Why We Need A Religion?

[mehta]

I have simple question to ask...do we really need a religion to live a prosperous life.As a child we are taught some lessons which abide by the rules of our particular religion.We try to look according to it,wear according to it,wear according to it and even dwell according to it.There are lot of hurdles and problems we faced due to this religion..I have a question cant we live according to what is actually needed for a particular geography rather then being taught by some old institution what to do??????

[Smurf]

Hmmm I am glad you brought this up actually, I was pondering this only today. Wondering if anyone here would have thought too :)

I believe that religions only bring pain and unecessary restrictions on ones life,

Beliefs make the Principles
Principles make the Decisions
Decisions make the Man

taking other people's beliefs and using pure hope to deduce that they are perfect for you aswell is silly. They bring uneasy faith on people which is an unsteady foundation to live on. I myself am a practisioner of no religion whatsoever, but rather I take certain principles from religions that I believe are relevant to me.

Religions create unecessary limitations onto people. Dogmas and creeds restrict people's potentials and halt them living their lives. I find that some Christians run around the place telling other people about the Great God! etc etc, and while they're telling other people and discussing this within themselves they actually do not get around to living a good and long life! Ironic huh?

Well I've surely got a lot more to say, but I will think about it more. :D

:P

[Jakob]

Originally posted by ,--


We can think this thing from two different perspective. From this world point of view, and from other world point of view.

First of all, it is necessary to understand how this world works in order to be a member of society. In order to fullfill our purpose in society, we need to study, graduate from the school and then work for the society. In this way we can lead a life which benefits ourselfes and society. I think some people think that work or having a family is the ultimate goal in life.

On the other hand and from the other world point of view, I have a feeling that faith in God or Buddha is graved deeply in human being. Faith to an invisible world, which is beyond this material world, is a never ending mystery for human beings.

If we live a life by only thinking life from this material world point of view, there is a tendency to attach too much to the material things and eventually this leads to suffering in life. We tend to search only higher status, fame or money but eventually come to realize that we can never be satisfied from these things. This teaching that human being can never be satisfied from only material things is one important part of Buddhism. I think the same teaching can be found from all other religion too.

In life we naturally came to think about purpose and mission of life. I think that religions exists, because they can help us to get answers to our questions about purpose and mission of life.

I think that during our life we occasionally come to think about life more deeply, even without being told off to do. In this sense it is up to each individual when the time is right is to start finding answers to these mysterious questions about life.

There are many reasons why religions have caused problems and this is of course very regrettable. I think that only buddhism from world religions has spread thoughout the world quite peacefully. This is really remarkable achievement. From this I do not think that it is neccassary a religion itself, which has caused all the problems. It has much to do with the teachings and how these teachings have been understood and practised by people.

[Jakob]

I think this question is similar to the question: "is a company requirement to be able work in a society". People could work without belonging to any company but this is not usually the case.

I think that we have to look how religions came into being.

I think spirituality comes before religion in the following way.

From buddhist point of view, there first need to be a Buddha. Buddha reincarnates into this world as a human being, masters the Law, and became enlightened. Buddha notice that many people get lost in life and start to guide other by preaching the Dharma. People who believe in Buddha's teachings form Sangha. Member's of Sangha keep studing the Dharma and tell about it to others too. Eventually people start to see these people who have a certain belief and think that they belong to a group which can be called a religion. There is quite similar base in religion and company.

On the other hand, if there was no Buddha, there was no Dharma or Shanga neither, so religion could not exits.

[MidnightSun]

The truths about God, purpose of life and other are a picture and religion is that piece of wood that goes around the picture.

It decribes those truths how it thinks it is. Sometimes the cover (religion) fits the picture (truths) ,sometimes not. The cover might become old and it no longer fits the picture ,well, if its not renewed.

[locomotive]

you need food, water and shelter. spend time on things and you figure them out just look at buddha, he did it like that and got it like that. I rest my case.

[scameter]

Religion's purpose is the same as everything else's: it has none. It exists because we wish it to, because we believe it does. It may be good and appropriate to some, and bad and unappropriate to others. I personally think it it's self is sometimes good, sometimes not. It is when the practitioners of it bastardize it's teachings, as with Christianity, into a formalized dogmatic association of deadly drone-ness that, to me, it becomes wrong.

[Smurf]

It exists because we wish it to, because we believe it does
yay!

yes we create the fear and questioning, and the answer is religion! :D

and yes the evangelicals euuuh *shudders* :o

[scameter]

No, the fear and questioning exist naturally. We have devised religion to satisfy this fear through a sort of insurance policy; thus, to me, the way to classify a philosophy as either a spiritual philosophy or a religion is if it has an enlain insurance policy. :D

[mehta]

So..this discussion remains..the world is divided over this ....some have talked about Buddhism as a religion which has spreaded peacefully so its better..but have u ever tired to see the negative points attached to it..If not go sometime visit Tibet..The point is why cant we do what is good for us instead of what is good a institution..............
How good is it to wear minimal clothes when temperature is negative from zero...How many knows that 12 out of 100 kids die in high monestaries just due to cold....
Is it right for some women to remain covered in a clothe even though its very hot...
We do beleive in god but who says that only a religion is a ultimate way to achieve him...
Still so many things remain unsaid..

[MidnightSun]

No, its not fear, its merely faith which is based by our logic, knews about God.

[newbie01]

I was reading some book on the basics of philosophy i am very new to this subject....any who think of it like this in a causal realist sense: I think this world is made of multiple worlds if you wil; for instance a crack head world only exsits to the crack head, and mabey a few other crack heads (very unlikley) but a CEOs world only exsits to the ceo. How through perception, Percived realities whos truth can only be fully known by the perciver. I think in this sense it is easy to see why a blunt question like GOD, Is or isnt? is so pointless almoss in a sense. I am going to use god in this blunt sense just to try to strengthen my point. IF God is only direct representation of our precived reality then why does it matter if god is or isnt on the table. Again this only is based on what i have read and contemplated for only a matter of weeks but none the less i want to give incite, mythologies i think is where contemporary religons fall a part because it almost seems to put a very strict stantard of values for definite differing worlds. And mabey that is true with all religons but i have not yet read them.

Mabey it not so much as knowing the truth through one aspect (your world) but through communicating and understanding multiple aspects (everybodys world) with reason and logic to better not human kind but world kind.

sadly right now it seems to me that this view i tried to put forth is becoming deminished

[scameter]

I personally like it, and welcome to thebigview.com. :)

[newbie01]

what do you like?

[mehta]

Perceptions!! :huh: ...is this society so liberal to perceive whatever it wants?? :nono:

[Smurf]

oh geez, let's see then

we do create fear through our minds because we are able to get rid of it.

And Mehta Positive doings brings positive effects?

[scameter]

Your post. :)

[abaris]

mehta:Perceptions!! ...is this society so liberal to perceive whatever it wants??

Seemingly reality is whatever one defines it to be. In that you see the folly of relativism. Nevermind that each perception is only a partial view of what is real.

[Smurf]

Your post.

was that for me perhaps? :unsure:

[scameter]

:P Perhaps. Perhaps not. B)

[Smurf]

gah :blink: don't go all Asheera on me :P

[scameter]

:D

[Kether]

I think that we need to make the important distinction between spirituality and faith, which some people misguidedly regard as synonymous. I define spirituality as essentially meaning subjectivity - our emotions, our art, our wisdom, our morality. Faith, on the other hand, means dogmatic, restrictive belief.
We need objective knowledge about reality around which to build our spirituality. The best source of this is science.
Spirituality is in human nature, and thus need not come from religion. Moreover, objective knowledge is restricted by faith. We need objective knowledge for good spirituality, and thus faith, ie religion, does not foster good spirituality.

So no, we don't need, or want, a religion.

[abaris]

Kether:So no, we don't need, or want, a religion

Agreed!

But is there such a thing like truth? If not, every one may define his subjecetive opinion to be the absolute objective truth. Debate and exchange of ideas would therefor be mere entertainment.

But if such a thing as objective truth exists, do we have the means to discover it?
I firmly believe this to be the case. Subjective perceptions are at the end partial images of the real. So every perspective has some reality in it. That realization lead Herodot to his methodology:

Put all ideas in a big pot.
Extract the common ones since for those you may have some confidence of them beeing true.
What remains are contradictions. So all you got to do is to construct a hypothesis which resolves the contradictions. The commonalities you may use as the guide.

[Kether]

Like you, I believe that there is such a thing as truth - or rather, reality. But, as you say, there is the problem of determining which forms of knowledge are objective and which are subjective. Science and logic are not entirely objective, but at least they are impersonal: they are largely removed from opinions and values, even though they use mentally constructed systems to comprehend reality.
Subjective perceptions are at the end partial images of the real. So every perspective has some reality in it.
I think that it is possible for a subjective opinion to be entirely false. Nevertheless, the 'pot' hypothesis may have a lot to teach us.

[Kether]

Ethics do not have to come from religion: altruism has obvious evolutionary advantages, and developed long before religion. A totally secular culture can easily foster ethics.
Moreover, religious ethics have serious drawbacks. If improbable doctrines are held to be essential for morality, the authorities will quell any attempt to question them - look at what happened to Gallileo. The truth is essential, and thus religious ethics are fundamentally flawed.

[scameter]

Most lilkely out of a sense of communal logic, to which would quickly, if it was ever born, die, because of natural human behavior of greed, ignorance, arrogance, and fear ultimately.

[Kether]

Fear could be considered the basic motive of human behaviour, but only if we accept a very loose definition of fear: as essentially the avoidance of pain and the desire for pleasure.
I don't agree with your placing "greed, ignorance and arrogance" as basic behavioural drives. They are not basic or ingrained. Altruism, on the other hand, is very basic, and most certainly came before religion.

[scameter]

Heh, altruism may be basic in some other animal species, but for us, altruism requires choice. Fear, arrogance, and ignorance are basic in human behavior, and drive us on many fundamental fronts.

[3434]

I guess we need religion because thats how we judge ourselves and others morally. But what im wondering, is does religion shape our morality? I think that morality is a way to telll if someone is good or bad. But whose religion are we baseing it off of? I dont think that it is right to detrmine that someone is good or bad or going to hell or not just because they dont folloe exactlyu what thier religion tells them to do. Now i know murder and things that extreme are easy to say that its wrong, and im not saying it isnt at all but what if you were defending yourself ?are you all of a sudden forgiven? I think morality comes from how we are raised if your born in a place with no crime then of course crime is "bad" now if you live somewhere were you see crime all the time you may not see certain things as bad , just a way of life. Are we going to be judged in the end by where we grew up?

