If humans can't unite on religion, is there a purpose to religion?

[SalixIncendium]

If these schools of Buddhism do not ascribe to any teaching of Gautama Buddha that address subjects outside of that which is real and existent (for example immortality of the soul and reincarnation) then are they really Buddhism and are they religious?

The same would hold true for a flavor of Hinduism. If no gods are involved, if reincarnation is not involved, then are there values expressed in these sects considered Universal Values, that are external and independent of human beings, not created by human beings? If so, my definition applies.

If there are no gods, no immortal soul, afterlife, reincarnation, no universal truths, no metaphysical or transcendental plane, then I don't see why the label of religion would even apply.

I didn't see any definition you provided.

Anyway, what is empirically "real and existent" is solely dependent in what state of consciousness one is experiencing.

Based on the terminology used in your post, it seems you have a bit of learning to do with regard to Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism before you can offer any credible commentary about them. If you're genuinely interested, I can point to some resources. If not, then there is really no point in pursuing this discourse.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Hi,
"Do not think I came to put peace upon the earth; I came to put, not peace, but a sword, For I came to cause division..." Matt 10:34,35.

The reason for this is that there can be no understanding between righteousness and unrighteousness, the truth and the lies.

Before there is unity, evil and those that support it, has to be eliminated.

What is this evil of which you speak that has to be eliminated?

 

[The Hammer]

What about the religions that teach intolerance?

Idk of any religion that teaches intolerance as one of it's main concepts. Those such as religious terrorists and the like, seem to be rarer offshoots of other religions and not any main belief system per se.

 

[firedragon]

What about the religions that teach intolerance?

What do you mean "intolerance"? Like "racism"?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Idk of any religion that teaches intolerance as one of it's main concepts. Those such as religious terrorists and the like, seem to be rarer offshoots of other religions and not any main belief system per se.

Should it matter if it's one of its main concepts or if it's a rare offshoot of another religion?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Religion serves to cohere culture, albeit imperfectly. To suggest that religion is purposeless because humans cannot unite on religion is about like claiming that agriculture is imperfect because people cannot agree on produce.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What do you mean "intolerance"? Like "racism"?

Yes. Racism, discrimination, etc.

Shunning homosexuality is one example of what I mean by intolerance.

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Racism, discrimination, etc.

Shunning homosexuality is one example of what I mean by intolerance.

Which religions do that?

1. Racism/discrimination
2. Shunning homosexuality

 

[The Hammer]

Should it matter if it's one of its main concepts or if it's a rare offshoot of another religion?

Idk Kind of.

I wouldn't consider an ISIL fighter as being representative of Islam, for instance.

And would hope that violent offshoots of what are typically peaceable beliefs, would eventually die out on their own.

But I could just be naïve.

 

[The Hammer]

Yes. Racism, discrimination, etc.

Shunning homosexuality is one example of what I mean by intolerance.

I'm thinking intolerance such as advocating causing harm to those who they disagree. Not merely disagreeing with or shunning homosexuality per se. Stoning gays is intolerant, saying you think they need Jesus is annoying.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Which religions do that?

1. Racism/discrimination
2. Shunning homosexuality

I don't see your point in baiting my into calling out specific religions, which I won't be doing anyway, unless you're denying that there are any that do. Are you?

 

[McBell]

I don't see your point in baiting my into calling out specific religions, which I won't be doing anyway, unless you're denying that there are any that do. Are you?

Brace your self for "It is not the religions, it is the followers"....

 

[firedragon]

I don't see your point in baiting my into calling out specific religions, which I won't be doing anyway, unless you're denying that there are any that do. Are you?

See, if you like to make general comments and not answer any questions that need specific responses it means you dont intend to have any kind of valid conversation but just make some general comments. I was not expecting that.

Cheers.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm thinking intolerance such as advocating causing harm to those who they disagree. Not merely disagreeing with or shunning homosexuality per se. Stoning gays is intolerant, saying you think they need Jesus is annoying.

I don't recognize a gray area when it comes to tolerance. One is either tolerant or intolerant.

Do you think calling homosexuality a sin is a form of tolerance?

 

[SalixIncendium]

See, if you like to make general comments and not answer any questions that need specific responses it means you dont intend to have any kind of valid conversation but just make some general comments. I was not expecting that.

Cheers.

Just because I don't abide to your every whim doesn't mean I don't intend to have "any kind of valid conversation."

If you think that declining to answer questions that may create drama just because you feel they need specific responses somehow doesn't make what I have to say worthy of conversation, then I guess our interaction on this forum might be limited. *shrugs*

Maybe you just bailed because I asked you a question you don't want to respond to.

Anyway, here's some light reading on the subject if you're so inclined...

Faith Positions

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Just because I don't abide to your every whim doesn't mean I don't intend to have "any kind of valid conversation."

