31 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm advocating flexibility. If a doctrine comes to be seen as outworn and no longer meeting people's needs, it can be changed. Archaic Judaism allowed slavery; it no longer does, but you can still read about it in Deuteronomy.
Isn't that what you're advocating?
An analogy would be to Roman law: the 12 Tables could not be altered, but they could be interpreted in new ways to suit new conditions. In that way, Roman law remained flexible for centuries.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat do you mean by "people's needs"? Clearly we're not talking physical needs like food, water and shelter here. What needs do religions satisfy, in your view?
No, I'm advocating flexibility. If a doctrine comes to be seen as outworn and no longer meeting people's needs, it can be changed. Archaic Judaism allowed slavery; it no longer does, but you can still read about it in Deuteronomy.
An analogy would be to Roman law: the 12 Tables could not be altered, but they could be interpreted in new ways to suit new conditions. In that way, Roman law remained flexible for centuries.
31 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn my view, the purpose of a religion is to provide a framework for spiritual growth.
What do you mean by "people's needs"? Clearly we're not talking physical needs like food, water and shelter here. What needs do religions satisfy, in your view?
Get to your point, anyway.
31 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhile I broadly agree with "the purpose of a religion is to provide a framework for spiritual growth", I think it is still too vague (what does 'spiritual growth' mean?).
In my view, the purpose of a religion is to provide a framework for spiritual growth.
Get to your point, anyway.
My point is simple -- if the purpose of religion is to help people grow spiritually (setting aside some ambiguity for the moment as to what that means) then it must have some tenets that are inflexible. We can call these 'core doctrines' or 'dogma' or whatever.
By analogy, one can consider raising a child (this one comes up quite a bit, doesn't it?🙂). Parents set certain rules that can be relaxed over time (e.g. "Be home by ten." ) but certain other rules that cannot be (e.g. "No stealing from your mother's purse" ) no matter how much the child grows.
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSorry, didn't read the whole thread. If he was however claiming that the the Vedas and Upanishads contains genuine references to reality that are only now being discovered by physicists then yes my argument still stands. It is similar to prophesy.
He isn't talking about the Bible. He's talking about the Vedas and Upanishads.
Does that change your argument?
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerSure. The Golden Rule is probably an irreducible doctrine for most if not all religions. If some dogma comes to conflict with the spiritual well-being of the community, though, it can be changed.
My point is simple -- if the purpose of religion is to help people grow spiritually (setting aside some ambiguity for the moment as to what that means) then it must have some tenets that are inflexible. We can call these 'core doctrines' or 'dogma' or whatever.
An interesting discussion point in this regard might be the issue of gay Christians (or adherents of any other religion that proscribes active homosexuality).
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat does 'spiritual well-being' mean? It's not the same thing as just being happy. Religions not only act as frameworks to improve spiritual well-being, they also define what spiritual well-being means. Wouldn't you say that definition is a core doctrine?
Sure. The Golden Rule is probably an irreducible doctrine for most if not all religions. If some dogma comes to conflict with the spiritual well-being of the community, though, it can be changed.
An interesting discussion point in this regard might be the issue of gay Christians (or adherents of any other religion that proscribes active homosexuality).
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't know about that, really. Some spiritual states are beyond definition. "Harmony inside and out" would be my working definition. It corresponds to the Golden Rule, so I guess it is a core doctrine. Maybe you'd like to say more about this.
What does 'spiritual well-being' mean? It's not the same thing as just being happy. Religions not only act as frameworks to improve spiritual well-being, they also define what spiritual well-being means. Wouldn't you say that definition is a core doctrine?
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageGoing back to our child-raising analogy, a child can be in "harmony inside and out" (or at least think it is) if it had chocolates and ice-cream for every meal. Why would you not expect parents to condone such a habit?
I don't know about that, really. Some spiritual states are beyond definition. "Harmony inside and out" would be my working definition. It corresponds to the Golden Rule, so I guess it is a core doctrine. Maybe you'd like to say more about this.
A core tenet of Buddhism is the renunciation of worldy (all?) desires. Yet a person can apparently be perfectly happy being greedy and working his socks off making millions on Wall Street. How would Buddhism assess the spiritual well-being of that person?
31 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou must be joking if you think a child who's just had a big dose of sugar is harmonious.
Going back to our child-raising analogy, a child can be in "harmony inside and out" (or at least think it is) if it had chocolates and ice-cream for every meal. Why would you not expect parents to condone such a habit?
With spirituality, I prefer not to be pushy. So the guy on Wall Street is happy--let him be. If he comes to sense some sort of spiritual lack at some point, no doubt he'll do something about it. Growth is a choice, not an imposition.
Re Buddhism: I don't think the concept of "detachment" exactly equates with "renunciation of all worldly desires". Buddha didn't join the saddhus. He advocated a middle way.
31 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageYou must be joking if you think a child who's just had a big dose of sugar is harmonious.
With spirituality, I prefer not to be pushy. So the guy on Wall Street is happy--let him be. If he comes to sense some sort of spiritual lack at some point, no doubt he'll do something about it. Growth is a choice, not an imposition.
Re Buddhism: I don't think the concept of "detachment" exactly equates with "renunciation of all worldly desires". Buddha didn't join the saddhus. He advocated a middle way.[/b]
I said the child can seem to be or think he/she is.
Growth is a choice, not an imposition.
Yes and no. As with physical and intellectual growth, sometimes a little "pruning" or boundary-setting is in order.
Re Buddhism: I don't think the concept of "detachment" exactly equates with "renunciation of all worldly desires". Buddha didn't join the saddhus. He advocated a middle way.
I said "renunciation of all worldly desires" -- not renouncing the world!
31 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOur conversation seems to have drifted away from any point. Unless you'd care to make one, concisely.
You must be joking if you think a child who's just had a big dose of sugar is harmonious.
I said the child can seem to be or think he/she is.
Growth is a choice, not an imposition.
Yes and no. As with physical and intellectual growth, sometimes a little "pruning" or boundary-setting is in order.
Re Buddhism: I don't think ]
I said "renunciation of all worldly desires" -- not renouncing the world!
31 Oct 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOkay, I'll summarise:
Our conversation seems to have drifted away from any point. Unless you'd care to make one, concisely.
All religions try to help people grow spiritually according to certain criteria set by the religion itself. Those criteria will be, and need to be, constant.