Philosophy Now Forum

I've been away and haven't read all the posts. Philosophy Explorer, has your question been answered yet? What is your feedback to the replies?

So, have we agreed that religion/s is/are based on myths ?
Asking the question 'what should it be based on' doesn't make any sense.

marjoram_blues wrote:I've been away and haven't read all the posts. Philosophy Explorer, has your question been answered yet? What is your feedback to the replies?

So, have we agreed that religion/s is/are based on myths ?
Asking the question 'what should it be based on' doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does.

In ancient days it was based on B.S and new science. Today, it is certainly not morals as any moral man would condemn Yahweh for the vile and evil demiurge that he is.

So if Christianity is not morality based then what is it's motivation?

Other than money and power that is.

Regards
DL

Hobby's earlier claim: Religion has to be, and in fact is based on false promises ...
Hobby's later claim: No I am not claiming that god does not exist. ... I am simply saying that I do NOT believe in a god.
Mick: What is it that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true?
Hobby: Consider the difference between "god" and "religion". You don't seem to know what these words mean.

Wow, an eighth veil! (Who would have though it possible that Hobby's dance would be such a tease?)

Cut the crap, HC, and tell all the boys and girls what you think it is that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true?

mickthinks wrote:Hobby's earlier claim: Religion has to be, and in fact is based on false promises ...
Hobby's later claim: No I am not claiming that god does not exist. ... I am simply saying that I do NOT believe in a god.
Mick: What is it that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true?
Hobby: Consider the difference between "god" and "religion". You don't seem to know what these words mean.

Wow, an eighth veil! (Who would have though it possible that Hobby's dance would be such a tease?)

Cut the crap, HC, and tell all the boys and girls what you think it is that all religions are based on, that according to you is not true?

There is no crap. I'll put the points on separate lines to make it easier for you.

Religions are based on promises that cannot be kept. Do you know other wise then please let's hear it.

I cannot claim god does not exist, because "GOD" is not a coherent enough concept to have any belief about it.

I know it might be difficult for all the boys and girls to understand the significant difference between that thought and this one: I know well enough that I do not believe in anything called "god".

I know subtlety and care with words in foreign to most people on this Forum, but it IS a philosophy Forum so I do keep trying.

As for the rest of it...
The thread is about "religion" and it would be well to avoid confusing the issue with "god" which is a different thing altogether.

I do so hope that you and all the other boys and girls are happy, and satisfied with my post.

Religions are based on promises that cannot be kept.

I accept that some religions feature promises to their followers that you believe cannot be kept. Now, can you give an example of such a promise made for each of the major religions and tell us why you believe they cannot be kept, without claiming that God does not exist.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:Love, fear, trust, the Bible? Current trends would be another possibility.

What do you think?

PhilX

Experience.

mickthinks wrote:Religions are based on promises that cannot be kept.

I accept that some religions feature promises to their followers that you believe cannot be kept. Now, can you give an example of such a promise made for each of the major religions and tell us why you believe they cannot be kept, without claiming that God does not exist.

Okay god aside..
All religions that make promises about the afterlife are beyond verification by the acolyte and priest both. So the religion is in no position to make those promises. Nivarna, Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium: since no one has come back to give witness the core of the religion is either knowingly or negligently making claims it cannot make.

It should not surprise anyone with a brain that all priests and imams lie to theists all the time.

They begin by telling them how unknowable and unfathomable God is, and then continue with reams of information that they say they know and fathom from the unknowable and unfathomable.

And theists are foolish enough to believe these obvious liars.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am wrote:It should not surprise anyone with a brain that all priests and imams lie to theists all the time.

They begin by telling them how unknowable and unfathomable God is, and then continue with reams of information that they say they know and fathom from the unknowable and unfathomable.

And theists are foolish enough to believe these obvious liars.

Regards
DL

A good point. It's amazing that they can know the mind of an "ineffable" god. Magical, quite magical!!!

Shakespeare in Measure for Measure (Act 2, Scene 2) wrote:
Isabella:

• Alas, alas!
  Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once;
  And He that might the vantage best have took
  Found out the remedy. How would you be,
  If He, which is the top of judgement, should
  But judge you as you are? O, think on that;
  And mercy then will breathe within your lips,
  Like man new-made.

Hobbles wrote:A good point. It's amazing that they can know the mind of an "ineffable" god. Magical, quite magical!!!

Very well, Hobbles. I would suggest that Shakespeare is expressing one of the central essences of Christian conception. It is the sort of thing expressed by 'priests' and 'imams', is it not? How do you deal with the content now? How do you retrofit a perspective such as Shakespeare's?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Greatest I am wrote:It should not surprise anyone with a brain that all priests and imams lie to theists all the time.

They begin by telling them how unknowable and unfathomable God is, and then continue with reams of information that they say they know and fathom from the unknowable and unfathomable.

And theists are foolish enough to believe these obvious liars.

Regards
DL

A good point. It's amazing that they can know the mind of an "ineffable" god. Magical, quite magical!!!

