Religion as an Invention
POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Sunday, August 23, 2026 16:07
VIEWED: 9267
PAGE 6 of 12
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
...but that's why I said that praying to Buddha went against everything he stood for. I know there are those that do it, but that doesn't mean they're correct in doing so.
The same can be said about Jesus, Muhammad, Confucius, Lao Tse, Moses, etc.
I agree. I never said otherwise, in fact. Many of them were philosophizers whose questions were turned into statements and dogmatized. I'll say it again, the problem is with faith in the dogma. If dogma can never be changed, never be countered with new information, there is stagnation, and that's not a good way to live.
And that, believe it or not, is exactly where the line is between philosophy and a religion. Philosophies will change with new information. Religion, in general, won't. It can take decades to even get some wiggle room, and most of the "change" is in the form of omission. Omitting, for example, that someone should be stoned to death for wearing a mixed fabric. Most Christians will omit that belief in modern times, but it is still stated in their book. Omitting, perhaps, the statements of Siddhartha to the effect that everyone must find their own way. This is not omission for the better, but it makes it much easier to control the population when you say, "No, no this is the way, this over here. You don't need to find it, just follow." This is change via omission, and also change for someone's convenience, rather than change based on new information or fact.
I'll add to this, as I think I said before, if anyone who professes faith in a dogma is considered a good person, simply for that faith, they can be allowed to get away with murder, and I think that's wholly unacceptable. This 'morality' that I've seen so many people in the world say is a religious structure... It doesn't touch those who are not moral, but they can exploit the assumption that someone is moral because they attend church. That really bothers me. It bothers me almost as much to be on the other end of that, with the assumption that I am not moral because I do not attend church. I don't need church to be moral. I don't think anyone does, if they are a decent human being. Church doesn't offer morals to the immoral, it only offers them camouflage.
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
But is it VIEWED and referred to as a “religion”?
Taoism? I think it is by some, mainly those who don't practice it. My dad is a Taoist and a Buddhist with decades of study and meditation of all sorts. He doesn't view it as a religion, no. He doesn't view it as a faith, either. To use his words, it is a practice. Conscientious practice of the philosophies behind the meditations. I could ask him any questions you have about Taoism, if I don't know the answers myself.
Quote:
to revere Buddha as anything beyond teacher is counter to everything about buddhism.
Quote:Quote:I hope you don’t mean buddhism by that, because in buddhism, meditation is to achieve enlightenment in THIS life, not after death.
Meditation in this life to achieve enlightenment after death strikes me as religious
Thank you for that
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My objection, as a Taoist, is to being classified as a philosophy and not a religion. Philosophies have we many, and we take each of them in part.
You can choose to practice part of a religion, sure. I am nominally jewish, and there are elements of judaism that remain. I'm also a residual christian, from my grandparents who were pretty christian and instilled me with values of that faith. I don't believe Jesus has bought me an afterlife, or that if I praise his name enough he will. I'm not sure what to call that, but it would definitely be a religion, probably a radical one.
There's a difference: I choose to practice parts of scientology because I believe them to be true. I would not call myself a scientologist. (they wouldn't call me one either, but that's because they're a church, which is another matter.) But I wouldn't because I cherrypick scientology. I think this is what you do with philosophy.
I don't cherrypick the Tao, Jesus or Judaism. I call myself a Taoist because I think that's where the path to enlightment lies. I might have some interpretations that other disagree with, but it is not the same relationship.
Secondly, I also take issue with any redefinition of the word religion to mean "western judeo-christian religion" and I also take faith, in this context, to be a synonym for religion, as generally accepted by the populous at large so creating distinctions here among us is splitting hairs.
The definition
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=religion
As to practice, ritual and practice are basically the same concept. Whether your practice has an actual purpose, like meditation, or it is all in your head, like animal sacrifice or whatever is in part a matter of whether or not you believe.
