Forums > Social Discussion > Religion- a way forward.
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've been looking at a recent thread on religion but I'm not posting there any more as, like virtually every other HOP thread on the issue it's descended into hostility and confrontation.
I thought we might have a go at one where we endevour to stay calm, reasonable and constructive.
So it's appropriate that I recently got a book on buddhism written by the Dalai Lama; primarily becasue it had some nice photos in it.
The interesting thing about this book was that the first thing the Dalai Lama said in his intro was that he believed Buddhism was not the best system for many, that he thought it best that most people focused on the good aspects of their own spiritual tradition/religion.
This is in sharp contrast to the attitude of many religious leaders who seem intent on pushing their own religions to the exclusion of all others.
What he was saying is that all religions have their good points eg stressing the importance of compassion, and how we can focus on working from those, rather than getting sucked into arguments on any negative interpretations.
Whatever we may think about religion, it's here to stay for the forseeable future, way too deeply embedded in the culture of many to be dismissed.
And, while it's true that many believers hold views that are predudiced and hostile, it's equally true that many athiests hold such views.
And, while many religious people are calm, secure and well adjusted individuals; so are many non believers.
ie a persons religious views probably have less relavance to the people they are than is often supposed.
It's ironic that the above mentioned thread in which religion is condemned as being the root of hatred and war, itself becomes a place of hostility and negativity.
I think the way forward is to focus on the common and positive aspects of both religious and none-religious systems.
I think it would be interesting if anyone posting on this thread made it a priority to not post negative stuff; while there's a place for criticism I think that there's loads on other religion based threads that are full of it, and it'd be nice to balance it out a bit with some focusing on positives.
I've been looking at a recent thread on religion but I'm not posting there any more as, like virtually every other HOP thread on the issue it's descended into hostility and confrontation.
I thought we might have a go at one where we endevour to stay calm, reasonable and constructive.
So it's appropriate that I recently got a book on buddhism written by the Dalai Lama; primarily becasue it had some nice photos in it.
The interesting thing about this book was that the first thing the Dalai Lama said in his intro was that he believed Buddhism was not the best system for many, that he thought it best that most people focused on the good aspects of their own spiritual tradition/religion.
This is in sharp contrast to the attitude of many religious leaders who seem intent on pushing their own religions to the exclusion of all others.
What he was saying is that all religions have their good points eg stressing the importance of compassion, and how we can focus on working from those, rather than getting sucked into arguments on any negative interpretations.
Whatever we may think about religion, it's here to stay for the forseeable future, way too deeply embedded in the culture of many to be dismissed.
And, while it's true that many believers hold views that are predudiced and hostile, it's equally true that many athiests hold such views.
And, while many religious people are calm, secure and well adjusted individuals; so are many non believers.
ie a persons religious views probably have less relavance to the people they are than is often supposed.
It's ironic that the above mentioned thread in which religion is condemned as being the root of hatred and war, itself becomes a place of hostility and negativity.
I think the way forward is to focus on the common and positive aspects of both religious and none-religious systems.
I think it would be interesting if anyone posting on this thread made it a priority to not post negative stuff; while there's a place for criticism I think that there's loads on other religion based threads that are full of it, and it'd be nice to balance it out a bit with some focusing on positives.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
enthusiast
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
523 posts
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Posted:
(Wow, it's really hard to get down what I think about religion and spirituality in writing...)
It seems to me that many people have an issue with christianity - I'm not trying to be contentious, I just see plenty of posts criticizing it.
So, I thought I'd bring up Quakerism, which is the flavour of christianity I'm most familiar with, and it also seems that they've got so many things *right*
Quaker services consist of everyone sitting around a room in silence, and if anyone has anything they feel moved to say, they stand up and say it. And that's it. The quakers I knew were generally quiet and unassuming, but strong willed, and they liked to go on long rambles with thermos flasks.
They were also behind a phenominal number of peace protests and generally beneficial happenings. They would have happy debates with people of any religion, and never evangelicalize. They believe in the bible, but are more interested in "that of god in every man" - they were some of the first peoples to make friends with native americans, as they recognized that their "great spirit" was probably the same thing
I'm not really a quaker myself, but I thought I'd bring it up as an example of a *large* religious organisation that does a lot of good and suffers from few of the flaws commonly attributed to religions.
--
.
(Wow, it's really hard to get down what I think about religion and spirituality in writing...)
It seems to me that many people have an issue with christianity - I'm not trying to be contentious, I just see plenty of posts criticizing it.
So, I thought I'd bring up Quakerism, which is the flavour of christianity I'm most familiar with, and it also seems that they've got so many things *right*
Quaker services consist of everyone sitting around a room in silence, and if anyone has anything they feel moved to say, they stand up and say it. And that's it. The quakers I knew were generally quiet and unassuming, but strong willed, and they liked to go on long rambles with thermos flasks.
They were also behind a phenominal number of peace protests and generally beneficial happenings. They would have happy debates with people of any religion, and never evangelicalize. They believe in the bible, but are more interested in "that of god in every man" - they were some of the first peoples to make friends with native americans, as they recognized that their "great spirit" was probably the same thing
I'm not really a quaker myself, but I thought I'd bring it up as an example of a *large* religious organisation that does a lot of good and suffers from few of the flaws commonly attributed to religions.
