The meaning of religion. (Buddhism, translation, hell, mythology)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I joined this forum in hopes of finding more about religion and hopefully to discuss philosopy with many of the wise people on this forum. Whilst I have studied it and understand the concept of philosophy and the reasoning and though process behind it, I have trouble philosophising about religion.
What is the meaning behind religion? It seems to me that religion has its own philosophies in regards to life and the meaning of life. It addresses the concept of life after death from a moralistic perspective rather than a logical one. If religion is so riteous, then why so many denominations? Why do they believe different ideologies and why do they all believe their personal beliefs in ideology are the right ones?
Still confused I turn to the dictionary, perhaps this will spell it out for me.
RELIGION - the service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.
Surely this makes sense? If you worship anything you can not understand, then that is religion? The etymology of the very word religion come from Latin(religion) through French(religiun) and middle English (religioun) as much of todays english language does, and it means supernatural constraint or sanction.
Needing further clarification, I turn my eyes to the thesaurus. This is where it starts to get interesting.
RELIGION a body of beliefs and practices regarding the supernatural and worship of one or more deities.
Synonyms: credo, creed, cult, faith, persuassion.
So in briefly researching religion through the english language, I discover that religion is a blind faith in belief of a supernatural being, which we must blindly devote ourselves to as a constraint to our creed. The way I see it working is not for a greater good, or a way to afterlife as many are blindly persuaded, but as to divide humanity into different credo, creeds, cults, faiths, persuassions, RELIGIONS and is most apparent in monotheistic beliefs in which there is only one correct belief and all others are wrong.
Please, I would like to hear your views on religion and what it means to you. How does this influence your life in positive and negative ways? Do you think religion has an ultimate goal in mind? Is there a "correct" religion to follow, if so which religion is the right one and why? These are just a few quesions I have. I would like to hear reasonable and logical views on the matter rather than quotes from the bible and preaching but I can't stop free speach.
religion
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
Can you say bondage?
Joh 8:36 Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
So in briefly researching religion through the english language, I discover that religion is a blind faith in belief of a supernatural being, which we must blindly devote ourselves to as a constraint to our creed. The way I see it working is not for a greater good, or a way to afterlife as many are blindly persuaded, but as to divide humanity into different credo, creeds, cults, faiths, persuassions, RELIGIONS and is most apparent in monotheistic beliefs in which there is only one correct belief and all others are wrong.
This is a 100% pure wrong view on things....*sigh* this is why I have avoided message boards like this...I keep repeating the same things over, and over, AND OVER because so many people cannot get past the concept of religion being something other then "big mean guy lives in the sky and you get pie in the sky when you die" crap.
Blind faith is one of the biggest sins in Gnostic Christianty...hell, faith in and of it's self is frowned upon by Gnostics. Faith is useless and is more often then not an excuse for not learning or practicing or thinking, why think when you can follow? For Gnostics, one is SUPPOSE to doubt the truth of the Mythology, while at the same time understanding that the Myth teaches absolute truths about the universe, the world, ourselves, and the human condition in the form of a story that may or may not be true or, more likely, is just a exagerration of a truth.
For us, it is understanding the Myth and practicing it's teachings that matter, in order to wake up the GOD within which is the most important deity there is.
Heaven is not about what happens when you die, but it is about what happens when you come to a complete realization of yourself as GOD, within and without, above and bellow. No longer a part of this world...in the world, yes, but not of the world, but a part of the GREAT LIGHT that exist beyond. If there is no Great Light, then big deal, I am still happier believing then I am disbelieving, and I will never believe 100%, and that's okay for a Gnostic.
GOD is within me, his kingdom within me, as it says in the scriptures:
Quote:
Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
Gospel of Thomas, 3
If I know myself, then I know GOD...so, I suppose I don't exist and I amm just an illusion?
Religion has always been a great part of me. GOD is there for me, when ever I ask, when ever I need...now, lets assume that Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other 50 year old Emo Kids who write whining books proclaiming "there is noooo gawwwwd" are right and GOD is only in my mind...well then, if GOD is in my mind, then there is a GOD!GOD is a feeling, a source at the heart of all things within me, and the stories of GOD, the Myths, are tales and lessons that awaken something deep within all of us.
I can say, beyond any doubt, that GOD is there for me when I need him and always has and always will be...what can a non-believer say that same thing about?
No matter what happens, he is with me....I am one, but I am never alone.
