posted
I am of the mindset that religion as a social institution is outmoded, and had raised the matter in another thread that turned out to be a bible study discourse with disagreements; henceforth, the need for this issue to be discussed in its own right. Posted earlier...
There may have been a time when religion was progressive to human evolution, and by this, I'm talking about way, way back in time, early in our biological and social evolution.
But like many social forms of society, what was once a vehicle of progress, in the long run may become outmoded and become a vehicle of reaction, because such new-found social attainments were meant to serve well only as transitional developments to more developed, sustainable and stable social forms, when instead they have been kept around longer than their effective date, due to the largely conservative social nature of human beings...which paradoxically runs parallel to progressive life-changing technological innovations and scientific growth.
This is what I think has become of religion. Religion has now reached a point wherein it has become more of a vehicle for social reaction, stagnation, and a problem creator than what it was in its formative years.
A fresh milk will taste superb and quite healthy well within its "best by" imprinted date, but it can only retain this effect for so long, when it will no longer be fresh and no longer be a promoter of health, and hence, has to be discarded. Failure to do so, can only be a recipe for disaster ahead. Sadly, this is obvious only when it comes to commodities like milk, but much more difficult to see the wood for the trees when it comes to our complex social setups. - Ends
It would be one thing if people practiced their belief in the higher one in private, and not allow it to affect public life, and so, make religion more socially tenable. But sadly, this is not the case, and so, what inevitably afflicts societies is religious nationalism.
I do think that there were moments in human social evolutionary history when religion served a progressive purpose, in the sense that it allowed humans to begin asking questions of how they got here, how the planet came to be and so forth. The turn towards burying the human dead by our pre-historic ancestors testifies to this abstract thought in human development, and hence, must have marked a turning point in human thinking. This was to serve as the prelude to concept of scientific inquiry of our existence and how our world came to be.
And then, perhaps religion served yet another purpose in human social development during the evolutionary move from modest family-like communities to larger communities, and with it, the move from ungoverned communities to governed societies. Against this backdrop, at times of chaos and lawlessness, there was an urge in some forward thinking observers of society to bring back lawfulness and composure to society, which inspired the need for calling on divine intervention. After all, history must have taught these observers that concept of divine intervention and stoking the spiritual sensibilities of people has proven to be a very effective means of bringing people in line. Religion, at these moments, again must have served a progressive way forward to bringing back order to society.
However, it seems that religion would have served most effectively as a transitory social prelude to more mature and stable social organization in human social evolution. But now that religion has become more of a cause for social reaction and social disintegration, perhaps this is serving as a sign of times that religion has outlived its usefulness as a progressive social phenomenon, and has to give way to a new level of social development, a more advanced social maturity. Unfortunately though, societies are generally afflicted by the straitjacket of the need to protect "sanctity of tradition".
I believe we can offer our disagreements on the matter with alternatives rather than flame baiting, and I hope this will be a discussion, providing it becomes one, that is focused on substance rather than circus-like spectacle of personal attacks.
Have your say!
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly think that science should and will eventually replace religion as a valued belief system and as a way to explain our world and universe.
Religion as you implied at one point served as a useful tool to unite various people to common goals. Now Science seeks to fill this role, by showing that we are part of a universe that can be studied and explained by the clues left behind.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I honestly think that science should and will eventually replace religion as a valued belief system and as a way to explain our world and universe.
Religion as you implied at one point served as a useful tool to unite various people to common goals. Now Science seeks to fill this role, by showing that we are part of a universe that can be studied and explained by the clues left behind.
As if science has the answer to everything. Science is only a philosophy that tries to understand what God does. Just be careful of what you ask for because "science" says that blacks have less intelligence than whites and that some "races" are more prone to being criminal than others.
You liberals never cease to amaze me by trying say science has an answer for everything when science is mostly unproven theories that people more or less agree upon.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientific theory is not set in stone, as the religious books are. So, the matter about science being used to promote pseudo science in "racial superiority" has been and can be addressed with actual scientific facts.
