BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Does religion really help us?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:13 / 19.03.04
Jack on developing yr own system vs. adopting another: I tentatively agree, although in my experience the rub is that each major faith is a wide banner, under which many people who are in effect constucting their own systems may shelter. Interpretation or misinterpretation can be a powerful thing. It should go without saying that this can be both good and bad: on the one hand, people who call themselves Christians (or Muslims, etc) may be expressing much more individual choice and belief and be subject to much less in the way of external influence than may be believed by some of those who view these faiths from outside. On the other hand, you can ignore the bits in the Bible that Jack Fear and many others (Christian and not) would argue are essential and clearly prohibit racism - you can be a white supremacist and call yourself a Christian, and while you may get chucked out of various individual churches, maybe even denounced by the Pope/Rowan Williams/Bono, nobody can really stop you from using the name any time before Judgment Day...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:20 / 19.03.04
AJM, you seem to contradict yourself somewhat.

On the one hand:

Not to force others to change to the way we are, when we don't understand ourselves. Which seems to be most peoples answer, "If only everyone was Christian or Jewish or communist or democratic, then the world would be peaceful".

...Which together with your post above would seem to state pretty clearly that it is a mistake to assume that if everyone adopted your own approach to life and set of beliefs, the world would be a better place.

However:

The key to a violent free society is for 'you' to understand your relationship with the divine, which isn't through ritualistic prayer/belief or the ingestion of different types of chemicals, which is an escape from the divine and not a path to it.

...This is clearly prohibitive. You are stating that certain methods are explicitly NOT conducive to an interaction with the divine, and go as far as to say that these methods are in fact active hindrances. They're pretty big/broad things to rule out too, and for the whole world to take your advice would involve a significant proportion of the global population "chang[ing] to the way [you] are".

Do you see the catch?
 
 
ajm
13:24 / 19.03.04

Every Christian ignores bits of the bible because no one takes seriously the parts about how to sell your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7) or the allowance of owning slaves (Lev 25:44) or having no contact with women during their menstrual cycle (Lev. 15:19-24) or that we should kill our neighbours who work on the sabbath (Exodus) or on and on and on.

I am simply baffled by the fact that people can ignore these parts and still call themselves a Christian.
 
 
ajm
13:28 / 19.03.04
No, I have no beliefs in this sense. I don't say people should change. Just understand their own nature and through that understanding rise above it.
 
 
illmatic
13:30 / 19.03.04
ajm: Isn't that being a bit ermm.. intolerant of Christians though? I have a mate who hates Christianity with a passion and will denounce it at any opportunity. I personally think he would be best served by nipping down the Church and having a pot of tea with the Vicar, and trying to understand their differences. Picking holes in the bible isn't engaging in this sort of dialogue.

Anyway mate, I know loads of Christans who've sold their daughters into slavery. That's how I got my girlfriend.
 
 
ajm
13:32 / 19.03.04
I don't think I'm intolerent of Christians, just their views
My best friends are Christian, my parents, and I was once one too.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:49 / 19.03.04
[off topic] How can one read the thread while in the process of responding?? Is it a copy/paste issue, or am i being particularly dense? [topic]

Haus - Not necessarily useful for the improvement of society, other than by personal improvement, and the fact that I am a contributing factor to society...That is, I find the dissolution of the 'ego', for want of a less loaded term, the deconstruction of the sense-of-self-as-other hugely useful in relating to the world at large once the persona is back in place. Without wanting to descend into psychedelic verbal diarrhoea, the experience of both ayahuasca (Illmatic - there are ayahuasceros holding dame's in London all the time amongst my friends) and psilocybin both 'reveal', if nothing else, huge insights into the workings of at least one's own mind, and the wordless, languageless wonder of the experience is, effectively, 'rapture'....Gah.

The chicken-and-egg of which 'came first' is probably not that useful to get into here (did mankind have the sense of 'gods' prior to hir discovery of mind-altering plants? I take your point about projecting the beliefs within the experience, but the destruction of the 'self' at the peak of the experience is very real, regardless of the metaphors used to explain it afterwards...)...How is this a 'useful tool'? A dramatic sense of perspective and wonder, and a glimpse of the connective tissue that binds it All together...shit, it's never a good idea to discuss it really, one can't help but slip into Yoda. The Unnameable, and all that.

