• 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!

I Dare You To Criticize Your Own Religion or Weltanschauung

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member

Okies.

The thing is, the analogy isn't quite accurate. Shadows are there first, and are simply places the light doesn't reach. Light doesn't create shadows; if anything, light dispels shadows in certain spots.

Shining light from different directions can bring shadows under control.

In addition, too much light brings blindness along with too much darkness. There must be a balance between the two in order to have clear, detailed sight. Therefore, shadows aren't necessarily negative.
 

Breathe

Hostis humani generis
It's difficult to meld multiple ones.
It's hard to follow them well.
I discard things too easily.
I'm prone to being spiritually lazy.
It's so vast it's overwhelming.
The Vedas aren't used enough.
A poor reading allows for casteism.
People don't care for following the teachings, just tradition and culture.
I have to deal with the occasional bigot.
I don't care for diet restrictions.

I can do this all day. :p
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I gave up religion.
Does that place me beyond critique?
heheheheheheh.

Naw...really.
Having participated in several Christian faiths, and almost turning priest....
I continued reading scripture, and found the dogmatic approach leaving me.

I would criticize dogmatic belief....as shallow.

If you're going to stand before God (and we will),
be prepared to answer....

Who told that?...and why did you believe it?
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
My philosophical approach to theology is relatively sound, it is however probably the result of thinking overly hard about logic - in particular the potential that some existence may not be characterised by logic. The second valid critique would be that it is extremely difficult to convey to others easily, as a result it often results in confusion. The third may well be that it is so divergent from what people are used to it is not so much a theological position as it is an approach.

To put it most accurately, my position is very simple, so simple it is difficult for most people to understand. My approach on the other hand is nuanced enough to make my (let alone others') head spin.

Which, going by what Jebabus says V is probably par for course :p
 
Last edited:
Top