Why are there so many religions and sects?

[Balerion]

Such arrogance.

Review what it is you think I believe, then get back to me
with a relevant question. Then I'll decide whether it is worth a discussion.

jan.

What about "Please elaborate" is irrelevant?

You said that every religion says the same thing "according to time, place and circumstance." I asked you to explain yourself. You made a very vague statement, and I would like to hear some specifics. You must be aware of the specifics, otherwise you wouldn't be able to make the claim in the first place. What exactly do you mean by "according to time, place and circumstance," and what do you base this claim on? At face value, it appears that you're saying that all religions are talking about the same thing.

 

[Balerion]

The pride of men leads men to lead themselves and when men lead themselves they end up in trouble.


All Praise The Ancient of Days

There is no God, and therefore no one else to lead man but himself. It's when man relies on religion that the trouble begins.

 

[wynn]

I think the main cause of conflicts in humanity is the overwhelming desire of power.

Can you elaborate on this?

Do you think there is something wrong with desiring power? If yes, what, and how should things be different?

 

[Jan Ardena]

What about "Please elaborate" is irrelevant?

You said that every religion says the same thing "according to time, place and circumstance." I asked you to explain yourself. You made a very vague statement, and I would like to hear some specifics. You must be aware of the specifics, otherwise you wouldn't be able to make the claim in the first place. What exactly do you mean by "according to time, place and circumstance," and what do you base this claim on? At face value, it appears that you're saying that all religions are talking about the same thing.

You're way of mark as usual.

Quote the section you want answering, then place your question underneath, that
way your questions should be relevant.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

You're way of mark as usual.

Quote the section you want answering, then place your question underneath, that
way your questions should be relevant.

jan.

I just did. You can read, can't you? What was so hard to understand about this:

What exactly do you mean by "according to time, place and circumstance," and what do you base this claim on?

And why would the placement of my question in the post affect its relevance? I asked you the question, that's all that matters. And if you know I'm off the mark, why do I need to once again pose the question to you? Why can't you just correct me?

 

[Asexperia]

Wynn says:
Can you elaborate on this?
Do you think there is something wrong with desiring power? If yes, what, and how should things be different?

Most of the religious and political leaders want to be head of mouse and not the tail of a lion.

There is nothing wrong with wanting power, evil is in use for their own benefit.

 

[Asexperia]

You can see the results and opinions of the forists of this same poll placed in a SPANISH forum at:

http://foros.monografias.com/showthread.php/60897-¿Por-que-hay-tantas-Religiones-y-Sectas/page2

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

What exactly do you mean by "according to time, place and circumstance," and what do you base this claim on?

The principles of religion(God consciousness), although ultimately one, is to a particular peoples, at a particular place, and a particular set of circumstances. I base this claim on my experience in the world, one does not teach something to someone who doesn't (at that time) have the ability to comprehend.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

The principles of religion(God consciousness), although ultimately one, is to a particular peoples, at a particular place, and a particular set of circumstances.

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this sentence. "The principals of religion, although ultimately one, is to a particular peoples, at a particular place, and a particular set of circumstances." Could you try to be a bit more clear? Even taking out the "although ultimately one" qualifier does nothing to help.

Did you understand my question? Perhaps that's where the problem lies. Let's try again.

You said that all religions say the same thing, according to time, place and circumstance. I took this to mean that you were inferring that all religion can be traced back to one religion, or at least back to one message. Is this correct? It seems to be what you're saying. We'll start there.

I base this claim on my experience in the world, one does not teach something to someone who doesn't (at that time) have the ability to comprehend.

jan.

Again, this doesn't seem like an answer.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Balerion,

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this sentence.

I don't believe you.

"The principals of religion, although ultimately one, is to a particular peoples, at a particular place, and a particular set of circumstances." Could you try to be a bit more clear? Even taking out the "although ultimately one" qualifier does nothing to help.

Then go read up on stuff.

Did you understand my question? Perhaps that's where the problem lies. Let's try again.

