Precisely, Jan. You may very well term “religion” as something others do not. The fact that you do does not make your definition more correct or more acceptable.
If you read the context that was said in, you would realise what I meant.
Jan, let’s try a different approach here. Let’s put aside past comments for a moment and take these statements as they are presented here.
“You would realize what I meant.”
I don’t think this is strictly true. Anticipated realization may not occur. Plus, if a reader doesn’t ‘realize’ what is ‘meant,’ it doesn’t necessarily follow that the reader, or the writer, is to blame. Not in every, or even many, instances. Interpretation, somewhat like beauty, is in the mind-eye of the beholder. Because of various reasons, a single word or arrangement of words in a written sentence can throw off the reader’s perceptions and the author’s intended meaning is lost. Cultural background, individual experiences, general ignorance, (as in a lack of knowledge), current emotional state, personal goal/agendas of various sorts--just to name a few factors--can influence how a statement is written and interpreted.
Where Internet forums are concerned, we can also factor in the likelihood that not all readers take the time to read carefully, while others will pick a post apart word for word. Often depends upon the level of interest a reader has in a given topic or an author. It’s like an unspoken understanding that much of what anyone writes will go in one of a reader’s cyber ears and out the other. Part of the reason why some don’t spend a lot of time on the composition of their posts. The effort is seldom justifiable for busy people, or for those with more exacting standards.
I don’t think we ever have a guarantee that what we write will be taken as we intended the first time around, or even after several more perusals. And this where “facilitating a better understanding” can be extremely helpful... for those who truly wish to do so.
Bambi asked, why religion was being taught all over the world.
In my school years I was taught religious education, this included the history of the catholic and christian church as laid out by the curriculum. We were taught certain stories out of the bible, mainly, if not all, about Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Moses. We were taught that Christ was born on christmas day and the whole nativety scene. We were also taught hymns, which were generally penned by 19th-20th century writers. Today I understand that they are teaching in the same style various religions of the world, so that there may be tolerance among the different peoples of the world.
Just curious, but what (more specifically) has given you the understanding that “religion” is being taught this way in order to facilitate more tolerance in the world?
At no point did they explain the meaning of the words of Jesus.
Jesus’ word was the whole point, he travelled to certain parts of the globe to preach the gospel. In India for example, there are manuscripts which chart his pilgrimage throughout India, where he taught mainly to the ‘shudra class’ as the so-called brahmins wanted to kill him when he brought to light their hypocracy.
He travelled to Eygpt where he underwent austere penances and was anointed ‘Christ’ by the high priest.
He travelled and taught in Greece.
None of this was ever taught in school, but yet it was part of the whole picture of what we call religion.
How then can you say that religion is being taught all over the world, when the basic principle of religion is not being taught.
Okay, it seems that this may have been put to Bambi only, but I’ll submit this much.
I, and many of those I’ve known or have had contact with here in the United States, were, or are being, taught about Christ’s life, his journeys, his “message” and anything he encountered or imparted along the way to martyrdom. Not so much in our youngest years, but as we entered our teenage years, and later. Besides ordinary Sunday school lessons or worship service sermons, there have been made available via numerous churches and affiliated organizations a considerable variety of bible study classes. Adult bible study groups are, relatively speaking, quite popular in the U.S., and many of these were/are devoted to teaching and learning about the life of Christ in particular.
So perhaps such in-depth studies are not necessarily uncommon. American Methodist and Episcopalian churches, for example, don’t shy away from looking deeper, and with what they would call objectivity. In my own experience, and based on what others tell me, the words of Christ are very important to many modern day Christians.
Which reminds me.... regarding ‘objectivity...’ This past Christmas I heard someone relate the story of the birth of Christ at a family gathering, and for the first time ever in my recollection the storyteller departed from reading only scripture and paused to briefly discuss the long held belief that Christ had been born on December 25th, and the possibility that that might not be true, and why it might not be true. For some of the larger Christian denominations, a search for deeper understanding appears to be being encouraged in a general sense.
To basically understand religion as it is, you need only look at the scripture, if what I say is not expounded by scripture then what you say is correct.
Again, I’ll differ because I think we
are using the term “religion” differently. To understand [the] scriptures, you need to look at [the] scriptures--from whatever source.
To understand “religion” we would do well to clarify when we’re speaking of it as an institution, or when we’re referencing someone’s own personalized definition. All the more so if one has a highly personalized or uncommon definition in mind and has not been successful in conveying what the term means yet.
In contrast, and by and large, what many atheist are interested in debating/discussing is the topic of religion as an “institution,” --or that which supports their ideas or disputes with the pro-religion folk over how Man does not need such an institution, and why.
To have a meaningful exchange of ideas on such weighty topics truly requires that time, thought and effort be put into the “offerings” from both sides. When too little effort is made, the result is what we so often read (or skip over) here on these threads. People are often talking about different things (some know it, and some don’t) and the whole process is basically a waste of time for anyone interested in doing more than just venting.
Beyond that, these are your opinions, assertions, assumptions based on...what?
Based on religious scripture.
Just as your opinions, assertions etc are based on whatever your source is.
The human being learns basically about life through various sources and mediums, and then starts to develop his/her own understanding based on what they know through experience.
That is why education is so important, especially to people of power and ill intent.
Doesn’t it make you wonder why the bible was tampered with so much. If it was written by unsroupolous people to brainwash mankind, why didn’t they write it without those edited parts in the first place.
Yes, even according to you, some of your assertions, etc., are based on religious scripture, and your interpretation of the scriptures ...and other’s interpretations of them. Whether or not it’s a careful interpretation on anyone’s part is only so significant. And yes, like every human, you learn about life from a variety of experiences. Even your own physical make-up can play a significant role in your world-view. We are truly, each of us, individuals.
And as individuals--through thought, or a lack of it, through action or a lack of it--we are just as capable of corrupting (or aiding and abetting corruption) a given set of scriptures, as we are of writing them in the first place. Man can create, and Man can distort. For
this we have plenty of evidence, but lack what would amount to generally acceptable evidence that the world’s collection of religious scriptures are all that some would claim they are.
On what has been taught to you?
It hasn’t been taught to me, this is what I am trying to tell you, the opposite has been taught
Religion ecompasses everything including history, names, characters etc, just like in the curriculum, but the essence is missing.
Its like being told you can’t do this, you can’t do that, but not being explained the reason behind it so that you understand, this is why there is a massive revolt against it now, because all people see are rules and regulations and if you don’t adhere you will burn in hell forever more.
But that is not what religion is.
“Essence” is missing from what is being taught because “essence” is something that is far too loosely defined by most of the world‘s main religions and their teachers--or in some cases, far too narrowly defined. This is so because such a term and it’s definition are wide open to interpretation. You, me, anyone can say that it shouldn’t be thought of this way, but it is--because it
is. The “essence,‘ because of it’s vague nature is not easy to teach. And some of us, after our own explorations, have a clearer understanding about why this is so.
I’ll certainly agree that many who teach or preach religion focus on the rules and on the consequences of not following the rules. This is often done because the claimed and/or assumed “understanding” is... that everyone has their own relationship with their chosen “creator” or the universe, etc... and much about exploring or discerning individual “spirituality” is left up to the individual to work out as best they can. The degree of influential input or guidance from teachers or others depends on many variables.
The individual is encouraged to make interpretations, yet at the same time, it is generally expected that the individual’s interpretations will fall in line with what the “church political” claims is correct--when pressed. Another view is that “Religion” can’t address the “essence” because the “essence” is impossible to define anyway, and all the more so for those who have little or no use for faith-based ideologies or proof based on highly subjective interpretation. When dealing with literature of any kind, subjectivity always has the upper hand. (Just look at the difficulty experienced here when readers try to understand/interpret each other’s posts.)
How is it that what is right for you is necessarily right for everyone else?
There are lots of instances where this statement can be proven.
For example its right for me to eat and for everyone else.
Well, sure. But the discussion (or most of ’em around here) is not about whether or not it’s right for all to eat for the sake of physical nourishment. It’s about whether or not your ideas and beliefs, which you profess to be true, and claim to be above most other’s understanding, are something that should be presented in the manner in which you and others continually present them. Inadequately presented in many instances--and presented as
THE truth.
Many people are quite content to let you believe what you like. But when you insist that others should accept your understanding as the right
understanding for all... it just ain’t gonna happen. Is there anything more basic to know than this about our human nature? It is required by rational-thinking people to be given something that makes sense in their minds and/or hearts before they‘ll agree with you or change their view, their life, the prospects for their future, etc... You don’t pay $1000.00 for a lead pencil. (Or most of us wouldn’t) And if someone should insist that you do so without ever giving you a satisfactory reason for
why you should... you don’t, typically, just say: “Okay. Whatever. I’ll shell out the grand because you say I should.”
The debate about whether or not the existence of God can be
proven, or whether or not an atheist has any proof against such a claim of an existence, is actually a separate debate. Closely related and very important, but separate. In order to really achieve a better understanding between believers and non-believers, I think it would be best to settle these issues one at a time.
The issue here: what is right for you--in your judgment--and in regard to accepting any kind of faith in any kind of “religion”-- is not going to be right for all.
If you disagree, and if you desire to convince others (whether they’re open to it or not) that your ideas and beliefs are right for all, then it is now required of you to give the non-believers (those open to conversion) compelling reasons to first, listen further to what you have to say, and then to offer more than what has been offered and rejected a million times before--and rejected for reasons that are scarcely different from why we don’t pay $1000.00 for an ordinary lead pencil.
This also requires that the would-be converter have a very good understanding of where the non-believer is coming from--which means avoiding making intentionally insulting assumptions, and too many assumptions, period. Who wants to listen to a guy who tells others what they really think or feel? ...Who by doing so is suggesting that the observed and judged individual is either lying, clueless about themselves, or both. We know that such private knowledge of someone’s inner most convictions or wonderings is impossible to claim. If someone comes along later and proves this to be wrong, fine. We’ll cross that bridge then. But for now, I’m not going publicly claim (or privately believe) that I know so much about what goes on in the head of Jan Ardena. Wouldn’t blame anyone for distrusting me if I claimed that I did, or behaved as though I did.
Self-realisation is not religious, it is something like total common-sense. It allows you to see things as they really are. It is not a simple feat, it demands a lot of intelligence, I’m by no means saying I am self-realised, but I am beginning to understand.
That’s a nice way of putting it, Jan. And I can agree that “self-realization” is not “religious.” Not for me it isn’t. However, there are plenty of others who do see it as a kind of religious experience or journey. Many, many ways to define and interpret these concepts and experiences.
Do you actually know what that person knows? What they understand?
No, I don ‘t, but there is such a thing as human nature, which guides every living being. We, as human beings have limitations, that is what modern day science is attempting to push back the boundaries.
In some vedic literatures it explains these limitations in detail, and you can if you were prepared, relate these limitations not only to yourself but to other living beings as well.
We are close to agreement again, I think. Human nature is predictable to a degree, yet it’s also a very complex “thing.” If I lived to be 400 years old, my educated guess is that I’d still be learning something new about human nature every day. Humans are full of surprises.
As for vedic literature, and really for all literature that attempts to explain Man and his ’ways,’ what is written is an interpretation, and what the reader takes away from it is also an interpretation. And interpretations such as these, simply, are not reliable when it comes to understanding
all that there is to understand about Man and his human nature. Some insight, even a lot of insight, can be gained. I say that cautiously because it very much depends on the content and the application, on the “educational” source, as well as the individual doing the interpreting.
Science is very cautious about claiming to have a thorough understanding of what goes on in the hearts and minds of the mentally ill, and appropriately so.
I understand, but the Creator has no problems with that at all.
If this is what you choose to believe, that’s groovy by me. But as long as you assert it as a given truth, as something above question, then your very human brothers are going to feel the temptation to question your authority--and in my opinion, rightly so.
And this is what all religions will claim in one way or another: That until those who don’t agree with you do agree with you, then they don’t “understand” and they lack “superior understanding.”
I can understand where you are coming from, but if you read any scripture you will find this is not the case.
Let it stand for the record that Counterbalance has read mucho scripture.
As I said earlier the base point reference of any religion, has to be its scripture. If it is being violated then the people are to blame not the scripture.
Sorry. Can’t agree so much here. Those who’ve authored the scripture bear some responsibility for that which is intentionally false and misleading. While you are free to believe that certain collections of scripture are true and divinely inspired --or were even penned by the hand of a god-- to assert that this is true is no different than what I’ve mentioned above. You are asking for others to question your authority. They will question it, and some will demand that you provide proof of your claims--if you are actively trying to impose your beliefs onto others, and into their lives, and particularly when they don’t want you to... and particularly if you’re doing it in an obnoxious or hard to understand manner.
It is also imperitive to understand the essence/point of that particular scripture, otherwise it leaves it open to be violated and misreprisentative, as we are currently seeing.
For anyone who has a doubt about whether or not God (or a creator) exists... who wishes to explore the claims of religionists or of various of the faithful... and if they wish to be objective on these or similar quests... then yes. Yes, they should try looking deep, they should seek to understand whatever it is you or others wish to have understood-- what many of you claim to be important.
For those who have already made the quests, or for any who don’t want to make the quest for whatever reasons, and for those who see the scriptures as being the fabrication of men, and men only... then these kinds of insistences hold little or no water.
Never going to be enough for any truly rational person.
Now whose being insulting!
Not intentionally, I assure you. But I’m quite willing to concede that I also fail to make my point as well as I would like sometimes. When I use a term like “rational” I’m typically not suggesting (in a subtle counter-suggestion) the opposite of “sane” --which is how the term often
has been used in these types of discussions, and so often that it’s become difficult to know when someone is suggesting insanity or not. Quite easy to misinterpret a word like “rational.” At the same time, it’s the proper word to describe precisely what is meant by “having or exercising the ability to reason; logical.”
(
But what’s logical for one is not logical for another! I can hear the choir in the background. )
True. As with “proof” ... “logic” is another point to debate once some of the basics are understood and/or agreed upon.
It seems to me that you lack the ability to comprehend anything about atheism beyond this basic definition.
Well, I would sincerely like to hear your definition, because beyond that basic definition, I fail, in all honesty, to see what more there is. It has been mentioned, that Buddists are atheist, which I believe that to be correct. Is your understanding more along those lines?
My point is that too many assumptions have been made about the atheists’ true mindset, their purposes in life, and the rationale behind why they are non-believers; their demeanor, the type of lives they have, the way they raise families, they way they view everyone else, including all people of faith... Atheist are not cold-hearted, cold-blooded, one-dimensional, thick-headed (okay, not all
) and are not inflexible or unwilling to be spontaneous, to learn, to embrace joy and all manner of good things...
For every type of erroneous misconception that can be made against an individual or a group, the non-believers have been as misunderstood and maligned as have the believers. And actually... for a far longer time when we consider how religion has behaved toward those who have resisted embracing it throughout our history.
Self-deception is the evil, and well you know. Even though you deny.
I do no such thing, I agree with you.
In fact I’ll add to it, deception of any kind is an evil.
~~~
Actually, I can agree with this. There are a lot of people who are like this.
But not all.
At least we can both agree on something.
I think we would find that we agree on plenty of things if we ever cared to find out. However, it isn’t critical to me that you or others agree with everything I think is true or right--except when you propose that I
should accept your version of truth as my own, and when Religion--in general--or a group of religionists--oversteps its/their “right” to dabble in my personal life--politically, socially, pyschologically, financially, you-name-it... “Religion” can quest for truth all it likes, but it can do so out of our public schools, and out of government, and it can release the hold it attempts to have, and would to love have, on my morals. It could also accept the truth that it has, in fact, overstepped it’s boundaries, and is long overdue to change
its nature toward Man.
That’s an opinion that I wish to share for the sake of facilitating a better understanding of my view--for any who are (ever) interested--and is not expressed for the purpose of converting anyone to my way of thinking. I’m content to take my own journey, in my own time, and without company. I’m also equally aware that my view may be of no interest whatsoever to others. Makes no difference to me. I “share” because *I* want to share. Doing so is part of who I am. Others will read or not, think or not. The choice is theirs.
You are aware of ALL that Cris realizes? (You are simply astounding.)
No, but he does make his deepest thoughts known, directly or indirectly.
I think we all give glimpses of the multiple facets of our personality by the things we say, do, (or write), but how much of that can we take and call hard knowledge about any one person?
For any little snippet of insight I think I might have gleaned from reading Jan Ardena’s posts, I am also acutely aware that this knowledge is limited at best, and that I might well insult Jan Ardena if I play too fast and free with what I “speculate” that I
might know about him/her--as well as undermine any of Jan‘s, my, or other‘s attempts to really communicate. I have to remember my priorities. At least I try to.
Regardless of whether or not you intend to insult anyone here by making all the assumptions you do, an insult is in the mind or eye of the insulted.
I tend to treat people how they treat me and they don’t often like the results.
Again, depending on what you value and on the priorities you have, there might be a better way to bring about understanding, and to be understood.
what comes off the tip of your typing fingers, are true marks of wisdom, understanding and maturity. Deny it if you want, but there is plenty of evidence to support this.
This should apply to ‘almost’ everyone, including myself and yourself.
Agreed.
Good that we can agree on something so basic. I was willing to make a private bet with myself that Jan Ardena would understand a comment like that quick enough--a bet placed on hope rather than faith--and because I really don‘t think you are a fool.
Human beings are not cows.
Try telling a few of my mates that LOL
Reincarnation? (uh-oh)
Naw, we’ll let that lie for now.
~~~
Peace,
Counterbalance