Edit: anyway, I'm going to stop posting here.
Philosophical problems aren't everything in life.
You start, you stop.
You keep talking as if my tentative conclusions and hypotheses were my starting point, which I find very odd. I find the fact that you consider that tentativeness a weakness even more odd.
Anything wrong with it?
Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-26, 21:14:31Anything wrong with it?Yes, you just said why - "Anyone can choose the religion that fits them best".That's turning religion in just another form of consumerism.
Anyway, how do you think religion is/should be individually acquired?
When we refer to the relatively few people that, by many different reasons, goes for their own way in search of a religion or running away from all of them, I see no special reason, it can be just philosophical, it can be emotive, it can be a matter of inner faith, it can be just a trend that he sees people he admires to follow or an incapacity to understand basic concepts.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-03-08, 07:15:25individually acquired?Your insistence on "individually" raises complex problems since by religion we mean organized religion. As for organized religions, the individual is necessarily seen as part of a whole, a whole that includes his language, culture, nation, society, class and a particular (organized) religion. Basically the individual is born whit it as non material reference. Most of people follows this cultural matrix where they were born and raised.
What I'm interested to is in stopping the false idea that all organized religions are equal and even less, with the same quality. Because there's quality in religion and it is possible to determine those who have more and those who have less, if any.
We can't compare as equal a religion with two thousand years of theological and philosophical work by the brightest minds with another that doesn't have any doctrinal structure but to parroting some text.
What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?
I grew up in an atheist culture, nation, society. Should I follow the cultural matrix and stay as such? No verification of things by myself? No self-determination? And I disagree that this situation is some occasional anomaly. Most people I know are intellectually and spiritually displaced. They are seekers, in process of a quest because the current prevalent culture fails to provide support and structure to their lives. Where I live, this is so with the majority of people, not some negligible minority.
So, of course religions are not equal, but the inequality has many dimensions. E.g. Islam is not good *here,* but it's okay *there.* Christianity may be "true" here but the same "truth" appears totally different in e.g. South America.
Parroting some talking points (such as teapot in the sky or tyrannical skydaddy) or authorities (Harris, Dawkins) is hopefully a good start that may lead to deeper knowledge eventually.
Or the ones who marry into one, specifically Catholicism. They may turn out to be more rabid than those who were born into it.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-03-08, 13:00:38What do you make of Jesus' words "You are not of this world?" If they are not applicable to this context, then where?We are making different levels of approaches and that can't be done simultaneously. Course Jesus Christ's words refers to this material world and therefore show people the way to the non material, spiritual world. But there's no organized religion at such a world, isn't it?
Notice that I haven't said that the search for an individual path or truth or whatever was wrong, I just said that is not what most people do and it is not compatible with organized religions. Such decisions imminently belongs to the individual sphere of action and conscience not to the collective sphere.
And how does an organized, hierarchically structured religion as Catholicism deals with the necessity of being right regardless different cultures and places? By focusing into the adaptation to those particularities of the pureness of it's doctrinal message. It's by adopting to the reality of each population and culture and more, of each individual (to answer to he other point you make about personal evolution/age) that a religion shows how well it's message can be Universal. And a religion to be taken seriously and just not a sect, it has to be Universal.
No organised religion in the spiritual world? So, Jesus was inviting people away from the variegated religions of this world to the spiritual world where the distinctions cease? (This happens to be exactly how I interpret these words.)
But remembering the words "You are not of this world" it doesn't seem that in the end the path should be about any particular religion shaped in any particular way or having as universal adaptability as possible.
Well oddly Belfrager - and probably for you (!), I can go a goodly bit along with that except that I of course from my background challenge matters pertaining to the Roman Catholic Church. Generally well opinionated with that addendum!
Well... Jesus Christ told to Peter to make His Church, he didn't said to the Buddha, I like your Church... Peter made Christianity and the Pope is his direct successor.Organized religions have certain limits to the amount of questioning.
As for my knowledge, only Catholicism admits a dualism between the individual path by itself and, at the same time, the total inclusion of the individual into the Church's organized structure. There's space for it and in fact most of it's theology is the result of just that.
Dutch medieval mystics
There's no philosophy in the Bible.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-03-08, 21:45:42There's no philosophy in the Bible.You aren't confusing Catholics with Protestants, are you? Protestants concentrates their religiosity into the obsessive reading,...
We Prots re-discovered the simple matters of the man from Galilee
Page created in 0.120 seconds with 41 queries.