Wow, thanks a fantastic analogy and question. So clearly, it means that choosing the "right" faith isn't so simple or else anyone would be able to do so. A good God would not allow us to damn ourselves thru sincere beliefs that happened to be mistaken. Perhaps we could be responsible, and should be, for what we do that is informed by these beliefs. But we shouldn't be responsible for the beliefs themselves.

So there must be some unity of religions. But then wouldn't god tell us tell us this? He did,time and time again. Jesus told us salvation isn't just for the Jews. Mohammad told us that faith needs no intermediaries and God has no partners and Baha'u'llah told us we are all one people, one faith but just don't realize it. Maybe one day we'll listen!

Yeah so most pantheists would say this, that my being unaware of my unity with everything doesn't negate it.
But let's say I have such meditative experience, which I have had before. There is still this self that experiences non-self or transcending selfhood. My human selfhood is on the outside looking in on the experience.
My individuality is exactly composed of that illusory division. Or perhaps from a Panentheist perspective my identity is rooted in my finite imperfection. By becoming undivided divinity or becoming perfected, I cease being me. So I can't say whether I am God or only a exaulted servant, because the "I" is still the unpurified, undivine jerk.
This is all very Hindu, which is fine, but to ground it back in Platonism I'd say that my soul is just part of who I am but my total being. I cant say I am just my purified soul. Because my soul can't speak without a body to inhabit and an animal nature to attach to. If my soul reached an ecstatic state, my animal nature (my sensory based mind) is outside peeping thru the window.

Yes neoplatonism. Nous is our rational mind which taps into the ideal realm and Absolutes thru contemplation.

Also Transcendentalism does this too

Then also Jung's pyschology of the collective unconcious

Is that enough of a lead?

Mystic Dualist — Mitchell

Haha. I'll have to respond in another thread. Thanks for the food for thought!

If I neglect the spiritual side, then I am depressed and unmotivated, and so I can't be very productive — Agustino

Fair enough, I'm glad that balance works for you. I also try to balance work and family and prayer and philosophy. Becoming a monk or getting a PHD aren't good ideas for me. We are meant to make a difference where we can.

I'm taking back up the role of resident Platonist here so my posts are going to be less about what I personally think (since I'm not sure). Rather, I'll try to respond as Plato or neoplatonists would as a self teaching tool. It's rather fun. So feel free to correct me on my Platonism.

And what do we do once liberated? — Agustino

Contemplate virtue and beauty of course!

But you are right we also need to actually practice virtue not just contemplate it. That's why even monastics still focus on work of some kind and almost all religions put emphasis on compassionate action.
What I object to is the modern assumption that meditation and prayer are not "doing" anything. Not that you necessarily believe this but there is a definite rejection of monastic and ascetic practices today. Protestantism is partially to blame.
But if you believe that God is real and is good then prayer is of very high value. If reality has a spirtual component, then meditation has the ability to transform it. It's simmilar to your discussion on transubstantiation. We see only the outer appearance and discard the inner, true reality. Prayers don't generate profits, but profits are worthless to our soul. In which kingdom should you invest?

Why do you think Google, Facebook, etc. are investing so much in mindfulness retreats — Agustino

Yes, I've been to talk by the mindfulness coach for Google. You know what Buddhists think of corporate mindfulness? Its a massive threat to real meditative practice. Bikhu Bodhi the famous Buddhist translator is leading a movement for more socially active Buddhism. Mindfulness can be improperly used as sedative to make people more complacent to the unjust status quo and to detach and thus enable continued corrupt social structures. I'm not an activist, politics is a cheif example of a corrupt structure. But I do think spirtual practice exists to liberate us from the world not be more productive in it.
The problem with rich patronizing the arts is then only the art that doesn't challenge the rich becomes funded. You see this is in church today, pastors cater to getting people in the pews and to give pledges. They are obsessed about attracting young families and encourage growth. They forget the role of the church is not to pad it's membership rolls and it's budget but witness to the Word of God even if it's only to a parish of ten old people.

Plotinus says in the first ennead
"So, we may justly say, a Soul becomes ugly- by something foisted upon it, by sinking itself into the alien, by a fall, a descent into body, into Matter. The dishonour of the Soul is in its ceasing to be clean and apart. Gold is degraded when it is mixed with earthy particles; if these be worked out, the gold is left and is beautiful, isolated from all that is foreign, gold with gold alone. And so the Soul; let it be but cleared of the desires that come by its too intimate converse with the body, emancipated from all the passions, purged of all that embodiment has thrust upon it, withdrawn, a solitary, to itself again- in that moment the ugliness that came only from the alien is stripped away."
Our souls loose their purity and become ugly by association with worldly pursuits. As Jesus says you can't serve two masters.

