BARBELITH underground
 

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


Underground > Temple >

Organize my religion?!

  
 
Ender
16:33 / 10.07.05

the first thing to know about organized religion is that it is a downward spiral of delusion, manipulation, and brainwashing.

The guys doing the brainwashing were brainwashed themselves, so I cant really blame them all that much, they are doing what they think is right.

We build these magnificent buildings and tell god, and give god the permission to dwell within its walls.

We build parameters, and expect god to function within them.

And when I say we, I am not talking about the Barbeliods, but you know, people in general.

Some people say that god cannot, or would not do this or that, he would not speak to a man while he is out on a lake fishing, he would not wrap one of his children in his divine love and whisper comfort in his ear when the world is falling down all about him.

There are churches that say that god has spoken all that he will to this world, and we are on our own now, there are churches that say this and say that, and do you know what I say? Fuck all that bullshit.

All the teachings and laws and culture of religion get in the way of what every one of them was founded on,

-the golden rule.-

Love each other.

I wish that god would have just written two words on some celestial parchment, or carved them in a mountainside,

LOVE EACHOTHER

I get so sidetracked from this one 'higher law' sometimes. And have been noticing fragments of preprogramming within me!

I see a man that needs a ride, his thumb out, and I think, "will this man kill me if I pick him up?" a prejudgment that I think most people would call common sense and good caution, but maybe the ride would make all the difference in the world to that man...You never know.

I judge people all the time, and I slap myself silly for doing so. It is not my place to pass sentence on another; I am here to love, and to aid others where I can.


God said, love each other. Thats it really, these other things are there to distract us.

The brainwashed men that brainwash others dont want us to know this simple truth, we dont need them. None of us do, if we only strong enough to subscribe to the simple truth of self acceptance, and trust in the world, in each other, and live an existence where we can look one another in the eye, and smile at strangers and prepare ourselves for a better world.

There are two kinds of people in this world,

People I love, and people that I dont know yet.

When I dont like someone, for any reason, I will take the time to self analyze why. This takes empathy, and after a time or two of doing this, I may not agree with George W's decisions in Iraq, but I at least realize that he is afraid, and trying to fill some very big shoes, and trying to please his advisors, and he thinks that he is hand picked by god to lead this country, yeah, it is hard for me to hate him when I understand how afraid he must be.

And I think back to the one commandment from god, love each other, which to me means finding a way to love those that just are not easy to love.

And once I love a person, especially when I now understand them (a little bit), it is so much easier to communicate with them, if I ever met the president, I would know how to get points a crossed without offending. He may even listen, and be grateful that someone took the time to see how difficult his burden is. its hard to hate someone that loves you.

Love is answer,

Now I have to take some time to define to myself what love really is, and how much to love, and when to draw the line on charity and kindness. the higher law is an answer to my frustrations, but brings a set of questions all its own.
 
 
Baobab Branches and Plastic
12:13 / 27.02.06
Sorry to bump this thread up again. But I have been having thinking about the whole organised religion issue for a bit and am starting to think that the whole premise of a spirituality defined by a social group to be rather limiting.

That said I can't deny that my own beliefs haven't been inspired by some of the texts produced by organised religion (not to mention the ones that have inspired them).

I read the new testament recently and was struck by how much of Jesus' saying etc were much like my own beliefs, however I disagree almost totally with the organisation of his conceptions of sprituality into a religion.

While I'm not advocating the 'loner mystic' road for everyone, it seems to me working from one's own revelations on life, the universe, and how to get the most out of your oystercard is much more rewarding that simply letting someone 'tell you how it is'.

What is it about religions that changes them from that really nice period of 'hey here's some ideas that will blow your mind' to 'I'm gunna kill you if you don't come to MY church'. It seem sad and abhorrent to me that people view themselves and the world in this manner. Without wanting to offend anyone in particular the need to worship with like minded people, is more of a social need rather than a spiritual one in my opinion. Of course I'm not going to stop or chide anyone for doing it, but i'd like to know what other people think about organised faiths.
 
 
cusm
13:17 / 27.02.06
I read the new testament recently and was struck by how much of Jesus' saying etc were much like my own beliefs, however I disagree almost totally with the organisation of his conceptions of sprituality into a religion.

That's because Jesus was preaching against organized religion. He was giving the word to love one another and rock the state. John as well considered the organizing of Christianity a heresy, as some passages in Revelations suggest founding moments in the church to be steps towards armeggedon. Jesus was cool. Its the Paulines that turned the religion in to what it is today. Ironic, but that's the way with people and power. And we'll do it every time if you let us.
 
 
Baobab Branches and Plastic
15:09 / 27.02.06
Indeed, which begs the suggest that my own 'hey do what you want with your beliefs' might be a bad idea! Perhaps I have to be more proactive and burn churches/mosques/synagogues... but thats hardly a good thing and only any works to empower the more totalitarian militaristic tendencies of organised religions. The same people that say we're defending our beliefs end up using the same conviction to attack others (just like me with the matches).

I mean that's an argument so well versed it practically sings itself (on this board of course) but despite my own extremely liberal beliefs I'm starting to get a little antsy around orthodox types of any faith.

I mean with all the hyper-modern religosity going on in the world there doesn't seem to be many people standing up and proclaiming loudly 'hey wait a minute - take a step back mutherfuckers, if you wanna argue politics argue politics and if you want to argue spirituality great - but mixing the two sullies both'. Render unto Caeser that which is Caesers and unto the lord that which is his, right?

In my view religion is essentially spirituality politicised, and can be a nasty form of politics that appeals not to reason but non-quantifiable faith.

The paradox for me is that in contrast to the me-cultural ennui of neo-yuppie post-individualism I think that spiritual/moral/valuative concerns should take a much more central role in the determinations of how people want to live, but giving people the power to choose a faith based state or not is a recipe for disaster (at least for me). As I'd have to appreciate a democratically induced swing toward fundamentalism if it went that way. While post-modernity offered some way out the modernist hangover of the previous century and a half sadly it seems like we're going backwards with governments playing a more controlling role in our daily lives than ever before. We've got big brother on the TV, distracting us from the reality that everytime I got to shop what I buy is logged, everytime I take the tube my movements are logged, when I move around work the central system knows exactly where I am, moving cultural interactions online is great but: email is saved and accessed by goverments, boards can be monitored etc etc.

Its not paranoid to suggest if governments CAN do something that they won't by virtue of some eroded archaic morality (Just ask the Electronic Frontier Foundation).

How does this tie into conception of spirituality and mysticism? For me at least it has to do with reliance; socially, culturally, spiritually and economically on the avenues of the state. The myth is that by engaging with these institutions we are protected from exploitation but increasingly they are the most evil normalisers, objectifying people into docile bodies (see Foucault).

The signifiers of meaning that confer 'personhood' in either the social or spiritual realm are now so bunk that, if you don't subscribe to the 'have to be SOMEBODY owing EVERYTHING' school of thought you seem like a disapproving weirdo!

To all the above I'd the personal imperative of a new society to be productive potential rather than possessive potential; 'How much am I free to do?' rather than the limiting 'How much can I get?' furthermore a sense of spirituality that dealt with that same issues may ameliorate the angry bugbears of organised religion.

*I was going apologies for being ranty here - but hell no - I feel this way*
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:46 / 27.02.06
I'm not sure any of the religions of the world really were founded on the principle of 'Love One Another' were they?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:42 / 27.02.06
'How much am I free to do?' rather than the limiting 'How much can I get?'

They're not the only options... (and if I were to be nitpicky I'd say that "how much am I free to do" ia also, by definition, limited)- "how can I best help everyone else" seems fairly attractive to me.

And yes, Christianity (well... the teachings of Christ), at least, did have loving one's fellow man as a touchstone, once upon a time.
 
 
Dead Megatron
23:01 / 27.02.06
I'm not sure any of the religions of the world really were founded on the principle of 'Love One Another' were they?

If they weren't, they should have. In fact, what are we waiting for?
 
 
Dead Megatron
02:06 / 28.02.06
To tohse who believe in the teachings of the Nazrene above those of "his" Churches, I recommend to read over and over the following verses:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'The whole of the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

The Gospel according to St. Matthew 22, 36-40 (my italics, humbly)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
08:22 / 28.02.06
I'd like to come back to this post (DM's, above) later when I have more time, but in the meantime can a mod 'orginize' the thread title?

Like, with an 'a'. And maybe an 's', though that doesn't really bother me.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:59 / 28.02.06
Ah, thank you!
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
15:49 / 28.02.06
Dead Megatron...

didn't Matthew write all this down well after the death of JC?

how much weight should we attribute to those quotation marks???

--not jack
 
 
Dead Megatron
17:32 / 28.02.06
Good question, Jack. I'd say we always have to think ten times before we accept any teaching from whoever.

I do think that's something Jesus would have said, since he seems to be, for me, a guy who really thinks of hierarchic, organized religion as a big no-no anyhow. Those commandments don1t require one to attend to temple or obey the priest to be fulfilled: it is a personal matter. In Matthew's gospel, Jesus "says" also that one needs not to go to the temple to connect with God, they can to that all by themselves in the privacy of their home, through prayer and sheer faith. (can't remember exactly where in it now, have to look it up. But it is the same time where Jesus "teaches" us the Our Father prayer - as an alternative to going to the temple, that is. And, on a historical note, I remember once, many years ago, when archeologist made a scale of how likely is certain parts of the Gospel to have been actually said by the actual historical Yeshua bin Yousef, and in the wole Our Father prayer, the only phrase they demm 100% sure to be legit is "our father", which I find to be a conerstone of his teaching as I understand them: God is our father, who loves us, and not some creepy alien force)

These two commandments are great because they don't tell you how to live your life in specific terms (as opposed to, for instance, "thou shall not lust after other men wives"), just how one should approach the experience of living in general. When he says "love God above all else", I equal God to the Universe, so "loving God", means "loving the world", "loving life", and certainly not "submit to Jehovah exactly as the Old Testament tells you to, and follow his laws to the letter, and kill his enemies as you see fit" as some hatred-filled creeps might interpret it.

And, on top of all that, I don't really care if it was Jesus, Matthew, or goddamn Alfred E. Newmann who said it: I like it, I follow it (or at least, try to)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
18:15 / 28.02.06
Well, to elaborate on what DM said, in fact what you've read there is a middle-ages English translation from a Greek translation of a Latin translation of a Hebrew text most likely translated from an Aramaic original, which probably was recorded not very long after the death of Isho (Jesus) at all. The Peshitta text is the common reference here, though many scholars posit the existence of a hypothetical text tagged as "Q" (from the German quelle, meaning 'source')...'Peshitta', as I said above (I think, I'm repeating this a lot round here at the moment, please excuse me :-)) means 'simple', 'sincere' or 'true'. The church of the East regards the Peshitta as the most reliable and authoritative source for the Bible, perhaps less than 2nd Century AD.

The church of the East also maintain that even if the Peshitta version is not the oldest, it is certainly the closest to the actual thoughtforms and sayings of Isho. Most of the idiomatic confusions in the sayings of the man are instantly cleared up when considered from the Aramaic.

It is a unique aspect of Christianity that it represents possibly the only religion in which the sacred teachings of its 'founder', or inspiration, are not recorded in a widely recognised fashion in the language of that individual. There is no doubt at all that Isho and his followers spoke Aramaic.

With this in mind, it is quite revealing to consider the Aramaic original of this most seminal Gospel phrase, in which the founding mysticism and inspiration for the entire Pauline movement of Christianity is based.

Detrahm l'marya Alahak
men kuleh lebak
wa men kuleh naphshak
wa men kuleh haylak
wa men kuleh rewhyanak...
Detrahm laqriybak ayk naphshak

"From the deepest part of yourself, let love be born for the rays and emanation of the One that shine around you.

Let this come from your whole heart -
the centre of your life: your passion, courage and audacity
and touch your whole unconscious and subconscious Self -
that instinctive soul within which scatters and gathers.

From this Self liberate your entire animal energy and life force, to flood your entire grasping mind with love.

This is the most important command (raba). The second is like it:

Draw a breath of compassion for the one mysteriously drawn to live near you: love that friend as you love the Self that dwells within - the unconscious and subconscious that sometimes feels separate and intruding."

Greek to English loses a fair bit as you can see.

The word Marya which, with Alaha ('That' or 'One' - in Greek, turned into 'God') is usually translated 'Lord', emerges from the root -mar : the elementary rising principle that shines, lightens and heats all things. If we open our eyes, we see all around us the the light of Oneness shining through and manifest within all creation. We are not asked to love something, some entity, apart from the world and Universe, but to see and recognise the One in All.

Don't have time to expand on the rest, but the confusion of 'self' and 'soul' in the Aramaic word naphshak is a very interesting one, which I'll possibly come to with a bit more time to spare.

In deference to the thread, I think I'd broadly agree that the Christian Church has, in its politics and pontiffs, sometimes little to do with these teachings. This is not to disparage Christians, however, many of whom are, in spite of the obstacles in their path, able to extract at least a decent and full enough essence from the book they have to work with.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
18:27 / 28.02.06
OK, one last thing:

In his statement about 'the greatest commandment' (from the root rab- - the movement that creates everything that follows), Isho chose an expression embracing all elements of the Middle Eastern mystical traditional lore of manifestation. As one unconditionally and without judgement or attachment loved the Oneness, within and without, one would generate love from the heart and bring into God's light more and more of the naphsha - soul, self, unconscious, subconscious, little "I", ego etc. As this happened, the energy liberated would clarify one's feeling and direction in life. From this clearer intention would flow clearer thought, and consequently clearer behaviours and actions. Thus loving God, or Oneness, enough is the absolute key to everything.

Finally, in case the audience missed the point about naphsha also being reflected outside, he included the second part. A great deal of Sufi mysticism is present in this apparently simple phrase...

Later.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:48 / 28.02.06
M$, I freaking love you.

It makes me happy that my personal interpretation of the translated phrase seem to reflect the original meaning (or so it seems to me, at least)

Gosh, I need to learn aramaic.
 
 
cusm
00:57 / 03.03.06
Awesome. Thank you so much for that translation.

And yea, from my own readings of Rumi, Sufiism contains a great sense of "Allah is all of the world and more. Love -> Allah = path to enlightened living." Reminiscent also of Buddhist precepts of "right living, right thinking" etc. I do believe, and have concluded from my own study, that all the Great Religions are based in "love eachother" in some way. The Golden Rule is the only constant.

On thread topic, organized religions are a structure existent to protect and perpetuate the teachings themselves. This requires them to be powerful. Thus, they exist in essence as power structures. Power structures are inherently contrary to these teachings, so it is ironic that they are necessary to preserve them. The only way to avoid this route is for the The Word to be passed from teacher to seeker by their will to learn. More difficult in ancient times, but easier today with increases in comunication. It is of no coincidence that the New Age folks are saying the same things, but without the necessity of a power structure to make people learn it. I suspect the problem is self-correcting in this era.
 
  
Add Your Reply