You know it drive me nuts that you try and come off as an intellectual. "Any religion that claims to have the whole truth is wrong" Who are you to decide whats truth? By stating that any religion that claims to have the whole truth is wrong, then you are indeed saying they ARE all wrong... Although at the start you say all are wrong and all are right? Typical babbling bullshit. Seriously, if you have an opinion, fine. But don't try and articulate yourself into a higher sense of being.
@funkinstein Sorry to drive you nuts and certainly wasn't trying to appear in any way clever. Just trying to have a bit of fun with religion. The point I was trying to make was that if God/Goddess/etc is by definition beyond human understanding then all religions, even if divinely inspired, are partly human, and must have shortcomings. That's not to say all religions are bad, most are pretty good, just that they are human and therefore imperfect.
Was in Gold Coast on Australia Day... nice bunch you Ozzies... Stolychnya (sp?) is much better vodka, mate... right, so which book is The Book? Well, OUR's is, of course... that's the answer you get, wherever you happen to be in the world...
Why don't more people understand what you imply here: God, if one does exist, is beyond our ability to comprehend, much less our ability to describe, so why argue about it so much? I wonder if my pet fish argue whether or not *I* exist.
ha ha! yes, I do indeed feed the fish, no matter their individual creed...
Funny, I don't expect my fish to pray to me, or even say thanks for the flakes, because I realize that my existence is beyond their ability to comprehend.
One's own extrapolations might proceed from here...
You're probably right. And if I had my choice I'd prefer the world was run by fanatical atheists than fanatical Goddies. That my caring about it may inhibit my abbility to live my life can't go unanswered however. Put simply I find different belief systems fascinating, and dealing with the issues they raise rather than ignoring them, for me, works. I keep an open mind because (as I argue in episode 2 (shameless attempt to pull you further into my cult)) it all comes down to personal experience.
Shit, yeah. Eager to see the rest of these now. Have you seen What the Bleep Do They Know? I'm really into quantum physics these days. Also, I don't believe one person can join another's religion, because your religion is made up of every little thing you think and do, all the little routine chemical reactions you're addicted to. Rituals that don't evolve eventually burn out, so tradition is a work of fiction.
Thanks to ya. Couldn't agree more about the personal religion thing... in a later episode I note there are at 'least' six billion religions out there. Dig your (meta)physics worldview particularly as it seems to support my "free will skeptic" outlook.
Better judgement would have me immediately remove this, but I pride myself on not removing any comments. Thankyou for directing me to this site, I assume you believe I would be happier with a girlfriend, one that isn't shy about the internet. Unfortunately as my most recent video shows, I am quite happy on my own.
If you blend buddhismen and satanism you will get great religion.
Satanism isn´t about sacrificing babies to Satan. First of all satanists don´t believe in the devil. They just use him as an point of view. Satanism is more of a survive theory and buddhismen have a really good point.
So if you blend them together they make a great way of living
Just between you and me I like Christianity, Taoism and Vodka blended but to each their own...I hope you don't think I've got anything against satanists though, as I agree that what you're saying about them is pretty close to the mark. The only thing with satanists is that they tend to be very matriarchal, but hell most other religions are man centric so where do I get off even bringing it up. Running out of characters so better end the ramble, thanks and keep it real.
I like the story. Illustrates the limits of perspective well. But then along comes the blind scientist and says 'Let's be systematic about this and study all the parts and see if we can create a miniature version of this thing. We can test to see if our model is true to the actual form of this thing that we're grasping.'
If you don't mind me asking, what is your view on God? Are you agnostic?
Thanks. I go into more detail in episode 2, but generally I believe in the possibility of God. I used to be dead set against but if other people need to believe in one - that's cool (whatever floats your boat). On the no side the universe doesn't need a god, on the yea side there are a lot of people who have had gnarly experiences.
As for the money, everyone must think I'm kidding, coz no one has sent any yet.
Is it not overly prideful to think you see better than the parabled blind men? And wasn't that yet another absolute truth claim that "No religion has the whole truth"?
come on man. step up your game.
If you want to blaspheme, at least pack some heat.
this is similar to the fisherman who says, "If i can't catch it in my net, it can't be a fish." I think that the only limitations that can be put on God are the ones that He puts on Himself. and it is improbable to know the limitations of God unless he tells them to you.
