Religious or mystical experience vs belief in dogma.

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Carl Jung said that religion is a defence against god. Karl Marx said that religion is an opiate of the people.

Jung's statement means that belief in religious dogma, literally interpreting religious symbols and myths--precludes personal religious or mystical experience.

Religious myths and symbols are merely metaphors and are a poetic way of communicating religious experience, i.e., they point the way to religion and are not to be taken as fact--which puts them in conflict with science. Organized religion insists that these myths and symbols are be taken literally and, therefore, deny personal religious experience. Many organized religions and the clergy consider anything but a literal interpretation of their myths and symbols to be blasphemy.

The clergy have a limited understanding of the underpinnings of their own religion; they are functionaries of the church and run the business of the church; therefore, to go to the clergy with religious questions is futile, because they can only respond with the established spiel or dogma of the church; to do otherwise--assuming they were capable--would put their careers in jeopardy. If you are a catholic and wanted to discuss the spirituality of the catholic church, you would be better off consulting a monk, whose business is deep contemplation and personal religious experience.

Though Marx's statement seems similar to Jung's, there is no resolution. Did he mean to throw the baby out with the bathwater? The two statements of "defence" and "opiate" are identical, but Marx doesn't imply anything beyond as Jung's does. Take away the opiate and you may have nothing more the inflated ego of an Enron shyster or a politburo bureaucrat. Jung says that beyond the ego image and religious dogma lies spiritual enlightenment.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,534 • Replies: 17

No top replies

You would be better to define Worship first, or the "Act of Worship". Dogma is often interjected by religious institutions into worship.

0 Replies

"As is true with many terms used among Christians, the word "worship" can become a cliché devoid of significant content if we don't stop to consider its meaning."
- Jerry Solomon -

0 Replies

"Religion is retarded, homie"
- IronLionZion

0 Replies

Quote:

"Religion is retarded, homie"

Although I, personally, am not a believer in religion, I take umbrage at that remark. IMO, people have a perfect right to espouse any belief system that they wish, without insult, so long as they do not foist their beliefs on unwilling others.

I think that the important thing for people is to share their human commonalities, not snipe at their differences. I think that if people did that, there would be less fatal aggression in the world.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Quote:
"Religion is retarded, homie"

Although I, personally, am not a believer in religion, I take umbrage at that remark. IMO, people have a perfect right to espouse any belief system that they wish, without insult, so long as they do not foist their beliefs on unwilling others.

This is impossible. I'll referance George Bush as an example of how a persons personal religious beliefs can effect millions.

Indirectly, peoples religious beliefs effect my life and my society because they strongly influecne how people vote, how they spend their time and money, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:

I think that the important thing for people is to share their human commonalities, not snipe at their differences. I think that if people did that, there would be less fatal aggression in the world.

Religion is divisive by its very nature. After all, it is hard to share commonalities among belief systems when one dictates that the others followers will burn tortuously in hell for eternity because they didn't pray to your specific God(s).

0 Replies

ILZ

These people admit that they cannot consign an unbeliever to hell. We just perish.

(I'd have to admit that they give one a darned good reason to be an Agnostic, Athiest Laughing

)

Look up "Athiest" if I don't get you to the right page Confused

I have found this site to be the most reasonable of the religious "scientists".

www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/catechism.cfm

0 Replies

Lets try again,

http://www.kofc.org/faith/catechism/catechism.cfm

0 Replies

It's just not going to work.

It's "The Knights of Columbus" website and it was pretty good but I haven't been there in a few months. Maybe somebody-thing noticed Confused

0 Replies

aka - back off the directories and snoops around a little

0 Replies

Most anti-religion, especially anti-Christian, types have relatively little modern experience with religion. If this was not the case we would not see only the less attractive sides of religion used as examples to denounce it.

So long as the media seeks out people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as spokespersons for the entire Church, the images will remain distorted. The fact is that most believers, Christian, Jewish, Moslem or whatever, are pretty tolerant and accepting people. It would be a far less compassionate and a far more savage world we live in without them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, the problem is the people who would exploit beliefs. Whenever anyone puts blind faith in anything, they will be used to further another's corrupt agenda. How do you think Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell get to be where they are? By the complicity of their flock. Each believer, individually, might be the most wonderful, giving, morally upright person you could ever meet, but their belief blinds them, which is where the danger lies.

0 Replies

I agree that blind faith in anything--a religious belief, allegience to a political party, trust in the latest health fad of the week, etc.--can distort judgment and invite exploitation by the unethical or fanatical.

My point, however, is that the 'blind faith' religious crowd is in a distinct minority but they get all the media attention. The rest of us are mostly unseen and unheard, but we are a huge majority. Maybe if we made more noise, religion wouldn't get so bad a rap. Smile

0 Replies

I couldn't agree more. When the media shows those idiots protesting gay marriage with their "Got AIDS yet?" signs, people start generalizing all over the place about religion, and it is just not the case. Those protesters are morons. They don't represent the majority.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I couldn't agree more. When the media shows those idiots protesting gay marriage with their "Got AIDS yet?" signs, people start generalizing all over the place about religion, and it is just not the case. Those protesters are morons. They don't represent the majority.

Careful Kicky....you'll tarnish that wonderful cynical image. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Most anti-religion, especially anti-Christian, types have relatively little modern experience with religion. If this was not the case we would not see only the less attractive sides of religion used as examples to denounce it.

I don't think this is true at all.

Quote:

as the media seeks out people like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson as spokespersons for the entire Church, the images will remain distorted. The fact is that most believers, Christian, Jewish, Moslem or whatever, are pretty tolerant and accepting people. It would be a far less compassionate and a far more savage world we live in without them.

Are you implying that things like mercy, benevolence, etc are strengthened or propped up by religion?

Please.

They arise from the fact that we are social animals capable of empathy and have large brain capacity. It's clear, even to children, that our continued survival is dependant on social accord, and not on the absurd fantasies of heavenly fathers and triune rationalizations or politically motivated oppression, or exhortation, of a certain pagan mythology over another. Mythology can teach life lessons in a metaphorical way. Once you begin taking the metaphors literally, you've strayed from the path of wisdom and into ignorance and delusion.

Further, any petty goodness that may come directly from organized religion (ie- church organized bake sales) are outweighed by the fact that religion divides humanity along the most fundamental lines, and that is why it will always be such a catalyst for conflict.

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I couldn't agree more. When the media shows those idiots protesting gay marriage with their "Got AIDS yet?" signs, people start generalizing all over the place about religion, and it is just not the case. Those protesters are morons. They don't represent the majority.

They may not be the majority, but there are more than a few of them around. This was in my local paper's letters to the editor.

Quote:

Defining marriage

Re: the March 14 Guest Opinion "Republicans, Christians should support gay marriage."

Kelly Frieders is among those people who believe that a Christian is all compassion with no conviction.

Jesus Christ was a compassionate man who was unwavering in his convictions. While Jesus never said a word about homosexuality, he did endorse the Old Testament as the unchanging revelation of God's holy standard.

He also defined marriage as between a man and a woman for life as established by God from creation.

A Christian is one who willingly follows the teachings of Jesus as found in the New Testament. His teachings are to be followed every moment of every day, not just while in church or synagogue. Jesus teaches that sin is the single issue that separates people from God and determines one's eternal destination of heaven or hell.

To promote a governmental endorsement of sin in the name of compassion is like allowing a person to drink poison because it would not be compassionate to withhold it from someone who is thirsty.

What more can you expect with GW leading the charge.

0 Replies

IronLion wrote:

Quote:

Further, any petty goodness that may come directly from organized religion (ie- church organized bake sales) are outweighed by the fact that religion divides humanity along the most fundamental lines, and that is why it will always be such a catalyst for conflict.

If you have had bad experiences with the Church I am so sorry. But your statement only underscores my thesis here. You simply cannot equate organizations like Mother Theresa's was, or Church World Service, or World Vision, the Gideons, Prison Ministries, or even the Salvation Army with bake sale fund raisers. These groups can and do get into countries and provide real hands on life saving assistance in places that no arm of government can reach. You simply cannot dismiss the great schools, hospitals, childrens' homes, homeless shelters, and research facilities etc. that are invaluable extended arms of the Church.

Are there those who hide inside the Church to commit treachery, larceny, sell snake oil and cheat the gullible? Yes there are. But they are in the tiny minority. The really unfortunate thing is they get most of the publicity so that the inexperienced get a very distorted picture of what the Church is all about.

0 Replies

Religious or mystical experience vs belief in dogma.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know