Spirituality and Religion

[JustARandomPanda]

People are misunderstanding my point. I am saying that the Flavor of the Age - this advocacy to prefer Spirituality to being Religious will Make No Difference in actual practice. It is a Distinction without a Difference. Without opening the TRUE Heart-Mind "Spiritual Living" results in far too many people doing exactly the same kind of Double Speak and oppression denounced of in so many Religions. Except now people will speak the New Language - the Language of the Unsplit Unshamed Naturally Whole Naturally Beautiful Newborn-Child Spiritual Self.

 

And laws will be passed in it's Name, big and little social cliques will censure and ostracize in it's Name, lobbyists will pressure Congress in its Name, lawsuits will be brought in it's Name, products will be marketed and peddled in its Name and on and on and on...

 

 

 

Opening the REAL Heart-Mind is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Only a very tiny percent of any population is ready, willing and able to enact the changes to bring it about. If it were easy all of Society would be on their way to being Taoist Immortals or true Diamond Sutra Bodhisattvas by now with a statistically significant percentage already being ones.

 

I don't see a Corporation owning Taobums. But if societies are to leave behind all religions (because the good in religions would also get tossed out with the bad) we'd need not just one but many multinational corporations owning websites just like Taobums because they'd be the only ones able to afford the monthly bandwidth bills since so many people would be using such sites as a resource for actually practicing Virtue born of an opened Heart-Mind.

 

 

 

 

By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them...

[Aaron]

People are misunderstanding my point. I am saying that the Flavor of the Age - this advocacy to prefer Spirituality to being Religious will Make No Difference in actual practice. It is a Distinction without a Difference. Without opening the TRUE Heart-Mind "Spiritual Living" results in far too many people doing exactly the same kind of Double Speak and oppression denounced in so many Religions. Except now people will speak the New Language - the Language of the Unsplit Unshamed Naturally Whole Naturally Beautiful Newborn-Child Spiritual Self.

 

And laws will be passed in it's Name, big and little social cliques will censure and ostracize in it's Name, lobbyists will pressure Congress in its Name, lawsuits will be brought in it's Name, products will be marketed and peddled in its Name and on and on and on...

 

 

 

Opening the REAL Heart-Mind is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Only a very tiny percent of any population is ready, willing and able to enact the changes to bring it about. If it were easy all of Society would be on their way to being Taoist Immortals or true Diamond Sutra Bodhisattvas by now with a statistically significant percentage already being ones.

 

I don't see a Corporation owning Taobums. But if societies are to leave behind all religions (because the good in religions would also get tossed out with the bad) we'd need not just one but many multinational corporations owning websites just like Taobums because they'd be the only ones able to afford the monthly bandwidth bills since so many people would be using such sites as a resource for actually practicing Virtue born of an opened Heart-Mind.

 

 

 

 

By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them...

 

In regards to OWS, I think I stand correct. What did they change? I think scorn was a bit harsh, I think I retracted that statement later and said they could be admired for their intentions, but intentions alone rarely bring about change. What we're seeing in today's society is the remnants of religious involvement in our government from its foundation. Keep in mind that up until the latter part of the 19th century the pledge of allegiance made no mention of God, but when it was included no one objected, not even the government, nor has it been removed or seen as a violation of church and state, and although a child is "free" to not participate in the pledge, you can expect him to be teased, ridiculed, and persecuted for not participating, oftentimes by the faculty of the school as well as the students.

 

Religion and state are not separate in this country, that is evident to anyone who can read the news. We have an illusion of separation, but it's not really there. The religious majority found a way to institute it, simply by placing justices on the supreme court that were religious themselves.

 

Religion undermines much of American culture and Christianity is the religion of choice for most fascist regimes, however I think Buddhism could be used just as easily, since both have strong moral dogma that are similar to each other.

 

A government, to be effective and protect it's people's rights needs to be free of religious involvement. People who believe that change can occur simply by voicing their opinion, better be sure to understand that the right to assembly was one of the first rights taken away by congress. We have no freedom in this country because of religions involvement and enforcement of it's own moral agenda. One can see this in most free nations, including India. Religion invariably perverts the basic freedoms of man and instead enforces a moral agenda that helps to keep the population under control.

