'Religion chat', the name of this forum, seems to welcome everything, ... except discussions on religions. Don't you find this odd.
Lots of bible quoting.
Lots of christian centric related topic.
Some talk of other specific religions,
... but no discussions on the historical phenomenon which brought about all religions.

In a nutshell, the lion share of the threads here, are from a 'being religious', or 'not being religious' perspective.

Nothing wrong with that, but how do you explain that in a 'free speech celebrated society' such as ours, we can't seem to be capable of breaking out of this so repetitve, and also run paradigm of 'inside looking' at one religion at a time, and mostly a single one at that.

A discussion on religions would take the angle of the 'history of religions', or 'Comparative studies of religions', and rather than being religious with it, it would rather question the rooths of it all.

The phenomenality of 'BEING RELIGIONS'.

The common trunk of all religions.

We would not necessarily understand more about each specific religion, but we certainly will understand a lot more about the common root and emergence of the religious phenomenon from its earliest stages, right though to our times.

Not one religion in particular, not even christianity.

But just about the phenomenology of religions, uncovering the workings of religions, the human seeds from which it grew, which speaks of our universal human traits, and our universal human character.

This will not be an easy discussion. It will require checking our bags of 'BEING RELIGIOUS' at the discussion room door, so to speak.

Worry not, for you are expected to pick your 'BEING RELIGIOUS' baggages right up as you leave the discussion floor.

No losses, only gains!!!

I will act as a fair host, but your cooperation will respectfully solicited in leaving the floor, if you forget the golden rule, and start showing signs of 'BEING RELIGIOUS'.

Now two things about the 'refraining from Being Religious' golden rule:

1) there is nothing at all wrong, or reprehensive about 'being religious'. In all sincerity it is perfectly all right, and you are expected to trust that fully. But 'being religious' acts as an absolute 'short circuit' when it comes to holding an objective discussion on the phenomenon at the root of all religions.
Very distinct from the various and distinct perspective of religious dogma from each religion, ... which would be part of 'being religious'.

2) Should one's cooperation be respectfully solicited in leaving the floor, this should not be constituted as rejection, or as a moral judgement of one's acts. It would strictly be the manifestation of a determined spirit of maintaining the integrity of the discussion.
As long as you act in 'good faith', you will be welcomed back to the discussion after a period of 24 hours, without any trace of prejudice from the host.
The only exception to this disposition, would be in the event of one acting in 'bad faith', acting as a saboteur, and showing no willingness or efforts to forward the discussion, as the OP states.

I'll be back with context material tomorrow. I just thought I would post this for now, and get some early thoughts and feed-back on the ...

... discussing religions form a phenomenology perspective

versus

the 'BEING RELIGIOUS' perspective.


What do you feel our odds of lifting a big tasty cake out of this topic 'dough' are???

Since I would probably end up "BEING RELIGIOUS" because I would disagree statements which I believed were in error about the origin of Christianity or Judaism, I will refrain from participating. But I wish you luck in your discussion.

Thank you 'spider'.

Voila.

been tacking aginst the wind?

This wind will blow into a different course that requires no map, and surely then the destination cannot be realized, if there is nothing distinguishable to be gleaned from listing where the pilot fails to plot.

The coherence of anything spiritual must have a basis for being.

I would venture to say that man has pondered death and mortality with an obsession.

et al.

Regardless of being evolved from mush through primates or being designed and uniquely planted as trees of a certain seed, I suspect that death reigning over the earliest man has been a determinable influence over life and pondering it's very observance by each has ben an obsessive hurdle to jump to seize control over that event.

Thus, the imagination.

Not as the genesis for religiosity, per se, but as the first excuse for not fully living.

If death reigns, then life is not priory.

Secular humanism is such a philosophical dead end, in my opinion.

It is compulsively focused on death, and obsessive in it's affirmations.

Maybe that explains the phrase, "order in chaos".

I don't have time for being preoccupied with death. I am too busy living.

I do believe we both step over the carnage daily and wonder at the stench, my friend.

I gather you just sneaked by, made a commment from the hallway, and decided to hang on to the 'being religious' GPS around your belt.

Check again later, and if you feel safe to leave the 'BR-GPS' at the door next time, it will be a pleasure having you.

This is just a topic of discussion 'wouldee'.

No more, no less.

No imminent danger!

No looming death at the horizon!

As for the coherence of anything spiritual, I don't have to provide it with a basis for being.

I welcome it whole, and it comes 'full equipped', basis for being and all.

Anyway, if your heart sings next time you visit, and you are willing to play along with the 'golden rule', I'll gladly serve you a tall one of 'phenomenology', with a twist!!!

