• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
    Results 26 to 30 of 30
    Like Tree21Likes

    Thread: What Unifies Religion?

    1. #26
      Member Achievements:
      1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      DeathCell's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Posts
      1,764
      Likes
      41
      Quote Originally Posted by Olysseus View Post
      Wars are always motivated by the same thing...control over resources.

      Religion dupes the masses into enlisting in the armies but if you look a little deeper into history you will find that with or without religion we would have the same wars, the same imperial agendas for unifying populations and so on. You are stuck in a hysterical reaction and that's why you think I am somehow ignoring those things.

      Most christians keep going to church for social reasons. Loneliness probably plays a greater role than fear. Women's rights in Islam is merely an excuse for the west to bomb them. The rights of women lag in those countries because people are closer to a survival mentality and there is more individual competition for resources. Women aren't treated much better in war-torn nations that are non-islamic.

      And have you ever worked with Shamans? I have and I can tell you that most of the real ones don't waste time criticizing organized religion. They see it as a piece of the yin and yang of life, which is what my original point was.

      People who waste time blaming all of their problems on religion are just being hysterical. Religion was a stepping stone that brought us to the place we are now. The only choice we have now is where do we go from here to replace religion and find a better way to strive to be more conscious.
      Without religion the unwashed masses wouldn't have promises of glory and splendor in the afterlife while the rich of the time sit and eat like pigs. They wouldn't fear their enemy as a totally different being because of their beliefs. The only reason these large scale wars were successful was to build up fear of the other and to turn the attention away from the concentrated wealth and resources their countries already had.

      Religion is the tool by which the rich control the poor; open your eyes.

      (I don't care if Shamans don't criticize religion; it's not exactly surprising since they have more important things to do.. Taoist shamans?)

      Their is no war without willing soldiers. Willing soldiers are obedient to a higher purpose, power.. Or in actuality to the rich.
      If you can't see the power religion wields over masses and the usage of that power by countries and churches empowered these wars of past; well I feel for your lack of clarity.
      Last edited by DeathCell; 10-08-2012 at 08:38 PM.
      This was that cult, and the prisoners said it had always existed and always would exist, hidden in distant wastes and dark places all over the world until the time when the great priest Cthulhu, from his dark house in the mighty city of R'lyeh under the waters, should rise and bring the earth again beneath his sway.

    2. #27
      Member Olysseus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Posts
      54
      Likes
      24
      All I see is a bunch of knee-jerk stereotypes. Exactly what I expected.

      The unwashed masses is a typical elitist code word for hatred and bigotry towards the working class. It is an understatement to say that using that term and then claiming you care for the poor and downtrodden is simply pretentious.

      I would agree that religion has been used to mislead the working classes into fighting against their own interests but again, if you would broaden your perspective and see the larger picture you would see that the same can be said of human rights and civil liberties. The reality is that people kill in the name of those things too; I hardly think that means we should get rid of them. My argument, which you have not actually addressed, is that there are other secular values that can be used to do the same harm as religion, thus religion is only a symptom. Our current war against terrorism is dependent on us seeing ourselves as crusading in the name of "modernism" and "technology" - same old crimes, just new lingo. Crusades in the name of "free trade" are no different than crusades in the name of "christian love"

      Religion has also allowed the poor to rally and unify under a common banner and resist tyranny just as often as it has caused the poor to quietly accept tyranny. If you look close at history you will see the religion of christianity brought down the elite of Rome because it allowed slaves and freed, men and women, Romans and non-Romans to see themselves as having a common interest. The sloppy Marxist theory that all religion is created by the rich with the intention of enslaving the poor has been refuted since the time Max Weber. Sometimes religion works that way sometimes it doesn't.

      Claiming all religion is about enslaving the poor isn't opening your eyes, its just being overly simplistic.

      And I was hoping you could make an inference but apparently not so I will elaborate on the Shaman comment. Shamans do not criticize organized religion because Shamanism is dependent on a radical sense of personal responsibility. Thus if people have been duped by religion, it is only because they wish to be duped and that is their path. All things serve a purpose in the Shamanistic worldview, including religion. I tried to express that briefly by mixing metaphors and saying religion is part of the yin and yang of life, referencing the idea that all things are manifestations of unity in their own way. I was not claiming that there are Taoist shamans, but that the ideas of Taoism and Shamanism compliment each other. Do I really need to explain that? Did you really think I was claiming there are Taoist shamans or was that just some attempt to be dishonest and hope I didn't notice?

      The feeling of pity for lack of clarity is mutual my friend.
      “Look at every path closely and deliberately, then ask ourselves this crucial question: Does this path have a heart? If it does, then the path is good. If it doesn't, it is of no use.” - Carlos Castaneda

    3. #28
      Member Achievements:
      1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      DeathCell's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Posts
      1,764
      Likes
      41
      Quote Originally Posted by Olysseus View Post
      All I see is a bunch of knee-jerk stereotypes. Exactly what I expected.
      All I see is your repeating of previous statements as if that's proof for their validity. Exactly what I expected.

      The unwashed masses is a typical elitist code word for hatred and bigotry towards the working class. It is an understatement to say that using that term and then claiming you care for the poor and downtrodden is simply pretentious.
      You got me; I'm an elitist that hates the working class.

      I would agree that religion has been used to mislead the working classes into fighting against their own interests but again, if you would broaden your perspective and see the larger picture you would see that the same can be said of human rights and civil liberties. The reality is that people kill in the name of those things too; I hardly think that means we should get rid of them.
      What exactly are you talking about?

      Fighting against human rights and civil liberties was always connected and affected by religious beliefs and religious followers. We can't free the slaves; it says so in the Bible was a oft heard set of words during abolition. No one said anything about getting rid of anything; but I damn sure won't pretend like Religion has had a net positive effect on our world and societies.

      My argument, which you have not actually addressed, is that there are other secular values that can be used to do the same harm as religion, thus religion is only a symptom. Our current war against terrorism is dependent on us seeing ourselves as crusading in the name of "modernism" and "technology" - same old crimes, just new lingo. Crusades in the name of "free trade" are no different than crusades in the name of "christian love"
      But history overwhelmingly shows that it's religion that causes most of these harms not secular values. Religion is a tool not a symptom. The only symptom this world is affected by is wealth.

      Religion has also allowed the poor to rally and unify under a common banner and resist tyranny just as often as it has caused the poor to quietly accept tyranny. If you look close at history you will see the religion of christianity brought down the elite of Rome because it allowed slaves and freed, men and women, Romans and non-Romans to see themselves as having a common interest. The sloppy Marxist theory that all religion is created by the rich with the intention of enslaving the poor has been refuted since the time Max Weber. Sometimes religion works that way sometimes it doesn't.
      The original cause of Christianity, Islam, etc was not to free the people from tyranny; just because people break off and start their own unrelated sects to the original founders doesn't make the original cause of religion less valid. Christianity was nothing but a replacement of the old religions; you had to believe or you faced consequences.. it was pushed by the Roman State.. it was pushed by the Catholic Church..

      Claiming all religion is about enslaving the poor isn't opening your eyes, its just being overly simplistic.
      It's just a sad truth that most won't accept. You will get great rewards for being faithful to your lord; you may be starving you may be hungry.. but your spirit shall always be filled. (Ignoring the wealth system of those times in favor of promises in the beyond is the best tool the wealthy ever created to keep your minds off the power of concentrated wealth and poverty.

      And I was hoping you could make an inference but apparently not so I will elaborate on the Shaman comment. Shamans do not criticize organized religion because Shamanism is dependent on a radical sense of personal responsibility. Thus if people have been duped by religion, it is only because they wish to be duped and that is their path.
      Great.. I'm sure a great many people born into religions.. Wanted to be duped into their path. P.S. When did every "shaman" become a preacher for the same things? It sounds like your lying to me. Or more likely your putting your perspective onto shamans.

      All things serve a purpose in the Shamanistic worldview, including religion. I tried to express that briefly by mixing metaphors and saying religion is part of the yin and yang of life, referencing the idea that all things are manifestations of unity in their own way. I was not claiming that there are Taoist shamans, but that the ideas of Taoism and Shamanism compliment each other. Do I really need to explain that? Did you really think I was claiming there are Taoist shamans or was that just some attempt to be dishonest and hope I didn't notice?
      It's usually dishonesty on the web. All things serve a purpose; including organized religion is not something I've heard a Shaman say. When referring to the natural world and human institutions you might want to separate your yin from your yang.

      The feeling of pity for lack of clarity is mutual my friend.
      Good luck on trying to understand what yin and yang actually represent.

      Organized religion served it's purpose; to show how easy it is to manipulate large groups of desperate people.
      This was that cult, and the prisoners said it had always existed and always would exist, hidden in distant wastes and dark places all over the world until the time when the great priest Cthulhu, from his dark house in the mighty city of R'lyeh under the waters, should rise and bring the earth again beneath his sway.

    4. #29
      Member Olysseus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Oct 2009
      Posts
      54
      Likes
      24
      Since it seems we've both said what we wished to say, I'll wrap up and let you have the final word unless you or anyone else wants to continue this discussion.

