Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well the other “stuff” I think is perhaps essentially what you said as being the goal of deconstruction (nice term, may have to lift it ). But to be sure, I shall “enlighten” you as requested (!) and express it as “Buddhist stuff” (as I understand it).

Rather than walk it backwards to base camp; I think it easier to start at base camp and go forwards until getting to the eightfold path.

(The problems of the translating of all of this into English from Pali is of course well established; I particularly find the translation of dukkha to mean suffering to be off-putting/unhelpful/inaccurate/incomplete; I think Kierkegaard’s Angest to be more likely a better term, but now I’m derailing my own post…).

OK base camp is codependent arising. Because of codependent arising, there is a constant changing of everything. Because there is a constant changing of everything, there is no independent existence (i.e. no inherent self-hood). Because there is no independent existence, if we believe, expect or want a stable enduring self and world, we will experience angest, (at least in times of introspection into our own existence) because it is not actually how we or the world really are/is. The experience of this angest as part of our “normal” (i.e. typical) psyche is the first ennobling truth. The second ennobling truth is that the cause for this angest (as per what I have stated previously) is our craving/aversion for the world to be and operate other than how it really is/does. The third ennobling truth is that the ending of our angest can therefore be brought about if we are able to end this craving/aversion. The fourth ennobling truth is that the means to ending this craving/aversion is the eightfold path.

This path is not sequential; other than to say that it does not “make sense” to a person unless they accept “right view” because right view is the understanding as to how the world does “operate” as outlined above, termed as paticca-samuppada, the seals of conditioned existence, the four ennobling truths and the eightfold path.

So, as I said, probably your goal of deconstruction?

s.

Well, I wound up playing Command and Conquer instead of thinking about this. You're hitting the nail squarely on the head, I just can't decide which direction I want to go. It deserves a new thread, anyway. I want to think a bit more about paticca-samuppada. I like how you've termed it the "seals of conditioned existence." I want to think about that some more.

One thing about existentialism in general is that it's always meant as a critique. It's meant to expose the underlying functionalism, but it isn't a remedy the way Buddhism is. This applies especially to post modern philosophy. It's important because that's the thing that those who are stuck in functional rationalism, and that includes most religionists even though they won't or can't admit it, completely miss.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Note to Tao:

Thanks for being like a brother.

Chris

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Well, I wound up playing Command and Conquer instead of thinking about this.

I wish we all spoke the same language!

You're hitting the nail squarely on the head, I just can't decide which direction I want to go. It deserves a new thread, anyway.

OK but remember I...

a. have trouble staying on topic.
b. have trouble maintaining a serious attitude.
c. know ****-all about Western philosophy (more or less).

so I may not be a great participant to such a hefty thread!

I want to think a bit more about paticca-samuppada. I like how you've termed it the "seals of conditioned existence."

CLARIFICATION ALERT CHRIS! Paticca-samuppada is what is translated as codependent arising or dependent origination. The seals of conditioned existence (glad you like the term but I'm just the messenger) are anicca, anatta and dukkha. (Depending on the school it may include nirvana but let's leave it at those three for consistency in this thread).

One thing about existentialism in general is that it's always meant as a critique. It's meant to expose the underlying functionalism, but it isn't a remedy the way Buddhism is. This applies especially to post modern philosophy. It's important because that's the thing that those who are stuck in functional rationalism, and that includes most religionists even though they won't or can't admit it, completely miss.

So existentialism is only half the story then from what you say?

Strange, I did think you were an atheist and now look at us chatting away like a couple of old dears....

Perception and labels eh?

s.

[Ahanu]

Hmm. . .why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? One thing that makes it appealing to me is that it does not definitely define the afterlife. I remember reading Abdul-Baha quoting the Koran which says something like. . ."everything is living" or "alive," but he explains that they exist in different degrees. For example, a plant has its own degree and is unable to comprehend the world of mankind. To the plant the world we know does not exist. Likewise, mankind can not comprehend the next world after death.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by sherry

First off I apologize if this has already been asked in a previous thread. I looked but did not see anything.

I've spent the last 8 years hearing "their belief is wrong because..." and many bad, or stereo-typical things about other relgions that don't fall in line with "Southern Baptist".

I don't want to hear steroe-types.. they are judgmental and group things together as a whole instead of giving them to chance to prove themselves on an individual basis.

To me, there obviously is something there in those other religions to not only cause such devotion to them, but to (as my husband drilled it to me last night..) "take the chance with your soul that you are wrong.."

So, my question to you is this..

What moves you so deeply inside about your chosen relgion? If possible I would like to hear YOUR words not "because < > says so...."

Interesting question. First I seperate faith from "religious behavior". Religion afterall is a route of behavior, yes? For me all variations of Christian "faith" that accept the Trinity, are alright by me. In other words, I can comfortably walk into a trinitarian house of worship, and understand, and participate, because the core faith is identical to mine.

However, my way of practicing my faith (my religiousness in acting on my faith), is based on tradition, family core values, cultural upbringing, and my sense of God, from my perspective.

I like the "trappings" of the church. I like the nuances of the symbolism as manifested within the "religious" part of my faith. I love the "awe" the church and the parish people bring into my life. I enjoy the "rituals" that occur, and the out of step, from tradition the homily brings (especially with a good priest).

But most of all, I love when it is midnight, and I have no where to go, so I ride to the church, and put my hand on the door to the vestibule...and it opens...

I sit or kneel in the silence, the eternal candle is lit, there is the hint of incense in the air, it is quiet, and I can pray in peace and let go of my worries (like being out at sea).

Then I get up to leave and turn around...and there is Father/Reverand, kneeling in the back of the church, praying with me all along, and I never even heard him/her come into the church.

No words are spoken, but a touch begets touch on the arm. And there is no irritation in the eyes or face, just a smile, that says "it's alright, come back again."

I've been around the world several times, and no matter where I go, I can walk into a church, and the door is unlocked, when I need to come in. Language doesn't matter, and the clergy is ever there. They don't push anything, they simply pray with and stand behind me, as I face my maker.

That is what and why I believe in my religious ways.

Hope that helps.

v/r

Q

[mee]

why do i believe in my religion

its because of the following bible truth


Bible is God's Word and is truth
Bible is more reliable than tradition
God's name is Jehovah
Christ is God's Son and is inferior to Him
Christ was first of God's creations
Christ died on a stake, not a cross
Christ's human life was paid as a ransom for obedient humans
Christ's one sacrifice was sufficient
Christ was raised from the dead as an immortal spirit person
Christ's presence is in spirit;

We are now in the 'time of the end'

Kingdom under Christ will rule earth in righteousness and peace .

Kingdom will bring ideal living conditions to earth

Earth will never be destroyed or depopulated

God will eliminate present system of things in the battle at Har-Magedon
Wicked will be eternally destroyed
People God approves will receive everlasting life
There is only one road to life
Human death is due to Adam's sin
The human soul ceases to exist at death;
Hell is mankind's common grave

Hope for dead is resurrection
Adamic death will cease
Only a little flock of 144,000 go to heaven and rule with Christ; .
The 144,000 are born again as spiritual sons of God
New covenant is made with spiritual Israel
Christ's congregation is built upon himself
Prayers are to be directed only to Jehovah through Christ
Images should not be used in worship
Spiritism must be shunned
Satan is invisible ruler of world
A Christian ought to have no part in interfaith movements
A Christian should keep separate from world

Obey human laws that do not conflict with God's laws
Taking blood into body through mouth or veins violates God's laws;

Bible's laws on morals must be obeyed
Sabbath observance was given only to Israel and ended with Mosaic Law

A clergy class and special titles are improper


Man did not evolve but was created

Christ set example that must be followed in serving God

Baptism by complete immersion symbolizes dedication
Christians gladly give public testimony to Scriptural truth.



before any one mentions it , i know this is an interfaith forum , and Jehovahs witnesses do not have any part in interfaith . but i do not take on board others beliefs i just stick to what the bible teaches.

and make it known matthew 24;14

[greymare]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Interesting question. First I seperate faith from "religious behavior". Religion afterall is a route of behavior, yes? For me all variations of Christian "faith" that accept the Trinity, are alright by me. In other words, I can comfortably walk into a trinitarian house of worship, and understand, and participate, because the core faith is identical to mine.

However, my way of practicing my faith (my religiousness in acting on my faith), is based on tradition, family core values, cultural upbringing, and my sense of God, from my perspective.