For the record, the notion that science is the be-all-answer to everything is a red herring. Nobody made that case.
Like I said, religion is best if it were simply practiced in private quarters, to the extent that it cannot be done away with...since after all, many people lean on religion to make sense of their "purpose" and "being".
For many, it is a bitter pill to swallow, the notion that one exists here and now, only to die eventually and that'll be the end of it...forever! -- i.e. no thereafter to look forward to, and hence, the total senselessness of living in the first place. It would also mean that evil people who get away with their heinous crimes against humanity and the planet, and then die, will not be brought to justice, which would be almost like a miscarriage of justice. So, I can see the need for people to want to continue to have faith in something higher, a being, greater than themselves.
However, a highly secular public life would be more integrating and far more progressive than current social life, which is rife with nationalism of all forms, including religious nationalism.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is an attack on religion itself, asking if it is/isn't outmoded. Most people practice thei religion in private or in church, however science, bad science is even more responsible for a lot of the lies we see today.I don't believe in God because it serves me a purpose.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
An "attack" would be something that is not true. Of course, as usual, you never identify what is supposed to serve as an "attack", other than when you hear facts that you don't like, you get hurt.
Religion has not stayed in private, which is why we see things like the Norwegian bombings, for example, and why we see people quarreling about a community center-mosque that is supposed to serve any segment of the community.
Even your own latest discussion on religion in the Clyde initiated thread is further proof that religion is not a "private" matter.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: An "attack" would be something that is not true. Of course, as usual, you never identify what is supposed to serve as an "attack", other than when you hear facts that you don't like, you get hurt.
Religion has not stayed in private, which is why we see things like the Norwegian bombings, for example, and why we see people quarreling about a community center-mosque that is supposed to serve any segment of the community.
Even your own latest discussion on religion in the Clyde initiated thread is further proof that religion is not a "private" matter.
The dude in Norway attacked because he hated a certain kind of religion, it has nothing to do with religion itself being bad, a handful of fanatics doesn't justify your position.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. Religion is any system of thought, speech and action that uses deception and violence to control people.
As long as people are able to do the above then Religion will thrive as weak-minded individuals tend to fall for these mechanisms.
The non-Religious people who find themselves overwhelmed by Religion just have to be smart and make the best of it.
Posts: 1819 | From: odesco baba | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Charles, thanks for reinforcing the point that religion is a promoter of social reaction with your last post.
Some folks are convinced that religious reaction is the culpability of only a few bad apples, but a sober look at world events show that it is a much more systematic phenomenon than some are willing to give it credit for. We have Jihadist terror organizations propping in the so-called "Middle East" who are more than prepared to harness genuine social oppression and economic grievances of the masses and channel them through violence sanctified with religious reaction. The events of September 11, 2001 in New York, the Madrid train bombings of 2004, and the London bombings of 2005 are examples that come to mind. Religious reaction is not the domain of only the Muslim world, it extends well into other corners of the globe. There are Christianity-based cult groups in Europe and America who are just as prepared to cause colossal havoc in the name of religion, as evidenced by the Oklahoma city bombings of the 90s (April 1995) and the Norwegian bombings in recent times.
Christians and Muslims are violently at each other's throats all the way from Nigeria and Egypt on the African continent, the Christian-based French government and Muslim communities in poor neighborhoods, Chechen rebels and Moscow in Europe, to clashes between Muslims and Hindus in India. Then there is the violent row caused in Afghanistan and Pakistan by the burning of the Quran by a pastor in Florida, who claimed to be carrying out the deed in the name of protest against Islamic invasion, as characterized by the intent to build a community center-mosque a few blocks away from ground zero in New York. Public row and social reaction in the U.S. itself, around the building of said community center-mosque, had been systematically incited by U.S. politicians and mass media talking heads. There have also been systematic attacks on Muslim communities in Europe, for instance, in the form of attacks against hijab-wearing, with France being a latest example of this. Such systematic attacks by the political establishments have only had the effect of encouraging violent social reaction as the one seen in Norway in recent times, done in the name of "restoring" the "traditional religious values" of Europe, and fend it off an "Islamic invasion".
