Land-Based Religions.

[buddhist]

Why should religion be attached to any specific land(s)? IMO land-based teachings is evidence that said religions which possesses such teachings are clearly nothing more than the invention of man. What do you think?

 

[Mackerni]

The only land-based religions that I know that aren't some kind of New Religious Movement is Shintoism, and Shintoism has been declining for years since the rise of new religious movements in Japan, and the fall of colonel Japan during World War 2. Every religion has their own ideas to say that, "this race is better than this" and there are holy lands around Jerusalem which are in constant warfare. There's Internet religions such as Yoism and Kopimism that stand firm that certain websites possess divinity in them. Websites are essentially digital land, or places.

About your last thing: I've often felt this way about Christianity. Most Christians do not go to a Holy Land, they don't pray towards Jerusalem or Mecca, but the idea that one person died for your sins roughly 2,000 years ago. I think the point you're trying to put across is that, well, what if there is other life out there? How are they going to view the concept of Christ, who was considered God and human at the same time, but mortal, that died for all the sins? I'd have a hard time believing that they would quickly convert, that much is for certain. Baha'u'llah said that, "there are an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of prophets", but also stressed the importance that believing in monotheism holds.

I think what you are trying to consider is the localization of religious matters, rather than the land or places of themselves. There's a lot of insincerity that revolves around things that are divine and confining them to a particular locality. For a God that is ubiquitous, wouldn't everything equally matter to him? It seems to me that a lot of people place special interest in these lands because they themselves know and like the area. I can attest to doing the same thing, albeit not with religious devotion attached to it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

land-based religions are the original kind of religion, the kind of religions that early hunter-gatherers and later early farming cultures had. Why? Because they lived in intimate connection to the place where they lived and everything that was on that land. Whatever religion they had was also intimately connected to surviving on that land--the other human and the non-human persons (animistically, plants, animals, rocks, lakes and rivers, the weather, and so on). These indigenous cultures established social relationships with everything in their environment--the land, the spirits of the land, the other physical inhabitants, and so on.

Early humans, and even in societies up to modern times, rarely traveled very far in their lifetimes, and most peoples did not realize just how big the world is: they stayed close to home for the most part, and it wasn't until people regularly began trading over long distances or trying to administer political and economic units that extended well beyond their local community that the broader religions and bigger gods got started.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm failing to see the issue here considering all religions are the "inventions of man humans" whether they are grounded in the land or not. It seems to me that the chronic disassociation people have from the land today is something of a problem, and humans could use more connection to the land, not less of it. When people lack a sense of place, they also lack a sense of responsibility to that place. When they lack a sense of responsibility to places, that facilitates a mentality of exploitation.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why should religion be attached to any specific land(s)?

Do you mean the land itself, or geographic regions? For example, Hinduism in India, Yoruba religion in Africa, Judaism, Islam and Christianity from the Middle East, Heathenry and Paganism from northern Europe?

 

[George-ananda]

Why should religion be attached to any specific land(s)? IMO land-based teachings is evidence that said religions which possesses such teachings are clearly nothing more than the invention of man. What do you think?

I think you are too harsh in your assessment. Why can not the spirits involved in their region be important figures to an indigenous people?

 

[buddhist]

The only land-based religions that I know that aren't some kind of New Religious Movement is Shintoism, and Shintoism has been declining for years since the rise of new religious movements in Japan, and the fall of colonel Japan during World War 2. Every religion has their own ideas to say that, "this race is better than this" and there are holy lands around Jerusalem which are in constant warfare. There's Internet religions such as Yoism and Kopimism that stand firm that certain websites possess divinity in them. Websites are essentially digital land, or places.

About your last thing: I've often felt this way about Christianity. Most Christians do not go to a Holy Land, they don't pray towards Jerusalem or Mecca, but the idea that one person died for your sins roughly 2,000 years ago. I think the point you're trying to put across is that, well, what if there is other life out there? How are they going to view the concept of Christ, who was considered God and human at the same time, but mortal, that died for all the sins? I'd have a hard time believing that they would quickly convert, that much is for certain. Baha'u'llah said that, "there are an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of prophets", but also stressed the importance that believing in monotheism holds.

