Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

A translation is as easy as a few mouse clicks. Everyone with computer and an internet connection can have a translation in seconds. You obviously have a computer and an internet connection. So not having a translation is not the real reason you didn't post one.

And translation is as easy for you as you describe. The fact that you didn't, by your logic, indicates that you are moaning about it for another reason...?

Is this a good approach to discussing philosophy, do you think? In what way does it contribute to learning or understanding?

[Lagayascienza]

But it was not me that originally posted the quote. I was responding to it. Thinking about it now, though, perhaps I should have posted a translation of a post that that I did not post in order to demonstrate what the poster I was responding to should have done.

[miss ware]

Love is often seen as a core value of many religions. However, the way that love is expressed in religious contexts can vary widely. Some religions emphasize compassion and empathy, while justifiying their beliefs.

Truth is another important value in many religions. However, what constitutes truth can be a matter of debate. Some religions claim to possess absolute truth, while others acknowledge that truth is relative and complex. .
Some religions use fear to keep their members in line. They may threaten their members with punishment in the afterlife or social ostracism if they deviate from religious orthodoxy. REligion should teach more of love and be truth than to create fear in believers

[Good_Egg]

REligion should teach more of love and be truth than to create fear in believers

The view that religion can be a Good Thing, but can go wrong to the extent that it is on balance a Bad Thing, is a constructive approach that leads to an increase in understanding.

Much more sensible than dismissing all religiousness / religiosity as inherently immoral.

[Fanman]

miss ware,

Good post.

On balance, organised religion is not a good thing because it is, like most organisations, dictated by the powerful few who don’t actually care about anything other than gain. In my view, it is much better to have a personal faith and believe in something (not necessarily a deity) larger than ourselves. As that can lead to a fulfilling life.

[ItsNotWhatItSeems]

What religion really means is a gathering. But look at what the so-called religions have done. They have separated it into the believer and unbelievers, religious doctrine versus other religious doctrines. All emphasizing what has been written down in their “sacred” books, but you don’t have to use rocket science to see that it has no value. Because religions of today are not concerned with what is really going on, our immediate and actual daily life. Real religion would be a uniting of man, and what will bring this uniting is not ideals and far-out concepts written in old books. It’s all silly, look at it for what it really is.

[miss ware]

I agree with you.

[Stoppelmann]

What religion really means is a gathering. But look at what the so-called religions have done. They have separated it into the believer and unbelievers, religious doctrine versus other religious doctrines. All emphasizing what has been written down in their “sacred” books, but you don’t have to use rocket science to see that it has no value. Because religions of today are not concerned with what is really going on, our immediate and actual daily life. Real religion would be a uniting of man, and what will bring this uniting is not ideals and far-out concepts written in old books. It’s all silly, look at it for what it really is.

If you have a bias against old books, then you might be surprised that all the classics of our culture are written in old books. If your bias goes even further and you think that only new things are good, nobody can help you!

It might help you, however, if you inform yourself before laying out your misinformed bias for all to see.

[Lagayascienza]

What religion really means is a gathering. But look at what the so-called religions have done. They have separated it into the believer and unbelievers, religious doctrine versus other religious doctrines. All emphasizing what has been written down in their “sacred” books, but you don’t have to use rocket science to see that it has no value. Because religions of today are not concerned with what is really going on, our immediate and actual daily life. Real religion would be a uniting of man, and what will bring this uniting is not ideals and far-out concepts written in old books. It’s all silly, look at it for what it really is.

I agree that if religion is to have much relevance in the modern world it will need to move away from religious wars and sectarian strife. Religion should, if it wants to be relevant, focus on helping those in need and promoting peace. Otherwise, what is it for?

[Good_Egg]

I agree that if religion is to have much relevance in the modern world it will need to move away from religious wars and sectarian strife. Religion should, if it wants to be relevant, focus on helping those in need and promoting peace. Otherwise, what is it for?

Did the Buddha advocate sectarian strife ? Did Jesus ? Of course not.

Yes, religion goes wrong when it becomes the touchstone of tribal identity.

The source of sectarianism is not in religion, it is in human nature. You see it, for example in extreme-left political parties, in devotion to This Glorious Movement Of Ours.

