where greed generate from?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Printable View
where greed generate from?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Greed is generated from selfishness. If you want to look at the origin of most religions, there is a morality usually taught. I can speak for the Christian religion, that its followers are taught NOT to be greedy.Quote:
Originally Posted by cacian
The point of religion is to make people walk by faith and not by sight. And to make them believe, without questioning, in someone else's version of things. And then they can get the poor people to go along with anything.
You're not to be greedy if you're poor. You're to work for nothing and smile. And give 10% of your meager wages to the church.
And then you pray for heaven since your life is unbearable here.
Religion conquers the world. It even humbled the Vikings.
Buddhism is not a religion that asks for faith without testing out what the teachings say. The Buddha's last words were to be a lamp unto yourself - not just accept what I say on faith but check it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by kensington
In terms of other religions, it all comes down to the application of faith by the leaders. If the leaders are avaricious, then the religion becomes so. That's how Henry VIII was able to dislodge the catholic church from its lucrative and powerful position. He'd never have got away with it without this perception being within the populace.
Your generalisation also neglects those who choose poverty, such as christian monks, and some of the offshoots of christianity. It points to exemplars of power and how they wield religion, and then blames the religion.
One religion where I feel there is a very strong element of social control is Hinduism and the caste system, where a great umber are condemend to relentless poverty because of their caste.
Here's GK Chesterton's take on that, and (although a little early) one of my favorite Christmas poems:Quote:
Originally Posted by kensington
There fared a mother driven forth
Out of an inn to roam;
In the place where she was homeless
All men are at home.
The crazy stable close at hand,
With shaking timber and shifting sand,
Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand
Than the square stones of Rome.
For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done.
A child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home;
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost---how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.
This world is wild as an old wife's tale,
And strange the plain things are,
The earth is enough and the air is enough
For our wonder and our war;
But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings
And our peace is put in impossible things
Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings
Round an incredible star.
To an open house in the evening
Home shall all men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.
Poetry is so romantic, Ecurb. :)
Religion, for me, falls between two stools:
A colour by numbers version of life and voluntary insanity.
No disrespect intended. Of course, religion is a very positive force in society.
I think you have simplified the issues. Ecurb has pointed out that the birth of christianity was a revolutionary event. Jesus, mary and joseph would have been perseduted by Herod. The odd thing is that once the religion becomes established as a power through the remains of the Roman Empire, it becomes a state religion manipulated by those in charge - eventually the Popes of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by kensington
Today in the UK, Catholic churches are brimming with Polish workers who have settled here with their families. In their case the church was not a bloated manipulator, but a real support during the days of the Soviet Bloc when religion was at best tolerated. The same is true of Christian Chinese in China who form a small minority of millions. The same is true ofsome african countries where it has been a source of stablility in the face of war and instability. Of course those same churches in some African countries oppose homosexual vicars and women. Te picture is very complex and really to try to simplify the whole of even one major religion is trite.
I see my "religion" as an authentic part of my identity. My religion is synonymous with my culture.
Every religion is to control masses. It happened in Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt. Egyptian priests mastered mass manipulations and they kept secret knowledge. The same happened with Mystery of Mithras in Roman Empire. Limiting to Catholic church is like throwing all past history into the garbage bin. If we don’t know history, we will repeat the same mistakes again and again.
It is a big difference if we talk about particular teachings that may inspire people and religions with priests or monks. Sadly, religions don’t teach question but expect to follow rituals and practice. I had been involved in Buddhism practice for a couple of months and I didn’t want to fulfill all practices but I just wanted to get, I forgot the name, but it was an image that supposed to help me to concentrate. When I openly said that I was not going to read Sanskrit everyday, chant everyday, and meet ever week for a group study, they told me to forget about getting the image. :biggrinjester:
My love for Buddhism ended.
I guess we can call it control.
Originally Posted by cafolini- It's one of the myths in history that it has been religion that caused wars. As Hillwalker expressed succintly and correctly, religions are recipies for coping. But wars, regardless of the religious impositions of the aristocracies, have always been fought for economic motives. In the background, one religion is as good as any other one for it's purpose. Most have been used for war but none has been the cause of war. Today, in a global sense, they are even useless for war. In fact, any religion used as an excuse for war is ridiculous and uterly ludicrous.
Religious unification is impossible in the postmodern world. It will never come back as such.
I can think of a cases where your assertion is dubious. What about a situation where the economic motives are those of the religion itself, as when the RCC is motivated to wage/fund warfare against a protestant rival to preserve market share? (e.g., Thirty Years War) Seems in this case the religion would rightly be considered the cause.
Then consider sectarian violence in the Moslem world. Are the suicide bombers currently killing pilgrims of another sect motivated by economics? Seems unlikely.
While I find myself rarely agreeing with Cafolini, in this instance he/she is 100% correct. I'll not go into a major discussion of the supposed "exceptions" you raised to the notion that war has always been fought over economic issues (I'll leave that to him), but I will point out the obvious flaws in your examples. To supposed that the Thirty Years War was fought primarily over the religious beliefs of mankind... as an effort to "save man's soul") you are being quite naive. The dominant motives behind this war, like all others, were economic. In this instance it was a battle led by the Habsburg/Holy Roman Empire/Roman Catholic Church for continued control of Europe (and it's wealth) vs the ascendant Bourbon/French powers.
Middle-Eastern Terrorism? Perhaps the individual who embraces the idea of being a martyr to Islam believes that his actions are solely in support of Islam... but what is the core motive behind the entire Middle-Eastern debacle if it is not a question of maintaining control of the incredible wealth involved in the oil? Why is the US even involved in the region and thus made a target. Why does the US continue to support outdated regimes that largely oppress their own populations?
I think your example is not about control of you, but about the method used to gain something. Buddhism offers tools to gain insights or attainments. It's up to you whether you follow it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
If it is not about control……we have very different definition about control. I think that it is control beyond measure. Shouldn’t they offer the image without asking to follow a rigid regime of practice?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
But it was good to have that kind of experience. I have been fully cured from Buddhist teachings. :biggrinjester: I love spiritual freedom.
Wouldn't that be like me walking up to my kickboxing instructor on day one and saying "no push-ups or sit-ups for me, I'll just start sparring right away."?Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
What you get with Buddhism is a set of tools. If you choose not to use what they offer, then that's quite rightly up to you. They use tried and tested methods which are skillfully delivered - hopefully. You might call it a rigid scheme of practice. They might call it a systematic approach to achieving a particular goal. Buddhism doesn't suit everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ftil
Why should they offer the image without the pre-requisite practice? You're not compelled to follow them, and they are not compelled to take your advice. It seems as though both parties are free in that sense.