On Religion

[SCHIZO]

Krishna freely liberated the people who tried to kill him.

Then Krishna is a good man.

 

[Riverwolf]

Then Krishna is a good man.

Krishna is God, dude. (According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas, anyway.)

 

[Quagmire]

There are searches for knowledge outside of books.

Of course. Who do you think the books were written by if not by people studying life itself?

What is wiser than knowing that none of it matters?

Knowing that you don't know anything.

Its all based on personal taste. What's so enlightening about picking up a book and reading some words?

Depends to some extent on who wrote it and to an even larger extent on who's reading it.

Am I supposed to be struck with awe because I found some useless knowledge?

Knowledge is only useless to someone who doesn't understand what knowledge is.

It's personal taste if you like to read. It's not something that is required to have wisdom.

True. There have always been illiterate sages in the world. Just as there have always been educated fools.

Reading books doesn't automatically make one wise, but neither does avoiding them.

Avoiding any potential source of knowledge is foolish.

Labeling something worthless before attempting to understand it is the mark of a fool.

 

[SCHIZO]

Books provide a good baseline for living, and can also record experience-earned wisdom.

You speak of "useless knowledge." But there's very little knowledge that cannot be put to good use, if used correctly.

Would it not be more rewarding to discover things for yourself without the use of books. Such living would surely show wisdom. One way to do this is to learn from others outside of books. I understand the use of books but books speak an excess of words--that try to manipulate your thinking. If we accept too much we put ourselves at risk of coming into the wrong thoughts. It happens often just consider books that are meant to entertain.

 

[SCHIZO]

Krishna is God, dude. (According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas, anyway.)

I believe in Krishna if he is consistent in goodness.

 

[SCHIZO]

Of course. Who do you think the books were written by if not by people studying life itself?



Knowing that you don't know anything.



Depends to some extent on who wrote it and to an even larger extent on who's reading it.



Knowledge is only useless to someone who doesn't understand what knowledge is.



True. There have always been illiterate sages in the world. Just as there have always been educated fools.

Reading books doesn't automatically make one wise, but neither does avoiding them.

Avoiding any potential source of knowledge is foolish.

Labeling something worthless before attempting to understand it is the mark of a fool.

Knowledge only has worth to those who revere it. My existence is not dependent upon knowledge. I will exist with it or with out. I am only wise in saying that I know nothing (who was that socrates or plato?). So if I know nothing why should I revere knowledge? I remain wise by knowing that I know nothing. If I think I know something I am no longer wise.

Seeking every potential source of knowledge is even greater foolishness. Who knows the heaps of garbage that you are shoveling into your mind.

 

[Riverwolf]

Would it not be more rewarding to discover things for yourself without the use of books.

For some, yes. For others, no.

Such living would surely show wisdom.

Or foolishness.

One way to do this is to learn from others outside of books. I understand the use of books but books speak an excess of words--that try to manipulate your thinking.

Well, as long as we're making broad generalizations, doesn't every teacher try to manipulate thinking, and wouldn't experience manipulate thinking, as well?

If we accept too much we put ourselves at risk of coming into the wrong thoughts.

And if we experiment too much we put ourselves at risk of, well, dying.

It happens often just consider books that are meant to entertain.

Thanks, but no thanks. I like my books.

 

[Riverwolf]

Knowledge only has worth to those who revere it. My existence is not dependent upon knowledge. I will exist with it or with out. I am only wise in saying that I know nothing (who was that socrates or plato?). So if I know nothing why should I revere knowledge? I remain wise by knowing that I know nothing. If I think I know something I am no longer wise.

Seeking every potential source of knowledge is even greater foolishness. Who knows the heaps of garbage that you are shoveling into your mind.

Do you even know what wisdom is?

 

[Riverwolf]

I believe in Krishna if he is consistent in goodness.

Read the Bhagavatam, then, and decide for yourself.

