"Religion"... ?

[china]

I don't think religion is a thing put together by thought, or by fear, or by the pursuit of satisfaction and pleasure…I think when we lost touch with nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes, birds, when we lost touch with all that, then the priests came in. Then all the superstition, fears, exploitation, all that began
I'd like to know....what's your point of view?

 

[Jay]

What about the religions that calim to be in touch with "nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes, birds".

 

[china]

Hi Jay:"What about the religions that calim to be in touch with "nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes, birds".--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obviously a 'religions' which are put together by thought can claim whatever they want . even of being .."in touch with nature,with universe,lakes...etc",but whatever is put together by thought , is not true .(..there is a post in the philosophy forum on "Thought" if you want to talk about it ").But it's not the "religions''Jay ,it's us.Are we "a part of the rest of creation" which is not made of"thought", or are we only concern with the "Me" which is a product of thought and therfore not true ?- (there is a post on " the me " in he philosophy section of the forum ...if you are intersted in the subject).

 

[s_lone]

The word "religion" is sadly tainted by dark colours these days.

But it does not have to be this way. Positive religion is about being devoted to the sacredness of life. It belongs to each one of us to discern what is sacred in our lives.

But I believe LOVE is the common denominator of human sacredness. Any form of religion fuelled by fear instead of love is a prison of the soul.

 

[Said1]

I don't think religion is a thing put together by thought, or by fear, or by the pursuit of satisfaction and pleasure…I think when we lost touch with nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes, birds, when we lost touch with all that, then the priests came in. Then all the superstition, fears, exploitation, all that began
I'd like to know....what's your point of view?

I would say politics came first. In short, nature lost out when people consented to be ruled, leaving the state of nature.

 

[MikeyDB]

Religion: “A strong belief in the existence of a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; an institution to express belief in a divine power.”

Religion, as belief in a supernatural power in control of human destiny arose from ignorance and fear. In a world of questions-without-answers primitive man “knew” or “felt” two things.

He knew that there was something going on inside his head, a ‘process’ that on some level permitted prediction and hence better chances at surviving a hostile environment. As any living creature watches what’s going on around it, human beings witnessed the unfolding of cause and effect. A majority of mankind’s earliest observations involved deductions/conclusions based on first-hand exposure to rudimentary principles for which of course mankind as yet without language, had no means to characterize or express. He could however see the outcome of an event just witnessed and constructed an “if-then” understanding of his world.

Keenly aware of everything in his environment, phenomenon that failed to present as clearly and as simply, as for instance ‘rocks fall to the ground when dropped’ presented an unsolvable, unanswerable mystery. Rain fell but why did rain fall? Where did rain come from? Fire burned (pain was experienced on exposure to fire) but what was “fire”?

Questions without obvious answers, forces and influences lacking any direct correlation to his primitive experience/knowledge gave rise to the notion that a mysterious force or presence in the human experience must be responsible for all these experiences and events taking place around him.

Everything else was readily ‘knowable’ and could be understood but some things like lightening and thunder, death and earthquakes, volcanoes and landslides….were the result of some un-understandable quality or product of forces beyond those readily apprehensible by the evolving consciousness of our earliest ancestors.

What was “knowable” for instance, was that a that a lion was fierce and to be feared, some berries or plants made you sick when you ate them and people who walked off the edge of chasms didn’t return…if the cliff was too high of course….

This knowledge born of first-hand observation led to mankind adopting the behavior of lions and employing the observable qualities of the lion, stealth, camouflage and great “courage” in hunting. It led to prizing strength and agility, ferocity and cunning, and was expressed in ways like wearing lion skins and adorning one’s self with claws and teeth taken from a dead lion, because surely if one becomes more “lion-like” one will have greater success in hunting…..

Now I could take you by the hand and lead you through millions of years of evolution but quite frankly I don’t have the time.

The symbiosis of religion and spirituality evolved as well. It was only a small step from disguising one’s self as an animal, and behaving like that animal to facilitate hunting for instance, to the idea that the success achieved when these attributes were mimicked had to be (because after all a ‘man’ didn’t become the lion) something “in” the skin being worn or the blood being drunk. There was some quality of ‘lion-ness’ that was inseparable but inherent to the costume or behavior that was being used.

It was this invisible quality or character inhering to the tokens being worn that made the hunt successful. It was this same “quality” inhering to the other creatures that mankind observed that was responsible for their “success’ in coping with the ever-present dangers that lurked around every corner. Animal “spirits” were the guidelines for many ancient societies and entire cultural expressions and rituals were constructed on the basis of an understanding that the “nature” of this or that creature was likely to bring “success” in the form of good harvests, good hunts and sustained reproduction of the species.

“God” was created by human beings because humankind needed “God”.

“Religion” (as exercise and ritual) was created to build a system of prejudices.

Anymore stupid questions?

And no “politicians” don’t pre-date shamans although there is unquestionably a link between the belief in ‘god’ and belief expressed in politicians.

 

[Curiosity]

MikeyDB

Your posts might be a wealth of information were you to leave out the insults for the readers to wonder....
why they are necessary to your messages.

If you are what you have shared - in your lifework - I can only assume you are aware how biting your posts are.

Teaching with a sharp tongue or whip falls on infertile ground.

 

[MikeyDB]

I don’t think I’m doing the best I can do when I teach anyone anything if I practice “political correctness” or allow sensitivity to corrupt fact.

When I said… “Anymore stupid questions”, I said that because the point has to be made and made with emphasis that when we choose to deny reality and garb ourselves in delusion voluntarily we commit the gravest disservice to both understanding and self-understanding.

If you believe that embracing some ersatz tolerance for the irrational is appropriate then I suppose you and I won’t be able to discuss too awfully much but I think what you’re really implying is that I somehow “owe” some measure of latitude to people who willingly embrace the irrational or to be more PC…. “People who believe ABC and embrace those beliefs as convictions deserve respect for simply “believing”….

I couldn’t disagree more.

Permitting the artifice of religious belief to guide behavior is the source of significant conflict in the world today. I can’t respect the individual who will tolerate murder in the name of their ‘god’ nor will I play some silly game that allows people to feel comfortable with their ignorance.

 

[Said1]

And no “politicians” don’t pre-date shamans although there is unquestionably a link between the belief in ‘god’ and belief expressed in politicians.

Yes, politicians ie: community leaders, cheifs, tribal leaders, kings or whatever you want to call them DO 'predate' organized religion. Albeit, Shamans were supposedly the first to notice or to ponder the idea of humans living in harmony with nature instead of in a state of oppostion and did have other purposes other than eventually serving the tribe. This means (to me at least) that humans had once lived in this manner prior to the Shamans and rulers, as in the 'state of nature' and have left that state.

 

[MikeyDB]

The concept of "politics" i.e. social relations involving authority or power is a modern word describing a perspective not a noun. You can't hand anyone five pounds of "politics". If you wish to describe the worship of a god or gods and characterize the relationship between supplicants and their shaman, priest or "holy one" as politics you certainly can. I'd caution the application of this word in the context of belief structures however because "politics" as practiced by mankind today doesn't connote subscription to belief (arguable and I'll certainly entertain the argument...) as hallmark of the process. The relationship between the King and his subjects, was certainly wreathed in "divine right of kings" and so on but "politics" is much more about money than belief. There are politics in godless societies and there are politics in many aspects of daily life but the use of the word (IMHO) addresses something other than "belief".

 

[Curiosity]

MikeyDB

You have knowledge - you wish to share it. What if someone reading your messages had no cemented opinion, but was seeking to know and found your writing.

You have the power to influence and even sway - or at least open the door to the reader's interest and
learning on the topic...

When you finish your essay with "Any more stupid questions?" .... you set people back into an awkward
mindset wherein no learning or little learning can take place.

If you show little respect for others' opinions and place them at the low end of the intellectual scale - you can hardly demand respect or consideration of your own.

Please do not confuse "politically correct" with teaching honestly and forthrightly, leaving the derogatives off the table entirely.

I think you have some interesting and new ideas....but the turn off negates the whole exercise.

Granted there are some wild and wooly thoughts running around but why reduce your messages to that level. Everyone has the right to produce opinions here and none have the right to deny their authorship..except the owners.

 

[MikeyDB]

If this were a teaching environment then yes you’re arguments carry a good deal of weight…but it isn’t.

This is a forum, a discussion area where opinions and perspectives are invited.

If my opinion offends you then you have the opportunity of responding and if you choose “argue” for your point of view and the superiority or correctness of that view juxtaposed to my presentation of my views and opinions. There is no doubt in my mind of any degree that some offence could be taken, and the nature of stating opinion includes the element of eliciting response. Nothing elicits response like jabbing someone in the “feelings”.

Take a breather, step back and put things in perspective.

OR

If ya wanna fight ….bring it!

 

[Said1]

The concept of "politics" i.e. social relations involving authority or power is a modern word describing a perspective not a noun. You can't hand anyone five pounds of "politics". If you wish to describe the worship of a god or gods and characterize the relationship between supplicants and their shaman, priest or "holy one" as politics you certainly can. I'd caution the application of this word in the context of belief structures however because "politics" as practiced by mankind today doesn't connote subscription to belief (arguable and I'll certainly entertain the argument...) as hallmark of the process. The relationship between the King and his subjects, was certainly wreathed in "divine right of kings" and so on but "politics" is much more about money than belief. There are politics in godless societies and there are politics in many aspects of daily life but the use of the word (IMHO) addresses something other than "belief".

I was quite certain you of all people would know what I mean. Or is that infering? Inferring? What word should I use? Oh help me Micky, I'm quite confused, now.

What came first then? "Power and Authority" which I mistakenly refered to as 'politics' is wrong, not only grammarically.....but what, what else is wrong with that? Then what happened or what happened first? People were religious first then they orgnaized into little gangs called the Jets and the Sharks then the Shamans came and they found God and nature and ghosts? Or did they find a peaceful resoution and crown a king to rule them all then find religion. Religion is a modern word too isn't it? Let me find that one out meself, kay?

 

[MikeyDB]

I didn't say you were wrong I said the use of the word politics deserves to be used with some consideration of the paradigm in focus.

Sarcasm doesn't warrant a response of any greater depth than this.

 

[Said1]

I didn't say you were wrong I said the use of the word politics deserves to be used with some consideration of the paradigm in focus.

Sarcasm doesn't warrant a response of any greater depth than this.

I wasn't asking for a greater response. I was just adding some needed humor. Lighten up. You too Curio!

 

[MikeyDB]

OK woops!

 

[CDNBear]

If this were a teaching environment then yes you’re arguments carry a good deal of weight…but it isn’t.

This is a forum, a discussion area where opinions and perspectives are invited.

If my opinion offends you then you have the opportunity of responding and if you choose “argue” for your point of view and the superiority or correctness of that view juxtaposed to my presentation of my views and opinions. There is no doubt in my mind of any degree that some offence could be taken, and the nature of stating opinion includes the element of eliciting response. Nothing elicits response like jabbing someone in the “feelings”.

Take a breather, step back and put things in perspective.

OR

If ya wanna fight ….bring it![/quote]



Right!

I've called you out so many times only to have you hide. You take a shot on run, good guerilla tactics. You post vailed attacks at people intellegence and then when called on them, start crying foul. You use big words to make yourself feel superior to other people, all the while just looking like an a*s.

Unlike you mickey, I and most of us here, have no need to come on line and use big words, post long winded tortes, written by someone else and/or vail our contemptous insults to make ourselves feel big(Psst, your impotence is showing). I know I am already. I've survived countless encounters with death, crawled out from the muck of my ownself pity and lived to tell about it. I've also taken a stand, put my life on the line for others. What have you done? Nothing. Just challenge the intellect of anyone that sees through your crap.

While you post away userping your thievary on the world, I'll bask in the love bestowed upon me by my boys, and revel in the pride I feel when they form independent thoughts of their own on issues like religion. Instead of just copy/pasting someone elses ideologies in to their heads, like you. But they still maintain that sence of falablity and humbleness, posessed by the truly enlightend, that allows us to admit errors, when they are pointed out. That's why I, as do a lot of people here, feel superior to you.

 

[MikeyDB]

Thanks for your feedback ....

When I figure out what you're talking about I'll get back to you....

Have a nice day!

 

[Said1]

If this were a teaching environment then yes you’re arguments carry a good deal of weight…but it isn’t.

This is a forum, a discussion area where opinions and perspectives are invited.

If my opinion offends you then you have the opportunity of responding and if you choose “argue” for your point of view and the superiority or correctness of that view juxtaposed to my presentation of my views and opinions. There is no doubt in my mind of any degree that some offence could be taken, and the nature of stating opinion includes the element of eliciting response. Nothing elicits response like jabbing someone in the “feelings”.

Take a breather, step back and put things in perspective.

OR

If ya wanna fight ….bring it![/quote]



Right!

I've called you out so many times only to have you hide. You take a shot on run, good guerilla tactics. You post vailed attacks at people intellegence and then when called on them, start crying foul. You use big words to make yourself feel superior to other people, all the while just looking like an a*s.

Unlike you mickey, I and most of us here, have no need to come on line and use big words, post long winded tortes, written by someone else and/or vail our contemptous insults to make ourselves feel big(Psst, your impotence is showing). I know I am already. I've survived countless encounters with death, crawled out from the muck of my ownself pity and lived to tell about it. I've also taken a stand, put my life on the line for others. What have you done? Nothing. Just challenge the intellect of anyone that sees through your crap.

While you post away userping your thievary on the world, I'll bask in the love bestowed upon me by my boys, and revel in the pride I feel when they form independent thoughts of their own on issues like religion. Instead of just copy/pasting someone elses ideologies in to their heads, like you. But they still maintain that sence of falablity and humbleness, posessed by the truly enlightend, that allows us to admit errors, when they are pointed out. That's why I, as do a lot of people here, feel superior to you.

Not being facetious or anything, but what are your thoughts on the topic at hand?

 

[CDNBear]

Not being facetious or anything, but what are your thoughts on the topic at hand?

I'm leaning towards your perspective. Power is politics. Some Shamman/Holy men, used fear to sway people to their will, a political trait if I've ever seen one. People bent and swayed to the wills of those they saw as powerful, to their detriment or bennefit. If the formeer were to case, then a new point of view would arrise and some one would step up to fill the new position and sway the collective will to the new order.