When a puppy reaches maturity it becomes a dog; when ice melts it is called water; when twelve months have been used up, we get a new calendar with the proper chronological name; when "magic" becomes scientific fact we refer to it as medicine, astronomy, etc. When one name is no longer appropriate for a given thing it is only logical to change it to a new one which better fits the subject. Why, then, do we not follow suit in the area of religion? Why continue to call a religion the same name when the tenets of that religion no longer fit the original one? Or, if religion does preach the same things that it always has, but its followers practice nearly none of its teachings, why do they continue to call themselves by the name given to followers of that religion?
source: The Satanic Bible, by Anton Lavey / Some Evidence Of New Satanic Age (PDF)
Monday, June 05, 2006
Are They New Religions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
what you said is right but according to people when it comes to religion its different.its a special case because its holy. i think what is written in different religion books aims in general to set some guiding rules for Human Behavior.
are you saying that the script itself is out of date and is not compatible with our time? well some say that it should still apply since the core idea is one. i guess it still applies if you know to read in between the lines.
i guess all what is wise doesn't need time updates. and something else . you ask why would we keep on calling ourselves with our religions but we dont really practice it. well, for me, i agree with what my religion preaches. i don't practice rituals to some extent. i do follow what it conveys and it sort of guides me.
but what if people stopped believing that miracles could happen and believed that everything is answerable after more and more profound study and rsearch. could we absolutely rely on science to the extent to eliminate religion?
everything is developing and we should not close our minds to what is written under religion saying that its undoubtable. and yes there should be no upper limit for kowledge.
Tala- I think the problem is with the "holy" itself. What makes it so? Why is it undoubtable? Because of the fact that we learned it is, and that those who taught us so learned the same from their teachers?
I'm talking generally and don't mean to be offensive to any book or religion. I completely agree with you- some wisdoms work for all times and are never out of date. But I think we should learn to pick *that* up- to differentiate wisdom from the story that aims to teach us the wisdom. To make appropriate changes. To let go and move on. We should be brave enough and humble enough to acknowledge our past mistakes and correct them. To realize that as the human mind evolves, the story needs to evolve too and that it's probably time we came up with a new story- one that better fits our current minds, needs, goals, vision and way of living.
Sometimes you end up paying too much money on repairing and making additions to your pc that you eventually decide it's pointless- it's time to get a new one.
We shouldn't become prisoners of the way we did things and the way they were always done. We shouldn't try and push sense into something that no longer makes sense.
That's whay I believe.
Thank you Rania: Agreed. (And thank you Tala as well :) )
The point is, religions develop as well! Consider christianity for example, how in the old days they used to issue forgiveness for money, nowaday those rules have been abolished... Another example is Islam, I have noticed (at least in the media front) how it evolved from violence-based system, to peace-based one just a few years after 9/11!! Religions are affected by politics, religions reflect the state of (common?) knowledge of people that age (consider how Galilio was sentenced to death -by the church- because of his spherical earth theory)... So I am asking about how inconsistent to call both systems the same name: Even if they were based on the same texts, their interpretations have been reshaped irrecognizably; So they are different!
think the problem is with the "holy" itself. What makes it so? Why is it undoubtable?
because it is part of your faith, if you really know how to believe after chosing to believe. its a true bless. you should doubt. but do something with an outcome, and define yourself. i appreciate what Zeid is doing, he is looking up his belief. he will end up in something which is his right to believe in because he chose it after consideration whether i agree to it or not. now its a doubt, its a question that turns into his mind, he will answer it sooner or later. i donno if he would stop listening to answers if he was convinced with one which is his explaination. but when you believe in something and you discuss it and the outcome reveals you right to you yourself. you will become more confident.
But I think we should learn to pick *that* up- to differentiate wisdom from the story that aims to teach us the wisdom.
very true
To make appropriate changes. To let go and move on. We should be brave enough and humble enough to acknowledge our past mistakes and correct them.We shouldn't become prisoners of the way we did things and the way they were always done.
We shouldn't try and push sense into something that no longer makes sense.
on what level? can you speak more of this? how do you suggest it to be like?
i think when a certain conviction that you belong to states something, you have the right to disagree. but we cannot demand a change in it because you cannot adjust it. it is this way. who gives us a right to change it, based on what? you can let go of it.
in these cases which depend on holy word, old complex script which can be interpreted in different manners, it simply can't be changed.Its a RELIGION.this is how it is, its not a political party and people BELIEVE IT.