Don't follow the fisherman connection, sorry. As for the god thing having limitations, well by definition I would have thought that was illogical. The exact form or nature of God (even if God exists or not) is open to debate, but I would have thought Gods definition as: all powerful and all knowing (and for many all Good) was set, if for any other reason that shifting one of these variables would mean you were talking about something else.
the fish: not God. just because you can't see how a religion can have the truth about God doesn't mean that it's not true. It just means you personally don't see it.
Actually, the "all knowing, All powerful God" concept isn't universally agreed upon by all religions. But it's pretty clear that the Christian understanding of God is All Good, All Powerful and All knowing. But only because he explains himself in those terms.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought scripture was wrong, I just don't think any is completely right. My position is that it can only tell part of the story. It is a picture of the reality but not reality itself.
And I mean this in an inclusive rather than exclusive way. The phrase "All scripture is inspired by God..." I take as broadly as possible. The scripture and teachings of all sincere attempts at religion have something to offer but none have the whole truth.
This seems like a "Moral Code of Conduct" view of what scripture provides. This view holds a lot of weight, but I don't subscribe to it. Many religions will offer the same laws, but for different reasons. (to increase happiness of all creatures, karma, social contract, heavenly reward, blessings, fear of punishment)
I think that scriptures define God. By saying this, I only can refer to the Christian Canon. Each law describes his unchanging character.
I try to follow the laws of God out of gratitude. Ever since Scripture was necessary, God promised salvation from the law, justice, Himself. And Man has been gratefully expecting it or reverently remembering it ever since that promise was given.
to call all faiths writings on the same plain cause logical problems. Some claim God must be ONE, some believe in many Gods. Some don't even have god. When we better understand all faith perspectives, we find that they are like blind men who talk of completely different animals.
I could understand how the Jewish Rabi and the Christian Priests and Pastors are grasping different parts of the same sheep. But since we are also just as blind as the religious leaders. I posit that the others might be describing idols in the shape of God.
Yeah, but my point is the vain perspective of the narrator. Who is the one telling you that the wise men are blind. It is very proud to answer that you see better than the blind man. And your truth claims are even more rigid and less thought out. "The truth IS that no one(only I) has the whole truth)
They were not equipped to sense the whole elephant. I see myself in some respect blind to God because s/h/it is, by definition, beyond my understanding. I will never be able to process all the evidence coz my hard drive is too small to hold all the data and my processor is too slow.
That's why you were right when you implied earlier, that only God knows God, and I would add only God truly knows beyond any doubt whether God exists.
Side note: the elephant parable is an old Indian tale. and shows clearly it's culture's world view. I dare say that the author didn't assert the same lofty attributes to a God that we would. That might help explain why the narrator isn't characterized.
You'd be surprised how much gets lost in translation, but you might want to look into that, we underestimate other faiths to our own detriment. Great and old stories can have deep and evolving meanings.
Thanks for the debate I look forward to the next episode/special.
You know it drive me nuts that you try and come off as an intellectual. "Any religion that claims to have the whole truth is wrong" Who are you to decide whats truth? By stating that any religion that claims to have the whole truth is wrong, then you are indeed saying they ARE all wrong... Although at the start you say all are wrong and all are right? Typical babbling bullshit. Seriously, if you have an opinion, fine. But don't try and articulate yourself into a higher sense of being.
funkinstein 1 year ago
@funkinstein Sorry to drive you nuts and certainly wasn't trying to appear in any way clever. Just trying to have a bit of fun with religion. The point I was trying to make was that if God/Goddess/etc is by definition beyond human understanding then all religions, even if divinely inspired, are partly human, and must have shortcomings. That's not to say all religions are bad, most are pretty good, just that they are human and therefore imperfect.
RudeJesus 1 year ago
Hey dude,
congratulations on the 1,400+ views!
fantastic! I dont think I did 1000+ in 4 years at Drama centre. If I did. I had a spear in my hand most the time.
Frank
FRANKTV72 2 years ago
sei solo un ignorante
kronoteck 2 years ago
Thanks
Unfortunately I don't speak (read) Italian but if you'd be more specific about the bit you liked so much I'd be grateful.
"ignorante"-ly yours
RJ
RudeJesus 2 years ago
Was in Gold Coast on Australia Day... nice bunch you Ozzies... Stolychnya (sp?) is much better vodka, mate... right, so which book is The Book? Well, OUR's is, of course... that's the answer you get, wherever you happen to be in the world...