[scameter]

I think religion can shape morality, if the individual allows it to, but it doesn't have to, if the individual retains a free, open, rational mind. By the way, welcome to thebigview.com my friend. :)

[newbie01]

Doesnt what this topic has disscussed like moarality and pourpose of religon, or anytime you have thought about the contadictions of both sides, and it may be just me but sometimes i get to thinkin about the number zero (zero in a sense of nuetrality, unabsoluteness) and it gives me a really warm feeling because i think zero has the potential for positive or negitive, also it can be a solution to an answer(nothing as an answer <_< ) . Mabey people who put faith in consequentially based theologies find this somewhat hard to agree with, which i dont, but i dont think western religon is wrong only when they jugde when clearly it states thou shall not judge. I find it easirer to think of morality in a sense of it is only realitive to the ones self :think:

To quote constantine the movie Keeana reeves says,"enough of this am right your wrong, hes going to hell while shes going to heaven i am sick of this bull shit!," as he throws the bible on to the ground in front of that white angel.

Carpediem, peace out bro

[Scythe]

"I find it easirer to think of morality in a sense of it is only realitive to the ones self"

I completely agree, if everyone defined there own morality there would be no need for religion. If everyone had the presence of mind to form their own morality on what the saw around them and their experiences then surely no one would need religion to set the morality for them. Hence my reason for thinking religion is only for the weak. Or perhaps I’m looking at this the wrong way? I’m not saying guidance is wrong, because it will most likely be needed at some point, but conventional religion is so absolute and gives no room for personal difference.

[poulenc]

Freedom of religion is, no doubt, a good thing. But I believe we should also have freedom FROM religion. America is skirting the edges right now of becoming some wacko Christian theocracy and it scares the hell out of me. And I'm a Christian! (not a good one, mind you, but a Christian). The Bible is used so often as a weapon, I just wish we had a law requiring proof of age and mental stability test before putting them into people's hands.

[Scythe]

It is indeed strange how people choose to use certain bits from the Bible to support their own ideas, and ignore the bits that they don’t like. As an ex-Christian myself I have seen many examples of this when speakers in church will pick bits from the bible to support what they are saying, or interprate quotes/extracts in a certain way to back themselves up.

I agree that Christianity in America can be somewhat…….erm……. diverse. The same thing is occurring in England on a smaller scale, with the rise of things like “Evangelical Christianity”, which takes the words of the bible literally, even Genesis. <_<

[poulenc]

Yes, fundamentalism is sweeping the US, too, Scythe. As if people aren't intelligent enough to know what allegory and myth are (e.g., Adam & Eve). It's why most of my friends are either agnostic or atheist. And why I live in New York City--much less scary.

[Scythe]

How wide spread is it? Not living in America it's hard for me to pick out the truth from the hype. I get the impression that it is in more rural areas where this new found fundamentalism is growing fastest? But I could well be wrong.

Any chance you could shed a little light on the subject poulenc?

Thanks

[poulenc]

Not too long ago, fundamentalist Christianity WAS somewhat confined to the Bible belt and some western states. No more. Even here in the haven of New York City, the fundys have cornered the market. They're mostly young and, unlike the southern and western states, racially quite diverse, particularly among the Asian populations. They're theologically and politically conservative, with prohibitions against women in leadership positions and (naturally) anti-gay as well. Every word of the Bible is, to them, literally true, including talking snakes in the Garden of Eden. They're not above street corner evangelizing, either. It's pretty sad: they all look so fresh and happy and energetic as they spew their messages of hate.

I don't want to paint too dire a picture, though. The country's center for liberation theology is also New York City, both among Christians and Jews and Zen practitioners. The largest contingents in most of the anti-war rallies and peace marches in New York City are from religious organizations and in our annual Lesbian & Gay pride marches, the religious contingents are many blocks long.

[Scythe]

Glad to hear it's not all bad news. I wonder what the future holds for fundamentalism; personally I would resent and movement that restricted gender inequality, homophobia is also needless and wrong. However with the rapid expansion of fundamentalism I wonder if modern society will soon be taking two steps back. Or, like other radical movements in western history, it will simply fade out after a while. Could the fundamentalism possibly provoke a rise in the traditional Catholic faith?

[poulenc]

I really have nothing to base this on, Scythe, exept a gut feeling but I really do believe that a major shift is occurring, at least in the US and I think probably other parts of the globe, too and that shift is away from "that old time religion" to a more personal kind of spirituality, one where each person is her/his own priest, no longer willing to be led but taking responsibility for her/his own spiritual path. I think the very vocal and visible growth in religious fundamentalism is, in fact, an anxious reaction to that. A lot of folks don't react well to freedom of thought and are very comfortable with being given "the rules" (the Ten Commandments, the Koran, the Levitical proscriptions, etc.) and I can understand that. It is comforting in a way to have it all spelled out for one. But it's really, deep down, dishonest. Anyway, I think more and more people are reaching that conclusion...and that's a good thing.

[Scythe]

Extremism in general does seem to be on the rise within religion. Not just in Christianity but Islam as well. I would agree that fundamentalism/extremism is on the rise due to freedom. For example this is shown in what could be called “strict” Islamic states views on the western world. Although I am an Atheist if people must follow a religion I would prefer it to be one that allows a decent degree of free thinking and giving people scope to make decisions. Although a religion cannot allow total free thinking (if there is such a thing) because they give rules and/or guidelines for people to live by, I just think it would be nice if religions move away from the “set in stone” approach that has been seen throughout history.

On a different note I was musing to myself and I just thought how nice it is that people that would normally never interact face to face can discuss things and share ideas here. I mean poulenc is a lot older than me and lives in America and is Christian. I am fairly young live in England and am not religion. Normally there is very little chance that we would be able to share ideas and talk. I know this is off topic but I just wanted to say that it’s great talking to you all. Thanks. :)

[poulenc]

You're right, Scythe, about what a gift discussion boards like this are. There's such great potential for everyone who participates to expand their worldview.

I agree, too, with what you said about religious fundamentalism but--as I've posted earlier--I really am beginning to believe that the apparent rise in fundys is mostly a reaction to a shift in the other direction, as more and more people start to question what they've been told they MUST believe--or else!! In this regard, I would definitely recommend the first 80 pages of "God Without Religion: Questioning Centures of Accepted Truths" by Sankara Saranam. The second chapter (after page 80) left me frankly baffled and somewhat sceptical although--skipping ahead in the book--it does seem to get back to its earlier ideas and saner tone later on. I'm about halfway through it now.

It's been a pleasure for me, too, Scythe, meeting you and the other BigViewers on line.

[Brahmanyan]

Let me understand first what exactly we mean by "Religion". Is it just Grouping of people on the basis of Dogmas, Beliefs and Faith followed by somebody or some set of people or the path shown for the relationship between the person and his/her creator. There are many unanswered questions in pursuing Religious path. If all Religions show the same Power which is God, then why there is so much of conflict and bloodshed among the followers of Religions. What is the necessity to proselytise followers of one Religion to another? Honestly I do not understand. Interestingly I could not find an eqivalent in Samskrit Language for the Word Religion. The word "Dharma" does not mean "Religion", even though the word is being used to denote Religion.

It is my view Religion is not a necessary pre-requisite for Spiritual pursuits, which is personal matter between Man/Woman and his/her Creator.

[______]

I quite agree here. "Religion" is just a word. The action of religion is entirly different. The action of religion is the "dogma at work" so to say. The blind faith, rituals, ceremonies, etc.
Being religious--as far as the US is concerned--has come to equal being Christian. Why is this? Do we not promote freedom of religion?
While I do not belong to Religion, I can understand how others can follow their dogmas. For many, they need a "road map". They need someone to tell them what to believe, how to believe it, and what to do in times of spiritual distress. Now, this wouldn't be so bad if they left it as just a "road map", instead, they feel the need to build the kiosk and duplicate the map over and over again until its orignal purpose has deteriorated.
Why doesn't anyone ever make their own "road maps" any longer?

[scameter]

But, is religion not the action of religion? Religion is too often interpreted immediately into meaning organized religion, or spiritual religion (or both). One could be religiously sexual, or could shower religiously. OCD, my mental disorder, can be seen as religious, as could, quite possibly, drug addiction. It is a ritualized behavior that one learns and follows, choicefully or not, and that one believes in, choicefully or not.

[redraven]

Two answers: No because all humans have a religion, and if they don't then they have gotten a whole lot farther than I have. The lucky shirt, or whatever it is...

Answer two: Yes. If you just accept that you are what you are, and continue doing what you've always done that makes you happy, then you are going to be fine. Don't give me this leads to drugs, drug addicts aren't happy. I was one and know a lot of current ones.

This leads to nothing but being who you are, and you already were. No problem, no religion. Meanwhile I pray to Lord Jizo and play around with tarot cards, and I have a lucky shirt. But I am what I am, no religion. That's how I think of it.

[scameter]

And that's all that matters. :)

[CSwriter1]

religion- a specific system of belief or worship, etc. around God, a code of ethics, a philosophy of life, etc.

That is a pretty sloppy definition but it is the one my dictionary gives. I think that means a God does not have to be the focus of religion. The focus could be a code of ethics or philosophy.

Why do we need religion? Human beings are social animals. As such we need something to unify use and social agreements. Some who have studied animals to understand human behavior, have made some interesting observations. For example dogs submit to the pack leader and this really isn't different from humans submitting to a leader. Chimps and baboons also submit to a leader, and in many ways are like humans. And humans better submit to a leader. Imagine the chaos on board of ship if there is no captian, no agreement on who the leader is, and who is to do what. What makes democracy different from autocracy, is not the lack of leaders, but how the leaders are chosen, and readiness of everyone to be leader.

Some people are pretty awesome leaders. I think we want our leaders to know more than the rest of us, so we can trust them. How wonderful if this leader has a speical condition with the forces of life! I think this is a doubled edged sword. We want our leaders to be superior people with superior knowledge, and it benefits the leader if we believe s/he is superior. If people are not willing to submit to leadership, they are very hard to lead.

