meta-religion - Humanus

[Phaedrus]

It seems to me foolish to reject the Judeo-Christian God as being “out of touch” or not relevant or scientific only to replace him with another contrivance, no matter the name. Does reincarnation have more empiracle evidence to back it up than Islam or Christianity?

In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. I enjoy studying Buddhism, but I think it’s like reading the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, too. Lots of rules and codes to govern something that, at the end of the day, is just made up. Or at least completely unproveable. I think it’s another excuse to transfer responibility from our actions in this life into another imaginary world.

In other words, God is dead. But don’t worry, I’ve got another, better one.

[scythekain]

@Phaedrus

It seems to me foolish to reject the Judeo-Christian God as being “out of touch” or not relevant or scientific only to replace him with another contrivance, no matter the name. Does reincarnation have more empiracle evidence to back it up than Islam or Christianity?

it’s not clear who you are addressing, but since I started this thread i’ll assume you are directing your comment to me.

@scythekain

ok so we have an infinite cyclical reincarnation cycle where we are shuffled between “good” and “bad” lives (or “hard” or “easy”, depending on how you look at the world). How is such a cycle useful if we don’t retain anything from this life, or any other life?

In for a penny, in for a pound, I say. I enjoy studying Buddhism, but I think it’s like reading the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, too. Lots of rules and codes to govern something that, at the end of the day, is just made up. Or at least completely unproveable. I think it’s another excuse to transfer responibility from our actions in this life into another imaginary world.

exactly, which is why I think we need another system. IMO there is no “religion” in touch with post-moderns. So in the sense of the word I thought of some simple rules I could set for life that anyone could follow to truly unite humanity.

In other words, God is dead. But don’t worry, I’ve got another, better one.

perhaps I should’ve left that area of debate out of this thread, honestly that’s a non-importance of the idea.

[Phaedrus]

That’s fair. I’m not sure I agree that our present circumstances are sufficiently novel to dictate yet another philosophy or religion, but that’s just my own view. I realize we’ll come up with new things to believe in til we’re gone as a species, but any system you “invent” as opposed to discover empiracly will always be based on faith. After all, the knock on religion from scientists and intellectuals is that it’s all personal opinion with nothing empiracley verifiable.

Guys that applies to all philosophy, though. Although philosophers think they’re true seekers and religious people are nuts and zealots.

[scythekain]

I’ll discard your truth and substitute with my own

After all, the knock on religion from scientists and intellectuals is that it’s all personal opinion with nothing empiracley verifiable.

well I was trying to base my “humanus” on how humans actually behave. The base blocks for everything else in life, and by representing life with blocks, it’s easier to show life getting out of balance, by you focusing on one thing. (health, spiritua (which includes atheist beliefs), love, money. all of these things require balance.)

if you think we need more base blocks than those 4 let me know.

[Dust_of_the_earth]

The sense in which I use the term ‘PANTHEISM’ refers to a panorama of gods…which emerge when man turns from the one true God.

scythekain, I suppose I gave the impression that “my religion” is the only true religion, but in reality Im not sure which religion is, if any. Which is why I think we need to focus on relationship rather than religion, yet not forsaking fellowship with others who can relate to God. Believe it or not you and I are in that very sort of fellowship. We are here at the Religion Forum in which I think we both presume that God will be the subject matter, whether directly or indirectly.

No need to scream aloud about how you dont believe in God, I can read between the lines and see that you obviously do…your angery at him. How can you be angery at something that doesn’t exist. And your angery at me because I can see through you.

[Future_Man]

you crack me up dust

[scythekain]

No need to scream aloud about how you dont believe in God, I can read between the lines and see that you obviously do…your angery at him. How can you be angery at something that doesn’t exist. And your angery at me because I can see through you.

#1.

I’m not angry at god. I’m not even angry at you, I wasn’t yelling I was emphasizing. because you seemed to ignore many of my valid points. And frankly… That’s frustrating!

really I take full responsibility for my own asinine actions I dont’ blame a god I don’t believe in, how contradictarory would that be?

