|
The Belief Spectrum (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
i'm not. that's the point.
the whole discussion is irrelevant if none of them are real - no superstition, no scientific theory. they're all metaphors or approximations, shadows. |
If that were the case, why are you banging on about "truth"? |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
If that were the case, why are you banging on about "truth"? |
because i think that is what life is about |
|
|
| enydo |
This may be a really dumb question, but truth of what exactly?
Of nature and our existence within it? |
|
|
| winston |
you lost me at god
if it has a label, it doesn't work :o
:p |
|
|
| daft_max |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
because i think that is what life is about |
ah, one of those life has to have a meaning folks. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
If that were the case, why are you banging on about "truth"? |
I think the point he's trying to make is that truth does exist, we just haven't found it. I get the impression that Nefardec's view on the nature of god is more akin to the Hindu concept of Brahman then it is to any of the other great religions.... Brahman being the "ultimate reality" of which everything is part. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think the point he's trying to make is that truth does exist, we just haven't found it. I get the impression that Nefardec's view on the nature of god is more akin to the Hindu concept of Brahman then it is to any of the other great religions.... Brahman being the "ultimate reality" of which everything is part. |
well, i think its rather obvious that truth exists, wouldn't you agree? i always considered truth a pre-requisite for existence. im just not a fan of all the flowery new-age "metaphors and approximations" i guess; i mean, its a bit weird to talk about such whilst making comments like this:
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
hence 'truly spiritual'
people who buy into and spread any dogma are deluded imo, and spiritual for me means 'lover of ultimate truth'. |
if everything is only an approximation, then how can one be considered "truly spiritual" or not? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
the teachings of christ say to be like christ - the message is that every person should strive to be a mystic, to experience god directly for himself, within himself. |
More the latter then the former... the teachings of Jesus suggest that we are all divine or perhaps part of the divine. Additionally, he taught that we can experience our divinity most fully in the service of others. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Additionally, he taught that we can experience our divinity most fully in the service of others. |
that's strange, because i experience the divine most often by servicing myself! :tongue2 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well, i think its rather obvious that truth exists, wouldn't you agree? i always considered truth a pre-requisite for existence. im just not a fan of all the flowery new-age "metaphors and approximations" i guess; i mean, its a bit weird to talk about such whilst making comments like this:
if everything is only an approximation, then how can one be considered "truly spiritual" or not? |
I have to agree that truth does exist if for no other reason that the universe is governed by logic and arguing that truth does not exist is illogical. I would also agree that if one concedes that we do not know the truth then no one can be "truly" anything. That said I think we got into a bit of a diction problem here... my presumption is that the use of the word truly in "truly spiritual" was probably intended to refer to motives rather then validity; thus, I read "truly spiritual" as a person being interested in discovering truth as opposed to pleasing god in hopes of gaining god's favor. |
|
|
| elFreak |
| When i was younger and more "controversial" (see: immature), i would make it a point to go out of my way to try and debunk anyone's personal beliefs, simply because I thought that needing absolute proof to be able to believe in something was essential. The older I get, the more i have seemed to move away from this. I am not a pious man by any means, but the bottom line to me is that i see how religion makes some people happy, therefore it can not be that bad. Everyone needs something to believe in, and this line of thought does not only apply to religion. Let people that are happy be happy imo. |
|
|
|
|