Do I believe in the power of meditation? Sure. Do I believe in the power of prayer? No. Might I be wrong? Sure. If someone wanted to argue a collective unconscious connecting everyone through some existential philosophy they could have a basis for proving that prayer works, but my offhanded analysis would be that it helps the person praying to get troubles off their mind, which is something that people also use meditation for.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=faith
Faith based initiative always makes me think "Want, Take, Have."
ETA: Let me put it another way. A friend of mine practices the drums, mike practices shooting guns at the range, etc. You don't have a right to practice, you're allowed to, within limits. My friend can't practice the drums at 3AM or if the neighbors don't like it. Mike can't practice shooting in the shopping mall or in school. This is not about the meaning of their lives, it's something they do.
No one can step in and tell Christians that they can't be christians anymore. The same is true of muslims and jews. This is because this is a fundamental part of who they are, and they have a right, protected under the constitution. This is religion.
Which group do you want to place your belief in?
I can tell you in China when they banned the practice of Taoism, it only lasted a few months, because Mao was facing a civil war if he didn't reverse his position. That's not just an idea or a hobby. Mao banned a lot of things and got away with it. People were unhappy, sure, but they accepted it.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Omitting, for example, that someone should be stoned to death for wearing a mixed fabric. Most Christians will omit that belief in modern times, but it is still stated in their book.
Is it still an omission if it doesn't apply?
Quote:
..."The weaving of two kinds of material (wool and linen in Deuteronomy 22:11) may be a rule that would prevent loss by unequal shrinkage." There is no apparent application today for two reasons: (1) Most Christians do not make their own fabric or clothing today, and (2) clothing manufacturers do not mix these materials...
"Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee—Although this precept, like the other two with which it is associated, was in all probability designed to root out some superstition, it seems to have had a farther meaning. The law, it is to be observed, did not prohibit the Israelites wearing many different kinds of cloths together, but only the two specified; and the observations and researches of modern science have proved that 'wool, when combined with linen, increases its power of passing off the electricity from the body. In hot climates, it brings on malignant fevers and exhausts the strength; and when passing off from the body, it meets with the heated air, inflames and excoriates like a blister' [Whitlaw]. (See Ezek 44:17, 18.)"
Lets keep the 'Abominations' as described in Leviticus in perspective. It was a 'Holiness Code' in a ritual manual for the Jewish priesthood. The acts are not considered inherently evil but taboo or unclean. Most Christians are not Jewish priest. Also some passages are just not relevant to today's world such as the clothing example you've provided and often misunderstood You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. which applied to the act of male 'sacred prostitution' and not homosexuality as we understand it today.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Deu 22:11 "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woolen and linen together." The "as of" bit would imply it's an example of mixed cloth garments, not a specific proscription against wool and linen being mixed.
From the same book as, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the lord thy God." Also not planting divers seeds or plowing with divers animals. Unless only Jewish priests were planting and plowing, I think it was probably meant for the population in general. I'll ask the man who originally brought such things to my attention, who has read the Bible cover to cover in several different iterations, comparing and analyzing them, if you really want me to. Of course, if I bring him into it, you'll hear some real attacks on religion, which I am actually trying to keep at a minimum, whether DT thinks so or not.
What reason had proved best ceased to look absurd to the eye, which shows how idle it is to think anything ridiculous except what is wrong.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
often misunderstood You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. which applied to the act of male 'sacred prostitution' and not homosexuality as we understand it today.
? You'll have to elaborate on this. I'm not aware of any ancient practice involving male hierodule. Though there were fertility gods, most of those as far as I'm aware had to do with fertility of the fields, it was fertility goddesses that primarily dealt with human fertility. As such, my understanding is it was mostly women who prostituted themselves for human fertility rituals, as either priestesses, or as a pre-marriage custom (though evidence for the later is scarce compared to the speculation).
Also, from the given text, the connection to sacred prostitution is not obvious.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My comments were pertaining to Levitivus, but I did quote deuteronomy in my post, I apologize if this caused confusion. I should have been more clear.
Concerning your quoted Deuteronomy, the translation works out to be a mite closer to '“The woman shall not put on [the weapons/armor of a warrior], neither shall a [warrior] put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.”' and I'm doing a little research as too what that really means in the context.