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that wasn't substantive enough, here's more...
Ever since the events of "9/11" in the U.S.A, there has been increasing bellicose language used by U.S. politicians, and several other politicians and/or governments around the world, from Libya in coastal northern Africa to Iran and Israel in the "Near East" for example, that are tinged with religious themes of good vs.evil, with politicians in respective countries usually taunting themselves as the "forces for good". It was even shockingly revealed quite recently, that U.S. Air Force ethic courses for missile launch officers were carried out in the name of religion, whereby the justifications for war, and deployment of nuclear weapons, were legitimized with Christianity-based biblical passages. According to the revelations, these religion-based ethic briefings had been in place for at least 20 years, and had only just been brought to the attention of the public.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hear the crickets coming ...graveyard silence from our highly religious friends.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Religion began it's existence as a way to sooth frighten man. The forces of nature frightened him, disease frightened him, the randomness of those bad occurrences that we call "Bad Luck" frightened him. He had no control over any of it, and that frightened him even more. So he did what man always does: he tried to understand it, and thereby find a way to control it.
He took a logical scientific approach, using anecdotal data to solve the problem.
He saw that a man or animal made loud booming noises when angry, so logically there must be a huge omnipotent angry man or animal in the sky making the noise that we call thunder.
Logic says that there must be a way to appease that angry man or animal, so that it would not hurt man. The methods and rituals used to appease that angry thunder god were expanded to include all of mans fears, and are the foundations of religion.
(At this point I note that somehow all the ancient religions, in their early stages, involved Human sacrifice. I just don't get that, is man in his native mode, really THAT bloodthirsty?).
Organized religion is quite different though, that is mostly about power.
It did not take long before those men expert in understanding the gods, and thus able to deal with them effectively, were in high demand, and of great esteem and power. This brought them into conflict with the head "tough-guy" warrior type, who was also essential - and powerful!
At this point I can go directly to recorded history.
Ancient Sumers civic structure, was comprised largely of freemen, who met in concert to govern themselves. The citizens initially held power, and decisions were made in an assembly. In times of need, such as war, a lugal (big man) was elected only for the duration of that threat.
It did not take the "tough-guy" warrior type, and the priest, long to realize that they could both maximize their power, prestige, and wealth, if they worked TOGETHER!
Thus the priest declared that "tough-guy" warrior type, was a descendant of the great gods above, and ruled because "they, the gods above, wanted it so".
And so, as in Sumer: Over time, the Lugal became deified - by the priests, and the position became permanent and hereditary, a kingship: father to son.
In return, the Priests received a share of the spoils of power - lands, gifts, and an easy catered-to life.
This relationship between the king and the priesthood is codified in the Christian religion in Mark 12:17
King James Bible "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."
But now, "SOME" of mankind is at a stage where science provides an explanation for those once unfathomable forces of nature, and religion serves no useful purpose.
But it does NOT allow us to escape the truly salient question: "Is there a superior being - a God - in existence?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike this is a European view of religion based on their origins. They fear God--African people do not.
TWO CRADLE THEORY OF CIVILIZATION
During the development of the African and European races, the members of these two groups developed two different outlooks on life, which scientist call the Two Cradle Theory of Civilization. As a result of climate Africans,and Europeans-Monogloids developed lifeways which later influenced their cultural development. These differences were molded by the length of stay of Europeans in the Northern Cradle and Africans/Blacks in the Southern Cradle over an extended period of time in their original homelands, place of origin.