I have a guide for life in the bibles, and a road map towards inner peace. That is what religion has given me. As arrogant as it might sound, I must say, one of the reasons I think allot (not all, but allot) of atheists are so against religious people, even anti-fundamentalist like me, is because they see that we have this wonderful thing in our lives that they don't have and, although they will never admit it, they are envious.
That is what religion means to me.
Keep in mind that Gnostic Christianity is not the only non-dogmatic religion out there: Wicca, Taoism in Buddhism are also about more then the "big mean guy who lives in the sky" and "pie in the sky when you die"
Despite what many here might say - There is a Creator. We are created to worship Him. He does not show Himself to us because we, His creations will not be able to take in His Majesty. Look at what happened to Moses. Thus He has used prophets to lead us to the right path. He is not Unjust. Every corner of this world has been sent warners and messengers to lead humankind, only for that message to be distorted through time. He reveals much through His Holy Books....though that again had been lost or corrupted by human hands. Thus was revealed the last Holy Book, the Quran, which He had promised will be looked and the proof of that is that only the Quran is totally the same as it was revealed 1400 years ago. In this book, there are verses detailing matters which was totally impossible for a human being of that era to have knowledge of.
This is a 100% pure wrong view on things....*sigh* this is why I have avoided message boards like this...I keep repeating the same things over, and over, AND OVER because so many people cannot get past the concept of religion being something other then "big mean guy lives in the sky and you get pie in the sky when you die" crap.
How can a Gnostic Christian as yourself tell me that my view is completely wrong. Is it because I don't believe in myself as GOD or a capacity to be GOD? You as a Gnostic should believe in knowledge and seek it for yourself. I merely stated my findings from a research persepective and formed opinions from it. Is this not the same as what Gnostics should do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
For us, it is understanding the Myth and practicing it's teachings that matter, in order to wake up the GOD within which is the most important deity there is.
Heaven is not about what happens when you die, but it is about what happens when you come to a complete realization of yourself as GOD, within and without, above and bellow. No longer a part of this world...in the world, yes, but not of the world, but a part of the GREAT LIGHT that exist beyond. If there is no Great Light, then big deal, I am still happier believing then I am disbelieving, and I will never believe 100%, and that's okay for a Gnostic.
GOD is within me, his kingdom within me, as it says in the scriptures:
Gospel of Thomas, 3
If I know myself, then I know GOD...so, I suppose I don't exist and I amm just an illusion?
Religion has always been a great part of me. GOD is there for me, when ever I ask, when ever I need...now, lets assume that Hitchens, Dawkins, and the other 50 year old Emo Kids who write whining books proclaiming "there is noooo gawwwwd" are right and GOD is only in my mind...well then, if GOD is in my mind, then there is a GOD!GOD is a feeling, a source at the heart of all things within me, and the stories of GOD, the Myths, are tales and lessons that awaken something deep within all of us.
I can say, beyond any doubt, that GOD is there for me when I need him and always has and always will be...what can a non-believer say that same thing about?
No matter what happens, he is with me....I am one, but I am never alone.
So after you "wake up" the god that is sleeping inside you by knowing yourself, then the deity know as god will be with you, ensuring you are never lonely? If you say that because god is in your mind, and god is a feeling, then isnt god something you've conjured up in your imagination? If you replace all instances of "god" and "he", with "I" and fix up the grammar, the the moral teachings still make sense yes? I think you can still have your morals and beliefs without believing in a supernatural being, and just believe in yourself.
As for Hitchens and Dawkins, they are scholars of their fields. How can you class them as "emo" and then go on to attack their works of truth. That is once again not very Gnostic of you. Or perhaps they need to be Gnostic and have a religious experience before you will consider their evidence? If you look closely and examine their work, and even research it for yourself if you doubt me, they advocate only truth as scholarly people do. I won't defend them beyond telling you that there is truth behind their works, as I don't believe they need a defense from me as their work speaks for itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
I have a guide for life in the bibles, and a road map towards inner peace. That is what religion has given me. As arrogant as it might sound, I must say, one of the reasons I think allot (not all, but allot) of atheists are so against religious people, even anti-fundamentalist like me, is because they see that we have this wonderful thing in our lives that they don't have and, although they will never admit it, they are envious.
That is what religion means to me.
