We call religion our friend?
- Thread starter Feelings
- Start date
For those that are afraid and need conformity, yes. But plenty find solace elsewhere. Music fills that void for many as well. But looking to an old text that is imperfect and contradicts itself seems so limiting to me. It's god's way or the highway and I don't like to be told what to do.
In many ways, I think Jesus was a cool dude though. I don't really take his quotes literally but his general message about peace, love, beauty and acceptance is appealing. It's very much about harmony. The original hippie, if you will.
Christianity is the belief that there is a God, that Jesus was his son and ambassador, and that Jesus' mission was to reconcile the spiritual gap between man and God through his self sacrifice.
Man isn't capable of defining God. Our minds aren't big enough to grasp the concept of omnianything. If God is trying to reach you, I would suggest doing the opposite, and open your mind to let him define himself to you and trust him to show himself in a way that will make sense to you.
It's clear to me that he was aware you would be going to be going through a difficult time in your life, and was setting up the foundations (with those hints and the right people in your life) so you could find him in this rough season. This means he knows what you are going through and loves you very much. Taking comfort in that might help you emotionally, especially when you consider that if God would do all of this, then he can do more.
Well. The line that I'll never cross is forgetting that it's all speculation. One can never definitively KNOW that God exists. One can only speculate, even if the dots seem to fit together.
For example, I "know" that you're a man. I've seen photos that you've put up, and I think some forum people have met you before. But I've never actually personally met you or talked to you. So I'm not sure, although there is some witness testimony from other internet people, and it makes sense that you wouldn't lie about your sex/gender. Just wouldn't make sense for you to put up such an elaborate lie. Even still it is speculation. It's the internet, you know, people lie for really weird psychological reasons.
For example, I "know" that you're a man. I've seen photos that you've put up, and I think some forum people have met you before. But I've never actually personally met you or talked to you. So I'm not sure, although there is some witness testimony from other internet people, and it makes sense that you wouldn't lie about your sex/gender. Just wouldn't make sense for you to put up such an elaborate lie. Even still it is speculation. It's the internet, you know, people lie for really weird psychological reasons.
That ain't no real bible quote, son. Taratino made most of it up. Only the last bit is true.
Ezekiel 25:17
17And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.
And i think he has a bit of the 23rd psalm mixed in. Former Christian/film nerd
More topically,
I don't know, i played around with lots of religions when i was younger. i still will disappear to a buddhist monastary for two weeks if i'm feeling lost. my fave-> http://www.watmetta.org/ They encourage a lot of discourse there and you can sleep under avocado trees.
I ended up settling on Gnosticism though becuase it's what fits me best.
http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Wiki seems to be down though. Long story short, in basic terms, knowledge and the pursuit of it, is my religion. it's served me pretty well so far. But i've been rather lazy about it lately.
As if every man were not capable of the adjectives `righteous', `selfish', and `evil'?
Persistence of suchness and the promotion of false dichotomies occur in one would-be `sacred' text after another.
Blessed is-qua-is he who shepherds?
The same way that those who (mal)practice Abrahamic religions have `shepherded' or practiced stewardship of earth as if earth were a fiefdom granted by the Abrahamic monodeity?
In the name of?
The way that Abrahamists -- primarily so-called `Christians' -- have in the name of God and/or Jesus (a reputed `turn-the-other-cheek pacifist') waged WWI and WWII?
So blithely mere mortals motivate themselves `in the name of' pursuant to furthering ends antithetical to would-be `in-the-name-of' sacred causes.
Beauty residing fully in the eye/mind of the beholder.
Personally I find the passage promotive of the characterization of a man -- any (wo)man -- capable of manifesting a broad range of behaviors over the course of his or her life could or should be characterized by only one fixed, persistent suchness, such as `righteous', `selfish', or `evil'.
Can a single one of us prevent one-or-more others from beholding us `righteous', `selfish', or `evil'? I think not.
Can any one of us prevent any arbitrary other from affixing such a label to us and fixating upon it to the point of identifying us as labeled? I think not.
Sans criteria for assessing `righteous', `selfish', and `evil' and means for attributing these over well-bounded non-permanent intervals to prevent fixation the framework promoted by this passage promotes gross oversimplification and panders to simpletons righteously differentiating between righteousness and selfishness and evil without effective means or criteria for assessing such.
