
If this non God we’d emulate, we could kill
Those who solicitate—with our free will,
Even time, spouses, bugs, microbes and other swill,
And, of course, outlaws, and, especially, in-laws.
Ah, but the concept of reward and punishment
Handed out by this omnipotent, omniscient God,
Is but derivative of family experience—
The child and parent—a conception of our world.
So, if God’s a good role model, a leader,
Someone that we would follow, imitate,
Emulate, be like, adore, or follow,
Then what would his fine example allow?
We could jail people for the sins of their
Ancestors, exterminate humanity,
Allow known evil to exist and tempt,
And devise devious entrapment plans.
We could have temper tantrums and outbursts,
Envy, or not permit competitors,
Grant free will only it matched our own,
And covet worship, adoration, and praise.
The Christian God is vengeful, demands of,
And tortures us with threats of Hellish shove.
Well, if I were a God and ruled above,
You could remove all my powers but love.
Now, back to the commandments sultry;
Yes, we should surely admit adultery.
But, we’d banish all thoughts impure?
Well, that’s simply our human nature.
Now, if He’d wanted us to be naked, say,
Then surely we’d have been born that way.
As for padding, that would false witness be,
So, please, please keep abreast of reality.
And no loving thy neighbors much too much,
By coveting their Heavenly bodies such,
But thy own ass do covet—it’s not free;
Follow Moses, by always tying it to a tree.
There are stealers about, another shalt not,
Who take office supplies home a lot,
And take various and sundry restaurant items,
As well as keeping every pen, never buying them.
Now, really, never do one to others, too,
Before they can do one to you,
And never lie in court; no, not you—
Just let your lawyer do it for you!
Now, walking on water is very much out,
Unless there is solid ice—winter, no doubt,
And ever know that sin is fun’s evil twin,
And ever enter that evil Sin-a-God.
So what more would this invented God be,
The One with neither paternity nor maternity?
Would we then be made so specially
That we’d be rewarded for all eternity?
If we’d worship Him from fear of Hell,
Then He’d rightly cast us into it;
If we’d worship Him from a desire for Paradise,
Then he’d deny us entrance into it.
He’d say to Adam and Eve in Eden:
“Do what you like, but don’t eat the apple”.
(Well, we know that when you tell children
Not to touch something, they certainly will!)
Only a Fool would blame His own creations
For the flaws therein, for His poor craftsmanship,
So rejoice, there’s no Maker of Man—these ‘flaws’
Provide for interesting character types!
Well, He’s still on prozac, so they say,
For He works in mysterious [insane] ways.
The free will to us given is always free,
Unless it doesn’t match His own entirely
So, we’d still think that ills, or sins, of a
Mental nature are caused by the Devil,
An evil tempting spirit; however, now
We know of brain chemistry gone astray.
He’d still detest evil so totally completely,
That he’d allow the Devil to tempt us mercilessly.
And sins, even the most horrible ones, well,
No big deal; just repent them to avoid Hell.
Rigged and jigged, God’s perfect plans would be done,
But he’d long for some surprises yet to come,
So He might even roll the dice, it being random;
“Darn!” he’d say, I already knew the outcome!”
One-night stands with engaged young virgins
Would be OK, but those are not good urgins;
And no fighting, especially if you are weak;
So, when one kisses your ass, turn the other cheek!
Thus, a God-who-is-a-being would, like us,
Be dependent on, and exist after,
The Ground of Ultimate Reality,
And so could not, in Himself, be His own cause.
The Diviner would just sit around, with nothing else to do,
His mind already full with what would become as new.
He couldn’t play dice, scrambling the forecast,
For He would knew all of which the die was cast.
Now Hail the All and the One, omnipresent,
For it’s eternal and can neither be
Created nor destroyed, being its own cause
And the Ground of All—it is Energy!
something that my pastor shared,i would like to see if anyone else has heard of such a thing..
he said there were 7 types of churches that would be in heaven,(should have asked him for his references
)i can believe that,i do not think it is about just ONE religion,but a compilation of them all, a common denominator so to speak..
it is in your heart where he will judge you,the heart plays a part in all religions..
one size fits all?
an emotional response.
(warm fuzzy feeling?)
Perhaps the biggest factor for the craze and craziness of spiritual pursuits is the desire to have full control over our spirituality.
That instead of focusing on actionable decisions (which are usually relatively small, from one moment to the next), we try to appropriate a whole new spiritual identity with one decision and one action.
Ie. for example, we try to choose between "becoming a Catholic" or "becoming a Hindu", as opposed to choosing between "drinking coffee" and "drinking water".
Arguably, though, the small, everyday decisions won't make much sense (and we won't be motivated to act on them consistently) unless they are embedded into a wider framework (which requires a definitive choice on a big matter which we probably don't understand well).
But perhaps the solution is in simply acting more consistently in line with what we already profess to believe and value.
Namely, from what I've seen and read, many people for whom spirituality is a struggle suffer from neglecting that which they already profess to believe and value (as opposed to trying to keep up with some new standards they have been considering only recently).
But the slowness and minimalism of that can be extremely humbling!
That instead of focusing on actionable decisions (which are usually relatively small, from one moment to the next), we try to appropriate a whole new spiritual identity with one decision and one action.