Keep in mind that Gnostic Christianity is not the only non-dogmatic religion out there: Wicca, Taoism in Buddhism are also about more then the "big mean guy who lives in the sky" and "pie in the sky when you die"
Why would an atheists be envious of a book of scripture they liken to a story book? I do see how one could come to this conclusion though, its like being the only kid in school with candy for lunch. You enjoy it so much that you think the other kids are all envious of you.
Taoism and Buddhism by definition are not religions but rather ways of life. Tao (pronounced dao) litteraly means "path" or "way". Buddhism, is merely a path to enlightenment; a way to escape religion in a sense. Its just a shame western culture can take a hold of such a beautiful concept and turn it into religion. Achieveing enlightenment, and awakening your inner being, has become, awakening the god inside you. To me this is a very very terrible translation, in order to build religious structures and obtain followers.
Thank you for sharing your views and beliefs with me, it has made me even more inquisitive and I will continue pondering and researching the topic of religion until I can come up with a concrete answer. Please feel free to doubt and question what I say (this goes to everyone), in fact, I encourage you to do so, but please be advised that if you are merely attacking my beliefs or lack of beliefs, you can not and will not ever overcome the logic and reasoning which makes me a homosapien.
Despite what many here might say - There is a Creator. We are created to worship Him. He does not show Himself to us because we, His creations will not be able to take in His Majesty. Look at what happened to Moses. Thus He has used prophets to lead us to the right path. He is not Unjust. Every corner of this world has been sent warners and messengers to lead humankind, only for that message to be distorted through time. He reveals much through His Holy Books....though that again had been lost or corrupted by human hands. Thus was revealed the last Holy Book, the Quran, which He had promised will be looked and the proof of that is that only the Quran is totally the same as it was revealed 1400 years ago. In this book, there are verses detailing matters which was totally impossible for a human being of that era to have knowledge of.
So the meaning of religion to you is the Qu'ran? Or the fact that god created man in order to worship him? Is your god so insecure that he would need to create an animal just to worship him? Please keep to the topic of "The meaning of religion" and explain how this bears meaning to your life rather than preaching the word of the self proclaimed prophet... (I will not mention his name, just in case I start a holy war! )
religion
c.1200, "state of life bound by monastic vows," also "conduct indicating a belief in a divine power," from Anglo-Fr. religiun (11c.), from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.); according to Cicero, derived from relegare "go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere "read" (see lecture). However, popular etymology among the later ancients (and many modern writers) connects it with religare "to bind fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or "bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Meaning "particular system of faith" is recorded from c.1300.
Can you say bondage?
Joh 8:36 Therefore if the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed.
Hence - Truth is freedom
Thanks for adding this! I find they etymology rather fascinating. "re", again + "legere", read. Read again. I suppose the need for a holy book is built into the very meaning of the word!
Despite what many here might say - There is a Creator. We are created to worship Him. He does not show Himself to us because we, His creations will not be able to take in His Majesty:
How can a Gnostic Christian as yourself tell me that my view is completely wrong. Is it because I don't believe in myself as GOD or a capacity to be GOD? You as a Gnostic should believe in knowledge and seek it for yourself. I merely stated my findings from a research persepective and formed opinions from it. Is this not the same as what Gnostics should do?
I am not talking about your belief or disbelief, but rather that you are essentially saying that religion in and of it's self is all about worship of a big mean guy in the sky, dogma, etc etc etc...Please, research ALL religions, not just the "mainstream" ones.
Quote:
So after you "wake up" the god that is sleeping inside you by knowing yourself, then the deity know as god will be with you, ensuring you are never lonely? If you say that because god is in your mind, and god is a feeling, then isnt god something you've conjured up in your imagination?
Not the imagination, but the super-ego,which is much bigger than the imagination. I believe in the spark of the divine, the Pneuma, is with in...maybe it is "just" the super-ego, or maybe it is indeed a piece of GOD, or maybe both...who cares? It is more fun to think of it as a spiritual thing. I hate the word "supernatural!" A thousand years ago, gunpowder would have been supernatural! All supernatural means is that which we cannot understand by our current understanding of science.
Quote:
If you replace all instances of "god" and "he", with "I" and fix up the grammar, the the moral teachings still make sense yes? I think you can still have your morals and beliefs without believing in a supernatural being, and just believe in yourself.