SOUTHERN CRADLE
In the Southern Cradle which included ancient Europe before the first millenium BC, Africa, West Asia and Southern Asia, Blacks were accustomed to a moderate climate which averaged 80 degrees. This meant that the people had much time for social interaction. Due to the moderate climate in the Southern Cradle Blacks practiced agriculture, cattle industry and handicrafts. They also practiced matrilineal descent, which is descent from the mother's side. They had One Universal God. The Social Philosophy of the Southerners was one of openness and unity among the population. Since they stayed in one place they buried their dead. In general they had a happy way of life.
NORTHERN CRADLE
In the Northern Cradle, on the other hand the populations were molded differently. Living mainly during the numerous Ice Ages of Europe and Asia,the populations developed a nomadic way of life as they struggled to find safety from the severe weather.
Due to constant fight for survival the Northerners developed a social philosophy of independence and fear of anyone outside of one's family, and tribe. They had different gods for each family, but their major god was fire. Due to the constant cold the Northerners were nomadic, constantly moving from one place to the next in search of a warm place to live. They did not bury their dead. Instead the dead were burned up and their remains deposited in jars and carried by the oldest man in each family.
Europeans follow a theory of evolution for the development of religion. The three stages in religious development are (1) animism, (2)polytheism, and (3) the concept of the one Supreme God.
This type of argument placed African religions at the bottom of the supposed line of religious development. This theory is not exclusive, because another theory of religious development maintains that the first stage of religious development was monotheism and moved toward polytheism and animism.
Europeans have never recognized that African "religions" are based on spiritualism and the belief that "God" is good and we should be thankful for the buntifulness He?She gives us.
According to the Egyptologist Budge, the Egyptians had many gods, but they maintained the concept of One Supreme god called NTR or pa-Neter. He was recognized as the feeder of man, and gave blessings to mankind. Thus man worshipped God because of the Goodness represented by this figure and blessings the figure bestowed on us.
In the Middle East languages the term NTR means "One Who Watches". In Egyptian geography Punt was called Ta Neter "Place/Land of the Gods" At this time the Egyptians called the Red Sea the Sea of Ur.
The fact that the Egyptians and other African groups have always believed in One Supreme God, even though they had other gods illustrates that neither one of these theories can account for the origin of religion among African classical civilizations ; because the African was aware of all the elements that make up religion: God, spirits and divinities.
In ancient Egypt the people worshipped many gods along with Neter. Most of the Egyptian gods were great men of former ages who had contributed to the development of Egyptian society, such as Toth, and Osiris.
In addition to these great men , the Egyptians believed in NTR (Neter). But what many people don't understand about Egyptian history is that several different Africoid clans/groups probably ruled Egypt. As a result, as a different group came to power in Egypt, they would make their main (clan) god the supreme God of Egypt, thus we have Khnemu, Amon and Ra/Re .
The God Amon, was taken to Egypt during the New Kingdom. This god was the principal god of the Tehenu or C-Group ethnic groups that formerly lived in the Fertile African Crescent.
.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: I honestly think that science should and will eventually replace religion as a valued belief system and as a way to explain our world and universe.
Religion as you implied at one point served as a useful tool to unite various people to common goals. Now Science seeks to fill this role, by showing that we are part of a universe that can be studied and explained by the clues left behind.
As if science has the answer to everything. Science is only a philosophy that tries to understand what God does. Just be careful of what you ask for because "science" says that blacks have less intelligence than whites and that some "races" are more prone to being criminal than others.
You liberals never cease to amaze me by trying say science has an answer for everything when science is mostly unproven theories that people more or less agree upon.
Ironic, your attack on science sounds very postmodernism.
quote:Scientific theory is not set in stone, as the religious books are.
Yes, and this is what the little jesus freak cannot understand.
Posts: 4254 | From: dasein | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truly, the organized religions which have dominated mankind for the last 1000 years are antiquated and impend man's evolution. That being said, there is always a place for spiritual religion which connects mankind to the earth, the universe, and the sheer beauty of it's designs.
posted
^Clyde, I agreed that a God who demands fear is antithetical to the Black consciousness. But how then do you explain this quote from Tacitus: History Book 5, concerning the Hebrew religion?
