Is religion the cure?

[jayleew]

Religious teachings aside, how logical is it that only one god exists?

For argument's sake, let's pretend there was some evidence that a god existed.

Is that enough evidence to prove that there is only one god?

Given the size of the universe, which most believe to be infinite, can we truthfully say there is only one god?

What if that god told us that it was the only god? Is it alone in the universe?

Back to reality, with no evidence of god, how can we swallow both arguments at once?

I wish the Christian God existed, because I want the assurance that I am not alone, and that some sense of justice is looking out for me. I also want world peace that I believe can happen if a God existed.

Does this sound like something man, from the beginning of time would want?

So, the two arguments of the Christian faith: 1) God exists and 2) There is only one God, are difficult to believe based off the teaching of the religion alone. But, some people believe anyway.

How can any reasonable person take up the faith blindly like this, without the primary reason being deeper; Is it some emptiness they experience?

Is religion the cure to this emptiness? I heard a pastor preach that Jesus Christ can fill this gap in a person's "heart". Is this what they were talking about?

But, is this state of mind just a mental condition? Or, is it based off of a real spirtual reality.

This hole-in-the-heart that some people experience can be filled with many things aside from religions' doctrines. Good friends or people that love them can easily fill that void. So, it makes me wonder if all of the most decent, reasonable, and spiritual people are just needing religion because they don't have anything else. They tell me that I have that void too, and I do sometimes. But, why do I not need god to fill that?

Religion would agree that people need this gap filled, and some people fill it with the wrong stuff. I agree with that a person can get involved with destructive, shallow, antidotes like murder, drugs, and strife. But, there are wholesome ones that are not a fix, but a cure: like financial well-being and good friends. Loving others before youself can also satisfy this emptiness. Just living well is good enough, isn't it? Religious teachings, similar to Christianity, teach otherwise. That just seems too convenient to brush aside all other cures. Surely, helping the poor for the sake of the poor is a good and just deed, worthy of a place in "heaven." Living not for youself more than for yourself ought to be good enough. Not so, according to the Bible.

They say that you must have faith, as well as living well. And that faith is a precursor to living well. From my experience of living as a Christian for many years, I suppose it is. Does that mean God exists? But, faith in an unknown god is definitely not a requirement to living well.

Is it just a mental condition?

I am surprised how my quality of life has improved since I left Christianity. I have become a better person without god. I get angry less and am more patient. I landed a great job, and I am recognizing my faults as a parent. I am coming to terms with who I am and how to become better. My wife and I fight less, and appreciate each other's faults ever since we stopped going to church.

Are we just getting better mentally and don't need religion? Or is this some menacing trap that evail has laid and is just waiting to spring. I mean I am paranoid that someday all of this is going disappear because I don't believe in God. And the fact remains that I am the way I am because of my environment, and God did very little when I was young and innocent, to prevent me from having the logical and reasonable mind I have today...but, yet the Bible says I am still going to perish because of the conclusion which comes from this logical and reasonable mind.

In my mind, the jury is still out on God. There is no evidence available to prove its existence or not. So, I look at everyone else, and I wonder why is everyone all in a rut of desiring to be right, and they forget to live well and not persecute each other. It seems that people who live as Christians, Muslims, or whatever, live under the doctrine of their religion because of some desire or need, in their minds, for something solid and tangible so they can sleep better at night. I say this because I know many religous folk who are sharp and are not missing their marbles. But, they choose to have faith in the unreasonable notion of a spiritual reality. I can only reason that they are sick, like I was. Not as if they need to be locked up, but as if this is what works for them. I hope they get better, I think I am.

The question is, do I have religion to thank for my recovery? Or, am I just being prepared by something spiritual?

I would say that religion is a cure.

 

[cosmictraveler]

I would say that religion is a cure.

It isn't a cure because there are so many different religions in the world how do you determine which are or what is the right one? :shrug: Ask them to help pay expenses for your operation if you are poor and can't afford the operation to save your life. Then you will see what religions really are made up of! They will "pray" for you but no $$$$$$$ for your operation to save your life.

 

[Enmos]

First of all, congrats
I don't think religion is a cure. It may help people that need something to hold onto though.
But most people are just taught that God is real etc from childhood.
A child has no resistance against such indoctrination, so even though later in life the idea of God seems ridiculous they are still clinging to what they have been taught is the truth for all of their lives.
I think it must be pretty difficult to finally distance yourself from such indoctrination.
So I don't think it's a sickness but more something akin to brainwashing.
Keep your head clear

 

[spidergoat]

If a God can exist, why not two? It makes sense that there would be more than one, since every other complex entity we know about didn't happen of itself, but was a product of a series, either through sex or evolution. Early concepts of God had him married, which made sense to people. There is a certain simplicity about a one God concept, which is probably why it caught on, but it doesn't make sense.