Thanks.

Regards
DL

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:

Shakespeare in Measure for Measure (Act 2, Scene 2) wrote:
Isabella:

• Alas, alas!
  Why, all the souls that were were forfeit once;
  And He that might the vantage best have took
  Found out the remedy. How would you be,
  If He, which is the top of judgement, should
  But judge you as you are? O, think on that;
  And mercy then will breathe within your lips,
  Like man new-made.

Hobbles wrote:A good point. It's amazing that they can know the mind of an "ineffable" god. Magical, quite magical!!!

Very well, Hobbles. I would suggest that Shakespeare is expressing one of the central essences of Christian conception. It is the sort of thing expressed by 'priests' and 'imams', is it not? How do you deal with the content now? How do you retrofit a perspective such as Shakespeare's?

You are deluded. As usual WS speak to the world he finds himself in, not the divine world of your personal invention. You also have to realise that the words are in the mouth of a character, and not expressing the view of the author.
I have to say that the verse is not particularly relevant to the point at hand.

I presume this is to Claudio who has just asked her to fuck him for her to redeem her brother? She's trying to guilt-trip him by reminding him of "judgement".

Deluded? Please explain precisely why I am deluded.

Deluded because I point out that Shakespeare deals on Christian themes? Or that he himself felt and believed in these things? His work is totally infused with Christian ideas that it is impossible to separate them out. Impossible.

I also wanted to draw a contrast to your statement: 'It's amazing that they can know the mind of an "ineffable" god.' I gather that his character, and Shakespeare himself, imagined it possible to make statements about his 'ineffable god'. But you allow none of this. How do you bridge this conflict?

You are a sloppy writer, Hobbles, and I want to stress this point. According to your own sense of writing what you mean to say should be expressed more clearly.

'Speaks to the world he finds himself in'? Who does not speak to the world they find themselves in? If Shakespeare operates from an older metaphysical model, which he most certainly does, would this not constitute a world of 'personal invention'? Or, do you mean that anyone who was not operating from the general worldview of Shakespeare's time and who thought or saw differently, would be operating from a 'personal invention'?

Although it is true that a character speaks, it is not true that Shakespeare did not function within, and operate out of, a viewstructure that could with accuracy be described as thoroughly Christian. It is possible to say that his views were not totally orthodox, impossible to say that they were not largely Christian.

The verse speaks to the notion of redemption and also grace, and if the question is What should religion be based on? I'd like to know your argument for not including the notion and possibility of Redemption and why not Grace?

She's trying to guilt-trip him by reminding him of "judgement".

Wait. You mean that Shakespeare and Elizabethan England would have also used quotes around "judgment"? To indicate an unreal thing? Or are you saying that they surely believed such things ... but that we definitely should not?

I have to say that the verse is not particularly relevant to the point at hand.

What verse of Shakespeare's would be more apropos to 'the point at hand'? Which would you choose to indicate firm location in a Christian view? Or, are you saying that he did not have that view?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Deluded? Please explain precisely why I am deluded.

Deluded because I point out that Shakespeare deals on Christian themes? Or that he himself felt and believed in these things? His work is totally infused with Christian ideas that it is impossible to separate them out. Impossible.

I also wanted to draw a contrast to your statement: 'It's amazing that they can know the mind of an "ineffable" god.' I gather that his character, and Shakespeare himself, imagined it possible to make statements about his 'ineffable god'. But you allow none of this. How do you bridge this conflict?

You are a sloppy writer, Hobbles, and I want to stress this point. According to your own sense of writing what you mean to say should be expressed more clearly.

'Speaks to the world he finds himself in'? Who does not speak to the world they find themselves in? If Shakespeare operates from an older metaphysical model, which he most certainly does, would this not constitute a world of 'personal invention'? Or, do you mean that anyone who was not operating from the general worldview of Shakespeare's time and who thought or saw differently, would be operating from a 'personal invention'?

Although it is true that a character speaks, it is not true that Shakespeare did not function within, and operate out of, a viewstructure that could with accuracy be described as thoroughly Christian. It is possible to say that his views were not totally orthodox, impossible to say that they were not largely Christian.

The verse speaks to the notion of redemption and also grace, and if the question is What should religion be based on? I'd like to know your argument for not including the notion and possibility of Redemption and why not Grace?

She's trying to guilt-trip him by reminding him of "judgement".

Wait. You mean that Shakespeare and Elizabethan England would have also used quotes around "judgment"? To indicate an unreal thing? Or are you saying that they surely believed such things ... but that we definitely should not?

I have to say that the verse is not particularly relevant to the point at hand.

What verse of Shakespeare's would be more apropos to 'the point at hand'? Which would you choose to indicate firm location in a Christian view? Or, are you saying that he did not have that view?

Obviously you don't know the context of the remark, because you are not as well educated as you pretend to be. Where did you get the quote - off the back of a cereal packet?

I think the question should be, What purpose should religion serve?