--
.
monkeys ate my brain
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
A totally valiad point, but one that would, in the context of this thread, be much better covered in a new thread entitled something like- 'the dangers of focusing only on the positives of religion'.
A look through the other posts here, and how the thread has developed will show why.
Sorry if I seem ruthless here, but the only reason this thread hasn't degenerated into a rant is because I've asked other people, who posted similar stuff to your point, to start up new threads. As a result we've got a couple of interesting new threads going, and this one has stayed focused and on topic.
Written by: NYC
One of the problems with 'focusing on the positive aspects' of religion is......
A totally valiad point, but one that would, in the context of this thread, be much better covered in a new thread entitled something like- 'the dangers of focusing only on the positives of religion'.
A look through the other posts here, and how the thread has developed will show why.
Sorry if I seem ruthless here, but the only reason this thread hasn't degenerated into a rant is because I've asked other people, who posted similar stuff to your point, to start up new threads. As a result we've got a couple of interesting new threads going, and this one has stayed focused and on topic.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
mo-seph, I'm glad you brought up the Quakers, I knew a juggler for several years before he mentioned that he was a Quaker, which illustrates how non preachy they are.
As a great respector of buddhism I know the value of sitting in silence, which is the Quaker way of prayer.
Quakers show how much good can be achieved without preaching/conversion attempts.
mo-seph, I'm glad you brought up the Quakers, I knew a juggler for several years before he mentioned that he was a Quaker, which illustrates how non preachy they are.
As a great respector of buddhism I know the value of sitting in silence, which is the Quaker way of prayer.
Quakers show how much good can be achieved without preaching/conversion attempts.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Shoryuken!
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Posted:
I'm an atheist, but I do think my life could have been happier if I believed in God, so I guess what I'm going to say fits the bill. Anything "anti-religious" I say will purely be to explain my beliefs better (hopefully, I'm kinda pre-empting this.)
Right; I'm atheist purely because I don't believe that there is any logical, rational reason to believe in a god. I'm only interested in the truth when it comes to stuff like this, so I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm just saying that since nothing I have ever seen ever in my life goes any way towards suggesting there is one, I don't believe. Again, I'm not anti-religion - if someone managed to convince me that it was true, I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd really like that.
The benefits of religion, as I see it, are that it gives answers. As an atheist, I have no moral standpoint in any arguments - everything is just opinion for me, which is damned hard on the head when you feel SO sure that something is wrong. I can't say "paedophilia is evil" and really mean it, and that’s hard. Vindictive as it may seem, it would be nice to believe that there was some kind of natural justice, and that good things will happen to good people etc, but I don’t. To me it seems that good things come to those who grab them in their fists. It would be nice to believe that there was some equalising force I suppose.
In a purely head-messing rather than depressing sense, its annoying having no idea how the universe came into being, or having no comprehension of what its like after death (imagine just not existing, having nothing left. It is hard to get your head around.) I’d like to think I knew exactly what the truth was, but I don’t and it’s weird.
Anyway, hope that adds a new angle to things.
Respect,
Davy
I'm an atheist, but I do think my life could have been happier if I believed in God, so I guess what I'm going to say fits the bill. Anything "anti-religious" I say will purely be to explain my beliefs better (hopefully, I'm kinda pre-empting this.)
Right; I'm atheist purely because I don't believe that there is any logical, rational reason to believe in a god. I'm only interested in the truth when it comes to stuff like this, so I'm not saying there isn't a God, I'm just saying that since nothing I have ever seen ever in my life goes any way towards suggesting there is one, I don't believe. Again, I'm not anti-religion - if someone managed to convince me that it was true, I'd be fine with that. In fact, I'd really like that.
The benefits of religion, as I see it, are that it gives answers. As an atheist, I have no moral standpoint in any arguments - everything is just opinion for me, which is damned hard on the head when you feel SO sure that something is wrong. I can't say "paedophilia is evil" and really mean it, and that’s hard. Vindictive as it may seem, it would be nice to believe that there was some kind of natural justice, and that good things will happen to good people etc, but I don’t. To me it seems that good things come to those who grab them in their fists. It would be nice to believe that there was some equalising force I suppose.
In a purely head-messing rather than depressing sense, its annoying having no idea how the universe came into being, or having no comprehension of what its like after death (imagine just not existing, having nothing left. It is hard to get your head around.) I’d like to think I knew exactly what the truth was, but I don’t and it’s weird.
Anyway, hope that adds a new angle to things.
Respect,
Davy
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
I'm a Wiccan priest, and I also interact with the larger neo-Pagan community. I was raised in a house where all forms of religious expression were ridiculed, where scientism was the fundamental organizing principle, and where behaviorist psychology was the operating principle, and used to justify what I now consider to be, shall we say, rather questionable parenting practices.
I agree with the Dalai Lama, to the extent that he means that people should strive to find the value in their birth tradition, and stay with that tradition unless it oppresses them. Why? Because that's the ONLY tradition that will have that deep-tape resonance for them, the instinct and the reflex of the spirit.
Second best is to discover a religion (or ethical system, or set of beliefs and principles) that does suit your spiritual (and/or intellectual) needs. You can develop a deep resonance for it, though usually not as profound as the birth tradition - which will still be there at the bottom, and will become a source of annoyance on a continuing basis.
