must religion come to an end?

[dauer]

_Z_,

To clarify, because your post was a little unclear to me, I will rewrite it as I think you meant it. Please correct me if I have misunderstood you.

Religion:

1. (archaic) G!d defined: something that limits G!d to a given set of definitions.

Example: The religions are idols of stone and wood.

2. A mystical jigsaw puzzle: the interconnecting mystical elements across multiple faiths and cultures.

Example: As a student of religion I spend all of my time looking for the similarities between the mystical elements in various religions. The differences are not really an issue that concerns the study of religion.

If this is your definition I have a few questions.

By ignoring those views that contradict the so-called mystical view, the so-called universal, 2 really seems to be a category of 1. Did you mean to use 2 as an example of what you described in 1?

Even if you do not believe that 2 fits under 1, both definitions are quite different from each other to the point that I would ask for further clarification. Can you explain precisely how you use the word religion in your original post?

Thank you.

-- Dauer

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by _Z_

has religion come to an end?

simple question, difficult answer. in my mind i think people will probably want religion of some kind for a long while yet, this is more an intellectual/wisdom question.

i think religions agree and contradict each other on many levels, without believing in a single one it is easy to get confused. in the end it seams like it would be better if i went through life as if there were no religions.

as long as i can look life in the eye and see what it is thinking, i can find my own answers.

how do you feel; must religion come to an end?

What an elegant question! And the correct use of the word "were" instead of the more mundane and common "was" leads me to think that you like to sail away into the ethers at times

I'm beginning to think the same way, as if all the practices and religons have had their say to me and now it is up to me (if indeed such a thing as "me" really exists) to merely watch, listen, and see.

Sort of reminds me of an old Zen story about a hermit that was so very holy and pure that the birds would come and alight on his sholders and eat seeds from his hands just to be near his light. Yet when he became enlightened the birds no longer came...

Wonderful thread Z, thank you for starting it, I think this issue needs to be explored much more than it is.

[greymare]

I think religion WONT end because people NEED to think that there is a higher power. Someone to pray to , someone to thank, someone to blame. I just cant get around the concept of a "divine being" . Just cant, sorry. I'll try not to be judgemental of others that do however, I think a lot of people feel the need for this "comforter " that is religion.

[wil]

Originally Posted by greymare

I think religion WONT end because people NEED to think that there is a higher power. Someone to pray to , someone to thank, someone to blame. I just cant get around the concept of a "divine being" . Just cant, sorry. I'll try not to be judgemental of others that do however, I think a lot of people feel the need for this "comforter " that is religion.

Do you think they want a higher power to praise more, or one to blame when things don't go right?

[mee]

Originally Posted by greymare

I think religion WONT end because people NEED to think that there is a higher power. Someone to pray to , someone to thank, someone to blame. I just cant get around the concept of a "divine being" . Just cant, sorry. I'll try not to be judgemental of others that do however, I think a lot of people feel the need for this "comforter " that is religion.

only false religion will end, and it will be God who does the judging of that . i agree that many people NEED something and that is why they turn to religion . but i thought i was doing just fine and didnt need any God in my life , but that was before i took in the accurate knowledge of the bible , and i only did that out of curiosity to know what the bible really taught , and what an eye opener it was , i could plainly see that many who called themselves christians because of claiming to follow the bible , were not really following the bible and what it teaches at all . but they were following the traditions of man that the christian church had taken on , THE TRINITY TEACHING is one example , it is not a bible teaching at all . so according to the bible it is false, putting ourselves in line with true bible teachings is most beneficial to us , as i have learned over the years. all of us ,even if we think we dont need God , are sadly mistaken because very shortly he is going to step into the affairs of mankind and Judge all of mankind. and its all to do with..... Daniel 2;44...... Putting our trust in the right rulership is the thing to do and we need to do it before he goes into action


And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite; Daniel 2;44

[Ciel]

True religion is an ambassador of love.

Could all those of Sirius now get the hell out of here, time for you to do some cleaning on your own astral light. And leave us in peace..........

Thus sayeth an volcanic meek, with mighty compassion.

