The Seekers of Illumination

[T.G. Oskar]

Gaah!!! I had forgotten for a while that you are much more orthodox in belief than the Orthodox Christians. I had taken for a fact that you had taken a leave to Christianity: here I stand proven wrong. I had to take some people as an example, and since the only good atheist I know that you know for sure is Honey, so...I thought I needed a second example.

Aaaanyways, as far as I recall, there is a Void in every mention of religion, almost as much mentioned as the meaning of good and evil. Norse had the Ginningagap (which, far as I recall, is not Norse but Norwegian), Greeks had the primordial Chaos from where Gaia and Uranus emerged, and so on. In fact, if you come to think closely, the Judaic faith, and by proxy the Christian and Islamic faiths as Abrahamic faiths also believe in a Void. Well...a void filled halfway with water, but a Void nonetheless, which was ostracized and altered by the utterings of the Word of God. But, the world before Creation was empty and lifeless, save for the water: sounds like a Void to me.

Second, and perhaps something that will strike odd...there is no specific mention of the Devil after the fall of Eden as the one that does all the bad things. See, it is common Christian association that God is good and the Devil, the Instigator, is the original serpent, but when the Pharaoh was being plagued, who hardened its heart? And why? Believe it or not, it was God. Originally, and in true monotheistic fashion, God was the bringer of mercy and calamity, the one that ordered to kill as easily as to forgive. It is by later scripts that the Devil is re-introduced as the bad guy, as the one against humanity (around Job, to be precise) Granted, for all the questionable acts of God (which have their purpose, mind you), there are 7 to 77 (number not accurate) acts that sustain its position as chief good deity. But, nowhere in the Torah you can find tangible evidence of the presence of the Devil, expect via interpretation of the Word. Idols and pagan deities are perceived to be the agents of evil, but again, via interpretation. It does not change the meaning.

The Christian religion is quite odd when you think about it. It's dualistic and at the same time monotheistic. It is dualistic in the way it is interpreted (one God for good, one being that encompasses all evil, and all the aspects of the world revolve around these two), but monotheistic in the importance of the dualist beings (God is the only god recognized, and Jesus is recognized as either God incarnate, the son of God, or a combination of the two), while the Devil is perceived as flawed, inferior, and moreso, submit to God's orders (Job is the perfect example: God agrees to torture Job to challenge its faith, but it strictly determines that its soul shall not be touched; that means, he could not be killed by the Devil's acts, or otherwise). So, since there is an imbalance in power towards the good deity, it cannot be fully perceived as a dualistic religion. As well, since the Trinity cannot be perceived as deities of equal power, so does the Christian religion cannot behave as a polytheistic religion.

But, that it has all the other requisites to be considered a dualistic religion, yes it does. Just look at Mazdeism: Ahura Mazda/Ormuz and Ahriman are beings of equal power, and both are to be worshiped to prevent the fury of disobedience. And, all things that exalt the spirit are the fruits of Ormuz, while the flesh is the realm of Ahriman. Everything and it's grandmother is defined in the sight of these two.

As for the parables...Christ is using an often used tactic during the time. After all, fables were popular, but instead of using animals and personification, Christ used examples of common people. Gents, Christ was a very, very educated person, and had gift of communication: it is expected because of his formation as a teacher that he had to be literate. He was a Rabbi, and read the scrolls of the synagogues. It is evident that he used one of the simplest tools to convey a message. A deeper meaning is a resource from the Second Millenia.

Elements...why the descriptions sound so similar to the classic winds? One I recall is Boreas, which behaves like Water: cold and wet wind. Zephyros, the West Wind, was the favorable wind, and was the closest to its element (which, if I recall, is not Wind but Air (pneuma). And Notos, the South Wind, is the dry and hot desertic wind coming from the Sahara. Euros, the East Wind, is dry and cold. Not sure if I recalled them correctly, but far as I know those are the classic winds.

But yeah...give your thanks to Luther for breaking the absolute order of the Roman Catholic Church. Even if I recall that God is the god of Order (and then again, I do recall that he's a chaotic god at times. Each time I hear that God is a god of Order, I remember the chaos of Babel, sent by? Right.)

Last words...I'll respond to Sinis at close thing Saturday if not late today or tomorrow. I'd like to have some rest (sleeping 1 hour is not healthy, folks) Though, I must admit, I really like to give that fight a forward. I'm not the kind of people that back down from a challenge.