Regards wouldee.

this topic makes no sense

You know Voile - I do get your point. I'm sure that at some point in your life - many moons ago, as it was for me, I walked out the front door of my "cave" (as it were) looked around, and thought

Where did this all come from? I was old enough to ask the question - but too young to bother with an answer. Off I went into the woods to "build a fort" with the rest of the gang.

Where did this whole idea of religion come from for me? Why - the grown ups of course. They forced it on me. I was dropped off at church in my youth (Catholicism back then) though my parents never went. Then the grown ups at school told me I was decendent from a monkey. Never believed that one though. When I was little, they told me to bow my head and pray - when I got older, they told me I couldn't pray in school.

However - when I had a test. I prayed.

Hard to avoid this religion thing. As I got older - off to college now, the 60's had just come and gone - and religion was EVERYWHERE! It was unavoidable. Plastered all over the news. Every table in the cafeteria buzzed with discussions about it. It was a major part of Rock music at the time as well. The Beatles and the "Guru", Roe vs Wade, Madaline_something_O'what's her name.
Time magazine said "God was Dead."

Then came the pursuit of "truth". New Age, Numerology, Astrology, Buddism, Atheism, Tarot cards, Reincarnation, Scientology, The "new" Catholicism, "The Way", Moonies,
"The Orange People", Christian Science, Grace Chapel, Calvary Chapel, Boston Church of Christ - A new word in the vocabulary: CULTS. Finally.

Just the bible.

Religion? A one word expression for the pursuit of truth behind purpose. For some - their answers come from groups, others from a charismatic speaker, still others - from within.
Others go without.

Can they all be true and viable? Different path's to the same conclusion? I've experienced quite a few of them over the years. They aren't equal, and they don't all get you to the same place. Some have more of an idea of what is really true, than others. Some are just off the wall. Though each one was certainly a challenge to just grasp initially.

But I'm curious to see where the thread leads.

Voileazur....Smiless has started several threads on different religions.


Christianity btw, is not about religion...but relationship.

Relationship Back with Abba Father thru Faith in Christ Jesus.

This born again experience, that comes when a man by faith, believes and accepts Jesus into his heart, is not about religion at all,Voileazur.

And christianity never was meant to be about religion.
Man did that.
Christianity is about relationship...back with Abba Father.


Shared from the heart..cause a lot of people truly do not realize that christianity was never meant to be turned into a religion atall.

Jesus is for everyone.
You don't join a religion ... you join Jesus.

Thanks for your heartfelt thoughts Eljay. And keep checking in. ... one never knows!!!

I think I understand your personal take on Jesus, and Christianity not being a religion.

And, for the purpose of this thread, christianity is one of many, many, many religions.

It's a big one, no contest there. But it is in the category of 'mediterrenean religions', and we are not going to spend that much time on anyone religion in particular.

Rather I propose to look at what is already known and generally agreed upon, which brought all these religions about, and how those religions, all together over time has shaped our societies, and keeps on playing a major role in our lives, whether we believe in Jesus as you do Morningsong, or as many others whom don't. The impact of religion is everywhere, and affects everyone. Believers and non-believers alike.

It's a bit like money in a sense. Some 'believe' in it, and some don't, but it is next to impossible ignore it.

Thanks Morningsong.

I am sorry that I posted before checking what I wrote ...just edited my post...hopefully it will make more sense now


Voileazur ....


Why all the different religions?

God placed in every man's heart , a desire to know God.
At some point in his life,every man will eventually seek God, because of that desire placed there by God.

Religion is man's attempt at reaching God.

Jesus is God's attempt at reaching man .

All religions have 3 things in common. 1) It is an attempt to understand something that is not totally understandable. 2) It is a way of placing humanity above all other life. 3) It is a way of placing one group of people above another group of people, i.e. my beliefs are right and I will find rewards either in an afterlife or now and you won't.

spreid

Great topic Voil, I wish more people would think like this. Far too many are locked into boxes and can't see outside of them.

As you know I'm not a religious person. I don't believe in any religion. Yet as you also know I am a spiritual person I believe that our true nature is fundamentally spiritual. I sincerely see no reason to put a religion onto that, yet at the same time I do see how some 'religiosity' could be applied and even be beneficial. I think the real purpose of religiosity is to keep on focused on the spiritual aspect of our nature. I've never felt a need for religion because I'm innately aware of the spiritual nature of existence all the time. I don't feel any need to perform rituals as a reminder. However, I can see the value in having a structured life. In a very abstract sense that really all that religiosity actually means. It's not ever truly necessary to believe in a deity of any type to be "religious". Even an atheist can be "religious" in their approach to life if they want to be. This will probably go over most people's heads because most people demand that the word 'religious' means to believe in a deity. In fact, some limited dictionaries probably even define the term that way.

