Re: What's the Point of Religion?
Posted: Wed Jul 10, 2013 1:38 pm
Where are you from? What are the main religions you are talking about?
Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Taking a more encompassing perspective, religion is like sex and food. It ups the odds of propagating the species (sex) by sustaining the individual (food) through hard times. It is not food, but under adversity it can maintain the will to find food.Russell wrote:Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Today I came across this article Deprivatization of Disbelief?: Non-Religiosity and Anti-Religiosity in 14 Western European Countries, published recently in the Cambrige Journal "Politics and Religion".If that were on buses around here in Bible belt USA, people would be calling for someone's head. Of course, all of the offensive and oppressive Christian billboards are allowed to stand.the article wrote:“There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Buses with these words drove around London and other British cities from the beginning of January 2009.
It's easy to see that these people are driven (or restrained) by immense fear. Try to discuss a reality with no God with one of these people, and they can't wait to tell you how you better "watch your mouth" or their sky-daddy will reign supreme justice on your ass. Logic goes out the window in the blink of an eye.
If religion serves any purpose around here, it's to keep the people unified in pessimistic closed-mindedness. This results in a docile society in which consumerism and indulgence run rampant. No wonder the fattest states in America are also the most religious.
Perhaps, but the point of training wheels is to eventually shed them.Cahoot wrote:Taking a more encompassing perspective, religion is like sex and food. It ups the odds of propagating the species (sex) by sustaining the individual (food) through hard times. It is not food, but under adversity it can maintain the will to find food.
The same goes for diseases.The sustenance of religion is proven to be compatible with human nature by the fact of its existence.
Disease is as rampant as ever too.Thus, in nature unaffected by delusional intent that runs counter to upping the odds of propagating the species, religion thrives, as evidenced by history, which is somewhat more convincing than opinion.
Does religion cure disease? Depends on what ails you, and on the individual's capacity of awareness.Russell wrote:Perhaps, but the point of training wheels is to eventually shed them.Cahoot wrote:Taking a more encompassing perspective, religion is like sex and food. It ups the odds of propagating the species (sex) by sustaining the individual (food) through hard times. It is not food, but under adversity it can maintain the will to find food.The same goes for diseases.The sustenance of religion is proven to be compatible with human nature by the fact of its existence.Disease is as rampant as ever too.Thus, in nature unaffected by delusional intent that runs counter to upping the odds of propagating the species, religion thrives, as evidenced by history, which is somewhat more convincing than opinion.
Religion certainly unifies people, but it certainly doesn't cure ignorance, especially in it's modern day form. Seems to perpetuate it actually.
If not then Buddha got it wrong, but he was a talented prince and still had to struggle for years. Maybe not so easy for those of lesser talents than he.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:'He who is contented is rich.'
or
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Btw Cahoot, you were more than correct in saying it's possible to live each day without any suffering. More than possible, it's easy. Suffering in essence is a deception.
Buddha's first noble truth: "life means suffering".SeekerofWisdom wrote:it's possible to live each day without any suffering
Welcome to the forum!SeekerOfWisdom wrote: And other terms like unborn. How can one properly communicate what these are referring to?
Since we were ventriloquizing Buddha, here's the unbinding spell from the Nibbāna Sutta Ud 8.4:SeekerOfWisdom wrote:...an end to daily experience due to complete lack of desire for such an existence? Letting go, the end
That seems to be an accurate interpretation. Settled meaning in reference to immersion, attachment. As opposed to no attachment, no immersion. -Not being settled,Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
The key issue seems to lie in hard to translate words like "not settled", it's "independent" and everywhere released: unbound. As if consciousness wouldn't touch down on anything, not settle, not keep, not becoming?
This time I used a text at accesstoinsight.org which offers at least two translations, one of them from Bhikkhu. I was also reading Bhikku's Paradox of Becoming at the same time, which has interesting material and translations in there on this topic.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:Where have you been reading those Sutta's?
Here is the Pali Canon I've been looking at: http://www.palicanon.org/index.php/sutt ... ?start=125
Would you say this seems like an accurate source? It definitely follows the methodical pattern of repetition Buddha uses.
One lives without suffering experiences by directly and perpetually experiencing the empty nature of changing phenomena.DVR wrote:Now how do you live without being birthed, aging, pains, errors, unpleasant experiences starting or pleasant experiences ending? Cease experiencing what everyone else is experiencing? It cannot having been anything like "living each day" for Buddha as he just described that as essentially suffering.
So as long it's considered temporary and fleeting we all can indulge in ego, fiction, entertainment... I mean it's just for a few moments right?Cahoot wrote: to erroneously experience phenomena as permanent.
No. Those happenings lead to suffering when phenomena are erroneously experienced as permanent. Pay attention.Diebert van Rhijn wrote:So as long it's considered temporary and fleeting we all can indulge in ego, fiction, entertainment... I mean it's just for a few moments right?Cahoot wrote: to erroneously experience phenomena as permanent.
How would you describe the experience of some phenomena being "permanent" instead of temporary or empty? What exactly is being permanent in each instance? We all know that nothing lasts forever, right?Cahoot wrote:No. Those happenings lead to suffering when phenomena are erroneously experienced as permanent. Pay attention.Diebert van Rhijn wrote: So as long it's considered temporary and fleeting we all can indulge in ego, fiction, entertainment... I mean it's just for a few moments right?
What does that mean exactly, that the data is 'false'?Leyla Shen wrote: data is false.
Yes.Dan Rowden wrote:Actually, sense data cannot be false; it's only our interpretations and inferences that are false.
It’s pretty straightforward, really. It means raw information.SeekerOfWisdom wrote:What does that mean exactly, that the data is 'false'?Leyla Shen wrote: data is false.