Was the original idea of relgion meant to be affilitated in worship and exclusivity with a dogma, to be enforced by killing and shunning no matter the harm and peril of all others??

Or was religion meant to reconnect you with the god of your truth????? Was it really intended to be a way to celebrate our oneness and diversity, to come together to celebrate that all paths lead to the same place, In every eastern philosphy and most of the greatest inspirations of man (great meaning those that united all peoples based on equality and diginity that is a right of all humans regardless of race creed or sex etc.....they emulate this idea....

So why does relgion refuse to let go of exclusivity??? Why does relgion insist their's is the only truth....

It's not just the religious Sheri Zenji. The non-beleivers also fall into the trap of arrogance when it comes to thier own belief structures. Humanity has a habit of falling into absolutist thinking. What aggrivates it further is when this arrogance is coupled with charisma, authority, and a lust for power.

Those who search for peace will find peace regardless of the book they read or the name of their god. Those who seek power will use every available means to attain it.

I think what compels "one truth" thinking is the power that ensues. Claim to know the only way to somewhere, murder the competition that offers a different way to elsewhere, and it's like unto that old law about possession being 9/10ths of the law. Case in point, christianity is the worlds largest populace faith.

I think all religion, all dogma, is contradictory in it's zeal to impart full faith and knowledge about what can never be known by human consciousness. It compartmentalizes all that is, to fit into that little box that encompasses all that is under the authority of one definitive word. Religion, god, soul, eternity, etc...
It's arrogance to imagine the human mind can know enough about all that exists and the reason for it, and then presume to say human minds can contrive rules and rituals, to make it happy and us in keeping with it's will, which asks us to serve it by the rules. Or if we don't , well there's rules for that to. We've cultivated our psyches to feel we need to accept there is a higher power, which automatically makes us a lower power. And as such it is something we need aspire to. As if we have to understand everything about our reality, our world, in order to somehow gain mastery over it. Even if it means creating religions and dogma, as if we know the rules by which something we name god, plays. Just because we can think like that, must make it true.


I believe it so silly to live in a box. When there's so much potential outside that barrier of the mind, that chooses to accept boxes and precepts are the way to live.

Because Claiming exclusivity gives them a right to do what they wish to those who worship what is not a true god. Anything is acceptable when the final outcome is giving the Savages over to the true worship.

Exclusivity occurs due to the competition among different denominations. There are thousands of different denominational and independent Christian churches throughout the country and they all have one thing in common......they disagree.

Here's a short list of different denominations and their respective founders, this list is by no means a complete one.

Orthodox (Eastern) - Michael Cerularius, 1054
Protestants, Lutherans - Martin Luther, 1517
Anabaptists - Zwingli, 1519
Church of England, Anglicanism - Henry VIII, 1534
Calvinism; Dutch Reformed - Calvin, 1536
Presbyterians - Knox, 1560
Puritans - Cartwright, 1570
Congregationalists - Brown, 1582
Baptists - John Smith, 1605
Episcopalians - Seabury, 1620
Quakers - Fox, 1654
Shakers - Ann Lee, 1741
Methodists - Wesley, 1744
Unitarians - Lindsay, 1774
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - Joseph Smith, Jr. 1830
Churches of Christ, Christian Church - Campbell and Stone, 1832
Adventists - Miller, 1846
Jehovah's Witnesses - Russell, 1852
Salvation Army - Rev. General William Booth and Catherine Booth, 1865
Christian Science - Mary Baker Eddy, 1879
Unity School of Christianity - Fillmore, 1889
Pentecostals - Parham, 1900
Worldwide Church of God - Herbert W. Armstrong, 1934
Calvary Chapel - Chuck Smith, 1965

When a person starts their own denomination of Christianity it is because they disagree with matters of doctrine, interpretation, or traditions of the denomination they are abandoning.

In the early 1500s Martin Luther listed the contradictions between what the Scriptures said and what his church taught, and nailed his “95 Theses” to the church door he became the first to “protest” against the Roman church, and thus he became the father of the Protestant church.

To venture forth and to begin an "up-start" religious denomination you need a congregation. To win over the hearts and minds of the public you must sell your beliefs, you must pitch them, in order to gain support and followers.

Once you have supporters to fill your congregation you must uphold and propogate your beliefs as truths in order to keep people in the pews. This is done by constantly reminding people how incorrect or wrong the other denominations are. You must stay competetive in order for your church to survive.

This, I believe, is where exclusivity is born. Competetion begets exclusivity.

What I see is the rulers of society throughout the ages enhancing and allowing this to take place to enhance a divided society. The rulers of today especially do not want a unified belief system or a united people.

It may take a little research but I'm curious as to how the spawning of different denominations correlates with the voting of governmental candidates. In the past in order to gain government seating you needed to have the backing of the church. I wonder how the origin of certain denominations directly correlate with candidate's political ridings.

It depends on the religion IMO.

I see religions as being intended to be a path and a filter. A 'path' in the sense that each offers a way to the 'truth'. A filter in that it catches people and holds them in a web of intrigue and rules of life.

The problem being is that many religions are quite harsh on the individual - secondly that when they come in contact with other beleif systems that characterise the 'truth' in a different way it can cause the individual to question the very nature of their existance. Doubts spring forth, fear that what they've beleived all these years may be wrong, fear, anger and then violence IMO as they seek to destroy those that torment them with an alternative vision of the 'truth'. Ideally this shouldn't happen - all major religions (to my knowledge) condemn violence, so the violence comes from those within 'religion' who are unable to understand it - also those who seek to manipulate the ignorant using religion.

This was definitly the intention of all of them IMO - and each was structured in a different way to acheive that aim. Though I should say I'm not an expert on 'religions' in any real way. They're a 'method' IMO.



I'm not sure that it does - rather it those within 'religion' that refuse to let go IMO. Because for the beleivers, the thought that what they beleive to be the absolute truth is wrong, is probably too much to bear. Which in my mind simply demonstates the need for religion - in order to keep such people in check.



Why not? If anything it helps set the last test....

Plus it makes it more entertaining to see 'holy' people slugging it out over who's god is better than the others.

revr zen d, I agree that anything can be in danger of exclusivity if misunderstood, but in the abrahamic religions, the core is exclusivity its built on that precipice....

exclusive as in the doctrine is alleged to be 'gods' preferences," it seems this is the idea that has spawned a social moral regime, which many think that requires abuse of some degree to enforce....


I think the great misconception is the understanding of what relgion can aspire too and what it was originally intended for in its inspiration...
that is to re connect with the god of ones truth and share that as a celebration of oneness with all others....To bring toghether agian in unity what we are naturally, its natural to seek to commune in unity with self ( such as self awareness, self realization etc. looking within.what ever its labeled...) thus seeing taht all paths are really the same thing...

i always kind of seen religion in its purest form to be the most frowned upon. in that, i mean religion in primitive people, polytheistic practices mainly. it seems to me that the only religions who generally have a problem with one another are ones that are created and ran by a set doctrine of some sort. to me it seems the main thing in religion is to please your god, or god's.

i'd have to say that religion in its basic practice and purpose is universal and will always be different to different people and cultures. as long as we have faith in something, we will probably believe it is the one true faith regardless of what other thoughts and faiths are out there. i dont think religion in that sense will ever change, no matter who what religions are here or are to come.

Saying your religion is the one truth gives you the ability to say that you are right, and anyone who disagrees with you are wrong. Some people just have that immature mindset and need to live life like that. Also, you get to gain that neat holier than thou attitude if you wish. You get the perk of feeling like you are better than the mindless sinners and those worshipping false gods/demons

This, and having to admit that your belief might possible be wrong/only a theory is why I can see exclusivity being such a hard thing for people to let go of.

Sure seems that way now

There is only humbleness in esteem of self and worth of self , one would just not see themselves as superior, or exclusive, I agree its defiinitely a mind set.... Value and esteem begins with self and proceeds like the branches of a tree outward to all it touches naturally...

It's human nature at work. I can use Christianity as an example.

Jesus never said to kill or shun unbelievers. By contrast he saved a woman for being stoned by pointing out that non of her accusers were exacly free of sin themselves. He also associated with non-Jews in a way considered Taboo. As for Dogma, he gave a few simple rules on how to live, love and serve others. He got into arguments with the Jewish authorities over their Dogma, and would break rules like performing work on the Sabbith.

But as Christianity evolved, different sects and beliefs appear. This is alarming to the leaders so they write their creed. They set down rules and traditions that subsequent generations of Christians accept as part of the faith without question.

Then the church ceases to be underground and becomes the official religion of the Roman Empire. That changes things as from then through the middle ages, the church is intertwined in political matters and political leaders become involved in church matters.

Then during the protestant reformation, there are a number of people who think the church has things wrong, so they start their own.

At any rate, leaders often see dissent as a threat to their power, and rationalize that the best way to deal with it is to shun it, or even kill the person. This can lead to excommunication or burning witches or whatever.

Also, a church gets funded through collections, so it's in the best interest to have the church filled on Sundays. Claiming to be the one true faith or instituting a compulsary attendance rule can help here.

Not every religious leader is an authoritarian lunatic or money-grubbing bastard though. Many are true believers, but there are many personalities at work that also shape things. For instance, they might not believe God is easily pleased, so they push the church in a more fundamental/puritan direction.

But tradition is a powerful force too. No matter what the reason for a human instituting something in the religion, subsequent generations may follow it as though it came from God himself. Take the Roman Catholic Latin Mass for example. That came about because it was cost-prohibitive to produce native-language materials in every place the church existed. But there was no religious reason for it, Jesus never spoke Latin so far as we know. Yet it was kept until around the 1960s, and many Catholics were upset to see it go.

So in short, it is generations and generations of human influence and personalities that can turn a religion into something dogmatic.

It's human nature at work. I can use Christianity as an example. uth's quote


Uth, There is a huge differnce between human nature and what has come to be considered normal, chistianity is not the natural expression of being human....Fear ( that which one isn't) is the core of christianity....its not natural to be exclusive, it has become normal and its not natural to hate , its taught and love is not naturally conditonal.....Nor is it natural to solve conflict with violence and its not natural to shun others becasue they disagree, these are taught behaviors.......

Actually hate, conflict, power struggles, and exclusive clubs are all quite natural in human terms. History and current events show many, many examples of this behavior, not just in religion but in virtually every aspect of society. They are not taught, instead we have to be taught the opposite virtues: sharing, peaceful conflict resolution, accepting others.

uth you are confusing normal with natural, there is a big difference, the things you are describing are taught behaviors, conditoned, passed on from generation to generation, very observable, happening as we speak but they aren't natural...One simply looks within , gets to kow the self and will see for themself taht we aren't what we have been taught.......You are debating from a stance of incomplete understanding, that what you have been told is how it is......Get to know yourself then we will talk.....I'm not disagreeing it has become normal common behavior to hate but its not natural....Next you will be telling me we are naturally unworthy and sinful...LOL....

uth


As odd as it may sound the characteristics of hate,conflict, power struggles and exclusive clubs, I've always seen as a direct result of agriculture.
Totalitarian agriculture that is, which does have its roots in religion.

There was a time when mankind only grew enough food to sustain himself and that of his family or village. The only land that was needed was that wich would bare this quantity of food.

An author by the name of Daniel Quinn presented this idea as "a form of agriculture predicated on the notion that all food on this planet belongs to humans exclusively"; thus:
:food dedicated to human use may be denied to all other species
:any species that would compete for human food may be destroyed at will
:food needed by other species may be destroyed at will to make room for the production of human food.

Inevitably with a growing population the need for more land and more food is needed. So how do you get a farmer to grow more food than he needs? Quite simply you lock up the food! Therefore the farmer must grow alot more than he needs in order to get the food that he needs.

You also need armies to take over more land, and you need more food to sustain larger armies to take over more land to grow more food for more armies to take over more land to grow more food so on and so on......

Now to motivate people to join armies to fullfill this quest of agricultural supremecy without upheavals or coups in the ruled class you need a shiny new point of reference........religion fullfilled this motivating reference.

They locked up the food!!!.....by God the food is locked up.....woe is me

No, but there are evolutionary reasons why hate, conflict, fear and all the negative emotions exist. They are completely natural, we have to learn to overcome them, not the other way around. People don't teach fear and hate, they exploit these pre-existing emotions. You cannot teach emotions.

uth, hon i'm assuming you are a young person am i correct????.....Anger is a natural emotion.... but it wasn't intended to be used in a negative harmful way the natural expression of anger is to release negativity to restore harmony, its never has to be harmful.....

chauncy, take a look at "guns, germs, and steel" by jared diamond if you are interested in the tie between "supremacy" and food.

In essence, supremacy came down to the luck of the draw: those that were in the right location found the right native foods that enabled them to produce the excesses necessary for the specialization of trades, which allowed for the technological developments.....

sheri,

agreed. if we look at the physiological impact of these emotions, we can see what their natural cycle is. "fear"/"hatred" produce physiological changes that are benefitial over a very short time, but if the state is maintained cause damage to the body. These emotions enable us to excape danger.