How has religion helped us?

[suanni]

Tell me one wrong thing that religion taught? It's just the people who made things wrong!

I could mention many things...however as religion is man-made not god made, the rules and regulations (the good ones) were the sage reminders of the wise elders. Maybe our society no longer appreciates the wisdom of their elders and that is why it seems that society is devolving. The treatment of our elders does suggest that.

A good thing about religion? Although somewhat biased/distorted the religious texts have given mankind one heck of a history and social history of many people.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, suanni, welcome back!

however as religion is man-made not god made,

I agree with you that religious establishments are man-made. Personal religion is a another matter, if we are indeed created beings...

the rules and regulations (the good ones) were the sage reminders of the wise elders.

I like this description.

Maybe our society no longer appreciates the wisdom of their elders and that is why it seems that society is devolving. The treatment of our elders does suggest that.

Yes, that is one indicator. Dissolution of the family, disrespect of parents and authority, devaluation of life (especially human life), glorification and adulation of social misfits and criminals, misdirected worship towards idols, improper and misguided valuation of sex, and on and on... However, establishment religion is not the direct cause of this falling away. Indirectly, institutional religion is only responsible for driving its adherents away with hypocritical actions by those in ecclesiastical authority. Those that desire to fall (or turn) away from religious upbringing do so predominantly of their own volition. All too often, in my experience, any excuse will do. Usually, the real underlying reason seems to be to find a justification for a personal lust, want or desire that is contrary to that upbringing.

A good thing about religion? Although somewhat biased/distorted the religious texts have given mankind one heck of a history and social history of many people.

I very much agree.

 

[suanni]

Thankyou for the welcome back juantoo

Dissolution of the family, disrespect of parents and authority, devaluation of life (especially human life), glorification and adulation of social misfits and criminals, misdirected worship towards idols, improper and misguided valuation of sex, and on and on...

Too much power given to the inexperienced who cannot see the consequences of their actions, just how to get away with them.

However, establishment religion is not the direct cause of this falling away. Indirectly, institutional religion is only responsible for driving its adherents away with hypocritical actions by those in ecclesiastical authority.

Yup agree with that.

Those that desire to fall (or turn) away from religious upbringing do so predominantly of their own volition. All too often, in my experience, any excuse will do. Usually, the real underlying reason seems to be to find a justification for a personal lust, want or desire that is contrary to that upbringing.

Initially I guess those who turned away were rebellious and if it were not for the rebels in society nothing would change. It will turn about. The rebellious who decided to turn away from all morality their children will rebel against their parents ideals. Unfortunately for some of the children who are turning out bad it is the lax morals of the parents that has influenced their lifestyle...not exactly helped by the lax laws of the land now. The rebellious of these children are turning about face and are seeking spirituality.

 

[iBrian]

Nice to see you back, suanni.

 

[nomanshake]

Welcome Suanni,

I would like to what according to you are wrong things that religion taught and would like to make them clear. Please go ahead and post them in here. Thankyou.

No doubt religion is man-made, but not God. I mean we never existed since the time this world started. and since thousands of years religions are still very well alive. There must be a reason. I predict that the day someone would find out the mystery behind God's existence the Day of Judgement might come.

"There are more believers then non-believers in this world"
That's a simple thing I can say to an atheist or an agnostic to make him believe.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

Actually, this comes as no surprize. Yet it raises a question, perhaps you could help.

How would a Buddhist describe a Christian to a Hindu?

that is a good question. i suspect that the answer is a rather subjective one. were i to engage in this, i would explain to the Sanatana Dharma adhernet that Christians are, essentially, henotheistic and in this sense find alot of consonance in the Sanatana Dharma. however, the Christian tradition is more exclusive than the Sanatana Dharma and thus, Christianity proclaims that it is only through their paradigm that one can reach heaven whereas the Sanatana Dharma proclaims that "paths are many, destinations are the same".

Not as a stranger pointing a finger, but as a brother or cousin with a familial arm around that person? I have struggled many times here to describe an inclusiveness that involves all, and always the same problem of language comes up.

not to put too fine a point on it, however, there is a great deal of controversy between Hindu and Christian in India at the moment. most of it centers around what Hindus consider to be dishonorable conversation tactics and the like. as a consequence, it may be difficult to engender any sort of inclusiveness which is accomodating enough for Sanatana Dharma and, at the same time, restrictive enough for Christianity.

I mean, Buddhists do look to something beyond themselves, something greater than themselves, yes? Or do I misinterpret?

remember.... there is no "self" to look beyond. this is a rather fine point, honestly, and can be difficult to get a real solid understanding of. there is something that is uncreated and thus, there is the opportunity for liberation. however, that something cannot be considered in the same fashion as a Creator Deity for this something isn't, in the final analysis, the Absolute, the root sequence, the Ground of Being, as it were.

Or, perhaps more directly to the point, is nomanshake correct in ascribing atheism to Buddhism? I see the two disciplines as distinct, but then again, my eyesight is beginning to fail, so...

it depends on how one defines "atheism". stricly speaking, the term denotes a lack of belief in deities, which is not the Buddhist position. by contrast, Buddhism affirms the existence of deities, thus, it is not atheistic in the sense of denying deity. it is atheistic in the sense of denying a Creator Deity. in fact, at one point, some of the deities appear to request the Buddha Shakyamuni to Turn the Wheel for them as well.

metta,

~v

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, suanni!

Thank you for your post!

Initially I guess those who turned away were rebellious and if it were not for the rebels in society nothing would change. It will turn about. The rebellious who decided to turn away from all morality their children will rebel against their parents ideals. Unfortunately for some of the children who are turning out bad it is the lax morals of the parents that has influenced their lifestyle...not exactly helped by the lax laws of the land now. The rebellious of these children are turning about face and are seeking spirituality.

I want to agree with you. Several things keep me from doing so completely. (I guess that is part of the struggle with studying human social development, we can only work with generalities because there will always be exceptions) I am trying to think of a way to say what I want. I see the law of diminishing returns, or friction, being applied to this. That is, once lost, it is really hard to make back up if it ever really can be.

Perhaps that is the reason for institutional religion, a roadmap to guide us back. Ours is certainly not the first generation to rebel. And with every rebellion more is lost. I think we all here recognize that, for example, the Christianity of today is nothing like the Christianity of 35 or 40 AD. Or even 100 AD. Or even 312 AD. It is only remotely similar to the Christianity of 1611 AD. Yet, the teachings of the Christian scriptures have provided a roadmap to guide each generation that seeks a way back to the path, but that path is not always so clearly marked. (I am wondering if I am beginning to lose my analogy here)

Different generations face different challenges. The generation that faced the realization that the Earth is round did not have the same challenge to overcome as we do with the abortion issue. Parents cannot teach their children what they themselves do not understand. If they have rebelled against religious authority, as you say, then you are correct, they do not have the tools to teach morality to their children. And those children, even if they choose to return to some religious teaching, have a great hole in their psyche, an emptiness of moral teaching, that may never be adequately filled. Hence, diminishing return, a loss that cannot be fully made up. If the following generation rebels, yet more is lost, the next generation attempts to return, and there remains something that is extinguished and not regained.

I don't know if I am making any sense. I think there is even greater loss when one steps outside the traditional bounds to manufacture their own way, the smorgasbord religion. While traditional institutions do have their pitfalls and problems, they do attempt to cover the "dark side," the unpleasant stuff we do not want to look at. "Pick and choose" religion does not take this "dark side" into account. It is bad enough we have lost so much through the centuries, to kid ourselves with fallacious reasoning and lolly pop religion is worse, in my opinion, than no religion at all.

Now I'm rambling, so it is time to end this for now. Especially since I have lost track of the gist of the thread. Oh yeah, what has religion done for us? A lot. Good and bad. Maybe the better question is whether or not we would be better off without religion?

Personally, I think we would be much worse off.

 

[suanni]

Thankyou for the welcome back, I,Brian

Welcome Suanni,

I would like to what according to you are wrong things that religion taught and would like to make them clear. Please go ahead and post them in here. Thankyou.

No doubt religion is man-made, but not God. I mean we never existed since the time this world started. and since thousands of years religions are still very well alive. There must be a reason. I predict that the day someone would find out the mystery behind God's existence the Day of Judgement might come.

Thankyou for the welcome nomanshake

Religion taught mankind that providing that there was a Biblical passage to condone their practises anything could be done in the name of God. You just have to look at the practises in the Middle Ages. The excuse for the terrible tortures could be found in scripture...the word of God.
One such example
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm

Whilst we, today, may see these terrible acts as anything but religious, it has been the evolvement of mankind, not religion that has taught mankind that these acts were heinous. They had the Biblical passages to back them up
'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live'
That was the excuse to mutilate and burn many a midwife.

1.Leviticus 18:22-23 ";You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion."

2. Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them."