Are all bullshit. These are vague and empty nonsense so long as it cannot be quantified scientifically. — Agustino

Agustino,
If you reject moral or "spirtual" beauty as a grounds for value than all religious items and services are worthless and not only are not worth spending resources but not even worthy of respect. Why can't I use conscreated wine at a strip club or wipe my backside with clerical robes? Because they have special value.
This might not seem like it relates to economics but it does. I can think of two ways, one is in simple use of funds. Why donate to churches or charities if they have no economic value? If they have no value we should revoke all tax exemptions.
Second, due to opportunity cost and limited resources of time and energy, we need to spend our time and effort only on things of value. So if good and truth have no value then none of us should be on this forum, except if it's only because they like to argue. Oh wait... That is this forum.

Value is a reflection of beauty. An item is more valuable if it is of higher craftsmanship than one of lower quality. A skilled service increases it's value with the increase of skill and care required. A lazy and sloppy surgeon is worth less than a skilled and diligent one.
Also a good or service that fulfills a need is more valuable than a useless one. Food given to starving people is significantly more valuable than food given to the already rich. It gains it's value by the virtue (moral virtue) it serves.
So both labor and goods are not equal but derive their value from the beautiful, the good and the virtous. Monatary value is a crude estimatation of the value of these goods and services. True value is how well an object or service embodies the absolute Good.

then mind and body cannot interact — quine

That's what the pineal gland is for. Everybody knows that.
:)

You're daughter thinks heart of darkness is endearing? Hmm...
Every once in a while I find someone willing to dialogue and it makes it worth it. As agnostic/atheist you must also understand why I forget sometimes why faiths that seem so simmilar actually despise each other. Of course isn't true of all Christains and all muslims. But that a fundamentalist Jew, Christain and Muslim and it's amazing they use the same kind of arguments and the same language and emotional appeals.
All three faiths love to argue, for example, about how many witnesses there were of events in their scripture. If it wasn't true wouldn't someone have spoken up?
Doesn't matter if it's giving the Torah on Sinai or the Resurrection or Mohammed reciting the Quran.

But how do the stations fit into that? It seems different. More metaphysical, ontological, intellectual. — T Clark

Fit into what? The unity of religions? Well, on surface you have obvious external differences between faiths from simple ritual differences to key theological differences. But faith ultimately (at a higher ststion) isn't about theology. No one is moved by the finer points of the Trinity. These external teachings are at best just particular ways the prophet chose to get his point across, at worst they are corruptions the prophet never taught.
But ultimately all religions point to one divine reality and carry the same core message of Love God, Love neighbor.

They'd inquisition his as — T Clark

Yeah I got banned from a Christian forum for quoting the Quran to make a theological point. I forgot that for others they aren't interchangeable. It's interesting though how truly simmilar Christain and Islamic theology are.

I'm actually really interested now in ancient biblical intrepration (symbolism and numerology) and am working on a commentary of Psalm 1. Im tempted to share it on Christain sites but that might be too unkind. Again they freak when I reference other faiths, particularly the Quran.

a way to deal with the world in a way our minds aren't structured to allow? — T Clark

Sort of. Baha'i theology focuses primarily on the ways God gives revelation. So revelation thru Divine Manifestations (aka prophets) are the only way we can know anything about God and by accepting them we become illumined.

You would probably be interested in the idea of progressive revelation which teaches that all the major world religions' founders (Abraham, Buddha, Moses, Zorastor, Mohammad, etc) are divine Messengers and bring the same, essential message. This revelation is progressive because each Messenger tailors the delivery of the message to the audience of their time and context. They know that the people aren't ready receive the full Truth.

So how can this be with such conflicting teachings? Well the core of each faith, the "holy of holies" is the same, it's the extra teachings (the Trinity, haduths, talmud) that are corruptions or misinterpretions by the instutions and clergy. They are "vain imaginings" and "idle fancies".

I thought you'd like this topic, because it's what you are always saying.

line in shipwreck by ubiquitous synergy seekers — Wosret

One enters "The Valley of Unity and drinketh from the cup of the Absolute, and gazeth on the Manifestations of Oneness. In this station he pierceth the veils of plurality, fleeth from the worlds of the flesh, and ascendeth into the heaven of singleness. With the ear of God he heareth, with the eye of God he beholdeth the mysteries of divine creation. He steppeth into the sanctuary of the Friend, and shareth as an intimate the pavilion of the Loved One. He stretcheth out the hand of truth from the sleeve of the Absolute; he revealeth the secrets of power. He seeth in himself neither name nor fame nor rank, but findeth his own praise in praising God. He beholdeth in his own name the name of God; to him, “all songs are from the King,” and every melody from Him. He sitteth on the throne of “Say, all is from God,” and taketh his rest on the carpet of “There is no power or might but in God.” He looketh on all things with the eye of oneness, and seeth the brilliant rays of the divine sun shining from the dawning-point of Essence alike on all created things, and the lights of singleness reflected over all creation." Baha'u'llah, The Seven Valleys

If God is perfectly good and all powerful then wouldn't that be good for everyone? It shouldn't matter who God is as long as they are all good and all powerful, it would benefit everyone.
My objection is with the underlying principle that self advancement is always better than self renunciation. I think goodness is always more desirable than any other quality.
Thus the fact that you are not perfectly good disproves your argument above. It actually disproves the whole ontological proof for God, unless the greatest possible reality is one where mankind falls intentionally in order to redeemed. This is a Kabbalistic view

P.S. are the ontological argument and the best of all possible argument from Liebnitz essentially linked? It seems to me the greatest reality would not just include God but the whole world, right?

Meta,
Why would the greatest possible reality be that you are God? It seems be your assumption that the greatest reality is one when where you get the most power, toys, riches, etc.
If you want to be God (since you state this reality would be desirous), the path shouldn't thru gaining power but thru gaining goodness. Goodness is what makes God (either as a reality or as a hypothetical concept) great not his power.

Thanks :)
Everyone has been very helpful.

The best objection to religious membership meaning anything at all, is the vast number of people who say they are a certain religion and even be on the church rolls but only rarely go to services, do no practices at home, do not follow their faiths prohibitions, and know little of their faith’s theology. I would be a good Christian if I just didn’t like reading and cared more about football instead without any increase of faith.

God commands you not to commit suicide or murder, which is why you won't kill yourself or murder other people in order to attain heaven that much faster. But if getting to heaven requires accepting this particular dogma about suicide and murder, — Thorongil

God can command things as what we should do in order to be righteous and be closer to Him, but He doesn’t have to require these things to avoid hell. Jews are commanded to wear tassels but aren’t going to hell for not doing so. This is a Christian understanding of the Law which is not Jewish.

If not because you think one of them is true, then you're just expressing your aesthetic preferences, which I and most people here don't care about. — Thorongil

If you add “exclusively true” then you’re right it’s an aesthetic preference or perhaps a question of utility. I do think I could be Christian and be fine, I just don’t find many of their teachings pleasing nor useful.

was taking aim at the perennialist who conceives of himself as a religious person, despite not formally belonging to any one particular religion. "A religion of one is a religion of none." — Thorongil

So why the focus on “formal” religious membership? I’m teetering on formally becoming Baha’i. Even if I don’t, I could easily become a universalit Quranist (i.e. Muslim). I’m sure there are other liberal Muslims, I know universalist Sufis exist. Or I would be fully welcome with the Quakers. All these would require only superficial changes to belief or practice.
If Bishop Spong is Episcopalian than so am I.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Shelby_Spong
Labels don’t mean much.

My advice would be to stick to better articulating it, instead of employing in a superficial manner various mystics, religious founders, and philosophers as a crutch to lend credibility to your views, whatever they are. — Thorongil

You said earlier that if I reject all religions then I end up not believing anything. You are right.
Yet now you say that I’m using these said religions as a crutch.
You are right though that I don’t have an articulate worldview. It’s the main reason I came here and I’ve tried several prototypes on here, which have all failed.
My arguments against hell, were in my mind, were pretty solid though.
I did also really like when I simplified things to find God and follow God’s will. You said that this doesn’t work if there is an objective standard for salvation, but I’ve akready established there is no damnation.
Personally I’m drawn most strongly to Islam, Judaism and Baha’i, so I think I can practice a general monotheism. The Quran definitely supports this approach. For me this practice does help me find God and obey His commandments. What else do I need? My entrance into heaven isn’t based on my theological accuracy nor my ability to articulate it.

Two thoughts...
1) Islam, particularly the Quran, is a very articulate view of the world and of religions. There are many strong philosophical traditions within Islam. The Persian Sufis in particular. In a simmilar sense, I love Jewish philosophy which also rarely gets any attention. Islam has little exposure in the west which is a shame, I’m sad but not suprised to see it have such a negative reaction on multiple occasions here. If you get a chance you should read the Quran.
2) my attempts on this forum to articulate a philosophy beyond a vague vannila monotheism have pretty much failed. I appreciate everyone’s help in not holding back and very effectively showing me my intellectual mistakes. There are some bright minds on here. I do get a bit frustrated and flustered by the process, which is natural. But its for my own good.
It’s not going to be possible for me to find and adopt nor make my own systematic, philosophical approach that explains my religious experience. God is inherently beyond systematic explanation and the individual human relationship with the divine is inherently dynamic and changing and growing.
Instead, I need to embrace the not-knowing and the wisdom of non-attachment to views. The Buddha says anyone who attaches to philosophical and theological views is not worthy of his teachings. Socrates is said to be the wisest because he knows he doesn’t know.

Philosophy is very frustrating. I’m always discovering I don’t know what I thought I did and I really don’t know much at all.

Okay... I’ll spell my thinking out. Thorongil said if I’m a universalist I should practice mass murder. I assume he’s implying that everyone I might murder goes to heaven and thus is better off and suffers less than remaining on earth.
Objection: God clearly states to not murder, especially in the Torah and claims that the blood is His. Life is sacred even if it’s temporary and poor quality compared to eternal life. God alone should be the one to cause death and restore life (after death, life saving is fine)
Related Concept: what Thorongil does illustrate however is the solution to the problem of evil and suffering. Our human suffering in this life is extremely brief when compared to eternity. God is eternal and takes an eternal perspective. This life only exists in order to bring us closer to God. It’s not for our material comfort or enjoyment. Even to the point we are never guaranteed to not endure a slow and agonizing traumatic death. I work in a nursing home, sometimes it is not pretty! But to God that suffering is minor and passing. So God is justified in mass murder and definitely allows it (since it is within his power to stop it).

Yeah, I bet I do seem strange. I blame Kabbalah.

Maybe you’re right and God did give a special revelation of His message and my realitivist touchy feely stuff won’t cut it. Maybe Intellectual belief is needed and God does indeed punish though who reject His holy messengers. I actually do think this may be the case. With all sincerity I do believe “There is no God but Allah(God) and Mohammad is His messenger.” I am a faithful and non-idolatrous person of the book. I should probably give up pork, but at least I don’t drink.

Just in case, the Rabbis also say I’m good. I’m a noahide and again not an idolator.
Really it’s only Christianity being right I have to worry about. An incarnate God offering subsitutory atonement? I think I’m pretty safe.

You ought not to call yourself a Christian or attend a Christian church if you reject the truth claims of Christianity. I — Thorongil

I do it to make my wife happy. Does that count?

Because they would go to heaven rather than suffering here? That’s a good argument. Maybe that’s God’s job. It would explain childhood cancer, starvation and genoicide.

Philosophy

Didn’t know that. Thanks. One of my favorite Buddhist teachers in my mind has always been Obi Won. I love the discussion of did Vader kill Luke’s Father. Things being true from a certain point of view has helped a lot in life.

You both have given me a lot to think about. I messed up in my thinking by first off being arrogant enough to create my own 7 point system. Second, I was wrong in my outright rejection of religion or even of clergy.
Ultimately, since I’m a universalist and reject hell, what’s the point of religion?
To find and be found by God AND to do His/Her/It’s will.
What’s the point of philosophy? The same as religion.

So any given religion, any congregation, or even any individual’s faith practice is good and right in so far as it accomplishes this goal and is wrong and harmful in ways that it does not. Thorongil is right that Perennialism basically says all religions are wrong and are mistaken about Reality. I don’t think this is accurate. The majority of religious teaching and religious people are in and of themselves working towards this goal of finding God and doing God’s will. I don’t think God cares about theological accuracy. Yet every religion has its particular draw backs or temptations to the weaker parts of human nature whether it’s abuse of clerical power or over emphasis on individuality or being too detached all together.

