Why All Religions Contain Truth

By -
"For the variants, however remote in time, will never sink into a dead past without meaning, once they have arisen from the flow of truth that has 'presence'; they will remain phases in the historical process of living truth of which neither the beginning nor the end is known; and by virtue of this character the truth of each variant is supple­mentary to the truth of the others."-- Eric Voegelin

Comments

  1. Wabulon11:21 PM

    So I can stroll down Shattuck Ave., sacrificing passersby as my God tells me to! I knew it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mike B.11:36 PM

    You wascally Wabulon you. It's quite a logical leap from the claim "All religions contain SOME truth" to the claim "Everything contained in each religion is true."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wabulon8:47 PM

    Mike, "It's quite a logical leap from the claim..."--that's all very well if your religion is sadly limited, but my religion sez: "If even one proposition stated in one's religion is true, then the entirety of the religion is true, and not just for the believer in question, but for everyone, everywhere, always.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wabulon8:48 PM

    Mike, "It's quite a logical leap from the claim..."--that's all very well if your religion is sadly limited, but my religion sez: "If even one proposition stated in one's religion is true, then the entirety of the religion is true, and not just for the believer in question, but for everyone, everywhere, always.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mike B.1:30 AM

      Well that part of your religion isn't true. ;)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more