Aaron

Yes, well written. Now throw it all out the window and you can really begin.

Aaron

I don't think I know any religious people but I suspect their intentions might be quite similar to other people's - except when it comes to religion but i don't know. I think maybe what happens more often is that appeals to god or religion are used as justification for what they want to do or say anyway. Or layer it like a cake with a sticky filing of ideology supported by god icing. I think I'd just have to look at what they're doing, the justification will rarely be satisfactory if appeals are made to god or ideals. But will it be any more satisfactory if appeals are made to 'nature' or 'who I am'? Not sure either.

I thought a positive side of this was that religions need constant preaching in order to stick. If you want it unstuck, don't preach and people will presumeably then become 'natural' again.

I understand what you're saying. Someone earlier today told me my belief that there should be no religion essentially boiled down to a religion itself. I'm not sure I agree, but I can see how committing oneself to something so thoroughly that you lack the foresight or compassion to allow others to do as they choose is harmful, so in trying to live according to my new code, "do nothing that harms you or someone else" I am repeatedly running into situations where I need to evaluate what harm I might be causing, not only in actions, but in words as well. I think if I had been practicing this from birth, it would've been much easier than trying to learn it at the age of 42. Sort of like learning languages at an early age, once you get so old it becomes much more difficult.

Aaron

I used to practice freeform writing, in other words you just write and let the words come out as spontaneously as you can. I wrote one verse that totally astounded me, because at the time it was the exact opposite of what I believed, it went something like this-

In order to understand who you are,

you must first understand why you believe you are.

In believing you are there comes a great weight,

one in which you believe you must survive

and in believing you must survive

the you you believe you are

takes whatever means it believes necessary to survive.

When the you you are is threatened,

then it begins to seek control

yet it can never understand that there is no such thing.

It is best to let yourself go,

to dissolve yourself of you

than to control those who believe they are who they are,

for any control you might have over them

is merely an illusion.

They may do what you want,

but in the end it is only because they want to.

So in knowing this,

how can we worry what others think or do,

rather it is more important to understand what you think or do,

to understand who you is, what you is, and where you comes from.

In understanding this, you must give up the you that you believe exists

and become something that existed before you ever came along.

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

Anyways, I think it has something to do with this conversation. I'll leave it at that.

Aaron

"I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue." Bertrand Russell

 

I fully disagree that religion isn't harmful. A pediphile (from what I've read)does not believe his intention harms his victim, but that he is giving all his love to this other. Like a pediphile, religion, all religion, is an abomination. Although the majority may believe some "good" comes from that abomination, how can that honestly be so?

 

"I regard monotheism as the greatest disaster ever to befall the human race. I see no good in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam." - Gore Vidal

 

Can you name a single honest religion? No! You cannot. The term honest religion is an oxymoron. So what is a well-meaning, belief-driven good intention of a dishonest person? An abomination.

"We are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think religion stops people from thinking. I think it justified crazies." Bill Maher

 

Is providing hope (what religions do best) harmless? No! Faith-based hope is absolutely HARMFUL.

 

Is there a more dishonest, perniciousness word than hope?

 

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition, a belief, and attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

 

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Mind or Open-Heart ? The belief of hope is a barrier that obscures the present. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack, need, or religious intention.

 

No Bodhisattva would be tolerant of religion, no matter how well intended. All religion, all beliefs that step between sentient beings and their direct experience, is harmful. Even a single religious artwork that inspires another into its belief is a crime against humanity as a whole.

 

"Religion is ultimately dependent on belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgments that happen after we die. It therefore has no reality check.

And it is therefore uniquely armored against criticism, questioning, and self- correction. It is uniquely armored against anything that might stop it from spinning into extreme absurdity, extreme denial of reality ... and extreme, grotesque immorality.

With religion, the proof is emphatically not in the pudding. With religion, the proof comes from invisible beings, inaudible voices. The proof comes from prophets and religious leaders, who supposedly hear these voices and are happy to tell the rest of us what they say. It comes from religious texts, written ages ago by prophets and religious leaders, ditto. It comes from feelings in people's hearts that, conveniently, tell them what they already believe or want to believe." greta christina

 

"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs." Sam Harris

 

"We will see that the greatest problem confronting civilization is not merely religious extremism: rather, it is the larger set of cultural and intellectual accommodations we have made to faith itself."

― Sam Harris

 

"When you call yourself an Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian or anything else, you are being violent. Do you see why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any religion, to any political party or partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind." J Krishnamurti

 

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man." Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

"Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life." Jiddu Krishnamurti

 

"Belief is an obsolete Aristotelian category" -Dr. Jack Sarfatti

 

"The way is not in the sky. The way is in the heart." Buddha

 

"I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect." J Krishnamurti

 

The more profound question is, when viewed honestly,...is anything more harmful than religion?