This idea that there is good in most religions helps answer why I’ve met very holy and wise people in conflicting faiths and why I’ve personally found each of them meaningful. There’s nothing wrong in mixing them to make my own blend, since there is no required formula for avoiding damnation. However, making my own mix still should be judged by the same criteria as everyone else. Does it help me find God? Does it help me do God’s will?

Simply put, it isn't certain that the benefits of religion can be had outside of it. Nor is it certain that they can be had within it either, but one may and ought to wonder whether they are better had within it than not. The religious hermit, for example, for all his solitude, still chooses to formally bind himself to a particular belief structure and religious institution, no matter how physically distant from the latter he may be.

In sum, perennialism leaves one in precisely the same set of circumstances one was in before its acceptance. For the individual who sees the possibility, merit, and even urgency of personal transformation, perennialism will be an empty consolation.

I think this is well put.
I would agree my position is essentially Perennialist according to your definition. It has more advanced metaphysics drawing from the Greeks, but essentially the same.

I would say not all the benefits, some of them critical, from religion can be experienced from outside it. You don’t have community which is essential to not going crazy. Something religious solitaries have to address. You don’t have spiritual director or a confessor to guide you. You don’t have communal works to further good deeds, consistent with your ethics, to perform more together than you can individually.

The way I deal with is that I’m not truly outside religious communities. I go to an episcopal church with family and regularly discuss matters of faith with my priests there. I also participate online with several Baha’i communities. In practice, I’m just a non-credal Christian.
There was a woman I talked to at church who was saying good things about the Jesus Seminar and was concerned about what “Jesus really said”. She rejected a lot of things as partriachy and attempts at control. We didn’t get into her exact christology, she may not have one. Are she and I christains? I don’t think I am, she probably thinks she is. But really there’s very little difference between us. Maybe the point is labels don’t mean much.

Just when I starting to think I’ve got it figured out... :(

The Jedis are purposefully designed after Zen Buddhism. So simmilarity to the Jedi path, I don’t consider a criticism.
The areas I would differ from a purely philosophical view of a passive “force” is that God actively loves and consciously creates. He isn’t without intellect or personhood. Of course his intellect or personhood isn’t anything like ours. He is infinite and we are finite. This view got me kicked out of the Zendo.

“I shall never seek so much to be consoled as to console;
To be understood as to understand;
To be loved as to love;
For it is in giving that we receive;
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
And it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.”
Is that really part of the Jedi code? that’s the prayer of St. Francis.

Wouldn’t Spinoza be helpful here? Our human love is finite and is an expression or mode over God’s infinite love. I think uses of love in the example of food is just a linguistic confusion. Love is only of people. There may be some psychological examples where people love inanimate things as if they were people. A better example would be loving a teddy bear (or a car that you name and rain to) rather than a “Love” of nachos. I don’t ever talk to my nachos.

What would you have to do to get into heaven, according to Pascal? How would you know he was right, as against, say, what an Imam would tell you you had to do? — charleton

You said that Pascal suggests giving up your autonomy which you said is the only thing we had. I was trying to find what you meant by that exactly.

Pascal’s wager doesn’t work when you have completing and mutually condemning revelations of God. Christains say Muslims are gong to hell for not believing in Jesus as God. Muslims say Christians are going to hell for their idolatry. This is a serious problem and tells us something has gone terribly, terribly wrong about religion. It’s clearly more about doing what your priest/pastor/rabbi/Imam/guru says that about God. That’s the real idolatry.

Personally I’m a universalist and I think everyone’s going to heaven. I think you spend really time with people of other faiths you’ll realize that God isn’t a monopoly of only one tradition.

Can you elaborate on this?
I agree with the “crockpot priest says might be true”
I got banned from a Christian forum for saying a simmilar thing
Do you have a problem with submitting to religious authority? That is foolish I agree. As Jesus says the blind leading the blind into a pit.
Or is belief in God itself or in the core tenets of the faith (like belief in Jesus for example) giving up our autonomy? If so how?

Haha. Okay, we’ll thats my two cents.

Mm, not nearly the same. — XanderTheGrey

Not nearly the same as in marriage isn’t like the rest of life? Or marriage isn’t like video games?

Has there been a recent discussion on the justice of anti-drug laws?
I think Locke would be very clear on this and he is the foundation of American views on freedom and rights.