I agree Haus and Jack that the context of the ritual is everything...As to the purpose of organised religion, which does bewilder me with its continuing popularity, and Jack's notion that religion is widely adopted as a system of self-improvement (among other things)....I don;t know. I suspect that the doctrinal fear of punishment prevalent in the Big 3 (roasting in the underworld, being violated by large pudenda attached to unpleasant demonic types etc.), and it's installation in the young has a large amount to do with it. People adhere because they fear the consequences if they don't. It's only as they grow older that the self-improvement aspect (possibly) takes over.

Jack says any religion worth its salt is less a comfort than a challenge: a design for living, an exhortation to be better than you possibly can be but misses the crucial 'Or Else!' dictated by Christianity, Islam and Judaism (and many others beside).

"Why do people follow religion?" is a fairly important question before addressing whether or not it is a useful tool or not, I guess. After all, many people who do not steal, covet their neighbours wife, kill, and so on, have no interest in it whatsoever.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:08 / 19.03.04
Perhaps a more interesting question, on second thoughts, before carrying on, is "Why do people follow a particular religion?".

My sister-in-law, for example, was raised catholic, but is now Church of Yahweh, as are her parents...

She knows little or nothing about Islam other than from CNN, and it fascinates me how anyone can choose a path without sampling all of them...I mean, how can you be sure you are going to Heaven? You believe in it, and many faiths have it as a central tenet of faith, but if you are on the 'wrong' path, you are shafted...A life of dedication down the swanny, because, it turns out, God is pissed that you called him Yahweh when his name is Allah (these things are crucial, apparently).

So it seems a vital understanding - what inspires people to belive this faith over that one, or just this one without even bothering to find out about that one?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:12 / 19.03.04
No, I have no beliefs in this sense. I don't say people should change. Just understand their own nature and through that understanding rise above it.

So: you have no beliefs. Except some very strong ones about other people's beliefs. You don't think people should change. Unless they're Christians. You want people to "understand their own nature and rise above it", but what if they come to the conclusion that, say, their own nature is a sinful being and that they need to rise above this through salvation by Jesus? You can't object to that, because you have no beliefs in this sense, and you wouldn't want them to change their way of thinking to be like yours, would you? Or would you?

I'd say I'm confused, but actually, it's all becoming depressingly clear.
 
 
ajm
14:12 / 19.03.04

I would agree that drugs such as hallucinogines and such can help dissolve the ego and expand your concousness. Personally my first 'mystical feelings' came through the use of weed and LSD. Also I had a friend who had a vision of Jesus on LSD, which resulted in him not using drugs as frequently. These experiences made me realize there is more out there and life is deeper than I can imagine, although it never brought me in touch with anything divine.

On your other comment, people follow their religions because it gives them a great sense of security and allows them to be apart of something greater than themselves. Anything that allows you to forget about yourself (dissolution of the 'ego') and escape from life is comforting. Sex, drugs, music, religion, politics, work, TV; all these allow people to not have to think about the nothingness of existence.
There's life and then there's lifes distractions.

ajm
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:15 / 19.03.04
Quick thought on the 'need' for belief in Heaven and the afterlife - it provides a back door out of the negative feedback loop created within an organism hardwired to preserve its own existence, but acutely aware, by virtue of its large brain, of its own mortality.

As far as we can be aware, (wo)mankind is the only being privileged with the knowledge of hir own certain doom...This creates an impossible tension between the survival instinct, and meaningful, goal-oriented behaviour, and knowledge - it's largely pointless, 'cos 'you' are doomed. How can this be? Simple - you 'go on' after your death, in a lovely place where the tea is always milky. It's a compeeling idea that enables life to go on without too much furrowing of the brow and hand wringing.

Must...do...some...work
 
 
ajm
14:19 / 19.03.04

Flyboy,
Isn't their a difference between 'belief' (which indicates faith I think) and the understanding of fact?
I didn't say they are anybody should change, just look at their 'beliefs' objectively, factually as an unbiased observer. And I don't object to their beliefs but I can 'see' that these people are confused (as I am) and desire to become enlightened.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:25 / 19.03.04
ajm - it's easy to do, and we're all guilty of it at times, but you are making broad sweeping statements of opinion and presenting them as facts...It'll be tears before bedtime if we're not careful...

people follow their religions because it gives them a great sense of security and allows them to be apart of something greater than themselves.

Pretty bold words, no? And you are speaking for how many hundreds of millions of people here? Do they know you are their mouthpiece today?

I don't think ego-destruction can be so easily labelled as 'escaping from life' - in fact, I think it can bring life into horrifically sharp relief, it's a fairly risky thing to do at the best of times.

And if, as you assert, there 'is life' and 'life's distractions', you have listed some 'distractions' - what, then, is the meat of the matter, so to speak? Taxes, toilet and tiredness?
 
 
ajm
14:36 / 19.03.04
I don't really have the time to disect every religous view on this form, but isn't the idea of talking about 'religion' as a single entity the point here?
Do you know of anyone whom their religious views makes them feel insecure and isolated? Maybe your right. I am probably projecting my own feelings, as I feel insecure and isolated in this world, and the obvious resonpse to that is to search for security, through my girlfriend or my music or whatever.

Here's another quote to create more hostility (sarcasm).
I'm currently reading from a quotation site so please, forgiveness.

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation (nor who desires to be worshiped), whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
- Einstein
 
 
ajm
14:38 / 19.03.04

Oh yeah, the 'meat of life'. Shouldn't it be the objective, present moment. Not our own personal opinions, which we are all so great at dishing out, but truth, reality, 'what is'.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:51 / 19.03.04
Dude, the suggestion is only that your 24 word sounbite may be a bit inadequate to describe the motivations of everyone who subscribes to religion everywhere.

As for the rest...er, so if there is music playing, in the present moment, is that okay? Or if I am playing music, intently, am I distracted, or 'in the present'? When fucking? Is that escapism, or life?

Similarly, I can't imagine a more 'in the moment' rawness than the peak of a psychedelic experience. Indeed, the notion of a 'present' becomes a laughable fiction if the dose is right.
 
 
ajm
15:02 / 19.03.04
Dude, I'm sure I could write a paper on it, which in fact I am doing for class one Jung's view of Christianity, which is no doubt influencing what I am writing as I tend to read a bit to much, as I have a feeling many of us on this post do.
Here's an interesting article entitle Jung, Christianity, and Buddhism.
http://www.nanzan-u.ac.jp/~heisig/pdf/23-Heisig.pdf

Sure, I love mushrooms, and it definitly puts me in the moment, albeit a very distored, unreal moment. But if you need a religion or a drug or sex to be in the moment and disolve the ego, than your more and addict than anything. Can you do it with nothing? All these things you mentioned are life and put you in the moment, artifically. And then you go on to crave and desire these things because you can't do it on your own. Then you are living in the past to somehow affect your future.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:19 / 19.03.04
Shall we get back to the thread now? My addictive personality is surely outside the topic abstract...
 
 
ajm
15:41 / 19.03.04

I wasn't refering to you in a direct way when I made that statement. I put myself in the same boat of being attatched to drugs and other things in my attempt to live.

Back on topic? I thought we solved the worlds problems though our discussions?

May I ask you if there are any spiritual writings which you tend to read or do you only find comfort through pyschedicalics? I personally have only recently recovered from being a complete pot-head, and the residue effects are still lingering.

To recap, it seems that as a society we have tried every type of religious and political system and none of them have brought an end to the large array of suffering that goes on each day. What if we had no ideologies, would we all curl up and die? Of course not. I personally didn't have any sense of spirituality until I rejected Christianity.
 
 
Jack Fear
17:01 / 19.03.04
...and plenty of people had no sense of spirituality until they embraced Christianity. (or Islam, or Judaism, or Buddhism...)
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:17 / 19.03.04
Yeah, I think thats right. It seems to me that any intellectually honest appraisal on the effects of religion is going to fail to find any strong conclusion. So, for instance, I disagree with Jack's point above that christianity will tend to challenge racism. It might not and, I think, doesn't for a good many. On the other hand, some of the most passionate anti-racists have been christian. If I am going to make any bold claim at all, it is that this pattern is repeated wherever you look.

That is, religions are broad and varied enough in the makeup of their members, that you cannot reliably make any predictions about the morality or otherwise of the adherents. And not just for morality, but also for self awareness, sprituality and so on.

As an atheist, I would argue for that position. But I am acutely aware that my arguments would be abstract rather than empirical. Life just isn't simple enough to divide people into good guys and bad guys.
 