I like the "trappings" of the church. I like the nuances of the symbolism as manifested within the "religious" part of my faith. I love the "awe" the church and the parish people bring into my life. I enjoy the "rituals" that occur, and the out of step, from tradition the homily brings (especially with a good priest).

But most of all, I love when it is midnight, and I have no where to go, so I ride to the church, and put my hand on the door to the vestibule...and it opens...

I sit or kneel in the silence, the eternal candle is lit, there is the hint of incense in the air, it is quiet, and I can pray in peace and let go of my worries (like being out at sea).

Then I get up to leave and turn around...and there is Father/Reverand, kneeling in the back of the church, praying with me all along, and I never even heard him/her come into the church.

No words are spoken, but a touch begets touch on the arm. And there is no irritation in the eyes or face, just a smile, that says "it's alright, come back again."

I've been around the world several times, and no matter where I go, I can walk into a church, and the door is unlocked, when I need to come in. Language doesn't matter, and the clergy is ever there. They don't push anything, they simply pray with and stand behind me, as I face my maker.

That is what and why I believe in my religious ways.

Hope that helps.

v/r

Q

now that, is beautiful

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by greymare

now that, is beautiful

I concur.

[Raksha]

Well, I wasn't talking about God, I was talking about organized religion. The problem with religion is that it can never seem to make a clean break with the past. Religion can't ever say "well, we were wrong about a few things." It's got to invent some cockamamie excuse for how, technically, if you kinda close one eye and squint with the other, all these ridiculous pronouncements of the past when people believed in silly sh it are still valid...somehow. "Well, the sun didn't really stand still it was, uh...an eclipse...or...something."

Chris,

When it comes to packrat religions (can't throw anything away) could anything be worse than Judaism? Okay, maybe Christianity...or maybe it's a toss-up. I get SOOOO exasperated with that sometimes--some ideas are just SOOOO patently self-serving, elitist and ethnocentric, superstitious and just flat-out WRONG!

BB isn't going to like this, but I get so impatient with the attempts to finesse everything, exploring 97 different nuances of the Hebrew root-word, and all the rest of those verbal contortions intended to make the text say the opposite of what it actually means. Can't we just throw the blasted thing AWAY, fer cryin' out loud? Can't we just say, "This is elitist/sexist garbage and we haven't take it seriously for centuries"?

Of course, over the centuries some of our greatest minds have exercised their most profound creativity on the most unpromising texts...precisely because they were so problematic but couldn't be disgarded. But in those cases I'd have to say the divine inspiration was present in the exegesis, in the interpreters, not in the text itself.

This is a very positive thread and I'm enjoying reading through all the replies. I find a lot to identify with here.

--Linda

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Raksha

Chris,

When it comes to packrat religions (can't throw anything away) could anything be worse than Judaism? Okay, maybe Christianity...or maybe it's a toss-up. I get SOOOO exasperated with that sometimes--some ideas are just SOOOO patently self-serving, elitist and ethnocentric, superstitious and just flat-out WRONG!

BB isn't going to like this, but I get so impatient with the attempts to finesse everything, exploring 97 different nuances of the Hebrew root-word, and all the rest of those verbal contortions intended to make the text say the opposite of what it actually means. Can't we just throw the blasted thing AWAY, fer cryin' out loud? Can't we just say, "This is elitist/sexist garbage and we haven't take it seriously for centuries"?

Of course, over the centuries some of our greatest minds have exercised their most profound creativity on the most unpromising texts...precisely because they were so problematic but couldn't be disgarded. But in those cases I'd have to say the divine inspiration was present in the exegesis, in the interpreters, not in the text itself.

This is a very positive thread and I'm enjoying reading through all the replies. I find a lot to identify with here.

--Linda

Hmmmm

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Linda! It's nice to see you around.

People swear perpetual lip service to things that don't make a lick of sense in order to preserve an aura of institutional infallibility which has nothing to do with the veracity of the core principles of their faith.

Chris

[path_of_one]

FYI- peripheral discussion about trust moved to "Trust" in the Philosophy forum. Hope to see you there!

[mee]

Because it is the channel that Jesus is feeding matthew 24;45-47

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by mee

Because it is the channel that Jesus is feeding matthew 24;45-47

For you perhaps. Not necessarrily for others.

[mee]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

For you perhaps. Not necessarrily for others.

very true many do not like to feed from the channel that Jesus is feeding .