What is Religion? Question for practitioners (explanation, according, famous, hate)
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.
The unaware apparently cannot distinguish a flaw from a fly.
Gldn's analogy is apt. The esoteric literature refers to the "third eye" which few have been trained to know exists, let alone how to use it. They are blind to everything that it can "see" because they have never learned how to "see" through it! The over-reliance on our sensory system is what fosters this "blindness." Some p[people just naturally seem to have an awareness that "something" is there and they respond to it. Others remain blind.
Gldn's analogy is apt. The esoteric literature refers to the "third eye" which few have been trained to know exists, let alone how to use it. They are blind to everything that it can "see" because they have never learned how to "see" through it! The over-reliance on our sensory system is what fosters this "blindness." Some p[people just naturally seem to have an awareness that "something" is there and they respond to it. Others remain blind.
Understanding an analogy doesn't necessarily make it a good one. I once read somewhere that up to 1/3rd of people don't typically understand an analogy, but analogy or not, I've never had any trouble understanding that different people like different kinds of music, and that regardless those preferences, we can all easily agree the music is music regardless. It's the repetition of that analogy as if somehow so insightful that tends to leave some of us less than impressed while at the same time reason for applause by you and others. I mean really. What's new?
Who is deaf or blind along these lines also seems to be a never-ending matter all too often defined by whether someone is religious or not. Who is more in tune (pun intended) with the truth of these matters is again a matter of perspective. One that either promotes or stifles the ability to make the important distinctions that are important to make. About this at least, I for one am not blind.
Understanding an analogy doesn't necessarily make it a good one.
Yes, you could just swap religion for atheism and without proof of one of the many gods, claim 90% of people are blind. Even if one religion is true, that still means the others in the mutually exclusive groups* must be blind.
1) no gods. (atheism).
2) a creator god creating everything. Abrahamic religions, etc).
3) everything is a god. (Pantheism, etc).
4) our ultimate reality created gods. (Daoism).
This refutes the all paths lead to a god argument, and Goldie's assertion by analogy.
Yes, you could just swap religion for atheism and without proof of one of the many gods, claim 90% of people are blind. Even if one religion is true, that still means the others in the mutually exclusive groups* must be blind.
1) no gods. (atheism).
2) a creator god creating everything. Abrahamic religions, etc).
3) everything is a god. (Pantheism, etc).
4) our ultimate reality created gods. (Daoism).
This refutes the all paths lead to a god argument, and Goldie's assertion by analogy.
See, this is your error. You are equating the PATHS with the mountain! They are NOT! They are what is BELIEVED to be the PATH to the mountaintop. All of the paths can be wrong but they inevitably lead to the mountaintop because we all get there when we die.
Understanding an analogy doesn't necessarily make it a good one. I once read somewhere that up to 1/3rd of people don't typically understand an analogy, but analogy or not, I've never had any trouble understanding that different people like different kinds of music, and that regardless those preferences, we can all easily agree the music is music regardless. It's the repetition of that analogy as if somehow so insightful that tends to leave some of us less than impressed while at the same time reason for applause by you and others. I mean really. What's new?
Who is deaf or blind along these lines also seems to be a never-ending matter all too often defined by whether someone is religious or not. Who is more in tune (pun intended) with the truth of these matters is again a matter of perspective. One that either promotes or stifles the ability to make the important distinctions that are important to make. About this at least, I for one am not blind.
it is not sufficient to understand the concept presented as analogy. it is the matter of applying the analogy to the discussion and understand that. some people drop somewhere between the cup and lips.
Understanding an analogy doesn't necessarily make it a good one. I once read somewhere that up to 1/3rd of people don't typically understand an analogy, but analogy or not, I've never had any trouble understanding that different people like different kinds of music, and that regardless those preferences, we can all easily agree the music is music regardless. It's the repetition of that analogy as if somehow so insightful that tends to leave some of us less than impressed while at the same time reason for applause by you and others. I mean really. What's new? Who is deaf or blind along these lines also seems to be a never-ending matter all too often defined by whether someone is religious or not. Who is more in tune (pun intended) with the truth of these matters is again a matter of perspective. One that either promotes or stifles the ability to make the important distinctions that are important to make. About this at least, I for one am not blind.
so yes you agree that music is music regardless of the different types of music which have different names and different character.
so too, do those who recognize the sacred, agree that different religions all address the sacred regardless of the different names and different character.
music is music. and has a variety of different expressions.
sacred is sacred. and has a variety of different expressions.
if someone can't recognize the sacred, then they are blind to the sacred in different religions. they only see its outer form. it's like a deaf person looking at a CD case and using that to judge the music on the CD which they can't hear.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 11-09-2022 at 02:30 PM..
It pains me to think people believe a god or religion is necessary to love and serve fellow humans, or that there need be inspiration along those lines rather than just be good for goodness sake, but just as there are those who think people would be bad if not for their religion, I suppose being good because of religion is also a plus for religion if one wants to think this way. I sure don't.
I never said it was necessary. In fact, I've posted many times on here the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb2008
It seems to me you define religion by how it functions - love and service to community. You obviously see religion as part of your life, the way you live your life.
Would you say honoring God is the essence of Religion as you see it?
Do you understand religion the same way as you do other aspects that affect your life - such as politics, economy, race and gender issues etc? Or do you understand it as something internal to you and not like anything else - unique.
Religion is who I am and it is a part of me that defines everything else too.
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.
Gldn's analogy is apt. The esoteric literature refers to the "third eye" which few have been trained to know exists, let alone how to use it. They are blind to everything that it can "see" because they have never learned how to "see" through it! The over-reliance on our sensory system is what fosters this "blindness." Some p[people just naturally seem to have an awareness that "something" is there and they respond to it. Others remain blind.
