Other than the obvious scientific conflicts with religion, my biggest problem in accepting any religion is the exclusivity of religion. Almost every religion claims to be the correct one, and a follower of any religion will be glad to show you their scriptures and prophecies that 100% prove they are correct. Every religion claims their god(s) is correct and that only by following their teachings can you go to heaven.
This idea is absurd to me. Lets assume that there is one correct god, the christian god (since this is the majority of people i will be dealing with). How can this benevolent god expect his people to sort through the lies of other religions to find the real truth in christianity? Is he trying to weed out people by using other religions as booby traps, so that only those that picked christianity by chance or environment can go to heaven. That sure doesnt seem fair.
Speaking of environment, what about children born in areas where christainity isnt prevalent. These people will never be exposed to christianity, so they will take up some other "heathen" belief system and will burn in hell for it.
What kind of cruel god makes people choose the "correct" religion from a myriad of distractions? If that is the nature of god, he is not worthy of worship in my book.
I would like to hear what people think of my problem, and please dont tell me that god gave us the bible so that we could make the correct choice because he apparently also gave us the koran and vedas and other religious scriptures, so to claim that christianity or any other religion is the most compelling is absurd.
Please dont mistake me as an atheist or reductionist or materialist. I have absolutley no problem with a god, my problem is with religion. My personal view on god is best shown by the book The God Theory by Bernard Haisch.

Well I think I might have posted before about the example of aspirin - there are hundreds of aspirin brands and all of them have similar if not identical ingredients and all of them claim that their product works and - lo and behold - they generally do

So sometimes you see that aspirin brands will have a competitive slant to their presentation by comparing theirs to "brand x" or whatever - but it would be a foolish religion that says their religion is the one and only - it actually reveals that the person cannot actually appreciate the quality of religion - like if a person appreciates forests they can appreciate forests in china, america and Switzerland - if someone says they appreciate american forests it indicates that they actually appreciate america first and forests second - in the same way a lot of what people claim in the name of religious devotion is merely an expansion of the bodily concept of life (nationalism for instance) and is actually a facet of illusion.

That said there are also false aspirins too, just like there are false religions

The way you can determine whether something is false or not is when you know the qualities of that thing - for instance if you know what are the actual properties of an aspirin then you can work out if an aspirin is the real article and if you know what a forest is you can locate one- in the same way that an aspirin is more than a little white tablet and a forest is more than a mere patch of land, religion is more than worshipping a "god".

Religion is actually about developing attachment to superior things (namely god and his abode) and winding down one's attachment to inferior things (the temporary things of this world that lead to wrath, lust, greed etc). In other words one enters the abode of god by dint of one's intense longing to be there and is not interested in the conglomerate opulence of a million material universes. Real religion is that process by which one develops the proper sense of attachment and detachment (in the absence of religion people simply become attached to temporary things and detached to the notion of transcendence).

That all said, some aspirins are better than others, some forests are more beautiful than others and some religions are more effective than others, but all actual aspirins help headaches in some way, all actual forests are beautiful to behold and all actual religions are better than the absence of religion

:)

Headaces are natural, Aspirin is manufactured, You dont need aspirin to get rid of a headache.

I am atheist but I lived at a Buddhist Temple while in Japan for 3 months. One day I said to the Priest of the Temple. I'm actually an atheist and while I enjoy the tradition and architecture and peace that is found in the Temple - and I think that religion can have a positive effect on society - I seriously doubt there is an afterlife other than oblivion. He said: "You're probably right" and we got along swimmingly from there.

Now I have made similar statements to my Xian and Muslim friends and pretty much everyone of them have gone seriously bonkers. Either they view me as being under the influence of the Devil or pity me because I will burn in hell or both.

So, I think it really depends on the philosophy behind the religion. Basically, monotheisms are the Dr. Phil of antiquity and suck balls because they use the carrot of Heaven and stick of Hell to get people to mindlessly obey their rules. As such they induce little enlightenment on their societies at large hence Brittany Spears and Osama Bin Laden :p

:)
Michael

Well, I was quite happy with your aspirin/religion analogy until this:

...and all actual religions are better than the absence of religion

:)
Can you list one or two "actual" religions? Then we can discuss whether they are better or worse than their absence.

Well, I was quite happy with your aspirin/religion analogy until this:


Can you list one or two "actual" religions? Then we can discuss whether they are better or worse than their absence.

By actual religion I mean religion that is properly applied (as opposed to denomination)- I recall one christian minister's words "the only thing wrong with christianity is that it hasn't been properly tried yet". Even imperfect christianity (or any religious denomination that you have a pet hate for) is an absence of religion - just like artificial grass is also an absence of grass.

I am atheist but I lived at a Buddhist Temple while in Japan for 3 months. One day I said to the Priest of the Temple. I'm actually an atheist and while I enjoy the tradition and architecture and peace that is found in the Temple - and I think that religion can have a positive effect on society - I seriously doubt there is an afterlife other than oblivion. He said: "You're probably right" and we got along swimmingly from there.

Now I have made similar statements to my Xian and Muslim friends and pretty much everyone of them have gone seriously bonkers. Either they view me as being under the influence of the Devil or pity me because I will burn in hell or both.

So, I think it really depends on the philosophy behind the religion. Basically, monotheisms are the Dr. Phil of antiquity and suck balls because they use the carrot of Heaven and stick of Hell to get people to mindlessly obey their rules. As such they induce little enlightenment on their societies at large hence Brittany Spears and Osama Bin Laden :p

:)
Michael

And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?

Headaces are natural, Aspirin is manufactured, You dont need aspirin to get rid of a headache.

It was only an analogy - take a pill and calm down :D

It was only an analogy - take a pill and calm down :D

i think you missed his metaphor. the point is that religion is a manufactured answer to a problem, and it is not the natural or only solution to that problem.

And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?Yes, but I am not fluent at Japanese and those conversations actually take a bit more language skills to take place. Maybe if I ever get a chance to live in Japan then maybe I will have that conversation.

But, the short answer was: Anything is possible and so it is OK if you are happy in your belief.

And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?
I'm not sure why (s)he should.
That point of view does not contradict Buddha's teachings at all.

Along similar lines, perhaps…

An old friend of mine (Alex) was getting married quite a few years back.
He lived in the Bible Belt and was getting married to a Southern Baptist.
Before the minister would perform the ceremony, he had to meet Alex and approve of the union.
So Alex met the minister in his office some time before the ceremony.
Alex was nervous at the prospect of this because he was not only not a Southern Baptist, but he was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. If you didn’t know, Southern Baptists have quite the reputation for being strict Bible thumpers (deserved or not) and Alex was afraid he would not perform the ceremony.

The first thing Alex said to the minister was that he had to be honest with him, and he wouldn’t pretend to be something he is not.
He told him that he is not sure if any God exists, and believes, in all likelihood that he doesn’t exist.
The minister told Alex that he felt the exact same way.
He said that he couldn’t possibly be sure God exists, and he was bordering on atheism himself.
Obviously Alex was taken aback by this and asked him how he could be a Baptist minister if he didn’t believe in God.
The minister told him that when he was younger he made the decision that, whatever he was going to do with his life, all that really mattered was that he wanted to help people.
He looked at all his options – doctor, therapist, teacher, etc – and came to the conclusion that the best way for him to help the greatest number of people and have the greatest positive impact was to be a minister, so he did.
He counsels couples and families.
People come to him for advice in the times when they most need help.
They tell him things they wouldn’t even tell their doctors.
He makes himself available to all his parishioners, and gets a great deal of pleasure out of being there for them, even if they just need someone to listen (which is most often the case).
He was a minister, not to preach about and extol the virtues of God, but because he was kind a giving, and wanted to offer people some kind of solace.

looking_forward:
you used what you thought was the predominant religion, (xianity) however this is wrong as there are some 34,000 different aspirin manufacturers (religious sects) using the fools analogy, there are devisions in islam, and other religions, nobody knows whos right.

it's the complete opposite for atheists, there one defining thing is their lack of belief in gods, however it's even difficult to get a count of how many atheists there are, theres also the other labels used – humanist, secularist, rationalist, and realist etc....

The point I'm trying to make is, it matters not what you believe, albeit a god or not, just be happy in you beliefs, theres absolutely no reason to be part of a religious cult, it is estimated that 8% of church goers are non-believers who just go for appearance sake.
there is nothing wrong if you wish to frequent a church, but following any denomination would mean you would have to witness to the populas.
not something you or we want.
michael had it right when he said I quote "I have made similar statements to my Xian and Muslim friends and pretty much everyone of them have gone seriously bonkers. Either they view me as being under the influence of the Devil or pity me because I will burn in hell or both."