      However, I would ask you to consider something. It seems to me that folks who insist religion is this dark and sinister thing, responsible for the wars and woes of history, solely motivated by an inherent evil desire to repress, without any significant redeeming feature, have utterly failed to change the minds of religious folk at all. I would posit that your line of thinking has caused religion to become more reactionary and more fundamentalist. When religious people hear the rhetoric you use, they just dig their heels in deeper. And personally I don't blame them, I find your argument lacking because it boils down to attempting to shame anyone who doesn't agree that religion is what you claim it is.

      Is it possible that by seeing what is good in others, listening to them on their own terms and considering that they are motivated by good impulses and just acting on them in the wrong way may cause them to become more tolerant? That is the essence of what I am advocating.

      And, yes that means that I do see folks like you as being good and valuable members of society as well, even though, I think you are provoking the opposite of what you intend. Obviously you do sincerely believe you are standing up against intolerance. However, I believe humanity is good in all its intents and motivations. That puts me at odds with a lot of religious folks and a a lot of non-religious folks like you. So be it. I will stand up and defend the idea that all human beings are creatures motivated by an essential goodness even when they do what is judged to be evil. If religion was created by humans than religion must have had an essentially positive purpose. We don't have to join it, we simply have to acknowledge we can learn from it.


      All I see is your repeating of previous statements as if that's proof for their validity. Exactly what I expected.
      I repeated some things and I gave new counterexamples to show that you were oversimplifying. If you only saw repeats of previous statements you either didn't read carefully or aren't being honest again. I'll assume you didn't read carefully and are trying to repeat my comment back to me to be cute.

      The fact is you are repeating a well-known and standard argument. I am not. I don't claim that makes me right, its just something you should be aware of if you want to be convincing. See the following comment for clarification.


      What exactly are you talking about?

      Fighting against human rights and civil liberties was always connected and affected by religious beliefs and religious followers. We can't free the slaves; it says so in the Bible was a oft heard set of words during abolition. No one said anything about getting rid of anything; but I damn sure won't pretend like Religion has had a net positive effect on our world and societies.
      Wow... my point went right over your head there. Maybe I was too brief. I was saying that wars have been fought for human rights, for civil liberties, for free markets and for other secular ideals. You name it, any ideal that may be noble in some circumstances can also be used to motivate ignorant people to kill.

      You made the point earlier that religion creates willing soldiers. So I was giving a counter-example that other ideals and philosophies have created willing soldiers as well. Just because something, such as free markets, can create willing soldiers, does not mean it is worth getting rid of. (PS - that means I never accused you of wanting to get rid of those things. In fact my point depended on you not wanting to eliminate those things.) I simply want you to consider that religion is one of many things that can be used to get people to kill.

      Look at all the atrocities of the Vietnam War, the Cold war, Korea, etc; sorry, but religion does not explain war in modern times. My overall point is that pinning all war on religion is over-simplifying things.

      Psychologically, it is common to blame yesterday's "devil" for today's evil. People don't want to face the fact that their consumerism is killing as many people as religion could kill in a generation. So they earn some ease in their conscience by blaming today's problems on the thing that held power over society centuries ago. This is another reason I try to take a balanced approach to the pros and cons of religion: scapegoating isn't psychologically healthy and needs to be resisted no matter who the scapegoat is.


      The original cause of Christianity, Islam, etc was not to free the people from tyranny; just because people break off and start their own unrelated sects to the original founders doesn't make the original cause of religion less valid. Christianity was nothing but a replacement of the old religions; you had to believe or you faced consequences.. it was pushed by the Roman State.. it was pushed by the Catholic Church..
      I agree that freeing people from tyranny was not the original aim of either religion, but then neither was motivating people to go to war. Your argument here cuts both ways. Every philosophy can degenerate into something negative, which I would agree that Christianity has done. My point is that every religion creates positive as well as negative consequences. Christianity was of course a replacement, and in many ways a synthesis of older religions and mythologies. If more Christians would remember that instead of believing it to be some god-given revelation, I think Christianity would be more valuable. However, all ancient societies had consequences for not being with the zeitgeist of the times. The Catholic church was and still is a disaster in many ways, but on the other hand it also gave us advances in architecture, music, law and art as well as preserving many ancient texts, so again, I wouldn't want to erase it from history. I value its beautiful creations of art too much for that.


      It's just a sad truth that most won't accept. You will get great rewards for being faithful to your lord; you may be starving you may be hungry.. but your spirit shall always be filled. (Ignoring the wealth system of those times in favor of promises in the beyond is the best tool the wealthy ever created to keep your minds off the power of concentrated wealth and poverty.
      This is a standard claim, often repeated without evidence. I'm really not trying to be rude on this point, but this is what every college sophomore says after taking one class on Marx. Again, look a little deeper and you will see that just as often the working poor are often more willing to stand up and say "give me liberty or give me death" once they believe there is more to life than this one, material manifestation. I have read a lot of Marx and I am convinced that although he was quite bright, he made a big error here. Marx did not intend to make people more compliant, but clearly that was the effect of Bolshevism. The idea of a spiritual existence beyond the physical is what motivated Ghandi, MLK, Tolstoy and others to say "fuck it - I don't care if they kill my body - I'm gonna resist damnit." Belief in life after death often just makes people less afraid of death. So again religion has both pros and cons and the accusation you make is only true half of the time.


      When did every "shaman" become a preacher for the same things? It sounds like your lying to me. Or more likely your putting your perspective onto shamans.
      Not quite sure when I said every Shaman is a preacher for the same things...(maybe you are honestly confused here, I really am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.) I simply claimed that if you spend time looking at Shamanistic world views and read the research, as well as spending time with a shaman, you will find that their framework, by and large, is akin to the Taoist world view. I never said any particular Shaman would use Taoist terminology or preach something similar. I find it hard to fathom how anyone could have interpreted my statements in this way. I am not quite sure why this is such a sticking point.

      Let me make one last attempt to clarify. I have spent time being initiated into a Lakota lodge. I have some indigenous ancestry, but so little that for all intents and purposes, I am a white boy. However, I have found, to my surprise, that the majority of elders who have mentored me have no feelings of blame, reproach or anger towards white folks, western religion, organized religion or other such things. College professors stir folks up to get outraged and hysterical over these things, not real shamans. I consider such an inclusive, forgiving viewpoint to be in line with the Taoist ideas of yin and yang.

      I could write a lot more here about what Shamanism shares in common with organized religion but I will shut up in an attempt to be brief, unless someone asks me to say more. My basic point was that the dichotomy between the two largely comes from without.

      Good luck on trying to understand what yin and yang actually represent.
      Um...thanks...the longer one works on understanding that the more one realizes how far off we all are. Is this kind of like when a churchgoer ends a conversation with "I'll pray for you"? - When they say that I just say "Thanks, I'm glad to be taking some of your energy."
      “Look at every path closely and deliberately, then ask ourselves this crucial question: Does this path have a heart? If it does, then the path is good. If it doesn't, it is of no use.” - Carlos Castaneda

    5. #30
      Banned
      Join Date
      Jul 2010
      Posts
      898
      Likes
      826
      Organized Religion Vs. Spiritual Experience...It might be helpful to identify the difference between the two.

      All spiritual experience is seen through the lens of metaphor. For many years, we described our experience in these terms. We used animals, nature, and our daily experience as a metaphor for our spiritual life. Then it became more abstract with the written word. All our spots for metaphors remained, however we began to extrapolate and extend the metaphor into abstract forms.

      The problem I see with organized religion is that they take the metaphorical understanding of a few and force it upon everyone. This is because they fear the division of metaphor. When the picture is the same for all the people, they can rest assured that everything is safe. When people have differences of metaphor, it leads to doubting the group culture, and we all know that just won't do.

      There is a new spirituality sweeping across the world. That is the spirituality of individual experience. Out of our independent rich cultures come an independent form of spirituality. We are allowing each other to have difference in metaphor. This leads to a deeper understanding of what those metaphors stand upon; therefore, a deeper understanding of all experience.

      Methods of control are supported by everyone. The catch is that those that are controlled need to be made comfortable to a degree. We are coming to a place in history where people don't want to be controlled anymore. They don't mind forgoing comfort to camp in the streets, vying for their independence. Its been a long time in the making, but organized religion is finally collapsing. Funny thing is, most religions are rotting from the inside out. There is no true understanding of the experience, and the consequence is disillusionment.

      BTW. DeathCell and Olysseus...You both have quite an advanced view on the subject, and I'm glad there are people like you on these forums.
      DeathCell and Olysseus like this.

    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 8
      Last Post: 02-09-2008, 05:47 AM
    2. What does Religion mean to you?
      By Lord Toaster in forum Religion/Spirituality
      Replies: 3
      Last Post: 05-15-2007, 03:34 AM
    3. what is your religion and why?
      By Boof in forum Philosophy
      Replies: 47
      Last Post: 01-03-2005, 02:04 AM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •