Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

No more Limbo
Goto page Previous 1, 2

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:46 am Post subject:

kermo wrote:

I'd like to answer that, but I can't. I'm sure my family has had an influence on me. However, plenty of people grow up in Christian families and go in another direction, while others end up as Christians despite an upbringing in another faith. I don't know what the major factor in religious belief is.

Fair enough!

I do sometimes wonder though how Christians reconcile God having made the whole world yet favouring some nationalities/ethnic groups over others. The belief that he calls some of these to have a 'personal' relationship with him yet is happy enough for the others to make do with their local deities seems a little...well.....chauvinistic.

kimchi story

Joined: 23 Nov 2006

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 2:56 am Post subject:

the eye wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Honestly.....if you had been brought up in Saudi Arabia would you be Muslim?

If you had been brought up in Mumbai would you be Hindi?

If you had been brought up in Thailand would you be Buddhist?

I think that's a very good question. Especially of being born in a muslim state. I'd be willing to bet the christians here, woudl not be christians if born into another culture.

Well this is interesting.

Religion is like language (it is the Word we are talkin' about, after all) in these ways. Everbody is born with the capacity for language in one form or another. Yet there is not one universal language. So, we all have the facility for language - the process of assigning a symbol to a thought. And yet different cultures assign different symbols to the same thought (for kicks, let's use 'woof' vs 'mung'). Does one symbol more accurately represent the thought? No. The assignment of a particular symbol is arbitrary and generated by consensus.

Religion is the same thing. Sacred texts iterate ideas that are largely universal, and generally serve to identify the meaning of a greater power. We all seem to have the facility to identify a greater power, and how exactly it is identified is a process of consensus.

The necessity for a shared language is much more immediate than the necessity for a shared religion - I assume no audience could possibly understand this more completely than foreigners in Korea. So our choice in native tongue is dominated entirely by our upbringing. Our choice in religion is one step removed from immediate survival and, as such, can be made as a matter of style and taste. It may always be influenced by our upbringing, but there is a lot of room to move.

I was raised a Quaker on my mom's side and an Anglican on my dad's side. I retain ties to both but I don't think either is a more accurate or direct link to God. I get a kick out of Anglicans so I lean that way.

The process of positioning yourself with God is the same, no matter what your religion - how it's done is a matter of taste. At the end of the day it's just you and a higher power, so who cares which club you choose to celebrate that relationship with. It's arbitrary. God is a word, a symbol that represents an idea. And, predictably, if I am pushed to explain further I will say that the pursuit of God is motivated by that which motivates us to pursue lovers - the basic desire to be desired.

This is no excuse to give up religion. That is, in my eyes, a lapse into an attempted ahistorical presence (what Kermo has called, if I understand correctly, reinventing the wheel). But this is a fine reason to consider that each religion is of equal value as a vehicle of hope. When seen as such, the differences can explored more freely and a naive reliance on any one can be negotiated around. And that, to me, is the definition of faith.

Sorry, what was that about limbo? Oh right...carry on.

kermo

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:31 am Post subject:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

kermo wrote:

I hope this doesn't make me a coward, but I'm enough of a believer to know that I'm not an atheist, but not convinced that I have every particle of truth. I try to be open-minded, and so I read Richard Dawkins as well as John Ortberg. I'm very interested in science, especially biology, and happily reconcile the notion of evolution with the idea of a Creative God.

Sounds to me like you're an agnostic (albeit one leaning toward there being a god).

I'm a Christian who is fairly sure of some things (the Bible as a significant document) and less sure of others (how exactly we should pray, whether some non-Bible-specified dogma is strictly necessary i.e., whether there is really a Triune God, and how much He has in common with Allah, etc.)

Quote:

A lot of people believe that in order to gain insight into the universe, one must start from scratch, and find the answers within oneself. Jajdude posted some very mystical stories last month about wise old men instructing their disciples not to pay any attention to the teachings of wise old men. It's all a bit circular and hypocritical.

Well, I don't think starting from scratch is the best way either. All I know is I'm just suspicious of anyone who claims to know the 'universal truth' (as I've mentioned in earlier posts). All my skepticism pretty well stems from that.