We especially what this person to be superior when it comes to the connection with life forces. This separates us from the animal kingdom. We can know there is more to know than we know. Our decisions can be basic on ideas, not a feeling that urges us to respond. When we belief in her, She can tell us what to do, to assure a plentiful harvest and harmony. :) There was a time and place when God was a Great Mother who created life and sustained it. The leader would be a woman under this belief system.

People are choosen for leadership for different reasons. A belief that has person can please the elements or Gods (religion). A belief that this person is very wise and is best to tell us what to do when we are confronted with a problem (philosophy). This person may use stones, tea leafs, shiney surfaces, bones, social research :) - to answer our questions. The person may be under the influence of a gas, or a drug, or the heady power of hundreds of thousands of people willing to submit his/her leadership.

For sure there is more to life than we can easily explain, and if we think we know it all, or can know absolute truth, we are fools! We need a God, or mystical powers, for the vast, vast reality of all we don't know. And we need leaders who can access this knowledge and power and lead us. Without them, there is chaos.

[CSwriter1]

Extremism in general does seem to be on the rise within religion. Not just in Christianity but Islam as well

A very interesting study of ancient art revealed, when people thought their lives were in danger, they became very focused on their values, and how the values of "those others" were different from their values.

Look at Bush's leadership. He justified our war on terrorism by saying their values were different from ours, as though we are at war, because they will not exist if their values don't exist, and we won't exist if our values don't exist. We need immortals so our values are immortal, and this also gives us immortality.

Sadly, before we started killing, we didn't ask what values is Bush talking about? How are "those others" values different from ours? He did not lead us democratically, to understand our differences values and to discuss the differences until reason brings us all to a consensus. No, Bush put on military clothes and glorified in being a war leader, and many today thrill to follow this leader. That is identify with him, "their great leader", as long as they aren't dying on the battle field and the bombs aren't falling on their families.

The Christian right enjoys believing Bush was chosen by God and is doing God's will. It makes them feel good, and doubting makes them feel bad, so they don't doubt. We are biologically programmed with feelings of good and bad, to follow leaders, or not follow them. Just as dogs are programmed to submit to their leaders. Pushing ourselves beyond this, to the actual practice of democracy- rule by reason, is the biggest challenge of humanity, and this is all mixed up with concepts of God and God's will.

As long as people believe there is a fearsome, jealous, and revenge God who has favorites, and rewards or punishes people because he is please or displeased by them, people will not truly manifest democracy, which is rule by reason. The US will never spread democracy, with a leader who won't listen and will not acknowledge the equality of others.

[______]

Originally posted by @--
The US will never spread democracy, with a leader who won't listen and will not acknowledge the equality of others.

While I think this is out of place in a forum for Religion, I will reply to this statement. :P

Have you listened to the words Bush has been saying? He knows the Iraqi people are people like the Americans and is helping rebuild their country that we tore apart to help make the average Iraqi safer and more comfortable. He follows the Constitution when it states that all men are created equal. Regardless of some of his choices in this war, he is a good man with strong morals and stands up for what he believes in.
Whether he's doing God's work or not.... who knows? We may never know. Myself, I don't think that's as important as making sure we accomplish what we are over there to do.

[sonrisa]

are you serious? He trashes the Constitution right & left.

Like when he wiretaps people's phones with no warrant- that's trashing the 4th Amendment. And according to a judge, it's also trashing the 1st Amendment.

Censoring people, not allowing them to speak, blacking out TV/radio shows, infiltrating & harrassing peaceful, non-violent meetings & assemblies- that's also trashing the 1st Amendment.

Holding people in prison indefinitely with no trial- that's trashing the 6th Amendment.

Torturing people- that's trashing the 8th Amendment.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the idea......

And the Constitution doesn't state that all men are created equal. The Declaration does.

[redraven]

scameter: I think all that matters is that I am happy with my choices. Tarot may be a bunch of junk, but I find it has personal meaning.

Let me give an example: very often when I ask about my trips to forums, I get the five of pentacles. What the card shows is mendicants, maimed, abused, walking outside a brightly lit church with no place to rest and no food.

I think there are a great many who come here that are self-confident and have what they want, but there are a few, and this is not against anyone, including you, that are mendicants and they need someone to talk to. So I come here and post still, even though I have other things to do, and even though it is not always a friendly experience. I love people very much, even mendicants, and I would like to make a difference.

Meanwhile, I help myself too, because I'm anything but perfect. For example, my wife wants me to smoke less because it costs so much money and I'm getting angry. That kind of thing.

There are many irrational things I do. I like dowsing too, should I get out of my pajamas and go to the store. My wife laughs because she says I make it swing a certain way, but honestly, sometimes when I ask, it doesn't swing at all.

What I'm saying is that I'm a fairly rational stable successful person, and that what I do that is irrational doesn't affect my life too badly, except for the smoking I suppose. I eat macrobiotic and I exercise ocassionally, and I eat a lot of probioitic foods, and I'm healthy and hale for the most part.

My life is good. Some people's lives aren't so good, and I'd like to change that. Meanwhile I slog through my advanced calculus and try to make sure my wife doesn't wither of neglect, because I'm extremely selfish with my time.

[sonrisa]

very interesting interpretation for the 5 of Pentacles. I shall have to remember it when I read cards.

ps, have you been to any of Victor's shows? Click here for the next one (http://www.victoryoflight.com/pages/index.cgi/200611_festival?disp=Welcome) My friend's Mom reads at his shows & occasionally will do a workshop.

[CSwriter1]

This thread is going in many different directions. It is a question of if we need religion. For me democracy is as a religion. It is a belief that we can learn values and conduct ourselves accordingly. It is a set of values that unites people, and establishes a system for making decisions without brute force. Bush, clearly does not have this understanding of democracy, and is an offense to democratic principles. He won't acknowledge others as equals under God and he won't listen to them, and he definitely relies on eonomic and brute force. This is the way of the old testament God, but not Jesus's concept of God.

Democracy when correctly understood, does everything for us religion does, except define God. It is insane for a Hebrew tribal definition of God, to be accepted as the one true God. This belief is carried by fear and faith, and is not based on sound reason. The belief begins with a humanized, revengeful, fearsome, jealous, God who has favorites and can rule by whim, rewarding and punishing people as he wants.
Democracy on the other hand, demands sound reasoning for all beliefs, and is superior to religion, because when understood, it causes men to drop their superstitions and seek truth, and does not have favorites!!! Please, religions with a God who has favorites and is faith based, is very problematic!

[______]

Originally posted by @--
And the Constitution doesn't state that all men are created equal. The Declaration does.
I stand corrected.
This discussion belongs elsewhere, however.

[sonrisa]

Agreed, unless you take CS's view that democracy is a religion. Democracy as religion- interesting concept. B)

I agree with CS about fear based supertitious religions. I agree with Marx who said that religion is the opium of the people. Religon as it stands today is a hindrance, even a menace, to society.

I do believe that people need spirituality, which is different from religion.

[______]

Originally posted by @--
Religon as it stands today is a hindrance, even a menace, to society.
Please, elaberate. This is quite the statement. <_<

And I agree entirely.

[MidnightSun]

There would be so much more violence without a religon, as people morale would go even lower.

[sonrisa]

sonrisa-- religion as it stands today is a hindrance, even a menace, to society.

dashes-- please elaborate

-- oh god, where to begin? I guess we could start with that intelligent design crap, which, in addition to applying it to evolution, some of these fanatics are now attempting to apply it to the Big Bang.

there's the unreasonable opposition to stem cell research, which could provide therapies/cures to a number of diseases from Alzheimer's to cancer to AIDS.

call it a crusade, call it a jihad, the religious lust for war prevents true understanding & co-operation among peoples, & is an obstacle to a peaceful society

many religions discriminate against women, gays, & even certain ethnic minorities, whether overtly or covertly

many religions spew hate & call it god's word (see The Westboro Baptist Church in this forum) Everybody has a right to their opinion,no matter how backwards or repugnant, but when these opinions start influencing public policy & hurting other people- not to mention society in general- then we have a problem.

[scameter]

So, instead of just eliminating the church and the followers within it from bastardizing the teachings proclaimed by the church in it's sacred documents and histories, we should entirely eliminate the church, it's followers, it's sacred teachings and philosophes, and any extra spirituality or meaning it places on anything. That way, life can be as bare and hard as possible, and meaning can be placed by those who are rich, who would exclaim the worth of life as being success and pleasure. :)

[MidnightSun]

We dont need to remove religion, we all have our own views so keep religion's views to itself. I find it common to comunism which during lithuanias, and other countries occupation by russia told all people to be atheists (forced actually). They murdered priests, destroyed bibles, demolishes churches

[sonrisa]

that's not what I said Scam. What "sacred scriptures" are you refering to? They're all bastardizations. They've been bastardized from jump street, we really can't be sure what Jesus was teaching any more.

ps, quit talking like a Baptist, it's unbecoming :D


MidSun, I don't think atheism should be forced on anybody either, but I can see how that happened. It was a reaction to religion influencing public policy. You are familiar with Rasputin?

[scameter]

That's true of all communisms midnight, such as China. To them, religious fealty should be given to the government.

What "sacred scriptures" are you refering to? They're all bastardizations. They've been bastardized from jump street, we really can't be sure what Jesus was teaching any more.

How do you know? The sacred scriptures, from the viewpoint of the churches, is religious books and documents, such as the Bible. Even if they have passed through many different civilizations, what makes it so possible for Buddhist texts to be in such perfect, original condition, whereas Christian books cannot be? Are Asians better at keeping up books than we are?

ps, quit talking like a Baptist, it's unbecoming

Being honest is being like a Babtist?

MidSun, I don't think atheism should be forced on anybody either, but I can see how that happened. It was a reaction to religion influencing public policy.

No, it was a reaction of communisms not wanting any other influence on the people other than themselves.

[______]

Originally posted by @--
How do you know? The sacred scriptures, from the viewpoint of the churches, is religious books and documents, such as the Bible. Even if they have passed through many different civilizations, what makes it so possible for Buddhist texts to be in such perfect, original condition, whereas Christian books cannot be? Are Asians better at keeping up books than we are?

