Spirituality and Religion

[Aaron]

Well, if a person misinterprets the golden rule, then they weren't really following it were they?

 

I like your idea of "do not harm yourself or others".

 

If they misinterpreted it, no they weren't following it, but speaking from the point of view of someone who grew up Southern Baptist, I rarely ever heard about the Golden Rule growing up, even though I knew what it was. Religions may be founded on this concept, but most have decidedly strayed from the practical application. To be honest the only Christians I meet these days that seem to be living a "christian" life are the Mormons, and most people see them as wackos.

 

Aaron

[Rainy_Day]

With regard to sexual morality, I don't think any religion (apart from some streams of Buddhism) sees sex as inherently immoral. In fact, most religions, including Confucianism, Daoism*, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, see sex as something beautiful and to be celebrated. They just believe that sex should occur within the confines of marriage - a position I agree with.

 

*The Quanzhen sect is against sex. I'm not sure about the exact positions of the other sects.

 

The modern mentality sees sex as something purely biological. This is why it takes an utilitarian approach to sex, calculated in terms of pleasure and reproduction. The traditional understanding of sex is far deeper. It sees sex as the reenactment of the relationship between Heaven and Earth, the ultimate male and female principles. Once one accepts this deeper understanding, then the religious approach to sex will follow.

 

Plus, I don't think I'm the only one who dislike the modern Western approach to sexual morality (e.g. anything goes). In fact, most of my friends (including both Chinese and White people) would agree with me. We see the crassness of modern Western pop-culture, the decreasing respect between the sexes, the death of chivalry and femininity. (Chinese pop-culture is in a better position right now, but maybe not for long.) Perhaps we're just a particularly conservative cluster, but there is something beautiful and innocent about the traditional world, which is not found today.

 

This is aside from the fact that adultery often leads to serious repercussions. I don't mean to justify criminal acts on the part of the aggrieved husband or wife, but one can understand why in a traditional society, people would want to have clear and well-defined rules regarding male and female interaction.

 

At its core, religion represents what a community views as true, good, and beautiful. This is why there will always be religious people.

 

Now, as for the view that religion tells people that they are bad - Of course religion says this - None of us is really living our full moral potential, e.g. What we could be if we really applied ourselves. Self-satisfaction is not a virtue...If we don't know that we are wrong in the first place, how would we ever improve?

Edited February 2, 2012 by Rainy_Day

[Aaron]

 

At its core, religion represents what a community views as true, good, and beautiful. This is why there will always be religious people.

 

Now, as for the view that religion tells people that they are bad - Of course religion says this - None of us is really living our full moral potential, e.g. What we could be if we really applied ourselves. Self-satisfaction is not a virtue...If we don't know that we are wrong in the first place, how would we ever improve?

 

Oh my... Oh my... Rainy Day. I'm almost speechless. I like you, but really, you honestly believe this? Have you ever stopped to think that the community may have been taught what is true, good, and beautiful and then told if they didn't believe this they were liars, bad, and ugly people?

 

Answer me this, is it better to have a moral ideology or to simply live life not harming others or yourself? Which will prevent people from hurting other people without justification (or perhaps with justification)? And you know what, you are not BAD! You are simply you and you are beautiful and unique. You don't need to be like everyone else or act like everyone else, you just need to act like you. So long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself, then go have fun and enjoy the world.

 

Aaron

[Protector]

When we are kids, the sky is blue

When we are adults, we are tall enough to notice the ceiling

[Rainy_Day]

Oh my... Oh my... Rainy Day. I'm almost speechless. I like you, but really, you honestly believe this? Have you ever stopped to think that the community may have been taught what is true, good, and beautiful and then told if they didn't believe this they were liars, bad, and ugly people?

 

Answer me this, is it better to have a moral ideology or to simply live life not harming others or yourself? Which will prevent people from hurting other people without justification (or perhaps with justification)? And you know what, you are not BAD! You are simply you and you are beautiful and unique. You don't need to be like everyone else or act like everyone else, you just need to act like you. So long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself, then go have fun and enjoy the world.

