Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll venture a guess that you studied these things with the same closed-minded perspective that you accuse nonbelievers of approaching the Bible with.
Nope, have you studied philosphy or other religons before in an academic setting? There is an approach that is required in order to be objective. That is, you must first identify the method to which you evaluate them such as an outside perspective (from another belief systems view) and an inside perspective (from the confines of the that belief system).
For instance, If I evaluate Confucianism from an "outside" perspective, I measure it based on western principals and build biased conclusions driven from those methods of observation and measurement. If I evaluate it from an inside perspective, I must use only that which is provided by the system itself. I must be careful to avoid outside thinking as I approach it and each aspect, belief, or principal in the system must be held within the constraints of the systems design. Basically, you assume belief in its logical design and study it according to its own principals.
edit: in the end though, the idea of study is just to learn different ways people establish beliefs. If you enter into the study with the goal to disprove it, you have already violated the principal of an inside perspective.
The difference between us, Nomander, is that you read and studied all those other religions and philosophies while you were already sure they are wrong. I study and ask questions because I simply want to understand other beliefs if I can, I do not believe anyone is wrong or right, because religion is such a personal thing and really just deals with a person's individual perspective. I am not trying to disprove god, honest.
Actually, I do believe in a higher power or consciousness...just not the same literal god that Christians believe in. Be it the Big Bang or any other theory, all of this "life" began somewhere and somehow and so my own personal belief is that whatever that energy or beginning was, it is in us all and we are responsible for how we take care of that gift. You have no power over the workings of your heart & mind and neither do I...so whatever makes you a Believer and makes you feel that all other religions and philosophies are "wrong" is just not what is in my heart or mind. My mind tells me that all religions and philosophies are the way of mankind trying to discover what is true for them. If that personal truth helps them live gentle and respectful lives, then so much the better. If it breeds anger, hate, disrespect, greed, etc, it will bring about very negative consequences and unhappiness. I suppose that is why I need to try and understand...not just accept what is told to me.
I do understand and respect your words, however. You sound like a gentle and kind person who tries very hard to live what you believe.
Fair enough, your searching yourself and I respect that. I hope and pray that you find the truth and I don't mean that in a condescending way, just that I believe in God's truth and if you are truly seeking your heart, you will eventually find it and in my opinion, on the more correct terms as if you truly find it of your own accord, you will be committed to it with all your heart.
As for the last part, thank you I struggle with things daily. I appreciate your kind words, but I don't always live up to them. Its a constant battle, thats for sure. God Bless!
Location: In the North Idaho woods, still surrounded by terriers
2,179 posts, read 7,031,837 times
Reputation: 1014
I hope you are right about me...my searching is sometimes exhaustive . And yet I feel very content in myself right now...I suppose that is a step forward.
I think all of us walks a tough path. I appreciate your respect for my path, as well
Nope, have you studied philosphy or other religons before in an academic setting? There is an approach that is required in order to be objective. That is, you must first identify the method to which you evaluate them such as an outside perspective (from another belief systems view) and an inside perspective (from the confines of the that belief system).
Yes, I have. But to be objective you need to merge both of the perspectives that you described. Or at least be able to see them both clearly, if not together. Choosing only one of those methods nullifies objectivity.
Quote:
For instance, If I evaluate Confucianism from an "outside" perspective, I measure it based on western principals and build biased conclusions driven from those methods of observation and measurement. If I evaluate it from an inside perspective, I must use only that which is provided by the system itself. I must be careful to avoid outside thinking as I approach it and each aspect, belief, or principal in the system must be held within the constraints of the systems design. Basically, you assume belief in its logical design and study it according to its own principals.
Good points. Still, you need to be able to understand (at least intellectually) both perspectives. That is, you don't need to be an actual Confucianist in order to look at the system from an inside perspective. That's why I am able to examine Christianity from an inside perspective without believing that the Bible is true.
Quote:
edit: in the end though, the idea of study is just to learn different ways people establish beliefs. If you enter into the study with the goal to disprove it, you have already violated the principal of an inside perspective.