#2.

You still ignored several of my keypoints that I wrote in that LONG post. This again frustrates me. Honestly if your not gonna read what I write why bother replying to what I write?

The sense in which I use the term ‘PANTHEISM’ refers to a panorama of gods…which emerge when man turns from the one true God.

So your making up definitions for pantheism now? I guess that’s ok I made up the word Humanus, just next time you make up a word do it Aviemus style and change it a little bit.

PanENtheism!

lol.

I suppose I gave the impression that “my religion” is the only true religion, but in reality Im not sure which religion is, if any.

You certainly don’t act like it Dust. You come off very arrogant that you are following the one true religion. I mean look at some of the things you’ve said in this thread alone:

.which emerge when man turns from the one true God.

Your false religion, like all false religions are formed to be self serving. False religion is a result of walking in the vanity of the mind.

you know the one true god, and know what are false religions. Two things that by even your admission ARE NOT KNOWABLE.

[Dust_of_the_earth]

@scythekain

You still ignored several of my keypoints that I wrote in that LONG post. This again frustrates me. Honestly if your not gonna read what I write why bother replying to what I write?

scythekain, this has been a complaint of yours before… I read/read your posts in their entirety. If I feel my previous comments already address your current comments, I dont feel the need to post any further. It’s like point/counter point. But if you have a specific point which I have not addressed, or you feel I should re-address, please specifically point it out, and I shall do so. For instance the following counter comment you’ve made requires no further comment from me…

@scythekain

#1.

I’m not angry at god. I’m not even angry at you, I wasn’t yelling I was emphasizing. because you seemed to ignore many of my valid points. And frankly… That’s frustrating!

really I take full responsibility for my own asinine actions I dont’ blame a god I don’t believe in, how contradictarory would that be?

I’ve already stated my position on this.

Now let’s move on to the term ‘Pantheism’.

@scythekain

So your making up definitions for pantheism now?

My definition is derived from ‘Merriam-Webster’ and is as thus…
: the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods
Which fit’s my translation…“a panorama of gods”

So my specific answer to your specific question…is no…I am not making up definitions.

Now let’s move to the one true God/false religion issues…

@scythekain

You certainly don’t act like it Dust. You come off very arrogant that you are following the one true religion. I mean look at some of the things you’ve said in this thread alone:

Quote:
.which emerge when man turns from the one true God.

Quote:
Your false religion, like all false religions are formed to be self serving. False religion is a result of walking in the vanity of the mind.

you know the one true god, and know what are false religions. Two things that by even your admission ARE NOT KNOWABLE.

I believe that though we live in a world which has created a panorama of gods, and a panorama of religions…there is indeed, and actually ONE TRUE GOD. You say that I say I know Him. I actually say that I know there is only one true God, and to know Him will require relationship with Him, not with religion. It may be through religion that you fellowship with others about God, but with over 23,000 Christain religions alone how can we possibly know which religion is preferable to God? Since the divisive factors between all these religions are too many and complex…we need to seek relationship with God first (not a man made version of God), and relationship with men second, possibly through religion. For myself, since only one true religion probably doesn’t exist…I have to weigh-out the options…in doing so I narrow the field dramatically by looking at those religions which do-not add-to or take-away-from the written Word of God. Obviously any religion that claims authority to do such, can create any version of God they so desire. So Im left with my personal relationship with God, and a body of believers who adhear to God’s written Word. The body is necessary to keep me (a part of the body) healthy. (i.e. fellow believers keep each other in-line with the unchangable Word)

Now even after the field has been narrowed, there still remain some perversions of religion to contend with. These however boil down to a matter of hermeneutics. On a reasonable level we should be able to agree on proper hermeneutics. Once this is done proper interpretation of certain scriptures will desolve, at least some, misinterpretaions, thereby creating greater harmony among some denominations.

There is yet another denominational unifying element that I wish to discuss, but I think I will address this in a seperate thread.

scythekain, Hopefully this clairifies my actual position, as opposed to the preceived position you identifed above.

