I never meant to say that people in general - or a particular group of people - are misguided and/or ignorant. If it came out that way, I apologize. Some people can be, and often enough, people with similar misguidance and/or ignorance gather together to form a group. What I meant to say is that I believe that religion, as a concept and as an activity, has outlived its superiority in society, with things going without it pretty fine. It's no longer a matter of belief for me that people can live without religion, and I'm impetted to say that one has to given how good secular institutions provide or are capable of providing the same benefits, but this one is not up to me to decide. Now, let me jump to something that appalled me: rd95, dude... what the hell? Haven't you been the one to tell me abour respect and love towards others? And now you're saying that those who believe in anarchy are idiots. I don't get it. Anarchy can work pretty fine for smaller communities; one might argue that, with the right set of values instilled (which is clearly possible given that parents are capable of raising mentally-healthy and otherwise positively-adjusted children), it could work for things on a bigger scale. Yet you give it an off-hand slap to the face without a good enough reason in a topic devoted to religion which you oppose me bashing. Can you explain this one to me? Before I go into replying to what's been stated as good reasons to practice religion by rd95, I must state that I find it unreasonable to discuss older-days usage of something in context of how it matters in the present. One might derive usages from history and see how they transformed in the modern world, but I see no point in argument about what it was good for. Therefore, I ask you: what is it good for? If you stand by the same points for this question as well, let me know and I'll reply to that with all of my arguments.It is pretty much a given that laws are absolutely essential for the survival of any civilization. Anyone that says otherwise is an idiot (or an anarchist, which is a special kind of idiocy on its own)
I am appalled that you are appalled. In fact, I'm shocked, appalled, insulted, and righteously indignant. Where do you get off good sir? WHERE? Nah. I kid. ;) It was more a light jab than anything. Although I do have to say that I do find the concept of Anarchy in the sense of government uncompelling. While the concept might work fine in smaller groups, the more you scale things up and the more complex things become, it becomes readily apparent that a form of social structure is needed to get things done. Well there's a few reasons to discuss early man and religion. Reasons one and two, because we can and because it's fun. Reason number three though is a big one, and that's because sometimes to understand where things are now, it helps to look at how things started. That's a doozy of a question and a fair question all around. That question alone could start a whole thread and then some. If it's okay with you, I'd actually prefer to table the topic at the moment and make it the subject of the next post. In fact, you could start the thread when you're ready and make a shout out to me. I would love that.Now, let me jump to something that appalled me:
I must state that I find it unreasonable to discuss older-days usage of something in context of how it matters in the present.
Therefore, I ask you: what is it good for?
The "special kind of idiocy", you mean? Not that I'm willing to discuss anarchy right now; it's something we can go on to with something like #talkpolitics or #talkanarchy afterwards, if you wish to. Well, I guess too quick to throw it off the cliff in my head. Indeed, history is interesting, whatever it can tell us about, and I shouldn't have kicked it so hard. That being said, I expected that we'd start with modern-day religion, which affected my response in a big way. I don't think this will go on well because I feel like I'm lacking proper strong arguments for that on my own. Besides, I'm curious about what others might think on the matter, whether I like it or not. If you don't mind, I'd rather have you start the post with arguments that you think are strong enough, and I'll reply to those.It was more a light jab than anything.
Well there's a few reasons to discuss early man and religion.
In fact, you could start the thread when you're ready and make a shout out to me. I would love that.
Well shit, let's start right there. Let me ask a question. In your mind, what kind of differences do you think there are between religions as they were expressed thousands of years ago and religions as they are expressed today? You don't really have to start with arguments at all. I'm not really looking at these things as debates, more as just a dialog. You can just share your thoughts and feelings about religious institutions, maybe share why you think you feel that way, and we can easily go from there. If it makes you feel more comfortable though, I'll be happy to start the next thread as well. You'll probably find that you and I are in agreement on quite a bit. :)I expected that we'd start with modern-day religion, which affected my response in a big way.
I don't think this will go on well because I feel like I'm lacking proper strong arguments for that on my own. Besides, I'm curious about what others might think on the matter, whether I like it or not. If you don't mind, I'd rather have you start the post with arguments that you think are strong enough, and I'll reply to those.
