View previous topic | View next topic

Organised religions and their Inconsistancies

Page 2 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next


organised religon: good or bad?
good
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
bad
74%
 74%  [ 23 ]
indifferent
12%
 12%  [ 4 ]
nun
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 31

96aelw
62110.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 11:40 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Basically they're saying that everyone sins in some way. So someone who spends their life helping others and trying to be a good person as much as possible, but doesn't believe in God, will burn in hell for all eternity.


Sort of. The point, however, is that, contrary to what you appear to be suggesting (and I apologise if you weren't), no one goes to Hell who doesn't deserve to. The "everybody sins" clause isn't an excuse to damn the undeserving, it's the belief that everybody actually deserves damnation. The person you describe probably would be saved according to this doctrine, if it weren't for the fact that they wouldn't exist. A person might exist who spent most of their life helping others, but they would also spend part of it sinfully, and God, on this system, is using negative marking, because all the good things the person would have done are simply their duty, and, as unassuming heroes have it, not therefore worthy of particular reward.

I'm not attempting to get involved in an argument on this, incidentally; I seek only to define, not to defend.

 
Quaintly Ignorant
62166.  Mon Mar 27, 2006 7:20 pm Reply with quote

Catholic doctrine, although confusing so I may have it wrong, suggests that everyone in the world will get a chance to accept Jesus when he defeats the anti-Crhist. Everybody sins and must spend the first death (after initial resurrection) having sins burned off, then we're all resurrected again and have a chance to adopt Christ those that succeed get their names into the book of life. Those that don't suffer the second death with more burning.. then there will be a final chance.

 
dr.bob
62195.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:18 am Reply with quote

96aelw wrote:
The point, however, is that, contrary to what you appear to be suggesting (and I apologise if you weren't), no one goes to Hell who doesn't deserve to.


I agree that that is the underlying message of most religions.

However, organised religion tends to rely on people turning up to church (or mosque, or synagogue, or temple, or whatever) and giving some of their money to the people in charge of the religion, either in offerings or in exchange for religious icons or whatever. Basically it's a business that generates money to enable them to build more places of worship or fund missionaries or just get fabulously wealthy depending on who's in charge.

For this reason, it obviously doesn't pay for them to say "even if you don't believe in us, you'll probably still go to heaven if you live a good life and are deserving". It's much more profitable for them to say "no matter how good you are, the only 'get into heaven free' card you'll get is by slavishly following our religion and only our religion. Oh, and buy a few icons on your way out, each one guaranteed 100% holy".

Having said that, not all organised religions do this. Sikhism, for instance, is the only major religion that preaches tolerance for other religions. Their attitude, as I understand it, is that it doesn't matter which religion you subscribe to, as long as you worship god in some way. However, it seems to me that most organised religions supplement the core teachings of their prophets with lots of extra teachings which seem only designed to tie you into their brand of religion and ensure a decent sized congregation. This is what really ticks me off about organised religion, more than religion generally.

 
Tas
62202.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:30 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Having said that, not all organised religions do this. Sikhism, for instance, is the only major religion that preaches tolerance for other religions.


I think Buddhism does, as well.

:-)

Tas

 
dr.bob
62203.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:43 am Reply with quote

Nah, buddhists are vicious bastards really :)

 
Davini994
62204.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 5:51 am Reply with quote

Salvation for the 'choosen people'. Sikhism believes anyone can achieve salvation irrespective of the religion that they follow if they endear God in their heart and daily actions.

And the gurdwaras and religeous leaders are extremely welcoming and non judgemental in my experience, excellent. Can't remember anyone trying to force their views on me.

Anyone can stay at the Gurdwaras in India for free, although a small contribution is usually expected if you can afford it.

But some of the Gurus were pretty critical of other religions, and prohibit all sorts of stuff, e.g. idolatory, and drugs.

And is it a major religion? There are more Christians in India than sikhs. They are a disproportionately large number of Sikhs in the UK (compared to the other religions in India), as so many of immigrants came/come from Punjab and the surrounds.

Buddhism:

Thus, the Buddha believed that unless people followed the Dharma (true teachings), as taught by the Buddha and lived in the Sangha (Buddhist community), a person would always be trapped in Samsara.

Which surprised me, I must say.

Check out ba'hai:

http://www.bahai.org/features/intro

Which is supremely harmonious! And, more importantly, it's got the coolest temple ever:

http://www.travelpod.com/travel-photo/grahamandrach/great_escape/1105230840/dscn1934.jpg/YES.html

 
Tas
62205.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:02 am Reply with quote

The way alot of the Buddhists that I know live is in kind of a live and let live sort of way. They are non-invasive, but are happy to chat about their beliefs if asked.

Buddhism always struck me as a set of guidelines as opposed to hard and fast rules.

:-)

Tas

 
Davini994
62206.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:04 am Reply with quote

Buddha is my co-pilot as they say.

Yeah, the link I posted surprised me.

 
Tas
62207.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:08 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Inclusivism is the belief that other religions, or philosophies, have POINTS OF TRUTH in them because they reflect aspects of, what is believed to be, the true religion in them. As such, a person can be 'saved' if they are living correctly even if they are aware of the 'true religion'. One of the main reasons why inclusivism 'works' is if one accepts that people are already 'saved' before, and despite, hearing the true message (You will only understand this last sentence if you have read the article Christianity and Other Religions). Although in Buddhism there is no God who saves people there is a teaching in Zen Buddhism which is very similar to the inclusivist view of grace as taught by the Catholic Church.

Zen Buddhism developed as Buddhist teachings came into contact with traditional Asian religious and cultural teachings and absorbed them. This shows that Buddhism is able to use non-Buddhist ideas to develop a further understanding of its teachings. This was able to happen because Taoism and Confucianism, Chinese religious and philosophical teachings, were used by Buddhists to develop a new kind of Enlightenment called Realisation of the Buddha Nature. The main way this happened was through the Chinese belief that everything has its own Tao (or right order of doing it). Thus the secret of happiness was to live according to the Tao of everything (or to do everything as it should be done). It is not to difficult to see that if Buddhists belief that to live correctly in this world one needs to become Enlightened, then the Tao of a person is to become like the Buddha. From this point it is only a short step to say that everyone has a Buddha Nature (or a Buddha Tao). This meant that Enlightenment could be achieved instantly (satori) through realising that one was already Enlightened.

Summary: Zen was the result of traditional Buddhist teachings using Chinese views of the world to show how Buddhism was the true way to achieve perfect understanding of our purpose here (E.g. The Chinese Tao becomes the Buddha Nature). Taoists were therefore on the right path despite not having full access to the full truth as far as Zen Buddhists were concerned.



I think that the interesting point in this part is the 'points of truth'. I think that is the way that the Buddhists I know live. I might believe in the doctrine of their faith, but as long as I am doing the right things, then I should be okay.

:-)

Tas

 
Celebaelin
62210.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:25 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Wanda: Aristotle was not Belgian, the central precept of Buddhism is not "every man for himself", and the London Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes, Otto. I looked them up.
Otto: Don't call me stupid!
Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?
Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.
Wanda: Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it.

A Fish Called Wanda

 
Tas
62213.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 6:53 am Reply with quote

Heh!

A Bloody Good Film.

:-)

Tas

 
suze
62217.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:03 am Reply with quote

Yes it's interesting that the Sikhs are proportionately a larger group in Britain and Canada than they are in India. I have spent my life in two of the most densely Sikh places in the world - Vancouver and then North Kent - and so can't entirely get my head around the fact that outside those places and the Punjab there just aren't many!

As for the Bahá'í faith, yes its basic tenet is that all the major faiths are manifestations of one, and that followers of other faiths are not wrong as such, but hold beliefs which have been superseded by later Divine Revelations. But it's essentially an offshoot of Islam, and has inherited some of that faith's attitude to the female sex. It also holds that homosexuality is an illness for which one must seek treatment.

For me, those two things rule it out. 'Tis true that they rule out most other religions as well, with Voodoo and Wicca as the notable exceptions. Voodoo has never really appealed, and while I knew - in more senses than one - a few Wicca in my student days I never got involved with the faith. Therefore, I fear I shall remain a lapsed Catholic with a vague notion that being nice to people is generally preferable to not being!

 
dr.bob
62223.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:18 am Reply with quote

I studied various religions quite a bit when I started University and concluded that none of them are perfect. While most of them have some nice ideas, they also always seem to have some rather off-putting ideas which were created as a result of the times in which the religion began (circumcision, halal/kosher, low opinion of women, etc.). Even Taoism, which seemed a lot like Bhuddism in that it was simply a set of guidlines for living your life, has a bunch of stuff about respecting authority. Upon researching a bit, it seems that this was added in because the Chinese authorities at the time wanted to encourage people to serve in the army to help protect the motherland.

Personally anything which is clearly a product of its time is not something that I can invest a lot of faith or confidence in. That includes the American Constitution. If you're looking for a set of rules by which to live your life, they have to have the capacity of changing to deal with things that are a part of life now but which simply didn't exist before.

These days I tend to just follow rules which make sense to me. It doesn't matter who originally said it, if it sounds about right then it'll get added to the pile.

So far so good, but I'm sure I'll end up burning in hell at some point :)

 
Celebaelin
62225.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:27 am Reply with quote

Tas wrote:
Heh!

A Bloody Good Film.

:-)

Tas

And in case I haven't mentioned this enough yet another good film is Serenity, which contains the line
Quote:
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Dear Buddha, please bring me a pony and a little plastic rocket and..

He is dressed in a comical tasselled shawl which he has draped over his head as a disguise to enter a 'Companion' safe house (a Companion is sort of like a geisha) to affect a rescue of the woman (a Companion) he has now joined in kneeling at a Buddhist shrine.

While I'm on the subject much of the film looks like this...



Sorry, but this



really doesn't do it justice.

 
Davini994
62231.  Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:51 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
If you're looking for a set of rules by which to live your life, they have to have the capacity of changing to deal with things that are a part of life now but which simply didn't exist before.

Excellent point, well made.

dr.bob wrote:
That includes the American Constitution.

So, we've had insults to Religion and the American constitution; best not go to the bible belt for a while dr.bob;)

 

Page 2 of 10
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group