Favourite strange/ridiculous religious beliefs

Post Reply New Topic

and always remember gin when giving obeisance to Pele, or she make plenty pilikea!

When I lived in Hawai'i (love them glottal stops!) I was a practicing Wiccan. . or at least observed the 'round of the year' . I soon learned that living in the tropics with the 18 month seasons (wet and dry) really played havoc with a religion based on the temperate zone!

Merle

This touches upon many points on many levels.

If God just turned the ankle of every non-believer, there wouldn't be any. If everyone believed as God intends, there would be no use for this material existence whatsoever.

God does not manipulate our lives or our world, he merely opens doors. There's a phrase that is used often in the Writings of Baha'u'llah(and other texts I'm sure) "could ye but perceive it." Innumerable doors are opened everyday, but we don't see them or, if we do, we don't see them for what they are.

I used to have a problem with Faith. I would hear people say or read about being a "servant." Especially within the Catholic mass, which, from an outside point-of-view makes participants really sound like mindless drones. I didn't want to submit myself to God or any lesser being because I was afraid and unsure how it would affect my life and people's/my own perception of myself. Then, I found an open door, and it must have been a massive palatial door, 'cause I walked through. I read some of Baha'u'llah's writings, the Bhagavad Gita, and some of Swami Prabhupada's books. I am learning to be a Devotee, to see God in everything and everyone. To perform every action and inaction in service to Him. I am learning true humility and I can't say that I have ever had a more amazing experience.

What harm can come from "the 'ole college try?" Certainly no more than speculating on a forum such as this.

Read the Gita, for starters. There's a widely available translation/explanation by Eknath Easwaran that I highly recommend.

I haven't read it yet, but "The Perennial Philosophy" by Aldous Huxley was recommended to me by a Zen practitioner...and it's Huxley, so it's gotta be somewhat Aspie friendly.

I'm gonna turn this around on the scientific types. I wanna know why science has to be so pervasive, why empirical/direct evidence has to be so...divine.

Why is it so hard to accept: That there are some things and somethings that must be accepted solely on faith? That maybe the Ultimate Knowledge might come by simply admitting that it is unknowable? That knowing that future events are endlessly uncertain, yet consistently provided for might make the loose connections appear before your very eyes?

Sometimes meditation is more important than a formula. One cannot deny that there are methods of changing cause and effect, that it is possible to avoid them altogether. One of these ways is through spirituality. The founders of the world's great religions- the "Messengers of God" as it may be- are the great scientists and the evidence in one- whether they existed in the flesh or not.

Science and religion must exist in a balanced nature, a fact which has been ordained by scientists and spiritualists alike.

Because not one single idea promoted on faith has turned out to be true.

So simple yet so eloquent and oh so true.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Someone who tells you that there is no proof of his claims, and that you must have faith, and then goes on to put you down for not accepting those claims as true, and then acts insulted when you question the veracity of those claims, that person is about to rip you off.

It is even dangerous for the progress of the human race: Accepting religious answers beyond prove would stop research. If all Greek would be satisfied with the answers Greek mythology gave for the existence of stars and the world, western science never would have started.

The same is true today: When we introduce a non-material "mind"/"soul" in the research regarding our consciousness we will never understand how this consciousness is created by the brain or if we would accept that the Big Bang is an act of god, as the current pope suggested, we will never understand why the Big Bang happened and which structure were the cause.

This is especially dangerous for our civilisation which based on science and our understanding of nature.

What would you rather have:

- A stopped clock, which is absolutely right twice a day,

OR

- A clock that is always one second behind, and thus never absolutely right?

Inserting "God" whenever there is no answer is surrendering to ignorance. Just admit we don't know all things in the world, for once.

Science is successful because it deals with the world as it is, not the world as we wish it would be. The world operates according to physical laws that are beyond our will and control. Our burden is to learn what these laws are and make whatever use we can of what we learn. This process started tens of thousands of years ago when man invented the wheel and learned how to control fire.

Religion is the substitution of the wish/hope for the facts. Nature does not give one good god damn about our wishes. Nature is what it is. And any changes that we can bring about are subject to the same natural laws as non-sentient happenings such as storm or earthquake.

ruveyn

Science is only successful and therfore publicised if it is populist, profitable or status increasing for your funding body. (view woeful amount of funding for Alzheimers vs E.D. treatments..)Or if the peer reviewers let you have your article be published in their journal....yes. Fed up science person here. I love the fairytale elements of many religions, the folk tale or superstitious elements trying to fuse faiths together. I had been fascinated by Santeria lately as result.I also appreciate religious art (and momento mori), so particularly liked the pictures posted here by Dussel.

Maybe I was too vague. Maybe some of you didn't read or consider my post in its entirety when replying to the point I attempted to make. I mentioned nothing about ignoring science. I mentioned nothing of giving way to unrealistic superstitious religious beliefs. I do not wish to have to quote Einstein on this, because I think we all know what quote I would refer to. Allow me to quote Abdul'baha instead:

"All religions teach that we must do good, that we must be generous, sincere, truthful, law-abiding, and faithful; all this is reasonable, and logically the only way in which humanity can progress."

As you have stated, society would not be where it is if science had not disproved many old religious superstitions. With the above quote in mind, where would society be without true religion(the Perennial Philosophy)? I don't intend to imply that such things are acquirable through religion alone. Only that the underlying truths in all religions have, by intent, in and of themselves, served as catalysts.

Sure, things that are to be taken on faith have never been proven...scientifically. There is no physical evidence that can ever prove them. Yet, through faith and spirituality, by their very lives, those that understand the underlying meanings have transcended the suffering that IS evident in our existence. The suffering that is absent in a spiritual, faith filled existence. Did/do they ignore the laws of science or reason along the way? No.

You cannot disprove that there is, within reason, a path to higher spiritual existence, a "perennial philosophy". Yet, the only evidence is in the experiences and lives of those who have walked that path.

I invite you to read more of what Abdul'baha has to say concerning Science and Religion, as he puts forth some valid points(IMO, whatever it may be worth).


http://info.bahai.org/article-1-5-3-1.html

I do not intend to push anything upon anyone, only to challenge your thinking.

In my opinion, there are many who form ideas and convictions on the matter before they have considered all of the evidence presented to them.

It is my belief that there IS a way to prove spiritual, if not religious, truth. That there are large bodies of evidence. That there are many who are unable/unwilling to see it as evidence, or ignorant of the existence of such evidence.

Give references please, to these large bodies of "truth".

Assertion is cheap. Evidence is dear.

ruveyn

As I have previously stated, there is evidence of spiritual truth in the lives of those who have understood spirituality clearly and lived their lives accordingly.

Take the life of Siddhartha Gautama, known to the world as Buddah. He left his life of privilege in his palace when he saw the suffering that is true of the world. By walking the spiritual path, he proved that there is a method of transcending this suffering. His life and the effects thereof are evidence that there is a way of transcendance.

Baha'u'llah was similarly born into a life of privilege, this time in Nineteenth Century Persia. He faced 40 years of exile, imprisonment, and threat of assassination, simply because he offered people a way to transcend the oppression, corruption and suffering of their world. His teachings effectively removed superstition from religion. They have removed corruption and schism from its adherents and leaders.

Jalal'udin Rumi was a college professor when he met Shams Tabrizi, who effectively turned his life upside down. He is now known to the world as one of the greatest mystic poets. His poetry is said to have flowed out of him like a spigot. It uplifts the spirits of countless people around the world and throughout existence, whether or not they are his "whirling dervishes."

Countless saints including Mother Teresa of Calcutta, St. John of the Cross, St. Terese of Avila, Mahatma Ghandi.

All of these people have proven that there is a way of transcendence, a spiritual path. Most of these paths call for Faith. If the existence of spirituality had not existed, none of these names would have any meaning. They would have merely fallen by the wayside, forgotten to time. Their lives are the very evidence of the existence of spirituality.

i think it is funny that some radical muslims think they will have the services of 72 virgins if they die in an act of martyrdom.

if those 72 girls died virgins, then they may not be worth dying for.

Niece start with "Teresa of Calcutta": In her case the "spiritual path" has more to do with the facilities of the Vatican Bank (it is just to practical to have as a religious organisation a mini-state) to handle accounts safe for any revision from out side. Her "transcendence" was even so great that she did ignore the blood on the hand of Jean-Claude Duvalie ("Baby Doc").

People like Pasteur or Robert Koch saved more lives than all "spiritual thinkers" together.