But who doesn't claim that? If you were standing on a railway track and a bright light was speeding towards you, would you get off the track? That is truth that is exclusive, and it is truth that is claimed.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion really that bad of a thing?
- Thread starter Twilight Hue
- Start date
But who doesn't claim that? If you were standing on a railway track and a bright light was speeding towards you, would you get off the track? That is truth that is exclusive, and it is truth that is claimed.
Oh, please. You can't possibly be saying that the claims of religions are equal to simple factual observations that the sun is shining and it's a nice sunny day.
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend Willamena,
When one realises to TRUTH there is no claim as one never has earned it since it was there even before his BEing there.
To claim anything to save one's life from any danger even from a oncoming train is no claim since the other alternative is the "thoughts would have stopped on those tracks, forever..."!
Love & rgds
Please do not mind a slight correction here.
When one realises to TRUTH there is no claim as one never has earned it since it was there even before his BEing there.
To claim anything to save one's life from any danger even from a oncoming train is no claim since the other alternative is the "thoughts would have stopped on those tracks, forever..."!
Love & rgds
My personal view is that religion and theistic beliefs are all but completely unrelated, as those things go.
Religion itself is a powerful force. It can be very destructive or very worthwhile, depending on how wisely it is used.
Same for theism, really, except that it is a bit more dangerous than religion proper.
Religion itself is a powerful force. It can be very destructive or very worthwhile, depending on how wisely it is used.
Same for theism, really, except that it is a bit more dangerous than religion proper.
That is a very good question.
Many people seem to sincerely believe to be religious despite having attitudes that I find all but completely at odds with a religious life.
However, for the purposes of this thread, religion is best defined as a function of belief, accepted or stated as a significant part of a person's goals and activities.
That may be what I consider genuine religion (and which I assume you would call Sanatana Dharma), a sincere and dedicated effort at seeking mental clarity and moral coherency. Or it may be something far less healthy, such as attachment to the idea of the supernatural; supertitious seeking of magical powers (even if not by that name) out of fear or desire of control; or even simple reciprocal assurance in a group environment, often in abusive emotional environments.
The later, of course, are all bad things. Yet people insist in claiming that those are religions, often in very passionate or even desperate terms.
It all comes down to how lucky, how wise and how well assisted and cared for people are while they practice whatever they understand religion to be.
For the purposes of answering the question in the OP it is advisable to use as wide a range of understandings of religion as possible. The intent, after all, is to tell those that are healthy from those that are not.
Last edited:
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend LuisDantas,
Thank you for your response. However would like to share few points of personal understanding on the subject.
Today humans have evolved further and are more intelligent to first try out the pointers to trust it and act on it and not start with a belief which could be blind and have different consequences that you mention.
Religion actually has one aspect and that is how to travel inwards. It only provides pointers and those who follow the pointers reach to THAT space where the gap between THAT and the individual no more remains. Such a one alone is RELIGIOUS/DHARMIC a all his actions are spontaneous and is not motivated or backed by some thoughts as all thought out actions will not take the individual to the no-thought space of mind.
However down the passage of time since not many individuals follow/understand pointers more guidelines have been issued by the followers to make it easy for less intelligent individuals so that if they do such acts they will atleast reach to some place ahead if not the last, in this life.
Meaning religion per-se has no NEGATIVITY as explained. Yes someone may use it for his personal gains then again crooks have no dharma and so cannot include them to be dharmic in that sense.
To further clarify as to what should define religion and what cannot is if one is travelling within himself that is being dharmic those who only travel with their thoughts are adharmic. Those who mix the two are neither dharmic or adharmic but somewhere in between and sometimes swing from theism to atheism or being dharmic or materialistic.
May be have not understood rightly but then the above stands as personal understanding.
Love & rgds
Thank you for your response. However would like to share few points of personal understanding on the subject.
True, guess they need to convince themselves and others will automatically feel their aura.
Personal understanding is that it is a old way to judge. WHY? Belief is to do with the Mind as mind needs to hold on to something for the individual to act forward. Go commit suicide and you will be rewarded in heaven. [suicide bombers who are not intelligent will be blind to reality and agree to such missions as being religious]
Today humans have evolved further and are more intelligent to first try out the pointers to trust it and act on it and not start with a belief which could be blind and have different consequences that you mention.
Religion actually has one aspect and that is how to travel inwards. It only provides pointers and those who follow the pointers reach to THAT space where the gap between THAT and the individual no more remains. Such a one alone is RELIGIOUS/DHARMIC a all his actions are spontaneous and is not motivated or backed by some thoughts as all thought out actions will not take the individual to the no-thought space of mind.
However down the passage of time since not many individuals follow/understand pointers more guidelines have been issued by the followers to make it easy for less intelligent individuals so that if they do such acts they will atleast reach to some place ahead if not the last, in this life.
Meaning religion per-se has no NEGATIVITY as explained. Yes someone may use it for his personal gains then again crooks have no dharma and so cannot include them to be dharmic in that sense.
To further clarify as to what should define religion and what cannot is if one is travelling within himself that is being dharmic those who only travel with their thoughts are adharmic. Those who mix the two are neither dharmic or adharmic but somewhere in between and sometimes swing from theism to atheism or being dharmic or materialistic.
May be have not understood rightly but then the above stands as personal understanding.
Love & rgds
My main question then is whether we shouldn't have something to say about those who only think of themselves as religious, Zenzero.
Will I some day understand why you talk of mind when you mean false understandings?
zenzero
Its only a Label
Friend LuisDantas,
Love & rgds
How am 'I' be responsible for anything when personally 'I' is just a part of the 'whole' besides its all about one's own effort [karma] that takes one towards any realisation be whatever one needs to realize. About mind and its understanding being true or false is again a matter of that very mind; is it not?
Love & rgds
That is ultimately a mystery, but the fact still stands that we do have personal responsibilities.
Or so the people I owe money to insist on telling me anyway...
I don't personally think so.
You realize that this is an incredibly difficult post to parse, I hope?
Or, at least, that I sure failed to do it?
One is not supposed to go out of his way to avoid exposing what one feels to be reasonable. Instead, one is expected to actually be reasonable.
Religion is instead like courting, I suppose. Or friendship. You should proudly pursue it, but expect no particular privilege out of it.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I interpreted a thiestic worldview as attributing to any higher power or guided condition in the course of life and living. Basically a guiding force of some kind.
I find that through introspection of the role religion has played in my personal life both thiestic and non theistic, I felt if religion were gone and dissipated away, it wouldnt really have an impact regarding the continuing course of things, yet at the same time, a detriment by way it takes a particular venue of interpretation which produces a particular habit or way of life for the person following it's tenants.
I figured maybe not all people, weither actually right or wrong regarding the lens they view through, would actually drop that for the sake of truth for no other reason than it being ingrained as a way of life, and to so live in that manner regardless of opposition would still be essentially harmless as far as the "gears and cogs" of the universe goes.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
You know, If you had of asked this a few weeks ago I would have said 'No, of course not'
Now though..
I'm definitely on the fence. On one hand, I think people and not religion are responsible for their actions.
But on the other hand, I look at how religion can overpower much. One religion in particular strikes fear in my heart, That if it were ever in power, Would send the world back into the Dark ages.
So I'm a definite... maybe. Then again, I don't ever see religion being wiped out.
I agree it's very true that the actions of individuals are that which require addressing, and not always the religion itself. I suppose it's actually a related reason for the op although I was focusing primarily upon the positive aspects that a religion can offer. Even in spite of actions of individuals, it's likely not good to see the religion itself go as a result.
I think most every religion has aspects that remain attractive and beautiful.
I like the saying, "When your in love, the whole world is Jewish." It certainly looked that way when I met my sweetie for example. :0)
Yeah, that's another component of it. What's interesting about this though, is I don't know a single person who doesn't acknowledge there are powers and forces greater than themselves or than humanity as a collective. This strikes me as less of a "theistic worldview" and more of a... understanding the place of humanity within the context of reality instead of having delusions of grandeur and extreme hubris. I mean, the person who denies there are 'higher powers' or 'guiding forces' would essentially be denying gravity and such. It gets a little silly.
I suspect you likely meant to limit the above comment to supernaturalistic, transcendent 'higher powers' or 'forces.' That represents a particular subset of theism that has dominated Western thinking for the past several centuries or so. Not my cup of theism, but it must make sense and work for many people, so I leave them to it. It even desacralizes reality/nature in a way I really dislike, but I still leave them to it. That I think it's a "bad" thing doesn't make it a bad thing... if that makes any sense.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Anything which facilitates the grouping and homogenization of human beings is capable of guiding those masses to do both great and terrible things. I don't think this is limited to religion. However, historically, religions are certainly among the clearest examples of this concept.