Spirituality and Religion

[Aaron]

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.

 

Hello Anamatva,

 

First I never said people didn't do good things and I would like to think that the people that helped me in my time of need, did not do it out of a sense of moral decency, but rather a sense of compassion. I see the people on this forum as my friends, everyone, even those I might disagree with and I wish them all well. Perhaps some of this stems from the kindness they've shown me, but I would like to think that it goes deeper than that. I think this is certainly a place where spirituality does trump religion, where we see a decided need to practice, not so we can understand God or reach enlightenment, but so that we can learn who we really are, the depths of our souls. That's the beauty of Taobums, no place I've ever been in the "real" world has had the kind of people that I've met here, that's why I feel comfortable saying "the world is better off without religion" and not worrying that others will denounce me and cast me out for it. We are a community who's foundation is built on the principal of compassion.

 

Many people here came to my aid, so many it's sometimes hard to keep track, so I don't try to, instead I don't view individuals as the people that helped me, but rather the Tao Bums helped me. It helps me now, not with money, but with a place where I can come to discuss topics like this and feel safe doing it.

 

Aaron

Edited February 4, 2012 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

[Aetherous]

based on a few misleading quotes

 

If people are interested in the founding fathers' religious beliefs they should look into legitimate sources...not assume they understand it from simply reading a quote. Like I said:

 

we see Christians who were critical of the negative aspects of their religion

 

Edit: I should clarify, I consider a "Deist", someone who believes in God, who also believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ to be a Christian.

[Vmarco]

 

Edit: I should clarify, I consider a "Deist", someone who believes in God, who also believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ to be a Christian.

 

I understand that many people get their facts from David Barton and the Wallbuilders. Christianity in early America was my favorite subject in college,...I majored in Religious Stidies.

 

A Deist like Paine, Jefferson, Franklin etc., did not believe in a God (theist), but in a Creator. However, if they were alive today, without today's religious indoctrination and fear of upsetting Christocrats, I'd suspect they'd be Humanists or Brights.

 

As for your statement above, you obviously did not read my post.

 

"He [the Rev. Mr. Whitefield] used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard." Franklin's Autobiography

 

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin

 

Ethan Allen stopped his own wedding until the presiding judge affirmed that "God" referred to the God of Nature and not to the God of the Bible.

[Aetherous]

did not believe in a God (theist), but in a Creator

 

There's no difference. That is still Christianity as long as the person follows the teachings of Jesus Christ...it's just a different variety of Christianity, kind of like how Catholics and Lutherans are hardly the same thing. There's a LOT of room for interpretation. And good Christians can be so critical of their religion that they denounce it while still practicing (or in order to better practice it). In fact, I think this is something that Jesus himself did.

 

Anyway, I'll try to stop talking with you on this. People here have little interest for the Christian religion, especially in a thread dedicated to another topic...so this is probably just an annoying distraction.

 

I just feel like it's completely disrespectful to the founding fathers (or any deceased person) to misrepresent them by taking a few of their quotes way out of context. Anyone can simply look up a legitimate source and find information that differs entirely from what you present.

 

But maybe you could try saying it again, because it's not like we actually read what you post multiple times over.

[Vmarco]

There's no difference. That is still Christianity as long as the person follows the teachings of Jesus Christ...

 

Anyway, I'll try to stop talking with you on this. People here have little interest for the Christian religion, especially in a thread dedicated to another topic...so this is probably just an annoying distraction.

 

I just feel like it's completely disrespectful to the founding fathers (or any deceased person) to misrepresent them by taking a few of their quotes way out of context. Anyone can simply look up a legitimate source and find information that differs entirely from what you present.

 

But maybe you could try saying it again, because it's not like we actually read what you post multiple times over.

 

 

Of course,...my apology for the pearls. I should have known better.

 

V

Edited February 4, 2012 by Vmarco

[Aaron]

I think it's important to point out that religion isn't intentionally harmful, nor are most religious people intentionally harmful. There is good that comes from religions, my issue with religions is that the institutions themselves are harmful, they lead people away from their true nature by instituting an artificial nature man is supposed to follow.

 

This is the difference between someone who acts with High Virtue and low virtue. High Virtue is practiced out of an awareness of one's connection to all things, which comes from innate understanding of suffering. A person practicing High Virtue does not do so to be good, or do they practice it out of a moral requirement or because they are trying to please God, Allah, become like Buddha, etc., rather they practice high virtue because it is what they intuitively understand needs to be done.

 

Religions, whether it is the ten commandments, the eightfold path, Quran, or any other moral dogma, invariably proscribes good and evil, right and wrong, and then dictate which actions are acceptable and not acceptable according to that dogma. Mankind does not need moral dogma, rather man is intuitively born with an understanding of what they should and shouldn't do. This High Virtue, however, is stripped from our psyche in childhood when we are indoctrinated into society and taught what is moral according to religious ideology and doctrine. Even the atheist's child is taught it by proxy, because most societies are deeply founded upon religious principles.

 

In order for one to be able to tap into their original spiritual nature they must be able to rid themselves of these doctrines and examine the world as it is, rather than how they are taught to subjectively view the world. It's the difference between an objective reality and a subjective reality. The spiritual man sees the thief as a man who steals things, the holy man sees the thief as a bad and sinful man. The difference may not seem to be that great until you see how each treats that man, the former is likely to be cautious around the man, the latter to stone him to death, chop off his hand, or punish him in some way.

 

Anyways, I'll leave it at that. I would be interested in hearing others input regarding this.

 

Aaron

Edited February 4, 2012 by Twinner

[Vmarco]

Edited February 5, 2012 by Vmarco

[Aaron]

"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." Bertrand Russell

 

I fully disagree that religion isn't harmful. A pediphile (from what I've read)does not believe his intention harms his victim, but that he is giving all his love to this other. Like a pediphile, religion, all religion, is an abomination. Although the majority may believe some "good" comes from that abomination, how can that honestly be so?

 

"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam." - Gore Vidal

 

Can you name a single honest religion? No! You cannot. The term honest religion is an oxymoron. So what is a well-meaning, belief-driven good intention of a dishonest person? An abomination.

"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies." Bill Maher

 

Is providing hope (what religions do best) harmless? No! Faith-based hope is absolutely HARMFUL.

 

Is there a more dishonest, perniciousness word than hope?

 

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition, a belief, and attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

 

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Mind or Open-Heart ? The belief of hope is a barrier that obscures the present. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack, need, or religious intention.

 

No Bodhisattva would be tolerant of religion, no matter how well intended. All religion, all beliefs that step between sentient beings and their direct experience, is harmful. Even a single religious artwork that inspires another into its belief is a crime against humanity as a whole.

 

"Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check.

And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality ... and extreme, grotesque immorality.

With religion, the proof is emphatically not in the pudding. With religion, the proof comes from invisible beings, inaudible voices. The proof comes from prophets and religious leaders, who supposedly hear these voices and are happy to tell the rest of us what they say. It comes from religious texts, written ages ago by prophets and religious leaders, ditto. It comes from feelings in people's hearts that, conveniently, tell them what they already believe or want to believe." greta christina

 

"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs." Sam Harris

 

"We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself."

― Sam Harris

 

"When you call yourself an Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind." J Krishnamurti

 

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

"Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life." Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

"Belief is an obsolete Aristotelian category" -Dr. Jack Sarfatti

 

"The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart." Buddha

 

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect." J Krishnamurti

 

The more profound question is, when viewed honestly,...is anything more harmful than religion?

 

V

 

You're going to make a lot of friends comparing religious people to pedophiles. Also you didn't real my entire post, I said that I don't think religious people are intentionally harmful, but that I do believe the institution itself is harmful. I've actually reversed my opinion on this from my stance awhile back, somewhat due to what another person posted on this topic last year regarding getting rid of old belief systems, not for the reason you say, but because it allows us a freedom to see who we truly are, or at least that's how I understood it. Wish I could find that thread, was really an interesting one.

 

 

 

Aaron

Edited February 6, 2012 by Twinner

[Birch]

I don't think I know any religious people but I suspect their intentions might be quite similar to other people's - except when it comes to religion but i don't know. I think maybe what happens more often is that appeals to god or religion are used as justification for what they want to do or say anyway. Or layer it like a cake with a sticky filing of ideology supported by god icing. I think I'd just have to look at what they're doing, the justification will rarely be satisfactory if appeals are made to god or ideals. But will it be any more satisfactory if appeals are made to 'nature' or 'who I am'? Not sure either.

I thought a positive side of this was that religions need constant preaching in order to stick. If you want it unstuck, don't preach and people will presumeably then become 'natural' again.

[Aaron]

I don't think I know any religious people but I suspect their intentions might be quite similar to other people's - except when it comes to religion but i don't know. I think maybe what happens more often is that appeals to god or religion are used as justification for what they want to do or say anyway. Or layer it like a cake with a sticky filing of ideology supported by god icing. I think I'd just have to look at what they're doing, the justification will rarely be satisfactory if appeals are made to god or ideals. But will it be any more satisfactory if appeals are made to 'nature' or 'who I am'? Not sure either.

I thought a positive side of this was that religions need constant preaching in order to stick. If you want it unstuck, don't preach and people will presumeably then become 'natural' again.

 

I understand what you're saying. Someone earlier today told me my belief that there should be no religion essentially boiled down to a religion itself. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see how committing oneself to something so thoroughly that you lack the foresight or compassion to allow others to do as they choose is harmful, so in trying to live according to my new code, "do nothing that harms you or someone else" I am repeatedly running into situations where I need to evaluate what harm I might be causing, not only in actions, but in words as well. I think if I had been practicing this from birth, it would've been much easier than trying to learn it at the age of 42. Sort of like learning languages at an early age, once you get so old it becomes much more difficult.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

I understand what you're saying. Someone earlier today told me my belief that there should be no religion essentially boiled down to a religion itself. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see how committing oneself to something so thoroughly that you lack the foresight or compassion to allow others to do as they choose is harmful, so in trying to live according to my new code, "do nothing that harms you or someone else" I am repeatedly running into situations where I need to evaluate what harm I might be causing, not only in actions, but in words as well. I think if I had been practicing this from birth, it would've been much easier than trying to learn it at the age of 42. Sort of like learning languages at an early age, once you get so old it becomes much more difficult.

 

Aaron

 

Well, there's an online church for it (freedom from religion:-)) http://ffrf.org/ - which ironically requires religions (others) to function as a group, but I digress:-)

 

I think what I don't like is other people's religions encroaching upon mine (which isn't really a religion, although it could maybe be classified as one if enough people got into it, maybe, but they wouldn't:-) )this religion is called the rule of the sovereign individual :-) Which of course is quite unfeasible in practice - given there are all these f8cking other people all over the place, and the environment and whatnot.

 

The way I see it, every religion attempts (doesn't always succeed mind you) to deal with this issue of reality not being exactly and only exactly the way one, or one group thinks it ought to be. How it ends up acheiving that can get pretty interesting. And f&ck things up along the way too. Get all those groups together and..well...

 

I think it's how things get f7cked that is important. It can get to totally ridiculous levels like I suspect we are currently seeing. But I'm also almost sure we've seen it already.

 

Edited for synchronicity. Seriously, is it like the article says stateside??? http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_atheists_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_4

Edited February 8, 2012 by -K-

[Birch]

bump for added article...

[Aaron]

Hello K,

 

It's much worse than what you read in that article. I'm not even atheist, more along the lines of agnostic, but I was driven from the rooms of Alcoholics Anonymous and lost many friends because I refused to believe in an "Intelligent Higher Power", even if I did agree that there could be a unifying force. Remember the United States of America was founded by religious fundamentalists, even if a few of the founding fathers may have been Agnostic (and even fewer were Atheists, Benjamin Franklin being the most famous).

 

The problem is that it's become more invasive with time. Things that obviously have no place in government still take place, prayer during school assembly, or High School locker rooms. Government funded charities that are run as Christian foundations. But don't think this is all that different from other places in the world, remember that historically religions in every corner of the world have persecuted non-believers, not necessarily by their own hands, but the hands of their followers. America just tends to be more zealous than most first world countries.

 

It's funny, I always thought of America as my home, but the more I see of its ugly side, the more I understand I have no place here, that the land I was taught to love is nothing more than an illusion. Anyways, I get worked up when I talk about this stuff, so I think it's better for me to let it go. I don't see talking about it changing much, in order for change to occur people need to want it, and I don't think many people do.

 

Aaron

[Mokona]

Curiosity has grabbed me.

 

Please name every church you've been too that has given it's congregration direct experience of God or of the afterlife, thanks.

 

Hmm, I'd also like to know how many preachers/priests/holy men of the church preach from an experience of God, and not just their personal interpretation of whichever religious works they read?

 

An example would be - "My heart opened up and I felt joy, bliss and love, and the Holy Spirit entered into my body!" as opposed to "This holy scripture says to love everyone, or you'll be thrown into the lake of fire!" LOL.

[Aaron]

Curiosity has grabbed me.

 

Please name every church you've been too that has given it's congregration direct experience of God or of the afterlife, thanks.

 

Hmm, I'd also like to know how many preachers/priests/holy men of the church preach from an experience of God, and not just their personal interpretation of whichever religious works they read?

 

An example would be - "My heart opened up and I felt joy, bliss and love, and the Holy Spirit entered into my body!" as opposed to "This holy scripture says to love everyone, or you'll be thrown into the lake of fire!" LOL.

 

I would ask that you give me the number of Monks, Rinpoches, etc. that have given their students the direct experience of Buddha or a cessation from Dharma (or for that matter an actual experience of Dharma). The problem with religions is that they hide under different guises, but delude people all the same. In order to truly understand who we are we need to be able to explore deep within ourselves and find that part of us that existed before we became Aaron, Mokona, etc. That requires giving up any and all beliefs we've accumulated since that moment.

 

Aaron

[Protector]

Meanwhile

 

[Z3N]

[Aetherous]

[Aaron]

Apocalypse aside, what I'm beginning to understand more and more each day is that people oftentimes are more than happy to tell you how your religion or idea is bad, but they will rarely see any flaws in their own. This is precisely the reason why we need to remember to advocate religious expression and freedom of expression.

 

Aaron