I am the "supernatural" being, and hence, I do believe in myself. I simply find it more fulfilling to believe in the spiritual aspects of it. Maybe it is and maybe it is not something "supernatural", I don't care...IT WORKS FOR ME! Hence, I follow it. The only way I can be proven wrong is if I die and do not see any after life...BUT I'M ALREADY DEAD! So, how can I ever be disapointed? If it makes me happy and does not make me a slave to dogma, why, logically, should I stop believing?
Quote:
As for Hitchens and Dawkins, they are scholars of their fields.
Yes, THEIR FIELDS, and neither of their fields is religion, theology, or anthropology. Dawkins is so so, because at least he can use his expertise in biology which, I admit, borders on genius, to debunk the notion of the literalist belief in creation, but that's about it...his narrow-mindedness leaves him unable to understand that plenty of theists like myself understand evolution to be the facts and see the stories of creation as allagorical.
Quote:
How can you class them as "emo" and then go on to attack their works of truth.
Watch this video and, about 45 second in, you hear all of Dawkins and Hitchens arguments summed up...
They do not "speak truth" in the least. Dawkins, like an eigth grader, actually had the nerve to use the old, tired "problem of evil" as one of his arguments against religion...never mind the gnostics, who have been around for about, ohh, 3,000 years who maintain that the reason evil exists is because god (lowercase "g") the creator is evil himself and hates us all and likes to watch us suffer!
Hitchens is even worse! His book "god is not great" was nothing more then a shopping lists of atrocities and allot of them have nothing to do with religion...like the civil war in Sri Lanka which he claims is a religious war. It is actually about a ETHNIC GROUP, the Tamils, who have a seperate language they want presrved and a seperate culture, and the religious aspect is just a part of the greater cultural aspect of it.
Hell, I could write a equally long shopping-lists against science and call it "science is not great"....Eugenicis, Scientific Racism, the Tuskegee Experiment, Japan's Unit 731, The Nazi "racial sciences", Enver Hoxla's campaign to create a godless society based on "rational thinking" by massacring theists, the Manhattan Project, etc etc etc...
Quote:
That is once again not very Gnostic of you. Or perhaps they need to be Gnostic and have a religious experience before you will consider their evidence?
The evidence that the literalist interruptation of Myth is false? Wow.... great insight there! If Dawkins and Hitchens were super-heroes, they would be named "Captain Obvious and Emo-Man", respectfully.
Of course the Myth is not literally true! To believe as such is to miss the whole point! Go back and re-read my analogy about the finger pointing to the moon.
Quote:
If you look closely and examine their work, and even research it for yourself if you doubt me, they advocate only truth as scholarly people do. I won't defend them beyond telling you that there is truth behind their works, as I don't believe they need a defense from me as their work speaks for itself.
I have read their books and they say nothing new and completely miss the point of religion...while, conveniently, ignoring faiths that have none of the issues that come with most other faiths, like Wicca, Taoism, Gnosticism, etc.
Want someone who knows about religion? Read a scholar on religion! Dawkins knows about biology and Hitchens literature...but religion? None of them even have a Associates in religion! Read Joseph Campbell if you want a real scholar on religion who talks about it like someone who understands it... if only he were alive today...I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and company would never dare to debate HIM, because they know good and well that they would be brining a spitball straw against his Howitzer.
Quote:
Why would an atheists be envious of a book of scripture they liken to a story book?
Envious of the book? No, that is not what I said. Envious of someone who is extremely happy following the example of scripture and has something special in their lives (god) that they do not have? Very likely indeed.
Also, as I said, repeaditly, plenty of theists like myself consider the Myth to be just that, Myths, but see the absolute truths held there in.
Quote:
I do see how one could come to this conclusion though, its like being the only kid in school with candy for lunch. You enjoy it so much that you think the other kids are all envious of you.
More like the happy-skipping child getting beaten up by a bully who has a broken home. The happy-skipping child has joy the bully does not have and hence, the bully is envious of him.
Quote:
Taoism and Buddhism by definition are not religions but rather ways of life. Tao (pronounced dao) litteraly means "path" or "way". Buddhism, is merely a path to enlightenment; a way to escape religion in a sense. Its just a shame western culture can take a hold of such a beautiful concept and turn it into religion. Achieveing enlightenment, and awakening your inner being, has become, awakening the god inside you. To me this is a very very terrible translation, in order to build religious structures and obtain followers.