[Visereth]

Existentialism will solve all your problems, it will cause depression at first, but then you will begin to understand…

[tentative]

D of E,

have to weigh-out the options…in doing so I narrow the field dramatically by looking at those religions which do-not add-to or take-away-from the written Word of God.

You say that we must find a personal relationship with god apart from religion. Then you appeal to the authority of “the written word of God.”
You try to have it both ways. Just which religious texts contain the written word of God? And who, how, and on what authority is the decision made as to what is added on or taken away from the written word? How would I know a false religion from the one and only true religion?

I genuinely hope you can see the missteps in your reasoning. Perhaps it work’s for you, but it certainly misses the mark with me.

JT

[my_real_name]

Scythekain,

I think your idea of this meta-religion has been done. There are already religions of the City of Man with a dead divine architect. (This is public knowledge.)

Just make sure if you want to leave them that they don’t kill you.

Regards,
my real name

[Dust_of_the_earth]

@tentative

You say that we must find a personal relationship with god apart from religion. Then you appeal to the authority of “the written word of God.”
You try to have it both ways.

Mr. tentative, I do not equate the written Word of God with religion…many forms of religion have their roots in the Word of God.

I think I must clairify… I am specifically referring to various beliefs (some of which may be called denominations) within Judaeo-Christianity, however within this thread, I am generally referring to all other classes of religion as well.

God in His divine wisdom provided us with an unchangeable authority (The Holy Bible). All things can be, and are to be measured against it. The need for this unchangeable authority has never been more evident at any other time in history than right now…that is, with knowledge, both ture and false, flowing so freely.

No matter how cleaver a man made scheme may be, it must find, and hold it’s validity in the Holy Word of God. If it can’t…round file it!

@tentative

Just which religious texts contain the written word of God?

The Holy Bible…a matter I initially accepted by faith…but now through study and realization…have found substance for that faith.

@tentative

who, how, and on what authority is the decision made as to what is added on or taken away from the written word?

The written Word is complete, all things can now be measured by it… You must mean… how was this accomplished in the past? My answer is, by inspiration from God. The Bible tells us that it is now complete. A point that God didnt let slip by. Hmm…this brings an investigation to mind…it seems to me that the last men whom God inspired to write His Word, were among the 12 apostles…this seems somewhat obvious since John wrote Revelation…but I need to confirm. Could be some additional substance there…Wow thanks tentative.

@tentative

How would I know a false religion from the one and only true religion?

Search and ye shall find…be truthful with yourself(i.e. are you searching for a god to serve you, or do you seek to serve God?) … try to push aside cultural traditions which may be misleading (this is a tough one)…dont accept things at face value…ernestly pray to the real God (who ever He may be) asking for help in your search.

[scythekain]

@my real name

Scythekain,

I think your idea of this meta-religion has been done. There are already religions of the City of Man with a dead divine architect. (This is public knowledge.)

Just make sure if you want to leave them that they don’t kill you.

Regards,
my real name

no what I’m talking about is nothing like that, thanks for trying though.

Which fit’s my translation…“a panorama of gods”

no it actually wouldn’t but I’m not going to debate that point with you.

besides what I’m talking about god is a personal addition to the system, not the base to the system. so pantheism has nothing to do with it.

there is indeed, and actually ONE TRUE GOD.

how can you know that, and claim you don’t know the “true path”.

Both statements cannot be true.

scythekain, this has been a complaint of yours before… I read/read your posts in their entirety. If I feel my previous comments already address your current comments,

and it’s just as valid lets review one point:

@dust of the earth

Your false religion, like all false religions are formed to be self serving. False religion is a result of walking in the vanity of the mind.

and my answer which you continue to ignore: (which is just one example remember.)

@scythekain

#1 to be loved.

#2 to love others.

then I wrote:

let’s look at what your god says about that.

Quote:
Matthew 7:3 (New International Version)
3“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

both of which counter your point, and neither of which you admitted that you were wrong.