 

[lightgigantic]

Religious teachings aside, how logical is it that only one god exists?

For argument's sake, let's pretend there was some evidence that a god existed.

Is that enough evidence to prove that there is only one god?

given that god is said to be source of everything, cause of all causes, summum bonum, etc etc, I would guess so

Given the size of the universe, which most believe to be infinite, can we truthfully say there is only one god?

The universe is practically infinite for us.

Much like the pacific ocean is practically infinite for a tadpole or the world's reserves of processed sugar are practically infinite for an ant.

God is said to possess numerous eternal potencies that are contingent on him. This phenomenal world is one (the living entities are another, and the time factor is another one again)
We, on the other hand, possess none.

All that can be said is that god is not in the same category as ourselves, so it is not at all feasible to determine his nature by the bench marks of our potency.

What if that god told us that it was the only god? Is it alone in the universe?

Back to reality, with no evidence of god, how can we swallow both arguments at once?

If one wants to start problematizing the issue of god, it pays to have a proper understanding of what god entails .... as opposed to limiting him by to definitions of what we entail.

I wish the Christian God existed, because I want the assurance that I am not alone, and that some sense of justice is looking out for me. I also want world peace that I believe can happen if a God existed.

Does this sound like something man, from the beginning of time would want?

sure

there is an interesting argument that this world provides us with everything we need in this world.
IOW if a need is strong and constant enough, we have no experience of it not existing in reality.

So, the two arguments of the Christian faith: 1) God exists and 2) There is only one God, are difficult to believe based off the teaching of the religion alone. But, some people believe anyway.

It becomes a bit easier when one works with proper definitions on the onset

How can any reasonable person take up the faith blindly like this, without the primary reason being deeper; Is it some emptiness they experience?

that can be initial catalyst, but it is hardly perfectional or capable of maintaining a person in constant practice

Is religion the cure to this emptiness? I heard a pastor preach that Jesus Christ can fill this gap in a person's "heart". Is this what they were talking about?

But, is this state of mind just a mental condition? Or, is it based off of a real spirtual reality.

This hole-in-the-heart that some people experience can be filled with many things aside from religions' doctrines. Good friends or people that love them can easily fill that void. So, it makes me wonder if all of the most decent, reasonable, and spiritual people are just needing religion because they don't have anything else. They tell me that I have that void too, and I do sometimes. But, why do I not need god to fill that?

the essential problem is that we cannot but help ascribe eternal values to things - IOW the whole nature of us separating from things (or things separating from us), whether it be in the form of a car getting ruined, a loved one leaving , or the approach of old age and death upon one's very self, is completely alien to us. The problem is that whatever we take to fill the void is ultimately fallible, since ascribing eternal values to temporary things has a predictable outcome.

Religion would agree that people need this gap filled, and some people fill it with the wrong stuff. I agree with that a person can get involved with destructive, shallow, antidotes like murder, drugs, and strife. But, there are wholesome ones that are not a fix, but a cure: like financial well-being and good friends. Loving others before youself can also satisfy this emptiness. Just living well is good enough, isn't it?

the issue goes a bit deeper, since time changes all things.
In one sense, looking for happiness (in the form of stability) in the material world is kind of like looking for water in the desert. Water exists, but not so much in the desert. In the same way, the resources for happiness in the material world exist but not in substantial enough quantities to satisfy. Hence material life is characterized by a hard struggle for existence (IOW the possession of any opulence in the material world, whether it be wealth, friends, love, fame, etc always exists in the shadow of separation ... or the fear of losing it.

Religious teachings, similar to Christianity, teach otherwise. That just seems too convenient to brush aside all other cures. Surely, helping the poor for the sake of the poor is a good and just deed, worthy of a place in "heaven." Living not for youself more than for yourself ought to be good enough. Not so, according to the Bible.

the general idea is that the material world and the spiritual world are socialized around two entirely different ideas.

In the material world, one is geared up for looking out for one's own happiness (or the happiness of one's extended self , eg - "my" family, "my" people, "my" country etc etc)

The spiritual world is characterized around the pleasure of god.
Kind of like in one's own body, the functionality or "pleasure" of the hand lies in "serving" the mouth (by placing food in it). If it somehow displayed an independent mood to enjoy separately from the mouth, it would enter a diminished state (weakness, atrophy etc), since it is constitutionally dependent on the digestive system.
Similarly, having displayed the independent mood to enjoy separately from god (even in the name of altruism) we enter a state of temporal existence, which causes no end of strife since we are constitutionally socialized around eternal values

They say that you must have faith, as well as living well. And that faith is a precursor to living well. From my experience of living as a Christian for many years, I suppose it is. Does that mean God exists? But, faith in an unknown god is definitely not a requirement to living well.

faith enables practice of spiritual discipline
the perfection of spiritual discipline enables direct perception of god's nature, much like the practice of eating enables direct perception of the nature of satisfaction/vitality etc

Is it just a mental condition?

I am surprised how my quality of life has improved since I left Christianity. I have become a better person without god. I get angry less and am more patient. I landed a great job, and I am recognizing my faults as a parent. I am coming to terms with who I am and how to become better. My wife and I fight less, and appreciate each other's faults ever since we stopped going to church.

material success is one thing
spiritual success is another

Are we just getting better mentally and don't need religion? Or is this some menacing trap that evail has laid and is just waiting to spring. I mean I am paranoid that someday all of this is going disappear because I don't believe in God. And the fact remains that I am the way I am because of my environment, and God did very little when I was young and innocent, to prevent me from having the logical and reasonable mind I have today...but, yet the Bible says I am still going to perish because of the conclusion which comes from this logical and reasonable mind.

with or without religion, everything will disappear

The material world facilitates illusion that makes this difficult to remember

In this regard, having an aptitude for philosophy is not discrediting.

In my mind, the jury is still out on God. There is no evidence available to prove its existence or not. So, I look at everyone else, and I wonder why is everyone all in a rut of desiring to be right, and they forget to live well and not persecute each other.

BG 3.37 The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: It is lust only, Arjuna, which is born of contact with the material mode of passion and later transformed into wrath, and which is the all-devouring sinful enemy of this world.

basically we come to this world to work out our issues of lust.

or a slightly more detailed breakdown

SB 11.13.8: Śrī Uddhava said: My dear Kṛṣṇa, generally human beings know that material life brings great future unhappiness, and still they try to enjoy material life. My dear Lord, how can one in knowledge act just like a dog, an ass or a goat?

SB 11.13.9-10: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Uddhava, a person bereft of intelligence first falsely identifies himself with the material body and mind, and when such false knowledge arises within one's consciousness, material passion, the cause of great suffering, pervades the mind, which by nature is situated in goodness. Then the mind, contaminated by passion, becomes absorbed in making and changing many plans for material advancement. Thus, by constantly thinking of the modes of material nature, a foolish person is afflicted with unbearable material desires.

SB 11.13.11: One who does not control the material senses comes under the control of material desires and is thus bewildered by the strong waves of the mode of passion. Such a person executes material activities, although clearly seeing that the result will be future unhappiness.

It seems that people who live as Christians, Muslims, or whatever, live under the doctrine of their religion because of some desire or need, in their minds, for something solid and tangible so they can sleep better at night. I say this because I know many religous folk who are sharp and are not missing their marbles. But, they choose to have faith in the unreasonable notion of a spiritual reality. I can only reason that they are sick, like I was. Not as if they need to be locked up, but as if this is what works for them. I hope they get better, I think I am.

The question is, do I have religion to thank for my recovery? Or, am I just being prepared by something spiritual?


I would say that religion is a cure.

people are religious for various reasons

The most common one is to meet some material need.

When one comes to understand that all material needs are essentially flawed, then they are making serious spiritual advancement

 

[lightgigantic]

If a God can exist, why not two? It makes sense that there would be more than one, since every other complex entity we know about didn't happen of itself, but was a product of a series, either through sex or evolution. Early concepts of God had him married, which made sense to people. There is a certain simplicity about a one God concept, which is probably why it caught on, but it doesn't make sense.

actually the notion of more than one god tends to be a bit primitive, since in that scenario one is dealing with entities that are not the cause of all causes (which is a primary necessity of practically all monotheistic/monist systems)

 

[Michael]

We already know complex consciousness evolves. So it ONLY makes sense that if there were a God that it must have evolved like everything else with complex consciousness, ie: us. And, so, there would be billions to trillions of Gods.

To suggest anything else would be asinine.

 

[jayleew]

the issue goes a bit deeper, since time changes all things.
In one sense, looking for happiness (in the form of stability) in the material world is kind of like looking for water in the desert. Water exists, but not so much in the desert. In the same way, the resources for happiness in the material world exist but not in substantial enough quantities to satisfy. Hence material life is characterized by a hard struggle for existence (IOW the possession of any opulence in the material world, whether it be wealth, friends, love, fame, etc always exists in the shadow of separation ... or the fear of losing it.

I agree with the basic idea that money can be a little water in the desert. All these things in the material world are like that. I agree that the world has deserts, but not that it is a desert.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is a difference between a fix and a cure. All things that bring material happiness, which effects spiritual happiness, can be one or the other.

For instance, you could have all the money in the world, and that would be nice but your state of mind generally becomes desensitized to money. You have all the money in the world, so unless you get a lot more money, it's not a big deal. Their financial emptiness is filled sometimes.

You take someone who has just enough to pay the bills, who still experiences hardship at times and is content to live with the hardship (knowing it will end), they are in a healthy state of mind. In this case, because of money, their financial emptiness is filled and does not empty, and they know it is. These people have faith in themselves. This might be the exception to the rule, because people handle hardship differently. What outlook does that person have on hardships in life? Is it positive? Someone who is financially stable can still not have their emptiness filled.

And, if you take a poor person and give them money, it's a lot like the first case. Their financial emptiness is filled for a little while.

If you empower them to help themselves, that is another matter. That is a cure.

The point I am maybe failing to illustrate is that financial stability can be a cure for a part of the "spiritual" emptiness. Being at one with who you are, and how the world is, (or not) affects your spirits accordingly.

I agree that most people get only a fix out of money, which really doesn't help the spiritual.

Ok, maybe I'm not coming through clear: Let's talk about faith for a moment.

You said:
IOW the possession of any opulence in the material world, whether it be wealth, friends, love, fame, etc always exists in the shadow of separation ... or the fear of losing it

Faith is an essential component to the cure for this "spiritual" emptiness. In order for any of these fixes to become a cure, one has to have faith. In the case of myself? I am beginning to have faith in myself. I have faith that if I lost any of the things that contribute to my well being that I will regain it and become stronger for it, through hard work.

Look at the the United States. Their response to the tragic 9/11/01 incident caused a rebirth of this emptiness. The realization that they could lose their well being in an instant became a spiritual uprising in the nation. Many people turned to the Christian religion to regain stability. What if they banded together, under the brotherhood of the United States, to master their fear and depend on each other to regain their footing. Well, they did I guess, but was that because they all went to a Saturday night vigil?

My point is that it was demoralizing, but there were options available to rally around other than Christianity. And, had they had faith in anything, mainly even themselves, they would be able to move on and continue to live in a healthy state of mind.

Why does the world have these moments of needing religion? It's like they went to the doctor because they had a cold. Today, they are just fine and most of those who turned to religion are probably not still attending church.

This illustrates that religion might be in the same category of all the other things that fill the void. It is water in your desert. It was a quick fix in 2001.

What this all boils down to is that I don't see the world as a desert with only watery places anymore.

I see the world as a circus. The emptiness we might feel comes from not walking on the tightrope. We all want to walk the tightrope. When we walk the tightrope, we are satiated. Is religion the harness that prevents people from falling if they slip? Can other things serve as a harness just as well? Is so, how is religion any different?

If it isn't, then why do some religions like Christianity say "...I am the way, the truth, and the life..."? Or, "...wide is the gate, but narrow is the path..."

I don't see the justice in excluding good people, who might be better examples of humanity than most, just because they don't worship a god, who knows that the path is narrow, but does nothing to help those who have been predispositioned to be wary of false teachings. All teachings from man (and there are too many) that lack evidence need to be scrutinized and not believed, lest we fall into ignorance and pride. The belief that the world was flat was a belief of ignorance and pride. Let this be a warning to any that believe in something without any evidence.

When one comes to understand that all material needs are essentially flawed, then they are making serious spiritual advancement

Is love material?

The Christians believe that it isn't. In fact, one of their commandments is thou shalt love thy god. Clearly, it is an important component to their spiritual well being.

Yes, material needs cannot cure the "soul". But, I believe that they enhance spiritual remedies. (To clarify spiritual, I mean things like loving others first)

I don't believe material remedies are flawed, they are just the wrong shape to fit in the spiritual holes and people run into trouble when they try to mash them in.

Is religion the right shape?

Are other "spiritual" things like peace and love the right shape?

Religion has existed since time began. Man needed something, right? Is religion as simple as that? Is it a "just add water" fix for mankind to use if they have no other method to fix themselves ethically and emotionally?