Ie. for example, we try to choose between "becoming a Catholic" or "becoming a Hindu", as opposed to choosing between "drinking coffee" and "drinking water".
Arguably, though, the small, everyday decisions won't make much sense (and we won't be motivated to act on them consistently) unless they are embedded into a wider framework (which requires a definitive choice on a big matter which we probably don't understand well).
But perhaps the solution is in simply acting more consistently in line with what we already profess to believe and value.
Namely, from what I've seen and read, many people for whom spirituality is a struggle suffer from neglecting that which they already profess to believe and value (as opposed to trying to keep up with some new standards they have been considering only recently).
But the slowness and minimalism of that can be extremely humbling!
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I'm not sure what you mean by "tradition." Perhaps you are referring to organized religion. Organized religion vs Spiritualism. :shrug:
If so, please consider some of my arguments -
1) That spiritual things or somesuch are a real and present thing.
If your opponent is arguing for spiritualism; they will accept the first premise.
2) That spiritual things or somesuch are; or at least can be; good for individuals.
If your opponent is arguing for spiritualism; they will accept the second premise.
3) The truth cannot be based upon individual experiences; because this would cause a contradiction against the law of non contradiction.
Thus; we cannot rely upon soley individual experiences, we must somehow interpret these.
4) The Church does not teach that one should do evil.
5) Those thing's done in the name of Organized Religion are not done Because of Organized Religion; they are done Despite it.
This argues that the individual sins and weaknesses of people cause them to do evil despite their beliefs.
This is true; because of argument four. The Church does not teach people to do evil; even if sometimes it fails to stop them doing evil.
This also supports argument three; that the individual should NOT interpret morality for themselves; because we cannot rely upon our individual positions; for these obviously contain contrarity; thus cannot all be correct.
6) The Church Recognizes that people are flawed.
This is why the Church has Confessions. If there was no individual failing; then there would be no need to confess.
7) We are stronger together than we are apart.
By uniting together under one truth; we can discern what is moral; and try to our best abilities to prevent people becoming misguided and "taking the law into their own hands".
8) The Civil Law is Universal; so is the Moral Law
There is one moral law; just as their is one civil law. If we all follow the moral law; we all will be better people.
9) People who follow the moral law compose communities.
If there is one truth; one goodness; one moral law; then those who believe in it will gather towards it; culminating in one recognition of truth.
10) Those who do not follow moral law are identical to vigilantes.
There is one truth for all; we do not interpret this ourselves and by ourselves; because this results in the evils of people slaughtering thousands; examples of this are where dictators take into their own hands the lives of others; and force upon them their will.
11) As we believe in spiritual things; we can see that spiritual things work in people.
This supports our belief in the Pope; we do not worship or revere a man; but believe that the Holy Spirit works with him so as to bind us all to the moral law; to guide us into the way of peace; and to bind us together in one Church under one law.
12) Corruption is not an argument against the Church; it is an argument against individual interpretations.
Priests are people too; when they take the law into their own hands; like a spiritualist; they justify terrible things. We must not take the law into our own hands; we must follow the one true Moral Law - all men and women must follow this; be their Priests; Lay people; Monks; Nuns and even the Pope!
13) If we love one another; we must recognize that we are flawed people
We must recognize we are flawed; and embrace the forgiveness and love of the Father; the Son and the Holy Spirit; working through the Church and the Sacraments of Baptism and Confession to pick us up when we fall; Eucharist to bind us together; Confirmation to strengthen us; Anointing to heal us; Holy Orders and Marriage to bring us to our callings.
If we truly love one another; we must be humble enough to accept that no man can know the truth on his own. It is only with the workings of the Holy Spirit and the Church that we can work out the Truth.
We have all seen the evils of Spiritualism. When Evil Priests make their own moral law; when Corrupt Politicians abuse their positions of power; and when we turn away from the one truth of God for mortal pleasures and satisfactions.
There is, obviously, a versatility in how the term "religion" is used, and I tried to clarify things so I tend to use the term "religious tradition" to denote phenomena like Catholicism, Protestantism, Hinduism, etc. and their respective schools; while I reserve the term "religion" to denote 'service to God'.
I tend to already subscribe to the idea that God can generally only be known via an existing religious tradition. I don't believe in spiritualism and the whole "find God yourself, apart from what anyone tells you". I suppose that in some rare cases, spiritualism works, like if one is stranded on a deserted island, or is "God's special child".
I wanted to see some arguments for how God could be known without reference to an existing theistic tradition.
If one has some access to existing theistic traditions (and most people do), then why would one deliberately ignore them and try to make one's own path, against all odds?
You could argue that because there are so many "theistic traditions" each with equally enthusiastic adherents that there is no reliable way to tell which ones are or are not endorsed by God (if he exists). So we have a situation where there is either a single set of traditions that are the "correct" ones (in which case you have to roll the dice, which is absurd) or none of them are exclusively correct. In the latter case one might understandably choose to ignore all teachings that are in direct conflict with other teachings (thereby effectively rejecting the ultimate authority of all scripture) and simply endeavour to be a decent person who has reverence for God in the hope that that will be enough.