We can go back and forth on the bible and how it ought to be interpreted, but my point is that not all Christians 'omit' things cause it's convenient or they don't feel like it. When I come across something that doesn't sound right to me, I investigate it, try and figure out what it really means rather than ignore it.
EDIT: I owe you another clarification and apology.
The verse concerning male lying with a woman is from Leviticus but it is Deuteronomy that forbids sacred male prostitution with
Quote:
Deuteronomy 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both.
Afraid that's all I have time for for now, watching DWTS and then prolly sleeping before an early work day.
Edit again from itouch (great for comercials) if I can track down the article that explained doing away with sacred male prostitution I will link it or quote it. Anyhow they were basically 'updating' how things worked in the temple. Part of that was doing away with the 'sacred male prostitutes.' I read a fascinating study on the ancient hebrew traditions and sacred prostitution (the example was female oracles) in an anthropology class a couple years ago. This along with many other 'abominations' were being associated with idolatry which they were very much against.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
PR
Have you seen the Red Lobster protests? I think you'd like it, can't find the youtube. The basic thrust was berating people for eating shellfish and wearing blended fabrics ;)
I read the bible cover to cover twice myself. It's a good cure for western faith. Everyone should do it ;)
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Incidentally DWTS happens to be on right now, and I happened to see a fairly impressive dance just now.
Hmm, the line in Leviticus still says lie with a MALE like as with a woman. But okay, the Dueteronomy one is talking about paying tithing with regular prostitution. There IS one about not going to see hierodules/ sacred prostitution, but men generally weren't hierodules.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Incidentally DWTS happens to be on right now, and I happened to see a fairly impressive dance just now.
Hmm, the line in Leviticus still says lie with a MALE like as with a woman. But okay, the Dueteronomy one is talking about paying tithing with regular prostitution. There IS one about not going to see hierodules/ sacred prostitution, but men generally weren't hierodules.
Leviticus is explicit: male homosexuality is an abomination, and those demand execution. OTOH, that's sandwiched in between the same for eating shrimp and wearing blended fabrics. My socks are 50% wool 50% cotton, which is what they're talking about, and it's really quite nice.
I think some tribe which didn't cut the tip of their dicks off probably wore it, so they had to be killed.
The thing about ancient wisdom is sometimes it was written by the Buddha, and sometimes it was written by some shmuck who was probably ancient world for Dick Cheney.
The strange thing about the bible is how many times over history which texts have been considered canon has changed. Things that were once considered mad rantings of a genocidal lunatic are now sacred, and have been since the 1880s, when mad genocidal lunatics inserted them, this is the sort of thing that people might want to see to. Also, other things that actually had something to do with the lives and values of hebrews and the life of christ were deleted from the book.
Also, some "translations" are just pure fabrication. The reason the revelation of St. John the Divine looks so prophetic in the way it describes metal carriages and metal birds that rain down fire is that it was written in 1880 when the concept was really pretty well understood, and it was less of a prophecy, and more of an order blank, but it wasn't calling for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was calling for it in WWI.
People make up texts to tell the sheeple what to do next.
The bible should be reduced to a group of stories and ancient wisdom that actually reflects the values that helped that society, not tales of how to mass slaughter the undesirable canaanites.
That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why did the Jews have all those rules back then? I believe it is because God wanted them to be unique and seperate people, since he picked them and all. I don't believe we really need to do all those things now though, for instance Peter learnt about how it was okay to eat any animals we wanted in his vision in Acts etc. Paul talks about the rutting-with-same-sex stuff in Romans 1 though so most Christians see it as still not something we do.
DT, what proof do you have that Revelation was written in the 1880s? I must confess I've never heard that particular conspiracy theory before. Anyways. I've never enjoyed DWTS, but I'm glad you guys like it. The only part of AI I watch (rarely at that) is the tryouts, I like laughing at the bad singers. I wish there was Trad Irish Idol, I could handle watching/trying out for that.
"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME