Are Individual Religions to Catch out Hypocrites?

[wizanda]

Like often in life, we only notice something is wrong when we have something to compare against; so we can only test that something is accurate, if we have a second source.

Thus are individual religions, where people almost refuse to look at additional sources purposefully, a way by the Divine to catch out the hypocrites?

Like what if all the religions help clarify each other, and only by putting all the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle together, can we hope to see the bigger picture.

Thus automatically within almost any religion, can people really be true to its values, whilst ignoring teachers of said values?

Like has each religion been given a perspective of the truth, and parts that are slightly obscured; so that only when we have made that extra step to truly see, do we notice the hypocrisy?

In my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Like often in life, we only notice something is wrong when we have something to compare against; so we can only test that something is accurate, if we have a second source.

Thus are individual religions, where people almost refuse to look at additional sources purposefully, a way by the Divine to catch out the hypocrites?

Like what if all the religions help clarify each other, and only by putting all the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle together, can we hope to see the bigger picture.

Thus automatically within almost any religion, can people really be true to its values, whilst ignoring teachers of said values?

Like has each religion been given a perspective of the truth, and parts that are slightly obscured; so that only when we have made that extra step to truly see, do we notice the hypocrisy?

In my opinion.

Well, in my opinion, religions have evolved basically to answer the questions that arise in the mind (at these early times, and arising from our ancestors' inherent search for meaning in all things); the capacity for making errors (particularly in thinking); and the local environment - thus the number of different belief systems arising. They will have necessarily evolved from the earliest primitive beliefs when the latter would be seen as decidedly wrong or at least hardly the whole picture. The rise of so many religions can thus be explained by these causes rather than by most others.

So, no I don't believe your question has any relevance for the number of different beliefs.

 

[wizanda]

Tho said about hypocrisy, think another aspect, is can individual religions be logical?

• A Muslim who rejects the previous texts, have no understanding of the additional contexts.
• A Christian who ignores Zoroastrianism, and Tanakh have no validation for a Messiah.
• A Buddhist who doesn't recognize Hindu history, forgets where the ideas came from.
• A Hindu who denies all religion is one, is implying revelation stopped, that Brahman isn't creator of reality, etc.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

So, no I don't believe your question has any relevance for the number of different beliefs.

Fine we have lots of beliefs, yet to be logically consistent, and not to be a hypocrite, we have to compare them, and for those who believe God creates reality, then accept that they're all an integrated part of each other.

Fine if we don't think God exists really, then we can pretend each religion is separate, and that mankind just made them up...

Which is where saying all the individual religions who accept the concept of One Source of reality, are hypocrites automatically, if they deny it is the Source of other religions as well.

In my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Fine we have lots of beliefs, yet to be logically consistent, and not to be a hypocrite, we have to compare them, and for those who believe God creates reality, then accept that they're all an integrated part of each other.

Not really. many have nothing in common it seems - if we look at all the various different beliefs - none/one god/many gods, afterlife/no afterlife/reincarnation, etc.

Fine if we don't think God exists really, then we can pretend each religion is separate, and that mankind just made them up...

Mmmmmh .. my position, I'm afraid.

Which is where saying all the individual religions who accept the concept of One Source of reality, are hypocrites automatically, if they deny it is the Source of other religions as well.

In my opinion.

Well I suppose, which is why I initially doubted religions as a child - there being so many different and conflicting faiths. With the latter being another argument as to why there is a problem, unless we just put this all down to human fallibility. But then, is this not a failure in any divine source?

 

[Quintessence]

Thus are individual religions, where people almost refuse to look at additional sources purposefully, a way by the Divine to catch out the hypocrites?

This doesn't make sense.

Identifying with a specific religion doesn't preclude someone from looking at sources of inspiration outside of what is labeled as part of that religion. This is true even of more dogmatic or restrictive religions. I'm not sure where you got the idea that this is the case to begin with, much less that it would somehow be hypocrisy if it were true. That doesn't make any sense.

 

[wizanda]

This doesn't make sense.

So for instance, we take a religion seeking enlightenment, and yet we miss huge aspects of human thought processes; this is hypocrisy, as we're not really seeking enlightenment.

If we believe there is One God who creates reality, and then we say the other religions were made up by the devil; again hypocrisy as God doesn't have control of reality then.

Then at the most basic level we follow a religion simplistically, as we want a guide to how life and reality works; yet then we don't actually check other sources, thus really we don't want to know how reality works, we will take what matches our preferences, thus again hypocrisy.

In my opinion.

 

[Quintessence]

So for instance, we take a religion seeking enlightenment, and yet we miss huge aspects of human thought processes; this is hypocrisy, as we're not really seeking enlightenment.

I don't quite follow you here. Why do you assume a person seeking enlightenment within the context of a specific religion misses some huge aspect of human thought processes?

If we believe there is One God who creates reality, and then we say the other religions were made up by the devil; again hypocrisy as God doesn't have control of reality then.

Yeah, I don't follow this either. Being a monotheist doesn't require proclaiming other religions were made up by the devil.

Then at the most basic level we follow a religion simplistically, as we want a guide to how life and reality works; yet then we don't actually check other sources, thus really we don't want to know how reality works, we will take what matches our preferences, thus again hypocrisy.

Like I said, identifying with a specific religion doesn't preclude someone from looking at sources of inspiration outside of what is labeled as part of that religion. This is true even of more dogmatic or restrictive religions. I don't get where you're going with this, other than constructing some sort of generalized strawperson to tear down.

 

[wizanda]

Not really. many have nothing in common it seems - if we look at all the various different beliefs

If we look at something from a distance, then often it seems totally different; after we take it to pieces; we find it is all made of the same stuff.

none/one god/many gods, afterlife/no afterlife/reincarnation, etc.

See for me that is illogical, there is only one reality; each religion has part of the perspective, and some people's interpretations are faulty.

So personally find reincarnation in many religious texts; where the traditions don't accept it...

Find a council of arch angels, have been classed as gods in many religions.

The ideas of the afterlife exist; yet are not understood by the traditions as well.

This is what i mean there are all these people not believing in facts from their own religion; as they haven't checked if they have their own original understanding right by cross referencing it, as they follow the traditions passed down by their leaders instead.

With the latter being another argument as to why there is a problem, unless we just put this all down to human fallibility. But then, is this not a failure in any divine source?

Personally would say we're all humans, even the Divine incarnations, and thus we all make mistakes; people want to have a 100% solution, and thus put faith in it being perfect, when nothing is in this world.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Why do you assume a person seeking enlightenment within the context of a specific religion misses some huge aspect of human thought processes?

Because enlightenment isn't found in a religion, it is a process of reaching a state of consciousness, where we're aware of how things work; being a simpleton, and ignoring how things work is the opposite.

Being a monotheist doesn't require proclaiming other religions were made up by the devil.

Sorry should have specified that was only one example; there could be many reasons people say there is one God who manifests our reality, and yet then didn't make the other religions.

Like I said, identifying with a specific religion doesn't preclude someone from looking at sources of inspiration outside of what is labeled as part of that religion.

As suggesting some people seek knowledge, and some want an easy one stop solution; many are not only educated to be restrictive by individual religions, yet the racism, and bigotry also creates reasons not to look.

So your query works in an ideal world; yet having spent the last 14 years online talking with people, shocked how uneducated many people choose to be.

Thus someone isn't a hypocrite if they're inquiring; it is the ones who have certain standards within their own religious structure, that are then not upheld when dealing with others, because of it being another race, religion, and language.

In my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If we look at something from a distance, then often it seems totally different; after we take it to pieces; we find it is all made of the same stuff.

As in .. if we look at all the possibilities then we might get a solution? But where most of anything looked at, including any true solution, will have nothing in common with the rest?