Why don't more people understand what you imply here: God, if one does exist, is beyond our ability to comprehend, much less our ability to describe, so why argue about it so much? I wonder if my pet fish argue whether or not *I* exist.
be well
enntheta 3 years ago
Glad we made you welcome and got you drunk.
So long as you feed both the faithful and unfaithful fish alike you'll be a good God.
Keep up the Good works
RJ
RudeJesus 3 years ago
ha ha! yes, I do indeed feed the fish, no matter their individual creed...
Funny, I don't expect my fish to pray to me, or even say thanks for the flakes, because I realize that my existence is beyond their ability to comprehend.
One's own extrapolations might proceed from here...
enntheta 3 years ago
Nope, Atheism is the best ;) You just don't care about all this stuff and live your life.
Antar16 3 years ago
You're probably right. And if I had my choice I'd prefer the world was run by fanatical atheists than fanatical Goddies. That my caring about it may inhibit my abbility to live my life can't go unanswered however. Put simply I find different belief systems fascinating, and dealing with the issues they raise rather than ignoring them, for me, works. I keep an open mind because (as I argue in episode 2 (shameless attempt to pull you further into my cult)) it all comes down to personal experience.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
Shit, yeah. Eager to see the rest of these now. Have you seen What the Bleep Do They Know? I'm really into quantum physics these days. Also, I don't believe one person can join another's religion, because your religion is made up of every little thing you think and do, all the little routine chemical reactions you're addicted to. Rituals that don't evolve eventually burn out, so tradition is a work of fiction.
ergotNalkaloid 3 years ago
Thanks to ya. Couldn't agree more about the personal religion thing... in a later episode I note there are at 'least' six billion religions out there. Dig your (meta)physics worldview particularly as it seems to support my "free will skeptic" outlook.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
that doesnt make sense
funkinstein 3 years ago
Can you be more specific ?
RudeJesus 3 years ago
Better judgement would have me immediately remove this, but I pride myself on not removing any comments. Thankyou for directing me to this site, I assume you believe I would be happier with a girlfriend, one that isn't shy about the internet. Unfortunately as my most recent video shows, I am quite happy on my own.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
If you blend buddhismen and satanism you will get great religion.
Satanism isn´t about sacrificing babies to Satan. First of all satanists don´t believe in the devil. They just use him as an point of view. Satanism is more of a survive theory and buddhismen have a really good point.
So if you blend them together they make a great way of living
Alexsj80 3 years ago
Just between you and me I like Christianity, Taoism and Vodka blended but to each their own...I hope you don't think I've got anything against satanists though, as I agree that what you're saying about them is pretty close to the mark. The only thing with satanists is that they tend to be very matriarchal, but hell most other religions are man centric so where do I get off even bringing it up. Running out of characters so better end the ramble, thanks and keep it real.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
Google is the only god
Bow down to the blue overlord O.O!
Just search for google is god and you will see the truth
Alexsj80 3 years ago
It is worth a look. Although if google is God why doesn't she make me feel guilty about stuff.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
I like the story. Illustrates the limits of perspective well. But then along comes the blind scientist and says 'Let's be systematic about this and study all the parts and see if we can create a miniature version of this thing. We can test to see if our model is true to the actual form of this thing that we're grasping.'
If you don't mind me asking, what is your view on God? Are you agnostic?
And send money? Wow. You really are rude, Jesus.
:)
riversonthemoon 3 years ago
Thanks. I go into more detail in episode 2, but generally I believe in the possibility of God. I used to be dead set against but if other people need to believe in one - that's cool (whatever floats your boat). On the no side the universe doesn't need a god, on the yea side there are a lot of people who have had gnarly experiences.
As for the money, everyone must think I'm kidding, coz no one has sent any yet.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
Amen !!!!
unzippedbyu 3 years ago
RudeJesus You are an ANTICHRIST ;(
BlackS7ven 3 years ago
Wow that's just about the nicest thing anyone's said to me.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
disappointed again.
Is it not overly prideful to think you see better than the parabled blind men? And wasn't that yet another absolute truth claim that "No religion has the whole truth"?
come on man. step up your game.