In my own case, I was oppressed by the airless cynicism I was raised with, and went looking for something better. I tried Christianity, but it wasn't a good fit for me. Discovering Wicca was like coming home; in it I found core values that matched my own, and beliefs matching ones I'd held since childhood; the resonance with nature, the sense of the sacred that I experience when e.g. looking at a tree, bare the day before, now covered in buds.
I still find myself reacting out of a behaviorist sensibility, particularly with regard to children. (Strictly on a withholding-reward basis, I assure you.) This is extremely effective with whiny 7-year-olds ("Nobody gets anything from me by whining and sniveling! Try asking in a civil tone, [child's name], and we'll see about it."). It's less sensible with crying babies. Filling my heart with calm joy and crooning at them softly (principles out of my new religion) works much better, I find.
I'm often surprised by how anti-Christian some of my Pagan friends are. This is because they were raised Christian, and it oppressed them in some fashion. Because I wasn't, I'm able to interact with Christians without having my knees jerk; I've acquired experience that allows me to say to my Pagan friends "no, that may have been true in your home church, but my Christian friends do not behave that way" and "no, not all Christians believe that."
The Dalai Lama says that Buddhism is not for everyone. Neither is Wicca. Wicca isn't even for all the people who want to join. I've always believed that convert-seeking goes with belief in afterlife punishment for non-coreligionists; we have no such belief. The only place where I'm willing to say that Christianity is Just Plain Wrong is when it believes that Christianity is for everyone; as a living counterexample, I know this to be untrue.
When I began singing in the choir of an Episcopal church a decade or so back, I found a group of people who shared many of my core values, and who were welcoming of me (granted they were desperate for a competent tenor at the time!); the experience of singing in this choir has enriched me, and the interactions I've had with these folks have enriched both me and them.
I find I'm more comfortable with spiritual people, regardless of their religion, than with non-spiritual people (in general; I have puh-lenty of atheist, agnostic, or otherwise non-spriritual friends - there are just some things we don't really talk about).
Lastly, we all (whether we admit it or not) pick and choose from our religion as handed down the things that make sense to us, and match our spirits' internal makeup. I'm lucky that my religion actively supports that; I worship some gods but not others, and the ones I do worship I call upon in some aspects but not others. It is a mistake, however, to pick only things that please us, and support us in doing whatever we want. Religion that never calls upon its practitioners to do anything they don't really want to, or refrain from doing anything they do want to, is, as Teresa Nielsen Hayden has put it, "cotton candy theology."
Please let me know if this post meets the standards of the thread, and if not, in what respects.
I'm a Wiccan priest, and I also interact with the larger neo-Pagan community. I was raised in a house where all forms of religious expression were ridiculed, where scientism was the fundamental organizing principle, and where behaviorist psychology was the operating principle, and used to justify what I now consider to be, shall we say, rather questionable parenting practices.
I agree with the Dalai Lama, to the extent that he means that people should strive to find the value in their birth tradition, and stay with that tradition unless it oppresses them. Why? Because that's the ONLY tradition that will have that deep-tape resonance for them, the instinct and the reflex of the spirit.
Second best is to discover a religion (or ethical system, or set of beliefs and principles) that does suit your spiritual (and/or intellectual) needs. You can develop a deep resonance for it, though usually not as profound as the birth tradition - which will still be there at the bottom, and will become a source of annoyance on a continuing basis.
In my own case, I was oppressed by the airless cynicism I was raised with, and went looking for something better. I tried Christianity, but it wasn't a good fit for me. Discovering Wicca was like coming home; in it I found core values that matched my own, and beliefs matching ones I'd held since childhood; the resonance with nature, the sense of the sacred that I experience when e.g. looking at a tree, bare the day before, now covered in buds.
I still find myself reacting out of a behaviorist sensibility, particularly with regard to children. (Strictly on a withholding-reward basis, I assure you.) This is extremely effective with whiny 7-year-olds ("Nobody gets anything from me by whining and sniveling! Try asking in a civil tone, [child's name], and we'll see about it."). It's less sensible with crying babies. Filling my heart with calm joy and crooning at them softly (principles out of my new religion) works much better, I find.
I'm often surprised by how anti-Christian some of my Pagan friends are. This is because they were raised Christian, and it oppressed them in some fashion. Because I wasn't, I'm able to interact with Christians without having my knees jerk; I've acquired experience that allows me to say to my Pagan friends "no, that may have been true in your home church, but my Christian friends do not behave that way" and "no, not all Christians believe that."
The Dalai Lama says that Buddhism is not for everyone. Neither is Wicca. Wicca isn't even for all the people who want to join. I've always believed that convert-seeking goes with belief in afterlife punishment for non-coreligionists; we have no such belief. The only place where I'm willing to say that Christianity is Just Plain Wrong is when it believes that Christianity is for everyone; as a living counterexample, I know this to be untrue.
When I began singing in the choir of an Episcopal church a decade or so back, I found a group of people who shared many of my core values, and who were welcoming of me (granted they were desperate for a competent tenor at the time!); the experience of singing in this choir has enriched me, and the interactions I've had with these folks have enriched both me and them.
I find I'm more comfortable with spiritual people, regardless of their religion, than with non-spiritual people (in general; I have puh-lenty of atheist, agnostic, or otherwise non-spriritual friends - there are just some things we don't really talk about).
