All About RELIGION Here

[handsoff241]

---

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

Never had the chance to realize how stupid this race is, making something to insult it as a whole. Oh wait, that is just one guy. Good for them.

[cromagnon]

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

hehe from god delusion.

who killed an abortionist in the name of god. bad bad bad.

[The_Child]

religion is universal.

Insult to human dignity? I dont think so. "insults" are too human conceptions more banal that men conceptualizing religion.

religion, is the product of human nature, where hence does human nature comes from?

Spirituality precedes Religion? Tell me, what is Spirituality and what is Religion, they are in end, the same concepts, spelled differently and results into extremely different interpretation; a bridge long enough to connect New York to London.

we have a penchant to label things... like religion. Indeed we do, but if we leave things as they are, without identifying them, would we even call ourselves Rational Animals?

[brownprose]

religion is universal.

The practice of religion is universal but not religion itself.

Insult to human dignity? I dont think so. "insults" are too human conceptions more banal that men conceptualizing religion.

I was just being spiteful. I am generally averse to organized religions.

religion, is the product of human nature, where hence does human nature comes from?

SPIRITUALITY IS a product of human nature NOT RELIGION. Religion is a/the product of spirituality. Hence, by no means we attribute human nature to religion. Human nature is simply a natural propensity of man to preserve himself although in cognitive science, it is his natural propensity to inquire of his causality that makes him "spiritual."

Spirituality precedes Religion? Tell me, what is Spirituality and what is Religion, they are in end, the same concepts, spelled differently and results into extremely different interpretation; a bridge long enough to connect New York to London.

Spirituality and religion are related concepts BUT NOT THE SAME CONCEPTS at all. Religion is a collective and organic practice of people's spirituality. The deciding difference between the two is that one can be spiritual without necessarily being religious or identified with a religion.

Borrowing your example, the bridge (religion) is the best approximation to get to New York from London. But that is not the only best bridge around to get to New York. Point is - religion is nothing but an alternative to exercise one's spirituaility.

we have a penchant to label things... like religion. Indeed we do, but if we leave things as they are, without identifying them, would we even call ourselves Rational Animals?

Unfortunately, it is religion that undertake vigorously the need for self-labeling and identification.

[The_Child]

The practice of religion is universal but not religion itself.


I was just being spiteful. I am generally averse to organized religions.


SPIRITUALITY IS a product of human nature NOT RELIGION. Religion is a/the product of spirituality. Hence, by no means we attribute human nature to religion. Human nature is simply a natural propensity of man to preserve himself although in cognitive science, it is his natural propensity to inquire of his causality that makes him "spiritual."


Spirituality and religion are related concepts BUT NOT THE SAME CONCEPTS at all. Religion is a collective and organic practice of people's spirituality. The deciding difference between the two is that one can be spiritual without necessarily being religious or identified with a religion.

Borrowing your example, the bridge (religion) is the best approximation to get to New York from London. But that is not the only best bridge around to get to New York. Point is - religion is nothing but an alternative to exercise one's spirituaility.


Unfortunately, it is religion that undertake vigorously the need for self-labeling and identification.

first, if you agree that the practice of religion is universal, then how come you could not agree that religion itself is universal? The practice of Religion itself is a product of Pure form of Religion, hence, to practice religion is to agree that there is a Pure form of Religion. To state that the practice of religion is universal, then it must follow that the what precedes it, the Pure Form of Religion must ALSO be universal.


secondly, i am not aware that the Cognitive sciences are already dealing with that issue. So i beg to leave that in silence. However, Spirituality coming from Religion, leaves us begging the question. You might want to clarify your definitions, and expound on the statement why Spirituality necessarily precedes Religion. I on the other hand, believe that Religion, not necessarily organized, is equal to Spirituality.
'makes him "spiritual" ' you are again begging the question. you may want to clarify.

thirdly, in here you assume that Religion could not be personal and that necessarily entails, organized religion. Religion does not necessarily have to be community based or organized. Remember, one of the tenets of what religion is, is that Religion is the "relationship" between the self with the Divine.



the bridge analogy refers to a connection between the subject and the Divine. on why religion has more likely been related to institutions, it is because, from a sociological perspective, the thirst for Transcendence -which is basically being human- at our primitive time requires us to bond to form groups. Religion, at the beginning, served as Identity, as it was one of the most basic belief system of human being. Groups bond together because of shared aspirations and beliefs, Religion is the most important factor in our early times. This Identity formation, of shared beliefs and aspiration, later on from the development of agriculture until now, expanded to create "imaginary lines" in political science we call borders. thus, we see nation-states. BUT this does not mean, that Religion must be organized, is necessarily organized, Organized religion, is merely an 'accident' and it does not define religion as such. It is merely a particular instantiation of religion in human history - religion, in its core, is simply the relationship with the Ego to the Divine.



lastly, you mistake the tree for the forest. it is not religion that labels, rather the opposite, the very mind that conceptualized religion is the same mind - the rational mind- that labels, and not vice versa. the mind labels religion, labels good, labels the truth. religion is merely an extension of this labeling done by the mind, and not religion that labels. "...It is Consciousness that determines Social Reality (Being)" - Hegel.

