Mel Gibson's The Passion, sparking concern from the ADL.

Do you prefer the idea of disorganized religion?

How very silly of you . . .

Perfect way of avoiding an issue...

Would you prefer a disorganized government?

A disorganized family?

A disorganized life?

inane

This whole thread has gotten a bit arcane, but like Setanta, I have no dog in this fight. So, have at it, I guess...

I have an affinity towards "unorganized" religion -- in other words, religion based on individual faith, be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist , etc. Scientology is a registered religion as well as the Rosicrucians. It's all not that far off from voodoo. Take the superstition out of religion and you havne't got anything left. Get any committee together and you've got problems. Ayn Rand was right in that respect. The collectivism of religion is anathema to me, just like communism is repulsive to me.

That's okay, bosS, I was off on a roll with the Catholic church as the news of the day was influencing me -- something I usually try to avoid. We nearly always agree in all things. This discussion has been derailed into a discussion of the basic principals of religious faith, something that is far to personal for me, so I am inclined to withdraw from the forum before I get too arcane myself.

Later today, I will post the entire Tibetian Book of the Dead here.

Let's see what Einstein had to say about religion:

From The Private Albert Einstein by Peter A. Bucky with Allen G. Weakland

BUCKY:
Do you think perhaps that most people need religion to keep them in check, so to speak?

EINSTEIN:
No, clearly not. I do not believe that a man should be restrained in his daily actions by being afraid of punishment after death or that he should do things only because in this way he will be rewarded after he dies. This does not make sense. The proper guidance during the life of a man should be the weight that he puts upon ethics and the amount of consideration that he has for others. Education has a great role to play in this respect. Religion should have nothing to do with a fear of living or a fear of death, but should instead be a striving after rational knowledge.


------------------------

Einstein, writing in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, New York, 1941.

"During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes. Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind."

Point: religion is unnecessary, and thus, any good is considerably outweighed by all the bad.

It does not take organized religion to be good, though it certainly takes an organized religion to be bad.

As Einstein (an atheist, and 100% scientist) once put it, "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious. To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all that there is."

If you think that nonreligious individuals see the world as black and white, well you're merely perpetuating more falsehoods, and you haven't been paying attention. Seeing things in black and white terms is reductionist, something priests and little kids are good at, and something an atheist riles against.

Take a good look at your quotes and anything else Einstein said. People have concluded him to be an atheist - far from it.

wenchilina

Very nice post. Thank you.

A lovely piece from Elaine Pagels, highly recommended... http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pagels03/pagels_index.html

Setting aside anyone's personal beliefs (which is what they would like to be true, not necessarily that they are true -- but science has debunct much of our childish beliefs), Blatham has posted what is the essence of religion in our society. This "fear" of God or any of his "subordinates" disturbs me deeply as I don't see it working in action, least of all with Dubya. I kind of lost my interest in objectivism when Rand began devising some sort of outre religion out of Paganism. Even she couldn't remain pristine, although she would have liked to have believed she was pristine. It's all in our individual thought processes -- science has proved to me, at least, that we are born with a sense of ethics and morals. It's organizations that divide and corrupt us. Stay true to yourself and thrive. If you try to pick people out of society like clergymen whom you idolize and follow, anyone should know where that leads and I don't believe that Christ even advocated that. He showed signs of being delusionary but his mind was set on the right target -- our individual humanity. You can believe that without believeing one's priest is uncorrupted and a role model.

All religions prescribe an individual path of faith, which people follow according to their own capacities. All religions acknowledge that this path involves an interiorization of "something" that is initially perceived as exterior (God, commandments, dettachment, etc.). This interiorization is "perfection", holiness, fulfillment, happiness, sanctity. That's what's called "spiritual development". And the best examples of spiritual development in each religion have never departed from "organized" religion--even though they were perfectly aware of the strenghts and weaknesses of human organization(Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, perhaps Martin Luther King). They are usually the models for others to follow.

If you reject "organized religion", you are taking upon yourself the formidable task of defining which is the path (and the specific every day steps) towards a genuinely fulfilled human life vis-a-vis God (or Nirvana or "the purpose of it all").

