Each of the speakers was keen to search, below superficial differences, for the deeper
meeting points of religions.
Not exact matches
Every time our founding fathers
met with foreign heads
of state and were asked «What is the official
religion of the United States» they very clearly made the
point that we have none.
At some
point they
met reason and figured out it was all a bunch
of hokum with no more reason to believe in it than any other god or
religion.
Apparently Rush and the rest
of the cons only want to invoke
religion and Christianity when they can bend it to
meet their talking
points.
Islam, as I
meet it in south Asia and the Middle East,
pointed to a legal and political outreach
of religion without a rejection
of the mystical.
The real opposition for Buber is not between philosophy and
religion, as it at first appears to be, but between that philosophy which sees the absolute in universals and hence removes reality into the systematic and the abstract and that which means the bond
of the absolute with the particular and hence
points man back to the reality
of the lived concrete — to the immediacy
of real
meeting with the beings over against one.
The real conflict for Buber is not between philosophy and
religion, but between that philosophy which sees the absolute in universals and hence removes reality into the systematic and the abstract and that which means the bond
of the absolute with the particular and hence
points man back to the reality
of the lived concrete — to the immediacy
of real
meeting with the beings over against one.
which seems to be the
point of religion — being a part
of a group to have your social needs
met because in reality God does not socialize / communicate with anyone or tell anyone what to do.
His
point was not to say that you must choose Christianity or Empirical Humanism — rather that people should choose to believe in something: either a traditional
religion that puts upon you a set
of expectations to
meet or a rejection
of divinity that gives you a form
of Atheism / Agnosticism that holds to reason as a higher truth.
lol, yes clay i am an atheist... i created the sun whorshipping thing to have argument against
religion from a religious stand
point... however, the sun makes more sense then something you can't see or feel — the sun also gives free energy... your god once did that for the jews, my gives it to the human race as well as everything else on the planet, fuk even the planet is nothing without the sun... but back to your
point — yes it is very hypocritical
of me, AND thats the
point, every religious person i have ever
met has and on a constant basis broken the tenets
of there faith without regard for there souls — it seems to only be the person's conscience that dictates what is right and wrong... the belief in a god figure is just because its tradition to and plus every else believes so its always to be part
of the group instead
of an outsider — that is sadly human nature to be part
of the group.
Now you can pin
point the qualities, profession,
religion and nationality
of the person you would like to
meet.
The answer is quite simple, people
of the same origin, family / educational background,
religion or political
points of view can
meet in one place and spend a time in the most comfortable for them environment.