I don't know much about religion from way back, so I'm going on a hunch here. I presume that religion in ancient times were not very different from what we have today. The difference between life back then and today, however, is that we know a huge amount about human beings, humanity in general and our surroundings. If religion would have been born to explain the world around, it would become obsolete save for very abstract and metaphysical matters for which philosophy and metaphysics would become proper bases when their development comes to a level. Today, we have what all generations before XX century never had: insight into how our mind works, which is very important in understanding others and ourselves. Religion was often used to make people feel like they understand why others commit crime: "possessed by an evil spirit" is a common explanation for what we now know to be either a psychological disorder (sociopathy, for one thing) or a moment of foggy mind (unstoppable anger). Hell, we have developed quite a bit of philosophy on the matter - for a long time, too! - to help figure out what the world is, who people are, what life is and what its meaning is. Have you read Albert Camus' or Jean-Paul Sartre's works? It's astonishing how they resonate with the experiences I've had. I'm sure there are plenty those whose thoughts will resonate with others. Yet, people today seem reluctant to go away from religion and enter the world of scientific, rational explanation of things. I feel like this happens because those who went (or were conducted) early on into religious mindset were taught as if any sort of critical look is not required, that one has to just accept the given statements as universal truths and stop thinking about it (otherwise, many, if not most, of religious ideas crumble easily). So, when they confront something explained reasonably and rationally, their minds go into defensive because their truths are attacked (and "think not hard about anything" is often one of the truth, so maybe many perceive rational argument as an offense - but that's just an uneducated guess), thus refusing to acknowledge when something actually makes sense since it makes them accept the fact that their whole identity is at least somewhat incorrect or even outright wrong (which is a whole another issue I have with religion, for it allows people to hide behind the doctrines when the world "attacks" them, but that's another discussion altogether). Today, of all times, we have all the necessary knowledge and resources (the Internet is a major one, as it allows instantaneous connection for over a billion people from all over the world) to start building a society that's beneficial to the human-being [not a mistake]. We have psychology, we have philosophies, we have major sciences (both natural and humanities), we have the transnational connection, we have the energy sources and the knowledge of maintaining and developing them, we have the industrial base to produce and distribute massive amounts of cheap food - hell, we have the knowledge to develop "green" cheap food, as well!.. and that's me missing a whole bunch of important things. We can start educating people about themselves, about each other, about the world in ways no previous generation might have envisioned. We can bloody start by stopping telling people they're inferior just because a moneybag somewhere is lacking internal measures of self-esteem and some sort of ideals. We can start by telling them that they matter, no matter their thoughts, tastes or preferances of sexual behavior; that it's their actions that define how others see them, that it's not normal to prejudge or assume oneself to be superior to others. Seeing the France's terror acts (was it the second major one for the year? that's horrendous) makes me think that religion in general is a major obstacle for that. I don't give a shit whether it's Valhalla, the 72 virgins, karma or the omnipotent male God: if it hinders personal and/or group development for some oddjob sense of security which doesn't fucking exist anyway, it's to be disposed of. As far as the human mind is concerned, the world is essentially random, but just because you can't comprehend it you aren't allowed to trap others - let alone yourself - in a cage of mind or treat everyone as if they're innately faulty and sinful as if it's better for someone, especially if it's for a being no one but the indoctrinated can sense in any way. So that's what I think the difference is. We finally have major potential to make the world - our world, common world - a better place for everyone, and religion of most kinds is a hinderance for that with their fear-ridden doctrines and scaremongering of the masses. You yourself said in response to someone else in the thread that human morality has developed over time for religion to disallow slavery along with the "secular world" (as if they're so separate). Maybe human mind will soon enough develop to understand just how powerful humans are, and how powerful fears can be if we feed them. Right now, we can start by raising the right questions. "How can we reign in the anxiety we all experience from birth?" is a good one, don't you think?In your mind, what kind of differences do you think there are between religions as they were expressed thousands of years ago and religions as they are expressed today?
People then, today, and still tomorrow will seek simple answers to big questions that leave us confused and scared. Why do you think politicians use sound bites? Why do you think the circle jerk of the month on Reddit can be so strong at times? We as individuals have a hard time tackling big issues and religion offering simple answers, for right or for wrong, for better or for worse, is just one way this very large part of our humanity is expressed. No. Though I'm sure if I asked you the same for Tich Nhat Hanh, Desmond Tutu, or Rumi, you'd probably say the same thing. Here's what's both amazing and wonderful though. I bet you that if I read Camus or Sartre, I would find things that resonate with me and I'd find agreeable. The same could be said if I put the writings of Hafiz under your nose and said “Please, read.” We have an innate talent for taking what we read and finding ways where it applies to us as individuals, where it applies to the moments we find ourselves in our lives. Sometimes some things resonate with us at certain periods of our lives more strongly than others. I'm not saying that to invalidate what you've read or how you feel about it. I am saying though that the same mechanism that draws you to those philosophers draws other people to religious writings. Hell, the same mechanism is what draws us to literature, music, and art. We desire to feel connected to the world around us. ::Whistles:: That's a mouth full and a hard bit to tackle all at once. You're making some very broad generalizations that really don't have as much to do with religion as you think. They're actually more issues of scientific illiteracy and a poor education in general than religion as a boogy man. To throw some general examples your way, in the Bible (mostly in the books of Proverbs) are passages extolling the virtues of knowledge and wisdom over worldly goods. During the Dark Ages of Europe, much of the advancement in the world of math, science, philosophy and law was the result of Muslim Scholars in the Middle East (click every keyword there and you'll be introduced to a long list of influential Middle Easterners in each field). Religion was a central part of the European Renaissance both in the development of theology as well as in the patronization of the arts. Baha'is, a relatively modern religion, not only emphasize heavily the importance of education but also have the philosophy that science and religion can be harmonious. Similar trends can also be found if we look towards Eastern Religions as well, but at this point I'm sure you get the point. What I'm trying to say is that to say that religion is a hindrance knowledge is inaccurate. We are our own hindrance through neglect and carelessness. Almost every generation, we get better. Progress on the scale that you're hoping for isn't attainable in the span of a few generations, let alone overnight. Look back up to my original post. Look at that timeline. The more we progress, the better we become. The better we become, the faster we progress. We are on a cycle of continuous growth, continuous progress. It's happening and it's happening right before our eyes and it's wonderful to see when you see it. You have to keep something in mind though. It's easy for an individual to change quickly. Institutions though, whatever form they may take, often change at a painfully slow rate. People who are susceptible and vulnerable to being manipulated and taken advantage of are at the mercy of the entire world around them. They can be taken advantage of from everything from religious extremists and cults to gangs to abusive spouses to their own government. The reasons are many, from poverty to mental health to just plain bad luck. You're looking at a nasty aspect of religion and want to blame religion as a whole because of it. Here's the thing though. That nastiness, it's found everywhere, not just religion. It's part of being human. It's part of being flawed. If this is something you're concerned about, which it seems like it is, take comfort in the fact that there are social programs abound, local, national, and international that exist to find people who are either currently being victimized or at risk of being victimized and trying to help them as best as possible. They can't help everyone and they can't always succeed, but they're doing what they can to make the world a better place. Philipians 4:8 is a great passage of the Bible. It reads . . . Does that sound like scaremongering or does that sound like encouragement? What would you say if I could find similar passages or concepts from almost any major religion? We're making progress. It's not always visible. It's not always easy. It's not always clean. But it's there. Like every other aspect of humanity, religion can help us or it can hurt us. It all depends on the choices we make.Religion was often used to make people feel like they understand why others commit crime: "possessed by an evil spirit" is a common explanation for what we now know to be either a psychological disorder (sociopathy, for one thing) or a moment of foggy mind (unstoppable anger). Hell, we have developed quite a bit of philosophy on the matter - for a long time, too! - to help figure out what the world is, who people are, what life is and what its meaning is.
Have you read Albert Camus' or Jean-Paul Sartre's works? It's astonishing how they resonate with the experiences I've had. I'm sure there are plenty those whose thoughts will resonate with others.
Yet, people today seem reluctant to go away from religion and enter the world of scientific, rational explanation of things. I feel like this happens because those who went (or were conducted) early on into religious mindset were taught as if any sort of critical look is not required, that one has to just accept the given statements as universal truths and stop thinking about it (otherwise, many, if not most, of religious ideas crumble easily). So, when they confront something explained reasonably and rationally, their minds go into defensive because their truths are attacked (and "think not hard about anything" is often one of the truth, so maybe many perceive rational argument as an offense - but that's just an uneducated guess), thus refusing to acknowledge when something actually makes sense since it makes them accept the fact that their whole identity is at least somewhat incorrect or even outright wrong (which is a whole another issue I have with religion, for it allows people to hide behind the doctrines when the world "attacks" them, but that's another discussion altogether).
Today, of all times, we have all the necessary knowledge and resources (the Internet is a major one, as it allows instantaneous connection for over a billion people from all over the world) to start building a society that's beneficial to the human-being [not a mistake]. We have psychology, we have philosophies, we have major sciences (both natural and humanities), we have the transnational connection, we have the energy sources and the knowledge of maintaining and developing them, we have the industrial base to produce and distribute massive amounts of cheap food - hell, we have the knowledge to develop "green" cheap food, as well!.. and that's me missing a whole bunch of important things. We can start educating people about themselves, about each other, about the world in ways no previous generation might have envisioned.
We can bloody start by stopping telling people they're inferior just because a moneybag somewhere is lacking internal measures of self-esteem and some sort of ideals. We can start by telling them that they matter, no matter their thoughts, tastes or preferances of sexual behavior; that it's their actions that define how others see them, that it's not normal to prejudge or assume oneself to be superior to others. Seeing the France's terror acts (was it the second major one for the year? that's horrendous) makes me think that religion in general is a major obstacle for that. I don't give a shit whether it's Valhalla, the 72 virgins, karma or the omnipotent male God: if it hinders personal and/or group development for some oddjob sense of security which doesn't fucking exist anyway, it's to be disposed of. As far as the human mind is concerned, the world is essentially random, but just because you can't comprehend it you aren't allowed to trap others - let alone yourself - in a cage of mind or treat everyone as if they're innately faulty and sinful as if it's better for someone, especially if it's for a being no one but the indoctrinated can sense in any way.
So that's what I think the difference is. We finally have major potential to make the world - our world, common world - a better place for everyone, and religion of most kinds is a hinderance for that with their fear-ridden doctrines and scaremongering of the masses.
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.
You yourself said in response to someone else in the thread that human morality has developed over time for religion to disallow slavery along with the "secular world" (as if they're so separate). Maybe human mind will soon enough develop to understand just how powerful humans are, and how powerful fears can be if we feed them. Right now, we can start by raising the right questions. "How can we reign in the anxiety we all experience from birth?" is a good one, don't you think?
I'm finally able to deliver a proper response. I hope the data limit per comment is high enough. * * * You're saying "it is as it is", I'm saying "we can do better". I don't see why should we let religion propagate ideas of conformity and false sense of security when human beings, both alone and in groups, have such a massive potential to change the world (hopefully, for the better). Humans believe they want security and comfort the most, when the reality is we want achievement, we want to leave a mark on the world, we want ourselves and others to prosper, not merely be content with shitty occupations and shitty relationships. How often religion propagates honesty and openness of one's feelings? How often does it say "be yourself and give no mind to what strangers think of you unless it resonates with you"? What I see is pushing for conformity, for simple mind, because such a crowd is easier to control and reign in under a single banner. Simple answers give simple minds, and simple minds abstain from taking a good hard look at reality because it promises, without hesitation or chance of a miss, to break the bubble, and it's painful. Any parent will tell you: egos are hard to break, - but the process is necessary for the child to grow up into a mature, reasonable and emotionally healthy adult. Let me show you just one claim Western religion makes so often it's offensive to humanity. "Homosexual behavior is to be punished because it's bad". Is that a good answer to "How should we deal with gays?"? No, it isn't, and it will never be. Because sexual orientation isn't a mark of God or of Devil: it's a trait of our mind and our body; we're born with it without a choice, like eye color or tastes for food. Because giving in to fears, especially as far as to be afraid to admit that it's scary because it's alien, not because some abstract man-made ideas oppose it, is not productive or helpful to anyone. Because gathering a crowd to punish homosexuals in whatever capacity - verbally, physically, sexually - is screaming "I'M AFRAID BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM". In animal fear people run away or run towards what they don't understand because, much like the half-human animals our ancestors were a long time ago, they believe that what they don't understand might kill them, or hurt them, or steal their babies, or something else people are afraid of. I don't care if it's human behavior that makes us like that. Any institution that promotes punishing the alien for its alienness alone is not a good one. I'll blame people for following the doctrine of destruction towards what is considered "not us", but first of all I'll blame the institution that promotes and encourages such skewed, low, animalistic and crazy ideas. As animalistic as we all are, we have the higher brain functions, and there's no excuse not to use them in day-to-day life unless your day-to-day life is constant running away from sabertooth tigers or venomous snakes - and for most of the world, it isn't true. That, and the paragraph as a whole, is a very good point. I may have overestimated Camus' and Sartre's importance for humanity as whole solely because they are important to me. However, I find that several ideas expressed by existentialists have repercussions for us all, not just those whose ideas align. Think of the concept of meaning of life. Human beings spend their whole lives trying to get what life's about, often dying without getting it. Whole books have been written about it by people so different you'll be astonished to even grasp that such a difference between human beings