• 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!

Should We Follow the Majority?

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
all man's searchings have yielded no final answers, so one must look where these others haven't, since, if it was there, they would have found it.....they did not, so it is still where men fear to go...the unknown.
boldly they say, yet cowardly they stay.
"campers" [vs.seekers] in the maze runner movie... that mindset meant the death of all the tribe
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Whoever the writer was, there are psychedelic mushrooms everywhere. :)
The difference between psychoactive and poisonous is a very thin line.

I just don't ingest just whatever I find growing out there. Primitive folks couldn't afford to be so choosy.
I suspect that a majority of ancient religious experiences had similar origins.
Tom
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
The difference between psychoactive and poisonous is a very thin line.

I just don't ingest just whatever I find growing out there. Primitive folks couldn't afford to be so choosy.
I suspect that a majority of ancient religious experiences had similar origins.
Tom
I'd say there is some overlap.
Fly agaric is a psychoactive and mildly poisonous mushroom that grows in people's yards around here. Unlike other mushrooms, it tends suddenly disappear overnight. Go figure.
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
The difference between psychoactive and poisonous is a very thin line.

I just don't ingest just whatever I find growing out there. Primitive folks couldn't afford to be so choosy.
I suspect that a majority of ancient religious experiences had similar origins.
Tom
c2f3840555b3b40809e09c82338ba9fa--terracotta-joseph.jpg
lib.jpg
Merry Christ-masso_O;)
 

Attachments

  • santa1.jpg
    15.3 KB · Views: 0

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
liberty
the cap of the phyrigian
 

Attachments

  • page-210.jpg
    64.1 KB · Views: 0
  • page-91.jpg
    68.3 KB · Views: 0

exchemist

Veteran Member
I don't even think that the ancient Christians had the same attitude towards Scripture that relatively modern people do.

I strongly suspect that they had a more pragmatic, Greco-Roman-Jewish attitude towards it. Inspired, but not magically, word-for-word, true in an objective sense of "true".

Tom
That is definitely the case, according to Diarmaid MacCulloch's "History of Christianity". This word-for-word thing is recent aberration: a post-Luther reductio ad absurdum, by silly sects taking sola scriptura to an extreme.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
post-Luther reductio ad absurdum, by silly sects taking sola scriptura to an extreme.

Well, as a Catholic child I was taught that Protestantism was the problem. I was 10-12 before I realized that they pretend to believe in Jesus. But not really, because they refused to acknowledge Jesus's clear teaching about building His Church on Pope Peter, the Rock. And that The Holy Ghost would guide His Sheep through the ministry of His Church. Not just some ancient literature.

That's the Roman Catholic Church. Not sola scriptura. God had a lot more to say than got recorded way back then, and He told us who He'd tell it to. God didn't mention Martin Luther.
:cool:
Tom
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Well, as a Catholic child I was taught that Protestantism was the problem. I was 10-12 before I realized that they pretend to believe in Jesus. But not really, because they refused to acknowledge Jesus's clear teaching about building His Church on Pope Peter, the Rock. And that The Holy Ghost would guide His Sheep through the ministry of His Church. Not just some ancient literature.

That's the Roman Catholic Church. Not sola scriptura. God had a lot more to say than got recorded way back then, and He told us who He'd tell it to. God didn't mention Martin Luther.
:cool:
Tom
Luther actually did Christendom a big favour, I think. The church had gone badly off the rails and having a bit of competition from the new renegades did galvanise the clean-up! I don't see Protestantism per se as a problem at all, really. What I do see as problematic is sects in which someone can wake up one morning, decide to be a pastor and start trying to teach others whatever comes into his head, having read his bible by himself and reinvented the wheel, badly.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Luther actually did Christendom a big favour, I think.
I agree.
Helping Christendom splinter into a zillion competing sects help facilitate the Enlightenment, and the increased ethical sophistication of a secular society.

But still...
Tom
 

MNoBody

Well-Known Member
I suppose this is a response to my post?

If so, it's really weak. So weak, I'm not even sure that it is addressed to me.
Tom

[I suspect that a majority of ancient religious experiences had similar origins.
Tom
I was responding to that.]

sort of... was distractedly operating computers...... cat had kittens, so many better things to pay attention to than finer points of scholarship, and I wasn't debating, just have come across some things which relate
the liberty cap which is related to Mithra and all these gods, no coincidence...entheogens have been the mysterious secret not to be discussed apparently.
 
Top