- c -

[dauer]

Or we could... get sirius. xD

Sorry, couldn't help myself. I have a hard time resisting a good pun, or a bad one.

[Paladin]

Let's face it, people are at different stages of development when it comes to belief and practice. Not going to get into a whole stages of faith thingy here but I suspect there are those present who not only need belief and religion to keep from having an existential meltdown but also need to convince others of it as well. I can love and respect the diverse ideas and beliefs of many religions and philosophies but I know the map isn't really the terrain. At some point don't we really have to put the map down and walk under the heavens, feel the road under our feet and still after learning so very much about God, the Universe and Everything still be able to look into the night sky, all speckled with stars with the same wonder and bewilderment that we used to? Would it be such a terrible thing to open ourselves up to whatever is, and ask what that might be? Can we even stop for a moment and consider that the very process of what we so very arrogantly call "understanding" might be what seperates us from actuality?

You know, sometimes it is enough for me to go about my daily chores and leave the universe to make it's own way without me trying to figure it out. And somedays I sit by a streamside and am awestruck the way a tiny leaf spirals through the air and lands so delicately upon the water, spinning about untill it disappears around a bend.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Ciel

True religion is an ambassador of love.

true ,
After Christ had been resurrected to the heavens, being no longer on earth in person, his faithful followers were appointed to act in his place, “substituting for Christ” as ambassadors of God.

The treatment accorded a ruler’s messengers, or envoys, was regarded as treatment given the ruler and his government.

[_Z_]

dauer

in the main i simply meant it as the layman would, is there a need for over clarification? i don’t really think so.
it is as simple as; there are Muslims, there are buddhists, christians, jews etc. the religions may be open to each other - not that i see much historical evidence for that - but the followers feel they belong to a single set.

paladin, hail

leads me to think that you like to sail away into the ethers at times

indeed ~ and to be stood firmly on the ground on occasion - at least twice in my life that is .

as if all the practices and religons have had their say to me and now it is up to me

to hit the nail right on the head! [yes exactly] HURRAH!

mee

After Christ had been resurrected to the heavens, being no longer on earth in person, his faithful followers were appointed to act in his place, "substituting for Christ" as ambassadors of God.

thats what i am talking about.

[dauer]

_Z_,

I don't think it's accurate to say that you understand it as the layman would. Laymen (of which I am one) and women disagree with each other on many words, including this one. That is why I requested precision. It's very easy to use a word and, throughout a discussion, make reference to different definitions for that word rather than sticking with a single definition and working from it.

What you stated here differs from your previous definitions and doesn't really define the word religion so much as give your thoughts about one particular aspect of religion that you see, which is that it leads to distinct groups. I agree. The nature of words is to define and distinguish things. I don't think it really says that much about religion that could not be said about things like corporations, nations, cultures, political movements etc. If I insert your new definition into your original post it comes across like this:

has [affiliation to particular groups] come to an end?

simple question, difficult answer. in my mind i think people will probably want [affiliation to particular groups] of some kind for a long while yet, this is more an intellectual/wisdom question.

i think [the groups individuals affiliate with] agree and contradict each other on many levels, without believing in a single one it is easy to get confused. in the end it seams like it would be better if i went through life as if there were no [distinct groups].

as long as i can look life in the eye and see what it is thinking, i can find my own answers.

how do you feel; must [affiliation to distinct groups] come to an end?

If that is what you mean, and I am still uncertain if it is because you have defined religion in a few different ways so far, then I don't think there is a reason we should stop affiliating with distinct group. I think it's better to have a rainbow of colors than a gray mush. I think it makes life easier, too, to have larger and smaller collectives and to have language with which to speak about those distinctions. I think it would make more sense to focus on fostering love and tolerance than to think that the distinctions themselves are at fault. An apple is not an orange, nor is it an apple tree.

I think it's unlikely the people of the world will stop affiliating with individual groups. I don't think it would be a productive development if group affiliation ceased.

[mee]

True religion will survive God’s judgments, so that, finally, all honor and glory will be given to the One whom Jesus said is "the only true God." He is the One identified by the psalmist who declared: "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth."—John 17:3; Psalm 83:18.

[_Z_]

dauer

That is why I requested precision. It’s very easy to use a word and, throughout a discussion, make reference to different definitions for that word rather than sticking with a single definition and working from it.

upon reflection i agree.

affiliation to distinct groups

yes, and to sets of meanings esp where they set boundaries and draw lines. basically i see things in two basic constructs; in the one, anything that can be put in a box i.e. is limited. then secondly, that of not putting things in boxes nor accepting the constrained views which emanate thereof.
this then is what i mean.

thanks for your wisdom - much appreciated as always.

mee

boxed religion defined.


firstly the text presumes god is judgemental. ‘he’ may not even have the ability or the desire to judge. he created existence, why judge that which you have made and take the blame to the them - especially when they are born in ignorance [and mostly die in it]? the idea seams ridiculous to me.

why would god require honour and glory? these are mundane earthly things.

sure god may be the highest ~ if there is a hierarchy! the problem here is that when we so define god, we place him against other aspects of reality when he is surely all-encompassing. some may divide things in such a manner that they see god as without himself like in the notion of brahman, i personally go the other way and don’t divide him up.

just as 'everything' as entire cannot be defined, nor can god. this is his reality. it is not wisdom to give such a vast and incomprehensable being the limits of man!

[Francis king]

interesting...

to me, religion is coming to an end, or rather, the religion of infalliable Gods and unchangable tomes written in stone is ending, and instead, ppl are becoming more spiritual- they do not follow religion because they are supposed to, they follow religion because they want to... sure, they may not be ultraorthodox, they might not even agree with all the articles of faith of their own specific religious systems, but they are usually ethical, and personable, and decent, and inquisitive, and are looking for something good, as they feel there is something good there in religion worth looking for... they are more open to discussion, they are more tolerant of other, different opinions, and there is less insistence about what is right and what is not...

and yet- maybe thats just me in my rose tinted specs... as sometimes, I see something different.. sometimes I notice a rise in ultra-orthodoxy, I see a rise in fanaticism, yet... I think this is just the death throes of the old order as it dies...

yes, there is a huge industry in religion, so much so I myself call it "Religion Inc".... but... was it not always so? think of christian-esque relics, and how much they were bartered for on the open markets, think of the big stupas we have housing objects which might have once belonged to the buddha....

okay, today it is more noticeable, today it is more well managed, and we have Jesus mugs, and buddha mousemats and mohammed (may he be blessed) cookie jars... mormon music, JW jam and scones, christian music channels, soley buddhist publishing houses, faith schools, faith based communities, etc etc, and this in itself is not a bad thing...

money isn't dirty, money isn't greedy, money isnt some maligned root of all evil- in fact- money is very good to have- its very useful to u, if ur a messiah type and want to save the world, as that is what most ppl who need saving really need- they need money for food, for accomodation, for rehabilitation, for recreation, etc, etc...

look at organisations such as...CAFOD, Oxfam, Rokpa, all the small evangelical churches who run soup kitchens and dish out free food to the drug addicts and alkies- do they do good works? yes they do...

I don't agree with the widows mite coming to my cathedral to build a gold statue we can look at when ppl haven't got enough food to eat... but by the same token, I don't think it is right for a priest or monk to have holes in his shoes which let the snow in either...

as for a church that says "...don't buy our stuff, don't fill our coffers, you can do this by yourself"- I have one- my own- and maybe one day the "pundarika tour" will come to a neighbourhood near u!

as for a missionary that says... "you don't need to come to our church, just be a good person (yep), read this book (it's called "the road to nirvana", incidentally), and follow these guidelines (the ole buddhist path). Call me if you need a hand, but don't send money, that would be abhorrent"... erm, I am that missionary!

but, if ppl want to give me money, they can, why not!

[bob x]

"sometimes I notice a rise in ultra-orthodoxy, I see a rise in fanaticism, yet... I think this is just the death throes of the old order as it dies... "
I would hope so, but I tend to be pessimistic on that score. At the very least, I have accepted that I am not likely to live long enough to see the orthodoxies die.