the right religion

[Photonic]

Pffft, Galadriel may be the most ancient and mightiest of the Noldor in Middle-Earth, but even so she could never harness enough power from the Ring (which would not obey her) to stop Sauron's onslaught. Sauron's military victory was totally assured unless the Ring was destroyed; even if the Ring were used against him. Then it would have just been a matter of time before he stripped it from the Elf-maiden, probably with his own bare hands!

Even Saruman, who was of the same stock and race as Sauron (though of much lesser stature) could have only hoped to use the Ring in a "slave's mockery" of Sauron's power -- and Saruman was considerably much more powerful than Galadriel.

That being said, Sauron himself was tiny and pathetic compared to the first and true Dark Lord (Melkor, a.k.a. Morgoth Bauglir); as even Tolkien described him thusly: "In after years [Sauron] rose like a shadow of Morgoth and a ghost of his malice, and walked behind him on the same ruinous path down into the Void."

Even at the height of his power, Ring and all, Sauron was just a "shadow" and a "ghost" of the original Dark Lord. Essentially, if we're going to worship anyone from Arda I'd go with Morgoth for you dark types, the Valar for polytheists, and Iluvatar for monotheists

Of those who sung into creation all that was known, Iluvatar was the first and foremost in the light.

However, it was written that Galadriel would have been one of the only that could have enslaved the rings creator and use his power to fuel her own. But she knew that the darkness of Saurons master would have eroded her, and while she would have used the ring for good at first, she knew it would not last. That was her test.

 

[Meow Mix]

Of those who sung into creation all that was known, Iluvatar was the first and foremost in the light.

However, it was written that Galadriel would have been one of the only that could have enslaved the rings creator and use his power to fuel her own. But she knew that the darkness of Saurons master would have eroded her, and while she would have used the ring for good at first, she knew it would not last. That was her test.

It's written that Galadriel *thought* she could master the Ring, but the context of LotR makes this obviously false. As one of the oldest surviving members of the Noldor and a person who had seen the Two Trees, Galadriel certainly had the power and the will to dominate others (e.g., to use the Ring for her own ends rather than have it simply render her into the wraith-world; perhaps even enough power to dominate the Three, the Five, and perhaps even the Nine) -- that may be true.

The problem, though, is that the One is filled with a great portion of Sauron's absolutely immense innate will as the singularly most powerful Maia ever to exist. Even if Galadriel could control the Three to stand militarily against him and even turn the Nine against him, Sauron would ultimately win as his far superior will gnaws at the back of Galadriel's mind.

Considering that even mighty kings were brought down to subservience by the Nine (mere trinkets compared to the One), Sauron would only have to wait a little while. Then he could walk right up to Galadriel, who would willingly surrender the One to him.

 

[Photonic]

It's written that Galadriel *thought* she could master the Ring, but the context of LotR makes this obviously false. As one of the oldest surviving members of the Noldor and a person who had seen the Two Trees, Galadriel certainly had the power and the will to dominate others (e.g., to use the Ring for her own ends rather than have it simply render her into the wraith-world; perhaps even enough power to dominate the Three, the Five, and perhaps even the Nine) -- that may be true.

The problem, though, is that the One is filled with a great portion of Sauron's absolutely immense innate will as the singularly most powerful Maia ever to exist. Even if Galadriel could control the Three to stand militarily against him and even turn the Nine against him, Sauron would ultimately win as his far superior will gnaws at the back of Galadriel's mind.

Considering that even mighty kings were brought down to subservience by the Nine (mere trinkets compared to the One), Sauron would only have to wait a little while. Then he could walk right up to Galadriel, who would willingly surrender the One to him.

After his will erodes her's for a very long time. She may hold on to it for a very long time. I concede that you are most probably correct in that Galadriel would have eventually submitted the ring to Sauron, because the ring is part of him, and his will was ultimately stronger than her own.

 

[Meow Mix]

After his will erodes her's for a very long time. She may hold on to it for a very long time. I concede that you are most probably correct in that Galadriel would have eventually submitted the ring to Sauron, because the ring is part of him, and his will was ultimately stronger than her own.

