Purpose of religion

wil said:
What if the real benefit is not a belief in a higher power?
Click to expand...
Churchgoing as a mainly social activity.

There are lots of folks who pray alone to a higher power they actually believe in. There are lots of Catholics who go to mass to receive the eucharist, without stopping to natter and socialise. Christian monasticism was founded by the desert fathers who retired into the desert as hermits.

Carthusian monks live in solitary cells in their monasteries and wake at midnight to go together to the unheated church in winter and pray for three hours, but without talking to each other. They eat once a day alone in their cells and do not ever talk to each other, except once a week when those who choose to can join a communal walk and chat in pairs, but changing partners every fifteen minutes.

There are solitary hermits and mystics of most religions. The mythical Lao Tsu, who wrote down the eighty-eight sayings of the Tao te Ching on bamboo strips, was by legend a solitary wandering sage. Solitary hermits and mystics are a feature of Hinduism and Buddhism.

In the sermon on the mount Christ said:

But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matt 6:6
 
Last edited:
People are rescued by faith from drug addiction. People get peace and courage to deal with illness and death. People get acceptance to live alone. I believe God cares first about the soul, but that doesn't mean prayer may not bring some material benefits too.

Give us this day our daily bread. Small daily miracles
 
Last edited:
wil said:
Why would one assume that?
Click to expand...
Maybe because those peoples saw themselves as living 'in' and 'with' nature in all its broader dimensions?

This was not simply a set of beliefs, it was a living sensibility, expressed in religious forms.

Hence the scope and breadth of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, to be perceived as a commentary on the 'natural' and the 'supernatural' – on living in relation to one's neighbour and to God – bearing in mind the 1st century mindset observed no such hard-and-fast distinction, it was commonly understood that each permeates the other.

My own view is that the Reformation, with all its potential benefits, began the unintended consequence of the 'rationalising' of religion (eg stripping the sacred places of all its symbols, the liturgies of all its forms, leaving just bare walls and empty spaces), and the Enlightenment accelerated it, to the point that, rather than living 'in' nature, 'nature' became a utility to be managed and exploited.

We no longer saw ourselves as part of the picture, rather we were the architects of it.

(And the existential crisis we now face is that sensibility is collapsing.)

wil said:
Exactly and that is what the atheists, humanists, folks who have given up or moved on from some aspect of their birth religion that they can no longer tolerate....they all still look for community, for discussion for common ground...much as I find here.
Click to expand...
As philosophers like Grey point out, today's atheisms, humanisms, etc., are simply theism in a secular guise. The framework remains, 'God' substituted by surrogates like 'progress', 'science', or some political ideology ... it's just replacing one set of dogmas for another.

And the deeper truth of it is, they move on, but take themselves with them, wherever they go ...
 
I understand that the security of the tribe depends on sharing. It’s of no benefit to the strength of the tribe for potential warriors or mothers to die, therefore the other members of the tribe will share what they have.

My personal belief is that Christ extended the concept of ‘love your neighbour’ beyond the tribe to include all human beings – in the sense of cosmic love that all things are one: if I hurt you or help you, I help or hurt myself.

In Eastern culture monks go around collecting their ‘daily bread’ from householders who believe the get a blessing from giving it. Or just to make sure the spiritual heart of their village or whatever, doesn’t die away.

That aside, there’s no reason for anyone to give of what they have to a stranger, outside of their tribe and family, except the feeling of having done something for ‘humanity’. But that is actually a Christian concept, imo.

The Good Samaritan
 
RJM said:
That aside, there’s no reason for anyone to give of what they have to a stranger, outside of their tribe and family, except the feeling of having done something for ‘humanity’. But that is actually a Christian concept, imo.
Click to expand...
Christians didn't invent this! And if you only do it for the warm fuzzy feeling I think you've missed the point!
 
Bloodshot said:
Christians didn't invent this! And if you only do it for the warm fuzzy feeling I think you've missed the point!
Click to expand...
Aupmanyav said:
Really! Do you think charity did not exist before the time of Jesus? Even animals do it, share their food.
Click to expand...
They share with their own family and tribe. It's not charity but necessary for the strength of the tribe. I'm suggesting Christ took it beyond the tribe, to include all beings. The Good Samaritan However I know it is also part of Buddhism, and the Bodhisattva concept not to accept liberation until all sentient beings are free.
 
Thomas said:
Nor can we bundle all atheists together – there are different kinds.
Click to expand...
Of course, all atheist are not the same, just as people of all religion are not the same. Even those of one, differ.
But an atheist will not credit God of thinking of social-welfare. If an atheist does that, he/she is no more an atheist.
 
wil said:
.... they all still look for community, for discussion for common ground...much as I find here.
Click to expand...
I think this is more likely the case in secular societies. I don't think we can assume that of cultures prior to the 17th century.

People leave their religions, but still seek a sense of community and belonging.

That is the appeal of modern religions, those with a looser doctrine, and make a less 'dogmatic' (as in adherence to a set of truth-values) demand on their communities.

You've referenced often the number of Christian denominations. The vast majority of those arose in the US, often driven by commercial as much as theological incentives.

The Hindu traditions are similarly all-embracing, with a much more worked out 'fluid' or 'organic' metaphysics.
 
Hindu mythology has stories like that of Shivi, who gave his flesh to an eagle in exchange for the life of a pigeon, Dileep who returned to a lion in place of a cow. All stories much older than the Christian era. Karna gave his protection to Indra, Arjuna's father, knowing very well that he is unprotected without it. Mahabali, the Kerala sovereign, gave three vows to Lord Vishnu, knowing very well that it was a strategy to remove him.

Kabir (15th Century) said, "Dātā itnā deejiye, jisme kutum samāya, main bhi bhookhā nā rahun. sādhu na bhookā jāi".
(O God, give me that much that I can feed my family, don't let me go hungry and let no good person return hungry from my house).

"Daya dharma ka mool hai, pap mool abhiman; tulsi daya na chhodiye jab tak ghat mein praan".
(Mercy is the essence of duty, pride is the base of sin; Tulsi says do not leave mercy till you are alive".
Saint Tulsi Das, Saint Kabir and Guru Nanak, lived around the same time, and many others all over India.
 
Aupmanyav said:
All stories much older than the Christian era.
Click to expand...
I accept thjat many concepts may have been around in eastern thought long before Christ, also perhaps that it is Christ who brought these ideas to western minds. Modern western atheism is not a result of human nature, which is not essentially selfless giving and sharing with strangers of other tribes and peoples -- but of Christian ideology?

EDIT: I also quite understand how the "We Christians Club" goes back to the tribal system of walking past the poor and the stranger from another tribe
 
Last edited:
I think the concept of being nice to strangers
RJM said:
perhaps that it is Christ who brought these ideas to western minds.
Click to expand...
And perhaps some western peoples already didn't need to be taught to be nice to strangers?
RJM said:
Modern western atheism is not a result of human nature, which is not essentially selfless giving and sharing with strangers of other tribes and peoples -- but of Christian ideology?
Click to expand...
Looks like a hell of a stretch to me?

And you seem to have a dim view of human nature. Most children instinctively share even with strangers. It's society that teaches them not to.
 
Bloodshot said:
And perhaps some western peoples already didn't need to be taught to be nice to strangers?
Click to expand...
In tribal African societies a person will cut his blanket in half to share with a member of his tribe, or kraal, but literally step over someone from another tribe dying in the street. That's not a person or a human being to him.

Bloodshot said:
And you seem to have a dim view of human nature. Most children instinctively share even with strangers. It's society that teaches them not to.
Click to expand...
That's the point. They do not share. Children are selfish until they're taught. It's society that teaches them to share. It's all part of growing up and learning the ways and tribal mores.
 
RJM said:
In tribal African societies a person will cut his blanket in half to share with a member of his tribe, or kraal, but literally step over someone from another tribe dying in the street. That's not a person or a human being to him.
Click to expand...
Huge generalisation, not at all representative of all tribes.
RJM said:
That's the point. They do not share. Children are selfish until they're taught. It's society that teaches them to share. It's all part of growing up and learning the ways and tribal mores.
Click to expand...
That doesn't tally either with my personal experience, or the developmental evidence I've read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top