See for me that is illogical, there is only one reality; each religion has part of the perspective, and some people's interpretations are faulty.

And perhaps the non-religious one is the correct one ...

So personally find reincarnation in many religious texts; where the traditions don't accept it...

Find a council of arch angels, have been classed as gods in many religions.

The ideas of the afterlife exist; yet are not understood by the traditions as well.

This is what i mean there are all these people not believing in facts from their own religion; as they haven't checked if they have their own original understanding right by cross referencing it, as they follow the traditions passed down by their leaders instead.

Facts don't enter into when we discuss religions .. opinions and opinions on opinions do.

Personally would say we're all humans, even the Divine incarnations, and thus we all make mistakes; people want to have a 100% solution, and thus put faith in it being perfect, when nothing is in this world.

In my opinion.

But why so many religions - that conflict with each other. The past and present is hardly a good advertisement for virtually any religion.

 

[ajay0]

Like often in life, we only notice something is wrong when we have something to compare against; so we can only test that something is accurate, if we have a second source.

Thus are individual religions, where people almost refuse to look at additional sources purposefully, a way by the Divine to catch out the hypocrites?

Like what if all the religions help clarify each other, and only by putting all the pieces in a jigsaw puzzle together, can we hope to see the bigger picture.

Thus automatically within almost any religion, can people really be true to its values, whilst ignoring teachers of said values?

Like has each religion been given a perspective of the truth, and parts that are slightly obscured; so that only when we have made that extra step to truly see, do we notice the hypocrisy?

In my opinion.

A religious methodology is a conceptual framework , which when put into application, helps to bring about a nonconceptual state of being.

I would say that the nonconceptual state of being expressed here is the same for all religions as shown by the given sayings...



( Aham Brahmasmi ) I am He. -- Brihadaryanaka Upanishad

I and my Father are one. - Jesus Christ

Ana al-Haqq ( I am the Truth ) - Mansur Al-Hallaj

“All sentient beings have Buddha nature.” ( Nirvana Sutra)

Taoist philosophy … is essentially monistic. … Matter and energy, Yang and Yin, heaven and earth, are conceived of as essentially one or as two coexistent poles of one indivisible whole. - Bruce Lee

Our self – luminous, empty Awareness – knows no resistance and is, therefore, Peace itself; it seeks nothing and is, thus, happiness itself; it is intimately one with all appearances and is, as such, pure love. - Rupert Spira


The issue arises when people of different religions start creating conflict over the conceptual frameworks , instead of trying to attain the nonconceptual state of being emphasized by the founding masters. Thus religion becomes a formentor of conflict rather than harmony , and the ironic part is that harmony naturally arises when one is established in the nonconceptual state of being.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I don't think people are hypocrites for not being able to see and understand whatever ultimate truth there is, because I don't believe that ANY HUMAN is capable of knowing ultimate truth.

Humans are humans, with all the limitations and abilities that entails, and live in societies--which require compromise with other humans--with all the limitations and abilities that entails as well.

Yes, I personally think that people should try to learn about history, about philosophy, about critical thinking, about other points of view. But would I be a hypocrite if I tried to impose this view on others, or if I respected their ability to make decisions about such things for themselves?

 

[wizanda]

perhaps the non-religious one is the correct one ...

Agreed, i think any system of religion leads to equal and opposite reactions; thus only by eliminating reactions could we be safe or create a religion where we strive to find opposites.

if we look at all the possibilities then we might get a solution?

We look at all the data to use the scientific method of analysis, we see if there is any concurrent ideas in the ideologies.

But where most of anything looked at, including any true solution, will have nothing in common with the rest?

Then we need a bigger magnifying glass... Reality has physics, then atomics, then quantum physics, all using complex mathematics.

Thus within religion we have lots of key elements, when we take it down to simple points that are the same.

