This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
What "belief systems" seem to reoccur through out history? In religion, philosophy, and others. Why?
My answer: I find the philosophies/religions in the majority revolve around humanism. The idea we should treat others the way we want to be treated is as old as humans writings on walls. I find that the human NEED of practicing humility is in every major religion is no coincidence.
Christian/Muslim - Behaving as a "Prophet" to be with "God"
Buddhism - Following the path of Buddha and/or creating one's own path to "enlightenment"
Confucianism - Champions the "golden rule" to be equal
Taoism - The idea of balances to individuals as well as society to allow the "golden rule"
Religions taking their own paths to being humanitarians is no "chance" nor is it "fate"... It is because we all want the same things in relation to the hierarchy of needs.. We all want food, shelter, acceptance, "love", to fulfill a self-prophecy, and respect. We have a pattern to our behaviors and to look at them as being human and not as being "unique" allows you to share more with others. No one is truly unique, but everyone is human..
________________________________________________________________
What do you believe are reoccurring themes of religions and philosophies throughout history? Which stand out the most and why? How do they relate? How do they differ?
Belief system - the patterns in which you follow in reflection to one's morality and/or considerations.
Examples: Atheism, theism, gnosticism, naturalism, humanitarianism, ignosticism, probablism, etc, etc, etc..
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_belief_systems
This conversation needs to get emotional or it is not truly a belief-based conversation.
James Houston
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
taking my place in the forever of human history in
direct succession from that first woman who
in a moment of some shade of fear
turned a palm sized stone to face the sun,
got it at just the right angle to touch the light she did not have in herself,
and brought heaven to earth
through her own hand,
so for just that moment, without thinking,
the knot in her chest loosened
tears could wash the ash from her chapped cheeks
and she knew she was held,
and home.
Rev. Debbie Little Wyman, Founder
Commn Cathedral, Boston
Eccelsia Minsitries ( to the homeless) worldwide
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Lewis begins his treatise by surveying morality among different cultures, concluding that the common moral themes of all cultures and religions must have a single (common) source. Something transcendent must account for why all people value and have valued the same basic moral principles, and in Lewis' mind, this transcendent something was God.
This made sense to me at first, until later when I happened to re-read the Ten Commandments (Exodus chapter 20) in my Bible. It shocked me to see that only about half the commandments listed were universal in Lewis' sense. The others were very specific -- even unique -- to the Abrahamic tradition. Furthermore, the "universal" commandments were all related to how people relate with other people. The "unique" commandments were all related to how people relate with God.
Like a lightning bolt, it suddenly occurred to me why this was true. We hold to these universal principles of morality because of how we ourselves wish to be treated! Why is it wrong to murder? Because no one wants to be killed. Why is it wrong to steal? Because no one wants to be robbed. Why is it wrong to lie? Because no one wants to be deceived. The transcendent origin of these precepts was our own human vulnerability.
People who claim that all religions are essentially the same are referring to the humanistic aspects of religion. The theological and cosmological aspects of religions wildly contradict each other, but what is common among different creeds is common to humanity in general.
Debra Smith 200+
I love CS Lewis. I read all of the Narnia Series to all of my children. Did you ever notice that in the final battle (I forget which boo)k the mighty Muslim warrior steps through the gates of death and gains entry into heaven??
I loved that. This did in the idea of only one interpretation of religion for my children.
I loved Lewis's way of looking at the world. It was almost subtly subversive (or maybe my interpretation of it is).
I struggle with belief systems. I am so unsure about it all that I have to say I do not know.
One of my kids went to a Christian high school and I remember the day when he came home after his comparative religion class and told me that he thought his belief structures probably meant that the was a Budhist! How ironic is it that a Christian school turned a kid into a Budhist? I sort of love that too.
I have written here before about my eldest son who after reading the old Testament came to me and said that he was certain that a human being should not be more moral than God and that he could not believe in any thing that directed the killing of entire villages, including women, children and animals. That was the end of his belief. He grew up to be a diplomat committed to a better world here and now.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Recurring macro themes seem to parallel the micro themes of human life, as follows:
Life
Love from nurturing other(s)
Perception of autonomous power
Separation and individuation
Psychic, spiritual, intellectual or physical death.