 

[fallingblood]

if this is true, then you contradict your scriptures. and yes, the vast majority of christians on the planet believe that THE ONLY way is through jesus christ as noted in scripture. extremely liberal christians like you, who claim that ALL roads lead to rome are extremely few.

Thanks for believing that you know what my beliefs are and what my scriptures are. I'm sure I can now practice Christianity in the right way now.

Or maybe you can just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, that you don't understand what Christianity really is (or Christainities) and just stop while you're ahead.

 

[Quagmire]

Knowledge only has worth to those who revere it. My existence is not dependent upon knowledge. I will exist with it or with out. I am only wise in saying that I know nothing (who was that socrates or plato?). So if I know nothing why should I revere knowledge? I remain wise by knowing that I know nothing. If I think I know something I am no longer wise.

What is wiser than knowing that none of it matters?

Knowing that you don't know anything.

See? you learned something by reading today. :yes:

Seeking every potential source of knowledge is even greater foolishness.

Think you're confusing seeking with seeing.

Who knows the heaps of garbage that you are shoveling into your mind.

This is why God gave (some of us) the ability to discriminate between useful and useless knowledge.

And anyone who reads these posts will know exactly what heaps of garbage someone has been shoveling into their mind.

 

[Storm]

It is a good philosophical question, Why does every religion exclude reward and benefit from those that do not share faith?

Simple: they don't.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Then Krishna is a good man.

Krishna gives liberation (salvation) to even those who hated Him in His pastimes, what to speak of our own reality.

It's just another testament to show that Krishna loves everyone unconditionally.

 

[fallingblood]

You're telling me that it is not found in the tenets of faith that you either believe in that particular faith or suffer the consequence? Examples: If you do not follow Buddha you will not escape the cycles of reincarnation. If you you do not follow the Qaran you will not live in paradise. If you do not follow Christ you cannot get into Heaven.

Yep, that is what I am telling you. If you actually took the time to research those religious outlooks, you would see that in fact, not all of them teach such a black and white outlook.

So as long as I lead a good life I will be rewarded? Is this idea from religious principle? What if I lead a bad life, am I excluded? Who gets to judge whether I led a good life or not? Is it the religious view that judges?

Honestly, I don't care at all about the after life. Many religious people don't. So really, I have no want to answer these questions.

You're Christian, do you think I get eternal life without Christ? Who needs him, right? What if I told you I spend my days blaspheming the Holy Ghost, do I still get my reward? Remember, no one who blasphemies the Holy Ghost is forgiven.

Again, I don't care about the after life. Would I say that you go to hell for eternity? No, I don't believe in a hell. Do I think there is an unforgivable sin? No, I think that is foolish.

You should read John Shelby Spong.

I'm being discreet, What religions do you think I am talking about?

Honestly, I think you are primarily focusing on Christianity, possibly Islam a little bit. Not any religion you really understand though.

 

[zuluniner]

Thanks for believing that you know what my beliefs are and what my scriptures are. I'm sure I can now practice Christianity in the right way now.

Or maybe you can just admit that you don't know what you're talking about, that you don't understand what Christianity really is (or Christainities) and just stop while you're ahead.

oh, im just getting warmed up my friend. i suggest you stop while you're behind.

your personal beliefs are your own business, but they contradict the very scriptures you claim to believe in.

jesus said. 1+1=2 , then you come along, calling yourself a follower of jesus and simultaneously claim "no, no, this is false, 1+1 actually equals 3."

jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me", then you come along, calling yourself a follower of jesus and simultaneously claim "no no, this is false, jesus is not the only way.

buddy, let me ask you something. if there are other ways to god/heaven/paradise, why would jesus even bother to come down and go through all the torture, pain and suffering of dying for your sins?? whats the point?? as a christian, are you really saying that jesus' sacrifice was meaningless??? if you are saying this, then you are NOT a christian.... you are nothing but a confused kid who thinks he is mighty enlightened because he chooses to remain ignorant to his own absolutist religion/god/faith that in actuality excludes every other god and religion.

and now my friend, i am warmed up, again i suggest you quit while youre behind.

