Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes. I have often read here about believers cherry-picking parts of the Bible and, honestly, I can't really fault them because I find that a very human thing to do. There is so much information in our world and not everything can be significant and meaningful, only a select few things really can be at any given moment. And that is where language comes in. We speak about the things that are meaningful to us and ignore the rest. We speak about the things that can be separated from others by defining them and ignore the things that we can't separate or ignore the things that we see no purpose for separating them. The unambiguous black-and-white beliefs come from the parts that are meaningful and that can be separated from other things. The rest goes unquoted.
And I wondered, can I do better? Can I deal with ambiguous parts of the text and understand why it was this way? Is this ambiguous condition temporary which knowledge eventually makes clear or is it meant to always be unclear. It is interesting that you bring up literal and figurative meaning because this is where I suspected was the key to answering my questions.
You can't fault something that is a "very human thing to do?"
Sorry but I have some trouble with this sort of "pass" when it comes to all too many "very human things" we humans do that should not get such a pass.
How do you, we -- anyone -- do better if we can't fault people for all the things we humans do that are simply not right? Everything we humans do is because we are humans, but we can't fault humans for doing what they do because they are humans?
History particularly is not. it is not just about dates, often even that cannot be exactly established. it is also the lense through which one is seeing. Post Colonial version of history speaks a different truth when it finally speaks.
Sorry, but this too is not being properly understood...
Yes of course how history is written and/or recorded is something of a subjective matter, but this does not mean there is not what actually happened objectively speaking. What actually happened no matter how the alternative is written. Alternative versions about how the indigenous people were treated when the colonists arrived in America, South America, for example. All over the world. There is what actually happened in Nazi Germany, regardless who decides to tell the tale. There is what actually happened on January 6 at the U.S. Capital, and on and on...
Our job is not to point at all the challenges that work to keep us from knowing the truth. Our job, if any real progress is to be made (AKA not repeating our mistakes) is to distill what is the truth as best we can from all sources we deem helpful in this regard. What I sometimes refer to as "triangulating for the truth."
Believe it not possible, and all is lost. Strive for the truth despite the challenges, and we have a fighting chance to make the sort of progress I try to describe in my Ten Truths. Also what I call the "slow maturing of man."
When we lean toward "cherry picking" whatever facts or truth that "support our dogma" we are again veering in that direction driven by bias and prejudice that is NOT the sort of objective critical thinking I advocate. As I have noted along these lines many times before as well, we should want the truth and nothing but the truth REGARDLESS how it makes us feel. REGARDLESS how it fits whatever we WANT to believe.
Objective reason is not driven by personal wants and desires. This is a great challenge, no question, because we humans are full of wants and desires, but ultimately there are methods of establishing the truth that can and do overcome those challenges. Again this is an important part of how we make progress despite the ignorance that tends to retard that progress.
I don't really agree with your view of cherry picking.
Yes, it can result in what you're pointing out.
But on the other side of things, we can take any religion and there's essentially a choice between accepting it all, lock, stock, and barrel (as the old saying goes) VERSUS selectively looking for wisdom. I don't think there's any intelligence demonstrated by a person who simply accepts everything in the bible (or for that matter the Tipitaka). I go back to the line from the old film "Inherit The Wind", and it's one of my favorites: "The bible is a book. It's a good book, but it's not the only book".
I don't really agree with your view of cherry picking.
Yes, it can result in what you're pointing out.
But on the other side of things, we can take any religion and there's essentially a choice between accepting it all, lock, stock, and barrel (as the old saying goes) VERSUS selectively looking for wisdom. I don't think there's any intelligence demonstrated by a person who simply accepts everything in the bible (or for that matter the Tipitaka). I go back to the line from the old film "Inherit The Wind", and it's one of my favorites: "The bible is a book. It's a good book, but it's not the only book".
I recall your version of "cherry picking" that can be considered positive rather than negative, but I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing...
Of course if we want to convince someone about all the great reasons to visit Thailand, for example, we might be inclined to only mention all the wonderful places and reasons to visit Thailand. Tourist offices are perfect examples of where we'll find this sort of expected "cherry picking" that is not the sort of bad thing I'm referring to (though even here tourists should be told about the negatives too).
When it comes to any matter of consequence, like say a trial involving a judge and jury, I'm referring to the need for objective consideration by the judge and jury to arrive at the truth despite all the "cherry picking" of facts the prosecuting and defense attorneys are expected to present in a manner that is the opposite of objective. In this context, relying only on "cherry picked" facts and evidence is a bad thing. A very bad thing.
All facts as best they can be established need to be considered in an objective (unbiased) fashion. To the greatest extent possible. That's all.
These are your ten truths. People can agree with some part of it and not others. In a sense this is your personal voodoo, only true for you. Just like other peoples beliefs are true for them. Since you are not them you can only speculate on their motives and experiences. That's why your truths are not and can not be valid for those who disagree with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
TEN TRUTHS
ONE: There are essentially two realities for all human beings. One reality is as we perceive it to be, our personal reality. The second reality is all that truly exists in the universe, the same for all of us. Our universal truth.
TWO: Human beings cannot know all that exists in the universe. The universe is forever in flux, full of mystery that will forever be marveled and explored by Man as long as he survives.
THREE: The first reality for human beings manifests itself in all the great many beliefs and faiths throughout the world; from Astrology to Zoraoastianism. Many books also stem from these beliefs; the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, Speaking of Faith, The Celestine Prophecy, the Book of Mormon and others. These are the books about men such as Jesus, Mohammad, Moses and Joseph Smith.
FOUR: The second reality, all that exists in the universe, known or unknown, is disclosed to Man most accurately and peacefully by way of well documented history (rather than religious books) and empirical science (rather than theology). Universal truth is all we can accept as reality, the truth, with the most certainty and least conflict. What we can all most reasonably accept as true for all concerned.
FIVE: Faith is spawned from the human inclination to speculate or suppose beyond universal truth as determined and defined by science. Such notions, religions, often involve spirituality or a belief in an energy, power or force. A belief in a deity, god or gods, the supernatural. These notions that go beyond common human awareness are typically based or recognized more by emotions and feelings rather than facts, reason and logic. They typically call for faith rather than proof, all stemming from personal experience rather than common observation or scientific verification.
SIX: Man's ability to theorize is a faculty that allows Man to advance toward greater awareness and understanding of universal truth. The theoretical guides Man to further scientific discovery. However, when conjecture about the supernatural leads to faith and religious inculcation rather facts, reason and logic, great harm can and does come to Man instead. This is because the great majority of people still today cannot accept the confines of science. Instead conjecture is continuously promoted as truth ultimately to the point of creating profound divisions between people resulting in great conflict, violence and war still raging to this day; the Crusades, Protestants v Catholics, Jews v Muslims, Shiites v Sunnis.
SEVEN: The alternative skeptical challenge and test of faith to limit spiritual conjecture is to foster a greater respect for the truth as currently defined or understood by science. Science is the most universally accepted effort to arrive at truth with no agenda other than greater knowledge and understanding of universal truth for all human beings. This path or quest of scientific discovery offers the way to peace instead of the sure madness that arises from the significant amount of conflict between differing faiths. As Man learns to universally accept both the great promise and reasonable limits of what science can teach, the source of conflict between Man is diminished, the path toward progress cleared and the prospect of peace improved.
EIGHT: Science fosters the peace of a universal patience and acceptance of our common condition and experience as humans. Faith forbids followers to question thus retarding Man's progress. Science encourages inquiry thus expanding Man's awareness and enlightenment. Faith typically deems any question about God's existence as evil in nature, not to be tolerated. Science has no such restrictions or judgement. Accordingly, there is no manner in which to reconcile these two competing approaches toward revealing Man's universal truth.
NINE: Faith can and does promote goodwill between some people. Creation of beautiful places of worship, help for those in need, community and comfort through difficult times. Even a code of conduct necessary for some to be moral. Yes of course, but with the good there is no need for the bad or falsehoods. Truth is best realized and peace most successfully promoted as more people patiently accept and embrace Man's common reality as revealed, defined and/or revised by science. The movement toward this patience and acceptance very slowly growing from one century to the next is the maturing of Man. His best chance for lasting peace and true understanding of all that exists in the universe, proven or yet to be proven.