might exist. Yet, existentialism gives a simple and true answer - and people run away from it. Of those who don't, oh so many don't take the next step in grasping the subject. Many stop at the idea that life has no inherent meaning, and it stuns them, as if that's the point of the idea. "Oh, life is meaningless. Well, shit. I'm just going to sit on my ass after this great realization, because there's no point anyway" - from someone who continues to moan about life's meaningless for the rest of their staying on Earth. I don't mean to mock such people: I, too, have gone through this phase of disenchantment and existential depression. I know how it feels to lose ground beneath one's whole worldview. What makes this different is that it's not ground we've lost: after we recover, we discover that it was merely a layer of mirror over the world's true face. World is not what we see around: it's everything, the good and the bad, the ugly and the beautiful, the love and the hatred, the deepest rage and the brightest euphoria. It is our choice to select which parts to observe; therefore, it is our responsibility before ourselves to make the choice according to our beliefs of what's best. In other words, our life's what we make of it, and every single person in their right mind has means to achieve some sort of improvement in theirs. Why no religions talk about it? Why are no preaches held to address this very important - critically important, for every heart out there - issue? Why is Pope not talking about choice and its importance in every single person's life? Why is no head of the Islam (if there is such a person - I'm ignorant on the matter) talking about how it's our responsibility to wield awesome power within each of us for benefit of the world, not for blood of the innocents? This is why philosophy is so much more important for me than any religion will ever be: it addresses issues religious temples omit or outright run away from: it tells us that we're capable, and all the means to change the world - or, more importantly, ourselves - are within us from the very beginning. People capable of taking control of their own lives can't be controlled from the outside; they will no longer pray and idly hope when they can do something; they will no longer kiss Pope's hand or do other, similarly demeaning things in the name of non-existent entity, and that hurts Pope's ego: they're supposed to be an important person on Earth - when suddenly, the ground goes from beneath their worldview. Welcome to the club, asshole. Find your own land to stay upon now. What I read might not resonate with everybody. That's fine by me. As long as they get the idea, I'll go with it. Just, by all means, don't do it for God or for Pope's blessing or something similarly nonsensical: do it for other people, because it's their well-being that you care for when you wish to help. About time we admit it to ourselves, as well. As for the last sentence of the paragraph: There's something that bothers me about this statement existing in context of our discussion of uses of modern religion. Whether I'll be able to conclude what it is down the line, I'd like to discuss the statement in this context further with whomever's interested. I'll be honest: I don't understand how can one feel connected with the world through religion. I've never experienced in, and I don't believe one can reliably convert feelings of connection through, say, music into those through religion to get an estimation. I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that you mean to say the following: the same feeling that I get when I understand (see, perceive) the world through the philosophy of existentialism, people of religion get when they understand (see, perceive) the world through their religion, whichever that is. This really ought to deepen our conversation (at least from my point of view), because I'd love such people to come up and tell me why religion makes sense to them. As much as I stay opposed to religion (or maybe it's "organized religion" - see below), I'm looking forward to understanding religious people, their worldviews and the thought process that led them down that path (as opposed to mine leading me down to the path I'm at). There's been an issue about escapism that we've touched upon very briefly, and I'd like to elaborate on that. I'm not opposed to escapism and relaxing away from the world from time to time - I'm a writer, after all. I think it's healthy and responsible to get away from the crazy routine and look at one's life as close to its objective reality as one can get in order to do one's best of sorting it out and making it a better life overall. "Well, shit, look at that. And I thought I had it bad...", or "How peculiar. It's something I can learn from", or "I do this because it will make me better in the long run". That being said, I don't understand religious escapism (if there even is such a thing; if, if there is, it's different from spiritual escapism and spiritual rest as I understand it). That's something I never got to understanding, either, because I was most often blinded by the sheer resonance of misunderstanding and the internal rage, intellectual and emotional, that it caused. I see now how truly blind I am regarding religion and religious experience in general: I was actively seeing it as a thing inheritently bad because I only saw the bad. It's not to say I don't see bad sides of it - there are plenty of those, as I'm going to point out below - but I now understand just how much more there is to it. I must thank you, rd95, for stirring my mind away from the echo chamber it's been in for a long time and making me actually think about things I find peculiar. This makes it sound like you're completely displacing religion from where it belongs - from discouraging studying evolution (I'm looking at you, Christianity) and from discouraging tolerance (I'm looking at you, Islam), among other things; I assume good faith and presume that you didn't mean to do anything as extreme. It's not to say that I didn't make generalizations previously: I bloody well did and I will continue to, because this seems to be so damn common to religions that I can't but generalize. It would be fine and, indeed, more appropriate to discuss each religion or sect or other sorts of separate teachings individually, but it will take so long we'd die before even leaving Christianity behind. However, I don't believe it to be necessary as long as there are things so common we can't skip them and turn to individual details. Now. I don't mean to say that religions in general are utterly flawed or solely harmful: just as with being completely flawless or singularly helpful, extremes exist in the mind. Yet, whenever I hear about a Christian nutcase making children study only divine origin of the human kind (as seems to be the case in the US) or making children study religion and related matters at school as if it's a proper secular subject (as is the case in Russia - thankfully, I graduated just in time to miss it, but I do feel sorry for the young folks out there struggling through it), I want to smash something. It's ridiculous how much some of the religious heads assume of themselves and how much they believe others ought to follow their sole true path in life or risk being damned and sent to Hell (and/or subjected the other kinds of divine torture). Such issues cloud the minds of people like myself, but they do exist and do cause trouble for generations for some one asshole's benefit. Naturally, I'm not saying that religion alone is guilty of it (Godwin's law be damned, look at Hitler's actions), but for some reason, acting in the name of a non-existent