Morrigu
Member
- Apr 12, 2008
- 97
- 20
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Exams done, pressure out of my mind ....
Allright, lets fix this very public humilliation i got myself into (i know, its narcissistic, but damn it, i need to fix this XD)
True, but as a student of another subjective science (aesthetics), i can tell you that what theology does not study the truth of a god, but the construction and developments of the belief in a divine nature, the so called relatioships with a "God". You cannot study something that you don't have a proof of.
I admit the existence of an unknowable divine escence, but I do not impose it as a universal truth, It is my perception and subjective construction. I know it is weird to be aware of ones own mechanisms and constructions, but I will not define it for it would be an absolutism. I think that we will never know the Truth, that big T, and that all we have are this sparks of inspiration that lead us to create well, you name it, philosophy, religion, art... but none of them is complete, all of them are understood with human minds, and therefor they are flawed. Nothing made by human hands or minds is perfect, not even religion.
The bible was created by man, as well as theology, as well as religious institutions. I think i do not fall in absolutism by saying this, because well... its an observation that you seem to ignore (thanks second reading).
Again, understood with human minds. Flawed. Not perfect.
I will ask you this, does "The Nothing" exist? or "The Other"? or "The Death"? or "The Life"?
Like them, "The Theology" is just a concept. A concept crafted to define a specific discipline of thought. A concept can not exist before man thinks it.
What I call, "sparks of inspiration" are not concepts that come before man, but brief understandings of a bigger nature. The romantic "Witz".
Of course there is consentual nature, of course there is a common reality. We would be living in a Freudian dream if there weren't.
I see something blue, you see it blue.
up is up, down is down.
But on the field of concepts ideas, and perceptions it gets tricky.
I see an defense, You see attack.
I see a monster, you see a Hero.
I percive it as a right , you percive it as a threat.
I percive ti as a deception, you percive it as truth.
I think it is wrong, you think it is right...
and so...
Even when there are agreements on a general concept, say "There is a God" it will never be the same for two people. Other wise there would only be one catholict church... further more there would only be one church
So the existence of lutheranism, calvinism, mormons, LDS, and evangelicals proves that accepted truth has a different shade of grey for everyone.
...
All right, lets go to the topic that made me humilliate myself:
Patched and fixed, nopes, I never intended to make an absolutist claim, even if it came out that way.
Though I do admit are those who claim an argument that causes a paradox of absolute relativity, i did not intend to make my claims in that tone. All i have said I have said it out of observation and reflection on the subject, and its manifestations, as far as my knowlodge can take me.
Both. Why not both? They keep mantaining a close minded discurse on certain subjects, at the same time that they progress on others.
The Hermeneutic message of scriptures matters little, it is the interpreted message of those who preach it that we listen to. It is the interpreted message of those who preach it the one that is put into action.
PERSONAL BELIEF, SUBJECTIVE BELIEF. I don't want you to think like me (it would be too boring).
Also, the whole point of my claim, is that, you can't know it. You can only construct on those spark moments of understanding.
I know, i know i have conflicted beliefs. But i think i manage them well enough to be functional.
Neither the muslims, nor the jews, nor the hindues, or sufist, or shintoist, or buddhists. Why are christian theological and moral constructions any better than the ones from other religions?
I don't. But, I disagree with their take on homosexuality. Reason tends to go out the window when religious talk about the issue, and they mask their prejudice with outdated beliefs.
I don't.
Again, the only point i make about what I percive as a divine essence (not a divinity, for i do not know it to be self aware) is that i can't know it.
Catholics, muslims, jews, buddhists. They all claim to have the capital T on their truths.
They all were born out of a context that works for a specific timeframe and location, and the constructed over it. The same with non religious institutions.
I admit it was badly said. It should have been: Whatever Truth is out there, we can't know it.
............
See ya
Allright, lets fix this very public humilliation i got myself into (i know, its narcissistic, but damn it, i need to fix this XD)
True, but as a student of another subjective science (aesthetics), i can tell you that what theology does not study the truth of a god, but the construction and developments of the belief in a divine nature, the so called relatioships with a "God". You cannot study something that you don't have a proof of.
I admit the existence of an unknowable divine escence, but I do not impose it as a universal truth, It is my perception and subjective construction. I know it is weird to be aware of ones own mechanisms and constructions, but I will not define it for it would be an absolutism. I think that we will never know the Truth, that big T, and that all we have are this sparks of inspiration that lead us to create well, you name it, philosophy, religion, art... but none of them is complete, all of them are understood with human minds, and therefor they are flawed. Nothing made by human hands or minds is perfect, not even religion.
The bible was created by man, as well as theology, as well as religious institutions. I think i do not fall in absolutism by saying this, because well... its an observation that you seem to ignore (thanks second reading).
Again, understood with human minds. Flawed. Not perfect.
I will ask you this, does "The Nothing" exist? or "The Other"? or "The Death"? or "The Life"?
Like them, "The Theology" is just a concept. A concept crafted to define a specific discipline of thought. A concept can not exist before man thinks it.
What I call, "sparks of inspiration" are not concepts that come before man, but brief understandings of a bigger nature. The romantic "Witz".
Of course there is consentual nature, of course there is a common reality. We would be living in a Freudian dream if there weren't.
I see something blue, you see it blue.
up is up, down is down.
But on the field of concepts ideas, and perceptions it gets tricky.
I see an defense, You see attack.
I see a monster, you see a Hero.
I percive it as a right , you percive it as a threat.
I percive ti as a deception, you percive it as truth.
I think it is wrong, you think it is right...
and so...
Even when there are agreements on a general concept, say "There is a God" it will never be the same for two people. Other wise there would only be one catholict church... further more there would only be one church
So the existence of lutheranism, calvinism, mormons, LDS, and evangelicals proves that accepted truth has a different shade of grey for everyone.
...
All right, lets go to the topic that made me humilliate myself:
Patched and fixed, nopes, I never intended to make an absolutist claim, even if it came out that way.
Though I do admit are those who claim an argument that causes a paradox of absolute relativity, i did not intend to make my claims in that tone. All i have said I have said it out of observation and reflection on the subject, and its manifestations, as far as my knowlodge can take me.
Both. Why not both? They keep mantaining a close minded discurse on certain subjects, at the same time that they progress on others.
The Hermeneutic message of scriptures matters little, it is the interpreted message of those who preach it that we listen to. It is the interpreted message of those who preach it the one that is put into action.
PERSONAL BELIEF, SUBJECTIVE BELIEF. I don't want you to think like me (it would be too boring).
Also, the whole point of my claim, is that, you can't know it. You can only construct on those spark moments of understanding.
I know, i know i have conflicted beliefs. But i think i manage them well enough to be functional.
Neither the muslims, nor the jews, nor the hindues, or sufist, or shintoist, or buddhists. Why are christian theological and moral constructions any better than the ones from other religions?
I don't. But, I disagree with their take on homosexuality. Reason tends to go out the window when religious talk about the issue, and they mask their prejudice with outdated beliefs.
I don't.
Again, the only point i make about what I percive as a divine essence (not a divinity, for i do not know it to be self aware) is that i can't know it.
Catholics, muslims, jews, buddhists. They all claim to have the capital T on their truths.
They all were born out of a context that works for a specific timeframe and location, and the constructed over it. The same with non religious institutions.
I admit it was badly said. It should have been: Whatever Truth is out there, we can't know it.
............
See ya
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yeah, because we know Jesus was real big about not getting near "sinners". That would explain why all of His earliest and most stalwart followers were made up of only the most high rankings of Pharisee's, without a sinner among the lot. and how so many people commented on He never even spoke to people who may have sinned. 