I tried being religious in the past, and found it to be unfruitful for me personally. Both on a spiritual as well as a physical plane. I much prefer a disorganized spirituality. I actually feel closer to my true nature that way. And of course, that's what we all strive for. We can put names on it like "god" if we want to, but what we are truly seeking is to understand our true nature.

Of course people who believe that 'god' is an external separate authoritarian dictator who owns us like pets are going to have an entirely different concept of what their true nature might be. I could never get into that kind of mentality. It just never worked for me. The very idea gives me the creeps. If that turned out to the true nature of our existence I'll be both surprised, and extremely disappointed. I'm hoping for something supremely better than that. In fact, I would rather the atheists be correct than to discover that we're just the pets of some single egotistical entity who has an agenda.

I'm actually amazed at how many people are genuinely anxious to be the pets of some supreme entity. I think that for them it represents the ultimately freedom from responsibility. After all, if you're just a pet to some entity that you must do precisely as it says, then you have no responsibility of making any decisions on your own. Just do as you're told and if anything doesn't work out it's not your fault. I can see the attraction to that scenario for people who genuinely need a master. But it isn't very attractive for those of us who are perfectly happy making our own choices. In fact, such a scenario would be a nightmare for anyone who is capable of making their own decisions for sure.

So when I think about spirituality I try to think of true perfection. I try to imagine the spiritual world as being truly perfect. Living under the rule of a fascist Godhead would be far from perfect. That would be nothing more than a spiritual daycare center for totally inept beings who refuse to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions.

I actually have visions of how I see the true nature of spirituality and those visions are grand. It would be great to share these vision with other people, but I find that next to impossible. Especially in a world where people are so anxious to defend an authoritarian godhead. They just can't seem to get their heads out of that box. They seem to be totally obsessed with it and just don't want to hear about anything else.

It seem to me to be very ironic, that people are deathly afraid of contemplating their true spiritual nature on their own. They would rather believe in something that ancient cultures believed. In a very real way our modern culture is spiritual dead. By accepting the religious ideals of ancient cultures we've totally evaded any responsible of our own to become truly spiritual. It's a seriously sad situation. But on geological time scales it will probably be quite fleeting.

People are easily swayed to believe that we are in the 'end days' or that some external deity has a master plan in mind and we are just pawns in that plan. That kind of thinking has people already in a 'puppet mode'. They haven't even died and they are still prepared to be the slaves of an external deity. In fact, many of them are so anxious to become puppets that they can hardly contain themselves. From my point of view that's truly a poor outlook for a species to have. We are shirking all responsibly for our own future. Perhaps that's the attraction of religion for many. If they can imagine that some external deity is ultimately at the helm of reality that totally frees them of any responsibly to navigate. They can just leave it all in his hands, and they are completely free of any responsibility. And they can even give themselves a pat on the back for supporting 'His Divine Plan'. It's the ultimately copout.

I think that's what most people find attractive about religions that have ultimate authoritarians at the helm. I relieves them of any responsibly, and gives them a sense of security that 'someone' is in control.

I think this is what attracts most people to religion. It's a relief from responsibility and an illusion of security. Those are pretty attractive motivations. It also has an element of egotistical satisfaction in that they believe they are supporting the ultimate 'good'. Not only are they free from responsibly in the large scale, and have security, but they can also pat themselves on the back and believe that they are supporting a just cause.

I would have to disagree with you on this one Spreid. This might be true of all the religions that arose from Mediterranean folklore, but I don't believe it is necessarily true of the Eastern Mysticisms. Especially the part about placing humanity above all other life. I think a lot of the eastern religions believe that all life is sacred. They also aren't nearly as arrogant about their beliefs. They don't go around claiming that every else is wrong and they are right. And they most certainly don't claim that you need to beleive like them in order to attain nirvana.

So I would have to disagree that all religions of the world have those things you've listed in common. But I will agree that all of the Mediterranean religions and mythologies do indeed have all those things in common.

Voila!

I can't leave the sum total of my being aside and speak credibly on anything, my friend.

discussing religion comparatively is not a journey with an end.

It is an exercise in excusing one's personal responsibility to acknowledge God.

Presuppositions and prejudices are bound to be the motive for all discourse offered by any in such a discussion.

It will lead only to the "I'm right and you're wrong" conclusion with nothing being learned from God, because God is not invited into this discussion.

Circular excuses for dancing around accountability and personal resonsibility will invariably lead to the common misconception that already exists and has been overplayed and parroted ad infinitum and ad nauseum.

