Godtalk and Godwalk

efrkhntl cpktqmrj ndhgrv lcfshxgpv rcmhai yfrt aungib

efrkhntl cpktqmrj ndhgrv lcfshxgpv rcmhai yfrt aungib

free downloads t mobile ringtones
http://idisk.mac.com/ringtonesforyou/Public/index.html

One of the big problems with the vast majority - if not all - of the discussions regarding the nature of religious beliefs is that religion is defined as, for the most part, a "set of beliefs". The problem here is that this approach is not cross cultural (it does not account for pretty much all indigenous "religion") and it does not even do justice to the religions about which we believe ourselves to be so knowledgeable today.

Martin Buber's groundbreaking text, I and Thou, was written at the dawn of the 20th century, and it continues to speak to these issues with incredible depth of wisdom and relevance to the modern world. It is not belief which lies at the core of human religious life; it is relationship. Our ability to form relationships in the way that we do is what makes us so distinctly "human". Religion can thus be understood as a vision of "right relationships" which we externalize and project onto the world around us. We are world-creators, in a very significant sense; although a single physical world exists for all of us (and even that isn't a cross-cultural statement), we live in an entangled web of externalized visions. A "scientific" vision is just one among many more and should recognize itself as being on equal ground with them, no matter how irrational they are by its own standards.

For Buber, God exists at the intersection of two people, no matter how different they or their visions of the world are. Without the Other, we do not exist in any real sense. This concept is embodied in various non-Western societies; look up the term "ubuntu" from South African studies and you will begin to get a gist of the idea. "People are people because of other people". Call it spirituality, call it nonsense, but no one can exactly pinpoint the exact point in time where "society" suddenly existed, when humans found themselves with the abiltiy to live with and create (or aid in the creation of) a totalized, unifying vision of the world.

God does not exist insofar as we "believe" in Him and whatever else he'd like us to believe about Him. He exists because we can enter into relationship with Him. Abraham was asked to venture out into the wilderness; so were many others after him from various geographies and time periods of the world. What they found was not simple "belief" but a Voice which spoke; asking them if they believed in God would be akin to asking a child if he believed in his own mother. This doesn't mean that there is no struggle with God once the relationship is formed; it only means that belief is not the central issue for a vast majority of religious practitioners, both today and in the past.

This is incredibly poorly written but I needed to say something before crashing in bed.

To Mohamed:

Thank you so much for your courteous reply to my last post.

What can I say. I agree with almost everything you say and appreciate your open acknowledgement that the world's major religions do have mutually contrdictory core beliefs.

The overlapping beliefs in the major religions such as the Golden Rule are indeed a common thread throughout most of them. And you are clearly free to focus on these common threads. There is a rather trite phrase about not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and even although this may sound unpalatable the golden rule etc are the baby and the divisive non-overlapping beliefs are the bathwater. What purpose do they really serve?

As I have pointed out in another post; if invontrovertible evidence emerged tomorrow which established that Jesus body was stolen from the grave (and that the resurrection thus did not occur -- which is a core Christian belief) would this cause believers to change their ethical and moral outlook in any way?

My wife and I have had a mutually faithful marriage for nigh on 50 years. We don't steal, murder or abuse our bodies with drugs and we are kind to animals and concerned about the environment. And I really don't see the need to force myself to adhere to one or other set of mythological beliefs.

Please don't be upset about my lack of entusiasm for Dyson. It is simply that I feel more at home with Dawkins and others like him.

Rev. Thistlethwaite's shift of focus to "common ground on doing good" is a commendable shift away from focusing on differences among a variety of faith-based beliefs in favor of "feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless."

A world that provides these three necessities for everyone does not need religion to accomplish it.

Its accomplishment requires everyone's participation, not just faith-based people. If something other than religion empowers an individual to "do good," the resulting "good" is just the same. The point is for everyone to shift their focus to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless", and let go of caring at all about religious differences.

Dear Ted,

There is nothing to 'skate around' in your arguments.

Yes, the way you put it, they are mutually contradictory.

But, you focus on individuals -- Moses (or the Torah), Jesus, Muhammad, Baha'ullah, instead of the fundamental 'morality' in these "prophets'" teachings. One fundamental 'moral rule' that is common ton ALL 'religions'/spiritual.codes is the "Golden Rule" -- Do unto others as you would want others do unto you".

Now, you'll say that I am contradicting myself, and , in fact, I surrender to your superior argument that 'religion is mumbo-jumbo bunkum'. That would be a very simplistic, superficial way of looking at 'religion', when the term is construed in its deeper sense of 'spiritual code to maximize social welfare in all conceivable situations'. The correct way would be to look at the teachings of 'organised religion' as well as more survival-inspired moral codes, and see how compatible or incompatible are the core teachings with more scientifically-inspired codes of morality.

This is what Freman Dyson, among others, do.

I honestly feel pained that you find Dyson's comments unconvincing -- but then , maybe it is I who am the idiotic naif.

Anyway, it was a pleasure having this exchange of ideas with you.

Modern scientific investigations (based on evolutionary biology, neuroscience, computer-based simulations of Game Theoretical models, etc.) have, to a considerable degree of precision, improved on the "Simple Golden Rule", as enunciated, to incorporate what Game Theorists call 'optimal penal code' to elicit, in conflict situations, the types of behaviour that optimize the welfare payoffs of all 'players'.

Hi everybody

Susan, you said "you should have given yourself the pleasure (surely not 'trouble'!) to study the teachings of Islam, Judaism and Christinaity in greater depth."

Which teachings do you mean? the good ones I guess, cause it´s a pleasure listen to good teachings, isn´t it?, but, what happens with all the intolerance, injustice, murders, rapes, and a long etc, that also appears as teachings, in the bible at least?, are they a pleasure or a trouble for you to read them?, for example, How do you justify Moses and his fellows, when they see a man gathering sticks on sabbath, and then decide to ask god what to do and god tell them to stone him to death for working on saturday? (Numbers 15: 32-36), why is it SO bad to gather sticks (work?) on saturday?, isn´t it worst to kill?, isn´t it more hard to do, killing as a labour, than gathering sticks?, Is this the same god which gave Moses the ten mandments?, I CANNOT BELIEVE IT,....or, as I listened yesterday in the news, I don´t remember the country, killing someone cause he manifested his opinion against a new religious dogma which forbidded the use of an SUBSTITUTE for tabacco?....IT MAKES NO SENSE.
Honestly, I think that for having good people doing bad you - need - religion (or another kind of brainwash).

Thanks for the comments Mohamed. I have had a look at Dyson's arguments in favour of faith in his Templeton lecture and find them utterly unconvincing.
Methinks I have read more about Chritianity, Islam and Judaism than you seem to imagine. Perhaps it was my fault in giving just a thumbnail sketch of the four different religions. Truth is, I was brought up a Christain in the Anglican church, became a Quaker and ended up an agnostic. I have had Bahai friends, Jewish friends and currently have a Muslim friend right her in Kelwona (Mo he calls himself for short). And nothing they have said to me contradicts my thumbnail sketch.

Can you honestly say that the core beliefs of the four faiths are not mutually contradictory?

This is the problem I have when talking to individuals who profess one or other of these faiths. They skate around the incompatibility. To put it another way, the beliefs I mention cannot all be true. They are literally contradictory. I really would like to know your answer to my question. Maybe you will not skate away into the twilight.

Susan, Ted,

I invite you both to read the Templeton Award Lecture by the Physicist Freeman Dyson.

Dyson discusses 'works' and 'faith' in very concrete, scientific and fair terms to all 'spiritual schools', Susan. The correct interpretation of faith, he concludes, is fundamental to the more important task of 'good works'.

Ted, you write that Islamic, Judaic and Christian teachings are " baseless mumbo jumbo". I suspect you are quoting from the book "How Mumbo Jumbo Conquered the World". Very good book, but you should have given yourself the pleasure (surely not 'trouble'!) to study the teachings of Islam, Judaism and Christinaity in greater depth.

The gist of your argument is that "walking the walk" is better than "talking the talk" and it is hard to fault this attitude. But you go on to say: " -- doctrinal differences are important".

As an outsider, who does not belong to any formal religious faith, it seems to me that doctrinal differences are precisley the very things which make "walking the walk" les frequent than should be the case. Surely any conceivable importance of doctrinal differences is massively outweighed by their ability to divide or cause actual conflict.

Sam Harris points out -- quite fairly -- that the world's major religions are mutually incompatible. Christians believe (or are supposed ot believe) that Jesus was God made visible (in human form) on earth and that he is the only way to salvation. Muslims believe that Jesus was nothing more than a human prophet and not up to Muhammed's standard and that his revelation of Allah -- via the archangel Gabriel -- was more complete and definitive than that of Jesus. The Bahais believe that Buha-ullah superseded both. And the Jews believe than none of these three were really needed since they alrady had an inside track on the true monotheistic faith.

All four of these options strike me as baseless mumbo jumbo. The doctrines espoused by these faiths seem to me nothing other than houses of cards. In the Christin faith some professed Christians accept the occurrence of evolution and others regard it as a total myth -- despite the overwhelming fossil and DNA evidence for the occurrence of evolution. It seems to me that doctrines based on nothing more than idle speculation cannot possibly have any importance -- except in the negative sense of causing conflict.