1. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Dec '08 03:591 edit
    The chance to make up your own religion doesn't come around every day. Well, it might, but chances are it won't stick around very long. We've had Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Bobby Henderson (Flying Spaghetti Monster) who have started religions that have managed to stick around for the time being. Then there have been others like Akhenaton (Amenhotep IV) whose made-up religion didn't stick around for long. But most of those whose made up religions don't last end up being forgotten themselves. Or at least their religion is.

    So this thread is in honor of Akbar the Great, who ruled the Mughal Empire from 1556 to 1605. Some of you may have heard of Akbar (after all, he was GREAT), but what most people don't know is that he, too, started his own religion.

    The Mughals were an Islamic ruling class who presided over a predominantly Hindu empire, with many other religious minorities mixed in. Akbar took a great interest in the various religions of his realm and for the most part was tolerant of them. He repealed the jizya (tax on non-Muslims) in 1562. In 1575 he built the Ibadat Khana (House of Worship) where debates on philosophical and religious matters were held. Participants from all faiths (and even atheists *gasp*) were allowed to participate and debate against one another.

    From these debates, Akbar concluded that no religion had a monopoly on the truth. He therefore set out to create his own religion which would include what he saw as containing the best elements from each other religion. This faith, which he named Din-i-Ilahi (Faith of the Divine), he hoped would act as a unifying force for his polyglot empire.

    (It) incorporated both 'pantheistic' versions of Islamic Sufism (most notably the Ibn Arabi's doctrine of 'Wahdat al Wajood' or Unity of existence) and 'bhakti' or devotional cults of Hinduism. Even some elements of Christianity (like crosses), Zoroastrianism (fire ceremonies) and Jainism were amalgamated in the new religion. Akbar was greatly influenced by the teachings of Jain Acharyas Hir Vijay Suri and Jin Chandra Suri and gave up non-vegetarian food by their influence. He declared "Amari" or non-killing of animals on the holy days of Jains like Paryushan and Mahavir Jayanti. He rolled back Jizya Tax from Jain Pilgrim places like Palitana. (source: Wikipedia)

    Din-i-Ilahi appears to have combined mysticism, philosophy and nature worship. But perhaps the most interesting feature is that it recognized no gods or prophets.

    The great Mughal manuscript 'Dabestan-e Mazaheb' records the type of debates that went on in the Ibadat Khana which led to the creation of Akbar's new religion. Another manuscript, the 'Akbarnama' contains an illustration of it:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jesuits_at_Akbar%27s_court.jpg
    (That's Akbar on the throne and the figures in blue, to the left (his right), are the Jesuits.)

    Sadly, Akbar's religion did not survive his demise. His fellow Muslims almost universally declared it to be blasphemy and his offspring appeared to have taken no interest in it.

    Tennyson's poem 'Akbar’s Dream' lauds the Ibadat Khana, ascribing tolerance and humanity to his "Divine Faith", while implicitly criticising the intolerance of 19th century British Christianity.
    http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/tennyson/akbarsdream.html
  2. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    06 Dec '08 11:21
    well " tounge in cheek " how about the great chess faith, every cread can join, saints are the past and present world masters, and debate over kings side attack to queen side.
  3. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    06 Dec '08 11:441 edit
    In my religion I don't need other believers, nor followers.
  4. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    06 Dec '08 13:40
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The chance to make up your own religion doesn't come around every day. Well, it might, but chances are it won't stick around very long. We've had Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and Bobby Henderson (Flying Spaghetti Monster) who have started religions that have managed to stick around for the time being. Then there have been others lik ...[text shortened]... bia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/tennyson/akbarsdream.html
    "...Akbar concluded that no religion had a monopoly on the truth."

    Poor Akbar made a fatal mistake.

    One can find truth everywhere, but only in the Bible will one find absolute truth.

    It seems that almost everyone balks at this.

    If absolute truth can be found anywhere, it must assuredly be found somewhere.
  5. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    06 Dec '08 13:45
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"...Akbar concluded that no religion had a monopoly on the truth."

    Poor Akbar made a fatal mistake.

    One can find truth everywhere, but only in the Bible will one find absolute truth.

    It seems that almost everyone balks at this.

    If absolute truth can be found anywhere, it must assuredly be found somewhere.[/b]
    Do you believe someone could find absolute truth in AA?
  6. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    06 Dec '08 14:03
    Originally posted by kirksey957
    Do you believe someone could find absolute truth in AA?
    Been there, done that!

    I just said that absolute truth can be found in God's word the Bible.

    Do you have reservations acknowledging that?
  7. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    06 Dec '08 14:35
    Originally posted by josephw
    Been there, done that!

    I just said that absolute truth can be found in God's word the Bible.

    Do you have reservations acknowledging that?
    Yes, because I see no reason to limit God's revelation to the Bible. That would be idolatry.
  8. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Dec '08 15:53
    Originally posted by josephw
    [b]"...Akbar concluded that no religion had a monopoly on the truth."

    Poor Akbar made a fatal mistake.

    One can find truth everywhere, but only in the Bible will one find absolute truth.

    It seems that almost everyone balks at this.

    If absolute truth can be found anywhere, it must assuredly be found somewhere.[/b]
    This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud. This sanctimonious presumption that you alone know what the truth is and that everyone else is necessarily wrong. Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth). But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.

