Knowledge and Religion (paradise, Buddhism, Buddha, church)

[cb2008]

There is strange relationship between Religion and Knowledge. Often there is an attempt to forbid it. Adam and Eve were banned from paradise for eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Expressing doubt can have you declared a heretic and thrown out. Scriptures warn about teaching to the doubtful, to be silent when approached with doubt and argument. Faith is demanded. The scriptures were kept off the hands of the lower caste. The Vedas were recited orally and passed down from teachers to students. Even the Upanishads requires qualifications for those who approach its teachings.

Do you think doubters deserve to be heard, tolerated, taught? Why?
Do you think only those why approach asking for knowledge be taught?

[Thoreau424]

Most of what you're referring to is from the earliest reaches of the Bible (the Adam and Eve stuff, tree of knowledge, etc), and hardly applicable in the Christian realm, thousands of years later. And the rest of the stuff is extraneous bellyaching from the church and religion, not from Jesus' words or direction.

Jesus worked with people who doubted. He understood the need to understand, and took the time to explain matters. Anyone and everyone is open to ask, doubt, explore, wonder, pursue, investigate, etc. The church might not like that, but Jesus and spirituality had (and has) no issue.

Since the post started off in a Judaic-Christian sense, I continued the line of thought with that group. Hopefully we'll get more comments along the lines of other groups too. Buddhism and Taoism certainly invite and welcome learning.

Knowledge good, religion bad. But even better than knowledge is understanding and wisdom. You could be full of information and "knowledge", and yet be brain dead in interpreting it or applying it usefully.

[Arach Angle]

I think the ones with no doubt shouldn't be teaching.

[ukrkoz]

cb, you do not understand, how "knowledge" works.
Knowledge is not necessary for progression. Open mind is.
One that ascended, can have knowledge about anything, by concentrating his attention, into a point, on subject of his interest. Then, instantly, entire truth about it is revealed by The Light of Intelligence.

In this manner, one needs zero knowledge, as it is understood by humans.
It is, pretty much, garbage, ballast, cluttering mind and dragging Self down.
One, that ascended, like Buddha, is IN The Light. Entire true knowledge of everything is in him, as it is the Light, and he is IN IT. There is no need for any books, secret scriptures, kabals, and so on, humanity came up with usually, to some sort of benefit of those, who proclaimed themselves guardians or, one and only in the know, of such "knowledge".
But, I am perfectly sure, that you will not listen and keep loading yourself with more and more of "knowledge"
Also, to answer your question. True knowledge is very dangerous, when is falls into hands of feeble minded person. As, it makes that person a god, grants him godlike powers. That person can turn universes upside down. Adam, who was formed from the dust of earth and only in god's image, NOT likeness, was not ready for such knowledge.

[highplainsrus]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I think the ones with no doubt shouldn't be teaching.

Some of them flat refuse to answer questions or just ignore them.
But then I suppose the questions are not meaningful to the teacher.
Or the teacher doubts they know the answer.
Surely a teacher asks questions themselves. Maybe not.
Anybody out here a teacher?

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by highplainsrus

Some of them flat refuse to answer questions or just ignore them.
But then I suppose the questions are not meaningful to the teacher.
Or the teacher doubts they know the answer.
Surely a teacher asks questions themselves. Maybe not.
Anybody out here a teacher?

was

I'm not quite clear on what your question is.

But one thing I later learned as a principal is that there are teachers who don't value learning themselves.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by cb2008

There is strange relationship between Religion and Knowledge. Often there is an attempt to forbid it. Adam and Eve were banned from paradise for eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil. Expressing doubt can have you declared a heretic and thrown out. Scriptures warn about teaching to the doubtful, to be silent when approached with doubt and argument. Faith is demanded. The scriptures were kept off the hands of the lower caste. The Vedas were recited orally and passed down from teachers to students. Even the Upanishads requires qualifications for those who approach its teachings.

Do you think doubters deserve to be heard, tolerated, taught? Why?
Do you think only those why approach asking for knowledge be taught?

I think that you may find three schools of though on that and never the twain of them shall meet, except on the polemical battlefield.

Rationalism says that everything is open to question. Religion says either that one can think, doubt and question within the religious box (1) or that one cannot or should not doubt or question, within the religious box.

(1) Christians (I'm talking about those as it is Christian apologists I have most experience with) have protested that they do 'think'. But I say it is questioning about Christianity, not Of Christianity.

[Arach Angle]

Originally Posted by highplainsrus

Some of them flat refuse to answer questions or just ignore them.
But then I suppose the questions are not meaningful to the teacher.
Or the teacher doubts they know the answer.
Surely a teacher asks questions themselves. Maybe not.
Anybody out here a teacher?

to a teacher, the leaner/teacher roles are the same thing. It truly aligns with that oneness thing. I actually think of a classroom as a sacturay. It is one place where agenda's should be put down and everybody gets a fair chance to list on the board what they think. And we all look at it.

Where things start to stratify is what happens after that. Its when we start applying weights to the observations.

to me, and this is strictly personal, I teacher knows when to not be totally honest. What I mean by that is that we can't say "your not right because ...", we say "Ok, I see that, but what about this ...." and let them go.

we list things like: and ask the student "what is the basis for what you are saying?

1) ammunition to a group that sees their religion in everything
2)It doesn't matter what the reality is in these discussions.
3)Nobody's being converted or de-converted.
4) are really thinly-veiled attempts at starting a discussion meant to either trap an atheist
5)The fact there's already countless threads where the unexplained and unknown gets twisted

vs

1)"science of how the universe works"
2) the science of: people's brain state: personality disorders

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by ukrkoz

But, I am perfectly sure, that you will not listen and keep loading yourself with more and more of "knowledge"
Also, to answer your question. True knowledge is very dangerous, when is falls into hands of feeble minded person. As, it makes that person a god, grants him godlike powers. That person can turn universes upside down. Adam, who was formed from the dust of earth and only in god's image, NOT likeness, was not ready for such knowledge.

So after denying the value of knowledge you claim there is some thing called TRUE KNOWLEDGE. Whatever. So you think it right to deny knowledge to those you deem unworthy.

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by Arach Angle

I think the ones with no doubt shouldn't be teaching.

Interesting. I believe it is true that the best way to learn something is to teach. One needs to really be sure of the subject matter in order to teach well. How does doubt help teaching?