Yeah Zeid, the Church was corrupt during several times in history. but this is not Christianity nor Islam . are we speaking of the ideas or practices. well being corrupt doesn't make its base wrong. people are wrong because they love power and they have weaknesses and most of the time they misunderstand it. i do. i didn't go through my religion thoroughly neither. well religions promote the image of perfection. if you can handle it and apply it, it wont harm you. if you want to see it as a limitation. it would torture you. some see it as a pain killer. others as a source of pain. i guess it was meant to make life easier, not more tight.
applying it fully is not a valid term, because its impossible. but there is a lot of understanding to do if you want to sit and think of it. its not a grouped commandments. its a way of living. and after all you always have the choice not to believe
well, when a religious man starts talking about politics, forget all about him. throw what he says in the trash can. its a way of controlling people and to arouse them emotionally. thats why i always say that religion is something personal. its a public belief. but whether you like or not, each one of us follows a pattern, you wanna call it philosophy, religion, call it what you want..
*its not a public belief. ignorance make it so, Religion should not rule. it won't protect as most think.
i donno if he would stop listening to answers if he was convinced with one which is his explaination. but when you believe in something and you discuss it and the outcome reveals you right to you yourself. you will become more confident. Very true! Its unwise to be so sure of somthing that you stop listening to answers\question.... And if one is thinking straight, putting those thoughts on trial is beneficial....
Anyways, I know that most of this criticism is targetted at practice of religion rather than the religion itself... Commonly, the text is considered as definitive of a religion; But people interpret the same text in different ways (pretty much to accommodate their personal agendas or convictions), so two people interpret the same text differently, do they belong to the same religion because they have the same text?, or do they have a different religion because their interpretations are different? - Thats the question...
Finally, "old complex script which can be interpreted in different manners," ambiguity in religion is a shortcoming... Its not a words game!
so two people interpret the same text differently, do they belong to the same religion because they have the same text?, or do they have a different religion because their interpretations are different? - Thats the question...
i believe that the two who have the same interpretations have the same religion, not the ones with the same text ..
why? once in the philosophy class our professor said: " what do you think the word "watan" mean? " surprisingly each one of us had his own definition of it though its a one simple word. some said that its were i was born, some said it means " land , people and government" and others said where i was raised ,, some said that i might not have ever visited it and its still my home land! ...etc!!
we found out that our terminologies differ from one to another though we use the same terms and words everyday.. the interpretations are different. it doesn't make us the same. even as you grow, when you read something, its never the same way you read it and understood it the first time. you develop too. some say that religion is religion but we are the ones who change..
we will not have the ideas we have now in ten years or twenty...
You have the right to disagree. but we cannot demand a change in it because you cannot adjust it. it is this way. who gives us a right to change it, based on what?
It goes back to what holy is to you. What man created, man can change. It often seems to me that people are too concerned with "belonging" to a certain faith, with grouping and labeling. It's like you believe in a certain idea, then you find a philosophy or a religion that embraces this idea, so you end up belonging to it and consequently *having* to believe everything else that follows. And yes, applying it fully is not a valid term, because its impossible, but it's like the ideal state you try to reach... "You can't pick what you want and leave what doesn't appeal to you".
But why? Why are you supposed to be christian or muslim or buddhist or satanist... etc? Why should you struggle all your life to find the path that suits you best, the system of beliefs where yours fit?Why shouldn't you follow your own and *be* one yourself?
That is when a group of followers end up calling themselves a different name... that is why they should have one, because they're different, and they practice their faith differently. The interpretations are different. It doesn't make us the same.
I think it helps more to wander with an open mind than go out in the world with the aim of compiling truth, because it gets in your way.
Why shouldn't you follow your own and *be* one yourself?
Yeah, your religion is supposed to be what you believe, rather than what you have to believe in... And if all pre-existing ones fail that, there should be no problem in having your own individual religion....
But why? Why are you supposed to be christian or muslim or buddhist or satanist... etc?
you will follow something afterall, even if you follow yourself, you are still following a pattern, how unique could one be? i don't think it is of high possibility because a huge part of our knowledge is passed to us from older generation which implants the same principals and thoughts and the the fact that thought started with civilisation and it developed but it is its still was and is incremental. we never had a genius new aspect to update religion. it always generates opposites, because its stays mysterious, not to a great extent.
you know i had a crazy thought and ofcourse i won't do it, that i don't want to educate my son and i don't want to teach him science nor religion. and i just want him to grow and i would watch, would he be like the american indians? would he sense the nature. would he realise alone that there is a God?
maybe the picture is easier than what we are imagining.but we are making it more complex because there is a missing link.
yeah you are right when you said that we waste a lot of time defining ourselves, and forget about ourselves:)
i would go with you all the way that we don't have to be anything. but we ask and wander out of wanting to reason where we stand.. how to judge yourself in your eyes. not anyone else. i'm not speaking of religion as holy books and all what follows but as your reference when you think of everything...
there is a difference between compiling facts and compiling truths. you should not stop wanting to compile truths nor facts. but collect them but lets not belong to them no matter how right we see them :)i like this thought :D
Post a Comment