Be wise, and follow the example of the best. If not, good luck.

Take care.

Thank you for your patronization. But no thanks.

Well, then. Good luck, and my prayers.

----

I will also pray that your soul is not the bottom of a shoe.

Yes, please (one never knows). And plus, that'll make you pray... :wink:

I perceive you as a good person with honest agendas, maliagar, but your salemanship could use some work. I apologize for being curt with you but always remember that one man's meat can be another man's poison. I was in a relationship with an Episcopalean priest at one time so I speak with some experience.

Maliagar said:

"All religions prescribe an individual path of faith, which people follow according to their own capacities. All religions acknowledge that this path involves an interiorization of "something" that is initially perceived as exterior (God, commandments, dettachment, etc.). This interiorization is "perfection", holiness, fulfillment, happiness, sanctity. That's what's called "spiritual development". And the best examples of spiritual development in each religion have never departed from "organized" religion--even though they were perfectly aware of the strenghts and weaknesses of human organization(Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, perhaps Martin Luther King). They are usually the models for others to follow.

If you reject "organized religion", you are taking upon yourself the formidable task of defining which is the path (and the specific every day steps) towards a genuinely fulfilled human life vis-a-vis God (or Nirvana or "the purpose of it all").

Be wise, and follow the example of the best. If not, good luck.

.[/quote]

Maliagar, I think everybody here is of an age that we've already had the religious bit. Truly understanding all that biblical stuff, however, is up to the individual. We may do this in any manner we see fit even if it takes us all over the world (or, maybe, just in our own house). Not everybody must be like a Mother Theresa, Gandhi, MLK on such a grand scale. We can do same for our neighbors, family & friends with or without "religion."

I will not see this movie with Mel Gibson, which sounds a lot like a description of his own religious conversion. Who cares. But, I won't because it promises graphic scenes of the beatings he received as well as the horrors of the Roman's execution. No different, I'd say, than a nasty scene I saw yesterday on the Animal Planet channel of a Komoto dragon killing a helpless deer before it died from a hedious bite from the filthiest mouth in the world.

Such are things that happen on this planet. Personally, I think Jesus came here to teach us how to get completely away, forever, from this particular planet, where the smallest bugs, birds and animals are eaten by the ever larger. Gross. How, pray tell, are the controllers and the fixers going to change all those terrible animals? They won't, anymore than one of us can change some other person. BUT, just maybe, religion prevents some people from acting like animals. To each his own need.

Right you are, Tex-Star. We should all try to be gentle in this chaotic universe. Serenity isn't out of reach.

True. I'm not much of a salesman. My training is in Philosophy and other stuff, not in marketing. Every time I tried to sell anything, I failed miserably. I don't have the "touch" other people have.

However, whenever I stumbled upon somebody that was seriously and honestly seeking to understand, I did just a little bit better. True communication starts from mind to mind, and then moves to the heart....

So, the real question is: Is Christianity the answer to your deepest longings, and those of humanity? Perhaps. And what if it was?



Sure. Religion itself can be a medicine or a poison. If we embrace it as pure doctrine, or worse, ideology, then we are in serious trouble. The problem is that for everybody there is a path in front of them leading from shallower understandings (doctrine alone) to deeper ones (spiritual development). This is the path of a fuller life. The real question for every Christian (and for every human) is: Do we really want to take the trouble?

All of us are at some stage in that path, and sometimes we get tired and stop. Or discouraged, and attempt to get off the path. Or frightened, and try to go back. And others who see our hesitations are led to believe that the path itself is not worth it. But the problem is not in the path, but in the imperfect faith of us who follow it.



The more involved with the Church we are, the more experiences we have. I've seen all kinds of Christians. I myself have been a different kind of Christian at different stages of my life for different types of people. Sometimes my witnessing has been poor, to say the least. Other times, it has been misinterpreted. But neither my weaknesses nor those of my fellow Christians are enough for me to get off the path.

Of course, the first thing to do is to see if the path is really worth it.

Take care.