 

V

You're going to make a lot of friends comparing religious people to pedophiles. Also you didn't real my entire post, I said that I don't think religious people are intentionally harmful, but that I do believe the institution itself is harmful. I've actually reversed my opinion on this from my stance awhile back, somewhat due to what another person posted on this topic last year regarding getting rid of old belief systems, not for the reason you say, but because it allows us a freedom to see who we truly are, or at least that's how I understood it. Wish I could find that thread, was really an interesting one.

Aaron

I think it's important to point out that religion isn't intentionally harmful, nor are most religious people intentionally harmful. There is good that comes from religions, my issue with religions is that the institutions themselves are harmful, they lead people away from their true nature by instituting an artificial nature man is supposed to follow.

This is the difference between someone who acts with High Virtue and low virtue. High Virtue is practiced out of an awareness of one's connection to all things, which comes from innate understanding of suffering. A person practicing High Virtue does not do so to be good, or do they practice it out of a moral requirement or because they are trying to please God, Allah, become like Buddha, etc., rather they practice high virtue because it is what they intuitively understand needs to be done.

Religions, whether it is the ten commandments, the eightfold path, Quran, or any other moral dogma, invariably proscribes good and evil, right and wrong, and then dictate which actions are acceptable and not acceptable according to that dogma. Mankind does not need moral dogma, rather man is intuitively born with an understanding of what they should and shouldn't do. This High Virtue, however, is stripped from our psyche in childhood when we are indoctrinated into society and taught what is moral according to religious ideology and doctrine. Even the atheist's child is taught it by proxy, because most societies are deeply founded upon religious principles.

In order for one to be able to tap into their original spiritual nature they must be able to rid themselves of these doctrines and examine the world as it is, rather than how they are taught to subjectively view the world. It's the difference between an objective reality and a subjective reality. The spiritual man sees the thief as a man who steals things, the holy man sees the thief as a bad and sinful man. The difference may not seem to be that great until you see how each treats that man, the former is likely to be cautious around the man, the latter to stone him to death, chop off his hand, or punish him in some way.

Anyways, I'll leave it at that. I would be interested in hearing others input regarding this.

Aaron

I hope none of those who received hospice in calcutta felt entitled enough to be offended by mother theresa's moral code or religious sense of duty to others. Hehehe for that matter i hope you weren't offended twinner by the moral codes of those who came to your aide when you were faced with homelessness.

 

All this spiritually superior rhetoric doesn't advance an inch any notion that religion hasN'T done myriad good things for people. Again, baby, bathwater. So my opinion has been expressed once, and i am going to quietly retire from the conversation.

Hello Anamatva,

First I never said people didn't do good things and I would like to think that the people that helped me in my time of need, did not do it out of a sense of moral decency, but rather a sense of compassion. I see the people on this forum as my friends, everyone, even those I might disagree with and I wish them all well. Perhaps some of this stems from the kindness they've shown me, but I would like to think that it goes deeper than that. I think this is certainly a place where spirituality does trump religion, where we see a decided need to practice, not so we can understand God or reach enlightenment, but so that we can learn who we really are, the depths of our souls. That's the beauty of Taobums, no place I've ever been in the "real" world has had the kind of people that I've met here, that's why I feel comfortable saying "the world is better off without religion" and not worrying that others will denounce me and cast me out for it. We are a community who's foundation is built on the principal of compassion.

Many people here came to my aid, so many it's sometimes hard to keep track, so I don't try to, instead I don't view individuals as the people that helped me, but rather the Tao Bums helped me. It helps me now, not with money, but with a place where I can come to discuss topics like this and feel safe doing it.

Aaron

That is one side of the coin, based on a few misleading quotes...on the other side of it, the majority of the founding fathers (especially the famous ones) were essentially Christian.

 

And when we look at the whole coin, we see Christians who were critical of the negative aspects of their religion...who were involved in creating a new government which attempted to protect an individual's freedom of belief. They were not atheists creating an atheist government. On the contrary, their non-dogmatic attitude was actually inspired by their religious and philosophical beliefs.

 

Funny how the creation of a secular government was truly a spiritual matter (especially in their eyes).

Great point Scotty. I think you're right in this regard. It was the persecution of "radical"Christian sects in England, Germany, and elsewhere that essentially led them to believe in the necessity of a separation of Church and state, as well as the need to protect the rights of all people to practice religion as they see fit. In fact many of our forefathers descended from these Christian faiths.

Aaron

Hello Twinner:.

 

I was asking about the practicing organized religion thing among them, not whether they do any of those things you just listed.

I know, that's my response, don't practice organized religion around them, or at least wait until they're old enough to understand the fundamental concepts before you expose them to it. In other words give them the freedom to decide on their own, up until then don't enforce a moral code or religious ideology.

Aaron

Hello Twinner:

 

That statement above is cool although you seem now to be backtracking from the we need to replace religion stance you sermonized about in earlier posts. Why not get rid of completely the thing that is precisely what makes society profoundly sick as Vmarco repeatedly states and you've said in this very thread you agree with him?

 

Anyway...It's just a matter of getting from Point A to Point B for society as quickly as possible. One question though puzzles me. You're preaching to the choir here - fellow spiritual cultivators in actual daily practice - the majority of whom agree with your position, put it into practice and whom furthermore are not organized religion laity, monks or nuns.

 

Shouldn't you have made this very thread on Evangelical and Islamic forums and social networks? They are after all the very ones who ARE practicing and following the religions you hold up as examples of society's biggest problems.

 

*******

 

 

 

 

First of all - anamatva is a practicing Buddhist. I think as one who puts the Buddha's practical exercises to use daily he's every bit as Spiritually Aware as you are that everyone is "born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass". You just agreed with him in the very next sentence though that probably the majority of people never return to the state of knowing it directly for themselves.

 

Since you say Religion should be replaced with "experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is" but since "most probably don't" return to that state anyway then um...they're kinda left hanging.

 

And they still vote.

 

And have kids.

 

And are a larger percentage of the population (95% according to Vmarco!) than us spiritual cultivators. What do you propose they do instead?

Hello Serene,

What I think and what I advocate are two different things. I would like to see every religion on the face of the earth wiped out of mankind's minds, but I also understand that we each have the right to freedom of expression, so it would be hypocritical if I advocated abolishing religions. No backtracking really. Of course I have been known to change my mind, realize I'm taking too hard of a stance, etc. It's just being honest and human.

I didn't intend for this thread to go in this direction really, rather I was responding to other people's comments regarding religion that I thought were off the mark. I like Anamatva a great deal, he's a great guy and I don't think he's doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out my own view compared to his. I like you too, you're normally a great gal, but I don't know right now . Just joking.

We all have our differences, but the problem is that these differences are oftentimes more complex than what's on the surface. The religious institutions prevent us from being able to understand our original nature in a fundamental sense, that's my main argument. My second argument is that enlightenment gained through a religious practice is inherently linked to that practice and so it's not really fair to consider it to be the one and only form of enlightenment (which many religions do).

As far as what people should do with their kids, well that's simple, love them, take care of them, and teach them not to harm themselves or others.

Aaron

Same thing happens in anti-theological regimes. Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and Stalin murdered more people in their religion-hating regimes than all the history of Christian religious wars combined.

 

Toss out all the world's religions as has been proposed as crucial in this thread and I say the problems denounced as being caused by religions will not change one whit. It'll just go by another name - preferably (by truly power-hungry clever elites and groups within those societies) using Heart-Mind Spirituality terminology. And what's even sadder is that only that tiny fraction of a percent of people who actually HAVE an opened Heart-Mind would know the travesty being done it its name.

 

I recommend a lot of peeps in this thread go read Frank Herbert's Dune series and realize what he was commenting on was something deeper than religion...

Hello Sereneblue,

I think this may be an exaggeration. Also I tend to view communism as a religion as well, just replace god with the party.

Aaron

religion can give a person who doesn't know how to channel their natural spirituality an anchor and guideposts so that they can begin to develop virtues in their life. It gives people role models in the saints and sages of that religion so that they can see that people attained to great heights by means of doing good and cultivating in themselves the virtues that the religion teaches about.

 

 

For you to say that it disallows one to follow their own spirituality assumes that everyone has their own self-actualized independant and auto-directed spirituality in the first place. Logical fallacy. A quick survey of people will tell you that left to their own devices, they would not follow the spirit in their hearts, they would follow logic and intellect (and faulty selfish logic at that...). And thats speaking of the Logical people!! Of course you have non-logical people, but i'm not going to go there.

 

You might be blessed with a strong spiritual sense in your own life, but to say that other peoples attempts to be spiritual via religion are invalid is spiritual materialism and elitism. I encourage you to come down from your tower and accept that most people don't have an internal compass, and need an external one. And if they are ever to hope to develop an internal compass, they need some practice first. Religions and moral codes give people the framework with which to develop their own sense of spirituality and integrity, and this is their purpose.

 

Will organized religion tell you that it is the be-all-end-all of the spiritual experience? yes! is it? no! But does that change what i have just pointed out in the above paragraphs? no! not in the least.

 

In short, there are higher paths than religion, but religions have their purpose, and i don't believe that they are mutually exclusive to spirituality just because of handful of bums say so. Like i mentioned, i know religious people who are paragons of virtue and spiritual attainment, who radiate love and acceptance, compassion and a host of virtues with their every breath! Shit, i know catholic nuns who fit that description!!

 

Things are not as easy as the simple pronouncements on this forum make them out to be.. you should be thankful for religious institutions because the world would have fallen completely into darkness and corruption long before now without them.

Hello Anamatva,

First I understand that as a devoted Buddhist you might find what I've said to be antithetical to your own belief system, in fact it only makes sense that you would feel threatened, especially if you've devoted any amount of time to your religious beliefs and practices. No one wants to be told that what they believe in is harmful and detrimental to society, in fact the proof can be staring them right in the eye, but rather than see a cobra, they'll choose to see a corn snake.

To answer one comment you've made, I disagree with you wholeheartedly that most people require guidance to reach a state of spirituality. I think the issue is your definition of spirituality and mine. In my own definition I don't see it as Buddhist enlightenment or heart-mind, but rather an awareness of one's place in the universe, their relationship with the universe, and a knowledge of what is! It's about objective understanding, verses subjective understanding. They experience the reality, rather than have it dictated and defined for them.

Take for example meditation, one can easily achieve nearly any state of consciousness under hypnosis, well guess what, the same brain waves that are dominant during hypnosis are also dominant during meditation, so it goes without saying that meditation is a highly suggestible state, and it's supposed to be, because meditation opens you up to the world around you, however if you are being told what to expect during meditation and actively attempting to pursue these expectations, then it is inevitable that you will reach that state at some point in time. Those unable to are most likely the same kind of people who aren't able to be hypnotized. Ironically these are also the same kind of people that oftentimes fail to achieve any real significant change through religious practice.

Even putting that aside, one can look at other religious practices, such as prayers and rites, and understand that one of their uses is to repeatedly inundate a follower with a proscribed ideology. You pray everyday, recite a verse or mantra, and it reminds you of what you are supposed to be doing. Add to that a weekly sermon, a holy book, or even better yet, a strict religious upbringing, and you've got the makings for a completely indoctrinated follower. After enough of this, one begins to deny their own spirituality in lieu of the spirituality that is presented to them.

So when someone says, "you can't become spiritual without religious training!" Well you're right, you can't become spiritual as defined by that religion, simply because the religion will inevitably win out, it's an organized structure that has been practiced for several thousand years in most cases, so they know what they're doing when it comes to ensuring people don't think for themselves.

Most people, in fact, never have a chance to develop their own spiritual nature because they're taught at an early age to deny their connection to the world. They are taught that they are an individual and the reason they are taught that they are separate from the world and nature is because then they will have that inevitable void that needs to be filled, and religion does that nicely, by tricking people into believing it has the answer by introducing a false spirituality that preys on their emotions and vulnerabilities.

We are, however, born with an innate moral compass and spiritual compass, regardless of what you might believe. Some people never return to that state (in fact most probably don't), but luckily some do, and when they do, they inevitably see the futility of the life we've chosen to lead. Some may even begin to write a book about it, such as the Tao Teh Ching, and then others will take that information and distort it into something completely different from what was intended.

Now don't get me wrong, I dislike Taoism as much as any other religion, so far as the ideology and dogma go, but I'm not foolish enough to understand that some religious followers have touched this wonderful state of innate and natural spirituality and spoke of it, it's just regrettable that these people are also few and far between.

I think that when one does achieve this state of awareness, belief isn't so important anymore, rather living in this moment in time right now is, sensing that there is something more beneath it all, that what we see isn't the entirety of existence. These people can wake up in the morning and live as if it's the first day of their life, rather than have to convince themselves to live it as if it was the last day. They live without regret or remorse or guilt, because they do no harm. They are the sages of old, the hermit who removed himself from society to live in the cave, the nun who silently devoted herself to the poor, doubting the good that she was doing, because she understood that it was all relative, that the most important thing was to help others and yourself.

In a spiritual world no one is led to God, Buddha, enlightenment, but rather they have an innate connection to the spiritual. They understand it, not because they are told what to understand, but because they see it in every little thing around them. They can see past it and see the futility of self, and the beauty of the whole self, the birth of everything and the death of nothing. In knowing their place they do not grieve their loss, but understand that nothing is ever lost.

The sad thing is that most people will NEVER reach this state, because merely thinking about it is heresy, blasphemy, or a "misguided notion".

I should add that I'm not advocating abolishing religion, rather I'm advocating that people look past it, give it up and experience the joy of just being here and now without any preconceived notion of what here and now is. If you can do that, I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

Aaron

People are misunderstanding my point. I am saying that the Flavor of the Age - this advocacy to prefer Spirituality to being Religious will Make No Difference in actual practice. It is a Distinction without a Difference. Without opening the TRUE Heart-Mind "Spiritual Living" results in far too many people doing exactly the same kind of Double Speak and oppression denounced in so many Religions. Except now people will speak the New Language - the Language of the Unsplit Unshamed Naturally Whole Naturally Beautiful Newborn-Child Spiritual Self.

 

And laws will be passed in it's Name, big and little social cliques will censure and ostracize in it's Name, lobbyists will pressure Congress in its Name, lawsuits will be brought in it's Name, products will be marketed and peddled in its Name and on and on and on...

 

 

 

Opening the REAL Heart-Mind is an exceedingly difficult thing to do. Only a very tiny percent of any population is ready, willing and able to enact the changes to bring it about. If it were easy all of Society would be on their way to being Taoist Immortals or true Diamond Sutra Bodhisattvas by now with a statistically significant percentage already being ones.

 

I don't see a Corporation owning Taobums. But if societies are to leave behind all religions (because the good in religions would also get tossed out with the bad) we'd need not just one but many multinational corporations owning websites just like Taobums because they'd be the only ones able to afford the monthly bandwidth bills since so many people would be using such sites as a resource for actually practicing Virtue born of an opened Heart-Mind.

 

 

 

 

By Their Fruits Shall Ye Know Them...

In regards to OWS, I think I stand correct. What did they change? I think scorn was a bit harsh, I think I retracted that statement later and said they could be admired for their intentions, but intentions alone rarely bring about change. What we're seeing in today's society is the remnants of religious involvement in our government from its foundation. Keep in mind that up until the latter part of the 19th century the pledge of allegiance made no mention of God, but when it was included no one objected, not even the government, nor has it been removed or seen as a violation of church and state, and although a child is "free" to not participate in the pledge, you can expect him to be teased, ridiculed, and persecuted for not participating, oftentimes by the faculty of the school as well as the students.

Religion and state are not separate in this country, that is evident to anyone who can read the news. We have an illusion of separation, but it's not really there. The religious majority found a way to institute it, simply by placing justices on the supreme court that were religious themselves.

Religion undermines much of American culture and Christianity is the religion of choice for most fascist regimes, however I think Buddhism could be used just as easily, since both have strong moral dogma that are similar to each other.

A government, to be effective and protect it's people's rights needs to be free of religious involvement. People who believe that change can occur simply by voicing their opinion, better be sure to understand that the right to assembly was one of the first rights taken away by congress. We have no freedom in this country because of religions involvement and enforcement of it's own moral agenda. One can see this in most free nations, including India. Religion invariably perverts the basic freedoms of man and instead enforces a moral agenda that helps to keep the population under control.

Religion is perhaps the most dangerous form of institution on the face of the Earth, yet no one seems to realize it.

Also one cannot be spiritual and religious, specifically because of what I originally posted and what Jetsun, V Marco and others have said, it doesn't allow one to follow their natural spiritually, but rather creates an intellectual form of spirituality that helps alleviate the guilt formed by it's own perversion of the spiritual process by enforcing moral dogma.

I have to get to work, so that's all for now.

Aaron

I get it that people hate religion. It's been the In Thing to Hate on Religion for the last 500 years. But I sure wish people would drop the Flavor of the Age veneration of naturalness too. Natural spontaneity (which is what "be your own spiritual self" becomes in actual daily practice) ain't the panacea it's held up to be. As I said...so far..the alternatives to religion are just as dismal historically in solving this planet's assorted societies' 'harm others' behaviors as religion is. So far "dialoguing" with others hasn't solved those problems either.

 

If I recall correctly experiments done in the 70s showed that *ADULTS* (forget about the kids and teens) can not resist when peer pressure is egging on harm-others behavior.

I wouldn't mind some actual documentation on this or something that could prove this to be true. I actually know of very few people that disliked religion historically, in fact they were a very small minority. Historically the majority followed religion and persecuted those that didn't. Look at the renaissance, Galileo, etc. This wasn't just the West either, it happened in the East as well. Traditionally speaking those that deviate from the norm are treated as deviants and often suffer persecution for being such. Most of this persecution was at the hands of the religions and justified by upstanding men who had great integrity.

Aaron

Hello Cat,

I can remember being propositioned by a girl one grade above me, when I was twelve (circa 1982), so that kind of stuff happened long before the internet. Now the exposure to sexual content is much higher today, but honestly how many guys here can't remember finding and looking at playboy, penthouse, and hustler when they were young? The medium's changed, but the motivation hasn't. Most adolescents will actively seek out this kind of material, so it's very important for the parent to talk to their children and ensure that they understand the difference between what's happening in a movie, book, or picture, and what happens in real life. When you have sex with someone else it is a biological function, but along with this function comes a rush of emotion, attraction, and adrenaline that can confuse them and cause them to make bad decisions. It's important for them to remember not to do something simply because everyone else is doing it or because other people are trying to push them into doing it. (Believe it or not, this simple message kept me from smoking pot until I was twenty-one, so it does work, or at least worked for me.)

The fact of the matter is that teens will have sex, they've been having sex for as long as I can remember and probably for as long as anyone else here can remember, so we have to decide whether we'll deny this as being natural for them or whether we are going to do something to try and solve the issues revolving around it, such as teen pregnancy, sexual diseases, etc.

Now as Jetsun said in a previous comment, much of this behavior comes from religion's influence on culture, it's a way to rebel against what's been seen as oppressive, and although I don't necessarily believe that most of the sex that's being offered through the media is being geared towards our young people, I do think, as I mentioned earlier, that they seek it out, just like I sought out porn when I was thirteen and fourteen, so will the thirteen and fourteen year old today. With it being readily accessible, the issue really is educating our children, paying attention to what they're doing on the internet and ensuring that they have the capacity for self determination not to allow peer pressure to cause them to do something they're not comfortable with.

Again much of the reason why we have sexual deviancy is because we have created a myth around sex that most of us know isn't true. Having sex out of wedlock with a consenting adult doesn't actually harm anyone, that's the truth. We can continue to pursue "purity" and "chastity", this idea that we're monogamous creatures (when the facts are that science is finding this to be untrue) or accept our true nature and go from there.

Most people feel threatened by this, because it attacks the institutions that their "perfect" societies stand on. I'm not saying this sarcastically, but rather pointing out that when one is confronted with something that denies their basic belief system, the first thing they do is react negatively to it. I'm sure if people took the time to look at these things objectively and set aside their moral ideology and instead came up with an actual plan to solve these issues, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems with our teenagers.

That's it from me.

Aaron

It is impossible to "simply live life not harming others or yourself", because different cultures have different assumptions and rules to deal with things. These rules generally serve the needs of the majority of the people - It facilitates social interaction and a sense of community. A minority may be detrimentally placed with regard to these rules, but this happens in all societies.

 

I don't believe that "so long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself" is sufficient, because a person has duty to his family and community. By virtue of having grown up in a family and a community, a person has obligations which he must fulfill.

 

These family and community ties are what gives warmth to a place. Also, when a person is in need, there would be relatives and neighbours to take care of him. A place where everyone is simply "not harming anyone else" is a place where everyone is an atom - not a place I would want to live or be able to belong to.

 

While people come in all shapes and forms (some more moral or upright than others), and in this sense have a place in the universe, a person should strive to improve himself over the course of his lifetime to live a life of uprightness and integrity.

You haven't convinced me of the need of religion so far. All of this can be developed through close relationships with your family and friends and you don't need a religion to foster these relationships. Also the general rule of "don't do anything that would harm yourself or others" is a measuring stick, it's not meant to exclude close family ties with one's self or the community, but rather to be used as a way to evaluate whether what you are doing is right or wrong, sans the religious indoctrination.

One does not need to pursue a religion in order to improve himself. The idea of uprightness and integrity are fine, but I think in the end they are merely hollow terms, they have no weight or merit outside the confines of moral indoctrination, in other words they are simply measuring sticks for how well one is following their religious and moral indoctrination.

Aaron

 

At its core, religion represents what a community views as true, good, and beautiful. This is why there will always be religious people.

 

Now, as for the view that religion tells people that they are bad - Of course religion says this - None of us is really living our full moral potential, e.g. What we could be if we really applied ourselves. Self-satisfaction is not a virtue...If we don't know that we are wrong in the first place, how would we ever improve?

Oh my... Oh my... Rainy Day. I'm almost speechless. I like you, but really, you honestly believe this? Have you ever stopped to think that the community may have been taught what is true, good, and beautiful and then told if they didn't believe this they were liars, bad, and ugly people?

Answer me this, is it better to have a moral ideology or to simply live life not harming others or yourself? Which will prevent people from hurting other people without justification (or perhaps with justification)? And you know what, you are not BAD! You are simply you and you are beautiful and unique. You don't need to be like everyone else or act like everyone else, you just need to act like you. So long as you're not harming anyone else or yourself, then go have fun and enjoy the world.

Aaron

Well, if a person misinterprets the golden rule, then they weren't really following it were they?

 

I like your idea of "do not harm yourself or others".

If they misinterpreted it, no they weren't following it, but speaking from the point of view of someone who grew up Southern Baptist, I rarely ever heard about the Golden Rule growing up, even though I knew what it was. Religions may be founded on this concept, but most have decidedly strayed from the practical application. To be honest the only Christians I meet these days that seem to be living a "christian" life are the Mormons, and most people see them as wackos.

Aaron

We dont live in a progressive and spiritually free culture with regards to sex. We live in a highly marketed at culture where any young person with a thoughtful disposition sees, consciously or not, degradation and exploitation of male and female sexuality for money, thrown at them from all over the place. They see very unhappy girls with anorexia and body dysmorphia with anxiety disorders and social phobias and taking depression meds in alarming proportions, and they see pressure to be ever and increasingly sexual in competetive ways that their young developing systems just arent ready for. They see men judged for how they look with their shirt off and girls judged for the same, and increasing inability to believe in love as enduring or relationships as stable. They see their friends with porn or their own sex acts filmed to laugh at on their mobile phones, and their peers sending their nude photos to websites to be judged on their bodies. What young people have to endure today as the sexual climate in which they are to grow is alarming to me, as someone who grew up in a softer time when feelings were considered healthy and desirable, and now are considered a burden to 'freedom', which is merely freedom to consume. What does sexual and spiritual freedom actually look like? What would it truly be? Is it about availabilty and plenty of variety or ..not. I dont see sexual freedom as what is going on right now, far from it. It looks like enslavement to me, to something sold by mainstream media as desirable.

How do we find out what is freedom for us? Not by consuming what the normative culture sells us. The 'guilt' is, to me, when uprooted to show its true face, a sign of health.. I think it may actually be grief, unrecognised.

How has this changed at all in the last thirty years? Minus the cellphones, you're talking about the typical teen of the last four decades. Have you ever thought that teenagers are sexual beings? That their reaction is natural in a society that tells them that the feelings and emotions they have are dirty to begin with? You dissociate from things that cause you to feel pain, so it only makes sense that they would try to cheapen the act so that they could escape the guilt that is associated with it.

Somewhere in the last century we seem to have changed our opinions of teens, rather than see them as actual "young adults" we see them as "almost adults" that still need supervision. In the nineteenth century many teens were married with children and full time jobs. What's happened is that we've chosen to view our young people as being incapable of understanding the nature of sex, and as a result we don't even bother to teach them that sex is natural and beautiful.

If we spent half as much time teaching kids that they're alright the way they are, that as long as what they're doing doesn't harm themselves or others, it's okay, as we do trying to prevent them from misbehaving or acting immoral, I think you'd see a lot of these issues fade away.

Of course I blame Jesus. Think about it, have you ever seen a picture of Jesus on the cross when he doesn't have washboard abs? And Mary, have you ever seen an overweight Mary?

Now before you think I'm disagreeing with you, I'm not, I'm just saying the cause is deeper than just what's on the surface, and that until we address the way we've been taught to view sex within the social, religious, and cultural context, nothing will change. That means we need to stop teaching our kids it's sacred and "special" and meant to be saved for either God or that one and only, and rather talk about it frankly for what it is, a basic biological function. The fact is kids these days place a heavy emphasis on sex, one that shouldn't be there. If you think they don't feel shame and guilt because of it, then you'll never be able to see the entire picture. As I said before, kids don't experience sex naturally these days, because they have no idea what the actual nature of sex is, no one's really taught them.

Aaron

How are you certain of this?

 

Also, did you know that the "golden rule" is included in all of the world's major religions?

 

To address the excellent points you made against religion: forcing our opinions on others, excommunicating, killing, persecuted, or other ills....all of those things are against the "golden rule". They are unethical, and equally despised by all people if it happens to them (so this is an example of how morality is objective).

 

It's just the nature of the human mind, that the institutions and people which teach ethics can tend to act unethically. The mind typically does the opposite of what we attempt, in order to maintain balance (a great example of this is watching people making new years resolutions to lose weight). This isn't an excuse...just an explanation.

I'm certain because even the "golden rule" isn't without flaw. We shouldn't do unto others as we would have them do unto us, but rather do nothing that harms us or others. That's the simplest rule of all. Religion can distort the golden rule, it can tell us that we should seek criticism of our flaws, when the things we see as flaws aren't really flaws at all. It can tell us that something we're doing is good, when in fact it causes harm. "If I were going to do something wrong, I'd want someone to stop me from doing it." But what if what you think is wrong isn't? So long as we allow a moral code to dictate right and wrong, then consequences don't matter, rather intention does. We shouldn't live in world based on value judgments regarding intentions.

Aaron

Aaron,

 

 

 

I will tell you: Taoism.

Not just Taoism, but Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Christianity, and the list goes on. Religions by nature separate people from their true spiritual nature. One cannot be spiritual and religious, the two can never exist hand in hand. Spirituality is free and cannot be defined by dogma or ideology, once someone decides to teach spirituality then they have immediately begun to teach the exact opposite. This is why I say enlightenment is a sham, because invariably, if you are led to enlightenment because of a path, then it is not real enlightenment, but rather one created by the actions one has followed. Buddhist enlightenment is simply Buddhist enlightenment, Taoist enlightenment is simply Taoist enlightenment, Christian enlightenment is... well you get the point.

True awareness does not come from books or teachers but an innate understanding of one's place within the universe, the nature of the universe, and what simply is. You can't be taught this, it can only be experienced. If one is led to this experience, then one can never be entirely certain whether it is authentic or a prescribed and defined experience.

If I tell you that you will reach enlightenment and that when you do, this and this will happen, nine times out of ten, what you expect to happen will and that in the end is the problem.

Now to get back to sexuality. Sex is the most beautiful experience we can have and one of the most spiritual. It's perhaps the biggest threat to religion because one who can experience sex without guilt or regret will be able to see through the smoke and mirrors of religion. In fact the biggest detriment to monks is the fact they never experience life, so the enlightenment they experience is not defined by the natural order, but rather a pious dogma.

Religions are the basest of organizations. They teach children to hate themselves, that they are not good enough and need to be better, that those feelings that are completely natural are evil and sinful. And we wonder why so many grow up sad and empty, looking for something else to fill the void that has been created. It'sad, yet most people will read this and tell me, not what's in their heart, but what they've been taught to believe. It's so ingrained within them that they can't even take a moment and reflect, because if they do they might figure out that everything that they've believed up until this point is really nothing but superstition and moral ideology. They might just realize that good and bad don't really exist and then where does that leave them? Are they good? If they're not good, are they bad? What if they're neither, where do they go from there? It's very hard to wake up from this dream and realize that they simply are who they are and nothing more, that there is no need to follow any designated path, that the path that their heart leads them on is enough. It's very hard to understand that their mothers lied to them and that their fathers lied to them, that everything about their life is merely a husk of what actually is. Yet when one can do that, then they can see all this guilt, sadness, and delusion melt away like ice on a summer day, leaving behind, not cold hardened water, but a cool pool of fresh potential.

Aaron

I know some deeply spiritual people who are religious. And i know some people who do spiritual practice but don't even display the most basic of virtues. So i don't think its as easy as a black/white divide where religion is the horrible witch-burner and spirituality is the great panacea.

 

Thank you cat for pointing out that religion does a lot of good things for people. Not everyone has the insight to seek for themselves and have a direct experience of the nature of things, that usually takes a lot of effort, energy, and work. So have some compassion, you spirituality freaks! Remember that stuff??

 

Some people are spiritual by nature, and some people need religion. There is room enough on earth for both and they both do good things. Just because they have a lot of power, and naturally attract people who want to abuse power widely, doesn't mean that we're better off without them. It points to a problem in human nature, not a problem with religion or spirituality.

 

So everyone who wants to make absolutist statements about how religion is just an opiate should look into their own human nature! And deeply! Not this surface level, "im-going-to-quote-marx (or osho) and-leave-it-at-that" rhetoric. Even opiates have a medicinal use. I don't personally like them, or need them right now, but i know better than to insult them and their users.

 

In short, i see most religious people as doing the best they can with what they've been given. Even the hypocrites and homophobes and haters... at least they have the example of their particular sages and seers in their lives and they aren't just out there in the total darkness.

 

its too easy to be a critic.

Most religions are rife with the immoral, in fact immoral people are drawn to religions because it eases their sense of guilt and also provides them with a good cover to get away with doing evil. This isn't just the Christian and Muslim religions, but also Buddhism, just look at the rampant abuse of children in Tibetan Monasteries and Buddhist orphanages. What I see in religion is a darkness that suppresses mankind's natural kindness, twists it and tells it that kindness is something defined by dogma rather than the consequences of one's actions. You killed an infidel, there's nothing wrong with that. You slept with a woman out of wedlock, time to stone her to death. This is as true in the Eastern Religions as it the Western Religions. Show me one good religion that is acting absolutely without ulterior motives, and I'll show you a horse with wings that can fly you to heaven.

Now think for a moment why you feel religions are good. Look at your relationship with religion, what you get out of it, and what you lose if you leave it. Ask yourself if what you lose is really a loss, or something you've been convinced you'll lose. Don't answer right away, your indoctrination is probably pretty strong in this regard, instead take a second and look at yourself within the scope of the universe, examine your actions, what you do daily, and then decide, is it better to have someone tell you what is right or wrong, or to examine your own actions and how they effect others.

I for one do not see how murdering someone for any reason other than self defense can be justified. I for one do not see how sharing a sexual experience with someone else can be harmful, simply because my relationship with that person hasn't been approved and ordained by a religion. If you can tell me how it is, then I'm all ears.

Religions are the foundation upon which guilt is born. The misery that most feel about themselves, the inadequacy and self doubt, more often than not, can be traced back to a religion, even if the person who is feeling those things wasn't necessarily brought up in one. Religions influence culture (look at America and India), and as a result propagate much of the self loathing, deviancy, and hatred in this world.

Aaron

whats's wrong with following a strict moral code? if everyone followed one of those we'd have a lot less problems!

Because then we need to decide which moral code we all need to follow. Should we follow the Muslim moral code, the Judaic, the Buddhist, the Taoist, the Hindu, the Wiccan, the Shamanists, the humanists... well the list goes on. The problem is that morality is subjective. All we really need to do is behave as we wish too, so long as our actions don't harm others or ourselves. Even that isn't necessary, but it's what I choose to do and I don't try to force that opinion on others. Religions are in the business of brainwashing, plain and simple. They tell you what's right and you either believe and are accepted into the family, or don't and you're excommunicated, killed, persecuted, or various other ills. This isn't just in the Eastern religions either, there are numerous historical accounts of Buddhists, Hindus, and various other religions doing the same as well.

If someone tells you that you are doing something wrong and what you're doing causes no harm to you or someone else, then why is it wrong? Simply because some person who might've lived 2,000 years ago (Buddha, Christ, Lao Tzu, etc.) said it was? Now that seems to be the pinnacle of ignorance to me.

Aaron

Hey i was kidding

 

However here is the dictionary definition of cult. Sounds like the major (and minor) religions to me

Cult

1.a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

2.an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

3.the object of such devotion.

4.a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc.

5.Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols.

I guess my question is to what degree? A major sign of whether a church or religious institution is a cult, is the amount of direct influence those institutions have on their members. I'm not even saying being in a cult is a bad thing. There are many happy people that are in cults today, the main issue, in fact, isn't that they're in a cult, so much as they're not doing what other people think they should be doing. So many times someone isn't even in a "cult" per se, but because they are not following the status quo, it's assumed that they are.

Aaron