Comparative religion, moved from the CA topics

[subdjoe]

I decided to start a new thread on religions so as to not clutter up the thread on the CA Courts ruling on gay unions. If you want some background, go there and read that thread.

Mink wrote: "Thank you for sharing another religious view Subdjoe. I never heard of hesychasm. Although there are similarities with the Eastern ways of reaching a high spiritual level, I didn't see where they believe in reincarnation.....maybe i missed it."

Most people in the US haven't heard of it. There is a tendancy here, especially on the left, to equate all Christianity with the American Protestantism born in the mid-1800s during the western expansion and the revival movements of the time.
You didn't miss anything about reincarnation because it isn't there. The life after death is the spiritual life. Hence St. Pauls reference to a 'cloud of witnesses.' And several other comments in both the Old and New Testaments. The dead are very much alive in Christ.

Mink wrote: "Your other link didn't work. FYI~"

Hmmm....seemed to work again for me, even from your quote. Maybe do a cut and paste into your browser window. You may be surprised at the depth of Christian spirituality once you get past the televangelists. Here are a few more links:
orthodoxwiki.org/Monasticism
aggreen.net/monasteries/monastic.html
www.stanthonysmonastery.org/monasticism.php

If you do a google search for 'orthodox monasitcism' that goarch link is about the 3rd or 4th down.

Mink wrote: "Added: I wasn't comparing Western v.s. Eastern religion. I think most religions were originated to reach out to a higher being. I was just defended Buddha "

Hmmm.....Not what I got out of your OP. Seemed as if you were bragging on it a bit as being superior spiritually to those self-righteous christians. But, I'll take your word that you were not trying to do that. As you may have noticed, I get my back up when people get critical of Chrstianity, but then fail to apply the same standards to their eastern mystic, animist, or shamanist beliefs. See Saunterelles comment about 'fairy tales'.

Do you see the irony here? You got upset when someone took a shot at your beliefs, but you have no problem joining in the turkey shoots at Christianity that the oh, so tolerant, diverse and inclusive progressives reguarlly hold . I will say in all fairness though, that you are much milder in your criticisms of it than many (most?) on the left.

I'll also add that I'm rather intolerant of those who make a big show of their Christianity and try to force everyone to conform to their version of it. See the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee.

So, now I'll put on my nomex underwear and wait for the flame war to start.

[saunterelle]

I won't have much comment on the issue of religion as I myself am not religious in the traditional sense and I am very tolerant of other's beliefs as long as they don't try to impose them on me.

When I take a walk in the woods or along a stream I feel a great sense of connectedness to our planet, a sense of life and energy flowing through everything. Since I don't know exactly what it is I'm experiencing, I simply accept it as a form of "God." The only "rules" this God sets are simply the laws of nature. My criticism of organized religion is that most impose a set of moral rules (supposedly set by a judgmental God) which people must adhere to. This is fine for controlling a society but let's call it what it is: A set of guidelines created by man, not a set of divine rules sent down from the heavens.

[The New Guy]

May 30, 2008 12:19:57 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

When I take a walk in the woods or along a stream I feel a great sense of connectedness to our planet a sense of life and energy flowing through everything. Since I don't know exactly what it is I'm experiencing, I simply accept it as a form of "God." The only "rules" this God sets are simply the laws of nature.

wow! you're kidding us, right?

My criticism of organized religion is that most impose a set of moral rules (supposedly set by a judgmental God) which people must adhere to. This is fine for controlling a society but let's call it what it is: A set of guidelines created by man, not a set of divine rules sent down from the heavens.

so, i suppose you would prefer that man set no rules based on moral values and instead we just live by the laws of nature? the number one rule of nature is survival, kill or be killed. still want to live by nature's rules?

[subdjoe]

Here is some wisdom from 'organized religion'

'Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord' (Heb. 12:14), Why did he say 'strive'? Because it is not possible for us to become holy and to be saints in an hour! We must therefore progress from modest beginnings toward holiness and purity. Even were we to spend a thousand years in this life we should never perfectly attain it. Rather we must always struggle for it every day, as if mere beginners.

St Symeon the New Theologian'

New Guy, You are right on the money, I was thinking the same thing when I read Saunterelles post - natures only rule is survival. His way of thinking would have 6 billion demi-gods all with their own rules.

Isn't it odd how even the simplest cultures, I sort of want to say primitive but that has so many negatives attached to it, has some sort of deity or pantheon. It takes our 'enlightend' culture to deny the existance of God.

[The New Guy]

saunterelle seems to believe in the ways of nature except of course when it comes to gay marriage. he veers off nature's course a little bit on that one.

[Mink]

I agree with Saunterelle and experience the same "oneness" in nature with the only one who could provide such joy- God or our Supreme Being. I suppose it is a matter of perspective hence the clash we see with organized religions.

I was baptized Catholic at two months old is what I am told, however questions came as time went on. Noticing the hypocrisy, I studied other religions in my teens (yes, I know, I was a nerd-still am )...... I still pray to God every night and believe in reincarnation.

Personally, I don't think one religion is better than another. I do believe they all want to achieve spiritual oneness with their own idea of who the Supreme Being is. Whoever deviates from that ultimate goal has incorporated their own ego.....a human trait.

[ferrous]

Since I'm Buddhist, my feelings of the divine tend to be more of Natural Order rather than a Judeo/Christian/Islamic point of view.

I tend to follow the Dalai Lama reasoning that:

"Lesbian and gay sex...is generally considered sexual misconduct".

"Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact."

"Although he has affirmed the dignity and rights of gays and lesbians, he has condemned homosexual acts as contrary to Buddhist ethics."

The Dalai Lama was interviewed by CBC News at the time of his visit to Canada during 2007-NOV. Near the end of his interview he was asked whether Buddhism condones love between two men or two women. He replied that Buddhists reject this. Genuine Buddhist practitioners, like Christians, condemn same-sex behavior as sexual misconduct. "So, [it is] not permissible, not allowed."

In general, homosexual acts tend to go against what is natural, ignoring the basic nature of a ying/yang co-existence that makes up life. Homosexual acts are an aberration of nature and not something that is wholesome and nurturing.

In Buddhism it would be referred to as breaking the third precept:

Kâmesu micchâcâra veramaṇî sikkhâpadaṃ samâdiyâmi.

I undertake the training rule to abstain from sexual misconduct.

[jbfrenchhorn]

May 30, 2008 23:49:55 GMT -5 Mink said:

Personally, I don't think one religion is better than another. I do believe they all want to achieve spiritual oneness with their own idea of who the Supreme Being is. Whoever deviates from that ultimate goal has incorporated their own ego.....a human trait.

Hello Mink. Could you explain this a little more? How could one religion not be any better than another? I see God and the whole spiritual world as a reality. There either is or there isn't. There is either one God, two gods, some other number of gods, or no god. How would things be if we applied relativism to other areas of life. Things are or they aren't. We don't talk about who the president is in relativistic terms.

Also, some people mentioned earlier about the problem of moral relativism. If there is no uniform reality with regard to God, there is only a basis for uniform moral codes insofar as men legislate them for the purpose of providing peace and order to society and preserving the human race. But then, are they really moral codes if there is no definite God? And who defines what order is? If my idea of order differs from your idea of order, what do we do?

[JustMyOpinion]

In my opinion religion is about one's perception and I do appreciate that we can freely believe here in the US (just don't come to my front door to sell it please). I don't think there is a right, or wrong religion it's a personal choice.

See snippets from Wikipedia:

Religion:

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Religion and Science:

The philosophical approach known as pragmatism, as propounded by the American philosopher William James, has been used to reconcile scientific with religious knowledge. Pragmatism, simplistically, holds that the truth of a set of beliefs can be indicated by its usefulness in helping people cope with a particular context of life. Thus, the fact that scientific beliefs are useful in predicting observations in the physical world can indicate a certain truth for scientific theories; the fact that religious beliefs can be useful in helping people cope with difficult emotions or moral decisions can indicate a certain truth for those beliefs. (For a similar postmodern view, see grand narrative).

Spirituality

Members of an organized religion may not see any significant difference between religion and spirituality. Or they may see a distinction between the mundane, earthly aspects of their religion and its spiritual dimension.

Some individuals draw a strong distinction between religion and spirituality. They may see spirituality as a belief in ideas of religious significance (such as God, the Soul, or Heaven), but not feel bound to the bureaucratic structure and creeds of a particular organized religion. They choose the term spirituality rather than religion to describe their form of belief, perhaps reflecting a disillusionment with organized religion (see Major religious groups), and a movement towards a more "modern" — more tolerant, and more intuitive — form of religion. These individuals may reject organized religion because of historical acts by religious organizations, such as Christian Crusades and Islamic Jihad, the marginalisation and persecution of various minorities or the Spanish Inquisition. The basic precept of the ancient spiritual tradition of India, the Vedas, is the inner reality of existence, which is essentially a spiritual approach to being.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

[saunterelle]

Whoops, maybe I failed to make my point about where moral guidelines should come from. They should come from man.

I see spirituality as pure just as nature is pure. God is reflected in nature's image. Death is not "bad" per se in God's eyes, just a part of the natural process. Some animals are gay like some people are gay. It is a completely natural thing and therefore "okay."

When is comes to morals and values and how we ought to live, those things are decided upon by man. A child should have an example set by his/her family, neighbors, community, and society regarding what is right and wrong. We've come to a point where personifying God just seems silly. I think we can live with reasonable, man-made rules rather than relying on the old, fabricated "God's law."

BTW, Thanks for the karma point!

[subdjoe]

Ah! So then the samuri code that developed which allowed the warrior class to kill anyone from a lower class for any reason or none is moral. Likewise the the moral laws that developed in sub-saharan Africa, when the leaders could kill with impunity are 'moral.'
Sorry, man made rules always boil down to might makes right, which is just a varient of the only true natural law of survival of the fittest (yes, I know that it doesn't always mean the strongest, but in most of nature, it usually does).

[saunterelle]

You're right Joe, but we can't keep fooling ourselves with laws that "God sent down from the Heavens." What is wrong with having the same morals because that's what we (man) agree upon? Isn't that the basis of a Democratic society?

People are leaving organized religion in droves as science disproves the religious explanations that have survived for centuries. Already, religious arguments such as creationism hold no water because they're simply based on blind faith. The fact that creationism is still taught in some American schools is laughable.