Gurus For Hire Enlightenment For Sale

[Malcolm]

...As you can see, here I am defining it as a means and a stage, rather than sustenance itself.

I have yet to come across somebody that has done away completely with this need. I am not sure if it is possible, within the limits of human experience/existence, to do away with this need. But then, it is not religion which is the problem, is it? It is any system that is constructed to capitalise upon this need.

Oddly, the need to "consciously evolve" beyond this need is just another expression of the need. In my experience religious people don't care to regard their religion as sustenance but rather see it as a "means" or a "stage."

That is not the sense of "need" I was referring to. Substute to "must" for "need" and you will be nearer the mark. It's a simple question of adaptive behaviors which have become maladaptive.

M

[shel]

It's a simple question of adaptive behaviors which have become maladaptive.

Agreed, and as others in the topic have mentioned, "religion" is only one potential expression of this.

[Malcolm]

It's a simple question of adaptive behaviors which have become maladaptive.

Agreed, and as others in the topic have mentioned, "religion" is only one potential expression of this.

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

[Virgo]

It's a simple question of adaptive behaviors which have become maladaptive.

Agreed, and as others in the topic have mentioned, "religion" is only one potential expression of this.

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology.

Love (and kill) your neighbor.

Humans have too much of the poisons, wish they never organized and formed up all these religions and political movements. Samsara is shite. I want clean water, clean food, good land, nice folks around me, and Dharma. But even if I own property, I can't do what I want, I have to pay taxes and all this other crap.

Kevin

[Thus-gone]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

It seems rather clear to me that religion has been used in history, like all other forms of knowledge, to legitimate imperialism, which is in truth waged on economic/materialist grounds. Even the most basic analysis of history will reveal this. Saying that contemporary Western imperialism is simply an expression of anti-Islamic religious sentiment is like saying the US joined WWI because of the sunken Lusitania.

Perhaps you could say that religious institutions and imperialism are co-emergent expressions of a common psychological basis. Neither is reducible to the other, however.

[viniketa]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

Come on, Malcom. War is not waged over ideological differences. War is waged to gain power over material and human resources. Ideologies are used as justification. The present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere has to do with the fact that the Islamic worldsphere has control over large reserves of petroleum. To make it more palatable, we call that the 'axis of evil.'

Religion is a simply a tool to the powerful, who often wield it without compassion.

[shel]

It's a simple question of adaptive behaviors which have become maladaptive.

Agreed, and as others in the topic have mentioned, "religion" is only one potential expression of this.

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

How about the great world wars? and doesn't history suggest that Stalin's (an atheist) rule lead to more millions dead than even Hitler's. And though Hitler claimed Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, he privately viewed Christianity a religion fit only for slaves. And what about racial prejudice or the American civil war? Shall I go on?

[Jikan]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

Come on, Malcom. War is not waged over ideological differences. War is waged to gain power over material and human resources. Ideologies are used as justification. The present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere has to do with the fact that the Islamic worldsphere has control over large reserves of petroleum. To make it more palatable, we call that the 'axis of evil.'

Religion is a simply a tool to the powerful, who often wield it without compassion.

Right. That's why they call it ideology. Ideologies serve interests. I'd argue that most religious discourses serve ideological (meaning political) purposes, much of the time. All religious discourses are capable of being used as such, and have been (including Buddhism). By "serving interests" I mean that ideologies can be used by the empowered to motivate people who would not otherwise be motivated to act.

shorter version: religious discourses can be and often are used to coerce people into acting against their own interests for someone else's gain. That's warfare for you.

I don't agree with 100% of Malcolm's claims in this thread, but I do think he's on safe ground here.

[Jikan]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

How about the great world wars? and doesn't history suggest that Stalin's (an atheist) rule lead to more millions dead than even Hitler's. And though Hitler claimed Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, he privately viewed Christianity a religion fit only for slaves. And what about racial prejudice or the American civil war? Shall I go on?

Stalin's dialectical materialism was basically a religion. See Buck-Morss, _Dreamworld and Utopia_.

You're basically proving Malcolm's point with your other examples. Here's another: the smug use of evangelical rhetoric to encourage poor people in the rural US to volunteer for a war abroad (Iraq) on false pretenses, a manufactured threat, in order to benefit those who will never risk their own lives.

[shel]

Religion is a simply a tool to the powerful, who often wield it without compassion.

Right. That's why they call it ideology. Ideologies serve interests. I'd argue that most religious discourses serve ideological (meaning political) purposes, much of the time.

Actually they don't call it an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Communism, for example, is not a religion.

[Malcolm]

And what about racial prejudice or the American civil war? Shall I go on?

The racial prejudice which lead to the extermination of Indians in the Americas and slavery of Africans, etc., was entirely predicated on religious principles.

The American Civil War was fomented by Southern slave owners who felt they had divine rights to hold others as chattle. The history of religious ideology in the European conquest of the Americas is well known, and cannot be reduced to mere economics. I do not think you can find a single major world conflict that can be reduced to mere economics (unless of course you are a marxist historian).

M

[Malcolm]

Religion is a simply a tool to the powerful, who often wield it without compassion.

Right. That's why they call it ideology. Ideologies serve interests. I'd argue that most religious discourses serve ideological (meaning political) purposes, much of the time.

Actually they don't call it an ideology. An ideology is a system of ideas and ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. Communism, for example, is not a religion.

Sure it is. It has an eschatology, a model of liberation, firm metaphysical beliefs about reality, and so on.

[shel]

I doubt, if you survey history, that you can find a more prevalent ideological reason for making war on other people, oppressing them, etc., than religious ideology. And even where you can find other primary reasons, religious tenets are beneath those reasons. For example, the present day confrontation of the West with the Islamic worldsphere.

How about the great world wars? and doesn't history suggest that Stalin's (an atheist) rule lead to more millions dead than even Hitler's. And though Hitler claimed Christianity as a central motivation for his antisemitism, he privately viewed Christianity a religion fit only for slaves. And what about racial prejudice or the American civil war? Shall I go on?

Stalin's dialectical materialism was basically a religion. See Buck-Morss, _Dreamworld and Utopia_.

You're basically proving Malcolm's point with your other examples. Here's another: the smug use of evangelical rhetoric to encourage poor people in the rural US to volunteer for a war abroad (Iraq) on false pretenses, a manufactured threat, in order to benefit those who will never risk their own lives.

"Stalin's dialectical materialism was basically a religion." Actually you are helping my point, which is that religion is only one expression of a more fundamental dynamic.

[shel]

And what about racial prejudice or the American civil war? Shall I go on?

The racial prejudice which lead to the extermination of Indians in the Americas and slavery of Africans, etc., was entirely predicated on religious principles.

That made me laugh out loud. Would you please list those specific principles for us? I don't know, but they might have online Bibles.

[Malcolm]

And what about racial prejudice or the American civil war? Shall I go on?

The racial prejudice which lead to the extermination of Indians in the Americas and slavery of Africans, etc., was entirely predicated on religious principles.

That made me laugh out loud. Would you please list those specific principles for us? I don't know, but they might have online Bibles.

The basic principle is that Christians are better than others because they are assured of their salvation.

[Virgo]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Native_Americans_and_Christianity

Kevin

[shel]

The racial prejudice which lead to the extermination of Indians in the Americas and slavery of Africans, etc., was entirely predicated on religious principles.

That made me laugh out loud. Would you please list those specific principles for us? I don't know, but they might have online Bibles.

The basic principle is that Christians are better than others because they are assured of their salvation.

I'm sorry, what page is that on???

[Malcolm]

I'm sorry, what page is that on???

I could cite you a number of books that investigate the European religious beliefs upon which the colonization of the Americas, India and so on was undertaken, but I can see that would be pointless.

[username]

This is high school level generalizations. So basically we are told we should follow a new ideology, ie: equated to religion(!) as conceded above, that makes people hate religions, ie: ideologies too (including this new ideology itself by logical deduction [absurd]), as the major root cause of most evil and wage a campaign to evolve beyond or simply put: wage an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular. Till they disappear and totally wiped off (exterminated). So that only a Dzogchen ideology (where ideology is equated with religion as conceded above [more absurdity]) as re-invented into a personal abomination remains.

Any graduate level mathematician, logician or philosopher, never mind post grad, will laugh his head off at so many self contradictory self defeating axioms gathered into such short generalized simplistic idea, ever. Most war starters say they do not want to start a war, they usually call it self defense, but saying I want to evolve religions (equated to all ideologies to boot as above!) in general & Buddhism in particular out of existence with my new ideology (religion!) is declaring an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular that few of them dared to put so plainly. Basically any religion ie: by logical deduction ideology too (since ideology=religion too as we are told on this page), and ideology includes any individual thinking philosophy, over 7 billion now!, will need to be evolved out of existence too. 1984. Right!!!

[Virgo]

This is high school level generalizations. So basically we are told we should follow a new ideology, ie: equated to religion(!) as conceded above, that makes people hate religions, ie: ideologies too (including this new ideology itself by logical deduction [absurd]), as the major root cause of most evil and wage a campaign to evolve beyond or simply put: wage an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular. Till they disappear and totally wiped off (exterminated). So that only a Dzogchen ideology (where ideology is equated with religion as conceded above [more absurdity]) as re-invented into a personal abomination remains.

Any graduate level mathematician, logician or philosopher, never mind post grad, will laugh his head off at so many self contradictory self defeating axioms gathered into such short generalized simplistic idea, ever. Most war starters say they do not want to start a war, they usually call it self defense, but saying I want to[b][i] evolve religions (equated to all ideologies to boot as above!) in general & Buddhism in particular out of existence with my new ideology (religion!) is declaring an existential war on religions in general & Buddhism in particular that few of them dared to put so plainly. Basically any religion ie: by logical deduction ideology too (since ideology=religion too as we are told on this page), and ideology includes any individual thinking philosophy, over 7 billion now!, will need to be evolved out of existence too. 1984. Right!!!

Malcolm's views have nothing to do with George Orwell's theories from the book 1984. You are basically calling him a war starter the likes of which the world has never seen before (see the part of the text that I highlighted in green). I've seen this before and it happens a lot these days, your suffering from paranoia, and there is a particular reason why. . .

Kevin