Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to Practical religious and spiritual beliefs
Bhaskar.ing - when I see a speech from 1893, I can't help but ask myself
if those of us who would want to advance moderate all inclusive philosophies aren't like those advancing any other religious message or philosophy.
We feel we know that we are on a righteous and honorable path, I can't help but return to the fact that this man spoke these words 114 years ago. Exactly the same problems exist amongst inhabitants of this planet today, a very small element recognizes the root of these problems, while the remainder proliferates the denominational entrenchments that foster the nurturing environment for these problems. What will the religions and philosophies of the world look like 114 years from now? Probably much the same as it did then and as it does today.
posted by
gomedome
on April 13, 2007 at 10:02 AM
| link to this | reply
MoonSpirit - I would never dream of deleting your comments - I thoroughly
enjoy them - (especially when you have taken a few nips of vino)
I do have a suggestion however; your comments require a great deal of effort on your part, an effort that may be better spent in creating a rebuttal/reply post with a link from these comments. Doing it that way also serves to build blog traffic for yourself but it is just a suggestion.
posted by
gomedome
on April 13, 2007 at 9:47 AM
| link to this | reply
Tonyzonit - for the most part we are on the same page
I should however clarify that I have never stated, nor would I suggest that religion, religious beliefs or the freedom to openly practice these things should ever be censured in any manner. I just want the religious folks to get a grip on themselves, realize that they are advancing and proliferating ever redundant philosophies that do not work for everyone, realize that they do not speak for me nor will I let them brainwash my children or grandchildren and to leave me or anyone who is unwilling to subscribe to what they are selling the hell out of it. . . this however seems too much to ask at this point in our history. They appoint themselves the guardians of family values while having the world's highest divorce rates amongst all identifyable groups. They attempt to instill their religious beliefs in our classrooms disguised as science. They create societal ostracism and proliferate discrimatory practices against non conforming members of society.
They can have all of the things that they derive comfort or inspiration from, they can have their say in society, they can have anything they want as long as it does not trample on the rights of others. What they can't have are rights above and beyond the rest of society.
posted by
gomedome
on April 13, 2007 at 9:36 AM
| link to this | reply
sannhet - I couldn't agree more but in fairness I feel that the positive
influences of organized religion on society are closer to a counterbalance of the negatives than I routinely describe.
Addressed in an earlier comment by Tonyzonit, religion and religious beliefs offer a great deal to a great number of people and in many areas influence society in a positive manner. There is no disputing this but by the same token many negatives and an ever growing disconnect with the modern world exist within the influences of organized religion. There is also no disputing that as a species we are evolving spiritualy, however we seem to be stagnating at a point in our development where the effort put into the maintainence of ancient and quite often redundant religious dogmas, overshadows the advancement of the more important core message.
posted by
gomedome
on April 13, 2007 at 9:17 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree with you on that Sannhet
Mankind is still a long way away from the level of awareness that we ought to be at. I believe that organized religion has quite a hand in keeping us from there.
posted by
David1Spirit
on April 13, 2007 at 9:03 AM
| link to this | reply
MoonSpirit - in answer to your 2nd last comment - you and I think a lot
alike.
I don't consider myself an atheist either and also do not subscribe to the traditional definitions of God but where our similar thinking may part ways is in that I cannot reconcile the existence of a conscious supreme entity of any sort. The more educated I become, the less likely that I will ever reverse this thinking. The only concession that I can make to the existence of anything that could by some be considered God is in the possible existence of a common energy signature that seems to be consistent amongst all living things. Where I find the ancient non dogmatic philosophies intriguing and quite often inspirational, for me they offer little in the way of answers to age old questions. These answers, if they can be found, seem to lie in scientific research, the study of biophysics and the belief that all human experiences are derived directly from the human mind. I tend to discard any belief of any nature, religious, philosophical or otherwise, if it cannot be equally applied or inclusive to both myself and any other human being living on this planet.
posted by
gomedome
on April 13, 2007 at 9:01 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome -
Since I believe that each of us evolves spiritually, just as we as a species have evolved, and since most of us in this world are pretty far down on the spiritual evolution ladder, it's going to be quite awhile before religion actually has an overall positive impact on humanity. Don't get me wrong. There are pockets of positive impact all around us. But they are few and far between. The point of critical mass necessary for wholesale positive impact from religion is far, far into the future.
posted by
sannhet
on April 13, 2007 at 8:45 AM
| link to this | reply
This hymn has a deep human significance. No traces of any religion here.