Yes, beautifully crafted ... like nursery rhyme homiletics fed to children.
I don't doubt you FEEL something.
We?
Did Jewel have a turd in her pocket?
The gratuitous use of `we' by an artist to stand for anyman, everyman seems to gloss over those who do NOT pray to ANY `gods' ... figments/symbols of imagination which may or not allude to any `Thing' physically extant.
Methinks you may have confused the authors of Buddhist texts, rites, and practices with The Man commonly referred to as `The Buddha'.
Organized religions MUST be co-opted by SJ authors, priests (including rabbis, ministers, mullahs, etc), and agents in the community IF they are to become mainstream.
In the becoming mainstream the originators and/or religious figures which such mundane travesties are done `in the name of' are the inevitable victims.
Jesus supposedly spoke of turning the other cheek; his followers wage war in his name.
Siddhattha Gotama spoke of enlightenment; many of his followers displace enlightenment with dogma, doctrine, and the mindless performance of mundane ritual.
Spirituality is displaced and precluded by religion.
Religion is not the friend of those who would manifest the spirituality of any temperament other than SJ traditionalists, in my sincere opinion.
Unilaterally `causing'?
If life -- a_priori, axiomatically -- IS suffering, then were does causality enter into this?
If causing suffering were to be avoided could a doctor ever lance a boil?
If causing suffering were avoided then chemotherapy would be avoided in deference to euthanasia, wouldn't it?
Can one preclude another from attributing suffering to him or her?
If someone says, "You MADE/caused me to suffer.", can the accused defend against such a claim?
Considered -- by whom -- `empirically' bad?
What does badness have to do with empiricism?
Badness seems a moral/ethical issue to me.
Surely you jest.
As if a mother mammal doesn't experience `evil' at the sight of a predator mother ripping HER baby to shreds and feeding `it' to her predator's baby?
What's `good' for the duck hunter may qualify as `evil' to/for the duck.
Though I would agree that `objectivity' is an invention of the human species ... and underpins the notion of `objective' good and evil ... decoupled from grounding in any With-Respect-To `subject'.
I'm pretty sure that individuals of other species experience good and evil from a subjective, experiential perspective without abstracting good-and-evil into a false dichotomy pandering to those prone to all-or-nothing, black-or-white, false-dilemma, emotion-laden cognition.
You'd more likely discover their attractors as promoted by dogma, doctrine, and the skewed world view(s) which their organized religion promotes.
Leaders of organized religions tend to use language found in the texts they personally sanctify and hold sacred.
To wit, if you go to a twelve step meeting you may hear someone reciting by rote, "<name of sect of twelve-stepism> is NOT a religion", the way Richard Nixon said "I am not a crook" ... as if the utterance of a falsehood with conviction could render it true through the magic of proclamation.
Give me a half pound of that `samsara' to go, please.
My point?
If it doesn't have mass or energy it doesn't meet these criteria for existing in the physical world.
If `samsara' exists in some non-physical way ... then what is the nature of it's existence?
Samsara qualifies as a `religious' or metaphysical abstraction.
One can't NOT think of samsara anymore than one can't NOT think of a pink elephant.
This can't-NOT-think-of phenomenon is key to how religions and religious texts work.
Catholics and other would-be `Christians' can't NOT think of sin, for example.
What one can't NOT think of becomes figural in one's thoughts and feelings ... and becomes influential in one's experiences and `life'.
Seems to me anyway.
Which `ism' derivative of the teachings a -- one among many -- Buddha/enlightened_one is underpinning these `values'?
I've noticed some significant differences between Buddhist traditions.
Personally, I prefer Zen over any `ism' which asserts that `Life IS suffering' and asserts a_priori `noble' context-insensitive `truths'.
As with any mainstream organized religion, the dogma and rituals have to apply to `everyman'.
It's this one-size-fits-all nature of organized religions which I find so repugnant.
Though the would-be `ethics' of any branch of Buddhism may be or seem `geared towards' this, that, or the other; I'd like my ethics to account for situation and circumstance.
And I'd like my ethics to resonate with reality rather than resonate with the dogma or axiomatic truths of any given organized religion.
Is ... is no.
Absent reification, `is' absents it's would be `self' and both `is' and `is not' fail to manifest.
The temple flag does not wave in the wind; it's one's mind that waves.
Nobility? Serving? Kindness? ... all the sound's of one's mind waving to the pink elephant it can't NOT think about.
As if humans can suspend judgment?
As if we each can NOT judge, assess, evaluate, or manifest critical thinking?
If so, you might as well stop looking both ways before you cross the street, as to `judge' whether the conditions seem safe or not should trigger the introspection of "Who am I to judge ______?"
Who are/seem we to NOT judge?
Different values? I know of no other person who values what I do when I do.
Thus I'm always judging/assessing/evaluating/thinking_critically about those with different and differing values.
To behold another human being in a way no different from a cow chewing its cud with eyes glazed over without judgment/assessment/evaluation/critical_thinking is to manifest an undiscerning if not apathetic attitude.
If it's unwise or unethical to discriminate, how wise or ethical would it seem to be indiscriminate and undiscerning?
One can't NOT think of `pride' anymore than one can't NOT think of a pink elephant.
Once again, one moderately enlightened might have a glimmer of awareness that one's mind waves at the resonant frequency of `pride', `selfish', `kind', and `charitable' ... as reified, made real, in one's mind.
Seems it better to experience hubris that one's pursuits `are' or qualify-as `charitable' rather than motivated by pride?
As if codependent enabling were never performed by one imagining their efforts and pursuits unquestionably `charitable'?
Mental masturbation knows no bounds.
To speak of letting go of `pride' while retaining the notion of `charitable' SEEMS-to-me to retain `pride' under the hubris of one's in-no-way-prideful `charity'.
I never met `contemporary Buddhism'. What's she like?
My point? Individuals can experience problems; abstractions such as `contemporary Buddhism' can't.
I'll take a half pound of `karma' to go, please.
Once again, `karma' qualifies as another abstraction not physically extant though existing as a figment of imagination, precept, or concept.
Well ... so long as accumulated `karma' can be transmuted into whatever St. Peter uses as subway tokens to get through the Pearly Gate.
For me, not so much `leaps of faith' as cognitive abstractions indiscernible from the fictions we feed to children in the form of fairy tales.
Is religion our friend?
I never net `religion'. What's he like?
Are the religious our friends ... regardless of their actual behaviors?
Without means of differentiating between the religious and the spiritual or the philosophical of what use seems the term `religion'?
As if every religion were similar enough and every (mal)practitioner of any give religion were similar enough to make the question non-vague, non-diffuse enough to have much meaning or significance to deep thinkers?
I'm not aware of agnostic suicide bombers blowing people to smithereens.
Religion IS a friend of each of us ONLY if sloppy language IS our friend.
Many of the religious behave as nut jobs who can't even BE their own best friends, let along anyone else's.
If I want someone to perform ineffectual praying for me I'll find some someone religiously under the influence of a religion.
If I want someone to perform something more effectual I'll find someone recovering and no longer under the influence of an organized religion, sacred text, or fellow travelers co-manifesting the sort group think which suspends critical thinking in favor of blind faith.
Last edited:
I've often felt that this is the naivete of the human race, to understand something that is not within their realm of thought or existence. But let me ask you this question, why would God create conscious creatures, capable of higher thought, teach them about himself but make it so that they can't quite grasp what he is about?
It would seem like a God would make us capable of understanding his existence, even if it is not within our realm. Assuming, his goal is not to just fuck with people.
Hasn't stopped him and her from defining, beholding, and worshiping ... has it?
I debated an extended family of True Believer `Christians' to a standstill when I was in my twenties ... about a 20 to 1 ratio of them VS the unholy trinity of Me, Myself, and I.
I've seen the pattern recur many times since.
It goes something like this.
The True Believers start out asserting their dogma, doctrine, and drivel as if facts in evidence, self-evident, and known and accepted by all.
Some debate goes on and time passes by and the sources of their `facts' are revealed to be word-of-man, human authors, etc.
Debate continues until those certain, cock sure, and absolute `assert' in an authoritarian yet mystical way, "The Lord Works in mysterious ways." without a touch of self awareness that if this mystery IS operative then their certainty WAS, IS, and Shall be unfounded and they'd be better advised to stop speaking about their insufficiently founded beliefs as if empirically verifiable facts.
Bullshit artists work in mysterious ways too ... especially while under the influence of `religion'.
Last edited:
(Disclaimer - I spent over an hour writing this and it's really late here, so I may have gone off a bit here and there....)
Let me just go back and focus on what you said here:
I've been a Zen Buddhist for a few years now, but I'm far from being anywhere near a Zen Master!!
The first thing to consider is that the first "version" of Buddhism was the Theravada tradition; this is what (many would say) Buddha taught his followers directly. Traditions that spread after that are mainly along the Mahayana line, which blended cultural values into Buddha's traditional teaching. Most of what we have now are those Mahayana traditions and the most popular of those is Tibetan.
So when you're looking for some answers, you need to take into consideration that not every tradition has the exact same translation. For instance, since Tibetan Buddhism was a blend of Buddhism along with the traditional Tibetan culture which was a very tribal society, you get a lot of beings, entities and stories that carried over from that culture.
Zen Buddhism was a blend of Taoism and Buddhism originally called Chan when it spread into China. As it spread east, into Japan, the name changed to Zen, which then laid the groundwork for the traditions of the Samurai.
As you can see, there's a lot of blending of cultures and other philosophies that were introduced with various traditions of Buddhism, so there's not one specific answer any Buddhist can give that will always agree with another. personally, I chose Zen because it trimmed all of the excess fat that developed over the years.
Where does Buddhism's values come from? The simple answer - Buddha. (another answer is Hinduism) He was actually born into a royal Hindu family and chose a life of poverty later on when he saw people suffering in the streets of the city. In fact, to not hold back, he abandoned his wife and newborn child to choose this life of poverty. Supposedly he chose many different paths available at the time, from his original gluttony to intentional starvation, in order to figure out life.
What is the basis of the belief that there is an empirical universal good and evil? - I'm not so sure there is this belief. One problem Buddhism faces is that the languages have been changed many, many times - most Buddhists will even admit this to you. For instance, the term "Suffering" in the original Pali language is more accurately translated as "discomfort" in modern English. It might be simple semantics, but there's a huge difference in connotation between the two in today's society.
That being said though, the simplest example of universal good and evil is anything which causes or eases "suffering" to another creature. Which ties in to...
Why is causing other beings to suffer considered empirically bad? - Karma. If you ignore the spiritual aspects of that word and focus on the "here and now" of it, it begins to make more sense. Karma is really, all about selfishness, to put it bluntly. You want good karma for yourself so that you feel better, you get that by helping others feel better.
The example I use is that of a honey bee. If a bee lands on you and you instinctively swat at it, you'll get stung since that bee perceives you as a threat... which is what you are to it. If that same bee lands on you and you let it walk around and then fly off, you and the bee both get to continue living in relative peace.
In other words, positive karma begets positive karma, while negative karma bets negative karma. It's a matter of cause and effect. You behaving in a way that causes someone or something else to suffer, ultimately causes you to suffer as well. That's why causing suffering is empirically bad.
Why is life considered good, and death considered bad (therefore to save a life is considered virtuous), especially considering that reincarnation exists? - This is almost a 2 in 1 question, but again, look at karma. The idea is that everyone has a lifetime's worth of potential to fulfill their karma before they have to be reborn, whether it's the 5 day life cycle of a fly or the 80 years of a human being.
Now, you also have to understand reincarnation and a little concept called "anatta" or "not self". One of the key fundamentals of Buddhism is that everything is changing all the time. A large part of the suffering people go through in life is not adapting to this and becoming attached to certain things, values, opinions, concepts, etc. Since, Buddhism believes everything is always changing, anything we would define as being "us" would be moot since it will also change, therefor, there is no "self" in Buddhism.
Lost yet? Yeah, so was I. This is one of the hardest things I had to take in when I was learning. Every religion I studied prior to this teaches all about spirits and souls, then along comes Buddhism and says "they don't really exist and, by the way, neither do you!" I was floored. Once you realize what that actually means though, it's rather liberating!
None of this means you don't exist, but it means whatever it is you think defines you at one moment, will change the next... even the air in your lungs this second is different from the air in your lungs the next second. When reincarnation does occur, you change once more.
Reincarnation, for that matter, doesn't even have to be a leap of faith, science has already demonstrated one basic principle - the Conservation of Energy. You may say it's impossible because the human population on the planet is growing, but consider we all come from one source of energy (for any Star Wars fans out there, you can call this "The Force"), take a good look around. Animals are dying off, insects are being killed off, vegetation is being chopped down and energy sources such as oil and coal are being mined drilled and consumed. The energy we come from is all around. You can almost trace the human population explosion with the discovery of oil... and if we ever run out of oil, you may even be able to trace it back down that same graph. But let's save the oil debate for another thread...
Getting back to the point - Preventing another person or creature from fulfilling their karmic potential, is what's considered a "bad" thing. They may be reincarnated, but there's a delay and a learning process involved as they go back through life once again. Even a death row serial killer may find "God" at the last moment and perform some kind acts, but if they were to die before that, then they wouldn't be able to fulfill this potential.
As you start living and opening yourself up to this concept and lifestyle, you start to see these effects the same as people see any other objects around them. Before long, the act itself becomes a burden of consciousness and you don't even consider the tangible ramifications.
Basically, when it came to Buddhism I tore it apart and was lost at first. I learned a few concepts that I really held on to and mostly ignored the others. As I learned the nuances of those few concepts, the others started to fall in to place. Once I had many pieces of the puzzle I actually realized that those misconceptions I had at the start were mainly due to my lack of knowledge and understanding.
Unlike other religions though, the answers were never simply "because it is". I was born Roman Catholic and my wife is a Seventh Day Adventist, so I hear and know all about dogma and "God's will". I was happy to find a religion that, for once said, "try it for yourself and question everything you're taught." Which is basically the mindset behind Buddhism.
This is why a lot of teachers and masters don't have a single, straight answer for anything you present to them. Buddhism is more internal than most other religions and most of it has to be figured out by you, personally. The texts and teachers can only give you some guidance along the way... but it can sometimes be like asking Farmer Bob for directions to the highway - "You gotta make a right were old Jim's oak used to be, then when you get to the spot where the old school burned down, make a left. Before you see a sign for Maggie's, turn left again..." :frusty:
Let me just go back and focus on what you said here:
I've been a Zen Buddhist for a few years now, but I'm far from being anywhere near a Zen Master!!
The first thing to consider is that the first "version" of Buddhism was the Theravada tradition; this is what (many would say) Buddha taught his followers directly. Traditions that spread after that are mainly along the Mahayana line, which blended cultural values into Buddha's traditional teaching. Most of what we have now are those Mahayana traditions and the most popular of those is Tibetan.
So when you're looking for some answers, you need to take into consideration that not every tradition has the exact same translation. For instance, since Tibetan Buddhism was a blend of Buddhism along with the traditional Tibetan culture which was a very tribal society, you get a lot of beings, entities and stories that carried over from that culture.
Zen Buddhism was a blend of Taoism and Buddhism originally called Chan when it spread into China. As it spread east, into Japan, the name changed to Zen, which then laid the groundwork for the traditions of the Samurai.
As you can see, there's a lot of blending of cultures and other philosophies that were introduced with various traditions of Buddhism, so there's not one specific answer any Buddhist can give that will always agree with another. personally, I chose Zen because it trimmed all of the excess fat that developed over the years.
Where does Buddhism's values come from? The simple answer - Buddha. (another answer is Hinduism) He was actually born into a royal Hindu family and chose a life of poverty later on when he saw people suffering in the streets of the city. In fact, to not hold back, he abandoned his wife and newborn child to choose this life of poverty. Supposedly he chose many different paths available at the time, from his original gluttony to intentional starvation, in order to figure out life.
What is the basis of the belief that there is an empirical universal good and evil? - I'm not so sure there is this belief. One problem Buddhism faces is that the languages have been changed many, many times - most Buddhists will even admit this to you. For instance, the term "Suffering" in the original Pali language is more accurately translated as "discomfort" in modern English. It might be simple semantics, but there's a huge difference in connotation between the two in today's society.
That being said though, the simplest example of universal good and evil is anything which causes or eases "suffering" to another creature. Which ties in to...
Why is causing other beings to suffer considered empirically bad? - Karma. If you ignore the spiritual aspects of that word and focus on the "here and now" of it, it begins to make more sense. Karma is really, all about selfishness, to put it bluntly. You want good karma for yourself so that you feel better, you get that by helping others feel better.
The example I use is that of a honey bee. If a bee lands on you and you instinctively swat at it, you'll get stung since that bee perceives you as a threat... which is what you are to it. If that same bee lands on you and you let it walk around and then fly off, you and the bee both get to continue living in relative peace.
In other words, positive karma begets positive karma, while negative karma bets negative karma. It's a matter of cause and effect. You behaving in a way that causes someone or something else to suffer, ultimately causes you to suffer as well. That's why causing suffering is empirically bad.
Why is life considered good, and death considered bad (therefore to save a life is considered virtuous), especially considering that reincarnation exists? - This is almost a 2 in 1 question, but again, look at karma. The idea is that everyone has a lifetime's worth of potential to fulfill their karma before they have to be reborn, whether it's the 5 day life cycle of a fly or the 80 years of a human being.
Now, you also have to understand reincarnation and a little concept called "anatta" or "not self". One of the key fundamentals of Buddhism is that everything is changing all the time. A large part of the suffering people go through in life is not adapting to this and becoming attached to certain things, values, opinions, concepts, etc. Since, Buddhism believes everything is always changing, anything we would define as being "us" would be moot since it will also change, therefor, there is no "self" in Buddhism.
Lost yet? Yeah, so was I. This is one of the hardest things I had to take in when I was learning. Every religion I studied prior to this teaches all about spirits and souls, then along comes Buddhism and says "they don't really exist and, by the way, neither do you!" I was floored. Once you realize what that actually means though, it's rather liberating!
None of this means you don't exist, but it means whatever it is you think defines you at one moment, will change the next... even the air in your lungs this second is different from the air in your lungs the next second. When reincarnation does occur, you change once more.
Reincarnation, for that matter, doesn't even have to be a leap of faith, science has already demonstrated one basic principle - the Conservation of Energy. You may say it's impossible because the human population on the planet is growing, but consider we all come from one source of energy (for any Star Wars fans out there, you can call this "The Force"), take a good look around. Animals are dying off, insects are being killed off, vegetation is being chopped down and energy sources such as oil and coal are being mined drilled and consumed. The energy we come from is all around. You can almost trace the human population explosion with the discovery of oil... and if we ever run out of oil, you may even be able to trace it back down that same graph. But let's save the oil debate for another thread...
Getting back to the point - Preventing another person or creature from fulfilling their karmic potential, is what's considered a "bad" thing. They may be reincarnated, but there's a delay and a learning process involved as they go back through life once again. Even a death row serial killer may find "God" at the last moment and perform some kind acts, but if they were to die before that, then they wouldn't be able to fulfill this potential.
As you start living and opening yourself up to this concept and lifestyle, you start to see these effects the same as people see any other objects around them. Before long, the act itself becomes a burden of consciousness and you don't even consider the tangible ramifications.
Basically, when it came to Buddhism I tore it apart and was lost at first. I learned a few concepts that I really held on to and mostly ignored the others. As I learned the nuances of those few concepts, the others started to fall in to place. Once I had many pieces of the puzzle I actually realized that those misconceptions I had at the start were mainly due to my lack of knowledge and understanding.
Unlike other religions though, the answers were never simply "because it is". I was born Roman Catholic and my wife is a Seventh Day Adventist, so I hear and know all about dogma and "God's will". I was happy to find a religion that, for once said, "try it for yourself and question everything you're taught." Which is basically the mindset behind Buddhism.
This is why a lot of teachers and masters don't have a single, straight answer for anything you present to them. Buddhism is more internal than most other religions and most of it has to be figured out by you, personally. The texts and teachers can only give you some guidance along the way... but it can sometimes be like asking Farmer Bob for directions to the highway - "You gotta make a right were old Jim's oak used to be, then when you get to the spot where the old school burned down, make a left. Before you see a sign for Maggie's, turn left again..." :frusty: