Philosophy or Religion?

I keep in line with my own book and input my philosophy into my own daily thought, I understand imagination and creativity seem to blend with the idea of mythology, Science and Reason...

I believe there is no reason why religion should have no philosophy... I do not not have one religion but have a broad spectrum of philosophy that I agree with. Obviously I believe creation is myth, I see we created mythology to understand why we are, I like Hinduism alot because it brings together a vast amount of philosophy and reason, mythology about natural life, I believe what breeches the gap is people, unfortunately that makes people god but what it does do is connect us to higher god in ourselves, I believe in an afterlife in which your choice of religion has little value but how you lived your life toward people... I believe in a higher self matrix, if you will...haha best way to describe what to call it. Which is accepted almost universally in many faiths, including Judaism. In the end it suggests there is really no need for religion, but for the helping of mankind.

Well, all beliefs can seem funny to people, any belief... But people are, and even those who abstain from any also have strange beliefs.

http://sanatana-dharma.tripod.com/

Sanatana Dharma,
meaning “Eternal or Universal Righteousness” is the original name of what is now
popularly called Hinduism. Sanatana Dharma comprises of spiritual laws
which govern the human existence. Sanatana
Dharma is to human life what natural laws are to the physical phenomena. Just as the phenomena of gravitation existed before it was
discovered, the spiritual laws of life are eternal laws
which existed before they were discovered by the ancient rishis (sages) for the present age during the Vedic period. Sanatana Dharma declares that something cannot come out of
nothing and, therefore, the universe itself is the manifestation of the Divine
being. This truth forms the
invocation of the Isa Upanishad (a Hindu scripture):

Poornam-adah,
poornam-idam, poor-nath poornam-udachyate.
Poor-nasya poornam-adaya, poornam-eva-va-sishyate.

That
is full; this is full. The full comes out of the full.
Taking the full from the full, the full itself remains.

This verse
expresses the mystery of creation. This
universe comes forth from the Divine, yet the universe takes nothing from
the Divine and adds nothing to It. Divine
remains ever the same. Since
the universe has come forth from the Divine, all things and beings are
sacred and must be treated so in human thought and action. The Divine
sleeps in minerals, awakens in plants, walks in animals and thinks in
humans.

Sanatana Dharma
looks upon a person as a part and parcel of the mighty Whole, but never regards
him as “the Measure of all things.” In the West, “person” is a supreme and final value, while
Sanatana Dharma regards person as a part of the Whole, having the same
vital essence as all other human and sub-human creatures of the universe. This cosmic view of Hinduism transcends the sectarian or group dogmas and paves
a way for the coexistence of all creatures under the Vedic principle of Vasudev
Kutumbhkam, meaning “The Universe is One Family.” This principle guides the humankind towards universal harmony
through acceptance and tolerance.

Sanatana Dharma
recognizes that the Ultimate Reality, which is the ground of infinite potentiality and
actualization, cannot be limited by any name or concept. The potential for human wholeness (or in other frames of reference,
enlightenment, salvation, liberation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana,
moksha) is present in every
human being. No race or religion is superior and no color or creed is
inferior. All humans are
spiritually united like the drops of water in an ocean.

Therefore:

• Don't enforce
  one belief, one way of worship or one code of conduct for all. Do not attempt to destroy different forms of worship,
  claiming your own way to be the only right one. Such enforcement of uniformity would be
  un-natural and contrary to the
  Divine Law. It
  hinders the progress of a human being in his/her journey to the state of
  divinity.

• Give
  importance to sincerity of heart and nobleness of conduct in the field
  of religion. Do not claim
  to have obtained from God, exclusive and irrevocable power of attorney
  to be a dictator and to persecute others on behalf of God, because they
  do not agree with you.

• Don't
  claim to have bound the Boundless God. Do not create inter-religious wars and massacres, forcing your
  claims and dogmas on others.

• Give
  a person freedom to think, freedom to believe, freedom to disbelieve and
  freedom to adopt a way of worship, which suits his/her temperament. After all, what is important in worship of God is the sincerity
  of heart, not the outer form of worship.

• Don't divide the human race into conflicting armies and camps of
  Holy believers and Unholy Others.

When I see groups of any religion creating dogma, it is irritating, especially in these Eastern Faiths that are not religions..

The point is you divide to your own ideology... :)

Natural Law implies humanity and nature to life on earth and our connection to it, Hence, Global Warming is the reaction to how we treat the earth, so in the end it exists..

Let's see if deism fits into the definition of Religion (From dictionary.com)

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause,
nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the
creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving
devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs. The only similarities I see here are the cause and nature of the universe. Deism doesn't contain a purpose for the universe, nor does it have any devotional or ritual observances. It also doesn't have a set moral code for human affairs.

The other definitions for religion on that site were either similar to the one I used, or were irrelevant.

I'd say it's a philosophy. It doesn't quite fit into the definition of religion.

If philosophy is the study of human experience then deism would not fit that definition since deists claim that god does not interact with or intervene in human affairs.  Deists make claims about the existence of a god, her nature, and her attributes or non-attributes.  All of these concepts are rooted in religious belief.  Many deists offer the same logically-flawed intelligent design arguments that theists use.  However, when asked 'how many gods created the universe and by what mechanism' or 'how does god impart reason and what is the source of god's reason', the deist can only make claims mirroring that of faith claims.  Deism has the same trappings of religion, despite the absence of "revealed text".

I agree that Deism is more of a philosophy then a religion although many Deists view it as a religion. The one claim it makes would be that we believe in the God of nature and not of the Bible. We use reason and trust instead of faith. No one can prove whether God exists or not, but until someone can prove that we are eternal or an accident, my reasoning indicates that something is responsible for our universe.

John, what do you think of this information I found on another web? Thanks, Bob Taylor

Of course there is much added and embellished. I fully admit, getting to the heart of any historical character is difficult. I can’t be sure exactly what Jesus said, but here is how I try. I discard the Gospel of John altogether. All scholars agree that it was written last and even the official Roman Catholic version of the Bible says that by the time John was written, it reflected the developing theology of the Church.

That leaves us with the Synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All scholars of merit agree that Matthew and Luke used their own knowledge or oral tradition, the existing Gospel of Mark, and a then extant document that must have been very old since there were enough hand written copies in circulation for all these writers to have read it. This document is known as “Q”. Most contemporary historians agree that Mark was written around 70 AD. Secular scholastic historians place great academic value on documents written within 200 years of the evens recorded.

It seems to me that if I can find the similarities in these gospels, I can get a glimpse of the teachings of Jesus. The material Matthew and Luke took from “Q” and the Gospel of Mark are not very difficult to find because they often copied their sources word for word. If both “Q” and Mark agree on something if is quite persuasive to me.

Most people think that our only source is the New Testament, but that is simply not true. Ignatius was the third minister at the church in Antioch - after Peter and Evodius. In all likelihood he was well known to Peter's children and grandchildren. It is also quite likely he knew John the Apostle personally. On his way to Rome to be executed for his faith, he wrote 7 letters which are considered authentic. He was a good friend of Polycarp, the recipient of one of his letters, and who was Bishop at Smyrna and definitely taught by John the Apostle. The point is we can get very close to the time of Jesus with writings outside the New Testament. It takes a lot of work but I find it fascinating and rewardingOf course there is much added and embellished. I fully admit, getting to the heart of any historical character is difficult. I can’t be sure exactly what Jesus said, but here is how I try. I discard the Gospel of John altogether. All scholars agree that it was written last and even the official Roman Catholic version of the Bible says that by the time John was written, it reflected the developing theology of the Church.

That leaves us with the Synoptic Gospels – Matthew, Mark, and Luke. All scholars of merit agree that Matthew and Luke used their own knowledge or oral tradition, the existing Gospel of Mark, and a then extant document that must have been very old since there were enough hand written copies in circulation for all these writers to have read it. This document is known as “Q”. Most contemporary historians agree that Mark was written around 70 AD. Secular scholastic historians place great academic value on documents written within 200 years of the evens recorded.

It seems to me that if I can find the similarities in these gospels, I can get a glimpse of the teachings of Jesus. The material Matthew and Luke took from “Q” and the Gospel of Mark are not very difficult to find because they often copied their sources word for word. If both “Q” and Mark agree on something if is quite persuasive to me.

Most people think that our only source is the New Testament, but that is simply not true. Ignatius was the third minister at the church in Antioch - after Peter and Evodius. In all likelihood he was well known to Peter's children and grandchildren. It is also quite likely he knew John the Apostle personally. On his way to Rome to be executed for his faith, he wrote 7 letters which are considered authentic. He was a good friend of Polycarp, the recipient of one of his letters, and who was Bishop at Smyrna and definitely taught by John the Apostle. The point is we can get very close to the time of Jesus with writings outside the New Testament. It takes a lot of work but I find it fascinating and rewarding

thank you j0p u64 izlebe

ilan ver Thank you Wordpress Themes Download
very good article very good Bad Credit Loan Mortgage
The gibberish sums up as being: mishmashed pseudo-law.Dizin
Does it make sense? No. Is it entertaining? Very.

" ""cheap payday loan

Thanks for your comments"""

Those Jackson kids are adorable! What! No mention of Pink's outstanding performance--twirling and splashing water on all the celebs (help I'm melting) Her voice never quivered. Unlike, Taylor and Stevie--never liked Stevie I think her voice is awful. I do a great impersonation bosch servisi kinda Katherine Hepburn and Joan Rivers mixed together --volatile.film

film izle