Theology Я Us -- The Dogma Pound

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Not content with causing only trivial disturbance and consternation amongst our GD Forum dwellers, I present....

Theology Я Us -- The Dogma Pound

Welcome to a place to chuck out wild and crazy thoughts regarding "Spiritualicious Stuff", and be (hopefully not) ridiculed for it!

Share the most deep and telling bits about your world view, as the intensely introspective human that we all know you are.

..or just tell us why "spiritualiciousness" is simply the SILLIEST thing that humans have ever come up with.




Aloha (love) and nā mahalo (respectfulness-es) to y'all (ʻoukou)! <shaka nui!>

[FishbellykanakaDude]

OK,.. I'll start...

I, personally, am a thoroughly dogmatic Catholic,.. and a firm adherent to "Primal Tengriism™".

"How, for f__k sake, is THAT even remotely possible!!?".. I hear you exclaim.

Because, Catholicism (as it REALLY is vs. the crazy illusory versions that are "popular" out there) is merely a recent culture encoded "elaboration" of the ancient "thingies" (principles/archetypes/etc), aka "Primal Tengriism™", that we humans (as the present "summit lifeform" on this soggy dustball) and ALL summit lifeforms, and their associated foundational biota, USE to become more and more "summitty" so as to get off of our respective dustballs (homeworlds) and survive to beautify the available universe in perpetuity.

Religion is to USE, and is in reality a tool. One big question as regards religion is HOW that tool is used. But first, one must know what YOUR religion is (what it is composed of) and that it IS your tool. And no, there is no option to NOT have a religion. Denying its existence is certainly an option, but that doesn't affect the underlying reality. That denial of your tool (religion) will be used against you, and you will be much more subject to someone else's tool (religion).

..a bit of a mouthful, but then isn't that to be expected from an Irish Catholic with delusions (or ARE they?) of grandeur with ancient relatives on the Western Siberian/Eurasian Steppe (and pretty much everywhere for that matter)!?

Comments? Questions? Writs of Heresy?

Aloha my cuz's.. and most mahaloz for you! <shaka nui!>

[Heisenberg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYiWydDyMIE

.... Lost in the abyss

[John]

Question: A Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu Priest, a
Buddhist Monk, a Sunni Imam, and a Shia Ayatollah all enter a bar and
sit on adjacent stools. Each one believes that (almost) all the
others are infidels that deserve to be killed. How come they don't
get into a fight and try to kill each other?

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Question: A Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu Priest, a
Buddhist Monk, a Sunni Imam, and a Shia Ayatollah all enter a bar and
sit on adjacent stools. Each one believes that (almost) all the
others are infidels that deserve to be killed. How come they don't
get into a fight and try to kill each other?

'Cuz they're in a BAR!

..the stools are REALLY comfy. And the entertainment is pretty boffo.

Also,.. they habitually have OTHER people get into fights over "issues", and don't do it themselves.



But on a more serious level: No "holy person" believes that any person deserves to be killed (much less deserves killing due to being an "infidel").

They may/probably believe that "really badly behaving" people should be "kept away" from normal society (most humanely), but will "leave it to those in temporal power positions" to pass societal judgement, simply making their case for "most humane" treatment as best they can.

If these "holy people" DO believe anyone should be willfully killed, then they're not "holy people" to begin with, or rather, are not ACTING as holy people at that particular time.

This is why "wiser" societies make a distinction between "spiritual" leaders and "temporal" leaders. Theocracy is only "wise" if the Theocrat can pull off that "multiple personalities" trick in world class fashion. It almost never works, except in very small societies with truly quasi-psychotic shaman Theocrat heads ("king/queen/monarch").

..a "group theocrat" governed society is a REALLY bad idea!

[FishbellykanakaDude]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYiWydDyMIE

.... Lost in the abyss

Whoooo! LOVE that money!! Thank ya again tiny 8 pound 6 ounce baby Jesus..

[John]

Conundrum: A Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu Priest, a
Buddhist Monk, a Sunni Imam, and a Shia Ayatollah all enter a bar and
sit on adjacent stools. Since their beliefs all contradict each
other, at most one of them can be right, and the rest are all wrong.
Which one, if any, is right?

[Heisenberg]

Conundrum: A Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu Priest, a
Buddhist Monk, a Sunni Imam, and a Shia Ayatollah all enter a bar and
sit on adjacent stools. Since their beliefs all contradict each
other, at most one of them can be right, and the rest are all wrong.
Which one, if any, is right?

Not all of their beliefs are mutually exclusive, but this is God we are talking about so even the most general of statements can't capture the true nature of God. It completely escapes any human or religion's ability to understand it fully. Any religion is just a simplifying structure to try to fit that vastness into something digestible. It's more of a game of who is less wrong.

[Heisenberg]

JK Jesus is right and everyone else are haters

[FishbellykanakaDude]

Conundrum: A Catholic Priest, a Jewish Rabbi, a Hindu Priest, a
Buddhist Monk, a Sunni Imam, and a Shia Ayatollah all enter a bar and
sit on adjacent stools. Since their beliefs all contradict each
other, at most one of them can be right, and the rest are all wrong.
Which one, if any, is right?

The answer is "42", obviously.

42 blind men (of various faiths) enter a bar. Who actually SEES the correct color of the curaçao liquor?

The "domain" of "spiritual stuff" is really very small, and it's ludicrously easy to violate that domain when dealing with human concerns as they "relate" to "spiritual stuff" between people.

As an example: I am a rigorously dogmatic Catholic, but the actual CONTENT of that dogma is very VERY narrow, and is applied to "real world situations" such that it really doesn't matter if others' "dogmas" (and we all have them) seem to contradict mine or not.

I'm not "impressed" with another person holding the position that I should be killed because we are of different faiths, unless they demonstrate they are a sufficient threat to me. It actually doesn't matter WHAT the reason for them wanting me dead, of course,.. therefore their "dogma" (article of faith) is not the issue in any case. It's merely a reason based on an opinion.

A "dogma" of mine is that it's better to be alive than dead, and that is my motivation for "self protection", not that I disagree with someone else's dogma that holds that I should be killed.

Aloha! <shaka nui!>