Doubt, despair, loss, grief
Awareness of vulnerability
Engagement of Self/Other balance
Love shared co-dynamically
Life
Andrea
Salim Solaiman 50+
Just think of the time when religion / philosophy etc wasn't there among the homo spaiens, when they were roaming around as a group in jungles of planet, looking for hunt only to fulfill basic need of hunger..... reflect back how they treated each other? How they survived collectively?
Hypothetically it seems to me right that time as species we were more empathetic more compassionate more humane....
Don't want denounce the progress of human civilazation as we are today but what happened to our psyche meantime as a species to us , always pondering about that....
Frans Kellner 100+
The problem with organized religions is that they hijack those stories for personal power or influence without even understanding them. As example: Constantine established the Christian religion just as political strategy. Popes followed up the tradition of Roman Emperors and so it went on and on. Political gain isn't the issue anymore but self preservation.
Debra Smith 200+
Frans Kellner 100+
I intended to read some of his work.
Peter Law 30+
Don't you think that there may be something real that sparked off all those diverse religions ? After all, if we saw a box of smarties we would not use it as evidence that chocolate didn't exist.
:-)
Frans Kellner 100+
"After all, if we saw a box of smarties we would not use it as evidence that chocolate didn't exist."
If someone won't try and taste it this well may happen.
With religion it is the other way round. Inspired people inspire others and point the way out of confusion. If they put this in written words others can take this as a mean to glorify themselves and corrupt it for earthly power. If they make it into an institution it will always corrupt because those that are responsible for the preservation of that institution use their intellect to manage it.
Someone said: you can't serve two lords at the same time.
For that reason Mother Theresa refused any kind of administration. Work of the heart can't be ruled by work of the mind and not be corrupted in the end.
E G 10+
Prakar Jeevan
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Debra Smith 200+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Indeed, self is the first place we think, so maybe that is the first place where a strong religion should look to philosophize over?
Debra Smith 200+
Can we work from here?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
A constant need of chaos in order must be allowed.. a balance
We start as children with no perspective, but we develop it through cognition in nurture and naturally in our predisposed nature.. Thus we cannot look at self first, we always will look at others to be who we are, we are the other people whom we "want" or "need" to be like.. pretty much always, consciously or unconsciously..
Goes into superego.. if your ambitions are as short sighted the people whom you put your trust of authority into, will pass down their delusions... the superego, is the reason criticism isn't allowed about that part of who they are, that delusion is now apart of that persons emotional well being...
This is why superego needs to be abolished, being attached to ideas leads to being attached to more and more ideas..
Let's say one idea is a brick. When you throw a brick at a brick the both explode. But when you start stacking bricks, it takes more bricks to destroy the wall.. If life goes on and the wall is never destroyed the wall will become reality, and only an army of breaks will destroy those held beliefs. An old Christian, will never be convinced their "God "is not "real". Because the emotions they felt for God are a wall of ideas so solid, it is like telling them their whole life is a lie...
Superego needs to be dealt with, before the wall is finished and it is there forever..
This is not just limited to passed down beliefs, but also in the beliefs we create in life as a result of unawareness. The idea we are not worth anything, the idea we are better then someone else, the idea we can do whatever we want with no consequences, the idea we will live forever... all either consciously or unconsciously creates cognitive biases towards reality and allows us to be "right" based on no foundation besides confidence..
Debra Smith 200+
People's minds are a lot like little snail creatures looking for a home. We are scared of being crushed out of existence. We know we need protection from the unpredictable chaos which feels like it can 'get us' at any moment with some random event. So we try to predict the world with rules that we set up for ourselves by trial and error.
When we come across others we can have their rules imposed on us (as in parenting or religious teaching) as sort of hand me down shells but they never fit quite right. We still have our own sets of experience which either confirm or negate the truth of the effectiveness of the rules. Harsh imposition of the rules can make us fearful of challenging the rules but for most people overbearing superegos are eventually challenged and that can be painful because they are rigid and resist being shoved off.
Throughout our lives we trade in old shells for new ones. Psychologist would call these schemas. We can have schemas within schemas and sometimes only part of the schema has to be demolished but at other times like after a trauma like a death of a loved one or a rape or a job loss we need a whole new shell. As long as the shell we are in is not too challenged we muddle along with it .This explains people who do not question their religious beliefs.
Through out our lives we can see that there are people who aren't functioning well because their shells are chafing of stunting them but they are too scared to take their shell off long enough to find another. The chaos may be threatening but the shell can actually kill them too (as in coping mechanisms like alcoholism or risky behaviours). Some find ways to make a sort of peace with the really badly fitting shells but they lose all joy in life, all curiosity and spontaneity. Thoreau called these "lives of quiet desperation"
Let me know if this is contructive and I will add or change dire
Seth Powell 10+
Not necessarily. There are several languages that do not include the same syntax structure as the Romantic languages, and some that do not even incorporate the first person singular. "Don't Sleep, There Are Snakes" by Daniel Everett gives a good example of this. It is the story of a Christian evangelical and his time in the Amazon, attempting to convert the small indigenous Piraha Indians. Personal salvation was a hard sell, since they don't possess a linguistic conception of 'I'.
I do agree that the phenomenon is recurs frequently enough in the applicable language blocs to demand consideration and explanation. Several philosophers have described the 'God reflex' as simply an over-projection of grammar, a metaphysical convergence of subject and predicate. Too often we forget that language is an improper description of Nature and not a perfect reflection of it, and are thus bound to make erroneous conclusions as to the components of reality. What funny animals we are.
Anyway, I think a major recurring theme in nearly all religions is THE GOAL. Every religion I can think of presents itself as a solution to a problem, and solidifies it's ideal as the 'state of perfection' to be achieved. Very similar to... tragedy. But now I am really betraying my influences -
SEP
Debra Smith 200+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Seth Powell 10+
The actual concept and state of being defined as the goal differs from religion to religion. Compare nirvana in the Buddhist sense, the notion of being 'born again' in the Protestant sense, the idea of being an observant and practicing Jew, etc. There are peculiarities to each and every belief system. However, every religion does seem to have a goal. Moreover, the goal seems to be to solution to a seemingly pressing issue which the religious leader/elders themselves have astutely identified. Oddly enough, the fulfillment of the proposed solution generally involves the individual dying. There may be exceptions - I am failing to think of any at the moment.
So - we have a PROBLEM (conflict), a GOAL (solution), and the proposed solution typically if not always involves the individual/hero to lose his life. Sounds very similar to tragedy.
The question is - which is the light and which the shadow? Is it an innate religious sense and influence of God that brings about our artistic capacity for drama? Or is it our artistic capacity which brings about the necessity for God/religion? Or perhaps the situation is altogether different.
What do you think?
"Simply to be the answer?" I am not quite sure I understand what you mean. Are you putting forward the idea that the goal of the religion (any religion) is to be the answer itself, as a self fulfilling and circular argument, whose mere existence is enough to perpetrate it's legitimacy? If so, then I would agree to an extent. If not, please clarify. (my goal, the individual's goal, the religion's goal) Internet forums make it difficult to understand the concept behind the casual phrase.
SEP
anthony bruni 30+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Krisztián Pintér 200+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
The topic here isn't enlightenment, but what has been used/done to achieve it.. therefore humility being the one of the paths is not far fetched... but just one type of "enlightenment"
Christian enlightenment = behaving Christ-like to get to heaven. Answers the majority of the "big" questions of reality in the every day cultures of that religion.
Consider again, the idea of being "enlightened" does fall short in Buddhism, because it is not one "enlightened" experience and/or epiphany that creates a truly "enlightened" person, but multiples of each.
Another short coming is their life philosophy. Live and let live, is part of being humane, not all. Must create environments of open consensus to be truly humane, not just my opinion.
To take the path of humility is not easy nor a 1, 2, 3 step. To say it is far fetched is to show lack of religious awareness. It shows... lack of self awareness to me. Since we're on opinions.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
you are free to explain how "humility" is a central or even important point of buddhist teachings. i don't claim to be an expert on the topic, but certainly read a lot of material, and not some american wannabe buddhists, but the dalai lama himself, and the works of other monks. i don't recall any direct mentioning of humility, except if you mean rejecting physical pleasures, but it is not the primary meaning of the word. if we want to find one word to describe the buddhist way, it would be detachment, or possibly discipline.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
I assumed a lot, no question.
I see where I got lost, I have already connected the ideas of enlightened with humanitarian. To be "detached" is to be "free from bondage" and the idea of "discipline" is interesting now that you bring it up. But first. Attachment... is a path/degree of enlightenment. To be aware you are not an individual, is a tough idea to grasp with the rest of your logic... it does require natural philosophy, practice and education. The philosophy behind "discipline" for Buddhist, among other atheistic religions is to maintain "openness" while practicing a degree of scientific thinking towards the world (natural philosophy).
I'm no expert either, but again. As I said to Birdia, that was MY answer thus my conclusion. Not THE ANSWER.
There is no one answer to this, there is many values to consider here. History, modern, foundation... which are you saying I am wrong about? Because it is neither. Humility is do not to others what you not want done to you.
If Buddhism does not teach such, why do they live in socialistic compounds? Why do they allow guest? Why do they care to have websites on the internet, made by the same monks you speak of? Because they want to share, and that is more humane than loving someone.
I stand by humility is at the core of all the major religions of today. Just the teachings are unique as are individuals while still having similar needs in life.
No one word can describe any thing that has history attached to it for thousands of years.
anthony bruni 30+
Debra Smith 200+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
but ego isn't bad. Just need a balance. The human's ability to conquer the impossible was done by driving the ego towards the conquest... Projecting oneself already accomplishing the goal, is how goals were met and are met constantly. It's like lying to yourself that you will make it through, and you do. But you lie so well, you are convinced and you enable all your thoughts towards that path. If the path is to abolish ego, fine. But good luck achieving greatness... To abolish ego, is to be a monk, a philosopher living to think, which sounds peaceful, but after all the information I cannot unlearn, it seems boring to have a traditionalized daily routine.Completely my opinions.
The psychological idea of "super ego" is the enemy, not "ego". You can be humane with an ego. You can beat someone in a fight over something as simple as a parking space and become best friends after. The ego got ahead of you, but new bonds were made. That sounds like a better experience, then denial of natural mechanisms that produce "ego". Again opinions for a debate with you Anthony, and others.
Debra Smith 200+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You created a trap for yourself, and went head first into it... nice...
You are responding to MY ANSWER. THUS MY RESPONSE to my topic. THUS NOT THE POINT OF ARGUMENT. A logical fallacy must be highlighted...
If you want to debate "God" again, I will. To Buddhist, their "God" is the path they follow to enlightenment. OR they create a self "God" (Self-Buddha) to try and achieve..
I wish you knew what you were talking about before you dictate such to others whom enjoy reading religions and their histories. "God" is without definition until you dictate it. Indeed those 3 do not believe in a "being" but they believe in plenty of abstract philosophies that are sometimes just as non-foundational as the Judeo God. Karma... is silly to me. A 1, 2, 3 list of how to be civil, is silly to me.. Plenty of religions have non-sense. But Still NOT the point, the point is the SIMILARITIES. Not my opinions.
MY POINT WAS, that went over your head... was they ALL have the "golden rule" at the core. Maybe not today, or yesterday. But in history. Thus the topic. Keep on track.
Comment deleted
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Also the one? category? Humanitarianism? Oh, indeed, none of the leaders you stated would agree about being humane to others as being a degree of enlightenment or awareness.
Krisztián Pintér 200+
what do you mean by humility? not being arrogant or selfish or hedonist? i think we need a much narrower interpretation than that.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
A professor of mine said to me today, when I brought this issue up, was "all religious philosophy is trying to be humanitarian.. because all philosophy is apart of nature and reality, apart of the humans connecting to them with thoughts." It was broad, I like it.
How are all the "belief systems" (philosophical/religious) of history, majorly similar? What do they ALL share in a common factor? This is the main topic here.
My answer is humanitarianism, because the "golden rule" (silver rule) are championed by so many religions as well as philosophers, most recognized in history.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Comment deleted
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
You still have yet to answer the question, thus being a giant waste of time. All this to say I am wrong is arrogant and sad.
I wasn't saying Christianity is like Buddhism. I am saying the paths they take to being with God or "Enlightenment" are, and in both of their classical doctrines, that's exactly what they are, and that show you being bias to this religion, to a religion that far out numbers the ones being argued. Christianity... although it is easily argued that modern Christianity is no where near it's foundation in the larger percentile. This does not deny their history, in which is stated in the title of the topic.
To say Jesus was not like Buddha... Is to deny a huge reality of history.
This is my passion, this is my path to enlightenment you are walking across, walk with me, watch me walk, or don't, either are acceptable.
Sophistry, nice try at sounding creative with diction. But I would of only been wrong if I did not leave myself as broad as I did. Part of critical thinking practices.
I'm wrong in modern sense of these religions. Not, in foundations and history, which is part of my argument, thus making your argument misdirected, again.
Oh and maybe you heard of Kabbalah? Which is what Judaism is based on, and those philosophy are on a parallel a "few" of the same philosophies you are defending as different.... No, they are not that different. They are very alike.
Read some Jesus quotes some time. Pretty bright guy.
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Peter Law 30+
" there isn't an omnipotent God there to humble anyone by scaring them to hell. "
I agree. My God came to earth as a human. was tortured, & died to show his love. Now that's what I call humility.
:-)
Kavitha Arumugam
Nothing seem to be religion matters. And even if it is prevailing , let it be with them and we never want it to impose on others.
Olden times ofcourse, our ancestors followed all such religious thoughts and wanted us also to follow the same. But the trend at present is changing in fast pace as every single human is pondered by his own ways.
dingle mcringleberry
I think it's no coincidence that certain principles often appear in many ideologies, it's human nature to create such ideas.
For example, when a family member or loved one is close to death, people seem to break down emotionally. This can leave one vulnerable to make irrational assumptions which are purely driven by emotion.
The fact that we know we will die also acts upon us similarly, we just figured it must get better. "This is it? There has to be more."
I think that kind of thinking is what generates many ideologies, theisms, belief systems, etc.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
To think past death is to think purely ideological, and to think purely ideologically is good in exercise, but dangerous in everyday realities. Do you agree?
dingle mcringleberry
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Debra Smith 200+
Timothy Campbell
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Timothy Campbell
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
I think the infection can be contained with CT.
Timothy Campbell
Can you tell me more about this?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
It is fuzzy reasoning, but I would say to be more precise.. multiply mechanisms results into us emotionally sticking to what we know. Especially into what emotionally stimulates us in a positive manner...
read the article and tell me if anything clears up. We will discuss!
Timothy Campbell
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
There is no brief way to explain this (idea of cog. mechanisms)... Cognitive science and the sub-discipline cog. psychology are still relatively new fields in comparison to any other science field.
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/cognitive_mechanisms.htm
All I really have are journals about anything, because they have citations. If you are really interested, just ask search engines about cog. science and read away...
Timothy Campbell
That list of cognitive mechanisms looks extremely interesting and could end up being useful for my writings. Thanks for the link.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
All summer was spent reading about cognitive science and world religions (again), and I wonder what type of education you have in this area? Just interest, like me?
tell me, what is your position on "emotions being the key to understanding perspectives?"
This seems to be a pattern I found when reading about the neurological - psychology parts of cog. sci. discoveries. The pattern being, emotions first, always... Authors writing about education seem to always insist emotions are to be stimulated prior to the education. How do you feel about this idea of emotions > logic?
Timothy Campbell
My position on "emotions being the key to understanding perspectives" is that emotion can convey information to our consciouness about internal non-conscious evaluations. For example, I find it interesting that certain types of people (like the chronically close-minded) can make me angry. I expect myself to have more sense than that, but I don't.
As for emotions being, in some sense, superior or antecedent to logic, perhaps NEITHER is primary. Assuming that when you say "logic" you mean rational thought, then I make the following observation: Thoughts can trigger or defuse emotion, and emotion can trigger or defuse thoughts. This might be a reflection of the fact that our brains have two hemispheres and multiple modules in contention.