This has been the passage used as an excuse to excuse the horrible crimes committed upon homosexuals.
Think of any crime and you will find a passage in the Bible condoning it.

The 10 commandments are the basic laws of many lands and faiths and really make sense and they can be ascribed to any faith.
Whilst I have merely concentrated on Christianity, other faiths can also be criticised for murder and mutilation in the name of God. I cannot comment on the Jewish, Buddhist or Hindu faith for I know little about them.
We continue to have hideous acts done in the name of God with the suicide bombers. They believe through their faith that they will ascend into paradise through dying in the name of faith. This belief is not solely Muslim, it can be also be ascribed to Christianity (Christian martyrs)

You may say this is not religion but it is. Their religious as taught to them told them this.
Look to the history of religion and you will see many horrible acts done in the name of religion.

"There are more believers then non-believers in this world"
That's a simple thing I can say to an atheist or an agnostic to make him believe.

I don't doubt it. You cannot tell someone what to believe, they have to find their faith within their own heart. When the time is right they will find the Divine.
I am neither an atheist nor agnostic.

 

[suanni]

Kindest Regards, suanni!

Thank you for your post!

Perhaps that is the reason for institutional religion, a roadmap to guide us back. Ours is certainly not the first generation to rebel. And with every rebellion more is lost. I think we all here recognize that, for example, the Christianity of today is nothing like the Christianity of 35 or 40 AD. Or even 100 AD. Or even 312 AD. It is only remotely similar to the Christianity of 1611 AD. Yet, the teachings of the Christian scriptures have provided a roadmap to guide each generation that seeks a way back to the path, but that path is not always so clearly marked. (I am wondering if I am beginning to lose my analogy here)

I do tend to agree with you here. I actually came across some of the teachings of the masters recently and the true gospels of Christ. They bear very little similarity with Christianity today.
So much has been lost in the way of all the earth's old religions and many valuable lessons lost

Different generations face different challenges. The generation that faced the realization that the Earth is round did not have the same challenge to overcome as we do with the abortion issue. Parents cannot teach their children what they themselves do not understand. If they have rebelled against religious authority, as you say, then you are correct, they do not have the tools to teach morality to their children. And those children, even if they choose to return to some religious teaching, have a great hole in their psyche, an emptiness of moral teaching, that may never be adequately filled. Hence, diminishing return, a loss that cannot be fully made up. If the following generation rebels, yet more is lost, the next generation attempts to return, and there remains something that is extinguished and not regained.
I don't know if I am making any sense. I think there is even greater loss when one steps outside the traditional bounds to manufacture their own way, the smorgasbord religion. While traditional institutions do have their pitfalls and problems, they do attempt to cover the "dark side," the unpleasant stuff we do not want to look at. "Pick and choose" religion does not take this "dark side" into account. It is bad enough we have lost so much through the centuries, to kid ourselves with fallacious reasoning and lolly pop religion is worse, in my opinion, than no religion at all.

Again I agree with you to an extent. Mankind is more educated now, and many will not listen to immoral ministers, who preach one thing and practise another. Some turned away because of it. Many are turning away from faith because of fundamentalists, if they had any inkling of faith they sharp turn away when they are told they are going to burn in the fires of Hell for all eternity because they don't practise their faith in the way another does. And when violence is done in the name of faith, people question faith.
And what are they left with? Uncertainty, eventually emptiness and the empty void they attempt to fill with something else...often a chemical.
I turned away from traditional faith a long time ago but kept with God. I found my morality, and I'm convinced that mankind is built with their own moral code.
I actually think the pick and choose religion idea is a good idea. Just because you were born into a faith does not mean that it is your concept of spirituality. If you are forced to follow a path that does not fit your spirit then you turn from faith entirely.
Many turned away from the faith they were born into in the 60s and 70s and turned to Buddhism and Islaam.
Many turn to paganism today but many pagans (that I have come across) have better 'Christian' ideals than Christians without the fear of burning in Hell, but there are pitfalls as you say. Many pitfalls, without the spiritual considerations. However for those who 'survive', their spiritual path is often an interesting one and a one of peace. It is often joked that you can spot the elder pagan...they don't drink or smoke, are vegetarian and live a very clean life. Even with paganism the dark side is kept very quiet.
Now I'm rambling. But yes, if a parent has had no moral grounding how can they teach their offspring morals? It can't all be left to the state.
There is also the aspect now of greed ....too many parents are so busy working the only moral they can pass onto their children is how to work all the hours God sends.