I think the difference between western religion and eastern religion is that the east can keep it's original teachings intact no matter how many cultures and countries it's in. Western religion lost it's original teachings in place for more power over the masses.

I by no means think that the teachings of modern day Buddhism is exactly what the Lord Buddha taught. It too has been further divided into various schools much like western religion. But the Buddha's essence is still very much apart of Buddhism whereas Jesus is seen as a divine miracle-worker that was sent here to save us all from eternal damnation ( :( I still don't like that aspect of Christianity; teaching Jesus's message through fear...). This mythology came from the various cultures it was introduced to.

[MidnightSun]

No, it was a reaction of communisms not wanting any other influence on the people other than themselves

Wow very good point scam :)

You are familiar with Rasputin?

Of course, he's a russian writer and a poet. My country is close to russia and we still have enormous influence from them.

[scameter]

I think the difference between western religion and eastern religion is that the east can keep it's original teachings intact no matter how many cultures and countries it's in. Western religion lost it's original teachings in place for more power over the masses.

And, Eastern nations do not have this same power lust? There were many, many empires in the East, in many nations. Why is it assumed automatically that Eastern nations are more faithful to their religions than Western ones?

But the Buddha's essence is still very much apart of Buddhism whereas Jesus is seen as a divine miracle-worker that was sent here to save us all from eternal damnation ( I still don't like that aspect of Christianity; teaching Jesus's message through fear...).

That is alot of because the Christian mythology is more real than many other religions, mainly because of how mythological it is. God is not this perfect, all-loving, gracious creature everyone thinks, if one reads the Bible. The Gnostics saw God as being what they called a demiurge, essentially a power-lusting tyrant. To them, the snake in the garden of Eden, never actually called Satan in the Bible, gave us a means of freedom from the demiurge by way of knowledge, or gnosis in Greek which could be translated easily into Gnostic. Through knowledge, we are purified of our bodily filth. People always assume that there is one message in the religion of Christianity, one form of interpretation. But, that is not so; nor is the churches' interpretations absolute. The Bible is a mythology, whether it is true physically or not, and it contains mythological elements that, like with any mythology, are meant to be interpreted and found within the text. Other religions are much more direct. This is why when people immediately take the Bible entirely literally, it seems contradictory and stupid.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: Are Asians better at keeping up books than we are?

Yes, most definitely. :D The Hindu and Buddhist traditions were handed down by oral transmission for several hundred years, whereas the life and teachings of Jesus were committed to writing less than 80 years after his death. It sounds surprising, but even after a few hundred years, the Eastern oral traditions were much more accurate than the Western tradition after just a few decades.

It has to do with the way these traditions worked. In the East, disciples were required to learn the teachings by heart and to repeat them verbatim. No deviation from the master's words was tolerated. Students could not become masters unless they were able to recite thousands of stanzas from memory. Thus copying fidelity was kept at a high level. The Middle East, on the other hand, had a story telling tradition in which embellishments and additions were perfectly acceptable, if they served to illustrate the point.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

You know... something funny about that is, the peoples of Northern Europe, like the Vikings and the Germanic tribes, weren't the ones who would have made most of the changes to the Bible. In fact, if the Bible was mainly Latin, and was used by the Roman empire at it's conversion to Christianity and afterwords, it would have been the Romans who made most of the alterations, and those of churches who followed the Roman example in following times. So, the mighty, wonderful Roman empire, one that is usually seen as being magnificient, is the one that changed the Bible, not the "barbarians" of Northern Europe. If you notice, mythologies of Northern Europe, like that of the Vikings and Celts, have been very well preserved, mainly because they were given as much dedication as the religions of the East, were passed down orally for centuries, and, because they were natural to the culture who passed them down, also meant more to them and was treated with more respect, just as Eastern peoples treated their Eastern religions. Christianity is inherently Jewish, even if the Jews do not follow it. Jesus was Jewish. I think this is quite possibly one reason why our dedication to preserving it's originality hasn't been as strict as that of the East: it's foreign to us.

[CSwriter1]

My goodness yes, the original thinking of the bible is very foriegn to us. Although the wording of the bible is not changed that much, the interpretation of it has changed a lot!

King David worships a fearsome war god. It was believed, the people with the most powerful god would be the ones to win wars. Now we understanding it is the people the best military technology who win wars. However, many barbarians converted to Christianity with the belief that because Romans who carried the religion won wars, it meant they had the most powerful god.

The idea of "might makes right" comes from this barbaric blend with Christianity. Not only did people expect God to determine the winners of war, but also the winner of duels. We still live with this belief that God helps his favorite people win wars.

God also became autocratic when the Germans interpreted God. Before, God was like a wise king not like a powerful autocrat.

Then comes science and the autocratic God is the master of the machine that runs our lives.

Right now I think Christainity is more focused on Satan and evil than just about anything else, which is complimented by the Muslim jihad. Long before I heard of the Muslim jihad, I heard the Christians out to save their neighborhoods, communities and schools for Christians. This is such undemocratic thinking because it is exclusive, excluding all those who are not Christian. So now you have Christian and Muslim fundamentalist, both caught up in a jihad, both excluding the other, and both God's warriors. A complete perversion of a spiritual effort to unite people and bring peace.

[CSwriter1]

"There would be so much more violence without a religon, as people morale would go even lower".

Please, consider learning about humanism and possibly becoming literate in Greek and Roman classics. Religion is not the only source of morality. It isn't even the best source! It is far better to be enlightened than stuck in superstition.

Democracy does have a God, and it is not the Christian God. The God of democracy is a God of reason. I don't mean the old man/God with a white beard pondering things. I mean God is reason.

Reason, is the controlling force of the universe, made manifest in speech. That is why freedom of speech is essential. No one has ever known the true God which is something we can not experience nor comprehend. At best we get little inspiritions and insights, and it is through reason and discussion that we come to know truth.

With our human consciousness, we can know of God, and quantum physics is a better means of learning of God than studying the bible. Quantum physics and eastern philosophy are coming together. The religions coming from Judism have prevented the development of the human potential and bogged humanity down with superstition when we needed to continue work on the math and the science of earlier civilizations.

[CSwriter1]

The Middle East, on the other hand, had a story telling tradition in which embellishments and additions were perfectly acceptable, if they served to illustrate the point.

Right on Thomas! Jews are especially aware of this, and are taken aback by the literal interpretation of their stories that fundamentalist Christians do.

We should keep in mind, the Protestant Moverment was based on the belief that correcting the corruption of the Catholic church, meant the literal interpretation of the bible. This is very problematic as the bible is a book of myths and parabals and was never meant to be interpreted literally! This is a German thing.

Thomas, can you say more of the difference between truths and myths?

[MidnightSun]

Please, consider learning about humanism and possibly becoming literate in Greek and Roman classics. Religion is not the only source of morality. It isn't even the best source! It is far better to be enlightened than stuck in superstition.

Banning religion wouldnt help to raise people morale for sure. What do you have against religion anyway?

[sonrisa]

wellllll.... let's see.....

for starters, it dumbs people down. Instead of thinking for themselves, people just regurgitate some religious pablum. What more can you say about a god that doesn't want his children partaking from the tree of knowledge? So they wallow in superstition instead. The ultimate mind control. :knockout:

morever, fanatics try (& sometimes succeed) to get these superstitions taught in schools, hindering real learning.

religion is xenophobic. Anybody not of the "one true faith" is an infidel & should be killed or enslaved.

Many religions are bigoted- they treat women, gays & (depending upon the religion) certain ethnic minorities as 2nd class citizens. Once again, fanatics are trying- & succeeding- to get laws passed that would discriminate against those they consider 2nd class citizens.

Religions spew hate & call it "god's word". They give rise to stupid crusades & jihads. Even now as I post this, there are idiots out there (you can take that any way you like) salivating for Armageddon to happen.

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head

[scameter]

The idea of "might makes right" comes from this barbaric blend with Christianity. Not only did people expect God to determine the winners of war, but also the winner of duels. We still live with this belief that God helps his favorite people win wars.

I think it came from the Jews and the Romans. Both are very power oriented, especially the Romans, and to them, God could not be God if he wasn't the most power thing in existence.

We should keep in mind, the Protestant Moverment was based on the belief that correcting the corruption of the Catholic church, meant the literal interpretation of the bible. This is very problematic as the bible is a book of myths and parabals and was never meant to be interpreted literally! This is a German thing.

If you mean interpreting the Bible literally is a German thing, that makes no sense, since the Protestant Revolution, which you say (truthfully) tried to correct the corruption in the Catholic church which was largely because of literal interpretation of the Bible, not to mention the power lust of the priests in the church, the Revolution began in Germany by a German. But, I'm not sure if this is what you meant.

for starters, it dumbs people down. Instead of thinking for themselves, people just regurgitate some religious pablum. What more can you say about a god that doesn't want his children partaking from the tree of knowledge? So they wallow in superstition instead. The ultimate mind control.

No, the ultimate mind control is teaching every single person exactly the same thing, never inspiring creativity or free thought, and then conforming them into the society with the religion of worshipping money they've been engineered to be in since they could learn. That is the ultimate mind control, and people are both ignorant and loving of it.

morever, fanatics try (& sometimes succeed) to get these superstitions taught in schools, hindering real learning.

Even though learning religious beliefs is still learning and no less real, you cannot blame the religion and it's teachings for what the people in it do. That is like people blaming 9/11 on religion, saying it insipired them. *People* did that, and people do those things themselves from their own thought. Even if a religion does teach them to do these things, which is usually doesn't, it's not like the teachings of the religion are forcing themselves on the people. People read them and practice them.

religion is xenophobic. Anybody not of the "one true faith" is an infidel & should be killed or enslaved.

That is not true of every religion. The Christian faith (not the church or the people following it), Buddhism and Taoism, for instance, do not inspire this.

Many religions are bigoted- they treat women, gays & (depending upon the religion) certain ethnic minorities as 2nd class citizens. Once again, fanatics are trying- & succeeding- to get laws passed that would discriminate against those they consider 2nd class citizens.

There are many people who do that, no matter their beliefs or affiliations. People have hate and arrogance regardless of anything.

Religions spew hate & call it "god's word". They give rise to stupid crusades & jihads. Even now as I post this, there are idiots out there (you can take that any way you like) salivating for Armageddon to happen.

I don't blame them.

I'm sure there's more, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head

Oh, couldn't find anymore information on the atheist propaganda site?

[______]

Originally posted by @--
Oh, couldn't find anymore information on the atheist propaganda site?
:lol: Take it easy, Scam! :lol:

Things like that could offend people! :nono:

[sonrisa]

nah, I'm not offended. But since I don't hit any atheist sites, propaganda or otherwise, Scam's gonna have to be more specific there as to the one he's refering to.

Scam, people do not operate in a vacuum. We have reasons for doing the things we do, even if it's simply "becuz I can". There are people out there doing hurtful, ugly things for religious reasons. Hitler, for instance thought he was on a "Mission from God". He was convinced that Jesus had failed in his mission to clear out the old order & establish the New World Order, ie, the Thousand Year Kingdom, & that it was up to him- Hitler- to finish the job. Thousand Year Kingdom, Thousand Year Reich- get it? It doesn't matter that you & I think his actions were anything but holy, Hitler thought he was on some kind of religious crusade, & so his motivations were religious.

Ditto for the 9/11 suicide pilots you mentioned. They thought they were giving glory to Allah, or some such nonsense, so their motivations were religious.

Aside from those extreme examples, there are other ways these fanatics try to force their religion(s) on society at large, most noticably in the schools. Real learning is building on to what you already know, not regurgitating same old same old. When you have a theory, & along come some facts that don't fit the theory, you don't shoehorn the facts to fit Genesis, you throw out the theory & work out a new one that fits your facts. And along the way, hopefully you find out some stuff you didn't know before. That is real learning.

Scam-- the ultimate mind control is teaching every single person the same thing, never inspiring creativity or free thought, then conforming them into the society of religion....

-- I'm not going to paste the rest of your remark becuz it doesn't pertain to what I'm about to post, but I will give you this- worshipping the Almighty Dollar can most definitely be construed as a religion.

however, your words- never inspiring creativity or free thought- that is what religion does. you gotta toe the party line. Galilleo spent years in & out of religious prisons becuz he said the the Earth revolves around the Sun, & that the stars are suns with their own planets. Giordiano Bruno was executed becuz he speculated that these other planets harbored intelligent life. Ironically, Bruno thought that ET's added to god's glory, not diminished it.

today we have this brouhaha over stem cell research, which has the potential to cure/allieviate any number of diseases. The people who oppose it do so for religious reasons, & that's their perogative, but when these religious reasons start influencing public policy & hindering society at large, then we have a problem.

ditto legislation that discriminates against gays, such as housing laws, or laws that deny gay couples the same rights as married couples. Even though these anti-gay groups may call themselves "community values" groups (since when is bigotry a community value?) these groups are actually religious. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church. You may consider them a hate group, I certainly do, but they claim to be a church, so their motivations are religious.

women have been oppressed for thousands of years due to "holy writ" starting with Lilith, Adam, & Eve. Lilith left the Garden of Eden becuz she considered herself equal to Adam & refused to submit to him. So god took one of Adam's ribs & created the submissive Eve. The implication is clear & is repeated thruout the bible- women should submit to men. This has resulted in women being treated as little more than property for thousands of years, it's only been since sometime during the 19th century that women could even own property. Baby boys were valued over baby girls, who were sometimes left outside to die. Girls were considered stupid. Then there's Martin Luther's infamous remark about girls maturing faster than boys becuz weeds grow faster than good crops. Even today, in this new millenium, & despite all the advances in women's rights, there are still chauvinists who think women should be barefoot & pregnant & they generally get that pov from the bible.

I agree with you that some folx are bigots regardless of religion, but consider this- take away the religions & these bigots will have to find another excuse for their bigotry. Some undoubtedly will, but others, once the scales are off their eyes, may take another look at the "2nd class, unclean" people & say, hey, these folx aren't that much different from me. Then perhaps the 2 groups will get to know each other better, laying the groundwork for understanding & co-operation. Once again, that is true learning.

unlike the baggage that generally comes along with most religions

[scameter]

nah, I'm not offended. But since I don't hit any atheist sites, propaganda or otherwise, Scam's gonna have to be more specific there as to the one he's refering to.

Oh it doesn't take a specific site. Those lies can fester anywhere.

Scam, people do not operate in a vacuum. We have reasons for doing the things we do, even if it's simply "becuz I can".

Yes.

There are people out there doing hurtful, ugly things for religious reasons.

As well as people who do it simply because they can or because they enjoy it, and both types of people are to blame for what they do, not for anything they claim to have been inspired by.

He was convinced that Jesus had failed in his mission to clear out the old order & establish the New World Order, ie, the Thousand Year Kingdom, & that it was up to him- Hitler- to finish the job.

And do you know where he got that? His own mind. No where in the Bible does Jesus say he is clearing out any old order and establishing any new ones. Hitler is to blame there, not the religion.

Real learning is building on to what you already know, not regurgitating same old same old.

Then we should learn nothing not invented in the past 20 years, and should study about nothing before that.

-- I'm not going to paste the rest of your remark becuz it doesn't pertain to what I'm about to post, but I will give you this- worshipping the Almighty Dollar can most definitely be construed as a religion.

Well, if you would have read the rest of what you didn't post, you'd find that is what I said. :)

agree with you that some folx are bigots regardless of religion, but consider this- take away the religions & these bigots will have to find another excuse for their bigotry. Some undoubtedly will, but others, once the scales are off their eyes, may take another look at the "2nd class, unclean" people & say, hey, these folx aren't that much different from me. Then perhaps the 2 groups will get to know each other better, laying the groundwork for understanding & co-operation.

And then they would conform to normal, modern life like everyone else. Oh, don't think that religious people like those Muslim terrorists wouldn't love to live in America with our capitalist, luxurious lifestyle: they are simply blinded by hate inspired by their leaders. If their blindness could be alleviated and they could be sent here and given the ability to be normal, they'd love it, especially if everyone treated them normally.

One last thing... I have been thinking about this "problem" with religions everyone is talking about - you, other people on this board, people on the news, everyone. If religion is so terrible, and if religion is the inspiration of so much evil, I think that we should go to the Vatican and entirely destroy it, go to every Islamic church and destroy them, go to every Christian church and destroy them, destroy every Jewish temple, and thus abolish all of these horrible, terrible, evil religions. If they are so terrible, any lives expended during this should be accepted as necessary to avoid further hate and death. Why not? Why continue complaining about how horrible it is? If religious people are as blind and hypnotized as people say, which from what I've seen many are, why not actually act?

[sonrisa]

that's sick Scam, & why do you want to lower yourself to Hitler's level?

I'm not absolving Hitler of his horrendous crimes, mind you, I'm saying that you have to consider his motivations, which were (partly) religious. Yes they were sick & twisted. They were also religious.


Scam-- do you know where (Hitler) got that? His own mind. No where in the Bible does Jesus say he is clearing out any old order and establishing any new ones.

-- Jesus does talk about replacing the Old Law with the New Law. He encourages his disciples to go forth & spread the "good news", that his Kingdom won't happen until everybody has embraced it. There's also the parable of the good shepherd which ends saying all the sheep will be in one fold. All the people practicing one religion?

Hitler was also big on Martin Luther, who is not in the bible, but is considered to be a religious thinker. A very anti-semitic religious thinker. At the Nuremberg Trials, several of Hitler's henchmen claimed Luther would approve of what they did. And here's a factoid for you: Kristalnacht occurred on Luther's birthday

for more about Hitler's religious beliefs click here. (http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitlerchristian.htm)


Scam-- then we should learn nothing not invented in the past 20 years, and should study about nothing before that

-- that's not what I said Scam, where did you get that from?

Scam-- well if you would have read what you didn't post, you'd find out that's what I said

-- I did read it einstein, I was agreeing with you.

perhaps you could return the favor & actually read my posts for a change. And what festering lies are you referring to? Or did you misread something again? Or, since you evaded the question & refuse to post a link, maybe you're the one festering the lies?

[______]

:lol: I think he's only spurring further debate!

[sonrisa]

I think he's just being snarky

if he had any valid points he would of made them by now, or at least he should have

[scameter]

that's sick Scam, & why do you want to lower yourself to Hitler's level?

I'm not lowering myself, nor is it sick. If religion is evil, it should be abolished like any other evil, no? Hitler was evil, and so he was abolished. Why not always feel ourselves wonderful enough to arrogantly claim something besides ourselves is evil while we are good?

Jesus does talk about replacing the Old Law with the New Law. He encourages his disciples to go forth & spread the "good news", that his Kingdom won't happen until everybody has embraced it. There's also the parable of the good shepherd which ends saying all the sheep will be in one fold. All the people practicing one religion?

Jesus also said the laws could be sumed up like this: love your fellow man and love God. Is this what Hitler did? No, all people having God in their hearts, which, as Paul said, if God is accepted into one's heart only love can come from it. Jesus did not found the Christian religion and it's church.

Hitler was also big on Martin Luther, who is not in the bible, but is considered to be a religious thinker. A very anti-semitic religious thinker. At the Nuremberg Trials, several of Hitler's henchmen claimed Luther would approve of what they did. And here's a factoid for you: Kristalnacht occurred on Luther's birthday

Luther was nothing more than a man. Fallable, like anyone else. He made good points as well as bad ones. If Hitler followed him in any way, especially if he only followed Luther's bad points, only Hitler is to blame.

that's not what I said Scam, where did you get that from?

I got it from my mind. You said "real learning is building on what we already know, not regurgitating same old same old." Then, we should forget anything that isn't up-to-date, and only advance, not remember.

I did read it einstein, I was agreeing with you.

Then why did you repeat it?

perhaps you could return the favor & actually read my posts for a change. And what festering lies are you referring to? Or did you misread something again? Or, since you evaded the question & refuse to post a link, maybe you're the one festering the lies?

I do read your posts thoroughly, and I was not refering to a specific site. I didn't say "Hey, did you get that from www.atheistpropaganda.com?" I was saying that what you are saying is atheist and modernist propaganda. You are simply following in with what is popular. Einstein.

if he had any valid points he would of made them by now, or at least he should have

If you were capable of making good points in this topic we wouldn't be debating right now about this issue.

i think scam is just showing signs of pressure lol

Probably so, since everybody that is intellectual, and even not, in modern times agrees with sonrisa, besides those who were born into a religion and that's all they know and are secluded from modern society.

[______]

I was Christian once. Not what one would consider a "bible thumper", but I do remember a sermon at church that refered to the "New Law".

you missed my point about pressure it was a joke

I caught the joke, psyche. :D

i can't even really imagine rigid religiosity in the home and community

I grew up in the "bible belt" of America, so know all too well about "rigid religiosity". Just try to imagine being something other than Christian there! :lol: Many great talks on spirituality!

[sonrisa]

poor Scam, stuck growing up in the bible belt.... :shakehead:


Sonrisa-- (on destroying the Vatican, & churches & mosques, & the ensuing carnage) that's sick Scam, & why do you want to lower yourself to Hitler's level?

Scam-- I'm not lowering myself, nor is it sick

-- no, I guess not. Whether it's called a crusade or a jihad, it's still religious violence :knockout:


Scam-- any lives expended during this (religious slaughter) should be accepted as necessary to avoid further hate and death

-- so you want to burn the village in order to save it. Tell me Scam, what are those 6 million dead Jews & other victims of religious atrocities around the world to you- collateral damage?


Scam-- Jesus did not found the Christian religion and its church

-- what Sunday School did you go to Scam?


Sonrisa-- that's not what I said Scam, where did you get (only learning history from within the past 20 years) from?

Scam-- I got it from my mind

-- well you didn't get it from anything I posted


Scam-- (Sonrisa) said, "real learning is building on what we already know, not regurgitating same old same old"

-- so it is. But I can see why you might have a problem with that since all you've been doing here is regurgitating same old same old. When asked to elaborate, or to get specific, you either evade or ignore it, or else makeup some elusive non-answer. What atheist propaganda & festering lies are you referring to? Nothing specific, you say. Well then why did you post that stuff? Explain your posts. Back up what you said. Instead you just regurgitate same old same old. Or else spew such profundities as- Luther was nothing more than a man. Jeez Scam, tell us something we don't already know :rolleyes:

you say you read my posts thoroughly, but do you understand what you are reading? Not just my posts, but anybody's posts, including your own. I'm trying to get you to analyze your posts, Scam. You want to post a short comment or two about something, that's fine, but you should be prepared to elaborate on what you post should somebody ask you to. Conversely, you post these mind boggling convoluted sentences several lines long. Last month Smurfie asked you to break down one of them &, what was it you told him- to do that would destroy the meaning of the sentence. WTF?!!?? If you truly knew the meaning of that sentence, then you would be able to break it down 6 ways from Sunday. And you would be able to enhance the meaning, not destroy it. Instead, you post evasive nonsense.


Scam-- you are simply following in what is popular ( this so-called "atheist propaganda" bs)

-- ya think? Then that's 2 more things you don't know about me, isn't it?


Scam-- if you were capable of making good points on this topic

-- I'm capable- & I already have. It's not my fault you're incapable of recognizing them.


Scam-- we wouldn't be debating right now about this issue

-- debating? we? oh, is that what you think we are doing? :goodlaugh: Well, maybe that's what you think you're doing, but since you are evidently incapable of posting any straight answers, I'm just playing a game. :)

you know, it occurs to me, I may have an unfair advantage in this game. Tell me, if you don't mind my asking, does this OCD of yours make you feel you have to reply to just about every post on these boards, no matter how lame that reply may be? I don't mean that in a bad sort of way, I'm just wondering if you can't help but post responses, even if it goes against your better judgment to do so.

here's something to consider- what if stem cells could be used to treat OCD's. But some religious crap prevented the therapies from being developed. Would that be fair to you?

[scameter]

I'm through with this discussion. Think you won or think I'm stupid or think whatever in the **** you want to think, I don't really care. Thomas can kick me out, you can hate me, everyone else can hate me, I really couldn't care less.

[sonrisa]

how very grown up of you Scam

no I don't hate you & I don't think your stupid, I just think you need to consider what you post more carefully. The only way I will have "won" is if you start doing just that.

reading over our exchanges, I still can't figure out why you object to my opinion that relgion is a hindrance to society, & why it upsets you that "everybody" agrees with me (actually that's not true. If it were, we wouldn't have this problem of religion messing with public policy) I'm wondering, if you even know why you object to it, since you haven't done a very good job of articulating it.

you know, in the past you used to complain about these holy rollers & religious freaks. Now you sound like one of them. Why the about face?

[______]

I'm through with this discussion. Think you won or think I'm stupid or think whatever in the **** you want to think, I don't really care. Thomas can kick me out, you can hate me, everyone else can hate me, I really couldn't care less.

:) Scam, no need to get angry. Sonrisa is just trying to help you to see your own flaws. This is a great opportunity. I truly hope you do not miss it.

[scameter]

Well, I can certainly see where I shouldn't be angry, or sonrisa; and I can also see how she is able to give advice. :)

[Ranma]

well....well......getting angry will go no where beside hurting oneself. Everybody here have their very own thinking and level of understanding. Please settle them clamly. One's is able to give advices or not is not up to us to determine, but to the party which will feel the pain or gain who would know he/she may have learn something. Sooner or later one's will realize the good of that person n what he/she may have said to you helps you.

[sonrisa]

I was never angry with you Scam. Just trying to get you to be more articulate.

[Ranma]

Sometime, when a person is not ready to accept, whould felt anoying that is where anger will kick in. There is a different in level of understanding on each person. So conflicts may happens most of the times. Giving advice at the wrong place and the wrong time may happen conflict. Normally advice were only given if one's ask. But if a person asked and doesnt accept your advice, then is his/her mistake for asking.

[scameter]

Sure. :)

[______]

This makes me happy to see that there has been peace from the previous heated debate. :) But perhaps we should turn once more to the subject at hand. ;)

[Brahmanyan]

To be honest we do not need a Religion for our Spiritual Pursuits. Religion is just gathering of Numbers, to show strength of the grouping. It puts blinkers on our sight of wider vision. If Religion controls your life style that is different. Just look at the History of Mankind. In the name of Religion we have lost tens and thousands of precious lives.

[______]

To be honest we do not need a Religion for our Spiritual Pursuits. Religion is just gathering of Numbers, to show strength of the grouping.
I'm not entirely sure about this. One of the Three Jewels of Buddhism is the Sangha. <_<

In the name of Religion we have lost tens and thousands of precious lives.
No, not in the name of Religion, but in the name of God--in whatever terms he/she may be represented in the respective religions.

[MidnightSun]

In the name of Religion we have lost tens and thousands of precious lives.

That depends on a religion. Besides religion gave us people good things too.

[MidnightSun]

Besides religion gave us people good things too

I know i will be hardly criticised on this, but religion is just like any other thing which can do both harm and heal. Like love. So many hearts were brokenand not even once but nobody says anything against it, because it gave a lot to many people too. Religions are ok, just be carefull with them. Knife can help you to eat a pinapple but also it can be used to kill a monkey.

[namtso]

..but have u ever tired to see the negative points attached to it..If not go sometime visit Tibet..The point is why cant we do what is good for us instead of what is good a institution.............. mehta
Could you talk more about this point?


How good is it to wear minimal clothes when temperature is negative from zero...How many knows that 12 out of 100 kids die in high monestaries just due to cold.... mehta
I didn't know that, I'd like to learn more about it. Can you tell me where can I read about this problem?

[Starry_Canopy]

My humble contribution is that if something exists, it is needed, otherwise it won't exist.

The question is, "Needed for what?"

From looking around, I can make out that religion is needed by people to give themselves a sense of importance and identity. Life, with its inevitable death in the end, seems so futile if lived only for the sake of things that belong to this world. When we die, all this seems to get extinguished for us, because we have not seen any corpse respond to its environment. Religion, I believe, is to help us sense a higher purpose to our existence, higher than this life as perceived through our senses and intellect (which die for us when we die, from what we can see).

The only way we can know the truth of our existence, beyond this relativity, is to know it by just being it and the various religions are giving us tips as to how we may be able to achieve that state, to go beyond relativity, beyond the constructs of the mind and intellect. That is what, I believe, all religions say, somewhere or the other on their texts. Christianity, as per the Pope's recent statement, is allied with reasoning, but the Bible itself says, "God's will hath no why".

J Krishnamurti used to say, "Truth is a pathless land", meaning, if you really want to know the truth, religions are no use, because, since each of us is unique, there cannot be a generalised path to truth that is equally valid for all of us. Each of us has our own unique path to truth that we will tred upon if we wish to. The truth will itself guide our footsteps if we really want to find it. Bible - "Ask and it shall be revealed unto you". The important thing is to ask.

Love you all.


Afterthought, before clicking on 'Add Reply':

I came across this notion that in our present state, we are like the seeds of trees or as a caterpillar is to the butterfly. If we wish to, we could grow out of the skin of the seed or caterpillar and become the tree or the butterfly. But to become that higher form, we need to be willing for the dissolution of the lower form that will cease to exist after having served its purpose. If we cling on to the notions of our present limited identity, we will not allow that skin to burst and so will not allow the tree or butterfly to emerge. In my view, religions, nowadays are doing more to make us cling on to that skin than to make us burst out of it, for which, I believe, they were originally propounded.

[Ranma]

Dont you guys thing that religion is just a set of rules/guide for us human to become a better person? It doesnt carry any other type of meaning at all. During that time of time of day, when human do not have these kind of rules or guide, they were too wild at beast and there is not aim of life. Only thing in mind is food and survive. Later human develope thinking and creation, and where all the 3 jewel comes in. Then human started to set level and standardization, thus makes people to challenge each other. Jealousy, Hatred, Selfishness and etc. were added on in crazy of power.

Religion at that time were created to make sure human will not do bad deeds, like life after death and karma. If you do bad deeds now, it may reflect for future life or things like that, to scare human for doing bad deeds.


This is my point of view of what religion is.

[______]

Religion at that time were created to make sure human will not do bad deeds, like life after death and karma. If you do bad deeds now, it may reflect for future life or things like that, to scare human for doing bad deeds.
So Religion = change through fear? Am I understanding that correctly?

[Ranma]

So Religion = change through fear? Am I understanding that correctly?

hmmm......I dont really agree on this statement. But may be to remind human of what good deeds and bad deeds are about. A guide line / path to be a better human being.

Eventually, human now can create their own 'Religion' provided there are people who understand and belief on what he/she is doing correctly in the sense of no-killing, no-cheating, no-hatred, no-jealousy, etc. But in this material world, is even harder to achieve.

