LadyEllen
Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline
|
Yeah well. The problem we have with religion is that we dont really understand what religion is, and the problem we have with the dominant relgious format in the western world (Christianity) is that we lack at least half of it, possessing only that simple aspect that can be understood by and dealt with by all.
It may be argued that the division of what is religion into separate specialities is a sign of the progress of a civilisation, but it is more likely for us the consequence of our peculiar social history, and in particular the overlay of a foreign cult (Christianity) onto a pre-existing cultural model, so that from the very start of Christianity for us it was possible to put religion into its own box, largely divorced from the rest of the culture which survived its coming.
But this is the source of one of the two problems we have - that in making religion an aspect of our overall culture, we have lost the sense of our culture being so intimately identified with our religion as for the two to be indistinguishable, and for therefore culture and religion to mean the same thing. With such an understanding of religion, encompassing, informing and arising from all parts of what we know as our culture, it is impossible to be irreligious as long as one belongs to or becomes a member of the culture. Equally, it is not necessary to have such distinct things as creeds to believe in, to kill or to be killed for - for the culture encompasses all and its only needful to belong to the whole, not to subscribe to one of the distinct parts we have identified as religion.
Our second problem is in the wanton and deliberate destruction, with the aim of producing a universally applicable model for the purposes of the rulers, of the more complex aspects of Christianity, such that what we inherited was bereft of anything that explained to the satisfaction of the more enlightened, the contradictions to be found in the simplistic form produced for the masses. It has ever been the case with religion, and especially with mystery cults such as Christianity, that there should be at least two and possibly more forms, each more developed than the former, in existence at any one time and for it to be thereby possible to satisfy the needs of any population whose needs and abilities will vary. Once the doors to learning were opened, this deficiency in the Christian format we have was swiftly identified, leading to the not so modern tendency to rubbish the entirety given its failings.
To return to the question in the OP then, it is absolutely essential for some (perhaps many) to believe firmly in the simple forms taught to them, with the understanding that lacking ability to do so otherwise, these forms will function for them to guide them according to their needs, within the greater culture. Thus it is important to teach that there is a higher authority to which all is subject. At the same time though it is necessary to realise that such simple teachings will not suffice for a minority whose abilities require additional information and explanation as a development of the simple teachings. That such a minority may then reject the simple teachings need not be an issue - as long as religion is understood to be identical to culture and not a separate aspect of it.
E
_____________________________
In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.
|
RE: Questions for the irreligious here; do you believe ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread