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.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Are we not allowed to use the same words to describe a "holy book" as we would any other literature that was obviously written by men, and (just as obviously) contains many things that were included to make a point, weave a story, send a message... but were not based in historical fact? Why is it OK to recognize the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, Call of the Wild, and Harry Potter as fiction (without any aspersions being cast).... but not the Bible, Torah or Quran? And how about more recent works that lack the patina of antiquity, like The Book of Mormon or Dianetics? Since they have now been adopted by millions, are we no longer able to acknowledge the obvious, that they were creative works written by very human hands?
Perhaps admitting something is fiction just doesn't carry the same negative implications for me. Whatever intrinsic value it contains is not diminished by that admission. But pretending it has been converted to something other than fiction, merely because it has been adopted as a religious text, DOES carry negative implications.
I think that's a very good post.
Through my work at the university, and then 33 years as an educator, I was constantly focusing on readings that were non-fiction. And then, after retiring, for the most part (with the exception of an occasional biography), I turned mostly to fiction. I actually admire fiction more than non-fiction. I don't see saying something is fiction as being a negative.
There is nothing larger, smarter, or alive. We are not connected to anything. That’s more bs assertions. Same as deistic assertions. Don’t assert. Describe the larger thing that you assert we are connected to, describe the exact nature of the connection. Tell us where it is, how you know it, and how we can detect it and measure it and test it. Otherwise, it’s the same as all other new age mysticism. Or, to use the technical term: BS.
this is where you are clearly wrong.
The larger: the biosphere. there is nothing I can do about that. I would love to dismiss it, but the facts says different.
"alive". again, the facts just don't support your claim. The biosphere is clearly better described as life over non life.
smarter, this is where you may have point. Are the nodes of complexity in the fields that are us exchanging information such that it is acting as an organism. Maybe not, in fact it doesn't look like information can be exchanged through the fields in large enough quantities to work as a unit. So I would lean towards no. The problem is that there is a host a science that support the notion as, at least, a reasonable position.
You denying that out of hand is actually more emotional BS than my position. And it has nothing to with a god thing.
Marc, it seems you are rejecting the facts for the position based on your emotional state and not actual science. If you have any data that you bring to the discussion using science I am willing to listen. But for now, you just are not bringing anything compelling for me to change my position.
You not liking mysticism isn't any more valuable to me that a theist wanting a god thingie to hold their hands. It seems you may just not like the cold hard facts.
The larger, more complex "thing" we are connected to, that you can see, is the biosphere. Its not a god thing nor is it a mystic belief. How ever, we are part of it and as such it has some properties.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Are we not allowed to use the same words to describe a "holy book" as we would any other literature that was obviously written by men, and (just as obviously) contains many things that were included to make a point, weave a story, send a message... but were not based in historical fact? Why is it OK to recognize the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, Call of the Wild, and Harry Potter as fiction (without any aspersions being cast).... but not the Bible, Torah or Quran? And how about more recent works that lack the patina of antiquity, like The Book of Mormon or Dianetics? Since they have now been adopted by millions, are we no longer able to acknowledge the obvious, that they were creative works written by very human hands?
Perhaps admitting something is fiction just doesn't carry the same negative implications for me. Whatever intrinsic value it contains is not diminished by that admission. But pretending it has been converted to something other than fiction, merely because it has been adopted as a religious text, DOES carry negative implications.
since books are what is being discussed, i am pointing out the standard and the system used by libraries in classifying books.
Holy books and books on religion are categorized as non-fiction.
If that is objectionable to you, then perhaps exploring further on your own how and why libraries classify books the way they do would help address your questions and concerns.
There is a difference (between holy books and the titles you mentioned above).
You may not see, acknowledge, recognize, value, or accept the difference.
But there is a difference.
i would posit that the library classification system is more credible, less biased, and without the emotional baggage of a specific agenda. It is a way of sorting and classifying and presenting information. Not passing judgment on "positive" or "negative."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-09-2020 at 02:28 PM..
yes. that is correct. i agree.
that is why a statement like "as long as we agree it's fiction" (post #2174)
is not valid.
because no, we do not agree. There is NOT agreement that it is fiction.
a person can describe their own view, which you did.
and the library system of classification is an academic and professional standard that is widely used.
world wide. Books on religion and holy books are classified as non-fiction.
It has long seemed to me that you are a cheerleader for all that is mystical.
The problem is that the holy books of christianity, and Hindusim, and Buddhism, and Satanism are not compatible. They can't all be true. You can't say that the christian god said, "Let there be no other gods before me", and then say that Hinduism is equally valid, or that the Buddhist philosophy, which generally does not claim a god at all, is equally valid.
And by the way, just for the record, are you referring to the Dewey Decimal System or the LOC system of classification? And just because a bunch of librarians decided back in the 1800s that there was a particular way to classify books doesn't exactly mean that every aspect of that system is valid.