being while making someone suffer makes me madly angry. I haven't encountered a single religious teaching that actively encourages people to strive for knowledge and/or discourages them from ignorance. You speak of Baha'i, and your pointing out of their pursuit for knowledge made me curious of them, but I haven't seen the results of their work yet. Besides: there's Baha'i, that's one; how many more such teachings there are? Moreover, you keep referencing past events and cause-effect relationships while starting off the discussion on modern religion. Indeed, various religions happened to house or support various steps of human progress, be it cultural or scientific (or both - see theory of color, which, in and of itself is fantastic). How does it matter now, in today's world (let's assume that I'm already grateful for whatever advances religion brought and am willing to leave it behind for the sake of this discussion)? Do they make what's today any different? I sincerely wish to hop off the topic of how helpful religion have been, but there's a nitpick I can't resist, so logically-appalling to my mind it is. Did Muslim scholars you mentioned advance sciences because they were Muslim, or because they were scholars? Was Islam in any way more science-encouraging than European Christianity? Moreover, did they advance science, or did the Christian Europe hold back a long while due to the Dark Age encouraged by the Church? Given just how many scientific breakthroughs were made in Europe afterwards, I think it's safe to assume that, given no oppression of knowledge, European scientists would have made no worse a job in that department. As we always were: fears and complacency make us give away achievements for feelings of comfort and security. It doesn't mean religion doesn't encourage this complacency. I've been talking about it in length before in this post, so - see above. At least areligious communities (which include, but aren't limited to, atheists, agnostics, humanists and others of similar views) encourages rational understanding of the world around us. They often forego spiritual development that religion accents on, but they don't hinder it either, do they? Not a reason not to start or not to discourage others from stepping in the way. Like I said plenty of times during this discussion: my main problem with religion is encouragement of closed-mindedness. Believing in invisible entities of magnificent power over reality is silly, but it's not what makes me angry; I may laugh at it from time to time, but I won't hold the believer accountable for it as if it's a crime, since personal beliefs aren't. I'm not saying "Let's change the world overnight": I recognize how silly this sounds. I am, however, saying: "Let's start teaching people things that are critically important to their personal development, and let's get those who oppose personal development because it threatens their worldview out of the way". Once again, you're saying "That's how it is", I'm saying "Let's do better". This time, however, it sounds like you're saying "There's not much we can do about it beyond what we already do", which I don't agree with. I realize that destructive manipulation is a world-spanning issue. I didn't realize that there are measures against it when I wrote what you quoted, though it makes sense now that you talk about it; those measures, however, are reactive, which is good, but we can do better. I have a plan for a set of lectures to deliver the importance of the critically important self-development skills I've mentioned, as well as at least give the fertile ground for starting or continuing self-growth for the listeners. The lectures are meant for school children, for they're most susceptible and most in need of such knowledge if they have no other source (if my generation is any indication, there are no other sources: mentors are afew, parents are always busy trying to sustain the family and grandparents are former Soviet citizens with very rigid and unforgiving mentality). I'm struggling with the name for it, though: "social studies" is already taken, and "human-being" might very well confuse the whole lot of those who'd rather hear it. The plan, in short, is to deliver information of what mental qualities constitute a human being, what are good practices to control our destructive urges (and how to manage constructive ones) and how to achieve a higher level of understanding of the world, oneself and others as well as develop skills to act on one's agenda in the complex and, at times, seemingly random world. It means, for example, to tell children about confidence: what it is, what it isn't (arrogance isn't a certain kind of confidence, but not the confidence we speak of), how to develop it (act despite the fear, which assumes previous lessons covered fears already) and what to look out for (arrogant remarks are not marks of spiritual or mental strength). So on for various other important points of living: issues of fear, control, knowledge and whatever stems from those. I think it's possible to deliver, at least at one point at the time. I think it's important, given how lost I was - along with many of my peers - in a world on my own given the opportunity out of the emotional cage I was held in by my possessive parents. There are heaps, tons of useful knowledge on how to act and to live that's been around for millenia, sometimes (Marcus Aurelius' Meditiations and Greek philisophers' teachings are just two Western-world examples), that's going to waste simply because people who carry it die without transferring most of it. I believe personal development to be of more importance to one and to humanity in general than feeding one's craving for satisfaction and comfort, especially in the light of the fact that people who went through emotional traumas enjoy what's ordinary for us much more. Given all that, I oppose everything that opposes personal development; if that includes religion in general or a particular religion, so be it. If it doesn't, however, I'm not just ready but eager to listen to what they have to say, both on the matter and in general. On Philipians 4:8 and the following: You quote a line in a book that most of those behind the religion have never read, fully or at all. The cynic inside me even screams for me to point out that you may have went out of your way to find it, but I won't yield to the screams and remain in good faith of your actions and arguments. That's one. Another is that, while one passage in one of the religious books in Christianity might be supportive and encouraging (which I always extol), their view of sin as I understand it (from my own little experience with Christianity and Christopher Hitchens' arguments) is scaremongering at its plainest. "You're all sinners from birth because your supposed progenitors became sinners (we'll omit how they were capable of it in the first place, being perfect humans and all) [sorry, couldn't resist - TFG], and therefore you shall repent for the sins you haven't committed because you surely will". Really? Punishing yourself for non-existent crimes? Hell: punishing yourself, period? Nothing good ever comes from it; like therapies go, "Accept what happened and move on", implying that one's best course of action is to also remember what went wrong and never go down that path again. And that's not even diving into Christianity's hipocrisy, when Pope, the highest figure of the religion on Earth, proclaims aloud Crusades - that is, killing infidels - in the name of God (right, you asshole, in his name, sure), right after citing "Thou shalt not kill"... But, like I said, historical evidence means nothing. What matters is the course of action religions take nowadays. From what I'm seeing, Christianity speaks up against scientific education and no Christian speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), Muslim bombing human gathering in order to sew chaos and fear and no Muslim speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), fucking Buddhists, of all religions, killing ethnic minorities in the Tibet region (do we even hear about the atrocities at all?)... Is it just that the assholes pick up the mic when the rest are talking constructively and quietly with those who're willing to listen? I hope so - but is it what's happening? This conversation, I must admit, brings the cynic in me back again, which is not something I enjoy but also not something I can easily reign in. I enjoy the reasonable conversation on the matter we're having, but I hope to include an open-minded deeply-religious person in for me to gain proper perspective on the matter: otherwise, we're merely moving the air around.People then, today, and still tomorrow will seek simple answers to big questions that leave us confused and scared. <..> We as individuals have a hard time tackling big issues and religion offering simple answers, for right or for wrong, for better or for worse, is just one way this very large part of our humanity is expressed.
We have an innate talent for taking what we read and finding ways where it applies to us as individuals, where it applies to the moments we find ourselves in our lives.
We desire to feel connected to the world around us.
You're making some very broad generalizations that really don't have as much to do with religion as you think. They're actually more issues of scientific illiteracy and a poor education in general than religion as a boogy man.
We are our own hindrance through neglect and carelessness.
Progress on the scale that you're hoping for isn't attainable in the span of a few generations, let alone overnight.
People who are susceptible and vulnerable to being manipulated and taken advantage of are at the mercy of the entire world around them. They can be taken advantage of from everything from religious extremists and cults to gangs to abusive spouses to their own government.
Does that sound like scaremongering or does that sound like encouragement? What would you say if I could find similar passages or concepts from almost any major religion?
We are looking at two different faces of the same cube of dice. You're thinking of terms in either or. Religion, like everything else, is one and both. Can religion offer simple mindedness and conformity? Yes. Tt can and sometimes it does and it's aggravating to see. Can it offer support, liberation, and encouragement? Yes. Yes. Yes. It does all of the time. Almost every religion that takes on a philosophical angle teaches us one way or another to not only get along with each other, but to get along with ourselves. If you want, give me a day and I can overwhelm you with so many religious quotes teaching us to be good people that I could fill up a page and then some. "Homosexual behavior is to be punished because it's bad". Is that a good answer to "How should we deal with gays?"? No, it isn't, and it will never be. Because sexual orientation isn't a mark of God or of Devil: it's a trait of our mind and our body; we're born with it without a choice, like eye color or tastes for food. Because giving in to fears, especially as far as to be afraid to admit that it's scary because it's alien, not because some abstract man-made ideas oppose it, is not productive or helpful to anyone. Because gathering a crowd to punish homosexuals in whatever capacity - verbally, physically, sexually - is screaming "I'M AFRAID BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND THEM". In animal fear people run away or run towards what they don't understand because, much like the half-human animals our ancestors were a long time ago, they believe that what they don't understand might kill them, or hurt them, or steal their babies, or something else people are afraid of. I don't care if it's human behavior that makes us like that. Any institution that promotes punishing the alien for its alienness alone is not a good one. I'll blame people for following the doctrine of destruction towards what is considered "not us", but first of all I'll blame the institution that promotes and encourages such skewed, low, animalistic and crazy ideas. As animalistic as we all are, we have the higher brain functions, and there's no excuse not to use them in day-to-day life unless your day-to-day life is constant running away from sabertooth tigers or venomous snakes - and for most of the world, it isn't true. Alright. So I'm going to be blunt here and I'm going to get this out of the way. Sometimes humanity sucks. British colonists treated Australian aborigines like shit. Nazis treated the Jews, Gypsies, and various other groups like shit. The American Government treated Native Americans like shit. There's the Rwandand Genocides. There's the Cambodian Killing Fields. There are the Soviet Gulags. You think religious organizations are the only ones who treat homosexuals wrongly? Look at Communist China. I'm just scratching the very surface of how ugly we can get, and trust me, when you want to look at it in depth, we get very, very ugly. In all honesty, I recommend you don't click on any of those links. I regret even searching for them. You keep wanting to point to religion and say “Look! There's the boogeyman!” Religion isn't the boogeyman though. We are. We do awful, awful things to each other for all sorts of reasons. Sometimes religion gets involved because for a large part of humanity, religion is a part of our identity. Just like nationality (Nazis), race (American Slavery), and economic structures (European Colonialism) are all parts of our humanity. Using your logic, I can easily say we need to get rid of government, financial institutions, or what have you if we're to live in a truly just world. Here's the deal though. People, as individuals, are quick to change. The way you and I view the world is different than the way our parents and grand parents view the world. Just look at us, you're Russian and I'm a white American from a low income bracket. We're talking to each other and having a conversation that is civil, entertaining, and enriching. Do you think, during the height of the Red Scare that I could say the same about my grandpa? No. Probably not. The problem is, institutions are a lot slower to change. It's the nature of the beast. They are changing though. Bringing back western religion and the treatment of homosexuals, here's a look at a handful of Gay Friendly Churches. Since we're talking about institutions and the treatment of the gay community, just last year the American Supreme Court made gay marriage a right. Just fifteen years ago the idea was almost unthinkable. Change happens. It's slow. It's painfully slow. But it's happening, faster, and faster, and faster.You're saying "it is as it is", I'm saying "we can do better". I don't see why should we let religion propagate ideas of conformity and false sense of security when human beings, both alone and in groups, have such a massive potential to change the world (hopefully, for the better). Humans believe they want security and comfort the most, when the reality is we want achievement, we want to leave a mark on the world, we want ourselves and others to prosper, not merely be content with shitty occupations and shitty relationships. How often religion propagates honesty and openness of one's feelings? How often does it say "be yourself and give no mind to what strangers think of you unless it resonates with you"?
What I see is pushing for conformity, for simple mind, because such a crowd is easier to control and reign in under a single banner. Simple answers give simple minds, and simple minds abstain from taking a good hard look at reality because it promises, without hesitation or chance of a miss, to break the bubble, and it's painful. Any parent will tell you: egos are hard to break, - but the process is necessary for the child to grow up into a mature, reasonable and emotionally healthy adult. Let me show you just one claim Western religion makes so often it's offensive to humanity.
So, I've been thinking a lot about religion since seeing the later replies of yours. What I realized was: - I know that much about religion personally; - I'm not ready to present quality points against religion without knowing it well enough; - I'm not going to present silly points just to present something. I'm willing to continue the conversation, for I find it both important and interesting. However, I'm not willing to continue it right, or, as a matter of fact, in this thread: just look at the title and how far from it we've went. You've opened my eyes on a lot of things about both religion and how to view it, and I appreaciate that a lot, because religion and religious belief have been important points of my understanding of the world. Let's make a deal. I'm going to research religion - maybe talk to religious figures that I'd encounter (there are Orthodox Christians and Muslims in Tomsk, and Catholic Christians in Kemerovo, as far as I know), read the books or about the books - and then make a #talkreligion post with points on religion that I find important, critical or praising as "Part <whichever>". Does that sound good?
It's cool bro. It's just a discussion. That said, I'd love for you to reach out to me and share what you find. If and when you do start exploring, Wikipedia is a great jumping off point. Since you're in college, if you have some room for filler credits, maybe take a class or two on Religious History. I'd actually think that's the best way to start exploring, because you'll get things from a more secular, academic perspective. If you do go out into the world, visiting churches, mosques, what have you, just be prepared that you might come across some elements that seem a bit weird to you and you might be a bit uncomfortable. That's totally normal. Hell, it still happens to me. The thing is, you're gonna find some things that resonate you and some things that don't. Just remember to be polite and appreciative. These people are letting you into their world. If for some reason, you want to discuss religions with practitioners but are a little uncomfortable talking to people in person, This Place is a great place to talk to people from all sorts of faiths. To let you know though, you'll find people on there not only from a variety of faiths, but also on both extremes of the spectrum from grounded intellectuals to people who are (in my opinion) a bit too open minded. The Moderators there are actually a very helpful lot and some of them have been at it for over a decade.
Religious Forums seems like a fantastic place to go for religions that I can't reach physically. Thank you for letting me know of it, and thank you for prepping me up for the conversations! It is a discussion, but not just a discussion for me. Like I said, it's important for me to understand it, and the discussion we've made so far has been extremely potent in opening my eyes. If that's a trend, I'm willing to dive deep. I study in Russia, which, of course, has a different system of higher education from the US one. We don't have free classes to attend, barring optional non-free specialization and secondary education courses. I wonder if MOOCs have classes on religion, though. They must have something, must they not?Since you're in college
Woo boy. This seems like an even larger chunk of text to handle now that I'm sober. I think I'll take this a bit at a time, a few days at a time. This is a casual talk after all. Pfft. Bro. Any response, as long as it's respectful of course, is a proper response. :) So, I'm going to skip down to the bottom a little bit here, because you touched on some points I'd like to focus on . . . To be honest, I didn't have to search for that quote. It's on the back of a homemade bookmark given to me by a friend. I keep it around because it reminds me a lot of the Buddhist concept of Mindfulness. If you click the link, just give it a brief glance. While the concept is worth a deep perusal, it can get kind of confusing pretty quick. There are tons of Christians out there who know their Bible well and they love to quote it. Me personally, not being a Christian, have to resort to using a “Where to Find it in the Bible Guide,” which is actually very useful as a jumping off point sometimes. I then often use a combination online study sites and Wikipedia for cultural and historical insight into various passages. I really need to gather similar tools for other faiths, but seeing as how America is very Christian dominant, Christianity is for obvious reasons one of the easiest religions for me to work with, even when you account for the seemingly countless denominations. But I'm wandering here now . . . As for Christians and studying the Bible, there's a whole spectrum of Christians. On one end, you have the people who profess to be Christians but never step foot in a church except on rare occasions. On the other end you have the Christians that not only go to church on Sundays, but also attend church events throughout the week, host bible studies on the regular, and so on and so forth. Personally speaking, I've seen a fair mix of everyone on the spectrum and it seems to me to be an even spread. I actually have a friend now who I've started going to church with from time to time. While the church he goes to is vastly different from the churches I've been to in the past, they seem like a decent bunch of people and he's very happy there, which is great. One of the things I like about him is that he has a decent grasp on his Bible. Is he a theological scholar? No. Could he teach me a thing or two? He absolutely can and I look forward to learning from him. That said, if you want to talk to people who really know their Bible, devout Catholics seem to have their shit down tight. I think it might be a cultural thing for them. Really? Punishing yourself for non-existent crimes? Hell: punishing yourself, period? Nothing good ever comes from it; like