I think what you are trying to consider is the localization of religious matters, rather than the land or places of themselves. There's a lot of insincerity that revolves around things that are divine and confining them to a particular locality. For a God that is ubiquitous, wouldn't everything equally matter to him? It seems to me that a lot of people place special interest in these lands because they themselves know and like the area. I can attest to doing the same thing, albeit not with religious devotion attached to it.

Yes, this was my main point. It seems to me that a supreme deity would have equal concern over all its creation.

 

[buddhist]

land-based religions are the original kind of religion, the kind of religions that early hunter-gatherers and later early farming cultures had. Why? Because they lived in intimate connection to the place where they lived and everything that was on that land. Whatever religion they had was also intimately connected to surviving on that land--the other human and the non-human persons (animistically, plants, animals, rocks, lakes and rivers, the weather, and so on). These indigenous cultures established social relationships with everything in their environment--the land, the spirits of the land, the other physical inhabitants, and so on.

Early humans, and even in societies up to modern times, rarely traveled very far in their lifetimes, and most peoples did not realize just how big the world is: they stayed close to home for the most part, and it wasn't until people regularly began trading over long distances or trying to administer political and economic units that extended well beyond their local community that the broader religions and bigger gods got started.

What does this tell us about the nature of such a religion's gods, however?

 

[buddhist]

I'm failing to see the issue here considering all religions are the "inventions of man humans" whether they are grounded in the land or not. It seems to me that the chronic disassociation people have from the land today is something of a problem, and humans could use more connection to the land, not less of it. When people lack a sense of place, they also lack a sense of responsibility to that place. When they lack a sense of responsibility to places, that facilitates a mentality of exploitation.

The problem is that many religions claim to be the revelation of an supreme universal deity who would presumably have equal concern over all land, not a select few places of land. Sure, I completely agree that mankind could use more of a connection to the land, but to select a specific piece of land as "this is the only place where I can be most holy" seems preposterous to me, given the expected nature of its deit(ies).

 

[buddhist]

Do you mean the land itself, or geographic regions? For example, Hinduism in India, Yoruba religion in Africa, Judaism, Islam and Christianity from the Middle East, Heathenry and Paganism from northern Europe?

Yes, "specific lands" would refer to specific geographical regions. Essentially that "this is the holy land of my religion" and everywhere else is not holy.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Why should religion be attached to any specific land(s)? IMO land-based teachings is evidence that said religions which possesses such teachings are clearly nothing more than the invention of man. What do you think?

Land is the heart of many religions who value their lineage and connection to each other based on community, survival, and developing customs to pass to future generations. To me, land-based faiths are some of the purist in that its a simple building a relationship with the place and people you are from.

Non-land based religions to me have more interpretations of what "should be" right or wrong because there isnt an origin of foundation for which the founder/s teachings may lie. Its like floating in the wind. Land-based religions give a sense of connection that we are a part of the earth not seperated from it. It lets some religious know that "heaven" and earth are connected and lets me know that wherever my family is after their passing is only part of the same path I am today.

Also, I never liked the phrase "inventions of man." Religion comes from man and there is nothing wrong with that. Saying that is another way of separating humanity from each other and the sacred. If religion isnt from man, then who are the religious? Do their practice and spirituality just fall on them one day or did they develop their practice and custums over time. Religion is a personal connection with whom or whatever it is we hold sacred (or however you want to term it).

I see more strength in land-based religions. A lot of the ones I come in contact have a relationship with the spirits or creator of some sort. Its not isolated.

To but it simple, Buddhism is a man made religion. It doesnt have a spirit-ual source and not founded on a creator or the supernatual. It is a basic teaching of ending suffering of others and the practices that very by custom ball down to charity, compassion, and so forth. Its not wrong just not what a lot of us define as a "religion."

I dont know if its land based, but like any other cultural religion, the strengh is in the community. Where we are from, origin, (the land), cannot be seperated no matter what religion we follow.

 

[buddhist]

I think you are too harsh in your assessment. Why can not the spirits involved in their region be important figures to an indigenous people?

I've no problem with "land-based religions" if the religion asserts that their deities or spirits are locally based, but the problem, again, is that many religions assert in the universality of their deities or spirits.