5. This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian custom; they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant to the music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of ivy, and that a golden vine was found in the temple, some have thought that they worshipped father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: That being said, there is always a place for spiritual religion which connects mankind to the earth, the universe, and the sheer beauty of it's designs.
Spirituality: YES Religion: NO
MK, I didn't know that you were such a poet. But yes, that outlook does satisfy me too.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^Clyde, I agreed that a God who demands fear is antithetical to the Black consciousness. But how then do you explain this quote from Tacitus: History Book 5, concerning the Hebrew religion?
5. This worship, however introduced, is upheld by its antiquity; all their other customs, which are at once perverse and disgusting, owe their strength to their very badness. The most degraded out of other races, scorning their national beliefs, brought to them their contributions and presents. This augmented the wealth of the Jews, as also did the fact, that among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to shew compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful. Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at nought parents, children, and brethren. Still they provide for the increase of their numbers. It is a crime among them to kill any newly-born infant. They hold that the souls of all who perish in battle or by the hands of the executioner are immortal. Hence a passion for propagating their race and a contempt for death. They are wont to bury rather than to burn their dead, following in this the Egyptian custom; they bestow the same care on the dead, and they hold the same belief about the lower world. Quite different is their faith about things divine. The Egyptians worship many animals and images of monstrous form; the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials. They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay. They therefore do not allow any images to stand in their cities, much less in their temples. This flattery is not paid to their kings, nor this honour to our Emperors. From the fact, however, that their priests used to chant to the music of flutes and cymbals, and to wear garlands of ivy, and that a golden vine was found in the temple, some have thought that they worshipped father Liber, the conqueror of the East, though their institutions do not by any means harmonize with the theory; for Liber established a festive and cheerful worship, while the Jewish religion is tasteless and mean.
Hebrewism is a religion. As I said before all religions are bad.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: [QUOTE]As if science has the answer to everything.
Where did I say such??Pay attention..
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Science is only a philosophy that tries to understand what God does.
Religion is a Ancient Philosophy that tried(Notice I said Tried) to explain what science does, with poor results.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: Just be careful of what you ask for because "science" says that blacks have less intelligence than whites and that some "races" are more prone to being criminal than others.
You Have Religions with Millions of Followers that claim Blacks and Native Americans are Cursed, That Satan and Cain were/are black. Also Christianity once upheld that blacks were made to be slaves and were Cananites etc.
So spare me.
quote:Originally posted by .Charlie Bass.: You liberals never cease to amaze me by trying say science has an answer for everything when science is mostly unproven theories that people more or less agree upon.
You Sound like a little baby. And If Science is mostly "Unproven" (Which it is not, go Jump off a 100 story Sky scraper and see if Gravity is "Unproven") Then Religion is 100% Unproven. All you have is Myths and Stories about Forbidden Fruits, Snakes, etc with no concrete evidence for any of it. Which is why the Pulpit Pimps Rant about "Faith, Faith, Faith"!!!....LOL.
Imagine if Scientists said "Have Faith".....
This Vehicle with Wings can fly..."Have Faith"
This Medicine called Pennicilin kills these cells called Bacteria..."Have Faith"
The Solar System is Heliocentric..."Have Faith"...
I believe it was Mind who called King out for using Science to Debate Eurocentric on the Egyptian's race but then denouncing it when it proves your religion is man made, You too are a Hypocrite.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MelaninKing: Truly, the organized religions which have dominated mankind for the last 1000 years are antiquated and impend man's evolution. That being said, there is always a place for spiritual religion which connects mankind to the earth, the universe, and the sheer beauty of it's designs.
Spirituality: YES Religion: NO
If this "spirituality" involves believing in a higher being/creator, then as long as it doesn't interfere with public life, it will be just as harmless as "organized religion" would be, if it too were simply practiced in private quarters.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
But it does NOT allow us to escape the truly salient question: "Is there a superior being - a God - in existence?
