Religions are formed in this way:
some inspired individual (s) has an epiphany or a vision or a genuine encounter with something/one of a greater nature. They "get it" and see more clearly than they did before. then they seek to tell others so as to spread the word and many are attracted to it. But this is like leading the blind. The followers did not have the same experience as the founding member(s) and so cannot comprehend things on the same level, from the same paradigm and so things veer off course in the ensuing generations until the "religion" that evolves from the original idea has no resemblance to what the founder was saying. This has happened with every religion. No exceptions.
What is needed is fresh inspiration, not recycled concepts which have become deformed with the passage of time.
So I am saying we need to keep our "religions" fresh so as to avoid medieval thinking such as I read in Ibrahim's post (no offense, but how can you believe such things???)

We are all ONE and no one's religion is superior.
Looking at humanity as one organism, a gestalt, any individual cell (person) who would do violence or harm to another is obviously diseased. So any ways of thinking which promote such division and hatred are also obviously diseased. Do any of the cells in your bodies attack other cells for any reason. No, they work in harmony for the good of all. If religions can get us to such a point of thinking then good, if not then to hell with them.

Religions are formed in this way:
some inspired individual (s) has an epiphany or a vision or a genuine encounter with something/one of a greater nature. They "get it" and see more clearly than they did before. then they seek to tell others so as to spread the word and many are attracted to it. But this is like leading the blind. The followers did not have the same experience as the founding member(s) and so cannot comprehend things on the same level, from the same paradigm and so things veer off course in the ensuing generations until the "religion" that evolves from the original idea has no resemblance to what the founder was saying. This has happened with every religion. No exceptions.
What is needed is fresh inspiration, not recycled concepts which have become deformed with the passage of time.
So I am saying we need to keep our "religions" fresh so as to avoid medieval thinking such as I read in Ibrahim's post (no offense, but how can you believe such things???)

We are all ONE and no one's religion is superior.
Looking at humanity as one organism, a gestalt, any individual cell (person) who would do violence or harm to another is obviously diseased. So any ways of thinking which promote such division and hatred are also obviously diseased. Do any of the cells in your bodies attack other cells for any reason. No, they work in harmony for the good of all. If religions can get us to such a point of thinking then good, if not then to hell with them.

I don't think that we have to be committed to this notion, however I'm not opposed to it per se. However, by claiming that no religion is superior is not the same as saying that all religions are equally right or equally wrong.


I would tend to agree.

It seems to me that there are multiple topics in this thread:

1. Religion versus science
2. The future of religion
3. Mind versus heart-centered approaches.

I don't approach the religion versus science debate from a right-wrong perspective. To me, science is supposed to be a methodology for learning about the world and our experience, and it has a built-in methodology for detecting error over time. Science can become like a religion, in that scientists can act like what they have discovered (today's picture of reality) is complete and final.

Religion, on the other hand, does not seem to have the same kind of methodology for exploring the world and for uncovering error. This is for me the biggest issue with religions in general. Most do not have a way to incorporate new information, especially if the new information could call into question the assumptions of the religion. Science does, even though many scientists will resist a new paradigm until it becomes widely appreciated.

As for the future of religion, I personally don't think it has a future. I appreciate what Neale Donald Walsch had to say in Tomorrow's God, in which he stated that religions, especially the western monotheisms, need to be significantly updated. But I wonder if any religious institution could possibly have the incentive to change radically or have the institutional flexibility to support significant redefinition?

For me, I look for a growing sense of spirituality that is free from religious dogma and structure, free from anyone's interpretation of right/wrong. I used to call that "interfaith", but I am now wondering if that term really emcompasses what I am looking for. Perhaps "transfaith"? Or something else? The underlying spiritual principles that don't need to be packaged with a control structure.

Regarding mind/heart focus, the mind is a wonderful tool, but we are not taught how to manage the ego and all of its games. So for those of us (especially me) who can easily get caught up in intellectual games, switching to heart is the best shortcut to getting out of mind-traps. But I wouldn't want to abandon the creativity of my mind in the process.

I have never had any time for Religions
I expereinced God directly
I knew a Loving Father would take my hand freely
A loving Father does not make his child earn Freedom - It is given in the name of God - and that is LOVE



You find God in your own heart and in your brothers

When you see your brothers innocence you will see your own

yes actually.

I'll give you an example. I was taking a sociology class once, and my teacher had this device that when he poured a cup of water in 2 cups of colored water came out. Now whatever this device was it was contianed in a box and we couldn't see how it worked. As some people began to consider rational reasons for this example someone blurted out, "It's Gnomes! you've got gnomes in there!!" obviously they were having a laugh but often times if we can't explain something we turn to other reasons for their occurance.

__________________

obviously you missed the South Park episode with the talking sea otters.

take away religion and i promise there will still be wars and violence and persecution and idiocracy in the world.

__________________

Yup, I "religiously" avoid watching south park.

I do agree that such stupidities as we see in the world would still occur without religions there to foment reasons to kill and harm each other.

But religions do an admirable job of dividing our species, don't they?

This reminds me on my "religion" when I was a little child, before I read anything from the "Holy" Books. It was a very beautiful condition, I just believed that God encompasses all the best things I knew. Since I read the Bible and the Qur'an, my religion became a little bit distorted, but now since I realized that scripture is not 100% the word of God, I return to my faith I had as a little child.

From my point of view religion really has a future, but we must not do the mistake and analyze scripture word for word. (Prophet) Jesus has told in the parable of the sower, that we shouldn't choke the word, but this is exactly what some religious fundamentalists are doing. Love is the key to comprehend scripture in the right ray of light.

For example what is called the "Key of David" in scripture is the realization that love is higher than truth. For example I find it very, very interesting that the story about the adulteress in the Bible, where Jesus told the people who is without sin should throw the first stone, seems to be a later addition. Yet this story is the application of love above truth.

I always thought of religon as a man made thing, a way for man to find God.
But now I believe if the individual in their hearts are really seeking God He will find them. All the honour the power and the glory is His.