'As the different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their water in the sea, so, O Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies, various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee.'
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on April 13, 2007 at 7:14 AM
| link to this | reply
gomedome
Religion, comes from the root, 'religare' which means. "to tie together". What Tony is trying to covey. Also the word from where ligament comes. Do not please consider me as a votary of the dogmatics as you so often tend to associate people who write under "Religion and Spirituality". Firstly, it is Each unto his own, very private...in the sense that one finds one's centre, be it through belief (let him be happy), serious quest, or, even no belief for that matter. Zen masters are the most perfect examples for the questions you have raised in your write. If you have chanced upon their "Blank Book", it is a 'tretise' of Religion of no Religions, though nothing, not a word is written in that book. You may find it very intriguing. What I am trying to impress here is that so many avenues are open on the subject that one has only to learn to respect and see reason, just as I see in yours. It widens one's spheres. Good for discussion but not far-reaching in argumentation. It achieves nothing, nor does it solve anything.
Here I always love to quote from Swami Vivekanda's speech at the Parliament of Religions, held in Chicago in 1893 who closed by speaking of humanity’s history of violence and his hopes for its end, “Sectarianism, bigotry, and its horrible descendant, fanaticism, have long possessed this beautiful earth. They have filled the earth with violence, drenched it often and often with human blood, destroyed civilization and sent whole nations to despair. Had it not been for these horrible demons, human society would be far more advanced than it is now. But their time is come; and I fervently hope that the bell that tolled this morning in honor of this convention may be the death-knell of all fanaticism, of all persecutions with the sword or with the pen, and of all uncharitable feelings between persons wending their way to the same goal.”
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on April 13, 2007 at 7:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome,
Regarding “Hinduism”, a “Pagan, pan-theistic” religion, it would appear to be a religion that believes in many, many gods. Below, I said that Hinduism is similar to Buddhism in believing in ‘no god’. I also said that scores of Hindus would disagree. I remembered a favorite Teacher of mind, one Nisargadatta Maharaj. He was an “enlightened being.” Maharaj said in one of his discussions with his devotee, “Don’t say that I am an atheist. I perform bhajans twice a day.” (Bhajans are Hindu devotional singing wherein the attributes of gods and goddesses are praised.)
There’s a curious statement for you. “Don’t say that I am an atheist” said by a Hindu holy man. I will cite Maharaj as evidence for my contention that Hinduism does not believe in God in the way that the West (or apparently many in the East) would view the term. Apparently, many of his followers (many of whom were Western by the way) thought that his ‘views’ smacked of atheism.
The gods and goddesses represent states or qualities within man. They represent potentials or processes occurring within every man. The “All Pervading Reality”, “God”, is seen as the (unknowable mystery) out of which everything arose, which sustains everything, and into which everything will ultimately collapse. Similar to the Big Bang. Similar to what Western subquantum physicist talk about. Western subquantum physicist say that every inch of (empty) space is not empty at all but pregnant with unlimited potential energy – hence the (current) name of my blog, the Sea of Infinite Potential. This “sea of infinite potential” is what I would call “God” although I certainly don’t mean God in the Western sense and Christians would say that I am either an atheist or that I worship Satan or both.
Why am I telling you all of this? I don’t know. Who cares? I guess because I had too much wine last night and opened my mouth when I shouldn’t have (which tends to happen when I drink too much wine) and said a bunch of stuff I shouldn’t have said. I guess I’m just trying to clarify but, once one steps on that slippery slope, there is no end to it.
Why don’t you just delete both of my comments. I never wanted to get into a discussion of my “beliefs” with anyone anyway. My “beliefs” are so contradictory by any sane person’s standards, that there will never be any conclusion to the matter.
Hey, even I don’t give a flying fuck about my beliefs. I don’t think that “beliefs” are important and every set of “beliefs” is wrong anyway (meaning that beliefs are necessarily limiting due to the nature of language) and the Sea of Infinite Potential is essentially (by our standards and conceptions) infinite.
Enough!!!!! This shit will never end. Delete my comments!!! Or whatever you want. It’s your blog. When I step into your house, I am subject to your “rules”.