Facts don't enter into when we discuss religions

When we discuss religious traditions, we often discuss presuppositions... Yet personally realizing reading their religious text is interesting, as you realize people haven't.

The past and present is hardly a good advertisement for virtually any religion.

Humanity would fight regardless of religion; that is just a cultural excuse; like football hooliganism.

But why so many religions - that conflict with each other.

What if they're not conflictions but corrections.... So we have a line of religious corrections, and some religious groups have refused said correction.

So for instance... Buddha corrected Hinduism, Yeshua corrected Judaism, etc...It is called evolution; yet religious people don't accept that happens.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

But would I be a hypocrite if I tried to impose this view on others, or if I respected their ability to make decisions about such things for themselves?

People are entitled to believe what ever they wish, and if it makes them a hypocrite through their own ignorance, then that again is their choice..

Yet if our noble pursuits are to help others, and we don't help show people where they're being hypocritical when we can help someone, then that makes us a hypocrite for not trying.

In my opinion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What if they're not conflictions but corrections.... So we have a line of religious corrections, and some religious groups have refused said correction.

So for instance... Buddha corrected Hinduism, Yeshua corrected Judaism, etc...It is called evolution; yet religious people don't accept that happens.

In my opinion.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me. One just has to look at the numerous conflicts to see that they are hardly corrections but more like disputes as to what was said, how it was/is interpreted, etc. Religions, by their nature, argue for their being largely based on myth than anything else, and more like a thorny bush than a tree:

The Evolutionary Tree of Religion 2.0

I quite agree that we can view things from different perspectives but mostly religions do not fall into this category because they often just do not agree with whatever they espouse as fact.

 

[wizanda]

I quite agree that we can view things from different perspectives but mostly religions do not fall into this category because they often just do not agree with whatever they espouse as fact.

People's religious presuppositions (traditions) are often the problem, and not the texts when dissected properly...

Like 30,000+ denominations of Christianity is just unbelievable; which shows there is an error in the text, so we establish what texts, create what beliefs, and why there are so many varying opinions.

One just has to look at the numerous conflicts to see that they are hardly corrections but more like disputes

Yeah people's ego will dispute being told, Rabbinic Judaism is them going extreme opposite, and Hinduism is the opposite of Buddha's points...

This is because this reality has the law for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction... So some people follow, some argue against; hardly any go the extra mile in the right direction.

In my opinion.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

People are entitled to believe what ever they wish, and if it makes them a hypocrite through their own ignorance, then that again is their choice..

Yet if our noble pursuits are to help others, and we don't help show people where they're being hypocritical when we can help someone, then that makes us a hypocrite for not trying.

In my opinion.

perhaps.

But what if your noble goal is to treat others the way we want to be treated, to not have done to us what we would not do to others?

 

[Mock Turtle]

People's religious presuppositions (traditions) are often the problem, and not the texts when dissected properly...

Like 30,000+ denominations of Christianity is just unbelievable; which shows there is an error in the text, so we establish what texts, create what beliefs, and why there are so many varying opinions.

Yeah people's ego will dispute being told, Rabbinic Judaism is them going extreme opposite, and Hinduism is the opposite of Buddha's points...

This is because this reality has the law for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction... So some people follow, some argue against; hardly any go the extra mile in the right direction.

In my opinion.

As might be realised, I have spent most of my life looking elsewhere than at religions - because it would take time away from that which did take my interest. I just have the results of religious belief to inform me - and the basic tenets of the various faiths of course. And although I do have copies of the relative texts, I am not that keen to delve too deep since they do appear much the same.

 

[wizanda]

The issue arises when people of different religions start creating conflict over the conceptual frameworks , instead of trying to attain the nonconceptual state of being emphasized by the founding masters.

If we don't challenge the structures, to see if they are really a house of cards... We won't know.

Plus the idea of the thread is the hypocrisy to not recognize their errors in comprehension have already been corrected by later house of cards challengers; so we don't end up building on bad foundations.

In my opinion.