Maybe that's part of the problem. Are we not allowed to use the same words to describe a "holy book" as we would any other literature that was obviously written by men, and (just as obviously) contains many things that were included to make a point, weave a story, send a message... but were not based in historical fact? Why is it OK to recognize the Epic of Gilgamesh, The Iliad, Call of the Wild, and Harry Potter as fiction (without any aspersions being cast).... but not the Bible, Torah or Quran? And how about more recent works that lack the patina of antiquity, like The Book of Mormon or Dianetics? Since they have now been adopted by millions, are we no longer able to acknowledge the obvious, that they were creative works written by very human hands?
Perhaps admitting something is fiction just doesn't carry the same negative implications for me. Whatever intrinsic value it contains is not diminished by that admission. But pretending it has been converted to something other than fiction, merely because it has been adopted as a religious text, DOES carry negative implications.
excellent points heel. holy books being fiction, the word god, mystic looking claims, just don't carry the negative connotations with me. There is no baggage for me. I can use those words interchangeably with other words to try and get my point across to the person I am talking to. I can use words that they have experience with to set up a firm base for them so that they reach just a little bit further in processing what we say.
Its just sound teaching to use what the audience knows so they can take a step in learning as comfortably as possible. I know we don't have to be "comfy", but the end game is learning so they can be the best they can be. With or without a belief isn't the primary goal for some of us. Its more about having the chance to self correct oneself over time.
In this instance, Trans, I believe Arach already provided the clarification I needed to grasp the point (whether I agree with it or not). I think this one is a simple (again, if anything can ever be simple?) matter of communication. To wit:
If we define/understand "The Universe" to include all of it's component parts as separable entities, down to the level of individual humans living on one of its many orbiting rocks (Planet Earth), then one can plausibly say "the Universe cares for you." This is shorthand for "one tiny little fragment of the Universe probably loves you, even if its just your Mum!"
At least that's how I understand it. Have said, I will likely continue to think of (and discuss) "the Universe" as a huge collection of inanimate rocks, none of which cares for me.
that is exactly what I said. And like I said, volumes of the universe relative to the size of you can lead to some misunderstandings. Like the universe, as a whole, caring about you. It doesn't care any more about you then you care about a single red blood cell in you. In fact, you hope they die.
It has long seemed to me that you are a cheerleader for all that is mystical.
The problem is that the holy books of christianity, and Hindusim, and Buddhism, and Satanism are not compatible. They can't all be true. You can't say that the christian god said, "Let there be no other gods before me", and then say that Hinduism is equally valid, or that the Buddhist philosophy, which generally does not claim a god at all, is equally valid.
And by the way, just for the record, are you referring to the Dewey Decimal System or the LOC system of classification? And just because a bunch of librarians decided back in the 1800s that there was a particular way to classify books doesn't exactly mean that every aspect of that system is valid.
"book of principles"
they are paths of principles. perspective. viewpoints.
as established earlier it is not true-false. that is a false dichotomy with regards to paths of religion and spirituality. it is not a multiple choice question with one right answer. it is an essay question where a person describes what best fits their life; they are different perspectives but not right or wrong, correct-incorrect. they are different flavors. each person discerns, chooses, which is most tasty and delicious and pleasing. Think "valid." the path that is valid for you. whereas another path is valid for someone else. Paths of religion and spirituality all address being in relationship with spirit, but differ in methods, instructions, practices.
It's like exercise or fitness. whether a person favors running or aerobics or swimming or tai chi or weight lifting. a person wouldn't say "they can't all be true." they are each valid forms of "physical fitness" or "exercise" practices to improve physical health, strength, stamina and well being. same with paths of religion and spirituality, there are a variety of methods, practices, instructions but each address "spiritual fitness" to improve spiritual health, strength, stamina and well being.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-09-2020 at 02:48 PM..
A human cell is intelligent. Because it is a part of an intelligent being. Absurd. An attribute of something contained within another cannot logically be inferred to the whole. To impute feelings to the universe because humans have feelings is incoherent.
And I’m pretty sure that’s not what he meant. It appears he actually meant that the universe exhibits emotions. Wooism. Nonsense.
and, of course, due to a clear lack of caring, you are wrong. I never said a cell has intellect.
I don't care that you don't understand marc. What is troubling is that you base you rejection of what I say based on you thinking what you know is enough. You just don't know enough to know your wrong about my claims.
"wooism nonsense" is not actual evidence. You changing what I said is more evidence than you claiming wooism is.
"book of principles"
they are paths of principles. perspective. viewpoints.
as established earlier it is not true-false. that is a false dichotomy with regards to paths of religion and spirituality. it is not a multiple choice question with one right answer. it is an essay question where a person describes what best fits their life; they are different perspectives but not right or wrong, correct-incorrect. they are different flavors. each person discerns, chooses, which is most tasty and delicious and pleasing.
and this is fine tzap. Until we start inserting deity things. I get the "thought pill" angle. Sometimes we need to insert "thoughts" that may not be "the truth" to help a person through this life like we insert "bad chemicals" in order to help people through an illness.
But I struggle when talking to people that do understand. People like me and you don't have to pretend a deity thing is around when we are talking to each other. We can talk about is this deity thing actually is. And of course, is not.
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.