Peace Brother,
MoonSpirit
posted by
syzygy
on April 13, 2007 at 5:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Hi Gome
Yes, I don't disagree with your response, but if you take out completely the religion from society - make it illegal - and replace it with atheist codes of conduct - well, i struggle to think of any state in history that has done that successfully. Religion seems to act as a comforter, and as a unifier (as you say, also as an excluder). Some anti-religious zealots in the USSR and in Civil War Spain absolutely trashed the churches, but a much larger section of society than these zealots would have found this abhorrent. Hence the modern states in Russia, Spain, the USA, the Middle East, all work with religion rather than try to suppress it. I'm not arguing for religious belief, but I think sometimes arguments against it, when they challenge us to drop it forthwith, such as those of Richard Dawkins, while they may be right from a scientific point of view, often seem not to acknowledge the hidden attractions of religion. Friendship, connections, cohesion of large groups of people (again, belonging), a sense of importance in the universe (again, belonging) - in fact, most of it comes down to a sense of belonging and order. There's also the feeling of divine justice - without this, it becomes a Darwinian survival of the richest! Anyway, this is all old ground. But the psychological benefits to weak humans of religion - and the practical benefits from knowing a lot of like-minded people, in business, in finding a suitable marriage partner, etc. etc. - need to be compensated for by society, if it hopes to prove that religion is no longer needed. And my guess is that if religion was abolished, quasi-religious societies like the Masons would vastly increase their numbers. Religions fulfil certain practical functions, whatever their crazy dogma might claim.
posted by
Antonionioni
on April 13, 2007 at 5:41 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome,
One thing that is great about Buddhism is that Buddhists don’t ‘believe in God’. Buddhists don’t believe in ‘an afterlife’. As you know, they believe in Nirvana which is the ‘void’. I don’t really ‘believe in’ anything (again there are problems with language) but, to the extent that one could say that I do, what I ‘believe in’ is very much what Buddhists believe. Sanathana Dharma (or Hinduism) certainly appears to believe in lots of ‘gods’ but, if one really delves into it, the core belief is really much the same as Buddhists, i.e., the ‘void’, no Heaven, no Hell, no ‘God’. Again, I think that that may be more semantics than philosophy or theology. If I were to elaborate on what ‘I believe’ (although I would say I don’t believe anything) many would call me ‘an atheist’ for much the same reason that many call Buddhists atheists. But, I don’t consider myself an atheist at all. It’s just that my conception of ‘God’ is radically different from what most people mean by God. Not that any of this makes any difference whatsoever. I’m just loose and happy – the right amount of wine – so my tongue (or in this case fingers) are loose. As you also know, Buddhism and Hinduism are even more diverse than Christianity – way more diverse actually - and millions of Buddhists and Hindus would line up to denounce what I just wrote calling me, I am sure, a heretic, blasphemer, and worse. I’m just giving you my take on it. I don’t speak for anyone except myself. I don’t care what any of the righteous say about me. My concern is my relationship with my core Self. I stand by my contention that the important thing is that we treat one another well. And by the way, I consider myself as having barely passing grades in that regard – maybe a D-.
MoonSpirit 
posted by
syzygy
on April 12, 2007 at 10:17 PM
| link to this | reply
MoonSpirit - I do stop by your postings a lot more than you know
I'm a notorious phantom clicker.
A great deal of my personal influence has been from Buddhism, I fully appreciate the world's ancient philosophies that are minus the dogma. The question of where did all of the "crap" come from?.. can simply be answered by examining the foibles of human nature. All communal entities setting conditions for inclusion, which in the case of organized religion is a belief in God and a conformity to doctrine, will inevitably and without exception instill an equal measure of conditions for exclusion. Human nature does the rest.
posted by
gomedome
on April 12, 2007 at 9:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Tonyzonit - I'm following you on the need for societal structure and rules
but I can't buy the examples of totalitarian regimes being the antithesis of religious influence.
The populaces of Germany during the time of Hitler for example, did not stop believing in God during his decade or so of control. I too wonder how far mankind would have come if the religious influence it has had over the past two millenia were different.
posted by
gomedome
on April 12, 2007 at 9:07 PM
| link to this | reply
David1Spirit - your closing sentiment is exactly how I feel about it
The entrenchments of the religious institutions have held us back for centuries and in the age of scientific discovery the problem has become even more critical. I feel that we are in a time where the disparity between ancient religious dogma and the modern world has persons of faith spending enormous effort reconciling redundant religious manuscripts with real life. This effort was not as profound or as necessary just 100 years ago. It is little wonder why the underlying messages are being all but ignored by so many people.