[PFloyd148]

Scythekain-

Remember two things:

1. We cool.

2. I am drunk.

Now, for your post.

scyehtkain-

Well, let’s start with what god represents. God is the judge. God is the father. God is our example. Now let’s take a step to earth, and compare god to our earthly father. If you asked your father for help nightly and he did nothing would you continue to believe in him? If your mother was in danger and your father turned his back would you continue to love him?

This is a terrible example. I could pull out my girlfriend’s log book and give you names of many whose father’s were worthless, yet they still loved him. A more apt example would include the sociological similarities between the reasons for loving god/father/allah/brother/dog/etc… Basically, I wouldn’t be so quick to blame this on God, as I would to blame this on the ignorance and irrationality of Man. I think you were hinting at this in your sarcastical way (:)), but it should be known how ridiculous the love for God is. Now, people, I don’t condemn your religion, so chill out. I just am exposing how ridiculous it is, there is a big difference.

So do I really think belief in god comes down to being a weakness? yes it’s an inherent human weakness.

In my very humble and drunk opinion, this is where your post (thought) should spring from. This is obviously the point you are trying to make, so it should be brought out first. I agree with you, I just don’t think the old arguments need to be rehashed (although we are in a religious forum ).

In my other very humble and drunk opinion, anyone who believes in God or any other religion (or superstition) should concede this fcat with regards to human experience and logic. If this precursory claim be challeneged, the whole argument is moot, because we all know we cannot change the core of a person. The war of rationality is won on the fringe, not the camps. Patent pending, j/k.

I mean think about it logically. What if Kurt Warner had said “Thank you Allah!” do you think christians would freak out? I do. and more so if he had said “Thank you Zeus!”. any god is a crutch, the only thing that changes is the name of god, he’s still the same internal support no matter what.

Sam Harris said this (as probably did we all for our philosophical lives), and we are all the smarter for it. Anyone who realizes the equality of religions is soon apt to realize their invalidity/interchangeability. Where this epiphany takes us is the most important thing.

What about reincarnation? well it’s a nice idea that our souls live “forever” or “a really long time” but what is the point?

Although you stray and generalize, your point remains intact. But any justification given can be negated by the idea of the earthquake. So, you Karma believers, you believe that Karma has given its just desserts? The meanies were at ground zero, the almost meanies were near ground zero, the alrighties were kinda far away, and the goodies were far away. These are the famed “administrative problems” of Karma, as told by Joseph Butler ( I think).

Can god still be plugged into the humanus, if one chooses? yes, but it will create a spiritua imbalance because anyone who believes in god, ends up making god their ultimate focus of life. well it’s not to say that “god” will create an imbalance, a god controlled by religion will.

I completely disagree with you here. God (or whatever you call it) cannot be entered into the equation. Any spirituality or, as Harris would call it, mysticism, should be as Communism is. No leader, no head. Only it. Only what is. Only spirituality in itself. The fact that humans need something above and beyond spirituality is a testament to the poverty of our imagination (Plato, Russell). Let’s just be religious, you know? Why foul it up with leaders, Gods, Pontiffs, Nuns, Monks, Shammans, etc…? Let’s just take spirituality, and have some empirical fun with it.

[i]It’s important for all of humanity to be joined together, for only by being a joint social group can we stop the senseless violence and wars and overcome senseless greed.

alone we are nothing, together we are humanus.[/i]

In short, I am glad you ended with this. Not because your post sucked, which it didn’t, but because it gave us a launching pad.

Again, forgive the choppiness and lameness of this, and don’t think me too blunt, scythekain. Cuz I am drunk as hell right now.

Sincerely,

Floyd

[tentative]

D of E,

Given your response to my last post, I’m not quite sure why you’re posting in this thread. Examine closely and I think you will find that most of posts are highly skeptical of anything or anyone claiming to know the ‘word of god’. Scythekain started this thread based on the assumption that there is no ‘written word of god’ and we’ve moved from there. ???

Hi Floyd,

Drunk or not, glad to see you back again. Thought maybe you fallen off the edge…

MB,

Hang in there. Can you see that the issue has been shifted from your original thought to squabbling about religion again for the umpteenth time?
This is why I suggested that we need an answer to why? before we set out to establish a system of ethical behavior.