Helping those in need ? Yes, but the specific sort of need that religion is best placed to help with - spiritual need. Your doctor may be a person of goodwill who desires to help you with your need to get your car fixed or your financial problems sorted out, but it's better if he sticks to what only he can do which is to help you with your health.

"Relevance" ? That's the cry of a spoilt child who demands to have any statement translated into the terms of their own life before they'll pay attention. Truths of human nature are timeless, always relevant.

Is religion about peace ? Any religion will tell you that there are things worth fighting for and things not worth fighting for. Peace is not the highest value.

[Pattern-chaser]

What religion really means is a gathering. But look at what the so-called religions have done. They have separated it into the believer and unbelievers, religious doctrine versus other religious doctrines.

...and yet the Eastern 'religions' respect each other's texts, even quote from them in their own work. I have no specific knowledge of how they regard those of other beliefs, but assume and hope that they are reasonably liberal on that matter too. And they don't seem to have doctrine or dogma, in the same way as Western traditions do. Perhaps these Eastern beliefs offer a more positive view?

[ItsNotWhatItSeems]

What religion really means is a gathering. But look at what the so-called religions have done. They have separated it into the believer and unbelievers, religious doctrine versus other religious doctrines. All emphasizing what has been written down in their “sacred” books, but you don’t have to use rocket science to see that it has no value. Because religions of today are not concerned with what is really going on, our immediate and actual daily life. Real religion would be a uniting of man, and what will bring this uniting is not ideals and far-out concepts written in old books. It’s all silly, look at it for what it really is.

If you have a bias against old books, then you might be surprised that all the classics of our culture are written in old books. If your bias goes even further and you think that only new things are good, nobody can help you!

It might help you, however, if you inform yourself before laying out your misinformed bias for all to see.

It’s not I who has any bias at all, the “old books” ARE the bias. Look at how people fight over ideas, like you do now not withstanding the urge to be condescending. Are you a human being that lives in world or are you all your identifications? “My culture and their culture” “my ideas and their ideas” and even “me and you”. If you’re concerned with what the “culture” has said then you’re not concerned with the world, you’re concerned with illusion. Come back to me after you’ve put down your cultural appropriations which have so divided the world and want to have a serious conversation.

[ItsNotWhatItSeems]

What religion really means is a gathering. But look at what the so-called religions have done. They have separated it into the believer and unbelievers, religious doctrine versus other religious doctrines.

...and yet the Eastern 'religions' respect each other's texts, even quote from them in their own work. I have no specific knowledge of how they regard those of other beliefs, but assume and hope that they are reasonably liberal on that matter too. And they don't seem to have doctrine or dogma, in the same way as Western traditions do. Perhaps these Eastern beliefs offer a more positive view?

Why do we look to religions at all? Obviously nothing can help the individual, their natural inclination is to fall back on what’s already been laid out for them; the religions. And so they continue to seek something they don’t have which no religion can give them. That’s what it means to be secondhand people, that’s what is happening. All the offerings of the “beyond” serve as a mere opium, an escape from the reality. The reality is that mankind is confused, divided and aligned against eachother. Religion won’t pull them out but waking up will.

[Lagayascienza]

For most people I think it's a case not of knowing what they like, but of liking what they know. Religion is very hard to break out of. When it's drummed into you from early childhood it becomes like an intellectual prison. Most people can't see a way out, they can't see any alternative, so they're stuck. Or they don't have it in them to struggle out of it. They don't want to have to think about it. So, again, they're stuck. It's easier to stick with what you want to "know".

[Stoppelmann]

It’s not I who has any bias at all, the “old books” ARE the bias. Look at how people fight over ideas, like you do now not withstanding the urge to be condescending. Are you a human being that lives in world or are you all your identifications? “My culture and their culture” “my ideas and their ideas” and even “me and you”. If you’re concerned with what the “culture” has said then you’re not concerned with the world, you’re concerned with illusion. Come back to me after you’ve put down your cultural appropriations which have so divided the world and want to have a serious conversation.

Written like a true postmodern ideologist! Do away with "old books," old ideas, old culture ... and just live in the moment, creating new ideas, new cultures and new books to fight over. And then the audacity to say "come back to me when ..." Fortunately, expletives are forbidden on this site.