Religion

[cute cat reno]

"I have a problem with religion or anything that says, 'We have all the answers,' because there’s no such thing as 'the answers.' We’re complex. We change our minds on issues all the time. Religion leaves no room for human complexity."

Daniel Radcliffe in Parade magazine last weekend

 

[wynn]

Daniel is still young, and severely limited by magic.

 

[Yazata]

"I have a problem with religion or anything that says, 'We have all the answers,' because there’s no such thing as 'the answers.' We’re complex. We change our minds on issues all the time. Religion leaves no room for human complexity."

I'm inclined to agree with that... somewhat.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with believing that we have the answer to something. We shouldn't reject knowledge entirely, insist that there are no answers, and strive to have no views about anything. We wouldn't survive for very long if we tried that.

But we need to hold the belief that we have some answers provisionally, falsifiably, fallibly, in such a way that we are still willing to change our views if subsequent experience convinces us that we should.

In other words, having beliefs shouldn't become a justification for closing our minds and for ceasing to learn and grow.

 

[wynn]

What when the answers are of a kind like this:

'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.'

-?

 

[Yazata]

What when the answers are of a kind like this:

'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."

There's a bit of a self-referential problem in quoting the Kalama sutta as scripture while it's telling us not to go by scripture. But that happens every day in Buddhism.

I don't think that the Buddha was condemning the use of logical inference or probability in our normal lives. They obviously have a place in scientific reasoning.

It might be worthwhile to say that there is an idea of faith (Pali 'saddha') in Buddhism, even if it's kind of provisional and subordinated to experience. Saddha is necessary in order to enter upon the Buddhist path and then to perservere on it. It's a positive virtue on the path along with energy, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom. But while faith means having enough confidence in what you are doing so as to be able to do it, it can't stand forever on the basis of authority alone and still must be confirmed in experience.

"When you know for yourselves that...

That's where everything's headed in the Buddhist scheme.

So it seems to me that it's ok to study the Buddha's discourses, to have faith in them and even to form scholarly opinions about them. But religiously speaking, that faith and those opinions aren't really the point of Buddhism at all and they are always going to be subordinate to and if necessary revisable in the light of direct experience.

 

[wynn]

So it seems to me that it's ok to study the Buddha's discourses, to have faith in them and even to form scholarly opinions about them. But religiously speaking, that faith and those opinions aren't really the point of Buddhism at all and they are always going to be subordinate to and if necessary revisable in the light of direct experience.

I think the same applies for all aspiration to religion. Which is why I am against the notion that religion is somehow limiting or that it leaves no room for human complexity.

Personal realization - the perfection of practice - is viewed as highest in all the religious traditions I am familiar with.

Many people, whether affiliated with religious organizations and those who aren't, seem to think though that religion is basically a matter of taking a set of beliefs and practices for granted and that a person then always stays at the same level of understanding and practice as they were on the day when they first took that step.

Personally, I find that religion acknowledges and welcomes an understanding of human complexity a lot more, incomparably more, than secular ways of approaching ourselves and life in general.

 

[wynn]

I don't think that the Buddha was condemning the use of logical inference or probability in our normal lives. They obviously have a place in scientific reasoning.

I think the crucial issue related to religion is in how to talk about it and how to convince others of one's own take on it. This is where many people seem to stumble, and give up on religion in that they become fundamentalist supporters or fundamentalist opponents.

The problem isn't, for example, that "Religion leaves no room for human complexity" - the problem is, rather, how to convince others that it leaves no room for human complexity, or that it acknowledges it.

There is both
1. a legitimate epistemological concern in this,
as well as
2. issues of controlling others and subjecting them to one's will.

We must be in the clear which concern we address and how.

 

[cosmictraveler]

Before governments were formed religions were the only way to control people. When governments started they were not liked by religions because they were not always looking out for in their best interests. Religions wanted to be the only way to seek help, advice and dominion over the people.

 

[elte]

For religion simple is better. Just several behavioral rules would be ideal. Something better than the Ten Commandments.

A way to word the main principle: Love is wanting to help and not harm others. Desire to love everyone.

 

[kx000]

Cosmic traveler. The highest priest would be like a senator or advisor to the Pharoh in 3000 b.c. Egypt. There is something to faith. Theres a reason we keep the president and the priest away from each other... they are both most likely idiots... the priest isn't that bad. Zing.

Elte. The commandments are perfect. We have NEVER achieved the commandments as a society so how can you judge them?

 

[kx000]

As for religion itself, I see it as purely fanatical of ones own family given beliefs, or hand picked faith. If one truly believes in one God they can not hold a follower of another faith in one God accountable for their unfounded faiths.

Personally I do not take names or stories into account, but I understand all faith's of religion, and what they preach. A few key points for a theist trinity.
-God does exist, but we can only have faith at this time. Even, he can be proven not to exist in the near future. Being that I have always had faith and even now, I still have undying faith in the name of the Father, Jesus, and the sons of YHWH.
-To praise to God is to do good for another but yourself, and to add to society. Even doing peace unto your self is perfect to God, but to do peace unto another is to go above and beyond, and this is expected of you.
-Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and all faith of any kind is recognized by God, but we will never know which one is most perfect. Most likely non will exist in Heaven, as religion has only proven to divide, and harm. Imo, Islam is the winner of earthly religions. Jihad is not holy war.
-All religion must agree on a doctrine of morality, and virtues for all man to exist by that can exist until the end of time and hold true for the next living organisms.
-Peace and love are more important that the existence of God.

Cont... Jesus as to ancient Egyptian mythology and society

-Jesus existed as much as Seth. Muhammad has firm backing. They all got their material from the same "creator." I have faith in the existence of Jesus. I have faith in the religion of Egypt. It was fantastical in many ways, but I very firmly believe in the deities Osiris, Isis, Seth, Nephthys, Anubis and Horus to have existed right before the unification of Egypt as the founders of civilization and organized practice. I think all 5 of these people believed in a after life but naturally didn't know just like we don't. I believe the "god Pharaoh," Osiris used this knowledge that man needed knowledge of death, and all their fears (sound like a deity you all know?) to obtain control of Egypt as the god Pharaoh coming from a already prominent home, and a natural backing of faith. By the time his "son" Horus came around he was the god Pharaoh. Around the same time that Horus is made as a god before the people another man comes into the land from a far away place. He was the god of foreign lands, stoms, chaos, later around maybe the second kingdom (?) he was the god of evil, and most importantly before unification, to the cults of Seth he was the god of war, and victor of the god of evil Apep, which always had to be held true to Egypt for some reason. He must have come as a nomadic traveler into upper Egypt, maybe by boat and settled there. He very easily could have been seen as a god in those times, could have really been one.

So, Seth and pregnent Nephthys come to Egypt. Osiris and Isis are Pharaoh and wife. Seth quickly is seen as a god, even recognized by the god Pharaoh, so he instantly has credibility to anyone who comes to Egypt. He would even be refered as a brother to the Pharaoh Osiris, not literally however. Eventually he gains so much favor in the two lands he has to be Osiris' choice as the next leader if Osiris wishes to keep his divinity in the eyes of the public. Horus was the adopted son of Osiris, imo. He was the sky god, and the god of war. I believe the jackal mask IS Seth, but later on he is vilonized as a "ass" with a snout and big ole' donkey ears.

I believe Anubis was killed as a little baby in the eye of the public, and hidden for a long time. Seth went on to know of the crimes of Osiris (enslavement of humanity under HIS government ONLY HIS ONLY HIS ONLY HIS GOD PHARAOH GOD PHARAOH). He then lead a ancient conspiracy with faithful ancient Israelites living in Egypt, a queen in Somolia, and ancient Canan nomads with supperior weaponry. Bascically Seth killed Osiris who made a single attempt on his and Nephthys life, and thought to have killed his son Anubis long before. Seth killed Osiris after returning from a long trip somewhere (Somolia). At this time the crown would be given to Seth who then denies the crown in hopes to organize the world under a single order, if not then a ruler from the two lands of Egypt which NONE of the previous mentioned gods where with the acception of Anubis who was Egyptian born. Seth says no the crown so the next choice in Horus. Seth pleads with him to turn it down, but Horus ignorantly accepts. So Seth leaves the palace and returns in the night with a army and two small superior fighting units. The first great military slaughter in human history including king Horus. I believe that Anbuis was killed in the eye of the public allowing Seth, Nephthys, and Anubis to all work secretly under the same Jackal mask. After Osiris is dead and Seth and Nephthys older Anubis shows up and says "what I miss and is made god of Egypt and serves the lands under King Menes!

Isis, the only surviving person not Anubis, and not the exiled Seth, and wife Nephthys lived on as a high priestest and gave the ancient legend of Osiris. Seth was vilonized as the murderer of Osiris, and Horus, and his son has to renounce his fathers name, so to maintain kingship as dictated by Seth over the now unified Egypt.