-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion vs. Family - Priority
- Thread starter Sees
- Start date
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I can not quite grapple with the concept of Family V Religion
I do not see them in conflict.
Faith is always individual. You cant have faith for someone else.
Nor should you try to impose it on someone else.
It is true that some religions are what is called "exclusive".
But in every case it seems that that is a defence mechanism used to protect their members from seeing any other point of view, or the weaknesses in the religion.
It should not matter to anyone what another person's faith is.
I do not see them in conflict.
Faith is always individual. You cant have faith for someone else.
Nor should you try to impose it on someone else.
It is true that some religions are what is called "exclusive".
But in every case it seems that that is a defence mechanism used to protect their members from seeing any other point of view, or the weaknesses in the religion.
It should not matter to anyone what another person's faith is.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Actuay, let me change that. A boddhisattva would never put himself over his family. Rather, its better to say if that Boddhisattva were to leave his family, it would be from his family's knowlege and understanding that the Boddhsattva is leaving to train for spiritual perfection Not placing them down from the petal.
I agree with that. I wouldnt put my religionn above my family. I just hope my family accept what I do in my religion.
No, however, I think a family can incorporate faith into the family unit. I am Buddhist while my mother is a Protestant. My father was an atheist, my favorite cousin was Quaker, my grandmother was of the NA faith, etc. All of us were very close and supported each other in whatever faith that person followed. There does not need to be this dichotomy that is so common in the west, particularly those who claim to be Christian.
I would never neglect or cut off my family because of religion. However, I can't for certain say the same about them; at least some of them.
What if honoring your family is a religious priority?
Erebus
Well-Known Member
No. Freedom of religion and expression is an important aspect of my core beliefs (and by extension, my religious beliefs) and so I would respect a family member's choices. I would caution them against some religions, such as Scientology, which I feel are built on exploitation of their members. I still wouldn't shun a family member who became a Scientologist though.
Ultimately my religion is an expression of my own experiences and core beliefs. My family is an important part of my life and so they are an important part of my religion. I'm not sure I can separate one from the other really.
Draka
Wonder Woman
I put equal. As I don't believe that religious beliefs should be put entirely above family, but I also think spirituality is important and that family should not intrude upon it. I don't believe that my beliefs are more important than my family, however I believe that they are important enough to me that I should not have to stand for family members degrading them or interfering with my beliefs or practices. I don't intrude on others' beliefs so I don't expect mine to be intruded upon. Spirituality is personal and important to who a person fundamentally is. Including how they treat and love their family.
"Religion has priority over family". I use "religion" loosely to refer to political ideology here as obviously I'm an atheist.
I've had problems with my parents over my sexuality as well as my politics, so there is now an unspoken divide between us and has been for at least a few years. We get along, but mainly by avoiding talking about our differences. When freinds or family members come over, they have made me careful to hide any books, often in the cuboard, because they don't want anyone to know.
I joined the Communist Party at the start of the year (only to leave in September). After I told them, [because I hated hiding in the dark and wanted to 'come out'] it took four days till my dad started speaking to me again. My mum was more like a month. things only settled down when I gave up £20 of my allowence so that I only had enough money for food for the month because they didn't want any money to go to the party in donations. They also threatened to write it into their will that none of their inheritence could be given to a political organisation. they also refused to have the house be used for any political purposes, and during a car drive my dad said that if I did anything "stupid" they would hand me in to the authorities.
I really wish I'd done drugs or had debaunched sex to really earn that sort of loathing. at least an ASBO or a court appearance would make me feel more deserving. that would have been more satisfying.
I admittedly neglect them. it's been hard. I live in the same house but I keep to myself and spend alot of time on my laptop or in my room. I humour my dad, when he talks. its ussually about history or something in the news, and I nodd and agree, maybe add a point or two. occassionally we'll tell each other something new and it will be intresting. it keeps the relationship alive. my ability to deliver well-timed one-liners also eases things up too. there is barely anything between me and my mum. I exchange a few pleasantries like "did you sleep well?" and that about covers up the cracks as best I can, but my parents won't admit there is a problem, and I'm always at fault for "upsetting them". I'm a saint honestly (no drink, drugs, sex, gambling, loud music or debts) but they want "more".
but whatever you do. please. don't put me on the couch doctor Freud.
I've had problems with my parents over my sexuality as well as my politics, so there is now an unspoken divide between us and has been for at least a few years. We get along, but mainly by avoiding talking about our differences. When freinds or family members come over, they have made me careful to hide any books, often in the cuboard, because they don't want anyone to know.
I joined the Communist Party at the start of the year (only to leave in September). After I told them, [because I hated hiding in the dark and wanted to 'come out'] it took four days till my dad started speaking to me again. My mum was more like a month. things only settled down when I gave up £20 of my allowence so that I only had enough money for food for the month because they didn't want any money to go to the party in donations. They also threatened to write it into their will that none of their inheritence could be given to a political organisation. they also refused to have the house be used for any political purposes, and during a car drive my dad said that if I did anything "stupid" they would hand me in to the authorities.