Agreed. But I would add that it is not "just" to learn different ways people establish beliefs, but also to understand why they establish them in the way that they do. As you must know, there are many reasons that people "believed" in Confuicianism and that they were essentially bound by those reasons. Same goes for all other religions/philosophies. I won't ever argue that my studies have proven anything regarding which philosophies are right or wrong, but my studies show me how to apply my own thinking to the world i.e. how to establish my own beliefs. So far, I can't be more than an outsider of all of the philosophies that I know - but becoming an insider is not my goal, and neither is staying an outsider.
Yes, I have. But to be objective you need to merge both of the perspectives that you described. Or at least be able to see them both clearly, if not together. Choosing only one of those methods nullifies objectivity.
Comparing them often is like apples and oranges. After all, we are talking about variation of subjective study, though reasoned and supported they may be. That is not to say someone can't compare them to contrast them, but that is not my point.
More so the common issue with an outside approach to the study is that they take in conditions to which the information can be handled. Obviously, a measure of some eastern principals with a western mindset can lead to great confusion. Yet, if it is held to the constraints of its own merit, then if one is evaluating it, one sees the system according to its own standards, not an outside one.
Its much like for instance a person who reads the Bible and uses all kinds of outside perspectives to basically push their conclusion. Its a 2000 year old book written by man, so its bound to have flaws. Its probably filled with tons of hateful things that caused all the hate in the world and so on.
If one does that, then they have already conditioned their conclusion. Everything they study will be tainted with that outside perspective. Any measure being done will constantly be defended with outside principals and beliefs.
Think of the old man principal. A man is believed to have lived a 1000 years and developed various philosophies. From an outside perspective, we know this is not true, yet if we argue from the position using that as a base, we do so from specifically that outside perspective and we begin to measure the invalid claim right form the start. If we however accept it as true within the religion and then only measure the religion according to its own principals and standards, we get a more objective view of its position and behavior. Outside perspectives have their purposes, but they shouldn't be used alone nor as a means to rank a religion over an other. If there is a flaw in the philosphy of a religion, it can be found using its own system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank
Good points. Still, you need to be able to understand (at least intellectually) both perspectives. That is, you don't need to be an actual Confucianist in order to look at the system from an inside perspective. That's why I am able to examine Christianity from an inside perspective without believing that the Bible is true.
As I said, outside perspectives have their place, but they must be kept separate between the processes. For instance, if you are evaluating something within the religion, outside perspectives should be careful to not influence the result of an inside perspective. You can contrast them after, but one shouldn't influence the other as you get biased results. Its very hard to do and in many ways it is much like a scientist approaches a condition with an openness to results and not a bias to conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank
Agreed. But I would add that it is not "just" to learn different ways people establish beliefs, but also to understand why they establish them in the way that they do. As you must know, there are many reasons that people "believed" in Confuicianism and that they were essentially bound by those reasons. Same goes for all other religions/philosophies. I won't ever argue that my studies have proven anything regarding which philosophies are right or wrong, but my studies show me how to apply my own thinking to the world i.e. how to establish my own beliefs. So far, I can't be more than an outsider of all of the philosophies that I know - but becoming an insider is not my goal, and neither is staying an outsider.
I see your point, but the insider approach isn't really a method of becoming a believer, but rather evaluating according to the systems constraints to first find its logical process before we bring in outside influences. At that point, the outside perspective can be brought in to properly assess a personal agreement or disagreement to the entire philosphy.
An example would be the Yamomamo Indians, they have a very harsh tribal religious doctrine of belief. From an outside perspective, much of their customs do not make sense, they seem to clash with most religious principals in the world even and at times, from this perspective they seem to contradict themselves. Yet when you go within and accept all aspects of their system and are open to the method to which it is established, it makes sense within their constraints.
Now by no means would I even consider this religion (outside perspective) to be valid in anything it does. It rapes and murders its woman as if property (even much more disgusting than some atrocities committed by other religions (including those committed in the name of Christianity).
At every angle from a western or more specifically a Christian perspective, it is nothing more than a very primal instinct driven religion. Yet, within it makes sense according to its own design and structure. Though you will never hear me take the Franz Boaz approach and call them culturally valid. I personally think the world would be in severe turmoil if it was ever adopted. *chuckle*
I see your point, but the insider approach isn't really a method of becoming a believer, but rather evaluating according to the systems constraints to first find its logical process before we bring in outside influences. At that point, the outside perspective can be brought in to properly assess a personal agreement or disagreement to the entire philosphy.