Cheers!

[brownprose]

first, if you agree that the practice of religion is universal, then how come you could not agree that religion itself is universal? The practice of Religion itself is a product of Pure form of Religion, hence, to practice religion is to agree that there is a Pure form of Religion. To state that the practice of religion is universal, then it must follow that the what precedes it, the Pure Form of Religion must ALSO be universal.

The practice (of religion) is universal because it is self-evidentiary, in the same wise, religion (referring to organized religion) is not universal because it is not self-evidentiary. And because there is no such thing as "pure form of religion" as you would like to call it, then it is not universal.

Spirituality is universal. And if this is what you hint as "pure form of religion" then we differ only in our terminologies.

secondly, i am not aware that the Cognitive sciences are already dealing with that issue. So i beg to leave that in silence. However, Spirituality coming from Religion, leaves us begging the question. You might want to clarify your definitions, and expound on the statement why Spirituality necessarily precedes Religion.

Religion came from spirituality. Having said that means spirituality gave birth to religions. For purposes of clarification I am referring to religion as a structured organization from which or where spirituality can be exercised or what is more commonly known as organized religions. In light of such definition, spirituality precedes religion because spirituality has been recorded long before religions were formally organized.

I on the other hand, believe that Religion, not necessarily organized, is equal to Spirituality. 'makes him "spiritual" ' you are again begging the question. you may want to clarify.

Then we are in agreement. We only differ in semantics.

thirdly, in here you assume that Religion could not be personal and that necessarily entails, organized religion. Religion does not necessarily have to be community based or organized. Remember, one of the tenets of what religion is, is that Religion is the "relationship" between the self with the Divine.

A relationship between the self and divine is not religion but spirituality. (Note the delineation made between religion being a structured/organized form of spirituality and spirituality).

the bridge analogy refers to a connection between the subject and the Divine. on why religion has more likely been related to institutions, it is because, from a sociological perspective, the thirst for Transcendence -which is basically being human- at our primitive time requires us to bond to form groups. Religion, at the beginning, served as Identity, as it was one of the most basic belief system of human being. Groups bond together because of shared aspirations and beliefs, Religion is the most important factor in our early times. This Identity formation, of shared beliefs and aspiration, later on from the development of agriculture until now, expanded to create "imaginary lines" in political science we call borders. thus, we see nation-states. BUT this does not mean, that Religion must be organized, is necessarily organized, Organized religion, is merely an 'accident' and it does not define religion as such. It is merely a particular instantiation of religion in human history - religion, in its core, is simply the relationship with the Ego to the Divine.

Generally, I have no problem with this. I have problems with your use of the term religion viz-a-viz religion as a social structure (general concept).

I beg to disagree though that religion is an accident. Religion, in the purview of political science and to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, can be considered as one form of social contract.

lastly, you mistake the tree for the forest. it is not religion that labels, rather the opposite, the very mind that conceptualized religion is the same mind - the rational mind- that labels, and not vice versa. the mind labels religion, labels good, labels the truth. religion is merely an extension of this labeling done by the mind, and not religion that labels. "...It is Consciousness that determines Social Reality (Being)" - Hegel.
Cheers!

I was referring to the fruit of the tree if there was a tree to begin with. When I said it is religion that undertake vigorously the need for self-labeling and identification, I was referring to those who compose and constitute them. And yes it is the hubris of the rational mind that veils religion to the labels it so passionately advertises. To me therefore: This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness. ~Dalai Lama

[miyay]

Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

i wonder why we are so quick to blame our own creations (e.g. religion)?

[dknorth57]

As faith is to conscience as to motives is to institutions. When the existence of an institution is threatened, religion does not appeal to conscience or to God but to the laws of survival.

A lot of people are turned off to religion, but have a great respect for Jesus Christ, the person. Church organizations can become self focused and survival oriented. But Jesus Christ was the most non-self focused person to ever live. He gave time and His life to walking the streets and helping the needy and healing hearts and bodies. He finally gave His own life to save people from the damage of sin and selfishness, and to bring us back into a personal relationship with God by removing the sin barrier.

If we could only stop focusing on the church organizations and power structures and start focusing on the person of Jesus Christ, we could find a freedom to live with God that doesn't require buildings and formulas and rituals. The garden of Eden was perfect and had no religion. It just had God.

[dknorth57]

true, then again some people need them "crutches" the most. talk about prosthetics.haha

...in order for them to function "normally", or how they see themselves.

If you call life's necessities "crutches," I guess God is a crutch. Needing the things we were created to need is not a weakness. It would be foolish to ignore the "crutches" we were designed to use... necessary things like food and water and families and friends and God. Then again, there are things we need once in while like medicine and doctors and real crutches and wheel chairs. I suppose some people are too proud and self sufficient to use those things, but they either stay sick, die, or live a life that is less than it could be. God has made my life great. I'll keep leaning on that crutch.

[brownprose]

i wonder why we are so quick to blame our own creations (e.g. religion)?

Because not all human creations serve to benefit mankind. And it just so happen that religion is one of them.