my problem with religion

[lightgigantic]

Firstly, part of this conversation was me relating my experience in Japan. Those views were from someone else, as I stated.

My thoughts on the subject of “central common ground that permeates all variety” (your words) are that if there is a common ground (I’m assuming you mean “intellectual/moral/ethical”?) then it must be a product of our common genes. Every thought, emotion or feeling you have is the product of your DNA. As such, if there is a common thread in humanity called “morality: etc… then it is because we share the genes that encode for said morality (like not having incest for example).

I do not know what you mean by “Relative element” or “Absolute element”?

lightgigantic, while I don't know if it is true... I have a distinct feeling you are monotheistic - probably Xian and more than likely of the evangelical American flavour?

Michael

Montheistic, yes (I guess the focus on the "absolute element" gave it away) - as for the other two you are way off

As for your philosophical underpinnings, I am just trying to encourage you to be more congruent in your statements

 

[one_raven]

That there is no next life?

I didn't say that.

That there are not heavens and hells?

I didn't say that.

That any choice is as good as any other because there is no karma?

I didn't say that.

If you are you would have a hard time establishing that on the basis of Buddhas teachings.

I think you don't have much of an understanding of the Buddha's teachings and the purpose of the Dhamma.
That's OK, I'm not faulting you for it, you aren't a Buddhist, after all.

So what are you saying in relation to the origin of this whole buddha thread?

What I am saying is very simple.
Michael said to the Buddhist monk, "I'm actually an atheist and while I enjoy the tradition and architecture and peace that is found in the Temple - and I think that religion can have a positive effect on society - I seriously doubt there is an afterlife other than oblivion."
The monk responded,"You're probably right".

And your question was "And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?"

What I am saying is first of all, the response is exactly what I would expect from a Buddhsit monk speaking to someone who is not Buddhist for several reasons.
I won't go into it too deeply, simply for the sake of time and in the interest of the thread.

The monk didn't say that he agreed with Michael, he said, "You are probably right." There is quite the distinction there. In accordance with the purpose of the Dhamma and the non-usefulness of some questions (according to the Dhamma - which is touched upon in article I posted... I wonder if you read it) and the role and behavior of a Bhikku, he would not only be expected to not argue, it would be frowned upon.

Whether or not Heaven(s) or Hell(s) exist...
Whether or not God(s) or Demons exist...
What exactly happens to us when we die...
Whether or not we have souls...
All of these questions are pointless to ask.
The functional answers (the assumption to make and the model to follow, regardless of truth) to these questions are based on standards of behavior and ethics.
The answers are induced by behavior ideals, not the other way around.

Besides, debate within the Sangha is not acting in accordance with the Vinaya (against the code of conduct).

The monk answered exactly as he should have, in strict accordance with Buddha's teachings.

 

[lightgigantic]

Actually Raven, the post went like this

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion? ”

And you replied
"I'm not sure why (s)he should.
That point of view does not contradict Buddha's teachings at all.

Along similar lines, perhaps…"

Then you tell the story about the faithless christian minister possessed of altruistic intention. I got the impression from that point on that you were suggesting that anyone who is a priest or monk or whatever in any religion is actually in deep illusion and one day they will wake up and just make the best use of a bad bargain and engage in mundane human welfare work, abandoning all endeavours to attain a state of emanicipation.
From there it seemed you were advocating "any thought is as good as any other in buddhism" which is why I was provoking you with the queries about karma and the next life.
Now its clearer with you suggesting that the monk was replying in a polite way and just trying to encourage him and that statement was probably not in line with his actual opinions (which is what I was originally trying to suggest with the query "And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?")
but its not clear what was your point about posting the story about the xtian minister (was it supposed to discredit the notion of religion or transcendence or just more specifically xtianity?)

 

[one_raven]

I got the impression from that point on that you were suggesting that anyone who is a priest or monk or whatever in any religion is actually in deep illusion and one day they will wake up and just make the best use of a bad bargain and engage in mundane human welfare work, abandoning all endeavours to attain a state of emanicipation.
From there it seemed you were advocating "any thought is as good as any other in buddhism"

Wow.
You certainly seem to jump to a lot of conclusions.
I apologize for whatever role I may have played in leading you to these conclusions about what I was trying to say, but you really took a hell of a leap.

I said “Along similar lines, perhaps…” because while it was not a wholly non-sequitur path to take, it was a distinct story.
Your asking why Michael didn’t question the Monk’s faith and intention, simply reminded me of the story, because of the differences in people’s views of the roles of and purposes of religions and people of the cloth (for lack of a better generalization).

Now its clearer with you suggesting that the monk was replying in a polite way and just trying to encourage him and that statement was probably not in line with his actual opinions (which is what I was originally trying to suggest with the query "And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?")

Not exactly what I was saying, but close enough, I suppose.

(was it supposed to discredit the notion of religion or transcendence or just more specifically xtianity?)

Neither.
It was a simple observation that was meant to cause people to look at what they consider the role of a minister and the church itself.
The point was to invoke discussion regarding whether someone who believed in the practical aspects of Jesus’ ministry, but was not necessarily in agreement (or simply unsure) about what people believe his views on God and spirituality were, could do good as a member of the cloth if that person’s intentions were the same as Jesus’ intentions regarding, save for God and Heaven and such.
In other words, if you agreed that what Jesus preached was good for mankind, but were unsure about God, could you still do his work of helping others, giving to charity, living a virtuous life and essentially having faith and doing good for mankind?

 

[Gordon]

Other than the obvious scientific conflicts with religion, my biggest problem in accepting any religion is the exclusivity of religion. Almost every religion claims to be the correct one, and a follower of any religion will be glad to show you their scriptures and prophecies that 100% prove they are correct. Every religion claims their god(s) is correct and that only by following their teachings can you go to heaven. QUOTE]

This is not the correct interpretation of Christianity. You do not have to sift all the various writings and decide which set is more likely to be true on an academic analysis basis.

This would of course not work anyway as most people would not wish to do such a mammoth task even when free to do so. There are many countries where people are not free to do so, for example in many Islamic countries getting access to other than the Qu'ran is often exceedingly dangerous.

The basis of christainity is relatively simple.

1. You have to admit that as a human being you do things regularly that are wrong. This should not prove too difficult except for those with enormous egos! (You have to accept you are a 'sinner' in old language.)

2. You have to accept that to put right the fact that you (and everyone else) do things wrong, God sent Jesus in human form to die on a cross, to overcome physical death and rise again from the dead ('substitutional atonement' in theological gobbledegook). This is the faith bit and because it is not blind faith, it requires some (minimal) scriptural knowledge about Jesus.

3.You have to be sorry (in reality) that you have done (and will continue to do) things that are wrong and that you wish to ask Jesus to come into your life to help you to improve (not become perfect - that's impossible). This is 'repentance'.

That's it really. That is why you can have such a variety of beliefs, intepretations and methods of worship. Only the core beliefs need to be shared.

You do not need to go to (any) church or perform any liturgy although many find both things helpful. You do not need to be an expert in every word of scripture (although again many find it helpful to find out more about it).

You do not need to knock on doors or preach on street corners. It is a requirement that you tell others of the good news but reading of the scriptures indicates that this is best done by being a good example and dealing with people in a nromal way not by preaching at them. This can be no different to telling people of your great enthusiasm for a particular sports team. It does not have to be the sort of religious preaching that most people (including a lot of christians) hate. Note that is how Jesus talks to people away from the crowds, such as the Samarian woman at the well.

Whatever you believe to be true, you must believe that that which is contradictory is false. This is the basis of logic and applies to everything, not just religion. (Atheists are just as exclusive about all theists being wrong.)

That said, all christians are not exclusivists. Certainly most of the ones I know do not make judgments about heaven and hell. That is for God not for us. We trust him to do what is right. Personally I like C.S. Lewis's thought that 'hell is a prison cell where the lock is on the inside.'

In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Rich Man's sin was not that he did not know scripture (as a Jew of that time he almost certainly knew it very well and probably better than the beggar Lazarus). His sin was that he did not apply it, by loving his neighbour, the beggar Lazarus. Instead he treated him with callous disregard.

I hope some of this helps.

Kind regards,


Gordon.

 

[Jenyar]

Like Gordon said, truth is by definition exclusive - it excludes what isn't true. All truth claims will be exclusive. That's just how it is. For example, look at the argument "only what can be observed is true" - it's also exclusivistic. It seems more tolerant and politically correct to say everything might be equally true, but that glosses over differences and boils down to there being no such thing as truth. Another option is to say that everybody is equally far from the truth... but would that be true?

In regards to Christ being the only way... Jesus was a person, not a religion, and he belonged to no-one but God. The adherents of every religion of the time - including his own - were threatened or offended by him, and people from different religions turned and followed him. What he preached cut across every belief, religious, political or social status or affiliation (Col. 3:11). In fact, he preached such complete religious exclusivity (Matt. 5:20) that it would be practically impossible to be "religious" in any pretentious, self-righteous or "sucessful" sense. He spent his life taking "religion" out of people's hands, like a toy they were abusing, and demonstrating what it meant (to be) in God's hands. He would be the great equalizer, or as Paul put it: "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

For those who refuse to be "condescended" to in this way, believer or non-believer, it would be too much to accept, too exclusive a truth, since it means their material and spiritual achievements would also be excluded, robbed of merit. Many people's security depends on these things. Such people would still rule the earth, because that's the natural order of things - the world has always belonged to the successful. But for those who cannot or would not seek prestige and status for its own sake - the poor in spirit, the hurt, the fragile, the oppressed, the religious and social outcasts, the unsung heroes who gave up public recognition (religious or material) or social justice for the sake of conscience or peace - it provided an unexpected avenue for hope, a way of finding God's grace that didn't lie in corrupt or selfish human hands, or in being super-spiritual or super-successful. But the way would never be theirs ("Christianity's"), it can only be Jesus himself. He wouldn't belong to them, they would belong to Him.