Lastly, we all (whether we admit it or not) pick and choose from our religion as handed down the things that make sense to us, and match our spirits' internal makeup. I'm lucky that my religion actively supports that; I worship some gods but not others, and the ones I do worship I call upon in some aspects but not others. It is a mistake, however, to pick only things that please us, and support us in doing whatever we want. Religion that never calls upon its practitioners to do anything they don't really want to, or refrain from doing anything they do want to, is, as Teresa Nielsen Hayden has put it, "cotton candy theology."
Please let me know if this post meets the standards of the thread, and if not, in what respects.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
SILVER Member
sleeping with angels
508 posts
Location: anaheim CA usa
sleeping with angels
508 posts
Location: anaheim CA usa
Posted:
religon is a nisety. many people do not fear death but fear what lies after death.
this is what keeps us human and not beast.
it gives us moral value. it keeps your friend from raping your wife. it is what keeps us good and in check many time without us even seeing it may times
religon is a nisety. many people do not fear death but fear what lies after death.
this is what keeps us human and not beast.
it gives us moral value. it keeps your friend from raping your wife. it is what keeps us good and in check many time without us even seeing it may times
SLEEP WITH ANGELS muckieha
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
That's fine. It's not so much standards as trying to ensure the thread doesn't turn into a hostile one like so manu other HOP religion threads.
Cheers for respecting the thread.
Written by: Xopher
Please let me know if this post meets the standards of the thread, and if not, in what respects.
That's fine. It's not so much standards as trying to ensure the thread doesn't turn into a hostile one like so manu other HOP religion threads.
Cheers for respecting the thread.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think an athiest can be just as strong in their opinions as a religious person. An example would be some existentialist philosophies which put forward a view that it is down to the individual to create meaning in their life.
i.e. by your choices you create your own way of being, your own morality.
It's my view that the good aspects of religion do not lie in being obedient to rules, but in the aspects which can bring inner peace, and confidence in the way you live.
Good as these aspects of religion are, I do believe that they are equally available to atheists.
I feel that you can say, as an athiest, that the sexual abuse of children is very wrong. For example, a buddhist who doesn't believe in God would say that it's wrong on the grounds that it causes a great deal of suffering to the child.
Written by: nilid69
As an atheist, I have no moral standpoint in any arguments - everything is just opinion for me.....
I think an athiest can be just as strong in their opinions as a religious person. An example would be some existentialist philosophies which put forward a view that it is down to the individual to create meaning in their life.
i.e. by your choices you create your own way of being, your own morality.
It's my view that the good aspects of religion do not lie in being obedient to rules, but in the aspects which can bring inner peace, and confidence in the way you live.
Good as these aspects of religion are, I do believe that they are equally available to atheists.
Written by: nilid69
..............I can't say "paedophilia is evil" and really mean it,
I feel that you can say, as an athiest, that the sexual abuse of children is very wrong. For example, a buddhist who doesn't believe in God would say that it's wrong on the grounds that it causes a great deal of suffering to the child.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
beautifully written xopher.
have lots of stuff to add to thread but not time right now!
hugs to all!
beautifully written xopher.
have lots of stuff to add to thread but not time right now!
hugs to all!
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
Shoryuken!
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Posted:
OWD,
Don't worry, I do have very strong opinions, but thats all they are. So far I've decided that I really dislike pain, suffering, abuse etc. The trouble comes because my views are emotive, rather than based on moral truths. In a way I have got my own morallity, but without a basis for it is there really much use?
I don't really feel I can say something is "wrong" on any grounds. I'm interestsed, what basis do buddhists use for saying that suffering is "wrong" without a belief in god? I dislike it, and so I try to prevent it/minimise it, but thats because of my dislike for pain. If someone honestly said to me "I don't care about causing suffering to children" I would try to bang home some empathy, but I couldn't say that their view is wrong. Metaethically I believe that the standpoint of many people I despise is as sound as mine, which is quite worrying. I've pretty much made the decision that I just have to follow what I see as right, but it's not a very stable standpoint for activism of any sort is it?
Written by:
I think an athiest can be just as strong in their opinions as a religious person. An example would be some existentialist philosophies which put forward a view that it is down to the individual to create meaning in their life.
OWD,
Don't worry, I do have very strong opinions, but thats all they are. So far I've decided that I really dislike pain, suffering, abuse etc. The trouble comes because my views are emotive, rather than based on moral truths. In a way I have got my own morallity, but without a basis for it is there really much use?
Written by:
I feel that you can say, as an athiest, that the sexual abuse of children is very wrong. For example, a buddhist who doesn't believe in God would say that it's wrong on the grounds that it causes a great deal of suffering to the child.