I will end with this by quote by Stephen F Roberts

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.


and welcome to sciforums, this is the place to air your views on religion.

i think you missed his metaphor. the point is that religion is a manufactured answer to a problem, and it is not the natural or only solution to that problem.

What makes you think religion is manufactured?

Yes, but I am not fluent at Japanese and those conversations actually take a bit more language skills to take place. Maybe if I ever get a chance to live in Japan then maybe I will have that conversation.

But, the short answer was: Anything is possible and so it is OK if you are happy in your belief.

If that is the case (All beliefs are equal - I'm ok /you're ok) then it raises severe ontological issues, namely what happens if an angry elephant has a different belief system to you

I'm not sure why (s)he should.
That point of view does not contradict Buddha's teachings at all.

I would be curious to hear about that path of buddhism that doesn't acknowledge the next life - I think I vaguely remember one obscure line of buddhism that actually held that even the reality of the next life could not be confidently determined because the matreial world was just too unknowable- I mean it doesn't sound like it has a sound scriptural basis in Buddha, but anyway ....
Regarding buddhism on the whole though virtually all of them acknowledge the next life. A great majority of them also acknowledge the existence of hell too.

Along similar lines, perhaps…

An old friend of mine (Alex) was getting married quite a few years back.
He lived in the Bible Belt and was getting married to a Southern Baptist.
Before the minister would perform the ceremony, he had to meet Alex and approve of the union.
So Alex met the minister in his office some time before the ceremony.
Alex was nervous at the prospect of this because he was not only not a Southern Baptist, but he was an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. If you didn’t know, Southern Baptists have quite the reputation for being strict Bible thumpers (deserved or not) and Alex was afraid he would not perform the ceremony.

The first thing Alex said to the minister was that he had to be honest with him, and he wouldn’t pretend to be something he is not.
He told him that he is not sure if any God exists, and believes, in all likelihood that he doesn’t exist.
The minister told Alex that he felt the exact same way.
He said that he couldn’t possibly be sure God exists, and he was bordering on atheism himself.
Obviously Alex was taken aback by this and asked him how he could be a Baptist minister if he didn’t believe in God.
The minister told him that when he was younger he made the decision that, whatever he was going to do with his life, all that really mattered was that he wanted to help people.
He looked at all his options – doctor, therapist, teacher, etc – and came to the conclusion that the best way for him to help the greatest number of people and have the greatest positive impact was to be a minister, so he did.
He counsels couples and families.
People come to him for advice in the times when they most need help.
They tell him things they wouldn’t even tell their doctors.
He makes himself available to all his parishioners, and gets a great deal of pleasure out of being there for them, even if they just need someone to listen (which is most often the case).
He was a minister, not to preach about and extol the virtues of God, but because he was kind a giving, and wanted to offer people some kind of solace.

Your story illustrated something different for me, namely why christianity is in such sad shape - no wonder the western people 's faith in god is so mixed up in extremes of fanatcism and total apathy if they have such religious pretenders to lead them. What would the guy say if any sincere soul was unfortunate enough to submit a philosophical enquiry about religiousity to him?

He thinks he is helping people but ultimately he can help no one - its like a person who is pretending they are a heart surgeon but who actually only knows aromatherapy.

What makes you think religion is manufactured?

Because religion is MAN MADE. Books are written by peolpe, people give sermons and preach, people build churches and pray.
What makes you think religion isn't manufactured?

its like a person who is pretending they are a heart surgeon but who actually only knows aromatherapy.
Actually, I think it would be quite different than that.
It would be more like a person who went through all the schooling to become an educated and fully qualified a heart surgeon, because he wanted to fix people's hearts, but wasn't convinced that surgery and modern medicine was the best option for people.

looking_forward:
you used what you thought was the predominant religion, (xianity) .

Christianity? I don't know what gave you that impression

however this is wrong as there are some 34,000 different aspirin
manufacturers (religious sects) using the fools analogy, there are devisions in islam, and other religions, nobody knows whos right..

They also have different brands of asprin in other countries too :)
Actually the analogy wouldn't suffer any if there were 9 different religions or 99999999999999 different religions - if there is enough demand for asprin there can also be equivelant numbers for different brands -
The analogy illustrates that variety is not an immediate disqualification for claiming something works

it's the complete opposite for atheists, there one defining thing is their lack of belief in gods, however it's even difficult to get a count of how many atheists there are, theres also the other labels used – humanist, secularist, rationalist, and realist etc.... .

Actually in religion, despite having a common ground (ie belief in god) there is a tendency to be seperated by a false sense of identity based on country, birth, education, skin colour etc - this discrimination is not intrinsic to religion, its just intrinsic to illusion - so whatever boundaries of illusion exist in religious societies can certainly also be found in atheistic societies too

The point I'm trying to make is, it matters not what you believe, albeit a god or not, just be happy in you beliefs, theres absolutely no reason to be part of a religious cult, it is estimated that 8% of church goers are non-believers who just go for appearance sake..

Interesting statistic - makes me wonder what sort of survey they held to come to it - I mean did they ask everyone to raise their hand if they didn't believe in god, or maybe they targeted disgruntled teenagers getting dragged to church by their mothers-lol
But even if we somehow suspend our intelligence and accept such strange numbers pulled out of thin air - just see - religion is so nice that even if you are a non-believer you can appreciate a place of worship. How many secret believers of god are there that hang out with the atheists because they like the scene? :)

there is nothing wrong if you wish to frequent a church, but following any denomination would mean you would have to witness to the populas.
not something you or we want..

Who are the "we" who want something - if the we are people who assemble in congregations to discuss god does that mean they are brainless sheep - and if the we are people who assemble in congregations to discuss how god does not exist does that make them bold thinkers of self independence?




I will end with this by quote by Stephen F Roberts

I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours..

anyone could just as easily contend that we are both theists as well - :cool:

Because religion is MAN MADE. Books are written by peolpe, people give sermons and preach, people build churches and pray.
What makes you think religion isn't manufactured?

On what basis do you say that religion is man made? People also write books about the solar system and build special buildings to show displays about the solar system and have seminars about the solar system - does that mean the solar system was also created by man?

Actually, I think it would be quite different than that.
It would be more like a person who went through all the schooling to become an educated and fully qualified a heart surgeon, because he wanted to fix people's hearts, but wasn't convinced that surgery and modern medicine was the best option for people.

The difference is that a heart surgeon is qualified to perform heart surgery and an aromatherapist is not - in the same way whatever way a person may dress up their mind and senses in the name of a "spiritual education" if they miss out on approaching the transcendental platform they are just a social disturbance.

I disagree, obviously.

On what basis do you say that religion is man made? People also write books about the solar system and build special buildings to show displays about the solar system and have seminars about the solar system - does that mean the solar system was also created by man?

That's right, astronomy is man made, but it's based on real observations that can be reproduced by others and not just a person or persons with their own agenda. Kind of the opposite to a religion that is based on a story book.

That's right, astronomy is man made, but it's based on real observations that can be reproduced by others and not just a person or persons with their own agenda. Kind of the opposite to a religion that is based on a story book.

What makes you think that the knowledge of scripture can not be reproduced - I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.

What makes you think that the knowledge of scripture can not be reproduced - I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.
That makes no sense.
If it was not "man-made" every religion would be the same, would it not?

What makes you think religion is manufactured?

the fact that it is a philosophy that was made up by humans and does not exist outside of human societies.

I guess the question is heading towards how do you think religion developed everywhere in the world - I mean did all cultures in all places just develop the wrong idea becasue they all made the same wrong mistake or were they duped by some ancient global propaganda program? It doesn't seem to gel with your "made up" definition of religion since you wouldn't expect a fantastic made up thing to saturate the cultures of this planet if it was just a story book idea.

But you would. I have already explained this to you in another thread and seemingly await a response, (although I could be wrong and if so I apologise). You of course try to make it sound as if all cultures came up with the same idea/belief - which they did not. They most certainly, as a general rule, include something far more powerful than they - but this is just a way to give an answer to a question they cannot answer. In reality of course, they weren't even close to promoting the same ideas/beliefs - the religious just like to think they were.

Religion itself equals little more than community rules, and it would be undeniably naive to not see how the majority of cultures all seemed to develop them.

Christianity? I don't know what gave you that impression
because of this Lets assume that there is one correct god, the christian god (since this is the majority of people i will be dealing with)


They also have different brands of asprin in other countries too
Actually the analogy wouldn't suffer any if there were 9 different religions or 99999999999999 different religions - if there is enough demand for asprin there can also be equivelant numbers for different brands -
The analogy illustrates that variety is not an immediate disqualification for claiming something works, rubbish, which is the one true aspirin, the one that heals all ills, the one that makes you live forever, the ever loving Aspirin.


