The only "major religion" that is excluded from this is universalism as far as I can find. Universalism is to major religion what glue is to paper; useful when applied to such an item, but not the item itself.
> > Given that then can we conclude that whichever religion > >it was must have a ring of at least honesty if not truth about it? Honesty can be found in even the most corrupt supposition or idea. A person that espouses a demon tells him to work for the annihilation of mankind may be able to mathematically "prove" his reasoning. The idea is no less untrue and corrupt because algebra is a constant that his mind is interpreting in such a specific and focused religious form. > > So it suddenly struck me that any message that truely comes from God > > must trancend culture. This concept is also the problem with any objective morality. The morality that each religion promotes is always the localised and specifically relevant morality of the tribe that creates the religion. Should a god exist and expose itself to humans, that morality must -of necessity- be different in some form or function. Being that this has yet to happen, it is a logical conclusion that any god(s) that may exist have yet to reveal a divine nature. On Feb 24, 2:10 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > Hah food for thought indeed fids. > > Note the very first words of the quote you suppied, what do they > suggest to you? > > Hardly any major religion must imply that at least one major religion > has done so. Given that then can we conclude that whichever religion > it was must have a ring of at least honesty if not truth about it? > > Thanks Fidss, food for thought indeed. > > As to mean, we all find that in strange and wonderful places. Criket, > not my bag man, which means I don't understand why Neil loves it so. > I do understand that he does though, and that is enough for me. I > have said it before and I'll carry on mate until it seeps in. People > are differant, the whole world over. > > You find no merit in religoin, fine, I really don't mind, it's your > life, your choices. Now can you say the same for me? > > On 24 Feb, 02:21, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > But then worshipping such a god would have no meaning or purpose and > > every religion thus far would be false. This is the deist attitude > > btw, one that holds to god(s) being irrelevant and/or absent. > > > Food for thought: > > > "How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and > > concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The universe is much > > bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? > > Instead they say,'No, no, no! My god is a little god and I want him to > > stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence > > of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw > > forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional > > faiths." > > > Carl Sagan > > > Pale Blue Dot > > > On Feb 23, 9:02 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I am largley unconcered about that one Fidds. > > > > I would expect a God who grants free will, and takes no action towards > > > the happening on this planet (as is my belife) to let us discover > > > these sorts of things in our own time. > > > > On 23 Feb, 16:01, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You have hit on the exact problem of religion in general. It never > > > > transcends the culture it is invented in. In these "divine" > > > > occurrences there is never any medical knowledge beyond what is > > > > already known, no technology, and linguistically identical to the > > > > culture and often regarded as the only "true" language that it must be > > > > read in, etc.. > > > > The values of the god in question are also shockingly similar to the > > > > prophets involved. A small band of unhappy Canaanites invented a god > > > > that allowed them to conquer their region and put nearly everyone to > > > > the sword as well as justifying the kidnap and rape of any women they > > > > want. A gold-digging, illiterate teamster invented a god that allowed > > > > him power and prestige, as well as pre-pubescent girls. > > > > > Sadly, none of these people can invent gods that impart previously > > > > unknown ideas. Can you imagine if a god did exist, and told people in > > > > a book how to treat an infection? The dark ages might well have been > > > > averted in Europe if not for the christians insisting that demons were > > > > responsible for sickness (and elves, witches, neighbours, pagans, > > > > atheists, cats, trees, etc.). Or the advances that we might have > > > > enjoyed technologically if religions didn't burn the books of those > > > > that came before them and murder anyone that bucks the servility > > > > concept in order to invent or discover? Or how united the world would > > > > be if a god's words could be read by anyone and every language and > > > > people were accorded equal weight and respect? > > > > > Instead, every religion is filled with the ignorant mutterings of > > > > whomever invents them. Some even take a step backward when knowledge > > > > available elsewhere is unknown to the "prophet" and so dismissed when > > > > encountered. > > > > > On Feb 23, 3:19 am, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > So you Atheists can of course get involded in this one, I really don't > > > > > know why you should or what the interest for you would be, but do feel > > > > > free. > > > > > > I was thinking the other day about religion and culture. I'm somewhat > > > > > worried about how to seperate the message of God from that of man. > > > > > > > Thoughts?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