I think this is what I am trying to get at. I can evaluate religions from an inside perspective and see how they can make sense. I don't do that to convince myself of anything, but simply because it is a worthwhile endeavor. I love to put myself inside the "constraints" of a viewpoint and see what happens. This is even more fun when you try to enter different times in history as well as other viewpoints. While I am not a believer of any religion, I feel that I owe it to myself to try to understand what other people are thinking and feeling. Of course, the instant that I step back to the outsider's perspective - my personal understanding ends.
Anyway, thanks for going down this line of thought with me -- I hate it when Christians disregard my critical thinking as nothing more than some kind of satanic lure.
I think this is what I am trying to get at. I can evaluate religions from an inside perspective and see how they can make sense. I don't do that to convince myself of anything, but simply because it is a worthwhile endeavor. I love to put myself inside the "constraints" of a viewpoint and see what happens. This is even more fun when you try to enter different times in history as well as other viewpoints. While I am not a believer of any religion, I feel that I owe it to myself to try to understand what other people are thinking and feeling. Of course, the instant that I step back to the outsider's perspective - my personal understanding ends.
Anyway, thanks for going down this line of thought with me -- I hate it when Christians disregard my critical thinking as nothing more than some kind of satanic lure.
Sure thing, I enjoy these conversations. It is too bad that some Christians take a defensive and often (offensive) approach to your situation, but understand this is often due to fear, fear that you might damage their faith. I don't agree with their offensiveness though, they just need to stay away from it if they think it will tempt them to doubt too much.
Satan has no side side as he does not exist and if we go along with the biblical fantasy, he gets a bad rap later in the story after being god's right hand man for centuries. The old Israelite idea that all good and bad (to bring about good) came from god had a major flaw in it an made the big guy look rather stupid so it became necessary to invent a new role for Satan. Make him the bad guy and the master of all evil. To spice up the story even more, claim that he wanted to overthrow god and was kicked out of heaven down to earth but god ALLOWED him to roam all about the place in order to screw up some perfect creation. In doing so, we are now supposed to grovel before god and beg is mercy to spare us from his own blunder.
So learn as you like, ask questions, as many as you can think of, but do not doubt God, do not lose faith in him as that is exactly what Satan wishes.
Sorry, but this is your experience only.
I don't believe in your god, don't want a god thing in my life and think most of the christians I know from city-data are extremist Moderator cut: edited
Why not just live a life that is generous and kind and open and attract people that way (if that's what you want) and not preach or judge.
Matthew 6: 5-6
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.
Sorry, but this is your experience only.
I don't believe in your god, don't want a god thing in my life and think most of the christians I know from city-data are extremist kooks.
Why not just live a life that is generous and kind and open and attract people that way (if that's what you want) and not preach or judge.
Matthew 6: 5-6
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen.
Taking part without the whole serves the individual, not God. If you wish to rebuke me, understand more about Christianity than merely surfing sites that support your hate or distaste for it.
So you might understand (though you seem to not care to), That scripture you quote is to show those who proclaim righteousness and condemn others at the same time. I know I am a sinner, every sin I have committed I have recognized, repented and asked God to help me to avoid. I do not think I am better than another, I am the same in that I have sinnned and will continue to sin. The difference is that I recognize it, attempt to avoid it or improve from it. One who refuses to acknowledge it basks in their sin, seeks justification for it, requires everyone approve of it.
It points out that there are those who seek mans blessings over God. A person who prays in public, does so for man. They flounce around and make mighty devotions to God in front of man, yet pay him no attention in private. It is the person who gives greatly in public and for all the actions of these devotions sought in public, they have received their reward, their blessing, but not from God, but rather man to which they sought in the first place.
I suggest maybe reading the Bible for what it says rather than doing simple searches for words that you think that supports your position. Your ignorance of the word and willingness to use it as a weapon is only a testament to the hate you show for those who believe in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And yet I feel very content in myself right now...I suppose that is a step forward.