I think we're in the same boat. I think that the world does have people who are prone to making judgments and coming to firm decisions, and those of us who prefer to express our perception and leave room for other perspectives (the J/P dichotomy on the Myers-Briggs inventory, for instance.)

Quote:

My attitude is: "What do I know?" Really. Do I have the wisdom to construct a metaphysical outlook using only my own intuition, or what I determine to be "common sense"? That seems a bit arrogant, and needlessly reinventing the wheel.

I agree. However, I take it a step further because I don't think your figurative "wheel" has even been invented yet. That's why I've pretty much given up any practical hope of constructing a meaningful metaphysical outlook. I look around, don't see any universal truth, but it doesn't disturb me. It may seem odd to you, but I actually embrace the absurdity of existence. But absurdity is just the beginning, from there I try to look at what is real. Reality can be a slippery slope, but for me 'life' is real, and that's about it. Basically I think life can be defined by what we do on earth while we're alive. Above all, I feel that life should be practical, so in my opinion, dreaming of a metaphysical reality is just that, a dream (i.e. not real).

Perhaps. What would you say about people who have visions? I don't mean to get all Descartes on you, but how do you tell what is reality and what is a dream?
Our emotions seem to begin and end with ourselves. How can we tell if our prayers are a dialogue or a monologue? I'm sorry, I don't have time right now to elaborate or clarify, and I was never much of a philosopher to begin with.

Quote:

I'm a Christian because I believe that love accomplishes everything worth doing, and I sense that this love has a source. I have considered the evidence for a historical Jesus, and found it sound enough. I've thought about Jesus' teachings and decided that the world would be a better place if they were practised. I've seen evidence of personal and miraculous changes brought about by prayer.

Well, love is one of those tricky terms. I think I get what you mean though. I still don't see how it follows from there that Jesus is the answer. You seem fairly bright (compared to say blynch), so let me ask you: just what is the evidence you mentioned above?

I think I'd call that 'damning with faint praise.' Wink

I promise I'll get back to you re: why I think the Bible is a document with merit, but I've got to scamper out of this PC-Bang.

Quote:

I'm not sure I can agree with you re: the majority. Scroll through a few threads here on Dave's and count how many times someone unequivocally insists "There is no God!" versus the ones shouting "Jesus/Allah/Krishna Saves!" The Christians on Dave's (with the exception of a few, like Blynch) are far more respectful and kind than the open-minded, common-sense-inspired irreligious lot who speak their minds.

Perhaps, but (if I may be so bold) Daves is not typical. Most posters here are educated people, which puts them well in the minority. This also applies to the Christians here, who are smarter than average, and also more tolerant I think (except you know who).
In my everyday life back home, I never saw aetheists holding "repent sinners" signs on street corners. I think aetheists are in the minority overall. Anyway, sufficed to say both sides can be intolerant.

I think a lot of this will depend on where we come from. In Canada, religious groups are a lot less strident and politically active, and in Europe you'll see even less evangelism. Atheists might not be waving posters, but they've been pretty active in the media lately, articulating their disgust in no uncertain terms (see Dawkins, Penn & Teller, and amazing numbers of children's movies containing overt anti-religious messages, like Happy Feet (this is just my opinion, but I'll send you a brochure if you're interested. Wink

)

swetepete

Joined: 01 Nov 2006
Location: a limp little burg

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:43 am Post subject:

(from Joseph Campbell) ...a social philosopher from New York, say to a Shinto priest, "We've been now to a great many ceremonies and have seen quite a few of your shrines. But I don't get your ideology. I don't get your theology." The Japanese paused as though in deep thought, and then slowly shook his head. "I think we don't have ideology," he said. "We don't have theology. We dance."

mithridates

Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:17 am Post subject:

the eye wrote:

Grimalkin wrote:

Honestly.....if you had been brought up in Saudi Arabia would you be Muslim?

If you had been brought up in Mumbai would you be Hindi?

If you had been brought up in Thailand would you be Buddhist?