 

[Rakhel]

*[So anyway, a man who's only exposure to any kind of literature amounted to the back issues of Readers Digest he found laying around his dentists reception room walks into a library, grabs a footrest and moves it to the center of the main reading room, stand up on it and starts delivering a speech]:

Man "What are all these books doing here? And why are there so many people here reading all those books? I mean, come on people!: they're all basically the same."...



..."I mean they're all full of these sticky-sweet human interest stories and a lot of old, corny jokes and and thinly veiled conservative-Rockwellian propaganda...."



..."You're all wasting your time!!"

*[Librarian walks up to man] Librarian: "Eh, sir? I can see your experience with literature has been a bit...limited. Since you're here anyway, why not actually look through some of our books. I'm sure you'll find that only a very small percentage of books are anything like what you were just describing. Why, there's every kind of book imaginable here covering any topic or perspective you could possibly think of...."

(waits to see what happens next)

Thank you for the translation, Sir Q.

 

[ChristineES]

All religion seems pretentious to me. Every participant in any particular faith seems to exagerate their importance and the importance of the knowledge that their faith proclaims. Of any religion, only its participants are supposedly granted the benefits and rewards by the faith's central focus (eg. a deity). All outsiders who do not adhere to the faith are refused the benefits and rewards.

All religions are the same. You have a (path) you must follow in order to receive a reward after death. If there are so many different religions to follow, all professing the same principle what is the point of following any? They differ in so many ways on the path to receive that reward, yet none is profound. Its all wine I tell you. People get drunk off of wine. People get drunk off of religion.

But I just find it pretentious, every faith and denomination--that every particular one of them would expressly leave out everybody else from reward and benefit just to magnify their own importance. It's a valid point. Every single faith proclaims that if you do not have this faith you are in some sort of trouble. From Islam to Buddhism to Christianity. It is a good philosophical question, Why does every religion exclude reward and benefit from those that do not share faith?

More sweeping generalizations. I should be used to that by now, but I don't think I ever will get used to it.

 

[Draka]

All religion seems pretentious to me. Every participant in any particular faith seems to exagerate their importance and the importance of the knowledge that their faith proclaims. Of any religion, only its participants are supposedly granted the benefits and rewards by the faith's central focus (eg. a deity). All outsiders who do not adhere to the faith are refused the benefits and rewards.

False.

All religions are the same.

False.

You have a (path) you must follow in order to receive a reward after death.

False.

If there are so many different religions to follow, all professing the same principle what is the point of following any?

What principle do you claim that they share exactly?

They differ in so many ways on the path to receive that reward,

What reward?

yet none is profound.

How would you know?

Its all wine I tell you. People get drunk off of wine. People get drunk off of religion.

Some people have a high tolerance.

But I just find it pretentious,

Well whoopty-doo for you.

every faith and denomination--that every particular one of them would expressly leave out everybody else from reward and benefit just to magnify their own importance.

False.

It's a valid point.

Nope, it really isn't.

Every single faith proclaims that if you do not have this faith you are in some sort of trouble.

False.

From Islam to Buddhism to Christianity.

Are these the only religions you have any amount of information on?

It is a good philosophical question,

In your opinion.

Why does every religion exclude reward and benefit from those that do not share faith?

Every religion doesn't do that.

Now go put down your very broad brush and your very crappy paint, because you're making a childish mess.

 

[zuluniner]

true, not every religion "excludes" non believers. but the largest, most influential/important ones do. and frankly, after christianity and islam, no one much cares about the rest. all you have to do is keep up with the news. none of the other religions are even close to touching the coverage christianity and islam are getting.

 

[fallingblood]

true, not every religion "excludes" non believers. but the largest, most influential/important ones do. and frankly, after christianity and islam, no one much cares about the rest. all you have to do is keep up with the news. none of the other religions are even close to touching the coverage christianity and islam are getting.

Yet you don't really understand either one of those religions. So basically, all that you are spewing out is ignorant intolerance.