reason for religion

[wil]

Ever seen the study with flys (or was it fleas) where they put them in a jar and they kept banging against the lid....after a set amount of time they took the lid off and they didn't get out because they had determined it wasn't a way out?

Quote: Originally Posted by Dondi
Suppose God and Jesus didn't exist. Would you call it a waste of time if one adhered the teachings of Jesus in regard to loving one another?

never Quote:
Originally Posted by Dondi
Even if there wasn't a heaven, that's not a bad way to live you life, is it?

not at all

Ever wondered if someday we'll take the lid off religions and we'll all follow the golden rule despite not having one?

[Tao_Equus]

cant believe no one has put any response to this. quite amazing on this site. lets face it, is this not what 'god' would hope for if he/she/it were truly a creature of love?

p.s. Hi Wil

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

cant believe no one has put any response to this. quite amazing on this site. lets face it, is this not what 'god' would hope for if he/she/it were truly a creature of love?

p.s. Hi Wil

Hi TE, great to see you back.

luna

[Tao_Equus]

TY Luna...its gr8 to be back online

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao Equus!

It is good to see you back around!

I guess the reason I haven't responded is mostly because I am not sure of what is being asked. No offense to wil whatsoever, I just don't get the question.

By the title, I expected a thread something like this one started by DIKL:

What need do religions fulfill?

I am not sure if this better addresses the question, but maybe there is something there to further the conversation?

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Juan, thx its gr8 to be back

I suppose Wil's question is more rehtorical than the great thread you pointed me at where some superb posts have been made. Perhaps Wil can clarify exactly what his point is? It may be that I am seeing what I want to see in it but for me its simply a question asking are we in touch enough, as a race, with our individual spirituality that we no longer require the institutions of faith. The answer of course is very very sadly 'no'.

Seems to me that a population analysis would reveal roughly these figures : Sheep 85%, Wolves 10% Conscience bound Free-Thinkers 5%

Many of the 'faith-leaders' of this world would most definitely be among the 10% group too.

Regards

TE

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Pending wil's response, I will touch on this observation:

for me its simply a question asking are we in touch enough, as a race, with our individual spirituality that we no longer require the institutions of faith.

As a race? Hmmm, my gut reaction is to think that none of us is fully competent or capable of speaking for the whole of humanity. I guess I see this as an individual thing, something that can only be honestly answered by each person for themself. And then, are we speaking of institutional religion, or personal religion? (I recently learned that these terms turn out not to be original on my part, William James was using these terms over a century ago).

From an institutional perspective, I suppose it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of "us," viewed through a western lens, are not capable on our own and could care less otherwise. And a significant minority strive to be otherwise. I am not well versed in eastern views, but by my understanding I would think they would see this a bit differently, perhaps suggesting that their "institutions" serve the purpose of liberating their adherents from being cast in a solid mold, of being made to think-feel-act in a specific manner. So a lot depends on perspective, and an "outsider" looking in can only decipher so much through his preferred lens.

On the level of personal religious enterprise, where the individual quest for understanding the spiritual intuition seems inherent, I am a bit more unsure. I sense that all peoples have an inherent desire to search for meaning. How that inherency plays out is another matter. Again, from perspective (western or eastern), experience (personal and acquaintance), intuition vs. logic, and a list of other ramifications enter the discussion. By and large I think we all desire to understand, to try to place some type of meaning into our lives. Some are comfortable accepting the status quo, particularly if there is no significant challenge to their life and status. Some override the inherent search for whatever underlying psychological reasons, by substituting logic (philosophy and science). Some fully "take the bull by the horns" and pursue what their hearts and experiences tell them is so. And there are all manner of variations in between, and surely some I am overlooking.

So, to the analogy of fleas / flies staying contained after training...perhaps there is some degree of merit regarding institutional expressions of religion. On a personal level though, it is about choice. Those fleas / flies may just as easily be staying confined (in their comfort zone) by choice.

My two cents.

[Dondi]

Well, since my quotes were used in the OP, I suppose I ought to respond.

To clarify my point, an example is in order. I look to a person like dauer (my apologies to dauer, I hope he doesn't mind). Here is a Jew who is at best an agnostic, which I find rather pecular. The fundamental tenet of Judaism is "Here O Israel, the Lord our God is One." Here is one Jew who doesn't even consider God as evident, yet finds comfort and spirituality within the paradigm of Judaism. How can one be a Jew without the foundation of the Jewish culture? There is something about being a secular Jew that drives dauer to live the life of a Jew in not believe in the God of the Jews. (If I have gotten this wrong, dauer, please correct me).

