Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
What do you believe in?.
13 Answers
After reading numerous questions and answers on here, got me wondering, regardless of which faith you follow, do you follow the writings in your Holy Books inflexibley, or do you personally believe it is open to interpretation?.
Non believers, and others, please feel free to write what you think also.
Non believers, and others, please feel free to write what you think also.
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lonnie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I believe if your holy book gives you all the answers to your questions logically, it is flexible with the changing time, is practical in real life and where there is no flexibility (in certain matters) even those makes sense if scrutinised with open mind and logic, then you should believe in it. If you do not understand something then ask the people who have more deep knowledge. Don�t go to a brain surgeon if you have a question about boiler because although brain surgeon is more educated than a heating engineer but it is not his field unless you are looking for wrong answers only to satisfy you.
Of course interpretations are always there especially if the book is in a language that you do not understand, then you chose what interpretation is more logical and makes sense even if it is from someone you do not personally like.
If you take other path of listening to people�s own views without the reference to the book then the chances are that you would be mislead unless they prove with logic and unbiased way that the book does not make sense. In this case you must listen to both for and against views and see what makes sense.
Of course interpretations are always there especially if the book is in a language that you do not understand, then you chose what interpretation is more logical and makes sense even if it is from someone you do not personally like.
If you take other path of listening to people�s own views without the reference to the book then the chances are that you would be mislead unless they prove with logic and unbiased way that the book does not make sense. In this case you must listen to both for and against views and see what makes sense.
I'm loosely Pagan although originally a Catholic and my ex wife was jewish, and so there was always a huge variability in our house of ideas and beliefs, but none of them were inflexible. Most 'holy books' are ancient and therefore only some things in them have sensible reference to today's living.read and observe but be discerning with it and apply what makes sense and accept that what doesn't doesn't because we have evoled as a society to live in other ways.
Any of these Holy books have one significant problem.
They are written at a point (or over a period) in time and then become frozen in the context of that period.
Their followers then fight an increasingly futile battle of pretending that they hold a universal truth that is true for all time.
This is of course nonsense as over time ideas of ethics change and new ethical challenges arise that are totally beyond the scope of the original writers.
So the Bible or Koran or Torah scholars scuttle away and try to find something that they can press into service to support their view on in vitro fertilisation or gene therapy or whatever this year's issue is.
And their opponents do the same and it all becomes rather silly.
It's rather as if when Einstein came up with general relativity I dusted off Principia Mathematica and showed that Newton had realised this all along and that we had just not fully understood his sacred words.
But these magic books provide a rock for those who cannot cope with changing values and they cling to them as if their lives depended on it - oblivious to the rising tide that is slowly drowning them
They are written at a point (or over a period) in time and then become frozen in the context of that period.
Their followers then fight an increasingly futile battle of pretending that they hold a universal truth that is true for all time.
This is of course nonsense as over time ideas of ethics change and new ethical challenges arise that are totally beyond the scope of the original writers.
So the Bible or Koran or Torah scholars scuttle away and try to find something that they can press into service to support their view on in vitro fertilisation or gene therapy or whatever this year's issue is.
And their opponents do the same and it all becomes rather silly.
It's rather as if when Einstein came up with general relativity I dusted off Principia Mathematica and showed that Newton had realised this all along and that we had just not fully understood his sacred words.
But these magic books provide a rock for those who cannot cope with changing values and they cling to them as if their lives depended on it - oblivious to the rising tide that is slowly drowning them
Hi naomi,
I'm well thanks, a lot better now, thanks for asking, and as for the Bible being an Historical document, your absolutely right.
A big thanks to everyone who's answered, very interesting abd diverse answers,
My beliefs on this subject are,
I believe, that whenever the laws for a religion are/were written, they should be set in stone, because if you update a religion, or just aspects of it, its no longer the same religion, even if it goes by the same name, and if that is so, none of the major religions are compatible with each other, especially if the true believers of these religions believe that theirs, and theirs alone, is the true word of god.
My personal belief, the one that I live by, is that there is a basic goodness in everyone, some people have it naturally, others, you need to work at to reach it, but its there.
However, for certain crimes, I have no forgiveness.
I'm well thanks, a lot better now, thanks for asking, and as for the Bible being an Historical document, your absolutely right.
A big thanks to everyone who's answered, very interesting abd diverse answers,
My beliefs on this subject are,
I believe, that whenever the laws for a religion are/were written, they should be set in stone, because if you update a religion, or just aspects of it, its no longer the same religion, even if it goes by the same name, and if that is so, none of the major religions are compatible with each other, especially if the true believers of these religions believe that theirs, and theirs alone, is the true word of god.
My personal belief, the one that I live by, is that there is a basic goodness in everyone, some people have it naturally, others, you need to work at to reach it, but its there.
However, for certain crimes, I have no forgiveness.
I understand what you are saying Lonnie (good to see you, by the way), but have you ever asked yourself why that should be? Why you should be able to make such judgements?
I mean, why should we, universally as humans, make such differientation between "right" and "wrong"? Why should there be a higher or better measure by which we gauge others actions? Isn't that antiintuitive if there is no better or no ultimate right.
It's been said that one cannot describe a crooked road unless the possibility exists that there is a straight road for comparison. Seems to me the same logic applies here.