I understand that you can live without mythology, but the majority of the folks can’t. Did you catch my thread on being an is-ist? It was poorly presented, but was an attempt to allow a simple one word mythology that would allow us to get on with the how shall we live? questions. I know that it would take some effort, but I’m convinced that the myth has to be established first. The myth establishes our waypoint on the map. This is where I am, who I am, and why I’m here. Having said that, I can now enter the discussion on how best to live my life to reflect that understanding.

Perhaps another way of saying this is, we have to find and give a reason for existence that remove’s our guilt for having sentience in the first place. (Iknow, I know, but…)

JT

[Dust_of_the_earth]

The true path is Yahshua (Hebrew for God’s Saviour Jesus). Religion as we know it, is definitely not to be called “the true path”.

scythekain, do you attempt to deceive, or are you deceived? You’ve added a bit of truth to a construct of your own mind. This is a sly form of deception. I believe in an existing Satan, who is called the serpent (Genesis 3:1; Revelation 12:9); who has power with devils and men (Matthew 12:22; I Peter 5:8 ); who has a people who will not hear God (John 8:44-47), some of whom deceive people as "ministers of righteousness" (II Corinthians 11:13-15).
scythekain, perhaps your intentions are good, but when your writtings are measured against the Holy Word of God…your failings become quite apparent. I accept what is in-line with the Word, and round file the rest of it.

[Dust_of_the_earth]

@tentative

Scythekain started this thread based on the assumption that there is no ‘written word of god’ and we’ve moved from there. ???

What this assumption suggests is that men can constuct a true religion. I simply point out the fallacy in this…in the midst of a few side bar distractions as well.

[Bob]

Hi Dust,

I believe in an existing Satan

I am afraid this is where the truth comes to bear. This is the real problem that you and you fellows unfortunately have to sort out amongst you. In fact, I sometimes think that your faith in Satan is stronger that Dr. Satanical, who at least has (admittedly deplorable) reasons.

I accept what is in-line with the Word, and round file the rest of it.

Which will lead you into a whole bunch of problems, but you will probably assume that this is just in keeping with the apocalyptic visions you are so fond of. I bet you read those rapture novels and can’t wait for the last in the series…

If it wasn’t so sad I would laugh!

Shalom
Bob

[Dust_of_the_earth]

@Bob

Hi Dust,
Quote:
I believe in an existing Satan

I am afraid this is where the truth comes to bear. This is the real problem that you and you fellows unfortunately have to sort out amongst you. In fact, I sometimes think that your faith in Satan is stronger that Dr. Satanical, who at least has (admittedly deplorable) reasons.

Bob, good to hear from you, it’s been a few days. Please dont confuse my belief that Satan exists, with a faith in him. This sort of confusion could lead one to make bash and unjust assumptions.

@Bob

If it wasn’t so sad I would laugh!

What do you find amusingly sad…that I measure all things using God’s Word, or the misrepresentation that I read rapture novels?

[Bob]

Hi Dust,
now that was a quick answer …

What do you find amusingly sad…

Have you ever asked yourself what is not in line with the Bibel? There is a multitude of topics not even touched by scripture - not even remotely.

Biblical criticism cannot simply be brushed aside by any serious student who seeks a better understanding of the Bible. The various methods of study all serve the purpose of discovering what the inspired authors of the Bible were saying. To understand the relevance of the Bible for today we need to first determine what relevance it had back then when various parts of it originated, developed, and were eventually written down. As the New American Bible puts it, the Bible is both God’s word and man’s. To understand God’s messages in the Bible we have to first understand the words of the men who wrote them.

One important fact for me is that much of the Bible is made up of Mythology. Some say that mythology is fiction but if you follow this quote, you will see that it is not so:
"What is myth?
A starting point for looking at the nature of myths is to say that myths are stories shared by a group, and which are a part of their cultural identity. As such, they are important to understand when looking at the history of a people. There is no completely satisfactory definition of myth*, although many of the world’s greatest thinkers have provided partial answers.

