What are the problems with orthodoxy?

D

dharmaraj02

Member
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Chicago suburb
So, I see in a number of threads the theme that established religions (organized religions) are inferior to more free-thinking flexible individualized belief systems. I'm not clear on the reasoning behind this. Maybe someone can comment? Is this motivated by historical evidence? Is there a flaw in the idea of an establishment?
 
Thomas said:
Dare one say silence speaks volumes?

Thomas
Click to expand...

Perhaps the original question was not well posed, or makes an assumption that is incorrect. There is nothing wrong with orthodoxy - if it's acceptable to the practitioner. I know many folks who are quite happy with it. It doesn't work for me - but at the same time I wouldn't tell someone that they shouldn't follow it if they prefer it. However, if they then tell me I mustn't follow my path, OY will they have a fight on their hands :)

... Bruce
 
I guess a more obvious point of note is that an organised group in itself will give rise to social and political concerns that are unique to that group - and at some point, the interests of that social group have to focus less on original principles as much as addressing self-serving social and political requirements to ensure the social body continues to function in some generally acceptable manner.

So the social needs of the group may become the over-riding concern of the group, rather than first spiritual principles.

2c.
 
After being in an organized religion for 15 years of my life and finally finding a spiritual path that suits me that is personal to me. The one major problem I still have with organized religion is the hierarchy. Which is why I work solitarily.

Hierarchies are something that I don't deal well with, I see it in covens as well and have a problem with it there too.

Cheers!!!!
 
I said:
I guess a more obvious point of note is that an organised group in itself will give rise to social and political concerns that are unique to that group - and at some point, the interests of that social group have to focus less on original principles as much as addressing self-serving social and political requirements to ensure the social body continues to function in some generally acceptable manner.

So the social needs of the group may become the over-riding concern of the group, rather than first spiritual principles.

2c.
Click to expand...

Ah, this is a great point. If I can summarize:

Groups are more susceptible to prioritizing social/political interests over spiritual interests than the average individual.

I think I'm not mistating you, Brian, but correct me. Can you motivate this a little? Isn't the average individual just as susceptible, maybe more susceptible? After all, there are individuals that have only social/political interests, and there are religious groups that avoid social/political interests entirely--or try to. Of course, most religious groups, when they pursue social/political interests, claim that these are in fact fundamentally spiritual interests, and the validity of such claims should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I understand your feeling that groups have this particular weakness, but I'm not sure about the theory, though you might be right.

After being in an organized religion for 15 years of my life and finally finding a spiritual path that suits me that is personal to me. The one major problem I still have with organized religion is the hierarchy. Which is why I work solitarily.
Click to expand...
By hierarchy, do I understand that you don't like others having authority over you? Do you think it's more likely that you'll discover truth without authoritarian constraints, or does it just make things more pleasant?
 
It's not that I don't like others having authority over me. It's just that I don't like the fact that those that have authority over me generally tend to act superior. Women in the JW religion, don't have much say. I don't like that idea. I think that everyone should have equal say and should be able to work together as a group to come to conclusions. Not just a select few dictating for the rest of the group. I realize this may be a difficult concept for organized religions, because they might not view that as organized.

If the whole idea of religion is to learn, why can't everyone read information and discuss it and learn from it that way. That's what I mean. I realize there are some flaws in my theory and thoughts, but I'm sure they will get hashed out after reading some more of the entries in this thread, that are soon to come. Maybe I'll have a completely different opinion on this issue in the future, if someone is logically persuasive enough.

Benedizione luminose!!!
 
Hi dharmaraj02 - certainly you're right that individuals are susceptible to their own array of influences - a point though is that the social group of shared-interests then has to concern itself with protecting the group, rather than shared-interests first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top