And that would be what exactly?
OK, but you agree Scientology is a bone fide religion?
How (in)valid are arguments "based on worst example"?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
service to god of course
what caused you to go from asking "is scientology a religion?" to "is scientology a bona fide religion?".
What are you bringing to the table with "bona fide"?
in sociology you take the Activist's viewpoint. if you want an answer to your questions, read about a Fundamentalist's viewpoint - who lean towards a more objective framework.
You mean service to the Gods and Goddesses correct.
from a monotheist perspective, it requires a singular
So it's not possible for a monotheist to accept polytheism's as religions in their own right?
If that's the case, then, that's pretty much what I stated at the onset. While you may think racism, the inability to see other races as ones' own equal, as an extreme example, I OTOH feel that the monotheists perspective is likewise extreme. Not only this, meme's such as One Perfect Book or One Last Prophet are extreme and, for some individuals who take this fundamental aspect of certain monotheisms, leads to violence.
Now, from my POV Athena, Zeus, Amaterasu, Allah, YWHA, Xemu, Xenu ... all of these ideas (aka: Gods and Goddesses and Aliens) while worshiped are more than likely made up - so why not encourage worship and veneration of the more tolerant ones?
You said yourself, you must take a singular view, but, you don't really have to. Just change your religious outlook.
If that's the case, then, that's pretty much what I stated at the onset. While you may think racism, the inability to see other races as ones' own equal, as an extreme example, I OTOH feel that the monotheists perspective is likewise extreme. Not only this, meme's such as One Perfect Book or One Last Prophet are extreme and, for some individuals who take this fundamental aspect of certain monotheisms, leads to violence.
Now, from my POV Athena, Zeus, Amaterasu, Allah, YWHA, Xemu, Xenu ... all of these ideas (aka: Gods and Goddesses and Aliens) while worshiped are more than likely made up - so why not encourage worship and veneration of the more tolerant ones?
You said yourself, you must take a singular view, but, you don't really have to. Just change your religious outlook.
the very nature of being polytheist or monotheist means that one will be bringing certain premises to the table to contextualize the claims of the other
On the contrary, contextualizing the claims of another party has no requirement to depart into radical violence.
If however one is examining the issue of such violence, more often than not it is tied up with the pursuit of resources and catalyzed by various communal identifiers (of which religion - polytheist or monotheist in its outlook - can play a part ... as well as race, football club or anything else like that).
To overlook this in one's attempt to eradicate the violence "meme" simply means that one will eradicate the very substance of society
Even if you want to concoct in such a fashion, you will still require some element of communal identification, which will have the key ingredient that could potentially incite violence, so you are wasting your time
By suggesting that they are all made up you are already adopting a singular view (ie a meta-narrative - or singular view that contextualizes the claims of all other views) ... so you have just shot yourself in the foot
If you've got a meta-narrative already, you're probably convinced you are already eating itGo for polytheism - maybe that will give you want you need? You'll never know what chocolate tastes like until you taste it
Yes ... But this is how modern education works: We are being convinced (at the threat of becoming social and economical failures if we fail to become convinced thusly) that such a meta-narrative exists - whereby this meta-narrative is considered objective, neutral, above any particular religion or philosophy, "the closest we can come to truth".
You seem to be implying that such a meta-narrative does not exist, or at least that humans do not have access to it.
We cannot prove that it does exist, nor that it doesn't exist, for any such attempt of proof would have as a prerequisite precisely such a meta-narrative.
Personally, I would prefer if we wouldn't be obligated to/by such a meta-narrative, life would be so much easier!
Last edited:
Why should he change his religious outlook?
Perhaps he may have even taken the same route as myself - but perhaps not in this lifetime, or perhaps he does not have a memory of it anymore so he cannot relate to me/my problem in a way I would understand. (LG - I mean SB 11.25.36.)
How much his not relating to me is a form of him contempting me - that remains open. It could be contempt, or not.
It is certainly a challenge for me not to feel contempted by some theists who seem to be way out of my league.
Although if he does care about God in the way I have so far learned to know he does or is aspiring to, then I am in no danger of being genuinely contempted by him.
Granted, this isn't enough yet to get along with someone or to be able to have meaningful discussions.
I would say should, more like, could.
I would think if one makes it out of a position/outlook that is not as good than the one one is in now, one would remember what it was like and how one got out and how whatever light in the religion directly released one from that position.
I haven't gone so far as to say it is contempt. Though the difference on the receiving end may be very similar, as you say next....
In my experience this is not the case. I think people can be in love with versions of God - ideas - and still feel contempt for people or unpleasant versions of being superior. That the ideas must work on every soul, eventually, at least - an idea more on the Eastern end of things - implies certain things about those who do not get it. And in most religions, one is not supposed to object very much along the way, but reuptake one's practices with more vigor.
Traditions with reincarnation have a built in implicit blame related to stage. If you are not getting it, this places you somewhere in a line. Your not getting it can never, ever be related to a problem with God, the system or the universality of that system. Because it cannot be any of these things, it must be you. Your problem is you and when it isn't then you will be at the next stage and realize that God never messed up, the system works and it works for everyone.
If that is not the case, something which I am convinced of, then there is blame and one will feel oneself to be the object of contempt, if not from the often 'compassionate' human advisors, then through them from the deity that you are being resistent to.
It reminds me of psychoanalysis where any problems you have were seen as 'resistence', as if the psychoanalysts and their choices must be, somehow, perfect.
Granted.
Last edited:
That's right. In a world where people are polytheists it is possible to tolerantly contextualize other people's Gods, Goddesses, rituals, etc... on an EQUAL footing with one's own Gods and Goddesses.
Monotheist OTOH intolerantly do so, often suggesting that other people's Gods are not real, are just for the "little people" to have something to touch and hold, and even go so far as to suggest that the non-Monotheists beliefs lack the validity to even be called a religion.
Are the Japanese Shinto a Religion?
Often Christian and Muslim monotheists contextualize people who worship different Gods as being under the influence of Satan. As a matter of fact, it was the ability of monotheist Christians to contextualize other people's beliefs intolerantly that allowed them to justify a wholesale ransack of most of the known world. Likewise with the Muslim Crusades against the Christians and Zoroastrians.
This isn't even academic not only in some far off distant past. Indonesian Muslims treat other Indonesian Muslims intolerantly for having the audacity to suggest there was a more recent Prophet. This has resulted in people being killed. And, we're not talking about a small minority of people. Most Indonesians support passing a law to legally attempt to restrict what people can be taught to think - in terms of a more recent Prophet. This one can't be blamed on the Jews or the Whites or Politics or whatever - it's the natural mindset adopted when taught certain monotheistic intolerances such as: One True God, One True Book, One True Last Prophet. Just as bigotry was common place when people were taught Whites were superior.
It's that simple.
A blind man riding by on a bus could see that much.
I've never heard of Shinto who worship the Kobe River God Minatogawa having a problem with the Shinto who worship the Kobe Mountain Gods. But, maybe they're not even a Religion are they? I suppose it all just depends on if they are properly venerating LG's God-meme. Right?
Last edited:
Not necessarily. For example, I presume you have never eaten, say, coal or gravel, but you are still quite convinced that nice, fresh bananas are better.
There are things we can resolve on an intellectual level without ever actually trying them. Although not all people can do this with the same things/issues.
Many people who are interested in spirituality are bullies or seem to be. They sometimes use doctrinal statements in order to stupefy others with the intention to obtain some personal gain in this, such as the other person's submission, their money, or just plain enjoying to see the other person defeated and confused.
The fact is that scriptures do have that power to defeat anyone. But if as a result of such being defeated by scriptures, one feels defeated by the person who quoted those scriptures and then feels the need to surrender to that person (and not to the scriptural instruction and authority) - that is a mistake on one's own part.
A mistake we often make. I think especially with Christians, many people, including myself, give Christians unlimited, unconditional credit that they know what they are talking about, that they are quoting the scriptures correctly and adequately. Which is rather ridicuouls when one thknks about it ...
The other side of this coin is that a person who is interested in spirituality is expected to take responsibility for whom they talk to and whom they take advice from. I haven't seen much of this in Christianity, but very much in "Eastern" traditions.
So far, I have gotten the impresion that in the "Eastern" traditions, one is expected to do enromous amounts of homework oneself - in the form of solitary meditation, scripture study, whatever else may be necessary. It seems quite similar to enrolling in college. It's a training program, and it's one's own responsibility to take it up and to accept the terms.
This seems unfair - given that it has to do with things that pertain to our true self, to our eternal future, to what is closest and dearest to us. It feels wrong somehow to treat these things with such coldness, strategy, almost bereft of any and all emotions and personal relationships, a ruthless competition toward the Absolute Truth.
Secondly, from a formal view, a meta-perspective, if these religions, philosophies or training programs would not presume that they are perfect and applicable to all - then how could they justify their existence?
They could instead say "We offer these things, but we're not sure whether they work for everyone," which some people would certainly find to be a magnanimous admission of imperfection and would therefore consider those religions etc. more acceptable.
But I think that someone who is serious about what a particular religion or philosophy offers would expect nothing less than the bold declaration of "We can give you all you need."
Equally?
I doubt it.
If it was equal, they would worship thor one day and ganesh the next (which, strangely enough, is what is sometimes advocated by monist traditions)
You can find the same dialogue within polytheistic traditions
there's certainly a service attitude to some divine aspects, if that's what you mean
Often such persons are also not the best advocates of henological discussion ... which then brings us back to the point of invalidating an argument (ie monotheism) by its worst example
lol
Monotheistic christians?
as opposed to polytheistic christians?
Jeez, for all we know they could be mustached christians too ...
Or the shintos to the buddhists and confucianists .... or the romans to the greeks or the ..... Chelsea supporters to Liverpool ... etc etc
Or a person with even a rudimentary knowledge of history
Following the Meiji Restoration, Shinto was made the state religion of the Empire of Japan, and in 1868 its combination with Buddhism was outlawed, in an attempt to purify Shinto by abolishing many Buddhist and Confucian ideals.
Ever wondered why the Edo period came to an end in the late 1800's?
Maybe their practices aren't sufficient to grant the topmost benefits of religion ... but that isn't to say that it offers no benefit or is completely useless or evil ... IOW it doesn't necessarily play into the hands of your dumbed down representations of monotheism
actually you haven't even made the "meme" platform yet ... you are still yet to present a historically accurate version of Shintoism
I could be wrong, but I always thought LG was in the 'souls develop through lifetimes towards greater consciousness' camp of religious believers. If so it would seem like he would have gone through, in general terms, the various stages. This is the impression I got from teachers from those traditions, mainly Eastern. That they'd been there.
So, you're right in general, but I am not sure your example fits the context.
I think there is much less that can be resolved on an intellectual level than people think. Especially when it comes to the vagaries of experience, beliefs, emotions, thoughts and how these all interact.
Sure.
I suppose.
Yup. I don't think we need respect all voices. What are your (the) criteria for trusting a voice? What if you stopped taking certain people seriously?
For those who go at it 'deeply'. I mean, many Buddhists do as much work at being Buddhists as their Christian counterparts. And the same, as far as I've experienced, goes for Hindus too.
Which is then denied.
Other organizations, teachers, programs manage to offer their services with claiming they are universal. Even some members of the Eastern religions talk about finding the right vehicle or teacher. I think even some Christians leaders are this open, also, but less.
They could be sure it doesn't work for everyone. And they should also be clear that not everyone will be drawn to their system.
Well, I was pleased to be told that if I didn't connect to what I read and heard than it probably was not for me. That seemed, frankly, loving - both to those drawn and those not - and also smart - in the sense of 'in contact with reality.' How could one system appeal to me and, well, think of a list of people here at Sciforums and toss in a few famous people? How could it?
I just relooked at your statement and I see it includes the idea that one is 'serious about' a particular religion. So there was, in your statement, a pre-existing connection between the person and the system. Even here, though, people project so much onto concepts and may realize over time that it is not for them. This seems to be the case with every religion, that this can happen. Also there are people who stay - or were always there - who think they are doing the religion and seem not to be.
None of them are working for everyone. None of them are appealing to everyone. And as far as I can tell people are radically different from each other. I think noticing this has terrified people so much it just doesn't affect the sales techniques of the religions. But then that assessment fits with my own approach. For me it was nice to finally be welcomed, but told bascially that it was fine if it did not seem like it was for me, that I then had some other journey ahead of me or some other set of needs and goals.
I agree there is a possibly that this, as things are now, could result in problem. Why do we have to organize our polytheistic religion as things are now. It doesn't have to have "Gods" as a matter of fact :shrug:
Why couldn't we organize it differently?
I can't remember, did Native Americans or Hindu or Japanese fight "religious" wars? Or where their wars more resourced based?
Regardless, we can create an entirely new system - one's that's appropriate for today's world. I'd think one more nature-focused would be better. So maybe Kobe people who live on the mountain mainly worship the mountain god more often, BUT (and this is the point) when they visit or move to the River, they switch over to that God/Goddess. So the rituals are a little different - big deal.
So Shinto is or isn't a religion? Also, Scientology has a service attitude to some divine aspects.
Islam is a worst example of monotheism? Tell that to a Muslim.
Catholics?
And as you know, it was the Government who instituted a Nationalist Policey (pretty much like Islam is in modern day KSA). It was the Shinto that demanded that Buddhism was a true aspect of Japanese culture.
Get that? It was the SHINTO who supported a return of Buddhism. I mean, who was going to do the funeral for one? Shinto? I don't think so....
Ever see that sort of behavior from monotheists? The same monotheists who have pretty much did their best to eradicate all other religions not in line with their beliefs. Hell, the only reason we keep a lid on it now is our modern ideas about separation of State and Religion. Wasn't in time to help the Native Americans much though.
William Perry's big fat cannon blowing hot steamy steel all over Edo's face made the Japanese penis envy?
LOL... hahaha.... .Gods I'm tired!
wait wait wait here.
You're saying the Japanese Shinto Religion is or is not Religion? It seems you're saying it is one, but not as good as yours. Corrupted maybe?
maybe I'm missing something? What is it you need to know and why does it have to be historic? We can look up modern day Shinto beliefs in about 5 google seconds. ... . ..
different like a monist outlook you mean?
Depends how you categorize a war as "religious" or "resource" based
yet for some reason you can't see the singular under-riding feature of all classes of monotheism?
then they can (potentially) be categorized (or critiqued) as such
actually it was more that the examples you find to categorize muslims are the worst
Given that it was shinto support that made the move to ostracize them in the first place, it doesn't really change much
ever heard of Vatican II?
closeWilliam Perry's big fat cannon blowing steel all over Edo's face made the Japanese penis envy?
It was those crazy shinto fanatics tearing the country in half in order to bring the population in line with their dogma
actually I am saying that once you categorize it as religion, it's merits and faults can be offered in the form of a critique (So you could look at what are the goals, ideals, etc ... as opposed to googling newspaper articles for the latest political dissident who happens to advocate themselves as a follower)
It has nothing to do with whether it is yours or mine or whatever.
You are trying to play up Shintoism as some sort of religion that doesn't have the associated problems of other religions by dint of its polytheistic outlook.
Historically this doesn't appear to be the case
Philosophically this doesn't appear to be the case
Theologically this doesn't appear to be the case
:shrug: