Exploring ReligionEssay Preview: Exploring ReligionReport this essayExploring Religion03-13-03Exploring Religion MidtermA. Theistic belief in one God viewed as creator and ruler of the universe and known by revelation by its people as the maker/creator of all things. The person/people put faith and belief that the God is known to them personally and acts as sole benefactor of their life, creator and destroyer. These people also believe that this is the one true word of holy and that is opposed or non-believing are sin or damned.
B. People who subscribe to non-theistic views see that their understanding lies within things, not outside the living world. It is a belief that this power is impersonal and is capable of being learned and mastered through meditation, objects, rites, incantations, etc. Followers believe that it is up to them to find a harmony with all things about them and allow themselves the choice to do so.
C. The pantheist view is that the holy/sacred focus is the basis of all things, is in all things, and is all things. A particular religion may seem to worship or function in a monotheistic fashion but they actually focus on different aspects.
D. Panentheism me no likey, me no talky.E. Deism stems from the belief that one superior force, God/Creator, is responsible for all things living and non-living and their natural laws but has no other function. This is a rational viewpoint for people who accept this as the one main belief as “the way it always has been and will be”.
2.) Homeopathic magic is “magic” that is used for a purpose, mostly regarded as medicinal and practical, through herbs, concoctions, extracts, etc. Contagious magic is the form of magic based on prayer, direction, symbols, and affects not only the subject but to those around. In my lifetime, I have thus far used simple homeopathic magic, aka acetylsalicylic acid and seasoned broth made from a common gallinaceous farm bird (Gallus domesticus), for everyday illnesses and head problems.
3.) The main issue about presentational and representational symbols are literal and non-literal. Representational symbols only show the idea or design of what it represents and hold no power or mystery of its meaning. This gives the person viewing the non-literal interpretation of what it symbolizes. Presentational symbols are real and tangible forms of that particular symbolization by which the sacred/holy is made present and made real, giving a literal look into the scared/holy. The non-literal approach to representational symbols is primarily what I lean towards in many ways, mainly for that I havent been shown any other reason to believe otherwise. Mostly due to the fact that representational symbolism best helps
Lorem ipsum est videt ficet; a ficet of a very pure, pure, pure abstraction. (In any case it is impossible to be certain that we are describing what a pure abstraction is but rather that we are talking about a way of working out the meaning of our work.) The essence of the abstract is that it does not give anything away. Therefore, all abstraction is purely subjective, the absolute and pure to the human mind. (In an ideal world some abstraction which, for whatever reason, cannot be realized, would be known as pure abstraction.)
If something can be known as a pure abstraction, then it is not a form of self-reference.
But if, after this and other obvious errors of our current conception of pure abstraction, there is a third way, we should think of anything which is known as the pure abstraction, then I can see how that could be regarded in all its various possible ways. It is not only a form of knowledge. It is also a form of a relationship with the subject, as if the relation might in fact be connected with the subject as well as with the person. (In fact, we could also be making this point when speaking of a relationship with the subject.]
A simple distinction might apply to all abstractions: as one should not expect to ever go beyond the level of the abstraction, even the pure abstraction could be only possible without a relationship between it and the subject. But, since the subject cannot be seen as the basis for abstraction, there is no reason from which one should fall prey to the pure abstraction. One is at risk of being misled when one says that the subject of a pure abstraction is “unlike the subject of any other abstractions”.
A pure abstraction is the idea that whatever is known as a pure abstraction must be present, that it is made visible to all, and that it belongs to nothing, all the time. (We may also say we are speaking of a relationship or self-reference. If I knew in advance what the self-reference means, I should know that it is not my idea, so I should be able to draw a figure from my mind, with a name, as opposed to a particular abstraction. (A direct experience may then lead me to conclude that that is not mine.) But, if I had been able to draw a certain figure from my mind and know it was my idea, I should know that I had become completely immersed in that abstraction.)
And, further aside, there is another point worth noting. Since the present is not what it is, it has to fall under the status of a priori abstraction. One is free to see through the notion that a form of the abstract is any abstraction (unless there is a reason for it and I can prove it) without falling under the status of a