IamYourYahaweh
Member
Maybe for some but imagine speaking for all thought from the writing of Brahman till now and the future
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Arrogance of religion
- Thread starter IamYourYahaweh
- Start date
amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
I was thinking about something earlier today that might sort of dovetail into this, and it has to do with the times in my life where the behavior of others is counter-intuitive to my expectations. And this has to do with me trying to predict how they will react to present information/events, perhaps after conversations that we had, that were indicative of changes needing to be made in the future. But when the future arrives, maybe their behavior is not altered in a way that I would have predicted, so thus the conversation that we had in the past either had no bearing on the direction they took, or they misunderstood it, or I misunderstood how they would interpret it... etc. etc.
So the point is, is that other humans can be confusing enough, to interact with and convey information to, in the present, using the same language
When someone writes a religious text, or myth, or history, I am assuming that they know all this. But perhaps they do not. Perhaps they assume that someone will understand it well enough, 10 centuries on, without the caveat of the epistemological confusion that the passage of 10 centuries would inevitably seem to muddy the waters with. I am unsure. I assume as well, that they will know that someone in the future will have to make some massive assumptions about the context of where they were, in history. How easily they will assume that I understand that context, is also in question
I think people like the bible, and some related older texts, mainly because relatable feelings seem to be sometimes conveyed in those texts, and large logical arguments aren't the basis of the texts, (for large pieces of it) which would be more difficult to translate. I was thinking the other day, when I was reading through the 'prophets' section of the bible, that although the context is alien enough to me, there are lines here and there that seem to capture some of the various universal and lucid human feelings, that can affect a person irrespective of their place in history
For example, in the prophets section, it seems to be that the writer is just expressing simple uncertainty much of the time, be it with touches of hyperbole and mythic thinking. You don't actually have to look for prophecies in it, and I don't myself.
Last edited:
You're now deviating from what we were discussing. The point I'm making is that not agreeing with or understanding something in another's scripture does not equate that scripture having contradictions. It's quite possible that the one taking exception to such scripture is one who is misinterpreting said scripture oneself.
The above is a vast overgeneralization about religion and religious people. It mainly applies to a specific subset of hard-line literalism, not all of religion or all interpretations of religious texts.
I don't know, luckily Bible is not like that. I don't understand how some can claim it is, even though they can't prove it.
stvdv
Veteran Member
My Master urged us:
"Common Sense before Divine Sense"
This takes care of most of the above problem
"Should be taken as a fact"
"Should" might be a result of "proselytizing"
Imposing your view onto others
Is rooted in Hypocrisy + Arrogance
Those who don't apply the "Golden Rule"
Arrogance of religion
Brahman is something that cannot be grasped by thought or concepts but must be directly experienced.
What is contradictory about this statement? You may disagree with it. That's your call. But nothing is contradictory about the statement.
Easy, they've been provided with supernatural wisdom.
God has given them insight to have the necessary wisdom to correctly understand what has been written.
It all fits to their knowledge, culture, experience. It all feels right to them. This feeling of support in their knowledge is a product of God. A trust that as a person of faith, God would not lead them to an incorrect understanding.
Eliana
Member
Someone is itching for an argument. Double Yawn.
IamYourYahaweh
Member
More like itching to educate. Someone who brings up the word argument on a post like that could be said to be the one itching for one. Spot the hypocrisy and projection
IamYourYahaweh
Member
Yes it is, it says Brahman cannot be reached through human thought but I did it
IamYourYahaweh
Member
And yet none of them seem to be anywhere close to understanding God or actually following him, trusting him and loving him. They do it out of fear or out of desire
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
You sound like - and please correct me if I’m wrong - an American who thinks an aberrant form of Christianity practiced in his country, is somehow representative of religion around the world. It really isn’t; Bible literalism isn’t something you’d come across much even in Christian Europe. And most of the world’s religious people aren’t Christian at all.
IamYourYahaweh
Member
I will correct you as you asked me to. I am not american and I don't think the Christianity practiced in my country can speak for all religions around the world. I have debated and discussed and read many different religious texts but continue to find the pattern that the strongest believers who encourage others to practice their faith seem to be the furthest from God as I see it
Whether you did or not require justification. You made a claim, time to justify it. Though I highly doubt that would actually happen.
And, even if you disprove the statement, it does not show that the statement is contradictory.
IamYourYahaweh
Member
How could I justify something that human thought is unable to reach? You'll never understand it.
Better yet what is the point of you and the other dude rambling nonsense
You just said that you have attained Brahman through thought. Hence you should be able to express Brahman by describing It in accordance to the thoughts you used to reach an understanding of Brahman. If you cannot, then the claim you made is a false one.
As far as I am concerned you are making nonsensical claims. Time to back them up.
IamYourYahaweh
Member
Well it's impossible for humans such as yourself, and religion made many nonsensical claims, did you force them to back them up?