therapies go, "Accept what happened and move on", implying that one's best course of action is to also remember what went wrong and never go down that path again. Once again, I'm not Christian so take this with a grain of salt, but the concept of Original Sin is a bit of a mixed bag. It's used to explain why we live in a world of pain and suffering. It's used to explain why we are imperfect and sometimes driven to do things that aren't in our best interest or the best interest of others. Christianity isn't alone in trying to address this concept. Hindus have Karma. Buddhists have Dukkha. Other religions address suffering more or less in depth in other ways. For each religion though, while there is a cause for suffering, there is also a solution. In Christianity, it is through accepting Christ and his teachings, through redemption and through repentance. It gets kind of complex, but for the most part, the very idea of redemption and repentance is in a way, “Accept[ing] what happened and mov[ing] on.” It's a system of relief. If we really want to get into the brass and tacks of all of this, there is actually a debate among various Christian doctrines as to whether or not accepting Christ alone is enough for salvation or if deeds play a crucial role. Eh. That all ties into politics, religion, national identity, etc. A great example would be The Troubles in Ireland. It wasn't just about Catholic and Protestant identity. Religion just happened to be one facet of a much bigger issue. It's important to remember that we're all human and everything in our lives is very intertwined almost to the point of being a jumbled up mess. Religion isn't some static concept. It's something that's integrated into people's lives in such a dynamic way that not only does it change us, but collectively and over time, we change it. That said, the whole “Thou Shalt Not Kill” is more like “Thou Shalt Not Kill But Read the Footnotes for Exceptions.” There are many ways, theologically speaking, where killing is seen as permissible. Warfare is one of them. So, before I address this, let's get one thing out of the way here and I'm going to address something you said that I bolded out. We are all human here, trying to navigate very difficult lives in a very difficult world. Nobody has all of the answers. No concept, be they religious, philosophical, psychological, or what have you, applies perfectly to every thing every time. Buddhists aren't special just because they see the world a bit differently than us. The same goes for Hindus, Native American religions, or whatever other concept or culture the western world wants to romanticize and mystify. No matter who we are or where we come from, as a collective whole we know better. For the most part we know what is blatantly right, what is blatantly wrong, and we have developed the tools needed to navigate through the gray areas. That said, we're all flawed and it's very easy to get caught up in the world around us and do wrong things. Any one at any time can slip. It's our job as human beings to help each other from falling, and when we do fall, to help each other get back up. That's why it's important to be loving, to be neighborly, to be vigilant, and to always encourage those in our lives to do the right thing. Now. What you're talking about is the effect that bad news travels farther and faster than good news. We find it exciting. We sensationalize it. It gets us talking. The fact of the matter is, Muslims speak out against terrorism frequently. There are many successful and influential scientific figures throughout history who happen to be Christian. There are interfaith organizations around the world focused on helping people reconcile their differences and get along. On and on. I know you're cynical. You confess to being so quite often. I encourage you to think about it this way. There is so, so, so much good in this world, everywhere you look. You just don't notice it because of how you focus on things. Think of it this way, if you were in a room with the whitest of walls and you notice a single smudge of dirt, what are you suddenly going to start thinking about? All the whiteness or the one smudge that stands out?I'm finally able to deliver a proper response.
You quote a line in a book that most of those behind the religion have never read, fully or at all. The cynic inside me even screams for me to point out that you may have went out of your way to find it, but I won't yield to the screams and remain in good faith of your actions and arguments. That's one.
Another is that, while one passage in one of the religious books in Christianity might be supportive and encouraging (which I always extol), their view of sin as I understand it (from my own little experience with Christianity and Christopher Hitchens' arguments) is scaremongering at its plainest. "You're all sinners from birth because your supposed progenitors became sinners (we'll omit how they were capable of it in the first place, being perfect humans and all) [sorry, couldn't resist - TFG], and therefore you shall repent for the sins you haven't committed because you surely will".
And that's not even diving into Christianity's hipocrisy, when Pope, the highest figure of the religion on Earth, proclaims aloud Crusades - that is, killing infidels - in the name of God (right, you asshole, in his name, sure), right after citing "Thou shalt not kill"...
But, like I said, historical evidence means nothing. What matters is the course of action religions take nowadays. From what I'm seeing, Christianity speaks up against scientific education and no Christian speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), Muslim bombing human gathering in order to sew chaos and fear and no Muslim speaks up against it (or are we not hearing them?), fucking Buddhists, of all religions, killing ethnic minorities in the Tibet region (do we even hear about the atrocities at all?)... Is it just that the assholes pick up the mic when the rest are talking constructively and quietly with those who're willing to listen? I hope so - but is it what's happening?
Moving the air around us is still changing the world around us, even if it's imperceptible. :) You posted a novel. Give me a few days to read over this, parse it out, and respond adequately (at least I hope my responses are adequate). God knows I can't do it right now. I'm rocking a new years buzz already. I appreciate you man. I hope you have a good New Year.We're merely moving the air around.