If you decided to...

[stringmusic]

I know, I know, you dont believe in all that nonsense, but hypothetically speaking, you decide buy into some religious worldview or theology. Which one do you see would have the highest chance of being true and why?

 

[pnome]

Hinduism.

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still."

"A millennium before Europeans were willing to divest themselves of the Biblical idea that the world was a few thousand years old, the Mayans were thinking of millions and the Hindus billions."
Dr. Carl Sagan

 

[JFS]

Buddhism. While it arose in a society that still invoked superstitions, it (at least significant parts) has evolved now to the point now that it relies on direct experience and has zero conflict with reason.

 

[HawgJawl]

I'm not sure if my beliefs fit into any organized religious worldview or theology, because I don't believe that any diety has ever needed, asked, or condoned a man to kill another man for said diety.

 

[stringmusic]

I'm not sure if my beliefs fit into any organized religious worldview or theology, because I don't believe that any diety has ever needed, asked, or condoned a man to kill another man for said diety.

why not?

 

[HawgJawl]

why not?

I believe that creating life is infinitely more difficult than killing life. I believe that a God with the ability to create life without anyone elses assistance, would definitely have the ability to take life without anyone elses assistance. I don't believe that a God with the power to create life would delegate the authority to destroy what He has created to a human.

 

[ambush80]

I believe that creating life is infinitely more difficult than killing life. I believe that a God with the ability to create life without anyone elses assistance, would definitely have the ability to take life without anyone elses assistance. I don't believe that a God with the power to create life would delegate the authority to destroy what He has created to a human.

What about: For His amusement?

 

[ambush80]

I know, I know, you dont believe in all that nonsense, but hypothetically speaking, you decide buy into some religious worldview or theology. Which one do you see would have the highest chance of being true and why?

Universalism. No one has it ALL right.

 

[stringmusic]

Universalism. No one has it ALL right.

Do you think it is possible for anyone/group to get it ALL right?

 

[stringmusic]

I believe that creating life is infinitely more difficult than killing life.

very true

I believe that a God with the ability to create life without anyone elses assistance, would definitely have the ability to take life without anyone elses assistance.

Very true again, does it take that power away if God does ask for the assistance of a human? What if, in some way, God could make himself known by this instance, and the life that was taken was known by God to be going to Heaven/he11 already, and another 1,000 lives were changed to be going to Heaven? I know the taking of anothers life would possibly seem not a way to have others go to Heaven, but I think it is very possible.

 

[stringmusic]

Buddhism. While it arose in a society that still invoked superstitions, it (at least significant parts) has evolved now to the point now that it relies on direct experience and has zero conflict with reason.

Do you think that Buddhism started out as a fallacy, and evolved into truth?

 

[ambush80]

Do you think it is possible for anyone/group to get it ALL right?

I'm not sure Any of them got Any of it right. There are some overlapping and very useful ideas in all the religions that I've studied.

 

[JFS]

Do you think that Buddhism started out as a fallacy, and evolved into truth?

No, I think it started as the truth but that it arose in a society that had a different world view and that people attached unecessary ornaments. Over the years the ornaments have been discarded leaving the core truth, which is now less blemished or impeded by fallacy than other major religions.

 

[TTom]

"What if ...?" questions when applied to a judeo christian God kinda falls flat.

If he knows the outcome already (omniscient) then the decisions have all been made and the outcomes sealed, all that is left is for the movie to start and time for the people to play their parts, and it's basically a rerun for God, no rewrites needed.

Next point

No I do not think it is possible for any religion to get it all right.
I believe that since part of the equation is humans trying to understand God and then further trying to reduce it to language and convey it each other that way, that getting it right is like an ant trying to understand the sun's fusion process.

 

[stringmusic]

I'm not sure Any of them got Any of it right.

I understand this, do you think, since your not sure if anybody has gotten anything right, is possible to get any of it right?

 

[stringmusic]

Buddhism. While it arose in a society that still invoked superstitions, it (at least significant parts) has evolved now to the point now that it relies on direct experience and has zero conflict with reason.

No, I think it started as the truth but that it arose in a society that had a different world view and that people attached unecessary ornaments. Over the years the ornaments have been discarded leaving the core truth, which is now less blemished or impeded by fallacy than other major religions.

Does truth have conflict with reason? If it evolved to have no conflict with reason, but started as the truth, it would seem truth and reason conflict.

 

[stringmusic]

No I do not think it is possible for any religion to get it all right.

I agree, I think one would have to be God to be able to get it all right.

I believe that since part of the equation is humans trying to understand God and then further trying to reduce it to language and convey it each other that way, that getting it right is like an ant trying to understand the sun's fusion process.

In your opinion, what are the other parts of the equation?

 

[HawgJawl]

Very true again, does it take that power away if God does ask for the assistance of a human? What if, in some way, God could make himself known by this instance, and the life that was taken was known by God to be going to Heaven/he11 already, and another 1,000 lives were changed to be going to Heaven? I know the taking of anothers life would possibly seem not a way to have others go to Heaven, but I think it is very possible.

I do not believe God needs any assistance in killing people. And using people to kill other people has the opposite effect than "making God known". God could make Himself known much better by doing the killing Himself, such as a great flood, or destroying two entire cities by fire, or turning someone into salt, etc. etc.

My point is not whether God has the power, authority, or right to kill whoever He wants. My point is the claim that God tells a man to go kill another man for Him.

If your pastor or any "Godly" man who you respect, showed up on your doorstep with a machete and a possessed look in his eye and told you that God told him to come and kill your child, would you believe him.

 

[pnome]

If your pastor or any "Godly" man who you respect, showed up on your doorstep with a machete and a possessed look in his eye and told you that God told him to come and kill your child, would you believe him.

 

[TTom]

well there is god to man that we have discussed the hazards of pretty well find agreement

Then there is man to man which I touched on but only just a little.

If I try to tell you about my experience with flesh hooks in my chest and the ecstatic spiritual experience that it is do you think I could convey what I felt easily and accurately and that you would understand the experience accurately?

I have doubt, because I know I can't even put into words what I experienced accurately and completely. So there is part two of the equation.

Last there is man back to God and lacking a good understanding of what god means for us, and lacking the ability to communicate well even that which we think we understand. We have left the idea of how to communicate back to whatever God we believe in.

This part though I rationalize away simply enough with the idea that God knows what is in the heart and thus needs no words. However it still remains that the man side of the talking to God equation is flawed because all thoughts form with language.
So even how man is to pray is something I don't believe man has right in most cases.