I don't really feel I can say something is "wrong" on any grounds. I'm interestsed, what basis do buddhists use for saying that suffering is "wrong" without a belief in god? I dislike it, and so I try to prevent it/minimise it, but thats because of my dislike for pain. If someone honestly said to me "I don't care about causing suffering to children" I would try to bang home some empathy, but I couldn't say that their view is wrong. Metaethically I believe that the standpoint of many people I despise is as sound as mine, which is quite worrying. I've pretty much made the decision that I just have to follow what I see as right, but it's not a very stable standpoint for activism of any sort is it?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
I've been wondering about what Xopher calls "cotton candy theology" since I've been reading about Cognitive dissonance lately. Apparently it's human nature to change our beliefs to bring them inline with how we act instead of changing the way we act to be be inline with what we believe....I suspect I may be guilty of this....though I'm not saying I'm not right
I've been wondering about what Xopher calls "cotton candy theology" since I've been reading about Cognitive dissonance lately. Apparently it's human nature to change our beliefs to bring them inline with how we act instead of changing the way we act to be be inline with what we believe....I suspect I may be guilty of this....though I'm not saying I'm not right
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I don't want to attempt to speak for all buddhists, but I'll attempt to explain my interpretation: -
The buddha was searching for an end to suffering. Buddhism is a way to bring about an end to ones own suffering, and, by extension, as it is accessible to all, it is seen as a way of ending the suffering of all sentient beings.
Primarily though, in its original form, it was used by the buddha to understand and eliminate the roots of his own suffering. Even in the 'Mahayana' tradition, which vows to liberate all sentient beings from their suffering, there is an understanding that you must focus on your own self first, purely because of the difficulties involved in passing it on to others.
The way to eliminate ones suffering (according to the buddhist view) is to understand its true causes, via observation of the mind/meditation and living 'skillfully'.
Skillful living involves such things as not taking mind altering substances and not harming other beings.
Not because they are 'wrong' but because they are not conducive to the state of being necessary to see the roots of suffering.
Basically, in the majority of cases of harming another being, the motivation is greed/ego boosting etc.
Leaving aside justifiable self defence etc, harming another ultimately just adds to the causes of your suffering.
Someone who's a vindictive, cruel individual, will feel a strong desire to occasionally inflict pain on others. As vindictive individuals they will be suffering- any relief gained by hurting another will be short lived, and merely serve to strengthen the issues within that have made them that way.
The only way to gain true relief is to understand the root causes of vindictive desire- with much work they can then aspire to a state where these desires cease to arise so strongly, and, ultimately, be free of them.
So, from that point of view, the reason why you shouldn't hurt others unnecessarily is because, by doing so, you're making things worse for yourself.
For those who are concerned about the 'selfishness' of such an approach, bear in mind that one who manages to achieve liberation from these desires, and therefore freedom from suffering, is now in a superb position to pass on this way of being to others who are ready for it (as indeed the buddha did).
Like I said above, I can't speak for the Buddha, or for other buddhists, but that's how I understand it.
Written by: nilid69
I'm interestsed, what basis do buddhists use for saying that suffering is "wrong" without a belief in god?
I don't want to attempt to speak for all buddhists, but I'll attempt to explain my interpretation: -
The buddha was searching for an end to suffering. Buddhism is a way to bring about an end to ones own suffering, and, by extension, as it is accessible to all, it is seen as a way of ending the suffering of all sentient beings.
Primarily though, in its original form, it was used by the buddha to understand and eliminate the roots of his own suffering. Even in the 'Mahayana' tradition, which vows to liberate all sentient beings from their suffering, there is an understanding that you must focus on your own self first, purely because of the difficulties involved in passing it on to others.
The way to eliminate ones suffering (according to the buddhist view) is to understand its true causes, via observation of the mind/meditation and living 'skillfully'.
Skillful living involves such things as not taking mind altering substances and not harming other beings.
Not because they are 'wrong' but because they are not conducive to the state of being necessary to see the roots of suffering.
Basically, in the majority of cases of harming another being, the motivation is greed/ego boosting etc.
Leaving aside justifiable self defence etc, harming another ultimately just adds to the causes of your suffering.
Someone who's a vindictive, cruel individual, will feel a strong desire to occasionally inflict pain on others. As vindictive individuals they will be suffering- any relief gained by hurting another will be short lived, and merely serve to strengthen the issues within that have made them that way.
The only way to gain true relief is to understand the root causes of vindictive desire- with much work they can then aspire to a state where these desires cease to arise so strongly, and, ultimately, be free of them.
So, from that point of view, the reason why you shouldn't hurt others unnecessarily is because, by doing so, you're making things worse for yourself.
For those who are concerned about the 'selfishness' of such an approach, bear in mind that one who manages to achieve liberation from these desires, and therefore freedom from suffering, is now in a superb position to pass on this way of being to others who are ready for it (as indeed the buddha did).
Like I said above, I can't speak for the Buddha, or for other buddhists, but that's how I understand it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
OWD, thanks for feedback. Feedback is always welcome, though of course positive feedback (like yours) is always a bit MORE welcome! (Human here. Anybody not?)
Dentrassi, thanks. Eagerly await your input to the thread, as soon as you're done cooking for those bloody Vogons.
nilid69, though you're an atheist, you still have a theistic sense of what "right" and "wrong" mean. Those values don't have to come from a deity revealing scripture. Do you know what an Ethical Culture Society is? It's basically a church-equivalent for atheists, where they get together to talk about morality and the basis for morals and ethics within an atheist framework. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a cold pragmatist, but even a cold pragmatist would see the benefits of widespread ethics: the world is easier and more pleasant to live in, even for the cold pragmatist. And behaving amorally leads to other people behaving amorally towards oneself.
DeepSoulSheep, that's what I mean by cotton candy theology, all right. AKA "yes man" theology. It's a curious paradox that the best people are the ones who constantly doubt their own goodness and morality. In fact, someone who never has any doubts is either a born saint, or will become a monster (perhaps a small mean one, perhaps a great and terrible one) by stages. Guess which one is more common?
OWD, thanks for feedback. Feedback is always welcome, though of course positive feedback (like yours) is always a bit MORE welcome! (Human here. Anybody not?)
Dentrassi, thanks. Eagerly await your input to the thread, as soon as you're done cooking for those bloody Vogons.
nilid69, though you're an atheist, you still have a theistic sense of what "right" and "wrong" mean. Those values don't have to come from a deity revealing scripture. Do you know what an Ethical Culture Society is? It's basically a church-equivalent for atheists, where they get together to talk about morality and the basis for morals and ethics within an atheist framework. Being an atheist doesn't necessarily mean you have to be a cold pragmatist, but even a cold pragmatist would see the benefits of widespread ethics: the world is easier and more pleasant to live in, even for the cold pragmatist. And behaving amorally leads to other people behaving amorally towards oneself.
DeepSoulSheep, that's what I mean by cotton candy theology, all right. AKA "yes man" theology. It's a curious paradox that the best people are the ones who constantly doubt their own goodness and morality. In fact, someone who never has any doubts is either a born saint, or will become a monster (perhaps a small mean one, perhaps a great and terrible one) by stages. Guess which one is more common?
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
OWD, in Wicca we have a saying, "Work for yourself, and you will see that Self is everywhere." A belief in the Threefold Law (everything you do comes back tripled) also guides the most selfish person toward doing good to others.
The other "sutra" that we live by is "An it harm none, do as thou wilt."
Sounds like there's a lot in common between our two approaches (different as they are).
OWD, in Wicca we have a saying, "Work for yourself, and you will see that Self is everywhere." A belief in the Threefold Law (everything you do comes back tripled) also guides the most selfish person toward doing good to others.
The other "sutra" that we live by is "An it harm none, do as thou wilt."
Sounds like there's a lot in common between our two approaches (different as they are).
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
GOLD Member
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
ZORT!
3,045 posts
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted:
very good xopher.... only the true fanatics spot the reference. i posted earlier in the thread, and am developing some ideas from that post into other religions. ill post something eventually...
very good xopher.... only the true fanatics spot the reference. i posted earlier in the thread, and am developing some ideas from that post into other religions. ill post something eventually...
"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
I think it's important to realize that values are possible without a supernatural being mandating them.
I think it's important to realize that values are possible without a supernatural being mandating them.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
Thanks, Lightning. That's what I was trying to say, much more wordily and less effectively.
Thanks, Lightning. That's what I was trying to say, much more wordily and less effectively.
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
Shoryuken!
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Posted:
Hey I was just thinking about that 3-fold thing the other night. Didn't know where I'd heard of it (maybe here, I dunno) but I guess I kind of do believe in it in a very general sense. Like, I believe the nicer you are, the more likely nice things are to happen to you back. However, on a world-wide scale this doesn't seem to ring true at all. 25 million people don't die every year through a lack of basic necessities because they have been bad people. The fortune 500 arent the richest people in the world because they've been highly charitable throughout their lives.
My mate, who I was talking about this with, has a kinda belief in karma. Like, if something bad happens, he thinks "what have I done to deserve that?" and will try to pin it to something.
Not sure where I'm going with all that, sorry.
Lighting (+ xopher + OWD,) I really do hope you are right, and that I can find a way to justify my values and beliefs, but I have yet to hear about and find it difficult to comprehend a rational way I can do this.
OWD, I appriciate your response and I'm learning alot so please don't see this as an attack, I just want to learn more. To me, what you've said seems a lot like a negative utilitarian standpoint - things are seen as bad if they cause suffering. What I want to know is how this is justified. It makes a lot of sense if you presume that everyone wants to minimise there own suffering, and you could argue from that basis, but how would you, or the buddha (whichever you think will help me most) claim that their view was right, against someone who said that they didn't care about causing suffering, to himself or anyone else? How would you say he was actually "wrong?"
I know thats a bit confused, I'm just looking for a logical link, a way to have this view without presumtions.
Respect
Davy
Hey I was just thinking about that 3-fold thing the other night. Didn't know where I'd heard of it (maybe here, I dunno) but I guess I kind of do believe in it in a very general sense. Like, I believe the nicer you are, the more likely nice things are to happen to you back. However, on a world-wide scale this doesn't seem to ring true at all. 25 million people don't die every year through a lack of basic necessities because they have been bad people. The fortune 500 arent the richest people in the world because they've been highly charitable throughout their lives.
My mate, who I was talking about this with, has a kinda belief in karma. Like, if something bad happens, he thinks "what have I done to deserve that?" and will try to pin it to something.
Not sure where I'm going with all that, sorry.
Written by:
I think it's important to realize that values are possible without a supernatural being mandating them.
Lighting (+ xopher + OWD,) I really do hope you are right, and that I can find a way to justify my values and beliefs, but I have yet to hear about and find it difficult to comprehend a rational way I can do this.
OWD, I appriciate your response and I'm learning alot so please don't see this as an attack, I just want to learn more. To me, what you've said seems a lot like a negative utilitarian standpoint - things are seen as bad if they cause suffering. What I want to know is how this is justified. It makes a lot of sense if you presume that everyone wants to minimise there own suffering, and you could argue from that basis, but how would you, or the buddha (whichever you think will help me most) claim that their view was right, against someone who said that they didn't care about causing suffering, to himself or anyone else? How would you say he was actually "wrong?"
I know thats a bit confused, I'm just looking for a logical link, a way to have this view without presumtions.
Respect
Davy
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think I understand what you're saying, and what you're asking.
My opinion is, if you look into morality deeply, it falls apart. It was hard for me to see that, ultimately, concepts of moral right and moral wrong are empty.
It was really hard- much of life seems to lose it's meaning.
But-
Just as values are possible without the existence of a supernatural being, or god; they are also possible without the existence of an absolute moral framework.
eg existentialism (the individual creates their own values) and buddhism (values are a consequence of a way of life that is 'skillful' in terms of achieving your own non suffering).
I'm not saying necessarily dismiss hope of finding a non-religious absolute morality, simply that if you do decide it's an illusion, realise that it's not an end, but a beginning.
My feelings are that a lot of the problems in this world are caused by people clinging to notions of absolute morality that really make no sense.
Also, going back to a God based morality- can we still not question those moral rules? Whatever the base of an absolute morality system, one can still stand up and question it.
For your question-
That's pretty insightful, you've gone right to the root of the problem.
In answer I would say just leave it. If someone is deeply convinced that causing suffering is good, there's not much you can say (in this viewpoint anyway).
But, if you think about it, it's inevitable- there has always been people who enjoy being cruel, probably always will be.
Generally, if you look at their life it's obvious that they are suffering deeply, and that the way they behave towards others makes that suffering worse; but they are incapeable of seeing what you see.
To sum it up- you can't (on this viewpoint) say they are 'wrong', but you can say that they are 'cruel' (because cruelty is defined as inflicting pain on others), and you can see, even if they can't, that they are damaging themselves when they damage others.
My advice to you is to have more faith in yourself and your own judgement, I can tell from the way you write that you've put a lot of thought into this issue.
I think I understand what you're saying, and what you're asking.
My opinion is, if you look into morality deeply, it falls apart. It was hard for me to see that, ultimately, concepts of moral right and moral wrong are empty.
It was really hard- much of life seems to lose it's meaning.
But-
Just as values are possible without the existence of a supernatural being, or god; they are also possible without the existence of an absolute moral framework.
eg existentialism (the individual creates their own values) and buddhism (values are a consequence of a way of life that is 'skillful' in terms of achieving your own non suffering).
I'm not saying necessarily dismiss hope of finding a non-religious absolute morality, simply that if you do decide it's an illusion, realise that it's not an end, but a beginning.
My feelings are that a lot of the problems in this world are caused by people clinging to notions of absolute morality that really make no sense.
Also, going back to a God based morality- can we still not question those moral rules? Whatever the base of an absolute morality system, one can still stand up and question it.
For your question-
Written by: nilid69
but how would you, or the buddha (whichever you think will help me most) claim that their view was right, against someone who said that they didn't care about causing suffering, to himself or anyone else? How would you say he was actually "wrong?"
That's pretty insightful, you've gone right to the root of the problem.
In answer I would say just leave it. If someone is deeply convinced that causing suffering is good, there's not much you can say (in this viewpoint anyway).
But, if you think about it, it's inevitable- there has always been people who enjoy being cruel, probably always will be.
Generally, if you look at their life it's obvious that they are suffering deeply, and that the way they behave towards others makes that suffering worse; but they are incapeable of seeing what you see.
To sum it up- you can't (on this viewpoint) say they are 'wrong', but you can say that they are 'cruel' (because cruelty is defined as inflicting pain on others), and you can see, even if they can't, that they are damaging themselves when they damage others.
My advice to you is to have more faith in yourself and your own judgement, I can tell from the way you write that you've put a lot of thought into this issue.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
enthusiast
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
456 posts
Location: Hoboken, New Jersey, USA
Posted:
nilid69, not all karma comes to you in one lifetime - yes, I happen to believe in reincarnation. On a good day, anyway. And karma can take many forms.
Sometimes, when bad things happen to you, it's a challenge or a lesson. I don't believe that the things that happened to me as a child were my fault, or that I did anything to deserve them (in this life, anyway). I'm a much better person for them, however (in some ways). I'm much more empathic to others' suffering than I would otherwise be (according to studies, dysfunctional families produce highly empathic, if damaged, offspring). While this means I can't enjoy a comedy movie (usually), I wouldn't trade it.
And Karma isn't a system of reward and punishment. It's a complex natural (not supernatural) system of feedback.
Tell your friend (or spouse, if you were using the term 'mate' in the American sense, heh) to stop beating himself up. Getting hit by a bus is the karma for jumping out into the street against the light, not for looking lustfully at the wrong person (unless that distraction made you step in front of a bus).
And also, karma, the threefold law, etc. are never, ever excuses for tolerating injustice, economic or otherwise. We are at our best when we are instruments of karma, in the best sense. (Remember, it's not about punishment.)
nilid69, not all karma comes to you in one lifetime - yes, I happen to believe in reincarnation. On a good day, anyway. And karma can take many forms.
Sometimes, when bad things happen to you, it's a challenge or a lesson. I don't believe that the things that happened to me as a child were my fault, or that I did anything to deserve them (in this life, anyway). I'm a much better person for them, however (in some ways). I'm much more empathic to others' suffering than I would otherwise be (according to studies, dysfunctional families produce highly empathic, if damaged, offspring). While this means I can't enjoy a comedy movie (usually), I wouldn't trade it.
And Karma isn't a system of reward and punishment. It's a complex natural (not supernatural) system of feedback.
Tell your friend (or spouse, if you were using the term 'mate' in the American sense, heh) to stop beating himself up. Getting hit by a bus is the karma for jumping out into the street against the light, not for looking lustfully at the wrong person (unless that distraction made you step in front of a bus).
And also, karma, the threefold law, etc. are never, ever excuses for tolerating injustice, economic or otherwise. We are at our best when we are instruments of karma, in the best sense. (Remember, it's not about punishment.)
"If you didn't like something the first time, the cud won't be any good either." --Elsie the Cow, Ruminations
Shoryuken!
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
233 posts
Location: Hexham, Newcastle, England
Posted:
My god I can think of nothing worse than having "my mate" as a spouse. He's a big, loud, highly abusive guy with ginger dreads - a friend, not a partner, and woe betide anyone who tries to change that.
But I'm seriously....
I don't believe that there is anything supernatural about any of it, no. I just believe that if you are good, this in turn means good things are more likely to happen back as a result. Not always, but its a nice general rule to work with.
I don't think that anyone 'deserves' anything bad that happens to them really, There are times when I do wish retribution for certain things, but I know that's me being emotive rather than rational.
After all, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Davy
My god I can think of nothing worse than having "my mate" as a spouse.
He's a big, loud, highly abusive guy with ginger dreads - a friend, not a partner, and woe betide anyone who tries to change that. But I'm seriously....
I don't believe that there is anything supernatural about any of it, no. I just believe that if you are good, this in turn means good things are more likely to happen back as a result. Not always, but its a nice general rule to work with.
I don't think that anyone 'deserves' anything bad that happens to them really, There are times when I do wish retribution for certain things, but I know that's me being emotive rather than rational.
After all, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Davy
SILVER Member
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
Posted:
"For sure, I believed all that compassion stuff when I waz a kid, but in reality I found the whole system waz so hypocritical that I lost my faith. "
Quote from Stone.
Thanks Dave,
good job for trying to look at religion in a new more positive way. In a world were the justifications of war are fueled on religious beliefs and accusations, it brings the negative out of religion and over ways the positive with it.
I am 15 years old.
Stone..this is for you,
A few months ago, some kid hit me at school... now I am a Christian ( I try to follow their beliefs to make things better for the people around me)
Now christian belief is that i must turn the other cheek
I didn't
we ended up fighting pretty brutally and neither of us came of bette than the other.
However, if was to have just taken it he would h've hurt me pretty bad.
I am not sayingwho's fault it was or anything, but what I am saying is that sometimes religion gets it wrong, no matter how devote you are.
This is were I agree with you Stone.
"For sure, I believed all that compassion stuff when I waz a kid, but in reality I found the whole system waz so hypocritical that I lost my faith. "
Quote from Stone.
Thanks Dave,
good job for trying to look at religion in a new more positive way. In a world were the justifications of war are fueled on religious beliefs and accusations, it brings the negative out of religion and over ways the positive with it.
I am 15 years old.
Stone..this is for you,
A few months ago, some kid hit me at school... now I am a Christian ( I try to follow their beliefs to make things better for the people around me)
Now christian belief is that i must turn the other cheek
I didn't
we ended up fighting pretty brutally and neither of us came of bette than the other.
However, if was to have just taken it he would h've hurt me pretty bad.
I am not sayingwho's fault it was or anything, but what I am saying is that sometimes religion gets it wrong, no matter how devote you are.
This is were I agree with you Stone.
"glow bugs, to slow to resist eating, to bitter to eat more than one handfull in a sitting" toothpaste for dinner
SILVER Member
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
member
185 posts
Location: Australia,Vic
Posted:
What I love about religion mainly buddhism, is that it does not say that one belief is right or wrong, but that if it works for you and keeps you happy, then that is good enough.
My favourite thing is that it gives people somthing to believe in. Maybe an answer to all the unanswered questions in the world, or maybe just something to say..."well...theres an idea" to.
What is sad, however, is that people don't always look for those things in religion.
Good to see all the good stuff people see in it.
Best of luck -Steve
What I love about religion mainly buddhism, is that it does not say that one belief is right or wrong, but that if it works for you and keeps you happy, then that is good enough.
My favourite thing is that it gives people somthing to believe in. Maybe an answer to all the unanswered questions in the world, or maybe just something to say..."well...theres an idea" to.
What is sad, however, is that people don't always look for those things in religion.
Good to see all the good stuff people see in it.
Best of luck -Steve
"glow bugs, to slow to resist eating, to bitter to eat more than one handfull in a sitting" toothpaste for dinner
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [religion way forward] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Religion- a way forward. [53 replies]
- Forums > Point out what passages are flawed in the bible. [108 replies]
- Forums > Christian meditation [16 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com