Well, if your love is to make general comments and say "I dont make specific comments", then you are just here to insult other peoples religions and escape when asked for specifics.

Only if you get into specifics you could explore if you know it all, or maybe even there is a tad bit more to know. Maybe you have a small fraction of a mistake in your understanding.

Nevertheless, since you just intend to make general comments, and when asked for a small specific thing you say "I am not here to abide to your every whim", that's the end of that conversation.

Have a blast.

 

[The Hammer]

I don't recognize a gray area when it comes to tolerance. One is either tolerant or intolerant.

Do you think calling homosexuality a sin is a form of tolerance?

No, and I see your point, but in this instance I see a difference between actions and words. Speech does contain grey areas, IMO, it's poetic, it is supposed to (be). You couldn't compromise if there wasn't a grey area.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well, if your love is to make general comments and say "I dont make specific comments",

Not even close to what I said. Maybe go back and reread the post, because either you misread it or you are intentionally misrepresenting it (which incidentally violates the forum rules).

then you are just here to insult other peoples religions and escape when asked for specifics.

Nope. That's the exact reason I didn't answer.

Do you listen to yourself when you talk? How can one insult another's religion without mentioning the religion?

Only if you get into specifics you could explore if you know it all, or maybe even there is a tad bit more to know. Maybe you have a small fraction of a mistake in your understanding.

And I guess now we'll never know.

Nevertheless, since you just intend to make general comments, and when asked for a small specific thing you say "I am not here to abide to your every whim", that's the end of that conversation.

Asking someone to degrade or disparage a specific religion by calling it out is no "small specific thing."

And again, I'll point out that you are the one that bailed on the conversation when asked a pointed question about your intent.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes thats what I meant . Jesus is that only door that leads to safety. He warned in his time and afterwards there would come many others saying to come through a different door. Your criteria fits Jesus s warning.

You are free to believe that Jesus is the Only Way if you want to because you have free will, but as you know I believe that there is more than one way to God although the Way God wants us to know Him and relate to Him in this age is through Baha'u'llah because He is God's Manifestation for this age.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination. Thou dost witness how most of the commentaries and interpretations of the words of God, now current amongst men, are devoid of truth.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171

Jesus' warning no longer applies because it was given to people who were living in the past. The entire Bible applies to the past, not to the present. The past is gone and humanity is trying to move forward, but that is difficult to do when so many people cling to the past religions and insist that they still apply to the present.

Moreover, Jesus gave that warning because He knew that many false prophets would come in His name claiming to be Christ:
List of people claimed to be Jesus - Wikipedia

That warning does not apply to Baha'u'llah because Baha'u'llah did not claim to be Jesus. Baha'u'llah came with a new name, just as the Bible had prophesied.

Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name.

Revelation 2:17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

 

[MikeF]

I didn't see any definition you provided.

Anyway, what is empirically "real and existent" is solely dependent in what state of consciousness one is experiencing.

Based on the terminology used in your post, it seems you have a bit of learning to do with regard to Buddhism and the Advaita Vedanta school of Hinduism before you can offer any credible commentary about them. If you're genuinely interested, I can point to some resources. If not, then there is really no point in pursuing this discourse.

You are quite right that I misspoke using the word "definition". Perhaps it would be clearer to refer to my original comment as my opinion regarding the purpose or role of religion, or perhaps core purpose. Religions can be an umbrella under which many social functions are aggregated and conducted or expressed. But at their core, it is their treatment of these questions: about the origins of the universe, why human beings exist, what is our purpose/function in life, and is there anything after this life, that we use to identify and differentiate different religious philosophies. I would argue that answering these question is their core purpose. If they are silent on these, then how is one to differentiate it from a secular social organization? What makes a religion a religion other than providing answers to unanswerable questions?

I would argue that what is real and existent is wholly independent of any person experiencing it. If every human being were to disappear tomorrow, all that is real and existent would continue to hum along without us. Reality does not require consciousness. We, however, need to be conscious to experience reality.

You are correct that I am no expert on Buddhism or Hinduism, nor made that claim. Nor was I providing a commentary on them. You were quite vague in my request for a specific religion whos' purpose was not to provide answers to unanswerable questions. In your original assertion that the purpose of religion (and here one was left to assume you were referring to all religion/religions since you did not use a modifier with the word 'religion') was the understanding of one’s nature of their being and the purpose of their existence. If the answer to "the purpose of one's existence" is anything other than "We don't know.", or "There is no purpose.", or "It is whatever I decide it is, or whatever purpose is imposed on me.", then I think I can safely lump your exceptions in with all the other religions as fitting my stated description of the purpose of religion.

Again, not making a commentary on specific religions, always happy to learn new things. Skimmed the Wikipedia page on Advaita Vedanta just to get a taste.