JTaylor

We'll make it your homework to find out, Jon. I'll look forward to your critique - shall we call it 500 words?

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

The question here is how much any of this was perceived as fundamentally different by the average person in post-reformation Christianity as compared with pre-Reformation Christianity, and more specifically whether it was perceived as different enough to elevate Christianity back to a level of prominence in people's minds higher than that of the socio-cultural wallpaper that I described earlier. I personally don't think it was, and as such the relationship of Christianity vis-a-vis the flourishing of science would be better described as one of benign tolerance, than of actively fostering it.

jonc

Well from what I've read and (limited) understand about Hegel's post modern God, his philosophy of god generally lacks some of the integrity of the teachings in the bible, ie no love and no wrath and is far removed from the "traditional" symbolic notion of God. He stretches the use of the written word (and my understanding!) to decribe his concept of God as an absolute totatlity; everything that was, is and will be and uses this construct as bridge between religion and scietific logic/philosophy. At the end of the day, it is still *his* interpretation, but it doesn't mean it's the right one.

It's not 500 words, perhaps my understanding is wrong in which case feel free to enlighten us all.

fatscoobfella1

iTrader: (1)

I hope you didnt think i was being derogatory towards you in any way,that wasnt the intention at all.. With what i have read of your posts within the thread i thought it was one defining moment that gave you enough irrefutible evidence to change your beliefs.

As i have sad any religion isnt for me...But i wouldnt call or belittle anyone that found solice,comfort or stability in life by following religion..What i do dislike is when people hide behind religion to kill,commit crime,terrorism or generally treat other like ****...

GlesgaKiss

No.

SRSport

Not at all

It was

and thats why I would say I wasnt religious

Completely agree and it is very frustrating

Turbohot

I didn't know anything about that film, but it sounds interesting indeed. However, you have shown your belief in the possibility of another life out there. If you believe that “the truth is out there” but not yet known to us, a Super Alien aka God can be alive and kicking out there, whether you like it or not.

About Biblical or any other religion's tales like those Men in Black Mormons told you, can't you take them as fun stories- just like those unrealistic films we rave and rant about e.g. Avatar, Gremlins and Zombie Attack? If you can enjoy them without taking them literally, why can't you enjoy the Bible? Don't let the literalists ruin it for you. Enjoy the fantasyland. Fantasy can have some useful underlying philosophy. Reality on its own can be quite harsh and insipid. Fantasy gives birth to some great scientific discoveries and inventions as well, you know. At one point, no one believed that plants had life, although some religions did; for thousands of years. Then came the scientists whose minds continued to boggle, who went beyond then-existing beliefs and proved with evidence that plants do actually have life. Therefore, I wouldn't rubbish the Bible due to some literalists taking it like a gospel.

I also observe that some literalist fanatics and lunatics have done a good job in ruining the meaning of religion. For example, if anyone starts fighting quixotically with random windmills after reading that story about the Spanish gentleman of La Mancha, he needs to get his head tested. Religious stories can be quite interesting if you take them like an adult, even when the writer forgot to throw a dinosaur or two in them.

JTaylor

Literalists: Fücking up spirituality for everyone.

JTaylor

To be fair, one can only really get Hegel after copious amounts of class a drugs. For a valiant attempt at refutation of Hegel's God concepts, read Kierkegaard.

Turbohot

Correct.

One literalist claims that he regularly goes to the off-licence to get his spirits, and therefore he is the real spiritualist. Rest is just a con.

Another literalist argued a classic piece of literature that hope is no ******* bird with some fluffy feathers, and whoever thinks what Dickinson wrote was great is ******* mad. He said that suppose hope was a bird, there's no way it could perch in the soul because the idea of soul is completely crazy. Soul is to do with the Soul music, nothing else.

Another literalist slates all other religions but hers because miraculously, she once had an overnight vision of a God, and she woke up as a changed person. Other religions to her are all ****, because her little book of her God says so. She goes on that the world is literally about to end in 2000-something, and says that all statue worshippers are pure nasty + responsible for this forthcoming world's demise. I personally reckon that on the night of her enlightenment, she had had too many drugs, she fell off her bed while asleep, and banged her head on the floor or something.

Another criminal literalist injected such fear of God in her children that their anxieties have become their second nature. Now they are troubled adults. Never mind God punishing them, they torture themselves with their negative thinking 24/7, and sadly, they will remain jumpy until they die. Such victims sometimes can only break free from their demons by joining the anti-God extreme wing, which is understandable tbh.

Both religious and non-religious literalists are responsible for ruining spirituality for everyone.

Leslie

Can't say fairer than that!

Les