 

Aaron

 

It is impossible to "simply live life not harming others or yourself", because different cultures have different assumptions and rules to deal with things. These rules generally serve the needs of the majority of the people - It facilitates social interaction and a sense of community. A minority may be detrimentally placed with regard to these rules, but this happens in all societies.

 

I don't believe that "so long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself" is sufficient, because a person has duty to his family and community. By virtue of having grown up in a family and a community, a person has obligations which he must fulfill.

 

These family and community ties are what gives warmth to a place. Also, when a person is in need, there would be relatives and neighbours to take care of him. A place where everyone is simply "not harming anyone else" is a place where everyone is an atom - not a place I would want to live or be able to belong to.

 

While people come in all shapes and forms (some more moral or upright than others), and in this sense have a place in the universe, a person should strive to improve himself over the course of his lifetime to live a life of uprightness and integrity.

[JustARandomPanda]

However rampantly popular it's been in Western Civilization to denounce organized religions for the past 500 years (first by assorted Elites and now by pretty much everybody) I find Religion-Denouncers to forget that Religions have historically also been humanity's strongest proponents of the need to cultivate Virtue - formost of these being Loving-Kindness and Compassion (1 example: the Beatitudes).

 

Natural "Spirituality" - aka "just be natural self" - has no such track record - especially not the kind trumpeted at Taobums or other websites. Neither does Agnosticism, Skepticism or Atheism. In fact, Agnostic Societies and reliance on Geneticly-based Nature has an atrocious track record regarding not-harming-others.

 

Mao Zedong anyone? Pol Pot? Stalin? Most of Western Europe and a lot of North America is agnostic or atheist in actual daily practice even if not in name. Despite this neither of these populations of the globe have reduced or eliminated crime in proportion to their discarding of adherence to religious teachings in their everyday lives. Even Chimpanzees (hey that's Nature - how very unreligious!) have now been shown to engage in warfare and genocide.

 

Before anyone goes casting stones at religions be aware that being our "natural selves" doesn't have a superior track record of "do-no-harm" either. Quite the opposite in fact.

[Vmarco]

Before anyone goes casting stones at religions be aware that being our "natural selves" doesn't have a superior track record of "do-no-harm" either. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

Golden Rule = One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself,...Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

Would certainly not want to be treated as most treat themselves,...think De Sade, Tomas de Torquemada, Bernard Gui, Tom DeLay, Elizabeth Bathory, etc.

 

Thelema = "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" Tricky!

 

The Wiccan Rede = An it harm none do what ye will. Now this one has some potential,...especially if one honestly considers what would harm none.

 

Beliefs ALWAYS bring harm,...even when it is believed that beliefs will bring better laws to live together, like religious memes, they actually bring insideous harm. Although those who consider it "a measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" can not see the insideous harm religion does.

 

What is false is false, no matter how palatable it feels to the senses. In an honest society, religion could not exist.

 

V

[JustARandomPanda]

Golden Rule = One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself,...Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

Would certainly not want to be treated as most treat themselves,...think De Sade, Tomas de Torquemada, Bernard Gui, Tom DeLay, Elizabeth Bathory, etc.

 

This I agree with. I think Confucius phrased it a bit differently if I recall correctly. I think he said something (to paraphrase) do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.

 

Thelema = "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" Tricky!

 

 

Ooh! Please explain! *perks up ears*

 

 

The Wiccan Rede = An it harm none do what ye will. Now this one has some potential,...especially if one honestly considers what would harm none.

 

Yes. I've always liked the Wiccan Rede ever since first finding out about it. It is very hard to put into practice though. For the very reasons you specify. Everytime I think of an action that could benefit someone I could also think of ways it might actually (counter-intuitively) harm them.

 

Beliefs ALWAYS bring harm,...even when it is believed that beliefs will bring better laws to live together, like religious memes, they actually bring insideous harm. Although those who consider it "a measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" can not see the insideous harm religion does.

 

What is false is false, no matter how palatable it feels to the senses. In an honest society, religion could not exist.

