Philosophy Now Forum

The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/the ... law-of-god

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:

PhilX

You appear to be under the misapprehension that Philosophy is just asking questions, it's not. It's posing a question and then providing one's answer as well. Any child can ask questions.

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:

PhilX

You appear to be under the misapprehension that Philosophy is just asking questions, it's not. It's posing a question and then providing one's answer as well. Any child can ask questions.

And can you answer the question? Thanks for not stopping by.

PhilX

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:

PhilX

You appear to be under the misapprehension that Philosophy is just asking questions, it's not. It's posing a question and then providing one's answer as well. Any child can ask questions.

And can you answer the question? Thanks for not stopping by.

PhilX

And thus is your reply to an intelligent statement.

Let me try one for you. What is it that you are questioning that religion needs to be unchanging or flexible for?

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/the ... law-of-god

PhilX

The philosophical questions might be: why do people abandon reason and submit to belief and faith. And how could any religion based on a single deity be credible when it changes like the wind?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/the ... law-of-god
PhilX

The philosophical questions might be: why do people abandon reason and submit to belief and faith. And how could any religion based on a single deity be credible when it changes like the wind?

It's not like people abandon reason. No, it's like belief and faith are secondary to reason, but that belief and faith add something extra to reason. Therefore, from inside the Christianity people have extra reason (reason+) above the Atheists because the religious actually reflect on the mysteries of the Universe, like mystery of life-sources in a vast (burning/ultra-hot by the stars and core of the planets) Universe.

(The answer from the Atheists seem like nothing at all, science, just like the science of most religious people that we all learn at schools, colleges and universities.)

Necromancer wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Philosophy Explorer wrote:The philosophical question would be does religion need to be unchanging or does it need to be flexible?:
http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/the ... law-of-god
PhilX

The philosophical questions might be: why do people abandon reason and submit to belief and faith. And how could any religion based on a single deity be credible when it changes like the wind?

It's not like people abandon reason. No, it's like belief and faith are secondary to reason, but that belief and faith add something extra to reason. )

You can believe that as much as you want, it does not make it true.

Necromancer. I suggest you find yourself a reputable dictionary and look up the definitions of the two words "reasoning" and "rationalising".

I'd suggest that both of you, Hob and Obvious, are 'simply' immune and resistant to the idea or view or description or symbol that he is employing. It is not that he requires a dictionary definition to help him to get clear! (Rather condescending, no?)

You employ some definitions to make his sense obscure and inconsiderable because you don't understand. Yet I find the idea there cogent. But to grasp the idea requires a different use of self, or relationship to psyche, and of course to metaphysic. These notions are little part of your lexicon!

You both are only interested in 'enforcing' a countervaling definition. You are not necessarily in a domain of truth. Just a domain of differently-functioning definitions.

Do you think that the definition of reason is a matter of opinion, Gustav, and that precision of language is a a gratuitous vanity in the philosophical discourse?

Necromancer wrote: ...from inside the Christianity people have extra reason (reason+) above the Atheists because the religious actually reflect on the mysteries of the Universe, like mystery of life-sources in a vast (burning/ultra-hot by the stars and core of the planets) Universe.

It can just as easily be said that Christians don't have to reason as much because it's all written down for them. They are told what to do. Whereas atheists seek beyond a vast array of religious templates, and must use reason in order to do so.

Necromancer wrote: The answer from the Atheists seem like nothing at all, science...

That may be how you imagine it to be, but there is much more to it for many non-theists. I think theists are threatened to acknowledge the good and kind and intelligent traits of non-theists, because the theist's sense/pride of "goodness" is tied to theism. If they acknowledge that theism is not necessary for a person to be good, then their theist platform might seem a little insignificant. So, to maintain their own significance, they condemn non-theists and define them as inferior and possessing undesirable traits. That's idiotic. Is there anybody here who truly cannot see how idiotic that is?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:I'd suggest that both of you, Hob and Obvious, are 'simply' immune and resistant to the idea or view or description or symbol that he is employing. It is not that he requires a dictionary definition to help him to get clear! (Rather condescending, no?)

You employ some definitions to make his sense obscure and inconsiderable because you don't understand. Yet I find the idea there cogent. But to grasp the idea requires a different use of self, or relationship to psyche, and of course to metaphysic. These notions are little part of your lexicon!

You both are only interested in 'enforcing' a countervaling definition. You are not necessarily in a domain of truth. Just a domain of differently-functioning definitions.

If this were the case. I could 'simply' re-read your gusty offering and applying definitions suitable to my thinking conclude that you were in utter agreement with myself and Obvious.
In fact, the oh so flatulent propositions you are so happy to pump into the ether of the forum are so vague and diffuse that any monkey with a Thesaurus, could re-write the passages in a number of ways that could offer interpretations close to an infinite realm of the possible.

See Hobbles, you think that you are located 'in reality' and that your perspective is one grounded in reality. So, from that position you critique another, shall we say, relationship. But you are just as much in an 'imagined relationship to reality', and thus your imagination mediates your relationship. I use the term 'structure of view' and 'imposition'. An imposition is something placed between.

From the analytical position that you define, which has been installed in you, you examine another one, note elements or aspects of it which appear false and untrue to you, but yet fail to understand that all imagined sytems of relationship to reality are 'imaginal' structures. You cannot grasp the power of your own imaginal structure to grasp how it determines your perception.

You seem to imagine that there is one, 'true', structure for conceiving of life, existence, the world, and importantly (essentially) man's relationship to life. You provide to yourself a catbird's seat from which you critique, acidically, all structures of view and relationship that do not conform to your reduced, peculiar view.

In fact, according to me, you do not understand (enough) your own view, nor do you understand how it functions. There is a blind element in it.

Lacewing wrote:It can just as easily be said that Christians don't have to reason as much because it's all written down for them. They are told what to do. Whereas atheists seek beyond a vast array of religious templates, and must use reason in order to do so.

You fail to grasp what he is talking about because you don't seem to have a grasp of what an 'inner relationship' might be: to the psyche, through the psyche, in what might only be describable as mystic or inner relationship. We coukd employ the metaphor of one person's relationship (of friendship or love) as an example. It is, as they say, a 'living relationship'.

This of course is to you not even imaginable. It is inconceivable because of the predicates you have installed in your perception-structure. It sounds loony. And our present in many ways supports that structure of view. As Obvious has stated, it IS mental illness. This demonstrates the force of present ideation, and the consequences of regimented, modernistic thinking of a 'radical liberal' sort. It has ends in view, designs, plans and intentions.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:See Hobbles, you think that you are located 'in reality' and that your perspective is one grounded in reality. So, from that position you critique another, shall we say, relationship. But you are just as much in an 'imagined relationship to reality', and thus your imagination mediates your relationship. I use the term 'structure of view' and 'imposition'. An imposition is something placed between.

From the analytical position that you define, which has been installed in you, you examine another one, note elements or aspects of it which appear false and untrue to you, but yet fail to understand that all imagined sytems of relationship to reality are 'imaginal' structures. You cannot grasp the power of your own imaginal structure to grasp how it determines your perception.

You seem to imagine that there is one, 'true', structure for conceiving of life, existence, the world, and importantly (essentially) man's relationship to life. You provide to yourself a catbird's seat from which you critique, acidically, all structures of view and relationship that do not conform to your reduced, peculiar view.

In fact, according to me, you do not understand (enough) your own view, nor do you understand how it functions. There is a blind element in it.

Thanks for being in complete agreement with every thing I have ever said.