Spirituality
21 Sep 09
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by Bosse de NageA supernatural spirit of the nation would be included in my definition, dialectic materialism would not.
So count diamat or the spirit of the nation as a supernatural or metaphysical faith object, it's all the same. Belief in something not readily demonstrable.
You see, if you include all beliefs in something not readily demonstrable, then you include all philosophy in religion. There is no separation. I want to separate them as I believe that some philosophical thoughts are neither demonstrable nor religious.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaIf you take a look at how Diamat was preached -- and practiced -- under Stalin, you might change your mind.
A supernatural spirit of the nation would be included in my definition, dialectic materialism would not.
You see, if you include all beliefs in something not readily demonstrable, then you include all philosophy in religion. There is no separation. I want to separate them as I believe that some philosophical thoughts are neither demonstrable nor religious.
The metaphysics that concerns you wouldn't suffer under my definition of religion because it simply doesn't form part of religious practice. It might well be coopted, though -- as witness Kantian thought being adapted for war by Von Clausewitz and assimilated into the mystique of the German state by Fichte (I think).
I also think it's important to consider the emotional aspect of religion as an integral component.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaFair enough.
A supernatural spirit of the nation would be included in my definition, dialectic materialism would not.
You see, if you include all beliefs in something not readily demonstrable, then you include all philosophy in religion. There is no separation. I want to separate them as I believe that some philosophical thoughts are neither demonstrable nor religious.
But you cannot see the "persons that have the ritual observance of faith and worshipping of supernatural existences" equivalent, say, to the 15 years old Maoists who were in charge of the observance of the faith of the Chinese citizens to their gonernment and they were worshipping Mao even by beating their teachers and their parents to death? Or equivalent to the Nazi SS?
😵
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleI think it's more interesting to look at the emotional focus of people engaged in these delightful activities. Biologically (that includes psychologically) I'd put them all in the same category. And why would a sober analysis of crowd phenomena quibble over whether the killers' emotions were exalted through focusing on the image of a Leader or a God.
Fair enough.
But you cannot see the "persons that have the ritual observance of faith and worshipping of supernatural existences" equivalent, say, to the 15 years old Maoists who were in charge of the observance of the faith of the Chinese citizens to their gonernment and they were worshipping Mao even by beating their teachers and their parents to death? Or equivalent to the Nazi SS?
😵
23 Sep 09
2 edits
Religion is the whole realm of doing something for your "God" but without Jesus Christ.
The inventor of the world's first religion was Cain in Genesis chapter 4.
I measure the degree of religion by the degree of the absence of Jesus Christ. To the degree that one is trying to reach God and one is not in touch with Jesus Christ one is religious.
The degree of the absence of the experience of Jesus Christ is directly proportional to the degree one is religious.
You do not get rid of religion that easily. You may think you have left religion but religion will not leave You that easily. It is like - in our blood.
You cannot easily leave religion just by mocking it or being disgusted with it. You can also create a kind of "Anti Religion Religion".
Jesus Christ is verses religion. After Jesus saves you from eternal punishment He may very well spend the rest of your life saving you from religion.
You may be a Westerner and boast of not being religious. But I bet you want off from work on "Christmas" just like "religious" people do.
The Spirit of Jesus is totally outside of the realm of religion and is spiritual life - "I am the life ..".
The biggest opposition to Christ has always been and still is - religion.
I am still religious, somewhat. I do not like to be religious. Sometimes being religious interfers with me enjoying and living out my Lord Jesus.
It is not easy to get rid of religion. Basically I defind being religious as doing anything for God without Christ.
Peter had to be saved from his religion to be a disciple of Christ. And I do not mean just initially. His reluctance to preach the gospel to Gentiles came from his religious custom. Christ had to save him out of that.
Christianity has become largely a religion. A huge religion, however, does not make God go away. And Christ is real regardless of how degraded Christianity becomes.
God will obtain His will regardless of man's religious failures. Religion cannot stop Jesus Christ from gaining His kingdom.
Some atheists are totally blind to the fact that they have scientism as their religion. And much of their scientism talk is solidly faith based. That is why people of religions faith can recognize it. It takes one to known one.
23 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWe go in circles (but they're getting larger!). My point is never that there aren't any similarities between some forms of religion with forms of political dogma. My point is that in these parallels you equate religion with fanaticism and connect the dots.
I think it's more interesting to look at the emotional focus of people engaged in these delightful activities. Biologically (that includes psychologically) I'd put them all in the same category. And why would a sober analysis of crowd phenomena quibble over whether the killers' emotions were exalted through focusing on the image of a Leader or a God.
Do you not think that there's religion without fanaticism? If yes, then how can fanaticism be the dot-connector?
Edit - In that sense, you seem look for dogmatic fanaticism and say "this is religion". Is this truly what you think?
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleSee my post above, please.
Fair enough.
But you cannot see the "persons that have the ritual observance of faith and worshipping of supernatural existences" equivalent, say, to the 15 years old Maoists who were in charge of the observance of the faith of the Chinese citizens to their gonernment and they were worshipping Mao even by beating their teachers and their parents to death? Or equivalent to the Nazi SS?
😵
23 Sep 09
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaYou've already admitted that a State could be the focus of religion, so no back-tracking please!
We go in circles (but they're getting larger!). My point is never that there aren't any similarities between some forms of religion with forms of political dogma. My point is that in these parallels you equate religion with fanaticism and connect the dots.
Do you not think that there's religion without fanaticism? If yes, then how can fanaticism be the do ...[text shortened]... seem look for dogmatic fanaticism and say "this is religion". Is this truly what you think?
My hasty post that you've responded to stems from an idea that has occurred to me: that religion can be characterised by the means and ends of emotional arousal (or depression) typically associated with spiritual practice.
At the very least, we can say that Mao's followers (for example) behaved as though they belonged to a fanatical religion, in which case -- what's the difference?
Obviously I don't look for dogmatic fanaticism and say 'this is religion'. The examples I've used have far more than fanaticism -- they have everything a religion needs. The only thing lacking is belief in a supernatural entity, which, clearly, I'm arguing isn't necessary provided a substitute focus is provided.
23 Sep 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageBack-tracking? What backtracking? You were talking about a supernatural spirit of the nation when I said that would be religious. 😕
You've already admitted that a State could be the focus of religion, so no back-tracking please!
My hasty post that you've responded to stems from an idea that has occurred to me: that religion can be characterised by the means and ends of emotional arousal (or depression) typically associated with spiritual practice.
At the very least, we can as though they belonged to a fanatical religion[/i], in which case -- what's the difference?
The difference is that again you go from the metaphor to equivalence of the concepts. There is a number of traits that we associate with fanatical religion, the metaphor conveys these traits in a succinct way. That's what metaphors do, but (as they are not synonyms) the concepts are not made the same by it.
Edit - I disagree that they have everything a religion needs as I can conceive of religions that have none of those fanatical traits. So those are not necessary conditions.
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage..."that religion can be characterised by the means and ends of emotional arousal (or depression) typically associated with spiritual practice."
You've already admitted that a State could be the focus of religion, so no back-tracking please!
My hasty post that you've responded to stems from an idea that has occurred to me: that religion can be characterised by the means and ends of emotional arousal (or depression) typically associated with spiritual practice.
At the very least, we can ...[text shortened]... as though they belonged to a fanatical religion[/i], in which case -- what's the difference?
Which is exactly what religion does. Any attempt to make contact or create a relationship with God based on human effort through religious practice is naturally going to result in some form of emotional arousal.
Emotional arousal is what convinces the practitioners of "religion" to believe that what they're doing pleases God.
I keep saying this, but it seems to keep going over the top of folks' heads. When we come to God it is on His terms. Anything else we do that is not based in and founded on what God says is "religion".
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
23 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleI think that although there are similarities between some dogmatic systems which are atheist, like Maoism, and religion in the way they inspire adherents to behave, I think there is an important difference.
I did; I will leave Bosse to handle it since I share with him the same view and there is no need to short-circuit the conversation
😵
This difference is the involvement of concepts of supernatural agents.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
23 Sep 09
The important point is whether this difference is salient. if you think not, you can easily draw an equivalence between dogmatic atheist systems and dogmatic religious ones.
I think there is a salient difference, but whether or not this matters is a question of which concerns are addressed.
24 Sep 09
Originally posted by PalynkaHey Palynka, this is what I think about Karma;
All the best, bb.
I will leave aside the miscellaneous exoteric traditions according to which Karma -Sk. Karman, meaning literally: mission/ debt/ role and only under esoteric terms action/ energy, T. las) is merely the mechanism you understand (positive/ negative actions produce positive/ negative results). This is the universal archetype and it is adopted by every society regardless religion, time, nationality and culture.
The Eastern traditions do not accept Karma under the ethical/ religious/ social terms alone. Karma is mentioned for the first time by the Brahmin Vedas and later by the Upanishads as the Cause-Effect law that is triggered under specific circumstances. In our very world the cause-effect is easily visible and clear, however the cause always engulfs a dynamism that always needs an agent to trigger it. This agent at the level of the Human is solely his spirit/ mind, therefore the effect is monitored primary over the human who triggered the specific action. This is the reason why the Hindus and the Brahmins believe that Karma is the dynamism one accumulates due to the fact that he is indeed an always active trigger of miscellaneous causes. Then the idea of Karma is transferred at the level of the universe -and this mechanism is so complicated that it does not need external (directly conceivable by us) causes in order to produce numerous effects. And of course all the above is exoteric, it is theology.
However the meditator is aware of the fact that Karma stands above dualism (say Yin/ Yang), although many Buddhists religious they prefer to remain; this is the reason why, according to Sabda Maha Prasanga Tantra, all the traces left by Karma “are gathered at the primordial stage because of ignorance” (my translation). The meditator knows that “ignorance” is merely the “ignorance of the nature of everything” and of the “nature of the Human”, and immediately the Yin/ Yang becomes Gankyil. At this level the religious construction is decomposed because Karma is understood strictly at the level of nirvana, which itself has no cause: nirvana is merely the absence of the law of Cause-Effect, it is the absence of Karma. Everything else is a religious distortion and “mental contortionism”, as a Western Yogi stated lately.
Since nirvana and space are the sole things that they have no cause, Palynka my friend, feel free to find for yourself the nature of yourself, the nature of space, the nature of nirvana and the nature of Karma. Of course a scientifically backed up Western Yogi could immediately realize that Kosmos is a continuum of potential experience by means of a mechanism contained within its nature that enables the existence of unlimited experiential worlds -but this is an ancient Eastern idea! He could also think that quantum Darwinism is better expressed by the term quantum Karma, but that’s another story
😵