[I, Brian]

I think Juantoo3 is on the right track - to me, humanity will always create it's own jars, whether personally or socially constructed.

2c.

[wil]

I'm gathering the answer is no...

Answering for all of us...we need the jar...but first we need to see the jar and decide to get in it (evangle thread)

But qualified with...those that are on the path, been in the jar and understand...are few and no longer need the jar...they grock G-d

[lunamoth]

I don't like flies, so I was kind of turned off from the start by that analogy. Anyhoo...

With respect to religious Law, I don't see the Law as the reason for religion. I don't think ethics and morals are first order aspects of religion. The first order aspect, IMO, is the relationship with God, learning to trust God so that we can be generous with others, rather than defensive and anxious about ourselves.

I think of law as the scaffold, rather than as the jar. You put the scaffolding up so that you can build the true object of your desire. But, once the object is built, the scaffolding is not needed. In Christian terms I'd say this means that once you oreder your life around loving God and neighbor, the law is not needed because you naturally do what is right. This is much better than having lots of rigid laws that can't take every individual circumstance into consideration (just look where that gets us trying to forumlate abortion laws). See also the evangelism thread about the spirit of the law, rather than the letter.

But, in my experience we still need the scaffolding. We just need not confuse it with the Kingdom of God.

2 c,
lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, wil!

I'm gathering the answer is no...

It's hard to say yes or no if one doesn't understand the question.

Answering for all of us...we need the jar...but first we need to see the jar and decide to get in it (evangle thread)

Well...which jar? I mean, if the jar represents institutional religions, then there are many to choose from, each with its own "lid" to bounce our heads off of. If the jar represents the intuitive search for meaning beyond ourselves, one jar fits all, then I suppose it represents our comfort zone.

The thought struck me, keeping in mind this is an analogy, that choosing not to "escape" the confines of the jar may not be such a bad thing. Within the jar is comfort, the lid provided for our security and protection. I am thinking along the lines of keeping a cherished pet on a leash, not for the purpose of "binding" them or "chaining" them, but to protect them from harm, to keep them safe and secure. We do this out of love. Perhaps the "jar" is G-d's way of protecting us, even if only from ourselves.

But qualified with...those that are on the path, been in the jar and understand...are few and no longer need the jar

I suppose a difference I see is that there are a few well worn paths, and perhaps a few more paths no so well worn, that do indeed lead up the mountain. And there are some paths, can't say how many relative to the valid ones, that lead to dead ends. And then there is one very well worn path, great and wide and very easy to travel, with gravity on the side of the traveller, that leads down the mountain in the opposite direction from where one would rather end up. The problem is, none of the paths are very well marked. If we are honest with ourselves, it is guesswork on our part which path is the one best suited to us. So we do the best we can with what we've got, and hope for the best in the end.

...they grock G-d

I don't understand. ???

So, I don't think the answer you have received from any of us is "no." Certainly not from me. I do think I have to qualify my answer, in part because I am not certain of the question. And if I have gotten the gist and provided an appropriate answer, then it is sometimes yes, sometimes no, it just depends...

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Dondi!

To clarify my point, an example is in order. I look to a person like dauer (my apologies to dauer, I hope he doesn't mind). Here is a Jew who is at best an agnostic, which I find rather pecular. The fundamental tenet of Judaism is "Here O Israel, the Lord our God is One." Here is one Jew who doesn't even consider God as evident, yet finds comfort and spirituality within the paradigm of Judaism. How can one be a Jew without the foundation of the Jewish culture? There is something about being a secular Jew that drives dauer to live the life of a Jew in not believe in the God of the Jews. (If I have gotten this wrong, dauer, please correct me).

I am not dauer, and goodness knows I am not well versed in Judaism, but it is my understanding that "Judaism" comprises two different but overlapping things; a religion and a culture. Culturally, all it takes is to be born to a Jewish mother, and one is a Jew, regardless of whether or not one ultimately holds the Jewish faith. Likewise, one can convert to the Jewish faith and not technically be from the Jewish culture (although one would think that over time the culture would come with the religion). It gets confusing, but this is how I understand it from some conversations I have read around here. If I have it wrong, I expect I will be corrected.