Learning religions makes you less ignorant? - Page 4

This content was originally posted by: SholaJoBhadkey

The operative word here is "learning". The more you learn about anything (including religion), the less ignorant you are. But we also need to make the distinction between "learning-equals-knowing" and "learning-equals-understanding"! 

May I modify your last statement to "we also need to make the distinction between "learning-equals-reading" and "learning-equals-understanding"?! 😳

This content was originally posted by: mind-googling

May I modify your last statement to "we also need to make the distinction between "learning-equals-reading" and "learning-equals-understanding"?! 😳

This is DM, Googly. You can disagree with people's statements but you can't go MODIFYING them. Stop being so silly. 😛

Kidding. 😆

This content was originally posted by: PhoeniXof_Hades

Even ignorant, idiotic, meaningless and senseless things can be read and and tried to be understood. Just because something is a complete bogus (to you) doesn't mean you can't read and learn about it - unless of course, you have ego problem(s).

Also, in order to know whether the thing really is bogus or not - you gotta read it and try to understand the gist of it - no matter how stupid it may appear. If even after that, it still feels bogus, then you have every right to criticize it, deem it illogical, call it senseless, etcetera. Otherwise you don't. You can't comment - either praise or criticize - on something you have no clue about.

Twilight is stupid, and one of the worst piece of literature (if it is worth being called a literature, that is) out there, but I forced myself to finish it so that I can make fun of the book and criticize it with my full knowledge. I did not start nitpicking on it until I knew I am done with it. It was a painful experience flicking through the pages, going through the purple proses, and the oh-so-beautiful-Edward and the Marie Sue Bella, but I did bring myself to finish it, no matter how hard it was for me.

If you can't bother reading about something, then don't bother commenting - especially with a passion - on it as well.

I am sure most of you will not like it if I start talking trash about your family just by going with what the society says. I should get a minimum, if not more, amount of knowledge about your families first before I make up my mind, right? Or should I just go on with my pre-set mind?

** You = A third person.

I think I told you before that I used to belive in God before, and I used to do pujas etc.. in my house. But one day, I just stopped doing so just to see the effect. Nothing much really happened, so I stopped believing. I thought it was a waste of time, and that time can be used in engaging in other benficial activities.

This content was originally posted by: Emptiness

it is a bad thing if you're very religious and you love your religion.  The whole process of doubting your religious beliefs, and facing the possibility that everything you believed in might just be false, can be quite distressing initially, but an enlightening experience nonetheless.

Why is it a bad thing if you love your religion? Isn't it also possible that someone studied all the religions out there, picked one, and embraced it as their faith? What's so wrong about that?

I agree with the second part ... I think doubting your faith is extremely important, if you don't question it initially, how do you know if it actually makes sense. Doubting your faith can actually make it stronger, I think. If you don't question it - it becomes blind faith.

This content was originally posted by: jettythegod

i feel that good is the true religion of god 😆

Yeah, by being good, you are enhacing your personality as a person, and not just personality, your mentality etc.. That gets you the good will of others, and maybe that helps you be successful in life etc.. So, yeah, completely agree with you.

This content was originally posted by: *Woh Ajnabee*

Why is it a bad thing if you love your religion? Isn't it also possible that someone studied all the religions out there, picked one, and embraced it as their faith? What's so wrong about that?

I agree with the second part ... I think doubting your faith is extremely important, if you don't question it initially, how do you know if it actually makes sense. Doubting your faith can actually make it stronger, I think. If you don't question it - it becomes blind faith.

cause if you love your religion, then it's very unlikely that you would want to leave it, learning more about religions may have an inadvertent effect, instead of bringing you closer to your religion and may just end up driving you away and out of the boundary, i'm not saying this is what will happen if you learn more about religions, but it could happen.

If there are things to be understood in the scope of the subject, then knowing it = understanding it. Otherwise, there are only facts that can only be known.
Edited by mind-googling - 13 years ago

This content was originally posted by: mind-googling

Can we really say we know something if we don't understand it?? 🤔 I'm not sure!

We know what the Pythagoras Theorem states. But understanding how it was derived is different.
Or think of Chatur's speech in 3 Idiots. He knows his speech by heart, he knows what he wants to say - but in the end he really does not understand what he says.

This content was originally posted by: return_to_hades

We know what the Pythagoras Theorem states. But understanding how it was derived is different.
Or think of Chatur's speech in 3 Idiots. He knows his speech by heart, he knows what he wants to say - but in the end he really does not understand what he says.

Casually speaking, it may be said that he knows his speech, but to be precise he has just memorized it. Because there are things to be understood.

This content was originally posted by: return_to_hades

We know what the Pythagoras Theorem states. But understanding how it was derived is different. Or think of Chatur's speech in 3 Idiots. He knows his speech by heart, he knows what he wants to say - but in the end he really does not understand what he says.

What the theorem states is a fact to be known only.
To know how it was derived, we have to understand it. Here, knowing = understanding.

Edited by mind-googling - 13 years ago