After all, I think most would agree that other species wouldn't "feel" the same way you do or judge an action to be totally unforgiveable.
Dian Fossey of Gorillas in the Mist fame described observing one Chimpanzee blatantly stealing a bit of food from another. As it happened, a few of the other chimpanzees saw the action, but the victim of the theft, for the moment, was entirely unaware of the theft. Not one of the chimps was, firstly, outraged by the injustice, and none of them made any move to inform the victim of the perpetrator.
Why should this be? Why can we see the injustice? Could it not be the existence of a Universal law... a Natural law? It appears, that throughout all cultures, historically, the same sorts of actions are taboo as in all other cultures. Even ones that have no contact with each other for context. I find that thought provoking... but perhaps it's ultimately meaningless... except that in all human experience there have never been laws without a law giver, no?
I mean, why should we, universally as humans, make such differientation between "right" and "wrong"? Why should there be a higher or better measure by which we gauge others actions? Isn't that antiintuitive if there is no better or no ultimate right.
It's been said that one cannot describe a crooked road unless the possibility exists that there is a straight road for comparison. Seems to me the same logic applies here.
After all, I think most would agree that other species wouldn't "feel" the same way you do or judge an action to be totally unforgiveable.
Dian Fossey of Gorillas in the Mist fame described observing one Chimpanzee blatantly stealing a bit of food from another. As it happened, a few of the other chimpanzees saw the action, but the victim of the theft, for the moment, was entirely unaware of the theft. Not one of the chimps was, firstly, outraged by the injustice, and none of them made any move to inform the victim of the perpetrator.
Why should this be? Why can we see the injustice? Could it not be the existence of a Universal law... a Natural law? It appears, that throughout all cultures, historically, the same sorts of actions are taboo as in all other cultures. Even ones that have no contact with each other for context. I find that thought provoking... but perhaps it's ultimately meaningless... except that in all human experience there have never been laws without a law giver, no?
I think you may have just contradicted yourself Clanad
Which Gorilla was the law giver?
Did the Israelites go around thinking it was fine to steal and murder before Moses came down from the mountain?
People start with ethics and laws grow from those - ethics come from empathy, the ability to put oneself in somebody else's shoes, to feel someone else's pain.
Most laws and ethical principles spring from this concept.
Which Gorilla was the law giver?
Did the Israelites go around thinking it was fine to steal and murder before Moses came down from the mountain?
People start with ethics and laws grow from those - ethics come from empathy, the ability to put oneself in somebody else's shoes, to feel someone else's pain.
Most laws and ethical principles spring from this concept.
Sometimes we can have a reasonable exchange of ideas, jake, and other times I think we are both guilty of knee jerk responses. "What Gorilla was the law giver", is probably a good example. I think I tried to develop the thought that there is no law among gorillas or any animals, other than humans. So I don't understand your question. Secondly, there were laws before Moses encounter. They were codified and "set in stone" for the Israelites.
You may be correct is stating laws grow out of ethics, but that only reinforces my original question... why should there be ethics? There appears, at least to me, to be no process for such development. As with the animal kingdom, shouldn't the only law be survival of the fittest?
But, thanks for your response...
You may be correct is stating laws grow out of ethics, but that only reinforces my original question... why should there be ethics? There appears, at least to me, to be no process for such development. As with the animal kingdom, shouldn't the only law be survival of the fittest?
But, thanks for your response...
Hi Clanad, good to see you my friend.
Had a discussion at work, one of my workmates said that he didn't believe in killing/death penalty for any reason. He is true Pacifist, and I admire him for his stance. I cannot be.
The example I then gave to him was, What if, his daughter was kidnapped, tortured, raped then murdered, he went away in thought, i'm still wating for a reply.
In all due respect, I don't think you can compare the human animals behaviour with that of beasts in the wild, humans are the more beastial without a doubt.
As for 'right and wrong', that comes down to our own individual conceptions, with the Chimps, or at least, that particular troop, that would be the accepted code of behaviour.
In the end, we (humans) have the power of reason far above any other creature, making us the higher civilisation, which really should exclude the sort of behaviour I gave above, but it doesn't,
There are a certain type of people, (and please don't interpret that the wromg way) I believe don't have the right to live among us.
I believe that for every crime that you hear about, you should make it personel, and then decide what you would do.
Had a discussion at work, one of my workmates said that he didn't believe in killing/death penalty for any reason. He is true Pacifist, and I admire him for his stance. I cannot be.
The example I then gave to him was, What if, his daughter was kidnapped, tortured, raped then murdered, he went away in thought, i'm still wating for a reply.
In all due respect, I don't think you can compare the human animals behaviour with that of beasts in the wild, humans are the more beastial without a doubt.
As for 'right and wrong', that comes down to our own individual conceptions, with the Chimps, or at least, that particular troop, that would be the accepted code of behaviour.
In the end, we (humans) have the power of reason far above any other creature, making us the higher civilisation, which really should exclude the sort of behaviour I gave above, but it doesn't,
There are a certain type of people, (and please don't interpret that the wromg way) I believe don't have the right to live among us.
I believe that for every crime that you hear about, you should make it personel, and then decide what you would do.
1 to 13 of 13