If it is, then there is something wrong with religions that teach more than that...unless they are right about the god thing. If they are, then god has been a jerk to me. (the wide is the gate, narrow path, no help when asked thing)

Believing in god is not only difficult for me because of reason, but it also brings pain and it would be really stupid of me to live with that, because there is no evidence therefore no reason to endure needless suffering.

 

[jayleew]

I have the cure, it has been there all along, fostered by Christianity and now realized. I feel like i'm growing up and being weened. SciForums was the start of it all, and life experience did the rest.

It cracks me up that I came to SciForums in hopes to show you non-Christians that Christianity has gotten a bad name. I wanted to show you all the light, and I knew I was strong in the faith. I tried my best to help you all understand Christianity and God. I thought I could be a messenger to the philosophers because God had prepared me with a mind to argue for him. I was a Sunday school teacher, a music minister, and I worked at a Christian bookstore. I still believe that Christians are stereotyped, but I am in a place i've never been. Normally, non-christians become seekers, can become Christian. I'm a Christian who has become a seeker. It was an interesting and very unexpected twist.

 

[Jan Ardena]

jaylew,

"Religion has existed since time began.
Man needed something, right?
Is religion as simple as that?"

Exerts from post 8.
Can you join up the dots?

jan.

 

[jayleew]

jaylew,

"Religion has existed since time began.
Man needed something, right?
Is religion as simple as that?"

Exerts from post 8.
Can you join up the dots?

jan.

My question is: Is the creation of religion just a response from man's desire or need? I know this has been discussed before, but I wouldn't presume. And, in the context of my original question, I'd like to know what people think about if religion is based off of Uncle Adam's depression, or was it something supernatural he experienced.

 

[Enmos]

Uncle Adam ?

 

[spidergoat]

Man's need is mostly just for entertainment. I think primitive religion was just that, stories to tell the kids to keep them entertained and maybe to put their existence in an understandable context. Primitive tribes also used many natural hallucinogens, no doubt this was experienced as a supernatural event, in addition to the many natural phenomenon that could not be explained such as lightning, ball lightning, comets, meteors, bio luminescence, disease, birth defects...

 

[jayleew]

Uncle Adam ?

Whoever started the mess of religion.

 

[lightgigantic]

We already know complex consciousness evolves. So it ONLY makes sense that if there were a God that it must have evolved like everything else with complex consciousness, ie: us. And, so, there would be billions to trillions of Gods.

To suggest anything else would be asinine.

God however is said to have a type of consciousness that everything is contingent on (including time, the phenomenal world, other living entities etc etc).

Therefore suggesting that there could just as likely be trillions of gods is asine, or at the very least one is corrupting the standard definition of god with a standard definition of one's own consciousness (or more specifically, a somewhat incomplete understanding of one's consciousness)

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

If a God can exist, why not two? It makes sense that there would be more than one, since every other complex entity we know about didn't happen of itself, but was a product of a series, either through sex or evolution. Early concepts of God had him married, which made sense to people. There is a certain simplicity about a one God concept, which is probably why it caught on, but it doesn't make sense.

We already know complex consciousness evolves. So it ONLY makes sense that if there were a God that it must have evolved like everything else with complex consciousness, ie: us. And, so, there would be billions to trillions of Gods.

To suggest anything else would be asinine.

Not only that but : Not 1 thing we know of exists alone without there being others. Planets, stars, galaxies, moons, asteroids, worms, birds, Komodo Dragons, Venus Flytraps, orchids, bacteria, morays, etc etc etc

 

[lightgigantic]

“ Jayleew

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the issue goes a bit deeper, since time changes all things.
In one sense, looking for happiness (in the form of stability) in the material world is kind of like looking for water in the desert. Water exists, but not so much in the desert. In the same way, the resources for happiness in the material world exist but not in substantial enough quantities to satisfy. Hence material life is characterized by a hard struggle for existence (IOW the possession of any opulence in the material world, whether it be wealth, friends, love, fame, etc always exists in the shadow of separation ... or the fear of losing it. ”

I agree with the basic idea that money can be a little water in the desert. All these things in the material world are like that. I agree that the world has deserts, but not that it is a desert.

then what issue of the material world can satisfy our propensity to look for the persisting amongst the temporal, the overarching principle amongst the contingent, etc etc ??? Despite being constantly advertised as "new", how many advancements do you think there has been in the toothpaste industry during the past 3 decades?

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is a difference between a fix and a cure. All things that bring material happiness, which effects spiritual happiness, can be one or the other.

In what way does material happiness impact spiritual happiness?
(I suspect that we have different understandings of what these words mean)

Suppose I am completely socialized around the service of god?
What material circumstances can impact to frustrate that?

For instance, you could have all the money in the world, and that would be nice but your state of mind generally becomes desensitized to money. You have all the money in the world, so unless you get a lot more money, it's not a big deal. Their financial emptiness is filled sometimes.

there are many varieties of satisfaction
It exists in relation to something/an object, and its the nature of that object that determines the quality of satisfaction.

For instance if all I can eat is 4 slices of bread, owning all the bakeries in the world will not increase my eating satisfaction.
Similarly whether one sleeps in a penthouse as a billionaire or in the gutter in the street as a dog doesn't radically change the "sleeping process".
In this way, seeking satisfaction in the fields of sleeping, eating, mating and defending as a human being puts us in competition with the animal species (in which we usually wind up the loser - sparrows don't have a night shift or require sleeping pills).
IOW a human being who's complete picture of satisfaction is comprised of issues of sleeping, eating, mating and defending is no better than (and often worse than) an animal.

You take someone who has just enough to pay the bills, who still experiences hardship at times and is content to live with the hardship (knowing it will end), they are in a healthy state of mind. In this case, because of money, their financial emptiness is filled and does not empty, and they know it is. These people have faith in themselves. This might be the exception to the rule, because people handle hardship differently. What outlook does that person have on hardships in life? Is it positive? Someone who is financially stable can still not have their emptiness filled.

There is no escaping hardship in this world.
Someone may have it greater or some lesser, but it is only due to envy that we think there is some ideal position.

And, if you take a poor person and give them money, it's a lot like the first case. Their financial emptiness is filled for a little while.

as long as one is affected by envy (and finds its expression in lust), emptiness will be one's constant companion.

Therefore the real solution to life is dealing with the issue of envy since no amount of material remuneration can solve it. That's why lust is described as all consuming. Kind of like a rash that gives some relief with scratching, but scratching increases its itchiness.

If you empower them to help themselves, that is another matter. That is a cure.

The point I am maybe failing to illustrate is that financial stability can be a cure for a part of the "spiritual" emptiness. Being at one with who you are, and how the world is, (or not) affects your spirits accordingly.

Establishing one materially does not spiritually empower one anymore than destabilizing one materially does.
Ultimately we have nothing to do with material acquisition or loss. Nobody can materially own everything or materially dispossess everything (at the very least, you will be left with your body, mind and words), so the idea is that we should simply socialize our material existence around the service of god.
The idea is that we are constitutionally dependent on god at all times, whether in a liberated or illusioned state, and no amount of material acquisition or renunciation can change that

I agree that most people get only a fix out of money, which really doesn't help the spiritual.

Ok, maybe I'm not coming through clear: Let's talk about faith for a moment.

You said:
IOW the possession of any opulence in the material world, whether it be wealth, friends, love, fame, etc always exists in the shadow of separation ... or the fear of losing it

Faith is an essential component to the cure for this "spiritual" emptiness. In order for any of these fixes to become a cure, one has to have faith. In the case of myself? I am beginning to have faith in myself. I have faith that if I lost any of the things that contribute to my well being that I will regain it and become stronger for it, through hard work.

There are certain phases of life that we go through where different values become prominent.
For instance you won't find this value of hard work prominent in 5 year olds or 95 year olds. Quite common in thirtysomethings with a burgeoning family though.
We can display faith in many different things .... and I guess that life is essentially mapping the de/evolving paths of our faith. The material requirement for success is to hedge one's bets, however the root of all this is our material body/mind, which is not at all permanent, so no matter what we lay on the table, the whole show will go.
There are short term prospects(ie material requirements) and long term prospects (ie spiritual requirements) - the appearance of "happiness" "satisfaction" etc can appear in either of these two fields, and the frequent problem of spiritual life is the war between the needs of the body and the needs of the soul.

Look at the the United States. Their response to the tragic 9/11/01 incident caused a rebirth of this emptiness. The realization that they could lose their well being in an instant became a spiritual uprising in the nation. Many people turned to the Christian religion to regain stability. What if they banded together, under the brotherhood of the United States, to master their fear and depend on each other to regain their footing. Well, they did I guess, but was that because they all went to a Saturday night vigil?

My point is that it was demoralizing, but there were options available to rally around other than Christianity. And, had they had faith in anything, mainly even themselves, they would be able to move on and continue to live in a healthy state of mind.

Nationality is another thing people have faith in.
It, however, is much like one's body, one's family, one's fame, one's car, etc etc.

Notice the general pattern that emerges of material life - "my money", "my family", "my country" etc etc. The real object of one's faith is one's self or extended self. There is a spiritual aspect of self, but its not anything in relation to the body. This is however the common sentiment of material existence and this is why the material world exists as a conundrum of various strifes. How can a picture of peace and happiness emerge from such a state of being?

Why does the world have these moments of needing religion? It's like they went to the doctor because they had a cold. Today, they are just fine and most of those who turned to religion are probably not still attending church.

there are various reasons for a person beginning their religious life


BG 7.16 O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me—the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

While all of these people have some degree of piety, the material circumstances that drove them towards god can just as easily drive them away again.

On the whole, when the distressed, the inquisitive, the seekers of knowledge, and those who are in need of money are free from all material desires, and when they fully understand that material remuneration has nothing to do with spiritual improvement, they become pure devotees. As long as such a purified stage is not attained, devotees in transcendental service to the Lord are tainted with fruitive activities, the search for mundane knowledge, etc. So one has to transcend all this before one can come to the stage of pure devotional service.

This illustrates that religion might be in the same category of all the other things that fill the void. It is water in your desert. It was a quick fix in 2001.

religious principles, properly applied, are not in the same category as issues of material prosperity, nationhood or even the planet or solar system, since all these things fail to display persistence.

In spiritual discipline there are clear distinctions between dharmas (or duties) that apply to the soul and dharmas that apply to the body. Taking a dharma that applies to the soul (like say "religion") and sticking that to a dharma that applies to the body (like say "nationality") doesn't give nationality an eternal aspect. Making religion subservient to issues of nationhood may be a good political tool, but it diminishes the effectiveness of religion.

What this all boils down to is that I don't see the world as a desert with only watery places anymore.

I see the world as a circus. The emptiness we might feel comes from not walking on the tightrope. We all want to walk the tightrope. When we walk the tightrope, we are satiated. Is religion the harness that prevents people from falling if they slip? Can other things serve as a harness just as well? Is so, how is religion any different?

Given that probably in 75 years your body will be gone and in 1000 years the glory that is america will be gone (and that's being optimistic) what is it exactly that is going to catch the fall?

Because we are parts and parcels of god we display his qualities (but not to his quantities). Kind of like a drop of the ocean displays saltiness, but not the varieties of sea life, etc etc. So since god is a creator, we also display an aptitude for creation (or being the "do-er"). The difference is that god creates with his own potencies (ie he is independent), whereas we are completely potency-less. We are always in a state of dependence.

There is no problem with being a big (or even a little) "do-er" in this world.
The problem is when we do this in a state of forgetfulness of god (and start to develop a sense of ownership over the potencies which are in fact god's).
In such a state of being, there is no hope for peace and happiness, either collectively or individually.

If it isn't, then why do some religions like Christianity say "...I am the way, the truth, and the life..."? Or, "...wide is the gate, but narrow is the path..."

as interesting point, if you go back to the original language of the bible, "I am the way" was spoken in a present text. IOW jesus is saying "right here, right now, I am the way, etc". Given his immediate surroundings, its a reasonable claim.

but aside from this, I don't see a clear inextricable connection between what you are talking about ( something like a kind of "faith in work can lift all boats, so whats the need of religion?") and the quotes you reference. The narrow path to heaven, to me, indicates that it is very easy to degrade but painstakingly difficult to spiritually progress. This is more of a practical consideration, given how encumbered we are with material desire, etc. (as opposed to a mean nasty god who has an essential requirement that its hard to get to him)

I don't see the justice in excluding good people, who might be better examples of humanity than most,

a good person is someone who can act in this world with ability to recognize god as the owner of everything, the benefactor of everyone, and the ultimate managing power in this world.
Simple acts in the name of altruism doesn't cut the mustard (although it does perhaps come close to "recognizing all living entities as parts and parcels of god) since in most cases they place an over emphasis on the need of humans (as if they own the place)

just because they don't worship a god, who knows that the path is narrow, but does nothing to help those who have been predispositioned to be wary of false teachings. All teachings from man (and there are too many) that lack evidence need to be scrutinized and not believed, lest we fall into ignorance and pride. The belief that the world was flat was a belief of ignorance and pride. Let this be a warning to any that believe in something without any evidence.

evidence is determined by application
and application is determined by qualification

Just like people who applied themselves to determine that the world was not flat were qualified in certain ways (at the very least, they knew something of astronomy and the seas) and to them, their claims were valid. To others who were not qualified (and thus didn't have the opportunity to apply themselves), they either accepted or rejected the claim on faith.

So the real question behind any claim is not just the evidence of it, but also the qualification required to validate it. It is not that everyone and anyone is equally qualified to say anything and everything about anything (at the very least there are very good reasons why a court may call upon the opinion of a forensic scientist as opposed to a janitor, even though the hourly wage is 6 times as much)

When there is the claim of "god", you have to look at the qualifications involved.

As for neglecting people who "merely don't worship him", I think you have to look at the difference between what it means to be socialized around the existence of god and merely altruistic. Devotional service to god may involve some aspects of altruism, but altruism, per se, certainly doesn't involve devotional service to god. Big difference between service to mankind and service to god ... especially if you happen to live in a factory farm ...

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
When one comes to understand that all material needs are essentially flawed, then they are making serious spiritual advancement ”
Is love material?

depends what it is in relation to

The Christians believe that it isn't. In fact, one of their commandments is thou shalt love thy god. Clearly, it is an important component to their spiritual well being.

In relation to god, its certainly spiritual.

I have to admit that I find some christians definitions or understandings of the nature of god somewhat lacking. I recall one nun who explained to me that god is "the smile of babies and a field of daisies".
:shrug:

Yes, material needs cannot cure the "soul". But, I believe that they enhance spiritual remedies. (To clarify spiritual, I mean things like loving others first)

this gets complicated when one loves in relation to one's self. eg - "my" wife, "my" children, "my" country etc

loving these things is practically just an expansion of one's self (which doesn't mean that its more spiritual to hate them, .... the oft retort of persons besieged by duality)

I don't believe material remedies are flawed, they are just the wrong shape to fit in the spiritual holes and people run into trouble when they try to mash them in.

materially something can always be less ideal or more exact, but it is never satisfying and always a source of trouble

Is religion the right shape?

religious principles can take many forms
the general principle is that it should, at the very least, be progressive

Are other "spiritual" things like peace and love the right shape?

like "love" their shape is determined by what they are in relation to

Religion has existed since time began. Man needed something, right? Is religion as simple as that? Is it a "just add water" fix for mankind to use if they have no other method to fix themselves ethically and emotionally?

hehe
when all else fails, read the instructions

If it is, then there is something wrong with religions that teach more than that...unless they are right about the god thing. If they are, then god has been a jerk to me. (the wide is the gate, narrow path, no help when asked thing)

its not clear what "more" you are expecting from religion
its also not clear why your experience demands that god is a jerk

Believing in god is not only difficult for me because of reason, but it also brings pain and it would be really stupid of me to live with that, because there is no evidence therefore no reason to endure needless suffering.

experience determines what is reasonable, and since everyone's experience is different, what they deem as reasonable is also different. I guess faith can be a major player in this. For instance if one has faith in a doctor, then they will abide by their instructions, even if their experience is contrary to them ("I feel ok now, but I guess I better get that needle just to be safe, huh?"). And if one doesn't, one won't.

To be quite frank, it appears that your faith in the people who you previously accepted as representative of god has undergone refurbishment (religious congregations do sometimes tend to be unique civil bodies). The only issue is whether you think you have experienced all that there is to experience in the pursuit of god, and whether you think this is sufficient to contextualize all other claims about the nature of god.

IOW it boils down to your experience and your faith in the value of it.

 

[Enmos]

Jayleew, lightgigantic is one of the bible thumpers around here. He's trying to win back your soul

 

[Jan Ardena]

jayleew,

My question is: Is the creation of religion just a response from man's desire or need? I know this has been discussed before, but I wouldn't presume.

Desire and need is limited to the mind and body.
We may have what appear to be bizzare desires and needs, but ultimately they serve a purpose which can be understood. In that regard God and religion is a response to men's needs and desires.

And, in the context of my original question, I'd like to know what people think about if religion is based off of Uncle Adam's depression, or was it something supernatural he experienced.

Firstly, there is no record of anyone or society which suddenly one day decided, I've got an idea, lets create a ficticious character then......

Have you ever noticed that when the subject of records of Jesus' biblical existence is raised, there is an outcry of 'fraud', despite the fact that there are records of his existence. Yet that same sect have no problem advocating the idea that God is an imaginary being made by non scientific primatives, despite there being not one shred of evidence?

Be carefull on your new journey.

jan.

 

[fedr808]

The cure to what? Racism, bigotry, genocide, homocide, holacaust, rape, pedophilia, corruption, death, AIDS, Ebola, the common cold?

What does it cure that it hasnt caused?