Actually in religion, despite having a common ground (ie belief in god) but the dont, need I qualify it, (http://www.godchecker.com/) or are you a complete simpleton. there is a tendency to be seperated by a false sense of identity based on country, birth, education, skin colour etc - this discrimination is not intrinsic to religion, its just intrinsic to illusion wrong buddhists predominantly far eastern, muslims predominantly middle eastern, xian predominantly europian so whatever boundaries of illusion exist in religious societies can certainly also be found in atheistic societies tooatheisim is the same the world over, no belief in a god/gods, however, different countries have different gods, so the world is not uniform when it comes to religion.

Who are the "we" who want something the general concensus here on sciforums, you can gain a good idea of exactly what is happening in the world. and how people think. we have numerous nationalities here.
nobody like the way people preach in your face. thats the we, I refer too.if the we are people who assemble in congregations to discuss god does that mean they are brainless sheep that is'nt the we, see above, but they are sheeple yes.and if the we are people who assemble in congregations to discuss how god does not existno thats not the we either see above, I'm sure there are no such places, and I'm sure if a group of atheist got together it would'nt be to discuss whether a god exists with no evidence thats blatantly obvious. does that make them bold thinkers of self independenceno but it does make them independant free thinkers.


anyone could just as easily contend that we are both theists as well how so?

but it would be a foolish religion that says their religion is the one and only - it actually reveals that the person cannot actually appreciate the quality of religion
:)

Ummm, i seem to remember this biblical passage written in gigantic letters on the wall of my church when i was younger
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
That pretty much says that the only path to salvation is through worshipping Jesus. It does not say that Jesus is the better path as opposed to other religions, it says that he is the only way. It seems to me you are contradicting your own beliefs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Ummm, i seem to remember this biblical passage written in gigantic letters on the wall of my church when i was younger
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
That pretty much says that the only path to salvation is through worshipping Jesus. It does not say that Jesus is the better path as opposed to other religions, it says that he is the only way. It seems to me you are contradicting your own beliefs. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

To begin with i am not christian - but I do know that the original script that that verse was translated from (Hebrew???) is spoken in the present tense - In other words it reads more like "right here, right now I am the way and the truth ..." etc etc

If you examine the social climate jesus was preaching in (they weren't so cultured) it seems like a reasonable statement to me :D

If that is the case (All beliefs are equal - I'm ok /you're ok) then it raises severe ontological issues, namely what happens if an angry elephant has a different belief system to youI think the assumption was so long as you do not harm other people because of your belief.

my problem with religion? several.
1. i've seen no evidence of a god
2. people do not rise from the dead
3. ghosts are spooky

pavlosmarcos

If you drop the namecalling I might be inspired to respond

:D
:D
:D

I think the assumption was so long as you do not harm other people because of your belief.

This indicates that there is something superior (in the sense of being a central common ground that permeates all variety) than just "my belief" and "your belief" - why is it necessary to add the qualifier "Do not harm others" if ultimately its all "your belief is okay and my belief is ok"?

But you would. I have already explained this to you in another thread and seemingly await a response, (although I could be wrong and if so I apologise). You of course try to make it sound as if all cultures came up with the same idea/belief - which they did not. They most certainly, as a general rule, include something far more powerful than they - but this is just a way to give an answer to a question they cannot answer. In reality of course, they weren't even close to promoting the same ideas/beliefs - the religious just like to think they were.

Religion itself equals little more than community rules, and it would be undeniably naive to not see how the majority of cultures all seemed to develop them.

-- i can't trace that response you mentioned - although I am awaiting a response in "saving theists a ton of grief" if you want to take it up there

This indicates that there is something superior (in the sense of being a central common ground that permeates all variety) than just "my belief" and "your belief" - why is it necessary to add the qualifier "Do not harm others" if ultimately its all "your belief is okay and my belief is ok"?If you are asking me, then I would say that this "common ground" is our common genetic heritage. As humans evolved, genes that promote working together in a community had a better chance at replication.

Maybe this is reflected in some Religions?

I would be curious to hear about that path of buddhism that doesn't acknowledge the next life - I think I vaguely remember one obscure line of buddhism that actually held that even the reality of the next life could not be confidently determined because the matreial world was just too unknowable- I mean it doesn't sound like it has a sound scriptural basis in Buddha, but anyway ....
Regarding buddhism on the whole though virtually all of them acknowledge the next life. A great majority of them also acknowledge the existence of hell too.