I'll grant that it could have taken some amount of time -- Galadriel was the daughter of Finarfin, half-brother of Fëanor himself (who forged the Silmarils) and brother of Fingolfin (who wounded Morgoth in single combat). She had some fire in her, that's for sure.

Still, time is no issue for a Maia like Sauron. He seemed perfectly content to allow himself to be captured by the Númenoreans to corrupt them from within to their doom. He seemed fine with handing out the Nine to powerful and iron-willed men, even Númenorean royalty (whose will was stronger than other men) and just waiting for them to fall into corruption one by one. He seemed fine hiding out in Dol Guldur to draw out the hand of the White Council so he could just feint back to Mordor and announce himself openly as the Dark Lord. I think Sauron's okay with playing the waiting game

An interesting thing is that it's explicitely stated that the One is a band of gold: Tolkien seemed to intend that pieces of Arda itself were the equivalent of Morgoth's ring of power, especially substances and objects that evoked jealousy and greed (such as gold). So who's the real Lord of the Ring now?

 

[Muffled]

Now, hold on! Hitler was evil and all, but not even killing millions of people merits ETERNAL TORMENT! Especially not from a loving, understanding God. I'm sure God won't applaud him for his evil and wouldn't leave this unpunished. Yes, Hitler will taste the penalty of a grievous day, but ETERNAL? Hmm...

Also, slippery slope fallacy.

There are different meanings to eternal. However I didn't mention it. There is no question from a Biblical standpoint that God judges evil. Whether or not Hitler makes it to Hell, isn't for me to judge but he certainly deserves punishment for his evil ways.

 

[Muffled]

So would I. Hitler was a young, immature soul with MUCH to learn. That soul won't get anywhere near God until he learns what compassion is.

Naraka is a concept in Hindu philosophy and mythology. It's just not eternal, nor is it limited to the afterlife. Hitler would have experienced Naraka while he was still alive; otherwise, why did he commit suicide?

I am not familiar with Naraka so you would have to explain breifly what that is. I am familiar with Karma and if Hitler were to be given another life it would not likely be a pleasant one.

Usually people who commit crimes aren't too keen on doing the time. I did prison ministry, so I am speaking from what I have learned.

 

[Muffled]

1. Study all of them.
2. Check if there is any self contradiction in them.
3. Check if any of the facts mentioned in the Scriptures is in contradiction to your actual experiences or is logically false.
4. Check if it preaches violence , in any form or for any cause.
5. Check if it preaches compassion for human and animals without any preconditions and in all circumstances.
6. If in doubt , ask honest questions in the respective DIR.

That isn't a right religion. It is a religion that fits a particular set of rules that Don't appear to come from God.

 

[Muffled]

I think there is only one true religion/ church, but there could be religions "close" to that religion. Also, it's hard to identify because we 'perceive' a religion based on faith or our own convictions and not on facts, and it is hard to 'measure' religion.

Facts can be misunderstood.

Beliefs can be wrong such as believing that the world is flat instead of round.

If one wishes to see if a church aligns correctly check it with the cornerstone.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I know that Lord of the Rings is a justified, true dictation of events. All hail our Orcish Overlords.

Well, OK. Do you have a theory as to why Tolkien put it forward as fiction?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Other people trying to convince me of their silliness. There's a fine line between trying to annul and convert varies groups and individuals upon an unquestioned premise rather than observing carefully and knowing the origin of self institutionalization.

I can't seem to get a sense of what you are saying, Orias, but we all use language differently. You're welcome to try again if you'd like.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am not familiar with Naraka so you would have to explain breifly what that is. I am familiar with Karma and if Hitler were to be given another life it would not likely be a pleasant one.

Usually people who commit crimes aren't too keen on doing the time. I did prison ministry, so I am speaking from what I have learned.