You are smarter than that.

Conclusory opinions are not a thesis for learning or sharing revelations of God.

But it does further the labels given the initiate by the ignorant.


Tune up your satellite, my friend.

It isn't triangulating my position.

Meanwhile, I shall observe the wind here by the rustling of the leaves in the trees.

White noise reinforces knowledge that defines the very principle. But white noise still enjoys the caveat that it is such only for a lack of knowledge.

Perhaps what triggers a person's faith to grow would be a more abt topic.

At least then, one would not be entering a conclusory fray hopelessly bound to establishing more contradictions and self doubt.


Facilitate away, though, and I will ponder just how right I am.

to understand why there is religion one must first conceive what if no religion existed and if that was so what would be the purpose of creating religion or why would there be a need for someone to evolve into a religious state of mind

the mind would become unhealthy if one could not enter R.E.M. or dream as they slept

could this also apply when one is awake or in a conscious state of mind ..that the mind may be in a delicate state in which to become more healthy must enter into a conscious dream state in which the same things that can occur in one's dreams can be imagine to occur in the form of miracles when one is in a conscious state of mind

because I have learned that by debating religion logically and by logically I mean agree with everything pertaining to the belief for instance the existence of a God angels or whatever and by not denying what's in the bible that religion does has a certain logic to it but amazingly it's the believers that are acting illogical

so could it be explain that religion are for those that are at that point in time are in a delicate state of mind that they need to induce themselves into a conscious dream state to keep the mind from decending further ..because it is a fact the more religious the person the more the delusional the person appears to be

so it's possible that religion could be due to a lack of R.E.M. sleep and the attempt to enter R.E.M. when conscious by imagining that a world of dream-like fantasy and miracles exist

Wouldee,

I sense you are expressing a reaction which shoots way beyond the simple premise of this thread.

I get this from your very first sentence:

'... I can't leave the sum total of my being aside and speak credibly on anything, my friend...'

One's sum total of one's being, I must disagree respectfully, is most definitly NOT limited to 'BEING RELIGIOUS'. That would invariably mean that one's 'BEING RELIGIOUS' channel would outclass all other possible channels and ways of being for tat person. One that shoots to mind, is 'BEING SPIRITUAL'. I for one, belive that 'BEING SPIRITUAL' is always 'on', and 'present', until 'ego' insists on IMPOSING a PERMANENT and dominating way of being: 'BEING RELIGIOUS' for example, which short circuits all others.

This brings me to this other assertion you make,

'... because God is not invited into this discussion...'

Again, way beyond the intent of this thread. And again, IM(fundamental)O, GOD, much like human spirit, soul, or one's intrinsic spiritual dimension shared with all other humans, cannot be excluded from anything. Unless again, one imposes his brand or 'religiosity', or 'churchianity, as you refer to it yourself, which then serves as a serious limiting factor of GOD and SPIRIT and SOUL.

So what you seem to be warning me about, is exactly what I have been claiming has been missing from these threads, which I humbly attempt to discuss and introduce with this tread:

GOD-SPIRIT-SOUL, AS INFINITE AND UNDEFINABLE ENTITIES, ESSENTIAL TO THE EXISTENCE AND SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE.

Limiting, perverting, or otherwise editing this sacred phenomenon through a false perception of 'religion(s)', or confusing 'religion(s)' for what it is not, has us all missing the (incredibly majestic sailing) BOAT!!!

'BEING RELIGIOUS' isn't necessarily counter productive. But it definitely becomes so, when it outclasses and displaces (short circuits) that which we always are and always will be: SPIRITUAL BEINGS, which requires nothing, and yet provides everything.

'being religious' is only useful in temporarily discontinuing our 'ego's insistence to control everything. When it is used for the exact opposite, it is most definitely counter productive.

So I definitely don't ask that anyone leave behind '... the sum total of their being...' to engage in this discussion, quite the opposite 'wouldee'. I ask that people temporarily disengage that which in my opinion, perverts and distorts the sum total of their being!!!

Now, can you conceive that putting aside (temporarily) your 'being religious', contrary to your earlier reaction, would in fact free up the sum total of your being?



Respectfully wouldee.



Respectfully 'wouldee'

'funches' wrote:




Interesting!

Don't know what, or how to think of the specific R.E.M. dimension you bring up, but if you suggest more generally that the subconscious, profoundly impacts our perception of reality, in manners ...