GIVE ME A BREAK! When confronted with a religion that does not conform to your pre-conceived biases, you say "well...that isn't a religion"
Ask any Asian Buddhist if Buddhism is a religion and they will say yes, it is, same with Taoism. You said yourself, they believe in "the god inside you"(just like Gnostics do) so, how can you believe in god, any kind of god, in an organized (or kind of organized way...) and not have a religion?
A different kind of religion then what we have usually had in the West in the last Millenium, yes, but a religion none the less.
Quote:
Thank you for sharing your views and beliefs with me, it has made me even more inquisitive and I will continue pondering and researching the topic of religion until I can come up with a concrete answer. Please feel free to doubt and question what I say (this goes to everyone), in fact, I encourage you to do so,
One of the things every Gnostic must do is doubt the religion, question it, and argue with other Gnostics.
Quote:
but please be advised that if you are merely attacking my beliefs or lack of beliefs, you can not and will not ever overcome the logic and reasoning which makes me a homosapien.
Of course not, I am not doing so. Saying "I don't believe in any religion" is one thing...saying "all religions are about worshipping a big-mean-guy-in-the-sky" is another, because you are quite wrong there.
I am not talking about your belief or disbelief, but rather that you are essentially saying that religion in and of it's self is all about worship of a big mean guy in the sky, dogma, etc etc etc...Please, research ALL religions, not just the "mainstream" ones.
What gives you the idea that I only research mainstream religions? Is it not clear that I started with researching the very meaning of religion as know in the english language and I use this as the basis of my reasoning?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Not the imagination, but the super-ego,which is much bigger than the imagination. I believe in the spark of the divine, the Pneuma, is with in...maybe it is "just" the super-ego, or maybe it is indeed a piece of GOD, or maybe both...who cares? It is more fun to think of it as a spiritual thing. I hate the word "supernatural!" A thousand years ago, gunpowder would have been supernatural! All supernatural means is that which we cannot understand by our current understanding of science.
I am the "supernatural" being, and hence, I do believe in myself. I simply find it more fulfilling to believe in the spiritual aspects of it. Maybe it is and maybe it is not something "supernatural", I don't care...IT WORKS FOR ME! Hence, I follow it. The only way I can be proven wrong is if I die and do not see any after life...BUT I'M ALREADY DEAD! So, how can I ever be disapointed? If it makes me happy and does not make me a slave to dogma, why, logically, should I stop believing?
I am not saying you should stop believing. I have made no such inferrance to you. If it works for you why would I try and change your beliefs? I know beliefs are hard to change and you can see it to this very day as people kill and die for their beliefs. Why would anyone try and do such a futile thing as change your beliefs? This is where I believe the mainstream religions with their "conversion" aspect have it wrong. The best thing we can hope to do is to share our ideas and let people form their own beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Yes, THEIR FIELDS, and neither of their fields is religion, theology, or anthropology. Dawkins is so so, because at least he can use his expertise in biology which, I admit, borders on genius, to debunk the notion of the literalist belief in creation, but that's about it...his narrow-mindedness leaves him unable to understand that plenty of theists like myself understand evolution to be the facts and see the stories of creation as allagorical.
Watch this video and, about 45 second in, you hear all of Dawkins and Hitchens arguments summed up...
They do not "speak truth" in the least. Dawkins, like an eigth grader, actually had the nerve to use the old, tired "problem of evil" as one of his arguments against religion...never mind the gnostics, who have been around for about, ohh, 3,000 years who maintain that the reason evil exists is because god (lowercase "g") the creator is evil himself and hates us all and likes to watch us suffer!
Comparing borderline genius as you like to state it with the typical reasoning of an 8th grader is rather contradictory. Are you saying genius is nothing other than an 8th grade level of rational thought? With that said I will have to agree with you that Dawkins is rather narrow minded and only focuses on scientific points of view - is this not what a scientist is anyway?
"The problem of evil" is a time old problem dating back before the existance of christianity. It was philosopher Epicurus who put forward this unsolved logical problem in regards to existance of god and evil.
If a perfectly good god exists, then there is no evil in the world.
There is evil in the world.
Therefore, a perfectly good god does not exist.
I'm glad as a gnostic you can agree with this with your belief that god is evil. But then why would you want to awaken the "inner god"? For acts of evil or benevolence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Hitchens is even worse! His book "god is not great" was nothing more then a shopping lists of atrocities and allot of them have nothing to do with religion...like the civil war in Sri Lanka which he claims is a religious war. It is actually about a ETHNIC GROUP, the Tamils, who have a seperate language they want presrved and a seperate culture, and the religious aspect is just a part of the greater cultural aspect of it.
