Discussion in 'Religion' started by Seattle, Apr 7, 2019.
What does religion do for mankind that the statement "Be kind" doesn't do better?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I doubt that you will find the answer in here
If you look at the word "religion" it originally (so I was told by my non religious teacher at school) "tying together".
I get from that that it may have been intended (at that time) to describe a collection of observations about and rules or guides towards the various aspects of life in the round.
It may not then have been expected that "being kind" should be a predominant aspect of a life well lived.
Society has changed and we are more atomized (and materially more comfortable) than in the past
So our (secular or non secular) "religion" has a different role to fulfil.
I imagine you may be thinking of theistic religions for the most part.
That would not necessarily be my take as I feel these "gods" have outlived their usefulness even if we have not completely realized it.
Religion does plenty that "Be kind" doesn't do better"... such as cause misery... etc.!!!
Gave the pope, whose sum total of possessions amount to less than $20, a great job with benefits
Imagine someone, who must be in the lowest 10% of people with possessions, has a job where he if flown around the world to tell people
"We are thinking about you"
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It institutionalizes kindness. (that's not a bad thing)
The unspoken questions immediately following "be kind" will tend to be:
Do you have some examples of ways I can be kind?
Ways I haven't thought of?
Or have thought of but don't know how to go about it?
Or know how to go about it but can't do it alone?
Or know where to find a community of like-minded people - many hands make light work, as it were?
It's not as easy as you might think if you're alone.
Religion - and congregation - can teach all the myriad ways one can be kind - from housing the needy, to giving to third world countries, to washing a weary traveller's feet.
When you hear people arguing about politics, if you mentally insert "be kind", it makes most of the arguments end/go away.
"Treat others as you wish to be treated yourself."- Jesus Christ.
It's re-lig-ion. To, "lig" again, perhaps relating to ligament. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I wonder, though, by what basis anyone would argue that the absence of a theistic marker somehow precludes diversity ranging into the antisocial. That is, it seems easy enough to cite the kindness of torture and execution as long as one's eternal soul is thus saved from the Devil, but even still, do we really need God before someone argues to justify violence not simply as kindness but, rather, extraordinary kindness? Like the story about the Bishopric of Trier, wherein we could find multiple places in which Inquisitors so kindly alleviated people of their divine burdens as to leave the towns with only a solitary female, each.
There is, even into my lifetime, a saying, by which committing violence against another is characterized as an act of great sacrifice; before striking, remind, "You know this hurts me more than it hurts you."
Like this girl, named Luka. Maybe she really is all that. And maybe someday she really will learn to stop being so crazy, and stop acting so proud. And maybe one day, she just won't argue, anymore, because he has been so kind that she cannot. And, sure, maybe it hurt him more than it hurt her, but if she never told us that part it's because she damn well knew better.
Meanwhile, God is not explicitly necessary to show such kindness unto another human being.
To the other, neither is God explicitly necessary for societal codes.
Religionistic observation or practice can be a means of regulating and justifying societal codes. Telling people to be kind is what it is, but one thing we might observe in questions of religion, history, and legend, is the difference 'twixt the Law of Thelema and the Witches' Rede. Left to its own, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" brought what would seem in hindsight a somewhat predictable outcome. The Rede explicitly guards against harm because, well, something about history and hindsight, what it meant during the Gardnerian period for all to be sinners, as well as what was taking place in the world during that time. Satanism, as I recall, goes about the Thelema version with a sort of duh! attitude about the obvious limitations, but it was Satanism, not the Craft, that taught me the explicit point that it's really hard to do what one will if one is dead or in prison. The differences are obvious: Thelema is as Thelema was; the Craft, by its Rede, recognizes some manner of collective, community, or larger living system; Satanism focuses on self.
Societal codes will tend toward some iteration of sociality, pretty much by definition. Figuring out how that works is, despite your disdain for the term, the pursuit of the psychoanalytic meaning of history.
The justification for societal codes needs no specifically theistic root; it simply need reserve some principle above others.
Kind of like telling children, "Because I say so!" One need no God, nor even to be correct; it is straightforward convention of authority, including an investment of coercive force. Being in charge, after all, means being able to enforce one's will.
But, yes, once it is established that kindness does not include killing another simply because one feels his raison d'être is to alleviate people of the suffering demanded by the painful burden of being alive, or some similar notion, what follows can either be logical or not, and within that question is whether or not the basis for logic is itself rationally supportable.
And, certes, the difference 'twixt religion and state can be obvious according to the pretenses of each. But that is a far different discussion than, y'know, like, "Be kind, dude!"
Scare the bejeezus out of them.
And lots and lots of lovely tithes.
Your point is, write a story where a sentence would do?
Establish a direct connection to God.
Just trying to make something useful out of irredeemable stupidity.
While we're on the subject, what's your excuse?
Rama,Vishnu,Shiva,Ganesha,Hanuman,Krishna,Kali and so on...
How did the connection get indirected or misdirected?
Didn't God install every individual soul?
What s pointless question, Seattle.
Can't you have a direct connection with God without religion?
What an even more pointless contribution.
Why say anything if it's only to say there's no point? Why not just keep scrolling?
It needed to be said.
Not everything is about you, Jan.
Separate names with a comma.