 

V

 

Perhaps this is true. There's one thing about your stating how beliefs always harm that I question.

 

I will use myself as an example since it's truthfully the only thing I know of right now.

 

I am a beginning meditator. I believe that Shakyamuni Buddha's teachings are true. Especially his bit about the 4 Noble Truths. I once said to myself, "SB. Enlightened Beings do not just say things for no reason. Why did the Buddha pick out those 4 statements above all others as his very first lesson after achieving Enlightenment under the Bodhi tree?"

 

Currently, in American society - it is addicted to Positive Thinking. I've been in chatrooms where people have argued with me strenuously that the Buddha was absolutely wrong because - well hey...they ain't suffering in their lives so that ipso facto proves he was wrong. This said by people who haven't attempted even 1 minute of meditation or to try to see if they could even replicate the Buddha's instructions on how to verify if what he said is true or not.

 

But to get back to what I was saying.

 

In a way Vmarco...I need that belief. The belief that Shakyamuni was right. If I did not I'd be just like those people in the chat rooms I've argued with. They don't even bother to investigate if their assumptions about their happy-natural-spontaneous life might be other than what they see and experience it to be.

 

It may be that ultimately beliefs do harm one and if so then of course I will have to discard it. But right now it is Belief that gets my lazy ass to sit down and actually bother to practice meditation in the first place. Is that still harmful?

[chi 2012]

Anybody ever read David Hawkins stuff? He uses kiniesology to calibrate things - and says that most organized religion always calibrates high - and that athiesm calibrates really low. He also calibrates Republicans as having more integrity than Democrats.

[Aetherous]

Vmarco,

 

Golden Rule = One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself,...Love your neighbor as yourself.

 

Would certainly not want to be treated as most treat themselves,...think De Sade, Tomas de Torquemada, Bernard Gui, Tom DeLay, Elizabeth Bathory, etc.

 

This argument doesn't actually represent the golden rule and should never again be used by anyone with half a brain.

 

People derive pleasure from different things...that's an important point. So here's a way that it can work:

 

If I love Coke, but you hate it and will only drink Pepsi, then it's not following the golden rule to give you a Coke. You hate it...why would I give it to you? Following the golden rule would be getting a Pepsi for you...or you getting me a Coke.

 

So simple.

 

Any action that is imperfect is by definition not an example of the golden rule. "Golden" symbolizes absolute perfection...and that is its operation.

 

Beliefs ALWAYS bring harm

 

How do you not see yourself?

[JustARandomPanda]

This argument doesn't actually represent the golden rule and should never again be used by anyone with half a brain.

 

Yes. I think this is what most people intuit (and was what I was trying to get at with mentioning the Beatitudes). I don't think most people are really referring to how a "loophole Lawyer" might exploit a loophole in the Golden Rule to justify his/her non-virtuous behavior simply because He/She was following the Golden Rule exactly to the letter. They follow it to the letter but break it's spirit. At least that's how I understand it. For those peeps I'd just use Confucius' version of the Golden Rule. It leaves the "loophole exploiters" a lot less room.

[Aetherous]

I agree, both "negative" and "positive" forms of the golden rule are useful.

[Vmarco]

To the statement that beliefs are harmful,....always,...Scotty replies:

 

How do you not see yourself?

 

That response could be see from several different ways,....I'll respond as if you suggested that without beliefs one could not see themselves.

 

Without beliefs, there is no longer a belief-driven subject that attempts to sustain its imagined self. A self-actualized person (think Maslows Heirarchy) suggests one does not pivot upon beliefs for their identity.

 

Perhaps your have a limited view of what a belief actually is,...and thus you feel threatened by the notion of not having any.

 

http://www.trufax.org/general/beliefsystems.html

[Aetherous]

Vmarco,

 

I didn't have that in mind at all.

 

I was wondering how you can't see your own attachment to beliefs...for instance:

 

Beliefs ALWAYS bring harm.

 

If that's true, then that very statement is harmful and should be done away with. As are all of the quotes you post, and the multitude of viewpoints which you've shared here.

 

They are ALL beliefs....and most of the time, IMO, false.