 

Religion is perhaps the most dangerous form of institution on the face of the Earth, yet no one seems to realize it.

 

Also one cannot be spiritual and religious, specifically because of what I originally posted and what Jetsun, V Marco and others have said, it doesn't allow one to follow their natural spiritually, but rather creates an intellectual form of spirituality that helps alleviate the guilt formed by it's own perversion of the spiritual process by enforcing moral dogma.

 

I have to get to work, so that's all for now.

 

Aaron

[konchog uma]

Because then we need to decide which moral code we all need to follow. Should we follow the Muslim moral code, the Judaic, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Hindu, the Wiccan, the Shamanists, the humanists... well the list goes on. The problem is that morality is subjective. All we really need to do is behave as we wish too, so long as our actions don't harm others or ourselves. Even that isn't necessary, but it's what I choose to do and I don't try to force that opinion on others. Religions are in the business of brainwashing, plain and simple. They tell you what's right and you either believe and are accepted into the family, or don't and you're excommunicated, killed, persecuted, or various other ills. This isn't just in the Eastern religions either, there are numerous historical accounts of Buddhists, Hindus, and various other religions doing the same as well.

 

If someone tells you that you are doing something wrong and what you're doing causes no harm to you or someone else, then why is it wrong? Simply because some person who might've lived 2,000 years ago (Buddha, Christ, Lao Tzu, etc.) said it was? Now that seems to be the pinnacle of ignorance to me.

 

Aaron

 

Well you are making a logical leap in supposing that if we all followed a moral code, it would be the same code. I wasn't implying that, and I think that human diversity has made its own point throughout history; that no one code is going to suit everyone. People need something they can relate to via their own culture or worldview. So in other words, i disagree that if everyone followed a moral code, that it would be necessary that it be the same exact code.

 

Also, doing no harm is a moral code. Its a simple one, but you can follow it strictly. So I hear you saying that we don't need religious codes, we just need common sense and to do no harm, but again, thats a moral code, and common sense is ummmm uncommon

 

I like the lines from the TTC which say roughly:

 

When integrity is gone, people adopt ethics

When ethics is gone, people adopt manners

When manners are gone, people roll up their sleeves

and coerce each other by force.

 

and i agree with it entirely, except that i have nothing against ethics or manners, since they are both better than coercion by force. In fact, if they keep people from coercing other people by force, i think they are probably doing a lot of good in the world, and should be encouraged. It is not the case that by encouraging lower forms of virtue (ie religious codes) we are excluding ourselves from the possibility of also encouraging higher ones (ie natural integrity). They simply aren't mutually exclusive, so i don't choose which one is better. People just are where they are, and integrity, ethics, manners, and coercion are What they are. So the whole thing speaks for itself to me, and i don't feel the need to pass judgement upon someone who follows a strict religious code if it helps him or her be a better person.

 

Maybe one day that same person will develop natural integrity, so set an example by accepting them for who and where they are. Then maybe they will see your inner light and peace and find in you an example of dao.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by cat

[JustARandomPanda]

A government, to be effective and protect it's people's rights needs to be free of religious involvement. People who believe that change can occur simply by voicing their opinion, better be sure to understand that the right to assembly was one of the first rights taken away by congress. We have no freedom in this country because of religions involvement and enforcement of it's own moral agenda.

 

These things and many other abuses besides are also on record of happening in completely State-Sponsored Scientific-Agnostic Countries as well and still goes on to this day. The U.S. has no unique claim to suppression of freedom of assembly or suppression of other rights of a populace. Power has found a way to use Religion to oppress people and it has found a way to do the same even when it has discarded Religion (as you advocate for to prevent same). You cherry pick your data too much.

 

 

Also one cannot be spiritual and religious, specifically because of what I originally posted and what Jetsun, V Marco and others have said, it doesn't allow one to follow their natural spiritually, but rather creates an intellectual form of spirituality that helps alleviate the guilt formed by it's own perversion of the spiritual process by enforcing moral dogma.

 

The kind of Spirituality you are making appeals to in this thread as being practical for a societal and political majority of the population of the U.S. is to open their true Heart-Mind. So let's call it what it is. You're advocating specifically for Heart-Mind Spirituality in everyday life by the majority of the population. Now it becomes much clearer to everyone in this thread exactly what it's going to take for society to get there. BTW - I'm not disparaging such a goal. It's why I meditate.

 

But tell me...how realistic do you think that's gonna happen in the next 5-10 years in the U.S? I'm guessing you don't have much confidence it's gonna happen within your lifetime. Otherwise why post about how you are busy looking for a place to move to overseas? I presume this also means you have "Majority of Population has Opened Heart-Mind" in your checklist for a suitable country to move to?

[konchog uma]

 

Also one cannot be spiritual and religious, specifically because of what I originally posted and what Jetsun, V Marco and others have said, it doesn't allow one to follow their natural spiritually, but rather creates an intellectual form of spirituality that helps alleviate the guilt formed by it's own perversion of the spiritual process by enforcing moral dogma.

 

 

religion can give a person who doesn't know how to channel their natural spirituality an anchor and guideposts so that they can begin to develop virtues in their life. It gives people role models in the saints and sages of that religion so that they can see that people attained to great heights by means of doing good and cultivating in themselves the virtues that the religion teaches about.

 

For you to say that it disallows one to follow their own spirituality assumes that everyone has their own self-actualized independant and auto-directed spirituality in the first place. Logical fallacy. A quick survey of people will tell you that left to their own devices, they would not follow the spirit in their hearts, they would follow logic and intellect (and faulty selfish logic at that...). And thats speaking of the Logical people!! Of course you have non-logical people, but i'm not going to go there.

 

You might be blessed with a strong spiritual sense in your own life, but to say that other peoples attempts to be spiritual via religion are invalid is spiritual materialism and elitism. I encourage you to come down from your tower and accept that most people don't have an internal compass, and need an external one. And if they are ever to hope to develop an internal compass, they need some practice first. Religions and moral codes give people the framework with which to develop their own sense of spirituality and integrity, and this is their purpose.

 

Will organized religion tell you that it is the be-all-end-all of the spiritual experience? yes! is it? no! But does that change what i have just pointed out in the above paragraphs? no! not in the least.

 

In short, there are higher paths than religion, but religions have their purpose, and i don't believe that they are mutually exclusive to spirituality just because of handful of bums say so. Like i mentioned, i know religious people who are paragons of virtue and spiritual attainment, who radiate love and acceptance, compassion and a host of virtues with their every breath! Shit, i know catholic nuns who fit that description!!

 

Things are not as easy as the simple pronouncements on this forum make them out to be.. you should be thankful for religious institutions because the world would have fallen completely into darkness and corruption long before now without them.

[konchog uma]

Baby, bathwater.

 

bingo

[zanshin]

religion can give a person who doesn't know how to channel their natural spirituality an anchor and guideposts so that they can begin to develop virtues in their life. It gives people role models in the saints and sages of that religion so that they can see that people attained to great heights by means of doing good and cultivating in themselves the virtues that the religion teaches about.

 

For you to say that it disallows one to follow their own spirituality assumes that everyone has their own self-actualized independant and auto-directed spirituality in the first place. Logical fallacy. A quick survey of people will tell you that left to their own devices, they would not follow the spirit in their hearts, they would follow logic and intellect (and faulty selfish logic at that...). And thats speaking of the Logical people!! Of course you have non-logical people, but i'm not going to go there.

 

You might be blessed with a strong spiritual sense in your own life, but to say that other peoples attempts to be spiritual via religion are invalid is spiritual materialism and elitism. I encourage you to come down from your tower and accept that most people don't have an internal compass, and need an external one. And if they are ever to hope to develop an internal compass, they need some practice first. Religions and moral codes give people the framework with which to develop their own sense of spirituality and integrity, and this is their purpose.

 

Will organized religion tell you that it is the be-all-end-all of the spiritual experience? yes! is it? no! But does that change what i have just pointed out in the above paragraphs? no! not in the least.

 

In short, there are higher paths than religion, but religions have their purpose, and i don't believe that they are mutually exclusive to spirituality just because of handful of bums say so. Like i mentioned, i know religious people who are paragons of virtue and spiritual attainment, who radiate love and acceptance, compassion and a host of virtues with their every breath! Shit, i know catholic nuns who fit that description!!

 

Things are not as easy as the simple pronouncements on this forum make them out to be.. you should be thankful for religious institutions because the world would have fallen completely into darkness and corruption long before now without them.

 

A problem with using religion as the external moral compass is people are told it's in a book from god and we should accept the scriptures. If morals and ethics are from god and passed on from religious authorities, then it becomes heretical for people to use their minds and challenge application and implications. Perhaps if morals and ethics are recognized as based on human agreements, we can be more adaptable and understanding of differences. I think we actually are born with an internal compass, but forget how to follow it, why I do not know for I am lost and happily content to be so. I am grateful for separation of church and state. It seems the most darkness and corruption is in regimes where no religious dissention is tolerated.

[JustARandomPanda]

It seems the most darkness and corruption is in regimes where no religious dissention is tolerated.

 

Same thing happens in anti-theological regimes. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Stalin murdered more people in their religion-hating regimes than all the history of Christian religious wars combined.

 

Toss out all the world's religions as has been proposed as crucial in this thread and I say the problems denounced as being caused by religions will not change one whit. It'll just go by another name - preferably (by truly power-hungry clever elites and groups within those societies) using Heart-Mind Spirituality terminology. And what's even sadder is that only that tiny fraction of a percent of people who actually HAVE an opened Heart-Mind would know the travesty being done it its name.

 

I recommend a lot of peeps in this thread go read Frank Herbert's Dune series and realize what he was commenting on was something deeper than religion...

[zanshin]

Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin were regimes where no religious dissension was tolerated; I don't certainly don't think all religion should be tossed out. Extremes where all are mandated to conform are a problem. Somehow we need to learn to coexist with those who think differently- and anyone who disagrees with that should arbitrarily be cast into the abyss

[Aaron]

religion can give a person who doesn't know how to channel their natural spirituality an anchor and guideposts so that they can begin to develop virtues in their life. It gives people role models in the saints and sages of that religion so that they can see that people attained to great heights by means of doing good and cultivating in themselves the virtues that the religion teaches about.

 

 

For you to say that it disallows one to follow their own spirituality assumes that everyone has their own self-actualized independant and auto-directed spirituality in the first place. Logical fallacy. A quick survey of people will tell you that left to their own devices, they would not follow the spirit in their hearts, they would follow logic and intellect (and faulty selfish logic at that...). And thats speaking of the Logical people!! Of course you have non-logical people, but i'm not going to go there.

 

You might be blessed with a strong spiritual sense in your own life, but to say that other peoples attempts to be spiritual via religion are invalid is spiritual materialism and elitism. I encourage you to come down from your tower and accept that most people don't have an internal compass, and need an external one. And if they are ever to hope to develop an internal compass, they need some practice first. Religions and moral codes give people the framework with which to develop their own sense of spirituality and integrity, and this is their purpose.

 

Will organized religion tell you that it is the be-all-end-all of the spiritual experience? yes! is it? no! But does that change what i have just pointed out in the above paragraphs? no! not in the least.

 

In short, there are higher paths than religion, but religions have their purpose, and i don't believe that they are mutually exclusive to spirituality just because of handful of bums say so. Like i mentioned, i know religious people who are paragons of virtue and spiritual attainment, who radiate love and acceptance, compassion and a host of virtues with their every breath! Shit, i know catholic nuns who fit that description!!

 

Things are not as easy as the simple pronouncements on this forum make them out to be.. you should be thankful for religious institutions because the world would have fallen completely into darkness and corruption long before now without them.

 

Hello Anamatva,

 

First I understand that as a devoted Buddhist you might find what I've said to be antithetical to your own belief system, in fact it only makes sense that you would feel threatened, especially if you've devoted any amount of time to your religious beliefs and practices. No one wants to be told that what they believe in is harmful and detrimental to society, in fact the proof can be staring them right in the eye, but rather than see a cobra, they'll choose to see a corn snake.

 

To answer one comment you've made, I disagree with you wholeheartedly that most people require guidance to reach a state of spirituality. I think the issue is your definition of spirituality and mine. In my own definition I don't see it as Buddhist enlightenment or heart-mind, but rather an awareness of one's place in the universe, their relationship with the universe, and a knowledge of what is! It's about objective understanding, verses subjective understanding. They experience the reality, rather than have it dictated and defined for them.

 

Take for example meditation, one can easily achieve nearly any state of consciousness under hypnosis, well guess what, the same brain waves that are dominant during hypnosis are also dominant during meditation, so it goes without saying that meditation is a highly suggestible state, and it's supposed to be, because meditation opens you up to the world around you, however if you are being told what to expect during meditation and actively attempting to pursue these expectations, then it is inevitable that you will reach that state at some point in time. Those unable to are most likely the same kind of people who aren't able to be hypnotized. Ironically these are also the same kind of people that oftentimes fail to achieve any real significant change through religious practice.

 

Even putting that aside, one can look at other religious practices, such as prayers and rites, and understand that one of their uses is to repeatedly inundate a follower with a proscribed ideology. You pray everyday, recite a verse or mantra, and it reminds you of what you are supposed to be doing. Add to that a weekly sermon, a holy book, or even better yet, a strict religious upbringing, and you've got the makings for a completely indoctrinated follower. After enough of this, one begins to deny their own spirituality in lieu of the spirituality that is presented to them.

 

So when someone says, "you can't become spiritual without religious training!" Well you're right, you can't become spiritual as defined by that religion, simply because the religion will inevitably win out, it's an organized structure that has been practiced for several thousand years in most cases, so they know what they're doing when it comes to ensuring people don't think for themselves.

 

Most people, in fact, never have a chance to develop their own spiritual nature because they're taught at an early age to deny their connection to the world. They are taught that they are an individual and the reason they are taught that they are separate from the world and nature is because then they will have that inevitable void that needs to be filled, and religion does that nicely, by tricking people into believing it has the answer by introducing a false spirituality that preys on their emotions and vulnerabilities.

 

We are, however, born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass, regardless of what you might believe. Some people never return to that state (in fact most probably don't), but luckily some do, and when they do, they inevitably see the futility of the life we've chosen to lead. Some may even begin to write a book about it, such as the Tao Teh Ching, and then others will take that information and distort it into something completely different from what was intended.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I dislike Taoism as much as any other religion, so far as the ideology and dogma go, but I'm not foolish enough to understand that some religious followers have touched this wonderful state of innate and natural spirituality and spoke of it, it's just regrettable that these people are also few and far between.

 

I think that when one does achieve this state of awareness, belief isn't so important anymore, rather living in this moment in time right now is, sensing that there is something more beneath it all, that what we see isn't the entirety of existence. These people can wake up in the morning and live as if it's the first day of their life, rather than have to convince themselves to live it as if it was the last day. They live without regret or remorse or guilt, because they do no harm. They are the sages of old, the hermit who removed himself from society to live in the cave, the nun who silently devoted herself to the poor, doubting the good that she was doing, because she understood that it was all relative, that the most important thing was to help others and yourself.

 

In a spiritual world no one is led to God, Buddha, enlightenment, but rather they have an innate connection to the spiritual. They understand it, not because they are told what to understand, but because they see it in every little thing around them. They can see past it and see the futility of self, and the beauty of the whole self, the birth of everything and the death of nothing. In knowing their place they do not grieve their loss, but understand that nothing is ever lost.

 

The sad thing is that most people will NEVER reach this state, because merely thinking about it is heresy, blasphemy, or a "misguided notion".

 

I should add that I'm not advocating abolishing religion, rather I'm advocating that people look past it, give it up and experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is. If you can do that, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

Aaron

Edited February 3, 2012 by Twinner

[Aaron]

Same thing happens in anti-theological regimes. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Stalin murdered more people in their religion-hating regimes than all the history of Christian religious wars combined.

 

Toss out all the world's religions as has been proposed as crucial in this thread and I say the problems denounced as being caused by religions will not change one whit. It'll just go by another name - preferably (by truly power-hungry clever elites and groups within those societies) using Heart-Mind Spirituality terminology. And what's even sadder is that only that tiny fraction of a percent of people who actually HAVE an opened Heart-Mind would know the travesty being done it its name.

 

I recommend a lot of peeps in this thread go read Frank Herbert's Dune series and realize what he was commenting on was something deeper than religion...

 

Hello Sereneblue,

 

I think this may be an exaggeration. Also I tend to view communism as a religion as well, just replace god with the party.

 

Aaron

[JustARandomPanda]

I should add that I'm not advocating abolishing religion.rather I'm advocating that people look past it, give it up and experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is.

 

Hello Twinner:

 

That statement above is cool although you seem now to be backtracking from the we need to replace religion stance you sermonized about in earlier posts. Why not get rid of completely the thing that is precisely what makes society profoundly sick as Vmarco repeatedly states and you've said in this very thread you agree with him?

 

Anyway...It's just a matter of getting from Point A to Point B for society as quickly as possible. One question though puzzles me. You're preaching to the choir here - fellow spiritual cultivators in actual daily practice - the majority of whom agree with your position, put it into practice and whom furthermore are not organized religion laity, monks or nuns.

 

Shouldn't you have made this very thread on Evangelical and Islamic forums and social networks? They are after all the very ones who ARE practicing and following the religions you hold up as examples of society's biggest problems.

 

*******

 

 

We are, however, born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass, regardless of what you might believe. Some people never return to that state (in fact most probably don't),

 

First of all - anamatva is a practicing Buddhist. I think as one who puts the Buddha's practical exercises to use daily he's every bit as Spiritually Aware as you are that everyone is "born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass". You just agreed with him in the very next sentence though that probably the majority of people never return to the state of knowing it directly for themselves.

 

Since you say Religion should be replaced with "experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is" but since "most probably don't" return to that state anyway then um...they're kinda left hanging.

 

And they still vote.

 

And have kids.

 

And are a larger percentage of the population (95% according to Vmarco!) than us spiritual cultivators. What do you propose they do instead?

Edited February 3, 2012 by SereneBlue

[Vmarco]

[Aetherous]

Oh, more of that nonsense...why did I even try?

[Aaron]

Hello Twinner:

 

That statement above is cool although you seem now to be backtracking from the we need to replace religion stance you sermonized about in earlier posts. Why not get rid of completely the thing that is precisely what makes society profoundly sick as Vmarco repeatedly states and you've said in this very thread you agree with him?

 

Anyway...It's just a matter of getting from Point A to Point B for society as quickly as possible. One question though puzzles me. You're preaching to the choir here - fellow spiritual cultivators in actual daily practice - the majority of whom agree with your position, put it into practice and whom furthermore are not organized religion laity, monks or nuns.

 

Shouldn't you have made this very thread on Evangelical and Islamic forums and social networks? They are after all the very ones who ARE practicing and following the religions you hold up as examples of society's biggest problems.

 

*******

 

 

 

 

First of all - anamatva is a practicing Buddhist. I think as one who puts the Buddha's practical exercises to use daily he's every bit as Spiritually Aware as you are that everyone is "born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass". You just agreed with him in the very next sentence though that probably the majority of people never return to the state of knowing it directly for themselves.

 

Since you say Religion should be replaced with "experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is" but since "most probably don't" return to that state anyway then um...they're kinda left hanging.

 

And they still vote.

 

And have kids.

 

And are a larger percentage of the population (95% according to Vmarco!) than us spiritual cultivators. What do you propose they do instead?

 

Hello Serene,

 

What I think and what I advocate are two different things. I would like to see every religion on the face of the earth wiped out of mankind's minds, but I also understand that we each have the right to freedom of expression, so it would be hypocritical if I advocated abolishing religions. No backtracking really. Of course I have been known to change my mind, realize I'm taking too hard of a stance, etc. It's just being honest and human.

 

I didn't intend for this thread to go in this direction really, rather I was responding to other people's comments regarding religion that I thought were off the mark. I like Anamatva a great deal, he's a great guy and I don't think he's doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out my own view compared to his. I like you too, you're normally a great gal, but I don't know right now . Just joking.

 

We all have our differences, but the problem is that these differences are oftentimes more complex than what's on the surface. The religious institutions prevent us from being able to understand our original nature in a fundamental sense, that's my main argument. My second argument is that enlightenment gained through a religious practice is inherently linked to that practice and so it's not really fair to consider it to be the one and only form of enlightenment (which many religions do).

 

As far as what people should do with their kids, well that's simple, love them, take care of them, and teach them not to harm themselves or others.

 

Aaron

[JustARandomPanda]

As far as what people should do with their kids, well that's simple, love them, take care of them, and teach them not to harm themselves or others.

 

Hello Twinner:.

 

I was asking about the practicing organized religion thing among them, not whether they do any of those things you just listed. Since I haven't seen rampant societal breakdown among the organized religion folks evidence shows most are not doing daily deeds contrary to what you just stated above. It's all that other stuff that I was asking about.

 

What about them...since you agree they aren't going to return to their original nature.

[Aaron]

Hello Twinner:.

 

I was asking about the practicing organized religion thing among them, not whether they do any of those things you just listed.

 

I know, that's my response, don't practice organized religion around them, or at least wait until they're old enough to understand the fundamental concepts before you expose them to it. In other words give them the freedom to decide on their own, up until then don't enforce a moral code or religious ideology.

 

Aaron

[Vmarco]

[zanshin]

I think it is better to help kids understand why and feel compassion for others, than to present a right way to act because it is a rule from an authority. Back in preschool the teachers constantly said, "hmm, how do think your friend feels when..." and very rarely yelled, grumbled or punished. Do adults need rules, shame and fear to act ethically?

[Aaron]

[Aetherous]

The U.S. Founding Fathers, including George Washington, abhorred the "age of Ignorance and Superstition" imposed upon humanity by Christianity. Christianity did not become the religion of America until the 1950's.

 

That is one side of the coin, based on a few misleading quotes...on the other side of it, the majority of the founding fathers (especially the famous ones) were essentially Christian.

 

And when we look at the whole coin, we see Christians who were critical of the negative aspects of their religion...who were involved in creating a new government which attempted to protect an individual's freedom of belief. They were not atheists creating an atheist government. On the contrary, their non-dogmatic attitude was actually inspired by their religious and philosophical beliefs.

 

Funny how the creation of a secular government was truly a spiritual matter (especially in their eyes).

[Mokona]

I plan on increasing my chi, and awakening my kundalini. When I can move in the Void, i'll know for myself.

 

I really like that last part, the part where I said: "i'll know for myself."

 

Why? Becuase I'll know for myself.

[Aaron]

That is one side of the coin, based on a few misleading quotes...on the other side of it, the majority of the founding fathers (especially the famous ones) were essentially Christian.

 

And when we look at the whole coin, we see Christians who were critical of the negative aspects of their religion...who were involved in creating a new government which attempted to protect an individual's freedom of belief. They were not atheists creating an atheist government. On the contrary, their non-dogmatic attitude was actually inspired by their religious and philosophical beliefs.

 

Funny how the creation of a secular government was truly a spiritual matter (especially in their eyes).

 

Great point Scotty. I think you're right in this regard. It was the persecution of "radical"Christian sects in England, Germany, and elsewhere that essentially led them to believe in the necessity of a separation of Church and state, as well as the need to protect the rights of all people to practice religion as they see fit. In fact many of our forefathers descended from these Christian faiths.

 

Aaron

Edited February 4, 2012 by Twinner

[konchog uma]

I hope none of those who received hospice in calcutta felt entitled enough to be offended by mother theresa's moral code or religious sense of duty to others. Hehehe for that matter i hope you weren't offended twinner by the moral codes of those who came to your aide when you were faced with homelessness.

 

All this spiritually superior rhetoric doesn't advance an inch any notion that religion hasN'T done myriad good things for people. Again, baby, bathwater. So my opinion has been expressed once, and i am going to quietly retire from the conversation.