Science does not preoccupy itself with this question.
Science only seeks to answer that which is accessible to us. The universe is accessible to us since we are part of it, and so, we can understand the universe with scientific determination. So far, what science has determined accordingly, is that divine intervention is not required as an explanation for the processes before us.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I look at things from a pragmatic angle. I note that the countries that care little for religion as a guiding principle for development are the ones that are most developed and perhaps the most humanistic. Examples are Sweden, Norway--the response to the killings by Breivik has been to proclaim more liberalism and to maintain the penalty of 21 years--Finland. Note too that Norway has no obligation to accept refugees, yet it does, much more so than very religious places like Saudi Arabia.
Add to this that Sweden is first in the world[per capita] for support of refugees through UNHCR.
On the other hand, if an individual is humanistic and does positive human-enhancing things on account of his/her beliefs then on strictly pragmatic grounds I endorse that behaviour. Buddhism and Jesuit Christianity are religions whose members often of that ilk.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buddhism as I understand it, is not exactly a religion in the sense that other organized [and more dogmatic] religions are.
From a Buddhist affiliated website:
Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.
A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself. - Courtesy of Buddhanet.net
Sounds harmless enough. Buddhists generally don't shove their philosophy in society's face either, like many of the organized religions do, and is generally practiced in fairly private settings that don't infringe on public life or discourse. Perhaps it can serve as a model for the road to "spirituality" without being such a pain to greater society.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ In my opinion Buddism represents the "Old World" version of religion. Don't forget that prior to Christianity being spread by Evangelism and conversion and Islam being spread by the sword, Religion was confined and rather personal.
The Cult of Amun in Egypt did not go and try to force people to be "Amunians"...not even Akenaten with his montheistic Aten cult went as far as to Force people with death to convert.
The Abrahamic faiths have many followers and therefore alot of power. They have the power to force laws based on their holy books down our throats.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the sense you mention, perhaps one can relate Buddhism to the so-called "Old World" version of religion, but then again, Buddhism is not exactly faith-based. It allows intellectual freedom and expression. Buddhists don't even treat Buddha as a "prophet", but more of an intellectual mentor.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^^^ From what I have studied of Buddism you are right. Buddism sure beats Hinduism which is totally based on a Caste System and various gods.
I honestly think that if Christianity had been styled similar to the Buddist Model it would have done alot more good. For what it is worth there was a form of Christianity that emphasized a "Personal" approach to God, rather than an organized religion. This of course was silenced by the "Church" along with other sects after the Council of Nicea and after the Bible was Cannonized and various books were banned. I only heard about this from a Documentary on T.V but Im sure it was a Gnostic form of Christianity. I think the Gnostics were similar to Bhuddists in their approach to Christianity.
As far as I can tell the Gnostics believe that Jesus taught how to become a better person by using logic, reasoning, and enlightenment...
Here is something from their site...
Note: God, in "true" Gnostic Christianity, is a metaphor for life-affirming principles. In 1Jn 4:6, for example, John said, "God is love."
More...
Scientists demonstrate that meditation and prayer can activate areas of the brain in which feelings of bliss, well-being and oneness are processed. This suggests the brain is capable of processing both analytical and spiritual ideas. Could it be that nature intends our spiritual thinking to be as clear and concise as our analytical thinking? Perhaps we have not yet learned how to use those areas of the brain, dedicated to spiritual thinking, to their fullest potential.
Gnostic Christianity is the closest thing to Bhuddism out of all the Abrahamic Faiths, It once held sway in the Early Christian Church. Even today mainstream Christians hate Gonstics and proclaim them to be a sect that worships the Devil...You know how it is anything that goes against the status quo is "of the Devil"...LOL
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Old World Religions were not really faith based. Most Pagan Religions were the Science Theories of the day. It was used to explain why the Sun Rose and Set every day, why a Volcano erupted Lava and Ash, Why Various Stars Constelations appeared in the Sky etc.