I really wish I'd done drugs or had debaunched sex to really earn that sort of loathing. at least an ASBO or a court appearance would make me feel more deserving. that would have been more satisfying.
I admittedly neglect them. it's been hard. I live in the same house but I keep to myself and spend alot of time on my laptop or in my room. I humour my dad, when he talks. its ussually about history or something in the news, and I nodd and agree, maybe add a point or two. occassionally we'll tell each other something new and it will be intresting. it keeps the relationship alive. my ability to deliver well-timed one-liners also eases things up too. there is barely anything between me and my mum. I exchange a few pleasantries like "did you sleep well?" and that about covers up the cracks as best I can, but my parents won't admit there is a problem, and I'm always at fault for "upsetting them". I'm a saint honestly (no drink, drugs, sex, gambling, loud music or debts) but they want "more".
but whatever you do. please. don't put me on the couch doctor Freud.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Those are strong words.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I hate to relate this question to this example. However, the western dichotomy doesnt need to exist nor be bad here.
If I love ice cream, I am able to love both Vanilla and Chocolate even though I prefer Chocolate. I do not need to put one over the other nor do I need to say that one is my favorite in order for me to prefer Chocolate over Vanilla. It is just natural to my tastebuds. Nothing wrong with that. It's not duality. It's not western thinking. It is what it is.
No matter how interrelated something or someone is, it is also still independent. It has it's own importance to the person and each thing or idea affects people different ways.
Think about it. Without your family, you will still have your faith. If they were related to the point where one can't live without the other, then if you loose your family, you will have no religion. So your family is not your religion. They can be part of your religion.
So our connection between our "higher power" is different than our connection with say family, stranger, flowers, hot chocolate, car racing, etc. And because they are different, we sit these things at a different "wave length" than something else. Not becuase we want or because one is more important than the other, but because we naturally do.
Another example is a stranger versus a family member. If we value strangers equal to family members, if both are falling off a cliff, we cannot choose one over the other. Many many people will choose family before they choose stranger. Why? Why do you do that if you think of them as equals? They are both people.
Compare that to religion.
Many people will choose religion over family. NOT because they see their religion is some how "better" or "higher" than their family. It's that their religion has a different connection than their family.
Each person who is religious say (as I hear so far) that in their words, they are their religion. I spoke with one person and she couldn't find anything about her religion separate from her. It is a universal thinking when you hold something soo close to you it becomes you. It becomes a marriage.
Relationship with family is not like that. It's not universal. Instead, some families are close while others are not. Each family is different.
That is one of many reasons why we put religion over family. NOT because religion is better. It's the way we connect to religion compared to just family.
So, unless someone's religion IS their relationship with their family, most people would put religion first. Not because they see it higher than their family. But they have a different connection.
If religion is priority than family, all you are saying is, I value my faith.
My faith is my foundation. From there I am connected with my family. My faith is in the center. My family (etc) branches out. They are not more important. They just relate to you in a different way.
If your family is priority than your religion, all you are saying is, I put my family as a foundation to my life before I put credence to the value of life itself and how I (or say God) defines it. Basically, you are saying "My family is my foundation and how I see life is an extention of m y relation to my family)
They are not one over the other. They just relate to you differently.
If both have equal priority, as in many pagan religions, then in the middle you have both your family and your faith. So, basically, they reflect each other. Again, they relate to you differently. So, just as I choose Chocolate (which is what the OP asks), does not mean I can't choose Vanilla.
In many younger religion (Christianity on up) it's not like that. God (or whomever) comes before all people. No matter how you see them. A person would let their family die before they let Jesus.
In other words, "I put myself over my family."
I have a high guess that in older religions, they would put family before their faith.
In other words, "They put family over themselves".
If you see it this way (bypassing all I just wrote and skiping to the purple, then your religion IS your family. If a murderer and Jesus were hanging off the cliff and you believed both, you would save them both because they are both human. Same with religion and family)
NOT wrong, just different relations make you priorities things differently.
It's not a Western thing. It's not a dualistic thing. It is what it is.
THERE! Hmff
If I love ice cream, I am able to love both Vanilla and Chocolate even though I prefer Chocolate. I do not need to put one over the other nor do I need to say that one is my favorite in order for me to prefer Chocolate over Vanilla. It is just natural to my tastebuds. Nothing wrong with that. It's not duality. It's not western thinking. It is what it is.
No matter how interrelated something or someone is, it is also still independent. It has it's own importance to the person and each thing or idea affects people different ways.
Think about it. Without your family, you will still have your faith. If they were related to the point where one can't live without the other, then if you loose your family, you will have no religion. So your family is not your religion. They can be part of your religion.
So our connection between our "higher power" is different than our connection with say family, stranger, flowers, hot chocolate, car racing, etc. And because they are different, we sit these things at a different "wave length" than something else. Not becuase we want or because one is more important than the other, but because we naturally do.