If you want to blaspheme, at least pack some heat.
this stuff is like oregano.
qstephe 3 years ago
I don't see how anything partly of human (all religions) can be fully of God. God being all powerful, all knowing, and all good etc.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
this is similar to the fisherman who says, "If i can't catch it in my net, it can't be a fish." I think that the only limitations that can be put on God are the ones that He puts on Himself. and it is improbable to know the limitations of God unless he tells them to you.
qstephe 3 years ago
Don't follow the fisherman connection, sorry. As for the god thing having limitations, well by definition I would have thought that was illogical. The exact form or nature of God (even if God exists or not) is open to debate, but I would have thought Gods definition as: all powerful and all knowing (and for many all Good) was set, if for any other reason that shifting one of these variables would mean you were talking about something else.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
the net: anything partly of human
the fish: not God. just because you can't see how a religion can have the truth about God doesn't mean that it's not true. It just means you personally don't see it.
Actually, the "all knowing, All powerful God" concept isn't universally agreed upon by all religions. But it's pretty clear that the Christian understanding of God is All Good, All Powerful and All knowing. But only because he explains himself in those terms.
qstephe 3 years ago
Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought scripture was wrong, I just don't think any is completely right. My position is that it can only tell part of the story. It is a picture of the reality but not reality itself.
And I mean this in an inclusive rather than exclusive way. The phrase "All scripture is inspired by God..." I take as broadly as possible. The scripture and teachings of all sincere attempts at religion have something to offer but none have the whole truth.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
I suspect when we better understand all faith perspectives we'll be closer not further from Gaia/God/the Force or whatever your crew call it.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
This seems like a "Moral Code of Conduct" view of what scripture provides. This view holds a lot of weight, but I don't subscribe to it. Many religions will offer the same laws, but for different reasons. (to increase happiness of all creatures, karma, social contract, heavenly reward, blessings, fear of punishment)
I think that scriptures define God. By saying this, I only can refer to the Christian Canon. Each law describes his unchanging character.
qstephe 3 years ago
I try to follow the laws of God out of gratitude. Ever since Scripture was necessary, God promised salvation from the law, justice, Himself. And Man has been gratefully expecting it or reverently remembering it ever since that promise was given.
qstephe 3 years ago
to call all faiths writings on the same plain cause logical problems. Some claim God must be ONE, some believe in many Gods. Some don't even have god. When we better understand all faith perspectives, we find that they are like blind men who talk of completely different animals.
qstephe 3 years ago
Going back to the original parable:
I could understand how the Jewish Rabi and the Christian Priests and Pastors are grasping different parts of the same sheep. But since we are also just as blind as the religious leaders. I posit that the others might be describing idols in the shape of God.
qstephe 3 years ago
I think the point is that the elephant IS the same animal.
Of course the wisemen are no more blind than God is an elephant, at least only in that what they seek is beyond their understanding.
And I see that as another important quality of God, that God is ultimately beyond our understanding:
The God that is one but many,
The God that is all but nothing,
The God that has many names but remains nameless.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
Yeah, but my point is the vain perspective of the narrator. Who is the one telling you that the wise men are blind. It is very proud to answer that you see better than the blind man. And your truth claims are even more rigid and less thought out. "The truth IS that no one(only I) has the whole truth)
qstephe 3 years ago
They were not equipped to sense the whole elephant. I see myself in some respect blind to God because s/h/it is, by definition, beyond my understanding. I will never be able to process all the evidence coz my hard drive is too small to hold all the data and my processor is too slow.
That's why you were right when you implied earlier, that only God knows God, and I would add only God truly knows beyond any doubt whether God exists.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
Side note: the elephant parable is an old Indian tale. and shows clearly it's culture's world view. I dare say that the author didn't assert the same lofty attributes to a God that we would. That might help explain why the narrator isn't characterized.
qstephe 3 years ago
You'd be surprised how much gets lost in translation, but you might want to look into that, we underestimate other faiths to our own detriment. Great and old stories can have deep and evolving meanings.
Thanks for the debate I look forward to the next episode/special.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
true man hey what you doing is quite funny.and you have stated some interesting facts.You can NEVER believe fact over experience
larryskins 3 years ago
I'm not always sure about what's fact and what's fiction but thanks and keep on thinking.
RudeJesus 3 years ago
I'd buy rude jesus a plane on the condition that I could ride in it and he served me drinks in heavenly class.
Waiting eagerly for the next one
stevemayhew 4 years ago