 

Your stance could typically be described as, "extremist" (for instance, using the word "ALWAYS")...which is funny when you supposedly think that all religions must go. If that's the case, then so must Vmarcoism. Preferably first.

 

So in a sense I was agreeing with your idea, yet wondering how you can't see the hypocrisy of it.

[Jetsun]

I think most religions were originally intended to introduce customs and practises which help to maintain the harmonious development of humanity at large, something individual spirituality could not do easily. For example saying Grace before dinner was meant to remind people to eat their food consciously with gratitude rather than eating unconsciously. Fasting at certain times of the year came from astrological science around the digestion of certain foods at certain times of the year. Circumcision to prevent over masturbation. Things like Halal and Kosher intended to reduce the suffering of animals. Pork can interfere with direct spiritual experience. Prayer is a good antidote to rampant egotism.

 

The intent behind all the customs is meant to help people grow into balanced compassionate beings which is the same with the moral code, morality is good for you and good for your own growth, but the problem is that most of these religions have been corrupted so instead of giving you some rough guidelines with which to live your life by which benefit your own growth they turned them into strict rules with dire consequences for disobeying them, so they filled people with guilt and shame and actually started to make people more unnatural and insane rather than harmonised, so in many cases they do more harm than good.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Jetsun

[三江源]

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by cat

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think most religions were originally intended to introduce customs and practises which help to maintain the harmonious development of humanity at large, something individual spirituality could not do easily. For example saying Grace before dinner was meant to remind people to eat their food consciously with gratitude rather than eating unconsciously. Fasting at certain times of the year came from astrological science around the digestion of certain foods at certain times of the year. Circumcision to prevent over masturbation. Things like Halal and Kosher intended to reduce the suffering of animals. Pork can interfere with direct spiritual experience. Prayer is a good antidote to rampant egotism.

 

The intent behind all the customs is meant to help people grow into balanced compassionate beings which is the same with the moral code, morality is good for you and good for your own growth, but the problem is that most of these religions have been corrupted so instead of giving you some rough guidelines with which to live your life by which benefit your own growth they turned them into strict rules with dire consequences for disobeying them, so they filled people with guilt and shame and actually started to make people more unnatural and insane rather than harmonised, so in many cases they do more harm than good.

 

Bingo! Well said!

 

It really depends on who distributes the teachings, and how much they really believe it is a moral issue to be subjected to the authority of these "codes." Seems most people who gain this power are just in it for the power to subject other people to their authority and will. In these cases the moral "code" becomes a stick over the head and does them little or no good. When the person appreciates the nature and life of the individual, they use these as means to fertilize a spiritual life in those who seek them out.

 

The difference is creating more control freaks with little control over their own passion for domination, or creating spiritually enriched people who tend to life, and who foster harmony.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Harmonious Emptiness

[Aaron]

It is impossible to "simply live life not harming others or yourself", because different cultures have different assumptions and rules to deal with things. These rules generally serve the needs of the majority of the people - It facilitates social interaction and a sense of community. A minority may be detrimentally placed with regard to these rules, but this happens in all societies.

 

I don't believe that "so long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself" is sufficient, because a person has duty to his family and community. By virtue of having grown up in a family and a community, a person has obligations which he must fulfill.

 

These family and community ties are what gives warmth to a place. Also, when a person is in need, there would be relatives and neighbours to take care of him. A place where everyone is simply "not harming anyone else" is a place where everyone is an atom - not a place I would want to live or be able to belong to.

 

While people come in all shapes and forms (some more moral or upright than others), and in this sense have a place in the universe, a person should strive to improve himself over the course of his lifetime to live a life of uprightness and integrity.

 

You haven't convinced me of the need of religion so far. All of this can be developed through close relationships with your family and friends and you don't need a religion to foster these relationships. Also the general rule of "don't do anything that would harm yourself or others" is a measuring stick, it's not meant to exclude close family ties with one's self or the community, but rather to be used as a way to evaluate whether what you are doing is right or wrong, sans the religious indoctrination.