Oh yeah, what has religion done for us? A lot. Good and bad. Maybe the better question is whether or not we would be better off without religion?

Personally, I think we would be much worse off.

And again I agree.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

I should have guessed I would probably bite off more than I could chew!

i would explain to the Sanatana Dharma adhernet that Christians are, essentially, henotheistic and in this sense find alot of consonance in the Sanatana Dharma. however, the Christian tradition is more exclusive than the Sanatana Dharma and thus, Christianity proclaims that it is only through their paradigm that one can reach heaven whereas the Sanatana Dharma proclaims that "paths are many, destinations are the same".

OK. I suppose Christianity deserves this stinging slap.

not to put too fine a point on it, however, there is a great deal of controversy between Hindu and Christian in India at the moment. most of it centers around what Hindus consider to be dishonorable conversation tactics and the like. as a consequence, it may be difficult to engender any sort of inclusiveness which is accomodating enough for Sanatana Dharma and, at the same time, restrictive enough for Christianity.

I am not familiar with this you speak of. Nevertheless, is it ethically correct to hold the entire guilty for the unskilled actions of the few?

remember.... there is no "self" to look beyond. this is a rather fine point, honestly, and can be difficult to get a real solid understanding of.

Very well, my ignorance is showing. I am glad you are gracious, and at least conversant with Christian ideology, more so than I am with Buddhism and Hinduism. Would I call it something like "this manifestation in this existance?" Or something like?

there is something that is uncreated and thus, there is the opportunity for liberation. however, that something cannot be considered in the same fashion as a Creator Deity for this something isn't, in the final analysis, the Absolute, the root sequence, the Ground of Being, as it were.

I am truly ignorant.

Is this because this "Ground of Being" is not "sentient," in the sense of a "Big Beard in the Sky?"

it depends on how one defines "atheism". stricly speaking, the term denotes a lack of belief in deities, which is not the Buddhist position. by contrast, Buddhism affirms the existence of deities, thus, it is not atheistic in the sense of denying deity. it is atheistic in the sense of denying a Creator Deity. in fact, at one point, some of the deities appear to request the Buddha Shakyamuni to Turn the Wheel for them as well.

Now I am intrigued! Deities look to Shakyamuni? Yet Shakyamuni is not a deity?

Forgive my ignorance. If I was confused before, it is nothing like the confusion I now have.

 

[suanni]

Christianity proclaims that it is only through their paradigm that one can reach heaven whereas the Sanatana Dharma proclaims that "paths are many, destinations are the same".

I like this, and its precisely how I feel about faith.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the reply.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply!

I should have guessed I would probably bite off more than I could chew!

OK. I suppose Christianity deserves this stinging slap.

i do not mean this as a rebuke for it is a fairly common trait within monotheistic traditions.... some moreso than others, of course.

however... it can be a bit strange for beings not used to the Sanatana Dharma point of view. for a bit of a refresher, you may want to review this thread:

http://www.comparative-religion.com/forum/showthread.php?t=560

a snippet:

in the experience of India, on the other hand, although the holy mystery and power have been understood to be indeed transcendent, they are also, at the same time, immanent. it's not that the divine is everywhere: it is that the divine is everything. so that one does not require any outside reference, revelation, sacrament, or authorized community to return to it. one has but to recognized (re-cognize) what is within. deprived of this recognition, we are removed from our own reality by a cerebral shortsightedness which is called in Sanskrit "maya", "delusion".

I am not familiar with this you speak of. Nevertheless, is it ethically correct to hold the entire guilty for the unskilled actions of the few?

it is a bit beyond the scope of our conversation here.. so, we can leave that aside for now. however, i would tend to agree that it is not a skillful ethical action to view whole groups as guilty by association... however, i note that quite a bit of that is going on. i don't like it any more than you.

Very well, my ignorance is showing. I am glad you are gracious, and at least conversant with Christian ideology, more so than I am with Buddhism and Hinduism. Would I call it something like "this manifestation in this existance?" Or something like?

well... we could call it that... for conversational purposes and all

the teaching of annata, not-self, has tremendously broad ramifications about the nature of phenomena. thus, it is not just that there is no "self" in beings.. what we really mean to be saying is that, phenomena lack an inherent selfnature which permenantly exists from its own side. thus, depending on what sutta/sutra you are reading, various aspects of this teaching are emphasized. moreover, depending on the particular philosophical view that a being adopts various aspects of this teaching are emphasized.

that, in my view, is a discussion more properly held in the Buddhist section of the forum

Is this because this "Ground of Being" is not "sentient," in the sense of a "Big Beard in the Sky?"

well.. this is part of it, for sure. i suspect that it must seem quite mysterious in some sense... and perhaps a bit complicated. i assure you that this is simply how the teachings appear to me and i am rather overly verbose, it would seem.

if you are interested, you can read the Buddha Shakyamunis words here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001-tb0.html

what we mean to say is that there is no ultimate ground of existence, in whatever manner it may be thought of. some beings think that Nirvana is the Buddhist "ground of being" however, this is not so, as the Buddha Shakyamuni explains in the refereneced sutta.

Now I am intrigued! Deities look to Shakyamuni? Yet Shakyamuni is not a deity?

indeed, this is the situation

here's a snippet of the sutta in which this is related a bit more explicitly than in other places:

"Subrahma and Paramatta Brahma,
together with sons of the Powerful One,
Sanankumara and Tissa:
They too have come to the forest meeting.
Great Brahma, who stands over
1,000 Brahma worlds,
who arose there spontaneously, effulgent:
Prestigious is he, with a terrifying body.
And ten brahma sovereigns,
each the lord of his own realm —
and in their midst has come
Harita Brahma surrounded by his retinue."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn001-tb0.html

Forgive my ignorance. If I was confused before, it is nothing like the confusion I now have.

hopefully, more knowledgeable posters than i can help explain some of our tradition

metta,

~v

 

[nomanshake]

Thanks for the reply suanni,

All the time when people balem religion I tell them it's not the religion but the human mind. God has given people the freedom of "mind" "thought" "speech and action", i mean almost the five senses. He's given freewill to think what he wants and judge his actions and good deeds or wrong deeds upon what he thinks with his mind. Rebellious attacks? when did Bible, Quran or others say "Kill innocent people, if you think it's right" nor did it say "Kill a person who is suffering from some disease etc etc". It's justn the human mind that interpret the Holy Books and go deep into the religious messages and change them in their own mind and commit what they feel like.
If human mind never had a free will, he could never have understood wrong and good. The main purpose to have come into this life is ofcourse to understand God.

As far as homosexuality goes, it's indeed a extreme matter. If there were no big punishments for this then who knows 50% of a nation could have been them, and there might not be any more children born and it poor effects on the younger generation. If you are born homosexual, you need to have control over your mind and hands and think that there are some poor, disabled, child orphans etc in this world too.

It's the people that do horrible acts in the name of religion, because they are mistaken. They want to act smart and I do hate them. I have always hated the religious scholars who make their own theories on religion, which most of the times bring criticism.

Not to forget, it's today that we humans are smart enough to understand humanity. Before 1000's of years, religion was more like a saver of humanity.
With so much of messengers, who are popular even today, I don't think so that it's just one story that they made!

 

[suanni]

Thanks for the reply nomanshake
Do you really want me to include the passages that incite man to hatred against his fellow man? Were there not enough in those links?
During the worst times of religious fervour that led to countless killings in the name of religion...I say in the name of religion, the vast majority has been political dressed up as religion... mankind on the whole was illiterate. The only people who could read and write were royalty (and you did as you were told or suffer the consequences) and the clerics. The clerics came to the people to spread the word of God and those who were literate were to be looked up to. I guess harking back to the days of the Druids. Only the select few knew the knowledge.
If a priest (likely under orders) told the masses that their failed harvest or the outbreak of a deadly flu through the village was the result of *insert 'sin'* and the only way to remove that sin was to slaughter those concerned, what do you think the mass of the village would do? They would seek out the sinners and slaughter them. They couldn't read the Bible, they had to rely on the priest to tell them it. Sure it was twisting, deliberately misinterpreting the text but where the masses were concerned it was the word of God.

Even today religious fervour can still be achieved by a charismatic speaker getting up and saying his/her piece and suggesting that the evils of the world are all down to *insert practise* and use religious text to back them up. This is how sects are started and sects can become very large, up to the point in a totally new area of that particular religion. We are literate, but we can still be fooled by a speaker....Bin Laden for starters...although his followers are falling.
Does this link help to explain?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/destruct.htm

I have thought of another good thing that religion has given us, literacy.

 

[nomanshake]

suanni thanks for the reply,

Well as far as this discussion is concerned, we wont get an end just like many other religious topics. Once again the conclusion has to be that human mind does wrong when it makes out wrong of the religious text.

I still don't see a straightforward religious text from most popular Holy Books that teaches wrong in the first hand.