The transcendent unity of all religions

[Aldebaran]

what do you mean by a different context? that they are different literal stories, eg, different setting, time etc?

No, I mean the frame in which they appear.
For example prophecy and revelation stories in the Bible. What is apparent is the diversification depending the different Books (Law, Prophecy, Psalm, History, Wisdom etc..) .
In Al Qur'an prophecy and revelation coincides.

In the Bible the Word of God isn't described as coming directly from God. Access to it is made possible and guided by the writers. That is why in the Bible stories come across as real stories and following sequence by sequence because it is storytelling.
In Al Qur'an it is God who does the telling, the story is offered as demonstration of point or to underscore the teaching. That is why some are repeated or you have just the relevant, applyable section of it.

salaam.

 

[Y_I_Otter]

What Max has claimed is that there is no common ground between any religions, which any idiot can tell you is a load of bollocks.

What I'm getting is that this common ground either reduces to the religion's founder secretly being a mushroom and metaphorically advocating a path to truth that's contrary to everything else in his teachings, or it's bullshit.

 

[max_freakout]

Here's the thing Max... At no point has anyone suggested a close link between the Hindu and Christian faiths. They are from different regions and, while there may be some links in the very distant past, evolved in different ways.

On the other hand the links between the Abrahamic religions are very strong. There's a clue in that name... Abrahamic. Think about it.

this is irrelevant, the point is, Aldebaran denied that all the different religions tell different stories about different people

i already clearly acknowledged, much earlier in this thread before aldebaran had even posted in it, that the koran and the bible share a great deal of stories with each other

but it is still nevertheless true, that they do tell different stories about different people, which is the claim that aldebaran denied was true

 

[max_freakout]

Every fucker else calls it tripping

that is what i call it, tripping, a salvia trip, a mushroom trip etc, that is the standard English word for it


and it is a mystical/religious experience

 

[max_freakout]

What Alde said is that there are a small number of scholars (of which he is not one) who say that the bible anticipates Muhammed. The rest of us might see this as unlikely because he was born 570 years after Jesus (if you accept the dates and the people).

i know he said that, but that isnt the part of what he said that i am talking about,


i am talking about when he denied that the different religions all tell different stories about different people, he was wrong to do that, because all religions do tell different stories about different people

 

[max_freakout]

they share many of the same myths including many of the same figures.

i already said that on this thread before aldebaran even posted on it, it is irrelevant to the fact that all religions do in fact tell different stories about different people from each other, including Christianity and Islam, Muhammed is not mentioned in the bible

 

[max_freakout]

What Max has claimed is that there is no common ground between any religions,

please quote the part where i claimed that, i have claimed no such thing, this whole thread is saying precisely the opposite of that

 

[max_freakout]

Max still denies he claimed that all prophets are purely mythical figures,

no i did not claim that

what i am claiming, is that there are 2 entirely different ways of understanding religion

1. the literalist sense

2. the myth-allegory sense

in the fist sense, religions are distinct from each other, separated from each other by things like geography, race etc, you cannot be a Muslim and a Christian

in the second sense, religions are not distinct from each other, they are all seen to be the same story, repeated in different parts of the world in a hiuge number of different ways

every myth, and every religion, tells stories about individuals who go through religious transformative experiences, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, etc etc

the second sense of religion, understanding it as myth rather than literal history, reveals the transcendent unity of religions. Whereas the literal sense obscures this transcendent unity

 

[max_freakout]

He said they handle about different persons

i said they tell stories about different people

Jesus and Muhammed are 2 different people

 

[max_freakout]

What I'm getting is that this common ground either reduces to the religion's founder secretly being a mushroom and metaphorically advocating a path to truth that's contrary to everything else in his teachings, or it's bullshit.

the common ground, is the fact that all religions are collections of stories about individuals undergoing religious revelatory experiences, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Abraham, Noah, Arjuna etc etc etc

 

[i-am-your-idea]

the common ground, is the fact that all religions are collections of stories about individuals undergoing religious revelatory experiences, Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Abraham, Noah, Arjuna etc etc etc

they reinforce peoples mystic experiences, once they have had them.

 

[max_freakout]

they reinforce peoples mystic experiences, once they have had them.

yes they express the transcendental insight of mystical experience, in millions of different ways

millions of myths, all telling the same essential story, of individual mystical transformation

 

[Aldebaran]

this is irrelevant, the point is, Aldebaran denied that all the different religions tell different stories about different people

Correction: I corrected you on your claim that all religions tell different stories about different people, by giving you a mini-lecture about what can be found in both Al Qur'an and The Bible.
Meant as simple example this was nevertheless enough to torpedo your whole OP (and thread with all your claims posted in it) to the Dunjons of Amused Laughter.

You are corrected now once more.

Next I corrected you on your denial that you claimed Prophets (all of them) are merely mythical figures. With quotes of your posts in this very thread.
I also corrected your posting on the myths and if you never heard of what I said there, I question the content of your first year, first term, courses in philosophy. (Or maybe you were chewing mushrooms while you got that lecture)

Do not attempt to misquote me again as ultimate attempt to save your face.
Thank you.

salaam.

 

[max_freakout]

Correction: I corrected you on your claim that all religions tell different stories about different people, by giving you a mini-lecture about what can be found in both Al Qur'an and The Bible.

everything that you said about the koran and bible etc was totally irrelevant, it did not even address the fact, that all religions do in fact tell different stories about different people. I had already acknowledged that the bible and koran share many stories and characters


the bible does not tell stories about Muhammed, therefore, christianity and Islam tell different stories about different people, and the same applies to all other religions

you claimed Prophets (all of them) are merely mythical figures.

i did not claim that, i claimed that there are 2 ways of looking at it, either literalist, or mythic-allegory

i also pointed out that there is no evidence that Jesus actually existed as a singular real person

 

[butchersapron]

Does anyyone have the referenced article (or info on the other claims)?

> Campbell's darkest side was his antisemitism, forcefully detailed by
> Brendan Gill in the New York Review of Books (Sept. 28, 1989). The Larsens
> dismiss it with a brief reference to "so-called bigotry." Campbell once
> said he moved to Bronxville to escape from Jews, and that the moon would be
> a good place to send them. He objected to blacks entering Sarah Lawrence.
> He threatened to flunk, and once did, any student who engaged in leftist
> political action.

Well, I guess that settles it. I'll have to look up that NYRB article. Is
Campbell's oblique writing a common trait in modern academic anti-semitism?
I've heard it alleged that Marshall McLuhan, one of a number of 1930s
academics who converted to Catholicism was something of a crypto-fascist who hid his beliefs through his oblique use of language.

 

[max_freakout]

i highly recommend Campbell's 'mythos' lecture series for anyone interested in this, there are 10 videos you can download as a torrent

 

[max_freakout]

Campbell's darkest side was his antisemitism, forcefully detailed by
> Brendan Gill in the New York Review of Books (Sept. 28, 1989). The Larsens
> dismiss it with a brief reference to "so-called bigotry." Campbell once
> said he moved to Bronxville to escape from Jews, and that the moon would be
> a good place to send them. He objected to blacks entering Sarah Lawrence.
> He threatened to flunk, and once did, any student who engaged in leftist
> political action.

if that is true it is totally fucked up, but it doesnt change the fact that he was probably the world's leading expert on mythology

 

[Dillinger4]

nudge nudge

 

[Gmart]

Donkey