[Govinda]

Yes, kanji! It wasn't the tapes though. My friend brought a few of her friends over a few nights back, and one was a Japanese guy called Yoyo (assumed nickname). He's interesting - he's a seemingly serious guy, yet his nickname's Yoyo. Anyway, I told him I'd been learning Japanese on the sly - and he translated the kanji for 'beautiful mountain flower' (I'm named after the Highland flower Heather) for me as best he could. Mountain was as close as he could get to Highland, I think, his speech was a bit quick. I hope Molly brings him around again, he seems smart (and he told me I was beautiful, hahaha. Flattery will get you somewhere). He also told me that my literal, forgien name in Japanese is, in fact, Hezza. What a fascinating language, what a fascinating culture.

Hi Fishie . Your questions:

1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?

I don't have faith in any religion

2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?

I don't think that religion was designed to give people false hope, but I won't deny that it feeds the false hopes of some. False hope can be interpreted in many ways - for instance, some Christians hope for the Rapture, where Jesus comes back and most of we nonbelievers perish. In that case, I would say that yes, religion gives people false hope, since there's no way in hell I see Jesus floating down and drowning me in a river of blood. Anything promised in books and hoped for by believers I would take to be false hope.

However, if it's hope in a time of crisis, then I don't mind it, and I don't think it's false. If someone is ill, or someone they love is ill, and they pray and find hope in that prayer, it's not false so long as it keeps them sane. Even if the doctors say its a terminal illness - the hope isn't false if it's all they have left to hold on to.

Marx was the one who called religion 'the opaite of the masses', wasn't he? Giving poor workers false hope in the glory, rest and comfort of heaven. That still goes on, you know - Rapture missionaries target war-torn African areas on purpose, for they know that their message will find a home in the hearts of people with nothing at all, no shred of hope; to them, it will give false hope, because as far as I'm concerned, no god is coming to solve their problems, fix their homes: they have to do it themselves. In that case, yes, religion spreads false hope.

So, overall, I'd say that religion gives people with nothing completely false hope, and that this can be a very bad thing if it stops the people from working (together or alone) to change what is wrong; but if all it does is supply comfort, then it's not such a bad thing. I know that if the faeces does hit the fan and something someone's been falsely hoping against goes wrong, they'll be shattered; but perhaps then they can find comfort in a hope I would call false but that they wouldn't: reunion, retribution or restoration in some kind of afterlife.

What a good question.

[Sinister]

Having trouble logging on...Stupid Ice storm cuts the power every other five minutes and the Internet connection keeps cutting out...

Just wanted to say that the BoD is officially dead...and I'm very sorry that the Masters had to do it for us...We're all alone now...no polar opposite...Taoism would be most unpleased, we're not balanced. I hope they'll be back, somehow.

At anyrate...I'll post up on RPB when I get the time and the WWW behaves.

Also in a personal matter, does anyone here take exception that I'm in the "light club" and has a name like Sinister? I guess I have to be the inner balance

Anyway, post when I can.


Love,
-Sin

[Aerif]

Just wanted to say that the BoD is officially dead...and I'm very sorry that the Masters had to do it for us...We're all alone now...no polar opposite...Taoism would be most unpleased, we're not balanced. I hope they'll be back, somehow.Anyway, post when I can.

I feel bad for them, a total cancelation of their club and club activities. They where unorthodox and sectarionist and a whole manner of other crude things. But it was always nice to think that they where running in parallel with the forum.

Also, according to Toromor, every single BoD member will leave the forum in protest, which seems untrue but if that is the case then TFF would lose a number of good people and probably a good bit of activity.

Anyway, now is the time for me to post responses to Fishie's questions.

1) How do you know the religion you have faith in is true?

As philosophy dictates, there is no true way in knowing if something is true or not. Ideas are only there because humans came up with them. I'm Roman Catholic and I do find myself doubting religion at times, however the fundamentels of faith are just that, faith. If you have faith that something is true then that is all the reassurance you need when it comes to religion.

2) Do you think that religions in general are just a way to give people "false hope"?

I personally don't believe this, though I could see it being a possible truth. Most religions are based upon altruism (well, the one's I'm thinking of) which of course is used for the benefit of others. To give another person hope would be a form of altruism, so on a basic level, 'false hope' would be a reasonably acceptable result for the founder of the religion.

However, I'm going to have to stick with my answer in saying that I don't believe that that's what religion was intended for. Christianity and Judiasm (sp?) where not the first religions, also, there are quite a few religions that don't have 'salvation' at the end of one's life. Religion was created because people knew that the only explanation of the world was a great being, they practiced it in order to keep this being happy, so the concept of 'false hope' would only work for a handful of religions. Hence, I refuse to believe it.