 

One does not need to pursue a religion in order to improve himself. The idea of uprightness and integrity are fine, but I think in the end they are merely hollow terms, they have no weight or merit outside the confines of moral indoctrination, in other words they are simply measuring sticks for how well one is following their religious and moral indoctrination.

 

Aaron

[三江源]

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by cat

[Aaron]

Hello Cat,

 

I can remember being propositioned by a girl one grade above me, when I was twelve (circa 1982), so that kind of stuff happened long before the internet. Now the exposure to sexual content is much higher today, but honestly how many guys here can't remember finding and looking at playboy, penthouse, and hustler when they were young? The medium's changed, but the motivation hasn't. Most adolescents will actively seek out this kind of material, so it's very important for the parent to talk to their children and ensure that they understand the difference between what's happening in a movie, book, or picture, and what happens in real life. When you have sex with someone else it is a biological function, but along with this function comes a rush of emotion, attraction, and adrenaline that can confuse them and cause them to make bad decisions. It's important for them to remember not to do something simply because everyone else is doing it or because other people are trying to push them into doing it. (Believe it or not, this simple message kept me from smoking pot until I was twenty-one, so it does work, or at least worked for me.)

 

The fact of the matter is that teens will have sex, they've been having sex for as long as I can remember and probably for as long as anyone else here can remember, so we have to decide whether we'll deny this as being natural for them or whether we are going to do something to try and solve the issues revolving around it, such as teen pregnancy, sexual diseases, etc.

 

Now as Jetsun said in a previous comment, much of this behavior comes from religion's influence on culture, it's a way to rebel against what's been seen as oppressive, and although I don't necessarily believe that most of the sex that's being offered through the media is being geared towards our young people, I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that they seek it out, just like I sought out porn when I was thirteen and fourteen, so will the thirteen and fourteen year old today. With it being readily accessible, the issue really is educating our children, paying attention to what they're doing on the internet and ensuring that they have the capacity for self determination not to allow peer pressure to cause them to do something they're not comfortable with.

 

Again much of the reason why we have sexual deviancy is because we have created a myth around sex that most of us know isn't true. Having sex out of wedlock with a consenting adult doesn't actually harm anyone, that's the truth. We can continue to pursue "purity" and "chastity", this idea that we're monogamous creatures (when the facts are that science is finding this to be untrue) or accept our true nature and go from there.

 

Most people feel threatened by this, because it attacks the institutions that their "perfect" societies stand on. I'm not saying this sarcastically, but rather pointing out that when one is confronted with something that denies their basic belief system, the first thing they do is react negatively to it. I'm sure if people took the time to look at these things objectively and set aside their moral ideology and instead came up with an actual plan to solve these issues, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems with our teenagers.

 

That's it from me.

 

Aaron

Edited February 2, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

[JustARandomPanda]

I get it that people hate religion. It's been the In Thing to Hate on Religion for the last 500 years. But I sure wish people would drop the Flavor of the Age veneration of naturalness too. Natural spontaneity (which is what "be your own spiritual self" becomes in actual daily practice) ain't the panacea it's held up to be. As I said...so far..the alternatives to religion are just as dismal historically in solving this planet's assorted societies' 'harm others' behaviors as religion is. So far "dialoguing" with others hasn't solved those problems either.

 

If I recall correctly experiments done in the 70s showed that *ADULTS* (forget about the kids and teens) can not resist when peer pressure is egging on harm-others behavior.

[Aaron]

I get it that people hate religion. It's been the In Thing to Hate on Religion for the last 500 years. But I sure wish people would drop the Flavor of the Age veneration of naturalness too. Natural spontaneity (which is what "be your own spiritual self" becomes in actual daily practice) ain't the panacea it's held up to be. As I said...so far..the alternatives to religion are just as dismal historically in solving this planet's assorted societies' 'harm others' behaviors as religion is. So far "dialoguing" with others hasn't solved those problems either.

 

If I recall correctly experiments done in the 70s showed that *ADULTS* (forget about the kids and teens) can not resist when peer pressure is egging on harm-others behavior.

 

I wouldn't mind some actual documentation on this or something that could prove this to be true. I actually know of very few people that disliked religion historically, in fact they were a very small minority. Historically the majority followed religion and persecuted those that didn't. Look at the renaissance, Galileo, etc. This wasn't just the West either, it happened in the East as well. Traditionally speaking those that deviate from the norm are treated as deviants and often suffer persecution for being such. Most of this persecution was at the hands of the religions and justified by upstanding men who had great integrity.

 

Aaron

[JustARandomPanda]

Traditionally speaking those that deviate from the norm are treated as deviants and often suffer persecution for being such. Most of this persecution was at the hands of the religions and justified by upstanding men who had great integrity.

 

Twinner...

 

Are you forgetting your own recent thread about the U.S. becoming more Fascist everyday - to the point you posted you are now planning to move out of the country asap once you find a suitable country to move to?

 

The U.S. is a secular society. Isn't this fact the very thing that pisses the Evangelicals off and why they want to Take America Back from those Godless Heathens? And yet this same quite Secular and Irreligious society is negating Rights after Rights after Rights that were hard won by the U.S. Founding Fathers. Religious authorities aren't the ones passing these laws or signing these edicts or issuing fatwahs. Nor is Religion being used to justify their necessity. That argument doesn't fly with irreligious people so you gotta say something else...like...oh...it's to fight Domestic Terrorism. And the parallels of THAT to the Spanish Inquisition are just too rich to not point out. Nature at it's finest.

 

And "dialoguing" to "solve problems" doesn't seem to be stopping it either...whether from the Left, the Right or the Religious. In fact...I remember you having a hissy fit in the Global Revolution thread about how ultimately utterly pointless it was for the Occupy Wallstreeters to protest since their protests (surely that is a form of "dialogue" and "speaking Truth to Power", neh?) would end up changing virtually....ZIP. Nada. Nothing.You went on record stating the OWSers deserved nothing but scorn. You were Being Natural and Irreligious.

[Jetsun]

I get it that people hate religion. It's been the In Thing to Hate on Religion for the last 500 years. But I sure wish people would drop the Flavor of the Age veneration of naturalness too. Natural spontaneity (which is what "be your own spiritual self" becomes in actual daily practice) ain't the panacea it's held up to be. As I said...so far..the alternatives to religion are just as dismal historically in solving this planet's assorted societies' 'harm others' behaviors as religion is. So far "dialoguing" with others hasn't solved those problems either.

 

If I recall correctly experiments done in the 70s showed that *ADULTS* (forget about the kids and teens) can not resist when peer pressure is egging on harm-others behavior.

 

Being natural and whole is better than being divided, most modern Religions help divide you by helping to create the split between your persona and your more real self and help to make that split so wide that those parts often contradict each other. The best way to control something is by the principle divide and rule which is exactly the same principle when controlling people, divide them internally so their persona is against their natural drives so they become confused, contradictory and weak and thus can be exploited by anyone who is perceived as powerful and as an authority like a Church, government or advertiser.

 

Christianity controlled people so well for such a long time because it was very clever and subtle in turning peoples own energy onto themselves and dividing them internally by making them feel shameful about their most powerful source of energy: their sexuality and aggression, all that source of energy which is at your root is cut off from conscious awareness and cut people at their root and they have no power. When something is repressed and not conscious it finds outlets in other less healthy ways like perverse internet porn or worse things like violence and illness,. But also because it is not conscious it can be triggered and controlled by other people through things like propaganda and advertising, which is why sex sells so well and why governments can dupe whole countries into phoney wars by triggering a fear response as without our natural power we feel the need to trust the authority to protect us. This brainwashing is so deeply ingrained in our culture that they barely need the Church or anyone else to do anything any more, all the hard work is already done and hardly anyone even realises it.

 

Maybe becoming natural isn't the end result of human potential as we do seem to have to work to become enlightened or become a Bodhisattva who embraces all of humanity, but being natural is still a better place to be in than being internally divided and weak, it's a better starting point of development, which is why many teachers talk of unlearning first before cultivation.