Religion vs Believers

[Nefelie]

.

Hello everyone

According to my studies so far, I have yet to find a religion perfectly “in tune” with it’s believers.
It’s if like either the original scriptures/dogma/teachings of the religion isn’t clear enough or the believers discard or do not understand the original scriptures/dogma/teachings… Or is it both?
For example, we all have/know good cases of very much peaceful religions with very much aggressive believers. Is it maybe the very nature of humans not to accept fully a peaceful way of life?

What’s your opinion?

Thank you for answering

.

 

[Altfish]

Humanism - although not a religion - is fairly much “in tune” with it’s believers(?)

 

[Deathbydefault]

I see theistic religions as personal religions, and personal religions as a representation of how someone thinks.

 

[Augustus]

For example, we all have/know good cases of very much peaceful religions with very much aggressive believers. Is it maybe the very nature of humans not to accept fully a peaceful way of life?

Unfortunately, we are a violent species who will find excuses to express our violent nature. We are just animals after all.

The Iraq War was even justified by many through Humanist ideals. It's not just the Abrahamics who are at fault.

We fight over ideologies, making us far more stupid than the rest of the animals.

 

[firedragon]

.

Hello everyone

According to my studies so far, I have yet to find a religion perfectly “in tune” with it’s believers.
It’s if like either the original scriptures/dogma/teachings of the religion isn’t clear enough or the believers discard or do not understand the original scriptures/dogma/teachings… Or is it both?
For example, we all have/know good cases of very much peaceful religions with very much aggressive believers. Is it maybe the very nature of humans not to accept fully a peaceful way of life?

What’s your opinion?

Thank you for answering

.

We are the only species on earth to kill for excessive power, excessive wealth, lust, greed, jealousy etc.

Yes, we are a violent bloody animals.

I don't think you will ever find any believers in tune with the religion or philosophy. Mostly you will find those who twist the teaching to suit their human agenda. of power, wealth, lust, jealousy etc.

Does even a wife love you like your Dog?

 

[Jabar]

.

Hello everyone

According to my studies so far, I have yet to find a religion perfectly “in tune” with it’s believers.
It’s if like either the original scriptures/dogma/teachings of the religion isn’t clear enough or the believers discard or do not understand the original scriptures/dogma/teachings… Or is it both?
For example, we all have/know good cases of very much peaceful religions with very much aggressive believers. Is it maybe the very nature of humans not to accept fully a peaceful way of life?

What’s your opinion?

Thank you for answering

.

Basically.


Unless we are Angels we will continue to be like that.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, etc are made to evolve with new realities.
Hinduism has millions of different religions and philosophies, so these are pretty adjustable.
Though theism isn't mandatory in them.

 

[idav]

What the original scriptures might have been is a bit of a debate. Aside from that most people don't really know enough about their own religions, its a learning process, but if the religion says don't question then nothing new will stick.

 

[Nietzsche]

We are the only species on earth to kill for excessive power, excessive wealth, lust, greed, jealousy etc.

Yes, we are a violent bloody animals.

I don't think you will ever find any believers in tune with the religion or philosophy. Mostly you will find those who twist the teaching to suit their human agenda. of power, wealth, lust, jealousy etc.

Does even a wife love you like your Dog?

In fairness, that's a mighty high bar to hit. If someone were to describe to me a monotheistic God that loved me like my dog did, I might pay attention.

 

[LuisDantas]

.

Hello everyone

According to my studies so far, I have yet to find a religion perfectly “in tune” with it’s believers.

That is to be expected, and at least arguably also a good thing.

It’s if like either the original scriptures/dogma/teachings of the religion isn’t clear enough or the believers discard or do not understand the original scriptures/dogma/teachings… Or is it both?

Yes.

For example, we all have/know good cases of very much peaceful religions with very much aggressive believers. Is it maybe the very nature of humans not to accept fully a peaceful way of life?

What’s your opinion?

Any doctrine worth its salt will by necessity be incomplete without the living contribution of its adherents. It is everyone's religious duty to interpret, improve and correct the teachings one receives.

In a nutshell, the Dharma is supposed to be living, not static.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Iraq War was even justified by many through Humanist ideals.

I don't remember that. At all. Do you have any reminders?

 

[EtuMalku]

We on the Western Left Hand Path (for lack of a better term) become further and further 'in tune' with our Beliefs, simply because our Beliefs are our own and not the work of another.

 

[DawudTalut]

.

Hello everyone According to my studies so far, I have yet to find a religion perfectly “in tune” with it’s believers.It’s if like either the original scriptures/dogma/teachings of the religion isn’t clear enough or the believers discard or do not understand the original scriptures/dogma/teachings… Or is it both?
For example, we all have/know good cases of very much peaceful religions with very much aggressive believers. Is it maybe the very nature of humans not to accept fully a peaceful way of life?What’s your opinion?Thank you for answering .

Peace be on you.
1=All revealed religions remain in harmony with followers in those religions' nascent times.
2=As time moves on, people bring changes which suit them and deviation begin.
3=If God wants a religion should stay, He sends reformers, otherwise corruption keeps increasing, sometimes to the point that nothing of original religion is left.
According to my belief, Islam as true faith was to stay, In each century Reformers were sent [called Mujadedeen] in various area, who kept the true torch of faith alive amidst weaknesses. In current latter days [1000 years], when weakness rose to astronomical order, a grand promised reformer in Islam with titles Promised Messiah Mahdi [the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim community] has come to reform practices back to true creed.

 

[Augustus]

I don't remember that. At all. Do you have any reminders?

Christopher Hitchens for example.

Neo-conservatism is pretty much liberal interventionism rebranded for the right, and many people support(ed) the idea of overthrowing dictators to enable the spread of secular liberal democracy.

Humanist type ideals were even a factor in western colonialism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Christopher Hitchens for example.

Neo-conservatism is pretty much liberal interventionism rebranded for the right, and many people support(ed) the idea of overthrowing dictators to enable the spread of secular liberal democracy.

Humanist type ideals were even a factor in western colonialism.

I would need more elaboration.

 

[Augustus]

I would need more elaboration.

You do know that Hitchens was a very vocal and unrepentant supporter of The Iraq War, don't you? Plenty of his material on the Internet about it if you want to read/listen to his pwn words.

Basically, if you think secular Humanism is great, and that brutal dictators are nasty then it's not too hard to see where support for removing them may appear from.

Values drive behaviour after all.

 

[LuisDantas]

You do know that Hitchens was a very vocal and unrepentant supporter of The Iraq War, don't you? Plenty of his material on the Internet about it if you want to read/listen to his pwn words.

Actually no, I did not know that. I guess he wasn't very succesful, at least with me. Makes one wonder how representative he was.

Basically, if you think secular Humanism is great, and that brutal dictators are nasty then it's not too hard to see where support for removing them may appear from.

So?

Values drive behaviour after all.

Are you sure Hitchens suppoted the invasion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Are you sure Hitchens suppoted the invasion?

I found this this with very little effort.

 

[LuisDantas]

I stand disappointed. Still, he is hardly representative.

 

[Augustus]

I stand disappointed. Still, he is hardly representative.

He is representative of a particular group within, for want of better words, the 'Humanist sphere' (example) just like bin Laden was representative of a particular group within Sunni Islam. Neither represent the majority of the larger group to which they belong, but they do represent a sub-group.

Values drive behaviour, and Humanist values can drive violent behaviour too. This is done with noble intent, but then again, so is most political violence from the perspective of the perpetrator.