Originally Posted by Katczinsky

This seems pretty naive to me. You seem to believe that under the surface of symbols there's a distinct commonality of spiritual meaning among all religions. This is false. Most religions differ widely in their spiritual interpretations of reality.

Just different sides of the same thing. And an "interpretation of reality" is still just a teaching tool, not the true essesne, IMO. Boil it down, and "The Golden Rule" is at the heart of every religion."
THAT'S the unity that is there. And that some people ignore it doesn't change that fact.

Really the only common hood I see pervading most religions is the parallelism behind the creation of their primary 'saviors' based off of astrology (the story of Jesus, Horus, Attis, Krishna, etc. all are concoctions of primarily the same astrological events). But even such literary parallelism doesn't mean spiritual interpretations are the same.

Again, the Golden Rule is what it's really "all about." You're getting too caught up in the dogma and mehcanics of things.



I totally agree. But we will never unite around what divides us (differences in religion). The idea that humans will unite around the supernatural and the invisible rather than the real and causes of humanity, that is what is a soft and flowery pipe dream.

The spiritual IS the real. Mass atheism won't get us anywhere.


How kind of you to assume. If you can describe this obvious difference in spiritual interpretation among Christians and yourself, and then describe how we can somehow at the same time unite with this spirituality as the primary factor of 'commonality', please go ahead. I would be very interested.

That's for another post. I'll get to it.


Eternal damnation isn't symbolic. And even if it originally was meant to be, it certainly isn't today under the current Christian interpretations of scripture. I think you're confusing hell with eternal damnation. I think you have an argument that hell could be symbolic, but there is always the threat of eternal damnation; whether that be 'separation from god', or actual physical punishment in a fiery place called hell, there is still the idea of damnation.

And such passages are in the actual scriptures of these religions; not mere religious laws back then. Meaning, the actual word of god is calling for a division among men, so to speak (as each of those three religions believe their text to be the revealed truth and word of god).

Yes, turning one's back on God will have consequenses. Being seperated from God isn't pleasant or what's best for a person. That does not mean there's a literal hell. On that, at least, we seem to agree (that hell isn't an actual place people go to forever.)



Hmmm, so first I'm ignorant, incapable of abstract thought, and now I'm goddamned narrow-minded? Hmmm, I can see religion uniting us already!

No, I just think you sometimes think like a religious fundie.. in that you're both locked into binary/black-and-white thinking. And I'm calling you on it.



I don't think you're getting what I was trying to say. Religion posits a truth about the nature of our realities. It isn't just some opinion. It's supposed to be the undebatable truth about the ultimate truth of our very universe. Therefore, most religions are presupposing that it knows with certainty the nature of things. Hence faith; the commitment to something as completely true void of evidence! It's different than mere believing.

About the only ultimate truth posisted is that the universe has a Creator, and said Creator is interested in taking an active role in our lives. Past that, much of it is clearly abstarct, and clearly says, "at this point, you can't understand these things."



There is an obvious logical fallacy in your argument here. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's true.

I wasn't saying that. In fact, one of my key arguments has been that the some of the more "popular" things about religion (the mis-used, man-made dogma) are indeed the false ones.

I was saying it's rather bold to assume vast millions are suffering from some sort of delusion in order to comfort yourself into thinking YOU know the truth. Which is essentially what you're saying.

The second most selling book of all time in the world (the first would be the Bible) is the quotations from Mao Tse-tung (otherwise known as "the little red book"). So, because so many people worshiped Mao, and now so many people in North Korea are worshiping Kim Jong-Il as a god-king, that there is an element of truth to it, rather than just mass delusion?

Firstly, there might very well have been elements of profound truth and insight in Mao's book. Secondly, let's see how much influence Mao has in 2,000 years. Yes, some people can be lifted to levels where they can sort of ape the influence of what I consider the true Prophets. But really, it's as if you're tying to compare a 5th-grader who is the best in his school at basketball to Michael Jordan.

Do you know how utterly ridiculous that sounds?

To try saying Mao is in the same leauge with Jesus or Muhammed is ridiculous.. yes.

The simple matter is that we, as humans, don't know the ultimate truth of our reality. Religions, a man-made phenomena, claim to know the ultimate truth. They're accepting a reality with full commitment all void of evidence (faith); hence, it is not lying but mass delusion.