Most Old World Religions did not promise a Savior who would return some day, or promise if you followed and believed this person existed you would go to Heaven. In Most Old World Religions(Egypt) you were judged in the After life on your deeds during life, not on if you believed some Prophet was the son of God or not. heck in some myths like the Greeks the after life sucked if you were a good person or not, but It sucked even worse if you were a bad person.
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: In the sense you mention, perhaps one can relate Buddhism to the so-called "Old World" version of religion, but then again, Buddhism is not exactly faith-based. It allows intellectual freedom and expression. Buddhists don't even treat Buddha as a "prophet", but more of an intellectual mentor.
Posts: 8804 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose if Gnosticism is more intellectually liberal in its approach than other forms of Christianity, then in that sense it comes closer to Buddhism. But I want to be clear here, that I'm not trying to be mouthpiece for Buddhism. I'm just making an objective statement, as I see it, in terms of how its philosophy compares with those of the major organized religions.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Old World Religions were not really faith based. Most Pagan Religions were the Science Theories of the day. It was used to explain why the Sun Rose and Set every day, why a Volcano erupted Lava and Ash, Why Various Stars Constelations appeared in the Sky etc.
I agree, at least in so far as certain AE cosmological concepts go, like for instance, the roles of neteru like Nut, Geb, Ausar, Set, Djehuti, et al.
quote: Most Old World Religions did not promise a Savior who would return some day, or promise if you followed and believed this person existed you would go to Heaven. In Most Old World Religions(Egypt) you were judged in the After life on your deeds during life, not on if you believed some Prophet was the son of God or not. heck in some myths like the Greeks the after life sucked if you were a good person or not, but It sucked even worse if you were a bad person.
That's another thing that is lacking in Buddhism--a promise for an afterlife. However, in Kemetic concepts there is an afterlife in the Netherworld, though some interpret this as just another metaphor for an eternal darkness that is supposed to represent the "soul" after death. There is after all, an understanding that life can neither be recreated nor be destroyed, which then leaves the question: where then does it go? That's a whole another discussion, but also according to this understanding, a single life is distributed across the entire spectrum of the living world, not individualized newly-created "life". In science, it is simply said that the elements of a dead creature go back to nature and reconstitute the basic elements of nature, as its body decomposes.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, No fence-sitting re religion. As I said, the societies that win highest marks for quality of life and humanism are generally no-religious societies. Yet, as I said, if some individual acts in life-enhancing and humanistic ways on account of some set of beliefs that cannot be supported by reason or empirical fact--then I'd let that slide.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think spirituality well never die but organize religion may very well fall by the way side as long as mysteries of the universe and life remained un-answered.
Posts: 6546 | From: japan | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I think spirituality well never die but organize religion may very well fall by the way side as long as mysteries of the universe and life remained un-answered.
Greetings.
Spirituality has always been and always will be; but organized reLIEgion, yes, you're right, because ah different ting dat...
Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote: Christianity being spread by Evangelism and conversion
well, that's better than the way they used to spread it....it used to be by sword/war torture live burnings and other such unpleasantries (ie, force and terror)... Posts: 3446 | From: U.S. by way of JA by way of Africa | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by -Just Call Me Jari-: ^^^^ In my opinion Buddism represents the "Old World" version of religion. Don't forget that prior to Christianity being spread by Evangelism and conversion and Islam being spread by the sword, Religion was confined and rather personal.
The Cult of Amun in Egypt did not go and try to force people to be "Amunians"...not even Akenaten with his montheistic Aten cult went as far as to Force people with death to convert.
The Abrahamic faiths have many followers and therefore alot of power. They have the power to force laws based on their holy books down our throats.
The knowledge of Ph. D. Wesley Muhammad would come at handy right now, don't you think?
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Not necessarily. For some cultures, death is perceived as just a new beginning, on another plane. For others. the doorway of death is thought to lead to reincarnation and another existence.
One thing's for certain, death should not be feared, cause when it calls you, you have to answer.
I am always fascinated by the Japanese culture who accepted Harikari (Seppuku), and how alien and unthinkable the concept is to the western world.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ish Gebor: Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
Not necessarily. For some cultures, death is perceived as just a new beginning, on another plane. For others. the doorway of death is thought to lead to reincarnation and another existence.
One thing's for certain, death should not be feared, cause when it calls you, you have to answer.
I am always fascinated by the Japanese culture who accepted Harikari (Seppuku), and how alien and unthinkable the concept is to the western world.
I know, but this line is from a song by Peter Tosh. He sings about Christianity. And talks about the judeo-christian concept, perspective of heaven and hell.
Posts: 22235 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
MK - When you start spouting Japanese philosophy, I know that it's time for you to take a break. Those people are inbred homicidal sponges. Anything can make sense to them, as long as it involves killing or dying.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ Mike, I know. Not trying to justify or make any kind of judgment on their culture, but I am interested in how the Japanese diverged from the Chinese so much, whereas the Chinese culture is so emerged in the spiritual side of life while the Japanese are all about harshness and death. The differences between Chinese arts such as Tai Chi versus Karate, and even the Japanese language sounds harsh and angry.
However, my point was that every culture does not fear death, and some, for whatever reason, even cherish it.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
You guys simply don't know what religion is. Ha!
Religion is the ability to master ones thoughts, emotions, and physical desires. It is a discipline that frees the mind from the encumbrances of the animal nature. Science only teaches us what we can see: we are all animals. Religion teaches us something different: we don't have to be animals.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for science, it has no answers for the addict. Only through spirituallity can we cure an addiction even to this day.
Science is more about questioning than answering.
Come haven't you guys heard of the 10 step programs? Higher power stuff!
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I think spirituality well never die but organize religion may very well fall by the way side as long as mysteries of the universe and life remained un-answered.
There will be organized religion as long as there are civilizations. Religion helps us pass on our culture to the next generation. It is a form of brainwashing the next generation with productive values. Sometimes the value systems are not productive, such societies die off. Without religion civilizations would lose their cohesiveness and fall into anarchy.
Western civilization conquered the world with Christianity. Science does not teach values that can help assimilate societies. Not really comparable.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by osirion: You guys simply don't know what religion is. Ha!
Religion is the ability to master ones thoughts, emotions, and physical desires. It is a discipline that frees the mind from the encumbrances of the animal nature. Science only teaches us what we can see: we are all animals. Religion teaches us something different: we don't have to be animals.
osirion - I always considered you a fool, but NEVER this big a fool.
quote:Originally posted by osirion: There will be organized religion as long as there are civilizations. Religion helps us pass on our culture to the next generation. It is a form of brainwashing the next generation with productive values. Sometimes the value systems are not productive, such societies die off. Without religion civilizations would lose their cohesiveness and fall into anarchy.
Western civilization conquered the world with Christianity. Science does not teach values that can help assimilate societies. Not really comparable. [/QB]
Finally, someone on this thread that knows what they're talking about. Posts: 527 | From: usa | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brada-Anansi: I think spirituality well never die but organize religion may very well fall by the way side as long as mysteries of the universe and life remained un-answered.
There will be organized religion as long as there are civilizations. Religion helps us pass on our culture to the next generation. It is a form of brainwashing the next generation with productive values. Sometimes the value systems are not productive, such societies die off. Without religion civilizations would lose their cohesiveness and fall into anarchy.
Western civilization conquered the world with Christianity. Science does not teach values that can help assimilate societies. Not really comparable.
Sorry Charlie, but the world was conquered by gunpowder, guns, bombs, and misinformation. LOL, they ain't dropping Bibles over in Iraq and Libya.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
...graveyard silence from our highly religious friends.![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic