Mangetout, that post of mine was meant to be taken with a grain of salt; that is, since many Christians like to make a big deal out of the “relationship, not religion” selling point of Christianity, I had to circumvent that somehow. It’s still a religion, no matter how they try to rename it…
AStroglide, thanks for the link…
All religions contradict themselves except the one you choose to believe. I can’t find a single contradiction in mine and I’ve been searching for a long time
You are correct. There are many calls for burnt offerings and sacrifices. However, in my interpretation, I find a theme repeated time and again. Whenever the OT Jews become focused on following the letter of the law, God will send a messenger to remind them that the law and the sacrifices are not what are important. The important thing is always:
These directions are simply practical means of implementing the Royal Commandments emphasized - but not originated - by Jesus
It is possible for us to spend the whole day quoting Scripture in a futile point-counter-point. However, understanding of Truth does not come by examining individual verses, nor is it contained exclusively in the Bible. Truth comes by searching and thinking and exploring, not only the Bible, but the words of the Buddha, the wisdom of the Wiccan, the spirituality of the Muslim, the logic of the Humanist and on and on and on …
I think (and thus this is valid only for me, although I hope there is some element of Truth) contradictions enter when people mistake piousness for spirituality. The Old Testament Laws were the method the ancient Jewish culture developed to try to follow what they understood to be Truth. According to their texts, when they followed the letter of the law, but forgot the spirit, they got a smack-down. It doesn’t matter if the stories are literally true or metaphor. They serve the purpose of illuminating Truth.
Religion is always a human invention; an attempt to codify what a culture believes is the correct way to find Truth or to follow the Tao. Because humans are not perfect, we always add something frivolous, meaningless, and often contradictory. That doesn’t entirely negate the utility of the religion to point in the right direction. But it does necessitate that we interpret for ourselves and not follow blindly what others tell us.
Religion is corporate. Spirituality is personal.
sigh
**re·li·gion **
*1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
**2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.**
It’s religion. Repeat after me, “it’s still religion.”
Religion is a “human invention”…and “spirituality” isn’t? Give me a break…
Homebrew: Very nice.
I had to look twice to verify it was you, and not Triskadecamus or Lib., who was posting. (Kindly take that as a high compliment.) 
Polycarp,
I think of no higher compliment on this board. Thank you.
You know, Homebrew, I was a Born-Again Christian for about a decade, and a semi-serious Catholic for about 12 years before that. I led a Bible study on my college campus all throughout my college career and even afterwards up till a year or so ago. When I became a Christian, I was full of zeal and I knew all the latest Christian buzzwords and the “new” arguments against everything from evolution to “New Age” beliefs and something I think you’ve been trying to say really resonates with my experience from that period; There appears, at leas tin some Christians, a fear of the word “religion”. Perhaps they fear that “religion” sounds too negative, that it conjures up the stereotypes too easily. Maybe it’s just an effort to make Christianity seem more unique…I’m not sure what all of the reasons might be. It just seems to be a recurring pattern among many of the Christians that I’ve known…the catch-phrase is “relationship, not religion”, and the implication is that while all religions are created by man as ways to guess about the nature or existence of god, that Christianity is a “revelation” from God, and therefore is somehow not a religion. They sometimes even reinforce this notion by claiming that “God hates religion but loves relationships.” It’s all designed to simply make Christianity more attractive to a generation that seems to be more questioning of tradition than the ones that came before.
I don’t buy that. For one thing, the “direct revelation” for most people comes in the form of the Bible, possibly combined with personal desires and strong emotions. I know that’s how it was with me. For another thing, whether or not revelation of any kind is involved, it still fits the definition of “religion” anyway.
Cuckoorex,
I think you are reading something into my post that I did not intend. Christianity is indeed a religion. It is no more, nor less, valid than Buddhism or Hinduism or any other Spiritual Path. All these faiths do the same thing. The purpose of rites and rituals are to help us become aware of and attentive to our spiritual nature, which transcends the limits of any religion. Problems occur when we mistake these rituals for spirituality itself.
The Buddhist is reminded by hearing a bell to return to himself and be mindful. The Christian is reminded to be a loving individual when she sees the cross on her necklace. Neither the bell nor the cross are themselves sacred. But they serve a sacred purpose. The same is true of Scripture. The Bible, the Talmud, the Qur’an, etc are not sacred, nor perfect. But, they contain wisdom and direction to help us to learn to see the sacred in present life.
I quoted scripture from the Bible simply because this is the text I am most familiar with, not because it is more authoritative than other Scripture. This is exactly my point, whichever path you follow, it is important to do so thoughtfully.
It is assured that your beliefs will change over time, hopefully for the better. It is axiomatic that the way religion worked for people before us will not work for us. The world changes and our needs change. If our religious beliefs, rites and rituals have been mistaken for spirituality, they become ossified and break under the strain of new knowledge and realities. Again this is why religion must be flexible and seen not as Truth, but as a road sign pointing towards Truth. The Doors of Ijitihad are Open.
I feel like you’re splitting hairs here. Most definitions of religion that I have seen make no distinction between the rituals and the motivation or purpose behind them. Spirituality is a component of your religion, along with anything and everything else that is a result of your beliefs.
Thanks to the others that have responded, as well…
I understand, but regardless of how we label it (Christianity in this case), are you saying that it is always self-contradictory? or even that this is true in the majority of cases?
I think that the phrasing of my OP indicated that I was asking if there was ever a case of the adherents of a religion overwhelmingly maintaining the same “spirit” as the teachings of the founder. That would imply that there are some, though not all, that I believe are guilty of failing to do so. There is almost never a case where I would say ALL of any group do this or that.
I think you’re putting the cart before the horse here. Spirituality is not a component of religion. Spirituality is the raison d’existance of religion. Which religion is irrelevant and, necessarily, amendable. I contend that no earthly religion is or ever will be complete. It is only by being open to the Truth in each and by critically examining the faults of each that we approach Truth.
But it is an Individual journey. We can be helped along on our quest by the wisdom of others, both living and historical. If you rely simply on your religion to give you all the answers, you’ll not find them. It takes more effort than reciting the Rosary by rote. It takes more than praying toward Mecca. It takes honest effort.
You need to dig deeper into meaning than the dictionary definition. It is at this superficial level where contradictions and mistakes are made. Without the meaning behind the rituals, they are worthless and sometimes dangerous.
Buddhism maybe? I mean, all you do is eat and love everything, hard to find a contradiction there.
Uh?
First off, Buddha did not teach people to eat and love everything. The word love is a western concept. Buddhists use the term compassion.
What Buddha did teach, however is that:
The eightfold path are eight steps through which you practice morals, mindfullness and wisdom.
Believe me, there’s plenty of room to stray from the course, and historically plenty of people did. Buddha is as ill-represented by his followers as Jesus or Mohammad have been. Just because Buddhists never really went around killing masses doesn’t mean they generally stayed true to the teachings of the Thatagata.
There is a “prophecy” put forward in Mahayana Buddhism that is very interesting and quite relevent to this discussion.
It is said that Buddhism will undergo three stages, each lasting 500 years. The problem with this chronology is that Buddhism has been around for some 2500 years, but the phases are interesting in themselves. They are:
I) Shobo: This is the era of the “true law”. The Buddha’s teachings are studied, practiced and enlightenment (satori) is attained.
II) Zoho The era of the counterfeit of mimicked law. The Buddha’s teachings are studied and practiced but there is no quest for enlightenment.
III) Mappo The ear of the “latter-day law”. The Buddha’s teachings are only studied. There is no practice, and obviously no enlightenment either.
I think that much more than a prophecy, although many have seen it that way, it is a word of warning. And one that is not limited to Buddhists I might add. There are a few Bible-thumpers who are stuck in mappo, if you ask me.
[sub]Sorry for the Japanese terms, all my litterature is in Japanese.[/sub]
Where could i find info about buddhism? I’ve always been interested in it, but too lazy to get up off my ass and look for any info on it.
For the basics, you might want to check http://www.tricycle.com or http://www.buddhanet.net
Those are two of the bigger sites on the net.