Religious affairs

[qigong chimp]

need we go on?

 

[icowden]

I think one post would have done.

Ramana Maharshi didn't found a religion and is Hindu as far as I can see. Hinduism is only really classified by the west as a religion. It has no central doctrine and comprises a range of rituals and spiritual traditions. However, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_nationalism to understand how Hinduism has been used for political ends to justify violent action and control people. Ghandi used Hinduism to liberate India from British Rule. He was also a racist and a misogynist and tested his sexual control by sleeping with young women including his grandniece.

Bede Griffiths doesn't want to control you.

Why would he? He neither founded nor controlled a religion. He was a believer, initially in the Catholic Church but was more interested in hinduism

Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj wasn't that fussed about Eurodisney.

Again Hinduism see above.

Rowan Williams thinks you're a pill.

Rowan Williams was the Archbishop of Canterbury. The nominated leader of a religion associated with the continuous cover up of paedophilia and sexual abuse. A religion invented by Henry VIII to circumvent Catholicism and which now becomes more dogmatic and controlling year by year. It has immense wealth yet begs more from it's worshippers on a weekly basis. Many of its Bishops and Vicars live in luxurious large houses. It has a wealth estimated at £10.1 Billion and generates around a billion a year in income from that along with around £460 million in donations. It has huge influence on Government and Education. I don't care what Rowan Williams thinks.

Ajahn Chah thinks you're having a laugh.

Then he fails to understand Buddhism

Politics has always been part of Buddhism. The earliest Buddhists texts, the Tipiṭaka, contain numerous references to and discussions of kings, princes, wars, and policies. Later Buddhist texts, up to the present day, likewise contain advice to rulers about how to govern well, warnings about the dire consequences of ruling poorly, and admonitions to avoid arrogance and ignoring the needs of the common people. In the realm of political practice, since the time of the historical Buddha, Siddhattha Gotama (Sanskrit, Siddhārtha Gautama), Buddhism has both influenced governments and been identified by governments as a source of their authority and legitimacy

Care to name any Popes or Scientologists, just so you have the full set?

 

[qigong chimp]

Tell you what, you decide where they should go, set those goalposts down, and we can have a kick around.

Because if you don't mean this:

The whole point of Religion is to tell lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them. Religion isn't about truth, it's about money and power.

just what do you mean?

 

[fozy tornip]

I find it hard because my family like to be religious. Simple as.

 

[C R]

Tell you what, you decide where they should go, set those goalposts down, and we can have a kick around.

Because if you don't mean this:


just what do you mean?

How much clearer do you need it? And, are you able to rebut what he said without resorting to ad hominem attacks?

 

[qigong chimp]

What is he saying, exactly?
Is he saying;

The whole point of Religion is to tell lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them. Religion isn't about truth, it's about money and power.

because that's risible.

Or is he trying to say something else, something more, er, nuanced perhaps : that 'founders and controllers', without exception, are manipulating liars in it for the money and power?

Which would also be risible.

That Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Williams, Ajahn Chah - we could go on, it's limitless, really - are religious men (oh yes they are, whatever might be Googleable about 'hinduism') who aren't liars in it for personal gain or power, says that's just bollocks.

So ought we to define what we mean by Religion with a capital 'R' before we spaff bollocks like privately educated schoolboys who feel they can speak their branes with an inflated sense of entitlement and authority?

And look, bolding nonsense doesn't make it any the less threadbare:

Buddhism has both influenced governments and been identified by governments as a source of their authority and legitimacy

So what? Has that been a malign or benign influence is the question? Are we talking Ashoka or Sinhalese fundamentalism? What ought governments to be influenced by? Science? How's that playing out as the world dies?

And wasn't it you, CR, who posted pics of your wife's culinary preparations around some religious festival or other? Your missus lying to us all with a view to controlling us, in it for the money and power? I think we should be told.

 

[C R]

He rebutted every orientalist example you posted before. Whatever you think you prove with them, it doesn't work.

And wasn't it you, CR, who posted pics of your wife's culinary preparations around some religious festival or other? Your missus lying to us all with a view to controlling us, in it for the money and power? I think we should be told.

I've posted images of Noruz dishes, which celebrates the spring equinox. We don't give it any religious meaning. The origins of the festival are possibly zoroastrian, and zoroastrianism is every bit as controlling and excluding as any other religion you can come up with. Again, to use a persian saying, not sure what farts have to do with speed in this discussion.

 

[qigong chimp]

I'm not looking to prove anything. I'm demurring to the absurd

The whole point of Religion is to tell lies to a large group of people (usually about sky based beings with magic powers) in order to control them. Religion isn't about truth, it's about money and power.

 

[C R]

I'm not looking to prove anything. I'm demurring to the absurd

The paragraph you quoted is a statement of the obvious. You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your facts.

 

[qigong chimp]

The paragraph you quoted is a statement of the obvious.

Is it buggery.

You are entitled to your opinion, you aren't entitled to your facts.

Dwibble.

 

[C R]

Is it buggery.

Dwibble.

Where you able to provide an example of a religion for which the quoted paragraph was not true?

 

[qigong chimp]

The quoted onanism may be true of some religious phenomena - you can have Jim Jones for your fires, for example, and Hubbard, and some but not all established 'churches'. If religious exemplars of whom it isn't true are excluded from your definition of 'Religion' (or is that now 'a religion'?) then, well, suggest you exchange your trite tautologies among yourselves?

 

[C R]

The quoted onanism may be true of some religious phenomena - you can have Jim Jones for your fires, for example, and Hubbard, and some but not all established 'churches'. If religious exemplars of whom it isn't true are excluded from your definition of 'Religion' (or is that now 'a religion'?) then, well, suggest you exchange your trite tautologies among yourselves?

Where you able to provide any counterexamples?

 

[qigong chimp]

Of religious people not in it for the money or power?

Yes. And I have more.

 

[C R]

Of religious people not in it for the money or power?

Yes. And I have more.

You're changing the subject, the paragraph is about religion as a concept.