 

[Tumah]

The problem is that many religions claim to be the revelation of an supreme universal deity who would presumably have equal concern over all land, not a select few places of land. Sure, I completely agree that mankind could use more of a connection to the land, but to select a specific piece of land as "this is the only place where I can be most holy" seems preposterous to me, given the expected nature of its deit(ies).

What is that expected nature?

 

[George-ananda]

I've no problem with "land-based religions" if the religion asserts that their deities or spirits are locally based, but the problem, again, is that many religions assert in the universality of their deities or spirits.

But their local areas was all of the known world to them and all their religion was concerned with.

 

[buddhist]

Land is the heart of many religions who value their lineage and connection to each other based on community, survival, and developing customs to pass to future generations. To me, land-based faiths are some of the purist in that its a simple building a relationship with the place and people you are from.

Non-land based religions to me have more interpretations of what "should be" right or wrong because there isnt an origin of foundation for which the founder/s teachings may lie. Its like floating in the wind. Land-based religions give a sense of connection that we are a part of the earth not seperated from it. It lets some religious know that "heaven" and earth are connected and lets me know that wherever my family is after their passing is only part of the same path I am today.

Also, I never liked the phrase "inventions of man." Religion comes from man and there is nothing wrong with that. Saying that is another way of separating humanity from each other and the sacred. If religion isnt from man, then who are the religious? Do their practice and spirituality just fall on them one day or did they develop their practice and custums over time. Religion is a personal connection with whom or whatever it is we hold sacred (or however you want to term it).

I see more strength in land-based religions. A lot of the ones I come in contact have a relationship with the spirits or creator of some sort. Its not isolated.

To but it simple, Buddhism is a man made religion. It doesnt have a spirit-ual source and not founded on a creator or the supernatual. It is a basic teaching of ending suffering of others and the practices that very by custom ball down to charity, compassion, and so forth. Its not wrong just not what a lot of us define as a "religion."

I dont know if its land based, but like any other cultural religion, the strengh is in the community. Where we are from, origin, (the land), cannot be seperated no matter what religion we follow.

I agree that land itself (in general) is important for the human psyche, however, I cannot see how a religion which purports to be based in cosmic principles or immanent deities would not consider all land to be holy, or how one small part of the land is "more holy" than other parts of the land.

Buddhism is based on cosmic principles, e.g. suffering is suffering wherever we are in the world, or presumably even off the world, yet it is not tied to any specific piece of land. On the other hand, many other religions do claim to originate from some other cosmic source (e.g. an immanent God, Source, etc.).

 

[buddhist]

What is that expected nature?

An immanent deity who presides over all of creation, instead of a local spirit governing a select piece of land.

 

[Quintessence]

The problem is that many religions claim to be the revelation of an supreme universal deity who would presumably have equal concern over all land, not a select few places of land. Sure, I completely agree that mankind could use more of a connection to the land, but to select a specific piece of land as "this is the only place where I can be most holy" seems preposterous to me, given the expected nature of its deit(ies).

As far as I'm aware, the only religions that make these claims are the classical monotheist ones and their derivatives. With respect to those applicable religions, it doesn't seem preposterous to me at all for the people to designate a specific holy site if they wish to. Designating sacred space serves many functions in religions. Among those functions are for those spaces, especially where permanent, to serve as an axis of a community of humans, or of the tribe. Furthermore, that people create these sacred spaces is not necessarily an indication of the "concern" a deity has for that sacred space.

 

[buddhist]

But their local areas was all of the known world to them and all their religion was concerned with.

That tells me that their religion is likely not cosmically sourced (as often claimed), but man-based.

 

[Quintessence]

An immanent deity who presides over all of creation, instead of a local spirit governing a select piece of land.

Could you explain your understanding of the terms "immanent" and "transcendent?" You appear to be using the terms unconventionally.

 

[buddhist]

As far as I'm aware, the only religions that make these claims are the classical monotheist ones and their derivatives. With respect to those applicable religions, it doesn't seem preposterous to me at all for the people to designate a specific holy site if they wish to. Designating sacred space serves many functions in religions. Among those functions are for those spaces, especially where permanent, to serve as an axis of a community of humans, or of the tribe. Furthermore, that people create these sacred spaces is not necessarily an indication of the "concern" a deity has for that sacred space.

IMO, for the people to designate a common place of worship is one matter: for their alleged deity to designate a holy site is another matter altogether.