Another example is a stranger versus a family member. If we value strangers equal to family members, if both are falling off a cliff, we cannot choose one over the other. Many many people will choose family before they choose stranger. Why? Why do you do that if you think of them as equals? They are both people.
Compare that to religion.
Many people will choose religion over family. NOT because they see their religion is some how "better" or "higher" than their family. It's that their religion has a different connection than their family.
Each person who is religious say (as I hear so far) that in their words, they are their religion. I spoke with one person and she couldn't find anything about her religion separate from her. It is a universal thinking when you hold something soo close to you it becomes you. It becomes a marriage.
Relationship with family is not like that. It's not universal. Instead, some families are close while others are not. Each family is different.
That is one of many reasons why we put religion over family. NOT because religion is better. It's the way we connect to religion compared to just family.
So, unless someone's religion IS their relationship with their family, most people would put religion first. Not because they see it higher than their family. But they have a different connection.
If religion is priority than family, all you are saying is, I value my faith.My faith is my foundation. From there I am connected with my family. My faith is in the center. My family (etc) branches out. They are not more important. They just relate to you in a different way.
If your family is priority than your religion, all you are saying is, I put my family as a foundation to my life before I put credence to the value of life itself and how I (or say God) defines it. Basically, you are saying "My family is my foundation and how I see life is an extention of m y relation to my family)They are not one over the other. They just relate to you differently.
If both have equal priority, as in many pagan religions, then in the middle you have both your family and your faith. So, basically, they reflect each other. Again, they relate to you differently. So, just as I choose Chocolate (which is what the OP asks), does not mean I can't choose Vanilla.In many younger religion (Christianity on up) it's not like that. God (or whomever) comes before all people. No matter how you see them. A person would let their family die before they let Jesus.
In other words, "I put myself over my family."
I have a high guess that in older religions, they would put family before their faith.
In other words, "They put family over themselves".
If you see it this way (bypassing all I just wrote and skiping to the purple, then your religion IS your family. If a murderer and Jesus were hanging off the cliff and you believed both, you would save them both because they are both human. Same with religion and family)
NOT wrong, just different relations make you priorities things differently.
It's not a Western thing. It's not a dualistic thing. It is what it is.THERE! Hmff
Last edited:
Sees
Dragonslayer
Thanks for all the replies and poll votes so far.
For this thread I had in mind some religious traditions/groups which do promote priority of religious matters, or devotion to them, over your own family if need be.
Commentary on Luke 14:26 was what had originally brought it to mind. I saw it mentioned on a post here and as I was checking out various translations lately, wanted to check that one out. Commentaries seem to say that no, Jesus wasn't preaching both love and hate, but the need to give following him/God more priority over all else in this life - to worry more about your treasures in heaven than those here on earth...family naturally included.
For this thread I had in mind some religious traditions/groups which do promote priority of religious matters, or devotion to them, over your own family if need be.
Commentary on Luke 14:26 was what had originally brought it to mind. I saw it mentioned on a post here and as I was checking out various translations lately, wanted to check that one out. Commentaries seem to say that no, Jesus wasn't preaching both love and hate, but the need to give following him/God more priority over all else in this life - to worry more about your treasures in heaven than those here on earth...family naturally included.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
But Buddha left his wife,son and parents and went to the woods? He did not inform his wife that he was leaving.
Regards
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I never did agreed to that verse. It contradicts the nature of Christ and His mission. If He says (which he does) to help others is to help me, he is putting a lot of stock into helping others. If we are only supposed to think of God, why the two comments.
I would guess He didnt mean family as He loved His Mother "and" He loved God. When a believer turns from God because of earthly things, that is what he means in that verse.
Unless someone corrects me.
Sees
Dragonslayer
I think it is in context of put discipleship before all else - your former life, loved ones, belongings...leave it/them behind and take up your cross to follow his lead. It makes sense in an era and locality with doomsday ideologies in abundance - that preaching the news of God's love, God's Kingdom, etc. is more important than your typical, everyday life. It seems more foreign and strange when you are removed from that and just living a modern day lifestyle with beliefs sprinkled on top.
It still is present in the mindset of a lot of groups regardless. Not something that tends to be spoken about or promoted often though.
For me, I see religion=family, or family=religion, and it's hard to even revisit that other type of mindset.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Eh. I was thinking more thats his culture. His father was besrt broken. I kow he instructs monks to do the same. Lay men have a get by pass.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I don't get you exactly. Please paraphrase and elaborate.
Regards
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Silly fingers. I was thinking that the Buddha's culture is family oriented. I'd assume that he would still have some of his cultural values. Maybe instead of leaving abrumptly, he told his father (who disaproved and was disraught-I meant to type) and left.
He intructed the monks that to acheive enlightenment is to isolate oneself and get rid of attachments which means family as well as everyday things. Laymen, though I read, doesn't have as strict of rules as monks. Laymen get a "pass go."
I wish I was very knowledgable about the sutras. I go by what I read and can understand. The sutras are heard to read due to its heavy analogies.