From "The arts and their mission" a lecture given by Rudolph Steiner.



Let us look at the classicism of Goethe, composer of these beautiful lines:

Who possesses science and art
Possesses religion as well:
Who possesses the first two not,
O grant him religion.
(“Wer Wissenschaft and Kunst besitzt,
Hat auch Religion;
Wer jene beiden nicht besitzt,
Der habe Religion.”)

Another from memory ; Goethe was asked by a official "to what religion do you subscribe ? He answered "to none". The official asked as to why this strange turn of speech ? He answered "because I am too religious ".

An aside; the word "belief" in some manner has an etymology of to "live within" as the religious "lives within" in the spirit of an egoless sacrifice .

The word belief comes from two words. Be and lief. Be comes from being, which is a state of existence. To be is to live. The second word lief comes from the Indo-European word leubh which means – love.Aug 4, 2009

Not bad. Something like the formal religion is a bastard, and a stupid violent one, but gnosis is a path.

That's not him nor is he speaking to gnosis.

So, I take it that you reject the Philosophy 101 textbook definition of Knowledge, which is: "Justified, True Belief" (emphasis added)?

Yeah I wonder why they needed those two qualifiers before "belief" in philosophy, which obviously takes it to a different standard. But religious deceivers respect nothing in the apology for their beliefs ... by the thousands of faiths. And they all obviously have such a holy inspiration.

"Belief", in and of itself, is value-neutral.

Similarly, "faith" (which is essentially a synonym for "trust", in a Biblical context) is, in and of itself, value-neutral.

"Faith" can be well-placed or poorly-placed.

"Faith", as used in the Bible, is not a "blind faith."

Some relevant Bible verses (I'm quoting from memory):

Test all things, hold fast to that which is good

Taste and see that the Lord is good

Study to show thyself approved

You know I don't need the definitions, usages, connotations of the words, yet you give it to misdirect and assuage the inherent weakness in your fundamental position(s). If you practice poker like that - or philosophy - it gets abused. But in religion, that compartment of mind where all normal standards are suspended, it works great. Carry on your wayward. I don't care. I do care about realistic ideas about life, origins and spirituality.

I guess one of our fundamental disagreements is that I, unlike yourself, believe that properly defining the terms being used in a dialogue is an important part of a productive discussion.

Just another blithe misrepresentation, i.e. callous uncaring attitude toward reality, in the execution of apologetics.

Wow. If the bolded isn't a perfect example of "the pot calling the kettle black", I don't know what is.

You misrepresent Christianity and/or Christian apologetics in virtually every one of your posts.

If my take here is wrong, I would be grateful if any of the readers of this thread would show me how it's mistaken.

You're exactly what makes a great Trumper. Do him proud.

Huh?

Trump the inane narcissist wants worship. An almighty god would have absolutely no desire or need for that, but it sure would be primitive man's idea of what a god would want, with this jealous, violent, vengeful being he made up.

Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe

Unless you are yourself an almighty being, how could you KNOW what an almighty being would DESIRE?

Good. Your almighty god wants and/or needs worship? Of course he is mysterious, but he is not exempt from psychological realities since we are in his image. Since you aren't almighty, how do you know he didn't just set the whole thing up so he could torture human beings for eternity? You know, because he's love and this kind of torture is inherent in love and righteousness. His only great defense is its apocryphal. Only answer. It's a story of primitive man. Mind ceases to be mind when it isn't open, and becomes mime.

Why are there microbes that are so toxic to man? So that bubonic plague sickens, tortures and kills hundreds of millions? Nature in action or god's plan? Why does the animal kingdom feed on each other, including man on both sides of that? Nature or god's plan? Why are there earthquakes and hurricanes ... natural occurrences or god's plan? Answer obvious. The reality test of a religion is where the rubber hits the road of reality, not in the high falutin' dogmas, doctrines and claims. Is it magic claims or is it real?

not even a little bit

How can one believe (or not believe) in God "a little bit?"

I'm not arguing or disagreeing with your answer; I'm just trying to understand what your answer means.

Thanks.

Because he’s not playing the faith “all-in” game. If someone asked him if alien life forms exist somewhere in the cosmos, you would completely understand if he said some version of, “Well, part of me believes … yada, yada yada.” Only when religious faith is demanded does this type of self-hypnosis (which your question presumes) attempt to convert uncertainty into absolutism. Regarding any other mystery, you would completely understand his mixed thoughts, feelings and beliefs. Not with religion, where compartmentalized irrationality reigns supreme. It isn’t god that’s behind any of the thousands of religions, it’s obviously this kind of belief.

What do we need god for (by “for” meaning to explain)? Not for electrons, not for chemistry, not for biology, not for cosmology. We need “him” (an inane formulation obviously arising straight from anthropomorphism, male chauvinism, ignorance, superstition, and projection) to judge the human race … we need “him” for hell, for salvation, for donations, for faux certainty about what life is. Not for anything on the level. Religious epistemology does not belong in philosophy class. On every other mystery under the sun you know why he has degrees of belief. But not on this one where the whole trick is just to believe it into truth.

When the busty girl is in my life yes i do believe.

Not enough info to give any reasonable opinion to this topic.

Indeed!!!

Belief doesn't have "parts." Certainly one can have varying degrees of confidence in various beliefs. I don't see how it would make sense for someone to say, for example, "I believe in unicorns a little bit." If I believe that there is only a 45% chance that unicorns exist, it wouldn't make sense for me to say "I believe in unicorns a little bit." I would instead say, "I don't currently believe in unicorns, but I'm not real confident in my position, and further evidence might clarify the confidence level of my beliefs about unicorns."

Similarly, if I thought that there was a 55% chance that unicorns existed, I might say, "I do currently believe that there are unicorns, but I'm not real confident in my position, and further evidence might clarify the confidence level of my beliefs about unicorns."

It's a pretty common expression.

Do you believe in god? Not even a little bit.

Do you like Country music? Not even a little bit.

Is Zeno still reading this thread? Not even a little bit.

Can you speak Russian? Nyet even a little bit.

Hi, BF.

I am unfamiliar with that common expression.

I understand someone saying "I like country music a little bit", which I would take to mean that there are some country music songs that the person likes, but not very many of them.

I can also understand someone saying "I read the Religion Forum a little bit", which I would take to mean that the person reads a thread or two once in a while.

I guess I'm too dense to see how belief in something would fit with that expression.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to argue, just trying to understand what he meant. Thanks for helping out.