Can we distinguish between the one true religion and the many false religions/superstitions on the basis of natural law?
And if a contradiction of natural law is a sign of religious lie, can we go further and say that a religious truth is a (hidden) expression of a natural truth?
I tend to think the answer is yes to the first question, but no to the second.
And is God no more than the sum of the truths of Natural Law? Or is God also a subject?
Can the intentions of "the force" be ascertained in a way that allows us to distinguish between true and false revelations?
No replies? Is religion and ultimate truth a little too edgy for so early in the morning?
>>79283344
Just a heads up that when Gandhi talks about natural law, that includes sleeping with your niece as well
Besides religion is a form of government, the ones that govern better tend to be better off. Point being, it could all be man-made creations, but God could exist seperate from our creation (which is based on our observable universe) like a form of intelligent design.
That's the best part. You'll never know. Ask me when you're reborn 20k years later pleb, I'll tell you more heh
>>79287112
Didn't he just literally sleep with her? Like, in a bed? To test his asceticism and so on.
>>79287112
>God could exist seperate from our creation
What does "existence" mean, if its separate from our creation?
>>79288692
>Didn't he just literally sleep with her? Like, in a bed? To test his asceticism and so on.
Yes. In fact, Gandhi slept with many lolis to test his power of celibacy.
>>79288692
Yeah sleeping with your niece and three other women in your entourage to test your celibacy is completely okay and not sexual deviancy
Existence in this case could mean that all our notions of God as such could be wrong, but God as a concept can still exist (maybe we're too dumb to grasp it as of now) that could be seperate from our creation
The best course would be to just believe in a higher power or 330 million of them and wing it
>>79283344
Why does natural law require religion?
>>79283344
Gandhi was a fucking hack.
Bhagat Singh was a true revolutionary.
>>79288958
RARE
>>79289093
If he did it multiple times and never even dry-humped her I submit he was not, in fact, a sexual deviant.
>>79289268
>Why does natural law require religion?
Well, does it? I think the gist of Gandhi's quote is something more like, if a religion is true, it can't contradict the natural law; that is different from claiming if a natural law is true, it must be a religious truth.
>>79293150
Define 'natural law'.