TEN: People of faith will deny if not condemn these truths for many reasons; from fear of god to fear of no god. Fear of death to fear of Hell. Typically beginning with the significant influence of inculcation at a young impressionable age, the subsequent effects of confirmation bias over time, development of ego and bigotry all prevent objective reason and logic to prevail for Man as quickly as it should. Instead the condemnation persists even to this day much like when Galileo was even imprisoned for attempting to overcome these same obstacles centuries ago. Much like the Jesuits denounced Elvis Presley. Much like Harry Potter books are banned in Catholic schools today. The ignorance and intolerance persists. Much like the ongoing effort to overcome the ills of racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia that also still persist today, the effort to overcome these backward ways very slowly and painfully is the progress of Man that each generation represents better than the last.
These are your ten truths. People can agree with some part of it and not others. In a sense this is your personal voodoo, only true for you. Just like other peoples beliefs are true for them. Since you are not them you can only speculate on their motives and experiences. That's why your truths are not and can not be valid for those who disagree with you.
I've got to sign off now and even if I didn't need to go, I can easily agree with all you explain here...
Also as I have explained many times before, I'm interested in whatever causes anyone to feel any of my truths are not true, correct, and why. The sort of general claims you make are all well and good, just like someone might argue that any writing is the opinion of the author. Yes of course, but what about the merit of the truths (or whatever anyone wants to call them). What do you agree with more specifically and what would you argue is not true far as you are concerned? Even better if you explain why you think so!
This is what interests me over the obvious you have chosen to explain instead...
I agree with the first two. Disagree with the rest. I'm not sure why you would want to know why, I doubt you are open to change your views. Maybe you want to debate, so you can change others' views, which would be a waste of time. You have posted your beliefs, there's nothing more you can add. There's no one to convince. You can only preach to the choir who share your views.
Suffice it to say your reasoning lacks the experience of others, so you have nothing to discuss about their experiences and beliefs other than your views and opinions, which are irrelevant to them.
I don't agree faith is speculation. For those who really believe it's a matter of experience.
You haven't experienced it so you are like a blind man speculating about the color red. No one can teach true belief, it has to come from within a person based on that person's experience. And it's a waste of time to share those experiences because you would just look for a way to rationalize them to fit your views. I guess you will just have to wait for your own epiphany, but here's no way to tell if it will come or not. Wait and see is the only advice I can give you.
I agree the universe is unknowable. I disagree that science makes it more knowable, it just reveals another layer of an infinite onion, the current view.
Anyone with real faith doesn't reject science. They recognize it's strengths and weaknesses. There is no conflict between belief and science. Only with believers and non-believers. There is no need to pick a side, nor would it make any sense to do so. You have created a false premise so you can argue against it. Face it, you are not a seeker of truth, you just want others to believe you are right. How can you judge the merits of beliefs and opinions about something you already claimed is unknowable? It's nonsensical to try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I've got to sign off now and even if I didn't need to go, I can easily agree with all you explain here...
Also as I have explained many times before, I'm interested in whatever causes anyone to feel any of my truths are not true, correct, and why. The sort of general claims you make are all well and good, just like someone might argue that any writing is the opinion of the author. Yes of course, but what about the merit of the truths (or whatever anyone wants to call them). What do you agree with more specifically and what would you argue is not true far as you are concerned? Even better if you explain why you think so!
This is what interests me over the obvious you have chosen to explain instead...
I have pointed this out before, but I guess I will have to again:
I have not seen any post where LearnMe has said everyone should agree with him.
I have not seen any post where he has stated he might be wrong and others might be right either. He's actually pretty condescending, fairly passive aggressive, in his guise as a seeker of truth. Kind of a troll if the truth be told.
These are your ten truths. People can agree with some part of it and not others. In a sense this is your personal voodoo, only true for you. Just like other peoples beliefs are true for them. Since you are not them you can only speculate on their motives and experiences. That's why your truths are not and can not be valid for those who disagree with you.
Oooh, I like that, personal voodoo.
Since there can be only one truth that is true for each of us there cannot be any universal truth.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