* They are often stories of origins, how the world and everything in it came to be in illo tempore (Eliade).
* Sometimes they are public dreams which, like private dreams, emerge from the unconscious mind (Freud).
* Indeed, they often reveal the archetypes of the collective unconscious (Jung).
* They orient people to the metaphysical dimension, explain the origins and nature of the cosmos, validate social issues, and, on the psychological plane, address themselves to the innermost depths of the psyche (Campbell).
* Some of them are explanatory, being prescientific attempts to interpret the natural world (Frazer).
* Religious myths are sacred histories (Eliade)
* They are both individual and social in scope, but they are first and foremost stories (Kirk).

To help define myth, people often compare myth with science and religion. Usually, this comparison is unfavorable and myth is relegated to the area of lies.

Myth vs. Science
Questions closely related to the nature of myth are “what is truth?” and “how do we know anything?” It seems fair to say that myth is not the same as scientific fact, but what exactly does even that mean? If we look at one of the ancient Greek creation stories, the world was originally Chaos. From Chaos suddenly Order appeared, and from the conflict between the two of them, all else in the world was created. Did the Greeks think of this as the literal truth? How would they know for sure? Perhaps they extrapolated from their observations and powers of reasoning to construct this world view as an allegory. Paul Veyne in Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths? writes:
“Myth is truthful, but figuratively so. It is not historical truth mixed with lies; it is a high philosophical teaching that is entirely true, on the condition that, instead of taking it literally, one sees in it an allegory.”

How different is this allegory from the Big Bang Theory with its inexplicable components? Instead of an explosive force originating out of nowhere but coming from within the cosmic soup, the Greeks had some kind of primeval disorganized and chaotic soup with the principle of order suddenly asserting itself.
Maybe we should say that myth is like scientific – not knowledge, but – theory. That would work for some myth, like the creation out of Chaos, but it won’t work when we examine the supernatural stories that appear to defy scientific knowledge, like the story of the chthonic creature Hercules tried to wrestle. Every time Hercules hurled Antaeus to the ground, he became stronger. Clearly this is what we might politely call a tall story. But maybe there is a scientific logic behind it. What if Antaeus had some sort of magnet (you can invent the scenario) that made him stronger each time he hit the earth and weaker when held away from his power source? Or how about Cerberus, the three-headed hound guarding the Underworld? There are two-headed people. We call them Siamese or Conjoined Twins. Why not three-headed beasts? And, as far as the Underworld goes, some of the stories of the Underworld mention a cave at the western edge of the world that was thought to lead downwards. While there could be some scientific basis for this, even if there isn’t, is this story any more a “lie” to be scoffed at than “Journey to the Center of the Earth”? Yet people dismiss such myths as lies created by primitive people who lack scientific knowledge – or as lies created by people who haven’t found the true religion."
ancienthistory.about.com/cs/grec … ismyth.htm

If you then look at the modern practise amongst fundamentalist Christians to paraphrase parts of the Bible - especially Revelations - you find that they are latching onto visionary language, which is a means of misleading people. On another note, this misleading goes on in many fields. The fundamentalist is fond of using words like life, death, truth, wisdom, and, of course, love, but they don’t carry the accepted, consensual meaning when he uses them. Life and death refer to life in Christ or death to Christ, and become terms denoting belief or unbelief in Christ. Wisdom, rather than a collection of reliable truths, refers to the level of commitment to the fundamentalist system of beliefs. The word love is used so freely in fundamentalist commercials to attract confused, frightened, and friendless people to an institution promising something people have been deprived of and yearn for all their lives. It soon becomes apparent that the human love they seek is not the love of the fundamentalist, who uses the word “love” to refer to an unquestioning obedience to God in return for the promise of everlasting life. In addition to this, the human love originally sought is gradually undermined as being inferior, untrustworthy, not to mention unsatisfying when compared to the love of God.

Some of the things I hear from fundamentalist Christians are funny at first, until I look into them - then they make me sad.

Shalom
Bob