Too Much Religion?

[Quintessence]

How about a crack whore's way of life? Can a person have too much of that?

I don't follow what you're getting at here.

If we want to talk about "too much" of some specific component of religion or someone's way of life (of which using illegal drugs would be, I suppose), that makes sense to me. Otherwise? I don't understand. It's like saying one can have "too much culture" or "too much of one's own life." It's much too vague and non-specific to be quantifiable or meaningful to me.

 

[Quintessence]

You seemed to be arguing that the question was nonsensical in general, not expressing the idea that it was only nonsensical with your specific definition if "religion".

Maybe you should ask for clarification next time instead of making assumptions and "twisting" words, as you chose to put things.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe you should ask for clarification next time instead of making assumptions and "twisting" words, as you chose to put things.

Your original post seemed clear enough. If it didn't express what you intended, I'm not sure what I can do about that.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

I believe there can be. Too much altruism can lead to weakness and people taking advantage. What I'm merely proposing is moderation.

Ah but even this example fails. If everyone was altruistic then people would not take advantage.

 

[Quintessence]

Your original post seemed clear enough. If it didn't express what you intended, I'm not sure what I can do about that.

You can stop responding to my posts. Given how routine this sort of thing has been between us - an issue that probably stems from irreconcilable differences in worldviews and communication styles - the only thing to do is for you to quit responding to my posts. In turn, I'm done talking to you as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I understand that "religion" can be defined many ways, but that's not really useful for the sake of conversation.

To me, a key universal facet of religion is to hold some beliefs dogmatically. I don't believe that dogmatism is necessary to pursue spirituality.

Religion is the practices, traditions, and rituals of a given culture in relation to their spirituality and belief(s) they have. It's a network that creates the abstract of spirituality into the action of tradition. Dogma, doctrine, and religion aren't bad words to me. It just means tradition, teaching, and spiritual practice. The definition above is from the dictionary. I just shortened it to a spiritual lifestyle because that is what religion is for many people who are not in this conversation. It defines who they are not just what they believe. It involves how they believe it, how they associate themselves with other people, themselves, and their person or object of worship.

The word religion, dogma, and doctrine has a lot of negative bias. If a person is spiritual, they would be religious. They would have a practice, teachings (doctrine) that their practices are based on, and in many well-established religions dogma (traditions) with which are only these practices and beliefs that are carried on from the past, to present, and on forward.

It's an easy word to understand if you take out all the bias.

Also, america is a protestant christian country. It took them years before they finally took marriage between male/female out to replace it with "[by the way] and, [um] between two males and two females like that of a traditional marriage." They are working on "marriage is between two individuals" but haven't gotten there yet.

1. a : the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year ofreligionb (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
   
   
2. 2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
   
   
3. 3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
   
   
4. 
   
5. 
   
6. 
   
7. 4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This is and/or not and.

 

[Rival]

Ah but even this example fails. If everyone was altruistic then people would not take advantage.

But we live in the real world.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If you can't even tell where your religion ends and you begin, you may already be too religious, IMO.

How can one's religion end or begin anywhere? It's who you are not like clothing you put on one day and decide to put on a different pair the next.

You develop who you are growing up and it changes (even daily on RF) as one matures. Religion are practice that reflect what you believe. So, if you stopped believing in Christianity and found in your inner being you want to be a rock star, you're music and motivation (your religion) will reflect who you are as an Star.

It's not a hard word to understand. Just because it's glued to christianity doesn't mean christianity and god-faiths own the word. Sheesh.

 

[David1967]

If the practice of said religion is negatively affecting your life or those around you, or even worse ,causing dangerous behavior,,,, then yes.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I don't follow what you're getting at here.

If we want to talk about "too much" of some specific component of religion or someone's way of life (of which using illegal drugs would be, I suppose), that makes sense to me. Otherwise? I don't understand. It's like saying one can have "too much culture" or "too much of one's own life." It's much too vague and non-specific to be quantifiable or meaningful to me.

I think you are intentionally making it vague to avoid the question in the OP.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

In practice, no.




Atheism and irreligion are not really very correlated at all. As a matter of fact, it is theism that threatens to take religion out of its rails, and often suceeds at that.



I tend to equate religion with Dharma and to judge some things as Adharmic, therefore the spur-of-the-moment answer would be "no".

But that really needs elaboration. There are so many, often conflicting understandings of what constitues religion that we need to examine what is understood by various people and whether it is possible to have too much of it.

There are so many people who associate the word religion with dogma, submission to a supposedly spiritual authority, or even pride-on-belief that sure, we must acknowledge that those are definitely attitudes that one can easily have too much of. Such is in fact usually the case. Even when those understandings don't get off the rails entirely, they are still wasteful at best.

"There are so many people who associate the word religion with dogma, submission to a supposedly spiritual authority, or even pride-on-belief that sure, we must acknowledge that those are definitely attitudes that one can easily have too much of. Such is in fact usually the case. Even when those understandings don't get off the rails entirely, they are still wasteful at best."

Are they wrong to make that association?

 

[LuisDantas]

"There are so many people who associate the word religion with dogma, submission to a supposedly spiritual authority, or even pride-on-belief that sure, we must acknowledge that those are definitely attitudes that one can easily have too much of. Such is in fact usually the case. Even when those understandings don't get off the rails entirely, they are still wasteful at best."

Are they wrong to make that association?

IMO yes, they are. But I guess there is no authority to decide what should be understood by that word.

 

[BSM1]

If the practice of said religion is negatively affecting your life or those around you, or even worse ,causing dangerous behavior,,,, then yes.

Trouble is that most of these types can see what's really going on.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

IMO yes, they are. But I guess there is no authority to decide what should be understood by that word.

Well, I think if you are gonna claim they should be thrown out, you should make a case for throwing them out. We can always take a narrow subjective views to make just about anything smell like a rose, but can you justify that narrow view, and how relative and useful would such an approach be?

 

[Quintessence]

I think you are intentionally making it vague to avoid the question in the OP.

Why would you think that? You said you were fine with respondents replying according to their understanding of religion. Religion is a very difficult thing to define. Even the scholars of religion argue about it, and there is no consensus for defining it (aka, it is a vague term). If I am "avoiding the question" (which I am not) it is only symptomatic of the vagueness of the term "religion." I really do see a question like "too much religion" as analogous to something like "too much culture." It doesn't make sense to me. Really. It would be helpful if you would explain where you are coming from so I can better understand instead of leveling accusations.

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I think if you are gonna claim they should be thrown out, you should make a case for throwing them out.

I agree. I think I do, in fact, make such a case. I certainly hope that to be the case.

We can always take a narrow subjective views to make just about anything smell like a rose, but can you justify that narrow view, and how relative and useful would such an approach be?

I have no idea of what you are asking about, so I can't answer.

Edited to add: Are you implying that there is somehow a clear, consensual meaning of religion that requires those elements that I reject, and that I am attempting to ignore them?

I don't think that is the case. But if you disagree, then so be it.

It may help if you think of my stance as a refusal to lend prestige to what I perceive as a sickened understanding. That is what I do, anyway.

 

[icehorse]

Religion is the practices, traditions, and rituals of a given culture in relation to their spirituality and belief(s) they have. It's a network that creates the abstract of spirituality into the action of tradition. Dogma, doctrine, and religion aren't bad words to me

I think we just disagree on a few definitions.

Let me give you an example: I have meditated off and on for decades. Over the years I've learned many different forms of meditation. TM is okay sometimes, zazen can be great, walking meditations can be great. But I don't hold any of those dogmatically. They are all tools to achieve an end, and I'm happy to retire any given tool if I find a better one.

It strikes me with *most* religion that this flexible / retire a tool orientation is rare. It seems to me that *most* religions are far more dogmatic about "our tool is the correct tool, now and forever".

If your approach is more flexible, I think we're in agreement.

And the "now and forever" approach isn't without benefits, it's simply dogmatic.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Why would you think that? You said you were fine with respondents replying according to their understanding of religion. Religion is a very difficult thing to define. Even the scholars of religion argue about it, and there is no consensus for defining it (aka, it is a vague term). If I am "avoiding the question" (which I am not) it is only symptomatic of the vagueness of the term "religion." I really do see a question like "too much religion" as analogous to something like "too much culture." It doesn't make sense to me. Really. It would be helpful if you would explain where you are coming from so I can better understand instead of leveling accusations.

"respondents replying according to their understanding "

I am and I am also fine with people responding to those post. It is called a debate for a reason, and there is no reason why we can't expect people to back up their position.


" It would be helpful if you would explain where you are coming from so I can better understand instead of leveling accusations."

It is a question being explored, that is where I am coming from.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I agree. I think I do, in fact, make such a case. I certainly hope that to be the case.



I have no idea of what you are asking about, so I can't answer.

Edited to add: Are you implying that there is somehow a clear, consensual meaning of religion that requires those elements that I reject, and that I am attempting to ignore them?

I don't think that is the case. But if you disagree, then so be it.

It may help if you think of my stance as a refusal to lend prestige to what I perceive as a sickened understanding. That is what I do, anyway.

"I think I do, in fact, make such a case. "

I didn't see it then, could you point it out?

"Are you implying that there is somehow a clear, consensual meaning of religion that requires those elements that I reject, and that I am attempting to ignore them?"

What I am saying is that if you narrow things too much, then you can make the answer be whatever you want, but that such an answer may not be relative enough to address the question at hand.

 

[CogentPhilosopher]

But we live in the real world.

Yes but we where talking about a hypothetical example in which good existed and no evil.