The fact that a particular world-view (eg that of Christianity, Islam or Buddhism) seems to be fundamentally different to other world-views (eg that which holds that the universe was born in the big bang some 14 billion years ago) does not mean that either or any of those world views is necessarily incorrect. The apparent differences emerge as a result of the inadequacies of language: specifically, the application of different language-based labels to the same fundamental, underlying thing.
Language is a device for simulating reality. Every language statement is a metaphor, not the bedrock truth itself. Apparent differences frequently if not always are simply the manifestation of different metaphors to describe the same aspect of reality.
Consider, for instance, the following statements: "The early bird gets the worm", "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" and "first in first served". It's true that a bird is not a wheel, and grease is not a worm. So, yes, there are differences between the three statements. But the differences are superficial. They are differences of metaphor, and those differences do not undermine the fundamental integrity of the underlying message that is the same in all three cases.
the faster i go the behinder i get
the bigger they are the harder they fall
the last in the closer to the exit
loose lips sink ships
the bigger the feet the better the sex
Lammy, you're not wrong. Thanks for stopping by.
Oh good, Lammy is getting a dose of philosophy. Soon she'll realize that Professor Snewgflo isn't such a bad guy after all.
I have a book that discusses common events in both Islam and Buddhism. I am also of the opinion that if certain political factions hadn't corrupted the message of Christ to the point where it was unrecognizable, that Christianity and Buddhism as we know them would bear much more similarity to each other. Islam and Christianity are first cousins. So why can't we all just get along??
As a phenomenology fan, I do not believe that "the bedrock truth," assuming there might be such a thing in a mutable universe, is accessible to humans.
There is some difference among these metaphors. The most striking is that the wheel one attributes success to efforts to draw attention to oneself, whereas the other two promote taking initiative, especially as concerns time. The squeaky wheel is not admirable, and this is an important ethical difference.
weirsdo, excellent point (about there being more than just language-based differences among the three metaphors. I do need someone to rein me in, frequently
Sure thing: All humans believe in
something,a great majority believe in God(whether existing or not)fact that some don't agree in that belief doesn't change reality.
So you're right of course and I hear you there,except(there's always an except)religions are man made and they back up the power in place, "Got mit uns" "In God we trust" "Alla awkbar" and so on,so they're bound to split since they're not intended for similar
people.
If you wanted to criticate religions(I think you did just that)without going outright against them, then there was no better than your post.
Cheers.
COMMENTS? Come on... gimme your best shot!