I think that's a very good question. Especially of being born in a muslim state. I'd be willing to bet the christians here, woudl not be christians if born into another culture.

I'd probably be a Sufi.

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat

Joined: 01 Apr 2007

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:00 pm Post subject:

kermo wrote:

Leopard-Skin Pill-Box Hat wrote:

kermo wrote:

Sounds to me like you're an agnostic (albeit one leaning toward there being a god).

You say 'fairly sure'. I don't mean to be picky, but shouldn't you either be 'sure' or 'not'? If you leave any room for doubt, as far as I know that's agnosticism.

Quote:

There's no way of knowing - in short that is what makes it absurd. As for what I think about 'visions', I think that they are delusions. Like if you stimulate a certain part of the brain you can make people 'sense' things that are not there. However, this oversimple explanation still invites the question of what it means to be 'real'. I'm not sure I can explain, but I think 'reality' is 'being'. Some would call the question of 'being' a futile or pointless one, but I find it very interesting. I always found Heideggar's rather mystical approach to "being-in-the-world" quite intriguing:

-At the most basic level of being-in-the-world Heidegger notes that there is always a mood ['angst', or anxiety], a mood "assails us" in our unreflecting devotion to the world. A mood comes neither from the "outside" nor the "inside," but arises from being-in-the-world. One may turn away from a mood, but that is only to another mood, it is part of our facticity. Only with a mood are we permitted to encounter things in the world. Dasein (a co-term for being-in-the-world) has an openness to the world that is constituted by the attunement of a mood or state of mind. As such, Dasein is a "thrown" "projection," projecting itself onto the possibilities that lie before it or may be hidden, and interpreting and understanding the world in terms of possibilities. Such projecting has nothing to do with comporting oneself toward a plan that has been thought out. It is not a plan, since Dasein has, as Dasein, already projected itself. Dasein always understands itself in terms of possibilities. As projecting, the understanding of Dasein is its possibilities as possibilities. One can take up the possibilities of "The They" self and merely follow along or make some more authentic understanding.

-Dasein is a German word and is sometimes translated as "Being-there" or "Being-here". (Da means "here" or "there", Sein is the infinitive, "to be") mostly it is not translated at all. Heidegger uses the word in place of such terms as subject, ego or the "I think" since for Heidegger these terms forget that someone is always in-the-world, there is no subject by itself. Dasein is the being that is there and in a mood, and for which existence is a question. It is comparable to the "Subject" rather than "subject" in the Actual Idealism of Giovanni Gentile.
(These are just quick summaries by wikipedia).

Quote:

)

I guess non-religious people just distrust the religious, especially when living in a democracy. When 'god' tells Bush to bomb other countries, persectute gays and abortionists and teach creationism in schools, then we get a bit antsy...

cbclark4

Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject:

When I die and they lay me to rest Gonna go to the place that's the best When I lay me down to die Goin' up to the spirit in the sky Goin' up to the spirit in the sky That's where I'm gonna go when I die When I die and they lay me to rest Gonna go to the place that's the best Prepare yourself you know it's a must Gotta have a friend in Jesus So you know that when you die He's gonna recommend you To the spirit in the sky Gonna recommend you To the spirit in the sky That's where you're gonna go when you die When you die and they lay you to rest You're gonna go to the place that's the best Never been a sinner I never sinned I got a friend in Jesus So you know that when I die He's gonna set me up with The spirit in the sky Oh set me up with the spirit in the sky That's where I'm gonna go when I die When I die and they lay me to rest I'm gonna go to the place that's the best Go to the place that's the best Artist: Norman Greenbaum Lyrics Song: Spirit in the Sky Lyrics

kermo

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject:

I think an agnostic is someone who has sort of thrown up his hands and determined that the Big Questions and Answers are ineffable, inscrutable, and unknowable... for the moment.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject:

kimchi story

Quote:

The process of positioning yourself with God is the same, no matter what your religion - how it's done is a matter of taste. At the end of the day it's just you and a higher power, so who cares which club you choose to celebrate that relationship with. It's arbitrary. God is a word, a symbol that represents an idea. And, predictably, if I am pushed to explain further I will say that the pursuit of God is motivated by that which motivates us to pursue lovers - the basic desire to be desired.