Cheers

[______]

Ah! :) Thank you for clearing that up a bit!

I think this is quite accurate indeed, however, I still see some religions that use fear to gain followers. They may have pure messages, but their delivery could be a lot better.

[Ranma]

Hmmm....may be doing business with religion. Good income.

[______]

Hmmm....may be doing business with religion. Good income
:lol: Shouldn't business with religion focus on things other than money?

[Starry_Canopy]

'Busy' ness with religion should not be about money, but can it do without money?

A theory of money - it is a token for exchanging 'life energy', with a convertibility into anything. We come into ownership of money by expending our life energy - trading, giving it in the form of work or service in exchange for money.

Things that have more 'life energy' put into them, ie. those that would increase the user's/ owner's life energy more significantly than other things are costlier.

They increase or make more life energy available for the owners/ users by:

- saving time for them (thus giving them more time for other things within this limited mortality)
- reducing space/ distance (thus indirectly saving time for access to far off things)
- increasing their comfort (thus saving the life energy expended for overcoming discomfort)
- making them happier or wiser (thus being able to generate more life energy from within themselves)

Could it be for this reason that we say hat he master shares his/ her spiritual 'wealth' with he students?

Should this be a new topic (money - life energy, I mean)...? :)

Love.

[namtso]

A theory of money - it is a token for exchanging 'life energy', with a convertibility into anything. We come into ownership of money by expending our life energy - trading, giving it in the form of work or service in exchange for money.
That is a great analogy, I like it a lot. And it seems right.

[Starry_Canopy]

Yeah, it does, to me too! :)

There's another reason, apart from empirical observations, that lends credence to this view, but that is beyond the scope of this topic ("why we need a religion?")

[Kether]

Midnight Sun said:
There would be so much more violence without a religon, as people morale would go even lower.
Sadly, this kind of reasoning has been the main one employed in defence of religion in recent times. I don't think that, ceteris paribus, religion makes people happier or more morally good than freethought. More importantly, even if religion can make people do good, it is extremely dangerous to think that people should believe in something for any reason other than that it is true. This is because if belief in something is thought by authority to be necessary, questioning of that belief will be suppressed. It happened in the USSR, where the government was willing to go to insane lengths to prevent questioning of the communist religion. Humans are naturally inquisitive, and it is likely that someone in your religious society would start to doubt the dogma ingrained in their mind – what would you do to them? How far would you go to sustain the myth?
You are essentially saying that we need to lie to people to keep them from murdering each other. This simply isn't true; to get ones beliefs from logic and evidence does not mean rejecting principles like 'love thy neighbour', because such principles don't come from religion; they are older and more basic than that. Read about sociobiology, and you'll find that altruism exists in animals without religion, and almost certainly existed in humans before the advent of large-scale religion.

[Ranma]

Don't you guys think that people nowdays are making money from religion? And you guys were right too......With money you can do the impossible and without money is really impossible. Sound contradicting rite. Well this is materialistic world I guessed.

As you guys know, everywhere now have started holy war, do you think is because of religion? I should says is all because of power and money.

What a world......we are in now.......


Cheers.....!

[Gesiwuj]

The short answer: no.
The long answer: nope.

Religion is just a way to force a set of morals upon someone. This restricts individuality.

[Ranma]

Oh dear....please open your eyes widely and take a very good look. You be able to see more clearly on what I meant, Gesiwuj. Please wake up.....!



Cheers....!

[traveler]

We need religion like a hole in the head, Jesus denounced religion and Buddha would not touch it with a ten feet pole.

[Arctic-Stranger]

Originally posted by ,--
Religion is just a way to force a set of morals upon someone. This restricts individuality.
Does your religion say that individuality should not be restricted?

Religion gets a bum rap, for many different reasons. It is easy to say that both Jesus and Buddha would not have touched religion with a ten foot pole, but in fact both were preachers, and both said some version of "this is the way." If the Four Noble truths and the Eightfold Path are not "religious" then I dont know what is.

By religion, i think most people mean "fake spirituality." But if pressed, it is really hard to define what fake spirituality is....we might say "hypocrasy" but who dares to throw throw the first stone? We might say it is shallow religion, but who has the wherewithal to judge the depth of another persons spiritual depth?

I used to be against "religion" and enjoyed telling people that I was (I was a pastor at the time.) But things change over time. I find that I am not as good at sizing up other people's spirituality as I thought i was. I learned that "Cold Dead Ritual" could have life giving effects. I learned that spontaneity could be repressive at times, just as repressive as ritual.

So...as to religion...I say Love God, (or whatever the equivalent is for you) and do as you please...even if that means being "religious. "

[Starry_Canopy]

I used to be against "religion" and enjoyed telling people that I was (I was a pastor at the time.) But things change over time. I find that I am not as good at sizing up other people's spirituality as I thought i was. I learned that "Cold Dead Ritual" could have life giving effects. I learned that spontaneity could be repressive at times, just as repressive as ritual.

Yes, Arctic Stranger, very true. I also went through similar changes of attitude towards 'religion'.

I think that another very important role that religion plays is to keep us constantly reminded of the higher purpose of life. Without religion being there to periodically remind us of this purpose, I think that there's a good chance that we will just keep postponing matters concerned with our spiritual progress because of day-to-day pressures. At least it does this for me, though my 'religion' is now very simple consisting of just simple regular prayers everyday and meditation/ visit to a spiritual centre as and when I have time, but at least once a month. This keeps me in regular touch with divinity and I love those moments of 'being at home'.

Earlier, when I had not 'institutionalised' these for myself, sometimes months used to pass by before I did anything 'spiritual' and in that period of my life I was definitely feeling less full, always harried, chasing targets and never in that blissful state of being 'at home'.

[Arctic-Stranger]

I recently found this quote from Charlotte Bronte in the introduction to Jane Eyre.

"Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns."

[...]

I think that another very important role that religion plays is to keep us constantly reminded of the higher purpose of life.

..what would that be, and why do you believe that?

[Starry_Canopy]

..what would that be, and why do you believe that?

That would be, I think, some kind of evolution, to go towards some form of existence that can overcome the handicaps inherent in the present form.

Why I believe that is two-fold. One is my dissatisfaction with the seeming purposelessness of my life as it is now if I don't attempt for that growth. The other is that nearly all the very pious and happy persons I've come across have said that human beings are actually 'children of God'/ 'seeds of God'/ 'made in God's image' etc. seming to say that we have a potential to be vastly more meaningful participants in life/ existence or bringing about a happy and blissful state of existence (heaven on earth).

[Starry_Canopy]

"Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns."


True. I'd like to add that these should be done in a kind and polite way, with an open mind to hear and consider the others' point of view, too, and not in an aggressive way.

Christ himself, I believe, was very kind and polite to begin with and had to become 'aggressive' only when He saw that, in His time, that was the only language that the 'Phariee's' would understand/ take notice of.

And if Christ, who was perfection incarnate, demonstrated compassion and humility, who are we, with so many failings of our own, to get aggressive about the failings of others!

[traveler]

[Jesus and Buddha were preachers]
Jesus and buddha were not preachers, they were enlightened.
the ayatolas, imams, popes, televangelists, and assorted raptors and snake oil spirit vendors are preachers.
Fake spirituality is easy to define and it's not necessarily hypocricy it is to go to church to "feel" saved as opposite to be saved.
Religion: the prefix RE which means to do something again, and LIGION from the latin Ligatus which means to join something.
Buddha accomplished that sitting under a tree. neither Jesus or Buddha fell into the hands of religious pickpocket preachers, who are nothing more than a stumbling block and keep their listeners in the pathos of spiritual dwarves moving their heads up and down, some day the blind will not lead the blind, it's bound to happen the blind will awake, and no more WTC towers will fall, morality with out dogma will prevail, plotting Jesus execution by religion for denouncing it, will be impossible at a particular level, to reach that level there is a need to overcome the stubborness of religion.

[Starry_Canopy]

keep their listeners in the pathos of spiritual dwarves moving their heads up and down
no more WTC towers will fall,

I don't really think that the choice is between one extreme or the other! It isn't as if everyone is vile if they are not enlightened, or if they follow a life based on a true spiritual teacher's teachings/ God's revelations.

They do need to use common sense, too, to see through false interpretations of the revelations such as assured heaven for suicide bombings, etc. I mean, when God has said through so many revelations that to kill is wrong, if people harry off to kill others based on how another man interpreted the revelations, they have only themselves to blame. And this lunatic fringe cannot be taken to be representative of general human conduct.

I know many muslims who also feel this way and many Christians, too, who feel that fanaticism in any 'religious' conduct is abhorable.

[traveler]

So far no good.

[Starry_Canopy]

I don't understand

[Arctic-Stranger]

Originally posted by @--
Jesus and buddha were not preachers, they were enlightened.
the ayatolas, imams, popes, televangelists, and assorted raptors and snake oil spirit vendors are preachers.

Well, yes, if THAT is how you want to define a preacher.

But if you define "preacher" as "one who gives sermons," then clearly both preached "sermons" (The Fire Sermon, The Sermon on the Mount).

If you were to study the New Testament you would see that Jesus gave many sermons, and it is fairly uncontroversial within the whole range of New Testament studies to refer to Jesus as a Preacher (among other things).

this is not to say that either Jesus or Buddha were "raptors and snake oil spirit vendors."

Oh, by the way, I am (or was) a preacher my self. And I am not ashamed of that at all. I teach Old and New Testaments at the Unversity of Alaska, and I am not hesitant to launch into sermons in the middle of my lectures, and I have yet to hear one complaint. (Sometimes it is the ONLY time students listen to me!)

[traveler]

my points were presented coherently. if you don't understand or choose to see otherwise. That is ok by me.

[Arctic-Stranger]

You remind me a bit of the character in Alice in Wonderland who says, "Words mean what I want them to mean."

[namtso]

And if Christ, who was perfection incarnate, demonstrated compassion and humility, who are we, with so many failings of our own, to get aggressive about the failings of others!
- Starry_Canopy
Only if they become dangerous and victimize others. And in that case I think the law of the land should take over which really does not challenge your statements I guess. Your point is well taken. In the end, the agression often injures both the agressor and their target. Reminds me of a saying "Before you set out on revenge, you first dig two graves."