Naraka is basically Hindu Hell. I don't know much about it, as most of the Scriptures that are readily available to me only make passing mention of it, if they mention it at all. But essentially it's a place where sinners go to wash the sins off with fire. One doesn't have to die to experience Naraka, either.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, OK. Do you have a theory as to why Tolkien put it forward as fiction?

Probably for the same reason H.P. Lovecraft did it with his works: he wanted people to know the truth, but if he presented it as fact, he would have been locked up or seen as a crazy man.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well... then you don’t know it. I can’t see how anything else could be the state of things. Just because you can know a thing doesn’t mean that you must know a thing. Everyone is free to know what they know, I think.

Ok, so if someone doesn't know something, why should they be punished for not knowing it?

Words are defined in many ways by various people, but that isn’t a definition of knowledge which I myself find coherent or defensible. Maybe you can show me that it does work well, though.

My first question is: How do you determine whether a belief is true?

This is where justification enters the picture. For knowledge with finite justification we can only be assured of something's tentative truth: i.e., we can say that we know the sun will appear to rise tomorrow based on the finite justifications for this statement (such as the inductive evidence, our understanding of physics and astronomy, etc.). Most of our knowledge is of this tentative type.

If the justification is infinite you can have absolute knowledge: such as in Descartes' cogito ergo sum, by which we can know that we have thought without the possibility of doubt.

And second: Are you saying that you only know true things? Everything which you know is necessarily true?

No, the same response I gave above applies here. Knowledge is separated between tentative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Most of our knowledge is tentative -- which is fine. Very little of it is absolute, and our absolute knowledge gets us almost nowhere on its own. When we say we "know" something, most of the time we're saying "this is true as far as we're able to tell based on all evidence and justifications that we've been exposed to."

I suppose it may work at the definitional or mathematical level. If I define a ‘bird’ as a ‘feathered, flying animal,’ then I can know that all the world’s birds are feathered flyers. And I can know that an ostrich is not a bird. Would you agree that I could know those things?

That's just semantics; it has little to do with epistemology as we're talking about here.

If someone knows that Muhammed had a direct pipeline to God and the Quran is inspired by God, then he owns a justified, true belief and can know that Islam is the right religion. By your definition. So it seems to me.

I don't see how -- they would have to have some sort of justification to call it knowledge. What could their justification possibly be? You didn't offer any in this story, so you'd have to be more specific. So far you're just describing someone with a belief -- the justification for the belief and the truth value of the belief are ambiguous from this description, so it's about as far from being "knowledge" as it's possible to be.

In other words, I can’t argue that the other guy doesn’t know what he knows – not unless I believe him to be lying about his knowledge. I can only argue that his conclusions seem flawed to me. In my opinion, they don’t match up very well with external reality.

But to argue that he doesn’t really know a thing – that seems almost like magical thinking to me. It seems to presume that humans can ‘know’ things in a way transcending personal opinion. I can’t see how that’s possible. So to view knowledge in that way seems to me like a belief in the supernatural.

So, let me get this straight: when you normally say that you "know" something, you're actually stating an opinion? Or am I reading you wrong? If so, I have a hard time seeing how this could lead to a rational or consistent worldview; and I mean no offense by that.

We can check people's knowledge claims by checking their justification. This is what epistemology is all about.

 

[Orias]

I can't seem to get a sense of what you are saying, Orias, but we all use language differently. You're welcome to try again if you'd like.

You said...

How else do we know things except by convincing ourselves that we know them?

I said usually its other people doing the convincing, I said I tend to stray from that.

My last response may have gotten a bit mangled, but simply I don't like people to assert that they have authority over me, by telling me what is and isn't right and what is and what isn't more efficient or conducive to society.

By institutions I was getting at that schools, churches, hospitals, etc, are all built to organize and teach a proper way to live. People question this God character too much, when instead they should be questioning exactly how we are structured psychologically, and physically. It could help to prevent certain courses of action that appear to be harmless but have negative consequences (like in politics and such).

 

[Photonic]

[/FONT]

Ok, so if someone doesn't know something, why should they be punished for not knowing it?