... WE DO NOT, AND CANNOT UNDERSTAND,
in which case 'we' are at least aware that something which escapes our neo-cortex's grasp is at play, and we therefore have the option of surrendering vain and futile attempts to control it, thus surrendering to 'GOD' (undefined) or

... REMAIN TOTALLY UNCONSCIOUS ABOUT THE PHENOMENON,
in which case, 'we' are at the effect of the unconscious phenomenon, and instead of surrendering to 'GOD', 'we' desperately convince 'ourselves', through an abusive and ill conceived use of religion (often), of AN ANSWER to the the MYSTERY (religion as an answer is definitely counter productive IMO), answer which is fundamentally NOT within human grasp.

That is how I interpret your comments about the latter group, APPEARING delusional to the former group.


On another front, and from another comment of yours:



You point in the exact direction this thread seeks to explore.

In its proper perspective, a pragmatic look at religion(s) teaches 'us' a whole lot about 'us', and provides a seriously needed reality check about what religion(s) is (are), and IS NOT (are not).

When it is approched for what it is, it can serve to bring about a momentary 'disconnect' of the 'ego', which in turn allows each one of us to be in touch (present) to what is always there,
... with no further intervention,
... that which is sacred, and by design MYSTERIOUS AND UNAPPROPRIATABLE; 'GOD': the spiritual-soul-spirit state.

That, IMO, is the useful and productive intent of 'religion(s)', where you say '... religion (can) have a certain logic...' and useful purpose I might had, in getting the ego out of the way.

However, when the 'ego' takes a hold of 'religion(s)', and does its invariable APPROPRIATION number, it denaturalizes the the productive role of 'religion(s)' (it kicks the 'ego' in high gear, rather than temporarily shutting it off), and in doing so, completely evacuates the sacred, god, soul, spirit.

And that, IMO, is the counter productive and abusive misappropriation of religion (not its intended role), which I sense you refer to when you say : '... the believers that are acting illogical...'.


Thanks 'funches'.

Abra, Abra, Abra!!!

You know on any other thread, I would be right there with you, singing fom the exact same page!!!

So this is rather funny, in an profoundly ironic sense, that YOU are going to be the first one,
... in my humble role of host and thread moderator,
... whom I will respectfully remind to leave your 'BEING NON-RELIGIOUS' at the door, for the purpose of this exercise.

Just a respectful and friendly reminder at this time, since I'm sure you can rephrase, or reformulate in coming posts, those concepts and comments which were tainted with a 'BEING NON-RELIGIOUS' spin!

Nothing more or less wrong with 'being non-religious', than its 'BEING RELIGIOUS' correlate (no judgement whatsoever), just attempting, with your help, to install a different paradigm.

Now you got to admit Abra, this is a funny one!!! I have had to put aside my own 'being non-religious' convictions, just to privilege the 'higher' purpose of this thread, over my 'being non-religious' convictions!!!

I trust you will catch the obvious humour of it all, and not take offense!!!

On another front,

This thread is at the heart of what you, IMO, and I find totally counter productive with the perverse side of 'BEING RELIGIOUS', or religiosity.

What the thread seeks to install though, is the possibility to take a look at religion, standing outside the 'being religious' / 'being non-religious' BOX or coin!!!

From that perspective, it should be possible (I stress 'SHOULD'), to explore religion(s) from a pragmatic and objective point of view. Can't be done with the invasion of 'religiosity' vs 'non-religiosity'

Pragmatic to the extent where there was most certainly 'religion', way before the word to describe 'it' ever existed.

If we consider what might have been the first observations, and distinctions by our humans ancestors,
... of the processes, or rites, some of our other human ancestors might have gone through to eliminate the distractions which short circuited their direct connection (always there, always 'on') with that which is spiritual (mystery, undefined 'god'),
... then 'religion(s)' as such, form that context, is neither good nor bad.

I don't consider myself religious from the denaturalized and mischaracterized sense which popular understanding has transformed it into.

But from a personal discipline of displacing the 'ego' noise, such that 'spirit', 'soul' and 'god' reclaim effortlessly the forefront of that which I am present to, I could wrecklessly venture, and propose that you and I are 'religious' in our very personal and effective manner, Abra!!!

I wouldn't package my recipe and open a church over it though!!! :) :) :),

... but I can see my own disciplined 'religion' through it all.


Anything on that Abra...

Thank you sir for creating this thread. I am looking forward to learning more about religion, mythologies, and philosophy in a historical reference if allowed as we encounter many different perspectives for our personal learning experiences.

It will be interesting in a phenomenology perspective how we may unravel new idealogies and opinions on how many of these mythologies started and why they even begun.

I hope we can cover beyond mediterrenean mythologies and see where it could lead us for educational purpose.

I am looking forward to the first questions you will pose that will be shared here to discuss.

John