I think it is the human failure factor that causes this to happen, not the concepts of the religion or government. What are the humans doing wrong to make the failure?

The only thing I would object to is your claim that this is true of "All Religions".

I don't see this being the case.

I feel that this sort of mentality mainly applies to the Mediterranean-based religions, Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and the Protestants.

I don't see this as necessarily applying to many other religions that I've studied recently such as Buddhism, Wicca, and other forms of shamanism and natural spiritual paths.

To recognize a diety is not an automatic resignation of the power of what is going to happen to you. On the contrary, it can actually be a recognition that the deity is willing to help you achieve YOUR desires and intent. Assuming that your desires and intents are "righteous".

And of course, there are people who believe that the powers that be will even help evil people do evil things. Whether you could call those 'religions' or not is another question altogether.

Someone once pointed it out that "for the good of all" was a very dangerous statement. Implies good intention but because "all" are not the same it breeds discrimination, exclusivity and eventually revolution.

Isn't that interesting though?

This implies that the person who made this statement already believes that to breed discrimination, exclusivity, and revolution is not "for the good of all", which further implies that the opposites of these things are "for the good of all", which ultimately implies that the person who made the statement presumes to already know what best "for the good of all".

Hmmm?

To recognize a diety is not an automatic resignation of the power of what is going to happen to you. On the contrary, it can actually be a recognition that the deity is willing to help you achieve YOUR desires and intent. Assuming that your desires and intents are "righteous".



Abra

Here the question of what is righteous would have to be asked. Who would decide what is righteous?

Getting something positive from a religion was never in question here. We can get something positive from just reading a book.

Even in Wicca they hand over their power to their deities and hope to get back more power from it. Sharing their powers or combining them with their deities.

But you know if you are having problems with a religion and go to an elder in the religion, he will tell you that you are not giving enough of yourself to the process. In order to fully get the effects of religion, you have to give over personal power.

Hey, I am not saying wrong in the sense of each person has to do what they do but is this philosophy building and keeping dependency alive so much in humans it stunts their personal responsibility growth?

Okay Abra, do not laugh at me but I read through that a couple of times and I must be brain dead, I do not get what you mean. Sorry.

I think it is interesting to observe that the definition of "religion", in every dictionary I can find, always includes something to the effect of a god (or gods) that rule(s) the universe. So in that sense, Dragoness’ original statement is true. But I agree with Abra in the sense that the dictionary definitions of “religion” are somewhat limited in scope. For example, most people I know consider Buddhism to be a religion. So I think a differentiation could be made between the “dictionary” definition and the “legal” definition. There are groups that are “legally” religions, but which contain no doctrinal viewpoint as to the existence or nature of “god”. And most of those religions, as I understand them, are of the exact opposite viewpoint. That is, their main thrust is to empower their adherents toward the aim of a higher level of personal responsibility.

And exactly how do they do that?

By a dependency on a higher being big brother who will punish you if you do bad? Parental in nature, right?

The higher learning is based from a dependency on the higher power's ability to reward or punish you.

I am still wondering what makes it so attractive for us to design construct around us that requires lack of personal power to work.

That's not what I get from it.

For example, the concept of "Karma", as I understand it, is based on the idea that any perceived “punishment for unrighteous action” is actually a result of one’s own actions – an indirect effect of one’s own causing. In other words, when “one does good”, it is a “natural law of the universe” that the inevitable result of that action will eventually be “good being done to one”. And the same applies to “doing bad”.

Now one could say that the “the natural laws of the universe” constitute a “higher power”.

But the logical extension of that viewpoint is that, in any cause-effect relationship, the effect is a “punishment” (or a “reward”, depending on if one considers the effect to be “good” or “bad”.)

(This is where I see the whole pantheistic viewpoint (“god is everything and everything is god”) stemming from. It basically defines “god” and “the universe and it’s natural laws” as identities.)

In essence, it boils down to “either I did it, or someone else did it”. There is no in between.

And that, to me, is the is the essence of responsibility.

When one says “I did it” they are “responsible” for it. When one say “someone else did it” they are not responsible for it.

I think the above answers that fairly well.

By saying “someone else did it”, one can maintain a clear conscience. For if one were to admit that “I did it” they would then be “guilty”.

(Of course that’s speaking in terms of “punishment” only – i.e. if one is “guilty” then one will be “punished”. But the “reward” side of the coin operates in the same manner.)

Basically it’s just exactly what you alluded to about “dependency”. One “depends” on the “higher power” to absolve one of guilt for unrighteous action. (Or to “reward” one for righteous action.)

Well, it kind of goes back to what you said in your other post:



Well, the person who has declared that discrimination, exclusivity, and revolution is not "for the good of all", has already made a determination of what's 'righteous' or not 'righteous'.

In other words, they are claiming to already know what best "for the good of all". Yet they are jumping on someone else for supposedly knowing what's "for the good of all".

So it's like the kettle calling the pot black.



Well, I personally feel that this is often quite misunderstood. Not only by followers of religions, but all too often by the very clergy themselves.

What is 'personal power'?

That's big question right there.

Many religions claim that there is divine consciousness, and ego.

Ego is totally self-centered on the individual.

Divine consciousness is concerned with "what's good for all"

The question now seems fairly simple.

When you talk about "personal power" are you talking about the wants of your ego, or the wants of your true spiritual self?

Which one is the "real you"?

I think where many religions fail is that they view themselves as always being 'ego' giving over to some 'other' external deity.

But why think that way? The 'ego' is nothing more than a viewpoint.

Change the viewpoint and you 'become' the deity.

You're not giving yourself over to another 'entity' you're simply recognizing that you aren't what you had first thought you were.

I still say that this is a distortion of religion that mainly stems from the Mediterranean doctrines and the idea of a jealous god who needs to be recognized.

There is no lack of 'personal power'. There's just a realization that how you used to think was the proper way to go about things wasn't effective at all.

Moreover, if you feel that your current methods of acquiring what you want are totally satisfactory and fulfilling for you, and those around you, then you are already in harmony with your true self (or 'god') and there's no need to change anything.

However, if you know that you are harming others to get what you want, or you recognize that you are't content, fulfilled, or have peace of mind, then clearly you have no clue how to attain what you want on your own.

In that case, then some form of spiritual knowledge or insight might be something worth looking into.

No its not a dependancy, its letting go, depending on no guarantee, with whatever situation you "hand over" understanding the outcome is not in your power.

The problem lies here in EXPECTING. What I do is believe SOMETHING may come my way, something may not.. whatever is for me will be.

AND acceptance.. accepeting the situation as is, and the result.

Understanding you have no control over many things is key.

*** IF the premise is correct, then I don't see how can the government bnefit from the irresponsible initiativeLESS members of society???
---for the sake of clarity, I better translate what I mean:
*** if "handing your powers over to the authorities" is CRIPPLING, then the authorities must be benefiting from that somehow... ***

But from the beginning and up to now America was and is being built by enterprising people -- most (if any) of whom are NOT connected to/relying upon the goverment -- who possess enough of abilities and capabilities, and desire for independence from the government. At the same time, its nice to know there are social safety nets that will support you at the time of need...

*** You must be referring to those who abuse the system???
(i.e. those who dspise the growth of a human morally, mentally, spiritually, physically (actions) to full and utter self responsibility)

Well, that's an unavoidable evil of the system:


P.S. For the sake of keeping the swarm of poison bees away, I'd obstain from discussion of the religious authority...

Ah, How I enjoy knowing the way I effect the world around me!

I wonder, would you like to share what that was?

So I'll simply substitute Government authority for religious, it's not much different, a group of men claiming to have higher authority, through one means or another, that seek to exert their will over the rest of the population.

What makes the ideas of how to live life coming from one man a better concept than the ideas of how to live life that come from some other man.

Regardless of dogma, faith or political ideology, why should anyone turn over their will and live their lives according to what another person says is the best way, based soley on a claim of authority?

I understand to a certain extent what you are saying here. The person saying that about "the good of all" was speaking from history and what history has shown on concepts of this nature. Whether they actually made the determination themselves, I don't know but it has shown to be true over and over again. I am not a student of history so I am repeating that which I heard.

Okay and personal power, I guess, could mean many different things to people. If you think of power which would be the energy to effect anything around you in a positive or negative way through words, actions, even conjecture, etc... the more power you have the more far reaching and deeper your effect of your power. We all have this power in us. Through this power we show all of our intentions or objectives in life. So it houses our self everything, self esteem, self responsibility, self knowledge, etc.... Now a religious person hands some if not all of this to the god of choice. God, religion or the doctrines of this faith now become the govern of self. Some of your self identity is now not truly yours but it joins the collective of that group. Plus now you have been told that god is responsible for everything that happens in the whole universe. Taking some of your self responsibility from you. You might like the idea, it may give you some peace but it is still keeping you dependent on the system and the collective of the religion. How do you know how to handle your next choice, you look to the religion for the answer and give it the credit of being right without even a test for accuracy.

Handing over personal power.

Well, I won't deny that this is what most religions become. But only because the leaders of those religions ultimately become selfish about their own power over their congregations.

I'm not for organized religions on a grand scale.

I only consider the spirituality of individuals.

So when you start talking about 'collective groups', you're talking about organized religious institutions, and not true spirituality IMHO.

I see nothing wrong with groups of spiritualists getting together to combine their spiritual powers. But if they use that to belittle or reject otehrs in any way then they've lost focus on what's important as far as I'm concerned.

If any spiritual group becomes 'organized' it should only do so as a totally free choice of all participants with absolutely no threat of any gods getting peeved at anyone who might decide to leave the group. Also no judgements should be made about anyone who refuses to join the group.

All the problems with religion stem from those religions that demand that God is jealous and hates heathens. Those are inherently hateful religions from the very first commandment given in thier hateful doctrines.

Those religions should be classified as "Hate Crimes" and banned by law. We do have laws against "Hate Groups" don't we?

Dragoness...



Great thread!

This recent quote I must disagree with...



While I would not dare to deny the significance of this thought, all the problems do not stem from such. Bertrand Russell immediately comes to mind as dispelling this idea that all problems stem from a judgemental 'God'. He shows, quite succinctly, that many if not most of mankinds' issues are not solely based upon any particular description of 'God'. It is much deeper than that.

I could read through one of his writings to directly quote him and add some broader views, if that should be needed.

I would agree that "most of mankind's issues are not solely based upon any particular description of 'God'".

But I notice that the quoted statement started with "All the problems with religion...". And because of that difference, I agree with the quoted statement as well.

--- warmachine asked:
This question might be asked by somebody who's spend years away from society -- in total solitude -- although the total Master of his destiny (i.e. really Free, from childhood to adulthood). However, most people understand the fact that Free will is a Relative matter, which depends on circumstances...

As members of the society, we comprehend the benefits of the membership. The only price we have to pay for the membership is RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF OTHER MEMBERS. And that presupposes each mebers' exercising self-control regarding their wants/needs in regards to other members -- althogh the more means one possesses the less control one's got to exercise (but not less than a socially preset minimum...)
Hell, even D.Trump has to play by the rules -- even though he's got enough means for buying/creating almost any government/religion, i.e. setting his own rules!

However, if you beleive you're smart enough for establishing your own rules of the game (and have the means necessary for accomplishing your goals), then you should definitely go for it!!!
Otherwise, you better shutup -- stop impressing the girls with your pathetic ideals! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

P.S.
-- I suggest you ASK D.TRUMP THIS "DEEPLY PHILOSOPHICAL" QUESTION!

* * * GOD HELPS THOSE WHO HELP THEMSELVES... * * *