The Buddha never said there was or was not a soul that transcends from life to life.
In fact he refused to answer the question because it was an unnecessary question.

Thanissaro Bhikku (one of the world's foremost Budhism scholars, in my opinion) addresses this much better than I can.
Not aclnowleding the soul and acknowledging reincarnation was more of a strategy than a belief.
The Not-self Strategy (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html)

Futhermore, Buddha taught people to question everything and come to your own conclusions.
He didn't want monks to simply take everything for granted, nor would he refuse membership into the Sangha because the person either doubted, or outright disagreed with him. In fact, he treasured someone who questioned every thing.
He saw blind devotion a detriment, not a virtue.

If you are asking me, then I would say that this "common ground" is our common genetic heritage. As humans evolved, genes that promote working together in a community had a better chance at replication.

Maybe this is reflected in some Religions?

Now wait up - one moment you say we exist in a world of infinte realities, and the next you suggest there is something they are relative to

I guess its not clear whether you consider all things relative or if there is an absolute element

my problem with religion? several.
1. i've seen no evidence of a god
2. people do not rise from the dead
3. ghosts are spooky

You've probably never met a person who is completely satisfied just to see you eating either. Does that mean they also don't exist?

The Buddha never said there was or was not a soul that transcends from life to life.

In fact he refused to answer the question because it was an unnecessary question.

Thanissaro Bhikku (one of the world's foremost Budhism scholars, in my opinion) addresses this much better than I can.
Not aclnowleding the soul and acknowledging reincarnation was more of a strategy than a belief.
The Not-self Strategy (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself.html)

Futhermore, Buddha taught people to question everything and come to your own conclusions.
He didn't want monks to simply take everything for granted, nor would he refuse membership into the Sangha because the person either doubted, or outright disagreed with him. In fact, he treasured someone who questioned every thing.
He saw blind devotion a detriment, not a virtue.

So what are you saying in relation to the origin of this whole buddha thread?
That there is no next life?
That there are not heavens and hells?
That any choice is as good as any other because there is no karma?

If you are you would have a hard time establishing that on the basis of Buddhas teachings.

Now wait up - one moment you say we exist in a world of infinte realities, and the next you suggest there is something they are relative to

I guess its not clear whether you consider all things relative or if there is an absolute elementFirstly, part of this conversation was me relating my experience in Japan. Those views were from someone else, as I stated.

My thoughts on the subject of “central common ground that permeates all variety” (your words) are that if there is a common ground (I’m assuming you mean “intellectual/moral/ethical”?) then it must be a product of our common genes. Every thought, emotion or feeling you have is the product of your DNA. As such, if there is a common thread in humanity called “morality: etc… then it is because we share the genes that encode for said morality (like not having incest for example).

I do not know what you mean by “Relative element” or “Absolute element”?

lightgigantic, while I don't know if it is true... I have a distinct feeling you are monotheistic - probably Xian and more than likely of the evangelical American flavour?

Michael

Firstly, part of this conversation was me relating my experience in Japan. Those views were from someone else, as I stated.

My thoughts on the subject of “central common ground that permeates all variety” (your words) are that if there is a common ground (I’m assuming you mean “intellectual/moral/ethical”?) then it must be a product of our common genes. Every thought, emotion or feeling you have is the product of your DNA. As such, if there is a common thread in humanity called “morality: etc… then it is because we share the genes that encode for said morality (like not having incest for example).

I do not know what you mean by “Relative element” or “Absolute element”?

lightgigantic, while I don't know if it is true... I have a distinct feeling you are monotheistic - probably Xian and more than likely of the evangelical American flavour?

Michael

Montheistic, yes (I guess the focus on the "absolute element" gave it away) - as for the other two you are way off :)

As for your philosophical underpinnings, I am just trying to encourage you to be more congruent in your statements

That there is no next life?
I didn't say that.

That there are not heavens and hells?
I didn't say that.

That any choice is as good as any other because there is no karma?
I didn't say that.

If you are you would have a hard time establishing that on the basis of Buddhas teachings.
I think you don't have much of an understanding of the Buddha's teachings and the purpose of the Dhamma.
That's OK, I'm not faulting you for it, you aren't a Buddhist, after all.

So what are you saying in relation to the origin of this whole buddha thread?
What I am saying is very simple.
Michael said to the Buddhist monk, "I'm actually an atheist and while I enjoy the tradition and architecture and peace that is found in the Temple - and I think that religion can have a positive effect on society - I seriously doubt there is an afterlife other than oblivion."
The monk responded,"You're probably right".

And your question was "And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?"

What I am saying is first of all, the response is exactly what I would expect from a Buddhsit monk speaking to someone who is not Buddhist for several reasons.
I won't go into it too deeply, simply for the sake of time and in the interest of the thread.

The monk didn't say that he agreed with Michael, he said, "You are probably right." There is quite the distinction there. In accordance with the purpose of the Dhamma and the non-usefulness of some questions (according to the Dhamma - which is touched upon in article I posted... I wonder if you read it) and the role and behavior of a Bhikku, he would not only be expected to not argue, it would be frowned upon.

Whether or not Heaven(s) or Hell(s) exist...
Whether or not God(s) or Demons exist...
What exactly happens to us when we die...
Whether or not we have souls...
All of these questions are pointless to ask.
The functional answers (the assumption to make and the model to follow, regardless of truth) to these questions are based on standards of behavior and ethics.
The answers are induced by behavior ideals, not the other way around.

Besides, debate within the Sangha is not acting in accordance with the Vinaya (against the code of conduct).

The monk answered exactly as he should have, in strict accordance with Buddha's teachings.

Actually Raven, the post went like this

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion? ”

And you replied
"I'm not sure why (s)he should.
That point of view does not contradict Buddha's teachings at all.

Along similar lines, perhaps…"

Then you tell the story about the faithless christian minister possessed of altruistic intention. I got the impression from that point on that you were suggesting that anyone who is a priest or monk or whatever in any religion is actually in deep illusion and one day they will wake up and just make the best use of a bad bargain and engage in mundane human welfare work, abandoning all endeavours to attain a state of emanicipation.
From there it seemed you were advocating "any thought is as good as any other in buddhism" which is why I was provoking you with the queries about karma and the next life.
Now its clearer with you suggesting that the monk was replying in a polite way and just trying to encourage him and that statement was probably not in line with his actual opinions (which is what I was originally trying to suggest with the query "And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?")
but its not clear what was your point about posting the story about the xtian minister (was it supposed to discredit the notion of religion or transcendence or just more specifically xtianity?)

I got the impression from that point on that you were suggesting that anyone who is a priest or monk or whatever in any religion is actually in deep illusion and one day they will wake up and just make the best use of a bad bargain and engage in mundane human welfare work, abandoning all endeavours to attain a state of emanicipation.
From there it seemed you were advocating "any thought is as good as any other in buddhism"
Wow. :eek:
You certainly seem to jump to a lot of conclusions.
I apologize for whatever role I may have played in leading you to these conclusions about what I was trying to say, but you really took a hell of a leap. :D

I said “Along similar lines, perhaps…” because while it was not a wholly non-sequitur path to take, it was a distinct story.
Your asking why Michael didn’t question the Monk’s faith and intention, simply reminded me of the story, because of the differences in people’s views of the roles of and purposes of religions and people of the cloth (for lack of a better generalization).

Now its clearer with you suggesting that the monk was replying in a polite way and just trying to encourage him and that statement was probably not in line with his actual opinions (which is what I was originally trying to suggest with the query "And you didn't ask yourself why he was a temple priest if he was also possessed of the same opinion?")
Not exactly what I was saying, but close enough, I suppose.

(was it supposed to discredit the notion of religion or transcendence or just more specifically xtianity?)
Neither.
It was a simple observation that was meant to cause people to look at what they consider the role of a minister and the church itself.
The point was to invoke discussion regarding whether someone who believed in the practical aspects of Jesus’ ministry, but was not necessarily in agreement (or simply unsure) about what people believe his views on God and spirituality were, could do good as a member of the cloth if that person’s intentions were the same as Jesus’ intentions regarding, save for God and Heaven and such.
In other words, if you agreed that what Jesus preached was good for mankind, but were unsure about God, could you still do his work of helping others, giving to charity, living a virtuous life and essentially having faith and doing good for mankind?

[QUOTE=looking_forward]Other than the obvious scientific conflicts with religion, my biggest problem in accepting any religion is the exclusivity of religion. Almost every religion claims to be the correct one, and a follower of any religion will be glad to show you their scriptures and prophecies that 100% prove they are correct. Every religion claims their god(s) is correct and that only by following their teachings can you go to heaven. QUOTE]

This is not the correct interpretation of Christianity. You do not have to sift all the various writings and decide which set is more likely to be true on an academic analysis basis.

This would of course not work anyway as most people would not wish to do such a mammoth task even when free to do so. There are many countries where people are not free to do so, for example in many Islamic countries getting access to other than the Qu'ran is often exceedingly dangerous.

The basis of christainity is relatively simple.

1. You have to admit that as a human being you do things regularly that are wrong. This should not prove too difficult except for those with enormous egos! (You have to accept you are a 'sinner' in old language.)

2. You have to accept that to put right the fact that you (and everyone else) do things wrong, God sent Jesus in human form to die on a cross, to overcome physical death and rise again from the dead ('substitutional atonement' in theological gobbledegook). This is the faith bit and because it is not blind faith, it requires some (minimal) scriptural knowledge about Jesus.

3.You have to be sorry (in reality) that you have done (and will continue to do) things that are wrong and that you wish to ask Jesus to come into your life to help you to improve (not become perfect - that's impossible). This is 'repentance'.

That's it really. That is why you can have such a variety of beliefs, intepretations and methods of worship. Only the core beliefs need to be shared.

You do not need to go to (any) church or perform any liturgy although many find both things helpful. You do not need to be an expert in every word of scripture (although again many find it helpful to find out more about it).

You do not need to knock on doors or preach on street corners. It is a requirement that you tell others of the good news but reading of the scriptures indicates that this is best done by being a good example and dealing with people in a nromal way not by preaching at them. This can be no different to telling people of your great enthusiasm for a particular sports team. It does not have to be the sort of religious preaching that most people (including a lot of christians) hate. Note that is how Jesus talks to people away from the crowds, such as the Samarian woman at the well.

Whatever you believe to be true, you must believe that that which is contradictory is false. This is the basis of logic and applies to everything, not just religion. (Atheists are just as exclusive about all theists being wrong.)

That said, all christians are not exclusivists. Certainly most of the ones I know do not make judgments about heaven and hell. That is for God not for us. We trust him to do what is right. Personally I like C.S. Lewis's thought that 'hell is a prison cell where the lock is on the inside.'

In the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man, the Rich Man's sin was not that he did not know scripture (as a Jew of that time he almost certainly knew it very well and probably better than the beggar Lazarus). His sin was that he did not apply it, by loving his neighbour, the beggar Lazarus. Instead he treated him with callous disregard.

I hope some of this helps.

Kind regards,


Gordon.

Like Gordon said, truth is by definition exclusive - it excludes what isn't true. All truth claims will be exclusive. That's just how it is. For example, look at the argument "only what can be observed is true" - it's also exclusivistic. It seems more tolerant and politically correct to say everything might be equally true, but that glosses over differences and boils down to there being no such thing as truth. Another option is to say that everybody is equally far from the truth... but would that be true?

In regards to Christ being the only way... Jesus was a person, not a religion, and he belonged to no-one but God. The adherents of every religion of the time - including his own - were threatened or offended by him, and people from different religions turned and followed him. What he preached cut across every belief, religious, political or social status or affiliation (Col. 3:11). In fact, he preached such complete religious exclusivity (Matt. 5:20) that it would be practically impossible to be "religious" in any pretentious, self-righteous or "sucessful" sense. He spent his life taking "religion" out of people's hands, like a toy they were abusing, and demonstrating what it meant (to be) in God's hands. He would be the great equalizer, or as Paul put it: "God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all."

For those who refuse to be "condescended" to in this way, believer or non-believer, it would be too much to accept, too exclusive a truth, since it means their material and spiritual achievements would also be excluded, robbed of merit. Many people's security depends on these things. Such people would still rule the earth, because that's the natural order of things - the world has always belonged to the successful. But for those who cannot or would not seek prestige and status for its own sake - the poor in spirit, the hurt, the fragile, the oppressed, the religious and social outcasts, the unsung heroes who gave up public recognition (religious or material) or social justice for the sake of conscience or peace - it provided an unexpected avenue for hope, a way of finding God's grace that didn't lie in corrupt or selfish human hands, or in being super-spiritual or super-successful. But the way would never be theirs ("Christianity's"), it can only be Jesus himself. He wouldn't belong to them, they would belong to Him.