Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1
And what brush might that be? I am wasn't talking about the people who practice religion, rather the whole notion of religion. There isn't a single religion without contradictions and that something I can't get past, especially since god is suppose to be omnipotent and divine. I can't prove or disprove the existence of god, but I can say religion is manure flavored ice-cream on pretty cone. It is highly illogical, contradictory, and breads fear. It is evil as it divides.
|
I'm sorry but I simply disagree and take offense to the assertion that "religion" is, in and of itself, evil. As with all things man-made "religion" can be used for good or ill. If you're objection is to "organized" religion, I humbly suggest you are a dilettante in matters of religious spirituality and, probably, have either (a) not practiced spiritual based religion "religiously" or (b) had a truly bad experience with an organized religion.
First and foremost, and as to "organized" religion, I can only speak to Christianity as it is the only religion I have both studied and practiced. Based on that, when the Christian "religion" is practiced in a manner true to its original inspiration, it is not "manure flavored ice-cream on a pretty cone", nor is it illogical or contradictory and it certainly does not "breed evil" by division. Rather, it is a both simple and complex discipline that can, with time and effort, bring a richer and deeper understanding of the universe, our place in it and the underlying truth of its existence that seeks and tolerates all paths to God. With that said, and by definition, all religions do not necessarily have the same message as Christianity and certainly not all organized religions are equivalent in terms of the good which they promote. Regardless of the tenets underlying any particular religion, however, "religion" itself is merely a tool created by mankind to define and practice an agreed upon code of conduct.
And just so we're clear, let me define "religion" as I understand it. By the dictionary, the word "religion" is defined as
"a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
As I see it, the three essential elements of religion's definition are: (1) "a set of beliefs" and (2) involving "ritual observances" and (3) "containing a moral code" or similar code of conduct.
As an aside on one aspect of religion: The ritual aspect of religion provides a way and form to teach people, through repetition, symbolism and recitation, of a religion's "set of beliefs" by reinforcing certain tenets basic to the religion (in Christianity the celebration of mass, the recitation of the lords prayer and the apostles or Nicene creed). The rituals practiced "in church" by Christians are intended as both a common celebration of Christianity's underlying message and, at the same time, a basic starting point for one's study into the infinite love of God, not the conclusion or final summation of our personal spiritual journey. Think of any discipline: isn't there a need for basic forms that provide teaching (In Karate, the use of Kata; In music, the practice of scales; In football, the repeated practice of passing or blocking drills)? The ritual aspect of religion is appropriately adopted in many other instances in our life because of the recognition that, to excel, any skill needs practice and discipline ("He goes to the gym religiously"; "He studies film religiously" ). In one sense, the ritualism of church is merely "practice" for the rest of our lives.
As to the "code of conduct", underlying the Christian "set of beliefs" is the belief that God is infinite and beyond our comprehension (Moses asks his name b/c his people need a way to "define" God. Rather than call himself by name, God instructs Moses to tell them that God is "the great I am" – a present tense version of the verb "to be"). Any attempt to define the infinite (a contradiction on its face) through logical means is doomed to failure. Thus, I would suggest to you that any religion (particularly any so-called Christian religion) which insists that it has the simple, logical and complete explanation of God, his/hers/its role in and among the universe, and how we should behave based on that explanation is not a religion worthy of your attention.
Rather, in describing (not defining) the infinite being, the Christian religion both in its defining document (the Bible) and its practice (generally the celebration of mass and other sacraments) uses symbolism and poetry to describe with words that which cannot be defined by words. For example, in attempting to describe the infinite, Christianity has at its core "holy mysteries" (i.e. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are separate and unique spiritual identities yet they are one being). Thus, the "inconsistencies" that many see in the Christian church's teachings, I see as the efforts of finite beings attempting to describe the infinite. Taken out of context, obviously, the poetry and symbolism of the Christian religion can seem contradictory, but seen as part the whole combination of belief, ritual and conduct there is an underlying consistency.
You said earlier that "religion should be simple and elegant". I suggest to you that Christianity, as it has developed through the ages, is just that. On its surface, Christianity is simple and can be summed up in some very basic truths: God exists, he loves us, he created us, he died for us, he demands nothing of us, he created a means for us to know and love him, and promises that he will share his infinite peace with us if we love him in return. The elegance is that each of these "true" statements is loaded with questions and outright contradiction (how can God die?) that can only be placed in context and/or resolved through study and discipline. Again, if you expect the wisdom of several millennia to be summed up in a simple sentence that contains no contradictions and takes no deep thought to understand, then I suggest that you have either mighty low expectations of the infinite and ageless universe or a pretty high estimation of your own capacity for comprehension.
Finally, as to religions other than Christianity: Given my recognition of the place and purpose of the "inconsistencies" in Christianity, I am hesitant to condemn other religions, particularly established religions, for any apparent "contradictions". Just as in Christianity, these inconsistencies, when studied and understood, may simply be the tools created by finite beings in their ageless attempt to comprehend the infinite.
I believe that any attempt to define and comprehend the infinite universe in simple, logical, non-contradictory terms will always, at a minimum, fall short. On the other hand, through the use of symbolism, paradox and poetry, religions can provide a basis for understanding the inevitable conflicts and underlying truths presented by a vast, timeless and unknowable universe.
Or, as simply and elegantly as I can put it: In religion, you see contradiction, I see inspiration.