The question should be, do YOU understand the question.
So far you've shown very little willingness to understand this subject.

You said that all religions say the same thing, according to time, place and circumstance. I took this to mean that you were inferring that all religion can be traced back to one religion, or at least back to one message. Is this correct? It seems to be what you're saying. We'll start there.

Like I said, post my quote, then ask your question.

Again, this doesn't seem like an answer.

It is an answer, and I don't intend to waste time debating whether or not it is.

jan.

 

[Balerion]

Balerion,

I don't believe you.

You're dodging. There is no reason to assume I'm being dishonest. Besides, that sentence made no sense, and was a grammatical mess. I even tried to be nice about it and take the blame for not understanding you, and you call me a liar for my troubles? Learn how to present your ideas in a way that other people can understand them.

Then go read up on stuff.

On what stuff? This is what I'm talking about, you're being vague. Is this because you got called out on your BS and don't know how to get out of it, or are you simply having that much trouble communicating?

The question should be, do YOU understand the question.
So far you've shown very little willingness to understand this subject.

Again, you're deflecting.

Like I said, post my quote, then ask your question.

I've done exactly that twice now, and gotten gibberish in return. Answer the question, or admit you're full of it.

It is an answer, and I don't intend to waste time debating whether or not it is.

There's no need to debate. It's an evasion, not an answer. There has been no substance whatsoever to any of your posts in this thread. My initial goal was to figure out if you were intentionally talking nonsense, or if you actually believe the crap you say, and all you've done is prove my suspicions right that you don't really believe any of this. This is all an act. You say things for effect, and when people ask for some clarification or explanation, you throw nonsense back at them (along with accusations and insults, of course, but it's all a part of the obfuscating process).

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of this sentence. "The principals of religion, although ultimately one, is to a particular peoples, at a particular place, and a particular set of circumstances." Could you try to be a bit more clear? Even taking out the "although ultimately one" qualifier does nothing to help.

Did you understand my question? Perhaps that's where the problem lies. Let's try again.

You said that all religions say the same thing, according to time, place and circumstance. I took this to mean that you were inferring that all religion can be traced back to one religion, or at least back to one message. Is this correct? It seems to be what you're saying. We'll start there.



Again, this doesn't seem like an answer.

You're dodging. There is no reason to assume I'm being dishonest. Besides, that sentence made no sense, and was a grammatical mess. I even tried to be nice about it and take the blame for not understanding you, and you call me a liar for my troubles? Learn how to present your ideas in a way that other people can understand them.




On what stuff? This is what I'm talking about, you're being vague. Is this because you got called out on your BS and don't know how to get out of it, or are you simply having that much trouble communicating?




Again, you're deflecting.




I've done exactly that twice now, and gotten gibberish in return. Answer the question, or admit you're full of it.




There's no need to debate. It's an evasion, not an answer. There has been no substance whatsoever to any of your posts in this thread. My initial goal was to figure out if you were intentionally talking nonsense, or if you actually believe the crap you say, and all you've done is prove my suspicions right that you don't really believe any of this. This is all an act. You say things for effect, and when people ask for some clarification or explanation, you throw nonsense back at them (along with accusations and insults, of course, but it's all a part of the obfuscating process).

Bye!

jan.

 

[SciWriter]

Bye!

jan.

Inability to discuss in a discussion forum.

 

[Balerion]

Inability to discuss in a discussion forum.

Makes you wonder what someone like that gets out of their experience here. There is no affirmation, their arguments are dismantled, and their motives exposed. Doesn't retreating like that get humiliating after a while? Or perhaps it's only humiliating at first, and one develops a thick skin over time.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: several posts speculating on personal motivations and character have been deleted as off-topic.

 

[scifes]

because our lifetimes are too short to reach objective truth, globally.
...i guess.

 

[Asexperia]

TOLERANCE

Tolerance is defined as respect for the opinions or practices of others. When our religious beliefs are deeply rooted into our own subconscious, ingrained when we were kids, it's impossible to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. It's fanaticism bring these to the political plane because they arise conflicts and wars. That's because we must be very restrained when expressing what we believe.

Ciao.

 

[lightgigantic]

TOLERANCE

Tolerance is defined as respect for the opinions or practices of others. When our religious beliefs are deeply rooted into our own subconscious, ingrained when we were kids, it's impossible to be tolerant of the beliefs of others. It's fanaticism bring these to the political plane because they arise conflicts and wars. That's because we must be very restrained when expressing what we believe.

Ciao.

So there is no scope for a person being tolerant of any idea they are taught as a kid, or is this a statement unique to religion? (dunno, maybe you were taught not to be tolerant of religion as a kid which might explain why you are having such difficulty at the moment - just trying to follow your line of reasoning)
:shrug:

 

[Mazulu]

I wonder why the benefits of religious and spiritual beliefs disappear when there is doubt of their existence? You just can't get that kind of joy, in so many different flavors, when there is skepticism. I think it is a shame that intellectuals like to destroy the joy of others because they have no joy. Maybe spiritual bliss is something to be conserved, like resources and the environment. Spiritual bliss is the environment of the mind. Once it is destroyed in a mind, there is only the wasteland of cynicism. Maybe innocence is something to be preserved.

 

[Yazata]

I wonder why the benefits of religious and spiritual beliefs disappear when there is doubt of their existence?

Probably because the benefits are psychological in nature. The peace and the connectedness that religious people may (or may not) experience might be more a function of their believing that they are connected to something, than it is a function of their literally being connected to anything real.

You just can't get that kind of joy, in so many different flavors, when there is skepticism.

I think that people probably can, but achieving it might not be as easy and straightforward.

That's one of the motivations for my interest in Buddhism. It dives deeper than our trying to convince ourselves that the universe is already configured in whatever way that we think will make us happy (even if that's just wishful thinking). It addresses the more psycho-spiritual issue of why we are so dependent on having to think that the universe is a particular way in order to be happy. What is generating that need, and why all the desperate grasping?

I think it is a shame that intellectuals like to destroy the joy of others because they have no joy.

I don't agree that they have no joy. There's a very real joy in pursuing knowledge and the truth.

And there's a very real discomfort at the idea of willfully believing in the truth of something false, in hope of attaining the illusion of happiness. To some minds at least (including mine), that's one of the most dangerous of psychological traps. It's a path that might ultimately lead to madness.

But having said that, I will agree with you that people shouldn't go around willfully trying to burst other people's bubbles. That's inhumane, at the very least. It's also arrogant, since it assumes that the bubble-burster is intellectually superior to the individual in the bubble.

That's why I strongly and viscerally oppose religious missionaries, people who invade foreign cultures and try to subvert and destroy the beliefs of the people that they find there. Christians and Muslims are notorious for this.

And it's why I also strongly and viscerally oppose militant atheists when they gratuitously attack religion and religious people, and when they strut around like mindless little roosters, all puffed-up with the illusion of their own intellectual superiority.

But again having said that, Sciforums is at least ostensibly a science discussion board. So it's something like neutral turf when it comes to religion, though with a strong bias towards evidence and reason. In other words, I don't think that there's any reason why religious people should enjoy any immunities here, or why their emotional sensibilities should receive any special protection.

Maybe spiritual bliss is something to be conserved, like resources and the environment. Spiritual bliss is the environment of the mind. Once it is destroyed in a mind, there is only the wasteland of cynicism. Maybe innocence is something to be preserved.

That is an interesting idea though. I don't think that I agree with it, but it isn't totally indefensible either.

I'm imagining a doctor, who discovers that a patient has an incurable disease. The patient will feel fine and be without symptoms for maybe six months, and then will decline and be dead in a year. Should the doctor tell the patient that he's dying, and cast a dark cloud over those six remaining pain-free months? Or should the doctor say nothing and let the patient live happily during the time he has left?