• 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!

Using a religion’s name and surface features to dress up a personal philosophy

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’m seeing what looks to me like people using the names of eastern religions and some of their surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies, in ways that are disrespectful and damaging to the reputations of the religious communities whose names, features and reputations they’re appropriating. I’m wondering if there are any people here with deep roots in those centuries-old communities, and if so, how that looks and feels to you.
 
Last edited:

PureX

Veteran Member
In the end, religions are just a collection of ideals and practices intended to help people live according to their chosen conceptualizations of truth. So it's inevitable that, on occasion, religions get used to justify, maintain and promote conceptualizations and behaviors that are quite antithetical to the originator's traditional intent. It's important to remember, I think, that our religions don't determine our ideology, our ideologies determine our religion.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I’m seeing what looks to me like people using the names of eastern religions and some of their surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies, in ways that are disrespectful and damaging to the reputations of the religious communities whose names, features and reputations they’re appropriating. I’m wondering if there are any people here with deep roots in those centuries-old communities, and if so, how that looks and feels to you.
I think I know what you mean, but I also hope that is not me. I do not claim to be an actual Quaker only that I like a lot of their ideas and try to be clear that I don't represent them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
I’m seeing what looks to me like people using the names of eastern religions and some of their surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies, in ways that are disrespectful and damaging to the reputations of the religious communities whose names, features and reputations they’re appropriating. I’m wondering if there are any people here with deep roots in those centuries-old communities, and if so, how that looks and feels to you.

Given most eastern religions (at least the ones that I know of) don't recognize or support anti-Christian ideals, the ones who are doing as you outline in your post are usually pretty easy to recognize, especially by followers of these eastern religions and philosophies. What label one chooses is of no consequence to me, but if one misrepresents my worldview/religion or its philosophies or ideologies, I will not hesitate to set record straight.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Hinduism and Buddhism are free-form religions. They have much leeway for personalization like what we do with our internet browsers; and within the limits (of 'dharma') it is not considered a bad thing. So, your contention that people use a religion’s name and surface features to dress up a personal philosophy is not correct. What we debate are not surface features, we are not too concerned about that. What we debate are the core features including the existence or non-existence of God/Gods. People belonging to Abrahamic religions are naturally horrified about the extent of freedom our religion gives us. We understand that. It is like a slave of one master asking the slave of other master, "What! He does not even put shackles on your feet?! :)
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
In the end, religions are just a collection of ideals and practices intended to help people live according to their chosen conceptualizations of truth.
They are also communIties, societies and cultures, with centuries of history behind them, purposes of their own, and reputations that are being appropriated by people who look to me like they have no respect for them and are only using them to appropriate that reputation, with no respect for their purposes and even using them for purposes contrary to theirs, and damaging their reputations by using their names and some surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies.

(edited to add “and even using them for purposes contrary to theirs”)
 
Last edited:

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Given most eastern religions (at least the ones that I know of) don't recognize or support anti-Christian ideals, the ones who are doing as you outline in your post are pretty easy to recognize, especially by followers of eastern religions and philosophies. What label one chooses is of no consequence to me, but if one misrepresents my worldview/religion or its philosophies or ideologies, I will not hesitate to set record straight.

But we still have this idea that if you disagree, you're automatically anti. Just because someone states a difference of opinion doesn't automatically mean hate or hostility. Some days I don't feel I can say anything at all without being accused of hatred.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
But we still have this idea that if you disagree, you're automatically anti. Just because someone states a difference of opinion doesn't automatically mean hate or hostility. Some days I don't feel I can say anything at all without being accused of hatred.
I’m sorry if I’ve made you feel that way. That isn’t what I think.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
But we still have this idea that if you disagree, you're automatically anti. Just because someone states a difference of opinion doesn't automatically mean hate or hostility. Some days I don't feel I can say anything at all without being accused of hatred.

I think this is primarily due to tendencies of the Abrahamic hard line of "if my religion is right, the yours, by default, is wrong."

What such people often fail to recognize is just because my worldview, philosophies, and understandings work for me in my realizations and that I disagree with 'yours' doesn't necessarily mean mine are right and 'yours' are wrong. Mine are just right for me.

Just as mine work for me, 'yours' may work for you.


Of course I am using 'yours' to mean 'another's,' not yours specifically. 'Yours' just sounded better than 'another's' in the sentence.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I think this is primarily due to tendencies of the Abrahamic hard line of "if my religion is right, the yours, by default, is wrong."

What such people often fail to recognize is just because my worldview, philosophies, and understandings work for me in my realizations and that I disagree with 'yours' doesn't necessarily mean mine are right and 'yours' are wrong. Mine are just right for me.

Just as mine work for me, 'yours' may work for you.


Of course I am using 'yours' to mean 'another's,' not yours specifically. 'Yours' just sounded better than 'another's' in the sentence.

You're probably right. Eastern and western paradigms are very different. It's hard for me to move over to the other and think that way. I don't view critics of Hinduism as hostile. Generally when there is criticism, I just see it as either being uninformed, or coming from the 'us versus them' mentality. Both are rather normal behaviours given the programming circumstances.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
They are also communIties, societies and cultures, with centuries of history behind them,...
No, they actually are not. Religions are a part of human culture, and they do effect the culture as such, but human culture is the major 'set', and religion is a 'subset' within it. It's important to understand this. Because the cultural dynamics are dictating the religious dynamics far more than the religious dynamics are effecting the culture. Iran is not a Muslim theocracy because it's people are mostly Muslim. It's a Muslim theocracy because the people in power are using religious Islam to establish and hold onto their power. These same people would be using Christianity, or Judaism, or whatever other religion happened to be available within their culture to be used for that purpose.

Religions are just a box of tools. How a culture chooses to allow those tools to be used, within it, is an expression of it's own overriding dynamic. It isn't "abuse of an ax" to use it to kill someone just because the ax-maker did not have that specific intent in mind when he made it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
You're probably right. Eastern and western paradigms are very different. It's hard for me to move over to the other and think that way. I don't view critics of Hinduism as hostile. Generally when there is criticism, I just see it as either being uninformed, or coming from the 'us versus them' mentality. Both are rather normal behaviours given the programming circumstances.

I suppose it's easier for me see the other side because I spent my early years in life as Catholic and was raised in the Church with the notion that Catholicism was the One True Religion™, and that followers of other religions were wrong and were destined for an eternity in Hell.

While other parishioners seemed to be okay with this idea, it never sat well with me. Why would a being create a species with more than half of them already condemned to Hell at the onset?

But it's my understanding that in the last 40 years or so, the Church has shifted their position on this idea.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I feel like it's best not to respect completely based on tenure. It's better to learn over time and truly do so, rather than saying "They've been around a long time, so I respect them" and leaving it at that. But not everyone is that way.

But probably I am misunderstanding the opinions / information presented in the OP. More than likely, they are talking about antiChristians barely knowing anything about a religion and saying they are a part of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I will just point out that Christianity, historically, was not big on mutual coexistence with other creeds.

I truly wonder how much of a choice of not being "anti" Christianity those other creeds and traditions were given. Far as I can tell, not much at all. Either you oppose Christianity or you submit to an arbitrary claim with pretensions of universal relevance.

That is even more true of Islaam.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I suppose it's easier for me see the other side because I spent my early years in life as Catholic and was raised in the Church with the notion that Catholicism was the One True Religion™, and that followers of other religions were wrong and were destined for an eternity in Hell.

While other parishioners seemed to be okay with this idea, it never sat well with me. Why would a being create a species with more than half of them already condemned to Hell at the onset?

But it's my understanding that in the last 40 years or so, the Church has shifted their position on this idea.
I never had that experience, just 'nothing'. I did hear the occasional comment, but not much sank in. My great uncle was an intellectual communist, very well read. He had quite the library. I remember asking him about Hinduism soon after I'd discovered it. All he said was that it seemed more humane than other religions.
 

ajay0

Well-Known Member
I’m seeing what looks to me like people using the names of eastern religions and some of their surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies, in ways that are disrespectful and damaging to the reputations of the religious communities whose names, features and reputations they’re appropriating. I’m wondering if there are any people here with deep roots in those centuries-old communities, and if so, how that looks and feels to you.

Would add here that there are some easterners who cloak their personal philosophies with the names of popular eastern philosophies, even if their understanding contradicts the theme and essence of the said eastern philosophy.

This arises due to illiteracy, need for esteem and approval of a foreign audience, or due to deliberate fraud.

It is wrong in the sense that an incorrect philosophical understanding is then conveyed to foreign or western people, which misdirects their thought process into more delusion and confusion.

Eastern philosophy and psychology is of ancient origin, and there is a lot of insights in it, which can be useful to the recent western civilization, providing it with a better understanding of the bigger picture, along with direction and purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I want to try to explain some more what I think I'm seeing, and why I don't like it. It might not really be what it looks like to me, and there might not really be anything wrong with it. The way I feel about it is like the way I might feel about someone who never fights fires wearing a firefighter's uniform and calling himself a firefighter, letting people think that he's a person who fights fires. The name "Buddhism" comes from communities whose ways of life, and the benefits that people have found in immersing themselves in them, have given that name the appeal and the social status that it has in some circles. If a person who sees no value in those communities or their ways of life, or worse, views them contemptuously, picks out some of the parts of their beliefs and practices that don't inconvenience him in any way, to wear as a costume over his own personal philosophy and lifestyle, and calls himself by their name as if he is one of them, that looks disrespectful to me, and even dishonest if the person is doing it to enhance his image with some people.

I see another possibility. A person might see some correspondences between his personal philosophy and lifestyle, and some of the beliefs and practices of a religion, and identify with it for that reason. Even so, it still seems disrespectful and dishonest for a person to wear that name without being part of one of those communities, and without making that clear.
 
Last edited:

Marcion

gopa of humanity's controversial Taraka Brahma
I’m seeing what looks to me like people using the names of eastern religions and some of their surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies, in ways that are disrespectful and damaging to the reputations of the religious communities whose names, features and reputations they’re appropriating. I’m wondering if there are any people here with deep roots in those centuries-old communities, and if so, how that looks and feels to you.

Are you thinking about New Age types of people making up their own new philosophies or do you mean spiritually enlightened people who started new movements that you experience as not old or established enough? in my experience New Age types of people have strong dislikes of established religions and often also dislike the single authority or worship of leaders of religions.

New traditions or new movements always use similar concepts than their predecessors did and mix these into something new. Every established religion or movement started out that way and was initially opposed for being so bold to break through older paradigms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

atanu

Member
Premium Member
I’m seeing what looks to me like people using the names of eastern religions and some of their surface features as costumes to wear over their anti-Christian personal philosophies, in ways that are disrespectful and damaging to the reputations of the religious communities whose names, features and reputations they’re appropriating. I’m wondering if there are any people here with deep roots in those centuries-old communities, and if so, how that looks and feels to you.

I believe that the world is naturally a conflict ridden place, because its basis is mAyA-ignorance. It is said that Vishnu (God) measured out the world out of that which is homogeneous and without any partition.

The ignorance begins with "I am this body" thought and leads to entrenched "We' and 'Them" as the basis of all actions. Hinduism, based in the Vedas, teaches against this. A very famous vedic teaching is "The Truth is one, sages call it by different names'. So, the true gurus of Hinduism all follow this teaching only.

But the political world is different. In politics, guys use surface features as costumes to wear over their 'anti-other' philosophies. I think this is true of all rightist groups everywhere. They use religion as a garb to promote their divisive agendas. Rightist groups bank upon the emotions of majoritarianism-nationalism to gain power. And what is the easiest way? Don the garb of the majority religion and spread hatred. Religions get bad name.
 
Last edited:
Top