In This World Who is the more Trustworthy those who follow Religious Text or Those Who Follow Their

I profusely apologise because i thought I had overcome the habit of hitting the enter key at the end of the title
but alas it remains when a couple of beers have been sipped

This question I believe is worthy of deep thought, I like many have met the most wonderful warm hearted Christians .Jews. Muslims, ect but similarly we have met the most beautiful human beinngs , who say" Live and let live " and this is their only reference to spirituality.

So who are the ones to trust?

Thos ewho follow the inner voice ....or those who follow the wriiten word?

Everyone follows their inner voice whether or not it agrees with a written word.

People trust other people only to the extent that the other people can hurt them.

This means that someone who is "sensitive" is less likely to place their trust out there, believing they'll be hurt.

For me it means, I'm more likely to trust a stranger, than someone who knows all my dark secrets.

On the other hand, I trusted someone I didn't really know 20 years ago, and she ended up being my best friend to this day, for never breaking that trust.

Religion has nothing to do with it.

The ones that simply say: 'Live and let Live".

A few words speak more than any religious books.

Two replies , two excellent ones, but perhaps both saying the same thing?
LIVE AND LET LIVE?

reply to post by Forevever

Everyone follows their inner voice whether or not it agrees with a written word.

really ? if they do - why do they need the doctrine / dogma ?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by Forevever

 

Everyone follows their inner voice whether or not it agrees with a written word.

really ? if they do - why do they need the doctrine / dogma ?

Because humans have a tendency to seek out like minded humans, then try to force other humans to follow their ideas - because most humans think they're right, they're the only ones who are right, and no one else can possibly be in on the big secret that they're in on

or something

but I could be totally wrong - I'm not human

(ETA: of course I'm human, just emphasizing there are exceptions, but this appears to be basic human behavior throughout history)

reply to post by Forevever

but I could be totally wrong - I'm not human

And I kinda wished you weren't. I wished we were communicating from inside a giant space base thriving in extraterrestrial species with countless of cultures in a distant star system because that could make us humans realise that we are just one more species. We are not special. We come not from any religion. We come from the same place as all other species. From the universe.

That's why I always say that religion won't make it into the space age.

I might have derailed this thread but I wanted to say this.

reply to post by Dr Expired


I am more likely to listen to and trust someone who has figured out something for themselves. I think they have a better grasp of the fact that each person comes to their truth through self-discovery and are more willing to acknowledge and respect the fact that each person's truth is their own, and not necessarily the (big T) Truth for everyone.

Those who follow a book or dogma (or something external) are more likely to think that their book holds the ONE (big T) Truth and so, everyone should believe it. I don't trust someone who's trying to sell me something.

reply to post by Dr Expired


I often hear:-

"What have you got to lose? If you just take a bet that God exists, and submit to religion you have everything to gain, and nothing to lose".......

Pascal's Wager (or Pascal's Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher, mathematician, and physicist Blaise Pascal that even if the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal formulated his suggestion uniquely on the God of Jesus Christ as implied by the greater context of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.

Compare Pascal's Wager to that of the Atheist's Wager

The Atheist's Wager is an atheistic response to Blaise Pascal's Wager. While Pascal suggested that it is better to take the chance of believing in a god that might not exist rather than to risk losing infinite happiness by disbelieving in a god that does, the Atheist's Wager suggests that:

You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.

I know some Christians who'll back stab you if you give them the opportunity to, and it doesn't technically break any of the specific rules there book provides.

I also know of Non-Christians who aren't any better, and they don't have a books rules restricting them.

I personally don't think a person's religious beliefs hold any merit as to how trustworthy they are. Holding a strong sense of morality is completely independent of whether or not a person has a sense of "sin".

I will trust a person from the merit of their character I have personally seen, not from whatever belief system they hold. I guess that means I choose the "Inner voice", but you still have to see from understanding the person if said inner voice is any good either.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

. . .you still have to see from understanding the person if said inner voice is any good either.

Do you think different people have a different inner voice?
Do you think the inner voice is just a product of each individual's brain?
Is it possible, in your opinion that there could be a source outside ourselves, of an "inner voice", meaning it is inner in the matter of how they perceive it, as opposed to it being inner in its ultimate origin?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Do you think different people have a different inner voice?
Do you think the inner voice is just a product of each individual's brain?
Is it possible, in your opinion that there could be a source outside ourselves, of an "inner voice", meaning it is inner in the matter of how they perceive it, as opposed to it being inner in its ultimate origin?

Possible, doesn't mean it isn't very unlikely. There's no reason to believe our sense of morality comes from an external source.

Some believe stealing from faceless corporations isn't immoral, it just doesn't give them the guilt stealing from a person would. Some people believe piracy is ok if they wouldn't of bought the product in the first place. Many feel both of these are still wrong.

In places of Sharia Law, people find it immoral to not harshly punish sinners, that the moral thing to do is punish them often in ways we'd see as horrible. In more bible orientated times, it was the same. Example, the Salem Witch Trials, everyone thought the moral thing to do was hang and burn people they thought had committed witchcraft.

Slavery in early America, many found it perfectly fine, then the numbers who found it immoral started to grow. Etcetera, etcetera, our morals, conscience, or "Inner Voice" has always been a result of society at the times, mixed with personal reasoning and experiences. Different people with different inner voices, and no reason an external source feeding us our morality would contradict itself with every different person.

Of course, no everyone's voice has been right. And we can't know if our voices are absolutely right. That's why a person following their own inner voice still isn't the best if their voice is flawed.

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

That's why a person following their own inner voice still isn't the best if their voice is flawed.

Thanks.
It would seem to me now, after reading your reply, that I should have figured out all the answers a long time ago, considering how my theme is on how to be a better person.
I guess I did not work out all the mechanics of the process as to what it is you are listening to while deciding what to do.
I get your point though, that there is a learned voice type thing inherent in the thinking process and that voice that should be guiding us to an ethical behaviour may be faulty of practically non-existent.
I suppose that I bypass the whole subject and assume that we need to go beyond ourselves to seek an uncorrupted source for concepts that would be a foundation from which to make proper decisions. Some people would think that the way to do that is to read a book. My argument would be; there was a book called the Law of Moses, and the New Testament points out that it failed to make us better people in the ways that really mattered.
Maybe we need to seek an intangible thing, call it spirit, to source, and though it is in itself not so perceivable, the gradual results will be and there will be an improvement in a tangible sense to our inner voice.

The Live and let live attitude to life is better for me, because it says someone has liberated themselves from dogma and thought for themselves about what they really believe and value. I have long found that respectful attitude far more trustworthy.

I respect that far more than the automaton who has to be told what to think, how to act, what values to hold and learns the art of judging others, who don't do lipservice to his religion's priests and futher their ambition to regulate entire lives. I find many religious people pure pious popsys. If you don't belong to the Jewish Faith many of them will rip you off. Islamists regard themselves as far superior to you. I have not found them dishonest in my dealings. The Christian workman who through his advertisement of the two fish I employed, ripped me off. Speaking as I find its the non religious who I would prefer to trust, there's often a simpler link to humanity there.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Maybe we need to seek an intangible thing, call it spirit, to source, and though it is in itself not so perceivable, the gradual results will be and there will be an improvement in a tangible sense to our inner voice.

edit on 29-6-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

If said external thing is there. There's so many different possibilities for what we haven't tangified yet, I don't see how we can assume and connect to one. I mean, I have a grasp on your personal beliefs from your posts, and I'm not gonna challenge them here. I'm just gonna share my opinion too.

I just cut out a wall of text. But simply, people improve themselves when they take themselves out of the equation, looking at different "External ultimate sources". Since probably not every single one of these sources are right, you'd have to assume that at least some are getting that improvement internally. And if that happens for some, it could happen for all.

And you could look at reaching for external sources just a good way to go, or rewriting that to consciously reaching farther into yourself, to be good ways for self improvement. But, I can't believe in something on the basis that it's better for me, without objective proof. Therefore I'll self improve, by improving myself, not by reaching to something better than me. At least not if I can't feel this external something is real when I put thought into it.

reply to post by Lynda101

The Christian workman who through his advertisement of the two fish I employed, ripped me off.

When people tell you that as if it was somehow a qualification, that should be a warning to hang onto your wallet.

Just want to humbly thank the members who contributed to this thread, it is perhaps a paradox, if that is the right word.
But the thoughts expressed here give hope that our fellow man/woman/shemale ect really are searching for Goodness both within and the external world we all share in waking moments.

Love looks the other way and says I know ho you are truly?

Live and let live , know the damned can redeem themselves through love?