If you actually looked into the war, you will see that it is only apparent because people justify their actions of killing through their religious beliefs. Is ethnic clensing not justified though religious beliefs? That exactly how hitler's reigeme did so well. So of course its seeded in cultural issues, religions are also developed out of cultural issues so does that mean religion can justify killing people over because their ideals don't line up with yours? Is this not just useing religion as a means to an end?
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Want someone who knows about religion? Read a scholar on religion! Dawkins knows about biology and Hitchens literature...but religion? None of them even have a Associates in religion! Read Joseph Campbell if you want a real scholar on religion who talks about it like someone who understands it... if only he were alive today...I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and company would never dare to debate HIM, because they know good and well that they would be brining a spitball straw against his Howitzer.
Joseph Campbell was not a religious scholar any more than Dawkins is. Joseph Campbell was a mythologist, a writer and lecturer. Because he produced works in the comparison of religions does not make him a religious expert. Being an expert in mythology did however provide him with a good framework for analysing religion. Dawkins on the other hand with his expertise in ethology and evolutionary biology allows him to logically reason religion from a perspective of the workings of the human race. I would agree with you that Dawkins would not debate Campbell. They would probably have agreed with each other on more than one point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Envious of the book? No, that is not what I said. Envious of someone who is extremely happy following the example of scripture and has something special in their lives (god) that they do not have? Very likely indeed.
Also, as I said, repeaditly, plenty of theists like myself consider the Myth to be just that, Myths, but see the absolute truths held there in.
More like the happy-skipping child getting beaten up by a bully who has a broken home. The happy-skipping child has joy the bully does not have and hence, the bully is envious of him.
Thank you for this analogy. I can understand your point clearly now However if one has no concept of a special god, then there is no reason to feel envy over it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
GIVE ME A BREAK! When confronted with a religion that does not conform to your pre-conceived biases, you say "well...that isn't a religion"
Ask any Asian Buddhist if Buddhism is a religion and they will say yes, it is, same with Taoism. You said yourself, they believe in "the god inside you"(just like Gnostics do) so, how can you believe in god, any kind of god, in an organized (or kind of organized way...) and not have a religion?
A different kind of religion then what we have usually had in the West in the last Millenium, yes, but a religion none the less.
Yes I do have a pre-conceived bias as I have made it clear, that I started with researching the very meaning of the word religion. I have stated that upon this reseach I can conclude that Buddhism is not a religion but has been developed into a religious following as soon as worship was introduced. I said that "the god inside you" is a bad translation. Take note, this is not saying that it is the same thing as the enlightened one.
I also have a bias, as my grandmother of late, was buddist(yes, she and I are asian) for the most of her life. When I asked her about Buddhism as a religion and its beliefs, she corrected me in saying, Buddhism is not as false as religion. The belief of buddhism is to free yourself from the pain and suffering of being man by riding yourself of attachment. This is true freedom.
The concept of enligtenment is not to become god, but to attain a point of view much like that of a god. I still maintain that this way of life, is not a religion and I would argue that the path to enlightenment is freedom from religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorianpunk
Of course not, I am not doing so. Saying "I don't believe in any religion" is one thing...saying "all religions are about worshipping a big-mean-guy-in-the-sky" is another, because you are quite wrong there.
I think you really need to learn to read things in the context in which they were presented to you rather than jumping to your own conclusions on the beliefs of others. (perhaps this is me jumping to my own conclusion) I thought it was pretty clear when I stated that I based my original research on the very meaning of the word religion. The very meaning of the word religion by dictionary definition "the service and worship of God or the supernatural: commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance." Do you not question why this is? Or do you accept it because its written and published by scholars?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
GOD is a feeling, a source at the heart of all things within me, and the stories of GOD, the Myths, are tales and lessons that awaken something deep within all of us. 
great insight there! If Dawkins and Hitchens were super-heroes, they would be named "Captain Obvious and Emo-Man", respectfully. 
if only he were alive today...I think that Dawkins, Hitchens and company would never dare to debate HIM, because they know good and well that they would be brining a spitball straw against his Howitzer.
GIVE ME A BREAK! When confronted with a religion that does not conform to your pre-conceived biases, you say "well...that isn't a religion"
However if one has no concept of a special god, then there is no reason to feel envy over it.