 
40%
17:26 / 19.03.04
I didn't say they are anybody should change, just look at their 'beliefs' objectively, factually as an unbiased observer....I can 'see' that these people are confused

You advocated self-knowledge, and 'understanding your own nature' earlier on. Surely the very foundation of these things is to realise how little you know, your subjectivity and your limited perspective. Yet you're saying here that you know that these people are not being objective, and presumably the only way you could know that is if you ARE being objective. But you're not. It's not in your nature to be objective, nor in any other human being's.
 
 
40%
17:29 / 19.03.04
On the racism within religion issue:

When I went to New York last year, I visited two all-black churches, within walking distance of each other. The first one gave me a very frosty reception, the second welcomed me warmly. Explain that.

[I'm white if that wasn't obvious]
 
 
ajm
17:37 / 19.03.04

The realization of your subjectivity and limited perception is a objective observation. Is it not?

I am not suggesting I'm completely objective in a god-like way, but I try to be objective as I can as often as I can.
 
 
ajm
17:59 / 19.03.04
Racism: the belief that a race is superior than another.
Race: A group of people united or classified together.

When you accept any religious view that means you believe that your view is the one truth, which excludes others from having the truth.

Therefore, belonging to a religious 'race' means you believe your race is superior than other religious races from the very fact that you choice it, meaning you believe it to be superior and therefore your race. Belong to a religion is by definition, racist and an act of intolerance. You can't believe your views are true at the same time as beliving others to be true, especially if you're a Christian (one true path to God and all that).

How can you disagree with this(?) unless you believe everyone has the truth and then you have a condratiction.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:14 / 19.03.04
When you accept any religious view that means you believe that your view is the one truth, which excludes others from having the truth.

A patently false premise--or at least a vast overstatement. Although every religion has its dwellers on the fringe, the vast majority of people of faith acknowledge that there are many religious paths to the same Truth. Even the Catholic church, that exemplar of hierarchical traditionalism, officially embraces a pluralistic, ecumenical spirit.

So the "contradiction" is largely mythical--much like your conception of organized religion as being inherently intolerant and exclusive.

And your attempts to equate religion (which can be freely chosen) with race (which is genetic destiny) are--forgive me--about as laughably inept a piece of rhetoric as I've ever seen.
 
 
ajm
18:25 / 19.03.04
I got the definition of race from the dictionary, I didn't make it up. The belief that there is many paths to God or truth is a different belief in itself. If the church 'officially' recognizes that there are many paths to salvation (which I was unaware, and told the very opposite thing from many Christians) then they are in contradiction with themselves as the bible states the oppisite. Jesus said you can only get to heaven through me. Are you a Chrisitian?

Please explain the error in my logic equating religion with race.
(Race: A group of people united or classified together) This definition doesn't include only genitic classification.
 
 
Lurid Archive
19:05 / 19.03.04
Jack: Although you are right, race is more elective and religion more hereditary than you might expect. Its a funny world.

ajm: I can say from experience that the rather strict interpretation of a single path to salvation is far from universal. For those who do take such a strict line, you might argue that they or their deity is racist. Maybe. Its hard to reconcile religion as a cultural phenomenon and the one true religion as the only path to salvation, certainly. Still, as I said, I'm not sure that this would be a very popular stance.

As a general rule of thumb, if you can think of a single argument that clearly demonstrates a fundamental problem with religion...then you are telling yourself fairy stories. Lots of bright people have been religious, after all.
 
 
ajm
21:46 / 19.03.04

The problem is, as I've stated, that religion creates division in society and those divisions, or dare I say races, are inherently against the other religious groups. Is this not obvious? Please someone argue against me instead of telling me they just don't like this view. If you join a sports team you are automatically in conflict with the other teams, right. This is analogous to religious 'teams'. I know people will thing of this as simplistic, but I believe in keeping things simple (K.I.S.S). And more often than not, things are made overly complex by confusion and ignorance. Another way of putting it. Did you ever notice that when you were in high school that everybody stayed within a certian click at school, and these groups would gossip about all the other groups and fights would occur and all the pettiness? Well I am talking about the grown up version of that. When I was a kid (I could considered to still be one) I found a sense of security in my group, yet I didn't come to understand or know the others which might have had negative views of me and vise versa.

If you think that some religion or political system is going to come along and make everything all better, you have some extreme delusions. So if they're not going to help us could they be hurting us? Just think about it.

But if I can say something maybe more offensive, what hurts us more in the world and what cause more hate and ignorane then anything else is nationalism. Just watch the news. If American nationalism doesn't start WWIII then nothing will.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply