OT/NT/Quran/Hindu/Buddhist/Zoaster/Plato/Egypt & More. All Devine? Call me Crazy??

Mods before you move this please read. This thread is not about religion but a philosophy.

Religious Philosophy states the Words of God were handed down through the sacred texts.

Regardless of faith the words are assumed to be Devine. Assume for a moment you believe in a Devine Text and a Hereafter of some sort.

Can you play the role of believer for me? Will you answer the questions from a believers perspective?

If you believed that you possed Divine Words, would you be easily swayed? What if you had Devine manuscripts on Virtue and were yourself Virtuous?

How many times does a Virtuous man need to Change his Mind? Does a Virtuous man need his mind changed at all?

If Virtue is Devine then the Virtuous Man has found the Devine. Or can the Devine be accepted as anything less than Virtuous?

Would a Virtuous Believer ever believe he did not learn virtue from the source that taught him Virtue?

The Philosophical Solution

One philosophy. What is the best Philosophy?

Would you agree with me that Acceptance is closet to Virtue? Do you agree that Acceptance must include the rights of law abiding citizens to practice dogma? If this is true then acceptance must be closest to Devine.

A teacher of mine said it best

I came to the conclusion long ago … that all religions were true and also that all had some error in them, and whilst I hold by my own, I should hold others as dear as Hinduism. So we can only pray, if we are Hindus, not that a Christian should become a Hindu … But our innermost prayer should be a Hindu should be a better Hindu, a Muslim a better Muslim, a Christian a better Christian. - Mahatma Gandhi

Plato and Virtue

Humor me as I attempt to guess Plato's Definition of Virtue, although he claimed to have no knowledge of Virtue itself.

Let me start with a simple example.

In Language you must first learn all the parts of Language starting with the Letters, then you will know Language.

The Definition of Virtue:

The proper mix of Love Tempered with Reason, Judgment combined with Wisdom, and Courage guided by Knowledge.

You see I think Plato was saying you can't learn about virtue without first learning all of the parts. And once you learn all the parts you also have virtue. If indeed you did learn all the parts.

What was Plato saying about the Sophist and the Philosopher? If you don't know Virtue how could you possibly know the difference?

Am I crazy for defending all the texts as divine? Or do you still believe the Virtuous will turn against the place where they learned Virtue?

Why is it that by putting a bunch of circles together you get our existence?

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Why is it that by putting a bunch of circles together you get our existence?

I was not defining existence.

Whether a philosophy is Devine from Heaven or merely because it is the best philosophy shouldn't we follow what's best?

Do you have a better philosophy than acceptance, allowing law abiding citizens to practice their dogma as if it is Devine?

Your existence is only limited by mans laws and your own physical limitations. How could I possibly define your existence to you?

a reply to: Isurrender73

You're crazy. In b4

I didn't learn virtue from any religion so that is proof that you don't need religion to have good morals. Therefor religion is not needed and can actually be a deterrent for learning how to be good to others. Religion teaches the old us and them. If you're not one of us then you're one of them. See how that works?

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Isurrender73

You're crazy. In b4

Maybe?

But do you have a better philosophy?

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Isurrender73

You're crazy. In b4

Maybe?

But do you have a better philosophy?

Be EXCELLENT to eachother!! Wild stallions!!

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
Why is it that by putting a bunch of circles together you get our existence?

I was not defining existence.

Whether a philosophy is Devine from Heaven or merely because it is the best philosophy shouldn't we follow what's best?

Do you have a better philosophy than acceptance, allowing law abiding citizens to practice their dogma as if it is Devine?

Your existence is only limited by mans laws and your own physical limitations. How could I possibly define your existence to you?

What if they're really all the same? Not just figuratively but genuinely....you know, to the "enlightened" ones.

How is it that all existence, religion and science can be expressed visually with a series of circles?

no one agrees on what devine means well some might but we are individuals and have different perspectives of what that would be like, maybe if its a win win situation could work lots of ways or paths , many lessons are learned here and probably have been many times for a long time and many reasons and will continue to do so

a reply to: Rosinitiate

It is possible, I think there are many examples on how everything can be drawn into one. And for the one who finds the source of the one, no one should deny him. Yet all should seek to understand him.

Plato himself defines the One by various shapes, but each time demonstrating their connected nature and their attempt to be like the circle, or the whole.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Isurrender73

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: Isurrender73

You're crazy. In b4

Maybe?

But do you have a better philosophy?

Be EXCELLENT to eachother!! Wild stallions!!

That's just less words.

originally posted by: blacktie
no one agrees on what devine means well some might but we are individuals and have different perspectives of what that would be like, maybe if its a win win situation could work lots of ways or paths , many lessons are learned here and probably have been many times for a long time and many reasons and will continue to do so

I agree completely. It is even more impossible to define the parts of Devine then it is to define the parts of Virtue.

It has to be something each of us looks for as individuals, but we must also understand that we live in a world of both One and Many.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Would you agree with me that Acceptance is closet to Virtue? Do you agree that Acceptance must include the rights of law abiding citizens to practice dogma? If this is true then acceptance must be closest to Devine.

No, acceptance means there is someone accepting, division and therefore no question of virtue.
Virtue would mean a virtuous human being without all the divisive mumbo jumbo.
What you described is a human who conforms to rules, who is disciplined in the wrong sense of that word.
With that i mean, for the society this kind of discipline (good/bad) is good, but conformity is not freedom.
Discipline in the original sense means to learn through ones own senses, to develop oneself as a human being, healthy and whole.

a reply to: earthling42

I defined someone who obeys laws and follows whatever dogma he believes in.

I didn't define what the proper dogma is, outside of Virtue.

Don't I need to accept your dogma and you need to accept my dogma if we are going to come to a peaceful union?

Division is a natural occurrence since we are separated, even if we are united by Oneness. I am not asking for conformity to anything except the agreed on Laws.

I wouldn't think to ask anyone to conform to me, but I would ask everyone to accept me.

a reply to: Isurrender73

We are both human beings, what is there to accept?

You see, what i mean is that all the divisive mumbo jumbo is in the way of humanity.
It means humans have a separated attitude towards one another, and out of that separation conflict and violence is born, not virtue.

Of course on the biological level we are separated, we each have our own body, but i mean the divided state of the human mind.

So if we have no separated attitude towards one another, why the need to unite, to be accepted.

a reply to: earthling42

I agree but isn't that a step past acceptance? We don't even have tolerance yet.

Eventually we will find the Oneness as it really is, and no longer see anything separate. That is a better philosophy but maybe the next one? Unless we can jump ahead somehow.

Without Devine intervention or time I'm not sure even if we decided on acceptance today if we would see Oneness in our lifetime.

Outside of the saying
"from the outside looking in"

a reply to: Isurrender73

I'm afraid not, long after grass grows on our belly, this insane world will just continue the insanity as it has been doing for centuries.

originally posted by: Isurrender73

Am I crazy for defending all the texts as divine? Or do you still believe the Virtuous will turn against the place where they learned Virtue?

No, hopeful, maybe, but no.

I think it depends on how far the apple falls from the tree in that sense, but was it the best apple that went the farthest from a bad tree?(even though theres no such thing)

But Hell, the Apple became a tree after.

All Holy texts are divinely inspired, but the composition of these texts is set up in such a way to deceive people. They are written in a literal way while expressing esoteric knowledge, those in power commission these texts then sell the literal interpretation to the masses.

Proverbs 10
14 A wise man holds his tongue. Only a fool blurts out everything he knows; that only leads to sorrow and trouble.

The one who is wise holds his tongue, yet these Holy books are long winded and convoluted. Why is this? To cause as many different interpretations as possible.

They hold esoteric truth within them but are so convoluted that they cause division between those who read them. This is the deception of Holy books. They are inspired by the divine with the esoteric knowledge within them but are made and used to cause division among the people.

the more we try to figure out the big questions in life, the further removed we are from their meaning.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

I agree 100%. Strip away the Dogma. Most of it is
ancient laws and we have evolved into better laws.

Here is what make the OT/NT/Quran unique.

1. OT Rituals and Sacrifice

2. NT changed Rituals and Sacrifice Changed Law from stoning to death to forgiveness of Sins.

3. Quran says rituals are not required, only requirement is you surrinder to the Devine. The Quran clarifies that Rituals are good for man, not good for God.

We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent? 2:106.

This verse causes the Muslims alot of problems because some say the Quran itself is abrogated.

When you step back you can see the Law keeps getting abrogated stoning, forgiveness, end of ritual salvation.

Spiritually defined or Naturally defined the law has been abrogated each time for the better. It is a path towards Virtue. From Pagans to God Fearing. Forgiveness is better than Death. Finally tne end of ritual salvation.

These were obviously steps considered necessary by the writers of these ancient books. Regardless of how much is metaphor and how much is Real.