posted by
gomedome
on April 12, 2007 at 8:42 PM
| link to this | reply
Gomedome,
Despite my irreverence towards organized religion and ‘the righteous’, you may or may not know that I appear to ‘subscribe’ to the ‘teachings of the East’ and those coming through one incarnation in particular (okay, it’s your blog, one ‘man’ – btw, really everyone is considered to be an incarnation). You would only know that I 'follow' such teachings, however, if you were to click on one of my blogs or one of my comments about the subject. The only reason I mention all of this is because, like the Native peoples you mention, there is no emphasis whatsoever on ‘belief’ or ‘creed’ or ‘doctrine’. What the teachings are really about is ‘What would make you happy in this life?’ And what the teachings say (essentially) is that you will be happy in this life if you will stop thinking so much about yourself and spend more time loving and caring for others. That’s pretty much it in my opinion. And, for those who are worried about ‘God’ and/or the ‘afterlife’ the teachings say, if you want to make God happy, then stop thinking so much about yourself and spend more time loving and caring for others. The Teacher I refer to says such things as ‘Love All, Serve All’, ‘Service to Man is Service to God’, ‘Hands that Help are Holier than Lips that Pray’ – stuff like that.
(All of this judging and condemning and separating into camps, where the fuck did all of that bullshit come from?)
Jesus said ‘Let he who is without sin cast the first stone’ and ‘Love your neighbor (or brother or whatever it was) as yourself’ and ‘Judge not lest ye be judged’ (I’m not sure about that one, I think he said it, I didn’t look it up; even if he didn’t say it, I don’t think he would disagree.)
Who made up all of this other crap? Don’t answer, it’s rhetorical (unless you want to of course.)
MoonSpirit
P.S. Okay, I looked it up. It was even better than I remembered. 
Luke 6:37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”
posted by
syzygy
on April 12, 2007 at 1:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Religions have survived and prospered, despite the absurdities of doctrine,
whenever they have been useful in mobilising or uniting or stabilising large groups of people. I wonder, despite John Lennon's song 'Imagine', how, in fact, over previous centuries and also today, whatever supremacy the ideals of love for its own sake and being honest rather than living in fantasy might have in theory for rational minds, I do wonder how society would have evolved, without religions, humans being as selfish and competitive as they are / were / will be? Yes, it is easy to see what should happen, but it is also easy to see what happens when the state / tribe etc. is not religious but imposes its rules by force. Examples- USSR, Nazi Germany (yes, I know both made a show of being religious when it suited them) or the Pol Pot regime, among many others. I'm sure there are many much older examples that history does not record or are obscure to most of us. On the other hand, it is easy to see how chaotic society would be when there are no rules at all. When has a truly anarchic state or group of tribes ever prospered? Its nonsense, they never can. There are in fact voluntary rules imposed by us all which, for instance, protect out territory at all times or win us basic respect from others. Religion's usefulness, dogma aside (I don't speak as a believer) is to provide rules - often broadly similar across different religions - that its tribe or society can understand and implement - as well as being used as inspiration to fight wars and possibly die, and to face one's own death. Without those, it is hard to see how disparate groups of people could have achieved as much, whether for good or ill.
posted by
Antonionioni
on April 12, 2007 at 9:44 AM
| link to this | reply
very good post gomedome
You mention this: ".....The thous and thou shalt nots all designed to command human nature out of humans, seem to be a dismal failure......"
I totally agree. Man has evolved to the point where we are finally realizing the benefits to our own well-being and awareness that occurs when we remove the dogmas, rules and judgements (the thou shalls and shalt nots) from our lives. Sadly it is only found in a very small percentage of the population. But I am confident that the numbers will increase at an increasing rate as religion loses it's grip on us.
Man is a very intelligent species; far more intelligent than we can even imagine at this point in time. We actually have our own "god like" abilities that would seem preposterous (blasphemous?) now but sometime in the future would become second nature. I mean we were created "in His image" right? If people would really think about that statement for a period of time they would realize what "in His image" truly means. It means the mind of God, which is pretty powerful.
The problem is that for 2000 plus years have limited our own progression because of religious systems designed to keep us "in line"; therefore to the detriment to our own nature; which is to "be fruitful and multiply". Not just in the sense of procreation; but also in the sense of quantum leaps in intelligence and abilities.
We'll get "there" eventually, but it hurts me a bit to know that we could have been "there" already!
posted by
David1Spirit
on April 12, 2007 at 9:28 AM
| link to this | reply