Is religion divisive?

[wil]

Is relgion by definition divisive?

Don't most groups imply that they know the way?

Yes many are 'tolerant' but isn't that another way of saying, "Yeah, you can take that road, if you want, but my road is better"

I heard that religion and ligament stem from the same word root which means to join, to bring together.

So are we bringing together only like minded peoples or all peoples?

 

[InChristAlways]

I heard that religion and ligament stem from the same word root which means to join, to bring together.

So are we bringing together only like minded peoples or all peoples?

I really didn't know how to answer the poll, as I feel religions are "diverse? and this can cause divisesiveness. Since I only read the Bible, I of course have a different view than other religions but the Heart is where God is.

Hindus, buddhists, Isalm, judaism, christ-ianity all pray for both inner peace but also outer love. There are really only 2 forms of "religions"- Hate/Darkness and Love/Light but Light will always conquer the darkness, if not in this age, then in the ages to come. Does not God judge each individual and not religions?

In the christ-ian Bible, James mentions the tongue as being able to set a forest fire, as the tongue speaks what comes from the Heart and can cause divisiveness and one wrong word said in a moment of anger, or love, can change the course of a person's life and others.
Just a humble view.
Steve

James 1:26 If any one doth think to be religious among you, not bridling his tongue, but deceiving his heart, of this one vain [is] the religion; 27 religion [#2356] pure and undefiled with the God and Father is this, to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation--unspotted to keep himself from the world.

Job 27:4 My lips do not speak perverseness, And my tongue doth not utter deceit.

2356. threskeia thrace-ki'-ah from a derivative of 2357; ceremonial observance:--religion, worshippin 2357. threskos thrace'-kos probably from the base of 2360; ceremonious in worship (as demonstrative), i.e. pious:--religious.

 

[akbar]

I am an outlaw of so called religions. My mystical poet says:
“Is the religion brother of my wife (in an abusive sense) that I should care for?”
“Do away with religion. It hampers way to the God. Remove all obstacles between man and the God. Who is this, who intervenes between the lover and the beloved? Push him aside”

I believe that there are good humans all over the world apparently having different religions but actually the same. A meeting can be called to name their religion. If I am allowed entry names of existing religions can also be considered but these are so hostile to each other and here lies the problem.

 

[seattlegal]

I would say people are divisive, and religion is just one of many vehicles employed in this manner. Other "divisive vehicles" include politics, socio-economic "class distinctions," cultural and racial diversity, and philosophical differences.

Diversity provides balance and stability to society, and also provides an opportunity for debate, which helps to raise the awareness of individuals and society at large. We can learn from others who are different from ourselves, and we can also learn more about ourselves from the manner in which we treat others who differ from ourselves.

 

[Awaiting_the_fifth]

The people of the world are split into groups by religion. We are Christian or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist or Sikh or one of another tradition. There are some religions who claim that they exist to unify mankind, but to start such a group only adds to the divisions.

I do not think that religion is a negative thing for anyone, and yes, I think that my path is the right one and every other path is wrong, but so does everyone, otherwise, why would you be on the path you are on?

So yes, religion creates division, but I dont see a problem with that.

 

[lunamoth]

I think Seattlegal got it right--people tend to be divisive and religion is just one of the ways we let our differences divide us. If there were no religion, it would be nationalism or some other cultural system that would become the cause of division.

On the other hand, religion can also be a unifying thing. If we look at first principles (I would choose love, do unto others, the middle path, balance, to go into this category) of religions there is a great message of hope and harmony. Doctrine is the double edged sword. By one blade we can take our thoughts and understandings higher by building a mental framework and using it to guide our lives. By the other blade those defining ideas that build the scaffold we climb also act as borders--you are inside or outside this particular doctrine.

It's been a long time but I think it was in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that (Phadeus??) the protagonist talked about the philosophers' knives, cutting and slicing--dividing. To think we require a dualistic system because the brain can't do anything in monochrome. We are just as stuck with 1's and 0's as any computer.

The challenge then is to get beyond the divisions that we need (to think, to judge, to have knowledge). The story of the Fall gets this perfectly--what's real is One, but what we percieve is two, separation and alienation, from God and each other. The whole ball game is trying to understand this and get back to the Garden.

waxing philosophical today,
luna

 

[Thomas]

I think Lunamoth is waxing wisdom, rather than philosophy - some profound points there.

Is relgion by definition divisive?
No

Don't most groups imply that they know the way?
Yes

Yes many are 'tolerant' but isn't that another way of saying, "Yeah, you can take that road, if you want, but my road is better"
Yes

I heard that religion and ligament stem from the same word root which means to join, to bring together.
Yes

So are we bringing together only like minded peoples or all peoples?
The joining - or rather re-joining - in the aspect of religion is of man and God, not people or peoples - that should follow 'naturally' by example.

We can see this in the response in out own times to Pope John Paul II or the Dalai Lama - their influence extends far wider than the followers of their own religion - but that does not mean that people will unite with them, or even take on board the message they bring to the world.

The problem is that religion isn't easy - if it was there would only be one and we would all be very good at it - but religion isn't easy, its tough, and the toughest aspect is we are obliged to conform ourselves to it, not it to us.

When it comes to Heaven or Hollywood - most people choose Hollywood.

Thomas

 

[_Z_]

Without the ‘labels’ there would not be the ‘boxing up’ of groups of ideas, literalism of holy books also contributes. But I agree that its just people really, it will probably always be so.



Happy new year everyone.

Z

 

[wil]

The joining - or rather re-joining - in the aspect of religion is of man and God, not people or peoples - that should follow 'naturally' by example.

I LIKE IT!!

Thanx Thomas...circumnambulation with folks is awesome.