This is where justification enters the picture. For knowledge with finite justification we can only be assured of something's tentative truth: i.e., we can say that we know the sun will appear to rise tomorrow based on the finite justifications for this statement (such as the inductive evidence, our understanding of physics and astronomy, etc.). Most of our knowledge is of this tentative type.

If the justification is infinite you can have absolute knowledge: such as in Descartes' cogito ergo sum, by which we can know that we have thought without the possibility of doubt.



No, the same response I gave above applies here. Knowledge is separated between tentative knowledge and absolute knowledge. Most of our knowledge is tentative -- which is fine. Very little of it is absolute, and our absolute knowledge gets us almost nowhere on its own. When we say we "know" something, most of the time we're saying "this is true as far as we're able to tell based on all evidence and justifications that we've been exposed to."



That's just semantics; it has little to do with epistemology as we're talking about here.



I don't see how -- they would have to have some sort of justification to call it knowledge. What could their justification possibly be? You didn't offer any in this story, so you'd have to be more specific. So far you're just describing someone with a belief -- the justification for the belief and the truth value of the belief are ambiguous from this description, so it's about as far from being "knowledge" as it's possible to be.



So, let me get this straight: when you normally say that you "know" something, you're actually stating an opinion? Or am I reading you wrong? If so, I have a hard time seeing how this could lead to a rational or consistent worldview; and I mean no offense by that.

We can check people's knowledge claims by checking their justification. This is what epistemology is all about.

My old Philosophy professor was a philosopher of epistemology! Always loved his view points on the theories of knowledge.

 

[Gaura Priya]

Naraka is basically Hindu Hell. I don't know much about it, as most of the Scriptures that are readily available to me only make passing mention of it, if they mention it at all. But essentially it's a place where sinners go to wash the sins off with fire. One doesn't have to die to experience Naraka, either.

Narakaloka is also temporary... if seen as literal, it's a place where one can either a) be born into a hellish state of existence or consciousness, or b) a realm where sinful people go to to get meted by punishments, and then they are born again into this material existence, until they eventually come to God-consciousness.

If taken metaphorically, it's a state of mind separate from God.

 

[9Westy9]

If all religions contradict each other i.e. only our gods are real, then yes there is only one right religion. The problem is trying to find which one is right (if any)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Probably for the same reason H.P. Lovecraft did it with his works: he wanted people to know the truth, but if he presented it as fact, he would have been locked up or seen as a crazy man.

Makes sense. I think it was the Beatles who went one step trickier by implanted the truth backwards in their music. There is always a way to get the Message out.

 

[religion99]

If all religions contradict each other i.e. only our gods are real, then yes there is only one right religion. The problem is trying to find which one is right (if any)

Here are the steps to find out:

1. Read principal religious book of all the religions.
2. Make sure there is no contradictions in the Religion with your own observations. Eg if they talk about almighty God and if you can detect that there is no evidence of it , reject that religion.
3. If a religion says two contradictory paths lead to happiness then it is wrong as well , because two contradictory causes cannot produce same effect.
4. Make sure there are no internal contradictions in the Axioms of the religion. Eg if religion tells to show compassion to animals and then also tells to kill them under certain circumstances , reject that religion.
5. If you follow these guidelines judiciously , you will be left with exactly one religion in the end.

 

[9Westy9]

Here are the steps to find out:

1. Read principal religious book of all the religions.
2. Make sure there is no contradictions in the Religion with your own observations. Eg if they talk about almighty God and if you can detect that there is no evidence of it , reject that religion.
3. If a religion says two contradictory paths lead to happiness then it is wrong as well , because two contradictory causes cannot produce same effect.
4. Make sure there are no internal contradictions in the Axioms of the religion. Eg if religion tells to show compassion to animals and then also tells to kill them under certain circumstances , reject that religion.
5. If you follow these guidelines judiciously , you will be left with exactly one religion in the end.

1. That'll take me ages. I plan to do it eventually though
2. Don't agree with your example but I get your point about the contradictions
3. True that
4. I already do
5. Which would that be?