    I have far more respect for someone like Akbar, who appears to have taken the time to examine all sides of the question, than someone like yourself who clings stubbornly to his narrowly conceived and exclusionary dogma. You and your ilk, sir, are the bane of the earth.
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    06 Dec '08 19:35
    Originally posted by rwingett
    This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud. This sanctimonious presumption that you alone know what the truth is and that everyone else is necessarily wrong. Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth). But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.

    I h ...[text shortened]... narrowly conceived and exclusionary dogma. You and your ilk, sir, are the bane of the earth.
    Not if Joseph is right. In fact, you are as dogmatic that he does not have the truth as he is that he knows the truth.
  10. Donationrwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    Royal Oak, MI
    Joined
    09 Sep '01
    Moves
    26187
    06 Dec '08 19:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    Not if Joseph is right. In fact, you are as dogmatic that he does not have the truth as he is that he knows the truth.
    Claiming that someone does not have the truth is not a form of dogmatism. It is a negation of dogmatism.
  11. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Dec '08 00:282 edits
    Originally posted by rwingett
    This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud. This sanctimonious presumption that you alone know what the truth is and that everyone else is necessarily wrong. Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth). But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.

    I h ...[text shortened]... narrowly conceived and exclusionary dogma. You and your ilk, sir, are the bane of the earth.
    'This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud

    Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth).

    But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.'

    are these comments true? are they absolutely true? if not are they relatively true? if so relative to what? so you see you can't logically argue against the existence of truth. To argue against something is to establish that a truth exists. You cannot argue against truth unless a truth is the basis of your argument.


    consider this and i quote 'i know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.', is this a true statement? if so then the statement that truth does not exist is logically contradictory. If the statement is true, there is, in fact, truth, if it is relative then the statement is not always true. If it is not always true then sometimes truth is not relative, if truth is not sometimes relative then as a consequence truth as an absolute must exist, if relative then perhaps the statement is false and we must disregard it as conjecture, so whats it to be?

    are you telling the truth or is Joseph?
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    07 Dec '08 01:011 edit
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    'This is what makes you such a contemptible fraud

    Not only wrong, but doomed to hell. For myself, I do not know what the truth is (assuming that there is 'a' truth).

    But I do know that you haven't the slightest inkling what it is either.'

    are these comments true? are they absolutely true? if not are they relatively true? if so relative to sregard it as conjecture, so whats it to be?

    are you telling the truth or is Joseph?
    http://www.absolute--truth.com/

    Next time you get the urge to more or less lift some nonsense, save yourself some time and just post the link to the nonsense. The above site was obviously written by some philosophical giants. 🙄

    Anyway, this is all effectively strawman because you fail to understand what rwingett was actually trying to say.
  13. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    07 Dec '08 01:426 edits
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    http://www.absolute--truth.com/

    Next time you get the urge to more or less lift some nonsense, save yourself some time and just post the link to the nonsense. The above site was obviously written by some philosophical giants. 🙄

    Anyway, this is all effectively strawman because you fail to understand what rwingett was actually trying to say.
    perhaps the sentiments are the same but the knowledge was already assimilated into my thinking regardless and from many other sources, so next time you accuse some one of plagiarism try to actually identify the sentiments and answer the questions before you go off on your rant about nonsense and time wasting or philosophy or anything else you care not to discuss rather than you're simplistic approach to provide nothing but insults and baseless assertions, so your answers if you please. and i did not fail one bit to understand what ringett was saying, its just another pathetic baseless assertion, because if you read and tried to understand his text, his whole assertion against Joseph was based on whether truth was a reality or otherwise and whether he was a recipient of such truth or otherwise, perhaps you did not notice yourself? or misunderstood, or choose to ignore? anyhow is anything you have said true? if not why not? is it relative, if so relative to what? perhaps you have the answers? if not then why am i wasting my time talking to you? and if not why are you trying to tell me what is nonsensical or otherwise, because clearly you dont know!
  14. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    07 Dec '08 04:10
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Claiming that someone does not have the truth is not a form of dogmatism. It is a negation of dogmatism.
    But isn't that what he is telling you?
  15. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    07 Dec '08 04:402 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    perhaps the sentiments are the same but the knowledge was already assimilated into my thinking regardless and from many other sources, so next time you accuse some one of plagiarism try to actually identify the sentiments and answer the questions before you go off on your rant about nonsense and time wasting or philosophy or anything else you care no why are you trying to tell me what is nonsensical or otherwise, because clearly you dont know!
    Maybe we should start with grounding the discussion with some quid pro quo. I'll tell you, roughly, what I think truth is; and then you tell me roughly what you think truth is. This will let us both know where we are coming from, as well as help me understand what you even mean when you talk about relativeness and absoluteness regarding truth.

    I think of truth (as, for instance, when we talk about whether a proposition is true or false) as a relational property. The true proposition will exhibit some characteristic relation to reality. In turn, I like to think of reality in terms of entities, such as states of affairs and facts. So, roughly, I think truth has to do with a correspondence relationship between proposition and fact. So I consider things that encapsulate propositional content (such as propositions themselves, or beliefs, or statements, etc) as true when they hold such a relationship. In light of this, a lot of the "relative vs. absolute" discussions sound like unnecessary baggage to me. What are we even talking about? Are we debating some form of realism here? Are we debating the existence of objective facts? Are we debating whether or not the truth values of some propositions depend on observer attitudes? Or what?
Back to Top