Do you agree? Does mankind argue about the "details" while missing the point?

Diversity is far more fascinating than a monoculture.

I think it's a bunch of people all sitting around arguing about which fantasy of theirs is the best.

...doesn't being so much more intelligent than everyone else sometimes become a bit of a burden?

__________________
Grassaf, Eolas

I think that variety in spiritual experience accurately reflects the variety of human experiences in other areas of life.

For starters, we're all standing at different coordinates in the universe, and consequently we'll tend to see different things. If there is a common thread in mystical episodes experienced by diverse individuals in the cultures of the world, I think the commonality points to similarities in brain layout rather than to any particular number or type of gods.

(Either that, or religion is actually a cleverly disguised form of light, behaving both as a wave and as a particle... )

Yeh I can agree agree with Gandhi about the "soul of religion".. He was you know one of those souls who could you know appreciate Christ, Krishna and Buddha and the other great Manifestations!

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

I agree that the way Asimov put it was, perhaps, somewhat dismissive. However, I think his point has at least some merit.

We want to know so much, and unfortunately there is a limit to how much we can know, and the rest is pretty much guesswork. Granted, many very intelligent and/or thoughtful people have put a great deal of thinking effort into discovering the answers to the "great questions." These include both philosophers and theologians, artists and curmudgeons (like myself). All of these have asked, and tried to answer, the great questions:

"Who am I?"
"What meaning and/or purpose does my existence have, if any?"
"Where am I going, or will I know nothing after my life as I knew nothing before it?"
"How shall I live, while I live?"

One of the important functions of art, philosophy and religion, is to explore the deepest forces in human life -- love, honour, compassion in equal measure with hate, fear, lust (for wealth & power as well as sex), and violence.

I think where Asimov is coming from is that, insofar as the answers to many questions must remain a matter of conjecture -- i.e. stand in no position to be tested -- then we cannot make the claim for them that they are "fundamental and eternal truth."

And this is something that religion, unlike philosophy, science and art, frequently lays claim to. And on the basis of that "truth" claim, religion also then goes on to make demands of others, even though those others may not adhere. This is, for example, the case of the Catholic Church and its demands upon nations regarding sexuality and marriage. The Chuch, believing it has a lock on "eternal truth," feels perfectly justified in insisting upon those truths for everyone else, too.

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Well why dont we answer these



"Who am I?"

I am the Holy Son of God


"What meaning and/or purpose does my existence have, if any?"

LOVE Unity Peace CREATION

"Where am I going, or will I know nothing after my life as I knew nothing before it?"

I am ALL that IS for eternity - there is no beginning and there is no end


"How shall I live, while I live?"

In the Golden Light of LOVE for eternity


LOVE IS LIFE

as

GOD IS LOVE


A Love not of this World

I think the most difficult question is: "Who am I?". Although we may think to know the truth, sometimes the truth is full of surprises. Isn't it God who does know best? Thus we have to find a way to communicate with God, if this is feasible. But we will realize that God speaks with another language. Is it impossible to learn the truth? No. As it is written in the Bible and the Qur'an, the truth dwells in our hearts. Somehow we must learn to listen to our hearts again, because there are the answers.

It is feaseable David

You know the rest