[traveler]

Originally posted by ,--
you remind me of a character in Alice in Wonderland
?what does, Thats ok by me, means to you?

[Arctic-Stranger]

Originally posted by @--
?what does, Thats ok by me, means to you?
What does, "That's ok by me," mean to you?

[traveler]

Proverbs 15:14

[Arctic-Stranger]

Jeremiah 12:5

[Starry_Canopy]

Namtso and Arctic Stranger:

"Before you set out on revenge, you first dig two graves."

Wow, Namtso, that was great!

(Sometimes it is the ONLY time students listen to me!)


:lol: But, jokes apart, you're students must be really intelligent to do that!

(I mean, they know the value of the sermons and don't disregard them as many people are wont to do in our times)

[traveler]

:hahaha:
don't forget to untie your students before you walk away.

[Arctic-Stranger]

I think the word "need" is a bit strong. To say we "need" a religion implies that those without religion (and again, we have to be careful what we mean by that word) are lacking something necessary for life.

Is religion desirable?

Is religion functional?

Is religion fulfilling?

To the above I would answer yes, but i have a bit of a problem with the "need" factor.

[traveler]

Religion will be taking the first step toward being functional, when they get bussy trying to be smaller not bigger.
as it is religion is only functional as a social club, desirable as a social club, and fulfilling only to that extent.
nobody graduates from there, the intention is only to get more and more students to build bigger and bigger walls, and the "religious leaders" get more and more bussy thinking up gimmicks to get the collection plate heavier and i see the smile on their faces, i tell you they allready have their reward.

[Starry_Canopy]

nobody graduates from there, the intention is only to get more and more students to build bigger and bigger walls, and the "religious leaders" get more and more bussy thinking up gimmicks to get the collection plate heavier and i see the smile on their faces, i tell you they allready have their reward.

I think that that is a rather cynical view, Traveler :)

The religious guys are also just like us, human beings. They also need the cash to get things done on our earth. The difference between them and us is that they are actively doing their best to talk sense to us and get us to put aside our vanity and do something that would make life bearable to all those who are disadvantaged among us. They are also trying their best, in whatever way they know and can, to rejoin us with our parent, God.

Isn't that a more purposeful life than thinking that we know better than them but actually doing nothing about the injustices prevelent around us? :)

[Arctic-Stranger]

As a former "religious leader" (Presbyterian pastor) there is a part of me that resonates with traveler's accessment. If you get twp pastors in talking distance, one of them will eventually ask the other, "So, how big is your congregation?"

What traveler does not see however, is what lies behind the facade which he so easily dismisses.

Yes, I was guilty of trying to get a larger flock. I admit it. But not all the time. And I was particularly pleased that we created a place for "People Who Didn't Think They Liked Church." Our congregation was home to many Presbyterians, as well as a few Jewish people, atheists, schizophrenics, homeless (we had a local "prophet" sleeping in our stairwell), and most of all, People Who Defy Definition.

I can also say that pastoral work has very few tangible rewards. Most people in the congregation had no idea what I did, because a lot of what I did was confidential--working with people who had dysfunctional marriages, visiting people in the hospital (at all hours of the night and day) talking with disgruntled members about their particular pet peeves, attending a wide variety of meetings, listening to teenagers who were questioning their sexuality, meeting with people who were in the middle of a crisis of faith (or a crisis of health, finances, family--you name it).

M ore than once I was called to the hospital at around 3:00 am on Sunday morning, to be with a family when a death had occurred, only to drive from the hospital to the church to lead two worship services and teach Sunday School, and people expected me to have a top notch sermons and lesson.

And to top it all off, we are paid based partly on how much money we are able to bring in. I have served churches where they took up the offering, and after church we went to count the money, and IF there was enough money to pay the bills, I would get a paycheck that week. (And I had a family of four, so it was not just me dependent on that paycheck.)

yes there are some charlatans out there, but most pastors I know (and I wonder how many pastors traveler really knows) were pretty decent imperfect people who were trying to do their best to help other people in their spiritual journeys.

Sorry if I rattled on too long, but this really hit a nerve. It is easy to sit on an ivory perch and take pot shots at the clergy, and other spiritual leaders (and I know rabbis and Zen abbots who face many of the issues I did), but thank God for the people who are willing to climb down from their "holier than thou" perches and get into the trenches to deal with the problems of real people.

[traveler]

all i am saying is that growing bigger is a step in the wrong direction, to grow smaller means to work toward working out of work, and so far, no good. if my neighbor's house burns down, they can stay in my house.
but if i go to the bank and the teller pushes me to put money in the kitty for the poor children some where, i decline by saying, i allready hace 2 kids and that is all the kids i can "responsibly" have. we have two bodies a physical and a spiritual and we must be responsible to one and accountable to the other, it's one thing to give fish to a hungry person and another to teach him how to fish, it is also one thing to teach Jesus name and another to teach Jesus nature.
i know many catholic priests, pastors and a buddhist lama, and we get along just fine when we are on the same table socially. but i still can not forget that one can not teach Jesus nature if there is money changing hands. churches as a social club are very commendable, despite the things that happen inside that are unwholesome. and where does unwholesomeness come from if not from an unbalanced situation with universal law.
do not be deceived there is the nature of Love in my words.

[Starry_Canopy]

Traveler,

but i sttill ca not forget that one can not teach Jesus nature if there is money changing hands. churches as a social club are very commendable, despite the things that happen inside that are unwholesome. and where does unwholesomeness come from if not from an unbalanced situation with universal law

If money changes hands, and not goods, is that against universal law? Is money not just a convenience of giving the goods in a form that is less cumbersome to the giver? If a person gives food to a hungry person, is that against universal law? If a community decides to support the sustenance of a conscience keeper/ person dedicated to fulfil the religious/ spritual needs of its members, and gives him food/ money for food and other tasks it has allotted to him, how could you question his ability to teach Christ's nature? After all, the money is given voluntarily by the society just as Bhikshus are fed in another society.

[namtso]

Money is a reality and it keeps the lights on and the water running. Pastors, Priests, Monks, Nuns all provide a service to those who need to have a job to earn a living but also want to pursue a spiritual life. It only makes sense to me that if we value a certain religious or spiritual group, that we also contribute what we feel is a fair amount of money that we can part with. I think it's proper for each individual to decide what that amount is, even if it's nothing or a million bucks.

In regard to money and material things corrupting an organization or an individual's nature, of course that's a possibility and I've heard many stories to that effect. I would not even hazard a guess as to the percentage. I have met and gotten to know people who take religion very seriously. Some of them do seem to be overly biased, and can even be pretty nasty and spiteful. I have also met some though that take the religion, whatever it is, and extract from it the themes and messages of ethics, morality, compassion. Those people are the ones that to me are very wise and enlightened. And that type of person does not come off as exclusionist, prejudiced or spiteful towards any other groups or individuals due to their beliefs or background. And it also seems to me that type of person is normally very calm most of the time, very focused and they seem to give you a real sense of calm when you speak to them or even just see them engaged in their daily routine. And I don't immediately identify a person as having that character. I always take quite a bit of time to get to know a person before developing a strong opinion of them. The source of the wisdom for that second type of more enlightened person seems to take a secondary role. It's just exterior decoration covering the profound truths, wisdom and expression of compassion. The Dalai Lama states that all major religions have the potential to create a kind and loving heart. And I agree. I believe I've seen examples of that sort of person.

[Starry_Canopy]

The Dalai Lama states that all major religions have the potential to create a kind and loving heart. And I agree. I believe I've seen examples of that sort of person

And you know something, Nam, I have invariably come across Christian Fathers (priests) to be that kind of men, who loved me and were compassionate to me even though I was, at that time, a 'Hindu'. And it was not with a view to converting me to Christianity. It was just because I was a human being and they were custodians of God's love for all human beings.

[namtso]

The Dalai Lama states that all major religions have the potential to create a kind and loving heart. And I agree. I believe I've seen examples of that sort of person
And you know something, Nam, I have invariably come across Christian Fathers (priests) to be that kind of men, who loved me and were compassionate to me even though I was, at that time, a 'Hindu'. And it was not with a view to converting me to Christianity. It was just because I was a human being and they were custodians of God's love for all human beings.
It's a great thing isn't it. I honestly see those type of people as Bodhisattvas, regardless of their outward trappings and religion of choice.

[Starry_Canopy]

Yes, it is great and yes, I too see them as Bodhisattvas.

[traveler]

An Avatar and his Apprentices appreciate each other interest and time, and gifts can be given and received either way to express each other appreciation, one for taking the time to teach, the other for the eagerness to approach the spirit, there are no electric bills to pay, or any such distraction whatsoever, specially no gawkers or picture takers.
Yes at another time and place, there are individuals and institutions, that can be and are aided, and yes that includes churches, PBS, Red Cross, Doctors without borders etc, this page can filled with a complete list.
the point i have been trying to make with my little silver spoon against the tide. is that religion (RE the preffix means to do something again, and LIGION from the latin ligatus means to join something) does not exist, anymore than public education exist, if it existed there would be no unwashed masses and ignorance of Universal Law. and things grow in the wrong direction. in my opinion the biggest share of responsibilty falls on the first institution mentioned.

[Arctic-Stranger]

Maybe I am just enough of a buddhist to think that religion does and does not matter. Form is emptiness and emptiness is form. To focus too much on money, religion, etc, is placing too much emphasis on form.

To get to that Bigger Thing means not denying form or emptiness.

[traveler]

You got it, money, religion or any place, thing or person is not in the center of the target.
before someone comes back, "but Jesus is a person" let me tell you Jesus the man from Nazareth, is not the target, the Christ that crystalised inside the man is the target and the mold of humans, not mold as a cookie cutter, but mold to be applied to human consciousness, those that look up to the pope expecting to go to heaven riding on his coat tails are as pathetic as those who bend down in the direction of mecca, it's quite a human spectacle and quite ineffective and quite obviously dangerous to our physical and spiritual health, there is no future in that direction and the clock keeps on ticking to any variety of probable futures, and before someone jumps to the wrong conclusion i am fretting about it, let me tell you i am absolutely sure what the real God has in mind will eventually happen ?when? when Perfection doesnot have to bend any rules to make allowances, that is one of the things that are impossible for Perfection.