This is no excuse to give up religion. That is, in my eyes, a lapse into an attempted ahistorical presence (what Kermo has called, if I understand correctly, reinventing the wheel). But this is a fine reason to consider that each religion is of equal value as a vehicle of hope. When seen as such, the differences can explored more freely and a naive reliance on any one can be negotiated around. And that, to me, is the definition of faith.

The problem is tho' that a person's concept of God affects the way they honour that God.

Do they believe in a bloodthirsty God like the Aztecs? If so they feel the need to offer human sacrifices in return for things like rain.

Do they believe in a jealous God? Then they might need to set up inquisitions to burn heretics.

Do they believe in a vengeful God? Then they may feel the need to slaughter his enemies.

Do they believe in a prudish God? They may feel the need to regulate people's sex lives.

So the question is.....did God create man in his own likeness or did man create God in his own likeness?

Assume that God created man and because of there is a universal need in man to find God. But then why do the Gods we find differ so much from person to person, from culture to culture and from age to age?

It seems more likely that man created God and the different qualities that we attribute to God like Justice, Truth, Love, Vengeance, Jealousy etc are all just aspects of our own human nature that we have ended up deifying.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject:

kermo

Quote:

I think there are reasons for this tho'. Part of it is a reaction against neo-conservatism and a perceived reluctance to continue to seperate church and state (or even attempts to reverse it). Part is due to creationist attempts to deny Darwin's theory and another part is a growing confidence in science to provide more credible answers to questions that religion had previously claimed authority over..

kimchi story

Joined: 23 Nov 2006

Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:04 am Post subject:

Grimalkin wrote:

It seems more likely that man created God and the different qualities that we attribute to God like Justice, Truth, Love, Vengeance, Jealousy etc are all just aspects of our own human nature that we have ended up deifying.

I totally agree and I'm a little confounded by the suggestion of a problem in the beginning of your response. Man created God, quite literally (and there is an intentional irony in my choice of words there). Perhaps my use of the word 'hope' is misleading.

Grimalkin wrote:

Do they believe in a bloodthirsty God like the Aztecs? If so they feel the need to offer human sacrifices in return for things like rain.

Do they believe in a jealous God? Then they might need to set up inquisitions to burn heretics.

Do they believe in a vengeful God? Then they may feel the need to slaughter his enemies.

Do they believe in a prudish God? They may feel the need to regulate people's sex lives.

So the question is.....did God create man in his own likeness or did man create God in his own likeness?

These all have one thing in common - they are images of God (and gods) constructed via consensus (which gives us certainty and hope - I am maintaining a distinction between hope and faith). The idea of God may very well be universal, but the exact metaphysics of religions will always be arbitrary and formed by social consensus.

To return to language: we say woof, they say mung - but a sheepdog makes the same sound wherever it is. I am not exactly a Huxleyian agnostic but I do think being closer to the truth can require zooming the lens out a little, instead of trying to zoom in.

And I also agree that religion, like language, is performative. How you see God most certainly has an effect on how you worship. That is an ugly truth.

Hey Grimalkin - you figured out what's gonna happen next year? IIRC, you're either done or very close.

Grimalkin

Joined: 22 May 2005

Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:59 am Post subject:

kimchi story

Quote:

so who cares which club you choose to celebrate that relationship with

Actually the focus of my reply was this part of your post. What I was trying to say was that the choice of a person's religion does affect other people. The neighbours of the Aztecs would probably prefer that the Aztecs were Buddhist rather than devotees of a bloodthirsty sun god. They'd be less likely to find themselves ending up as human sacrifices.

This is why I wish people were less certain of their religious beliefs. If they were they'd be less inclined to have them reflected in the codes of conduct of society if that was going to be detrimental to others.

To be fair I fully accept that this is not just a problem with religion. Hitler, Mao and Stalin imposed their world view on others with devastating effect.

(re-signed so starting my 3rd contract in May Smile

)

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Off-Topic Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2
Page 2 of 2

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe