Why people want to believe in religion even though it could be wrong?

Saint,

''Belief'' in a particular system of ''religion'' in a bid to become more self-realized is not necessary. One could be a buddhist, then change to a christian because the object of the individual may realise that Christianity is more conducive to one particular level of development toward the goal of self-realization.

If one expects to find miracles, divine healing, and resurrection in a religion, and becomes frustrated, or become atheist/agnostic because these things were nowhere to be found, then one will become atheist because the criteria he has set is exactly the same one an atheist would set. They are in effect two peas in a pod.

It can explain something.

jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you do not know anything about Buddhism.

Our common sense and conscience can tell us what is right or wrong.
Very basic principle, do not harm other people's lives, properties etc...........
Treat people as yourself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't need Buddhism for that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yep you do not need any religion per say, but often people in religions have answers in your journey that may help. There are 7 billion out there, and a minority of them may have something your interested in listening too. You do not need to follow anyone, but all people need to listen and learn.

There are so many people out there with so many life stories, that some must be of some interest for you ears.

Even if your the smartest person in the world, a tramp on the street could know something you do not know.

 

Why do people pursue anything, even though the pursuit could fail?

If we would do only things that we are good at and which seem sure enough, we would mostly just wipe our noses and slurp soup.

 

A brahmin once asked The Blessed One (buddha). ''Are you a....
god, saint, or magician'', to which Buddha answered ''no'' to all three questions.
The brahmin than asked: 'What are you then''?
And the buddha replied ''I am awake. See the Truth and you will see me''

Can you explain that to me?


I don't disagree that our common sense and conscience can make us aware of what is right and wrong, and I don't know why this has even come up.
But as it has, I would like to ask you, how is it that we have this innate ability.

jan.

 

There is nothing special about Buddha. The simple truth of existence is plain to see, it only requires removing certain obstacles, something that can't be done with deliberate effort.

Evolution as social primates.

 

Yes, it's been said many times in many ways by many people for many years. It's even been nicknamed The Golden Rule. Some apes even seem to have an understanding of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAfqvIwt9E

 

If by special you mean, distinct , or of a particular
oneness I disagree.

It's clear from the text that the brahmin was relating to the buddha's abilities, not his existence.

Evolution does not explain what is right and what is wrong, plus it is clear that we have a different understanding what is right and what is wrong from other primates. so how did they arise.

Jan.

 

If Buddha had any special abilities, they were peripheral to the main thing. By not special, I mean that this kind of experience or transformation is available to everyone.

Being social primates gives us an innate sense of fairness, because it was necessary to get along with the group. What we have additionally is a culture that can be transmitted through language, so the forms of what we teach as right and wrong are different. There is no absolute right and wrong which we as humans are aware of that apes aren't.

 

spidergoat,

That's obvious given that his answer to the last question posed by the brahmin was to ''see the truth''. Does the buddha regard himself as a higher principal than the truth? I think not. It follows then, from the buddha, that 'truth' is a tangible offer, and that he (the buddha) is situated within it, therefore truth permeates from him (as long as he is situated within it) and we can connect to him (in essence) once we connect with it.

''Fairness'' does not determine if an action is ''right or wrong''. You are merely stating what you think is ''right and wrong''. Why do we see acts in such terms, if there exists no universal standard (at least)?

jan.

 

He is situated in it, but that doesn't mean it comes from him, only the message comes from him. He was preceded by others, and others came after. He's famous for being a popularizer, and for distilling what he thought might be a method.

But a sense of fairness is the origin of such thinking. Right and wrong are merely details driven by culture and experience.

 

Do we need God to tell us what is right or wrong?
Right or wrong about something is relative,
determined by men for their own interest,
homosexuality, is it right or wrong?
It is subjective, not absolute.

I respect your right to anti-homosexuality,
but I personally think that people's sexual inclination is their privacy, it is not right or wrong.

 

however once you start making something relative to god, you are talking about making things relative to the necessarily singular and topmost ontological category afforded by existence - Iow it is relative to reality. So what to speak of an activity intrinsic to matter (eg : sexual inclination), material existence in toto operates out of a "wrong" mode of existence at the onset (eg confined with a host of limitations such as death and transience under the strong influence of an equally fallible disposition, ie lust wrath etc, amongst populations of equally fallible living entities that practically renders living by the golden rule an impossibility.

IOW the rightness or wrongness of material existence (and its corollary activities) is primarily about it being directed to the goal of surmounting it

 

You've come a long way baby.

 

spidergoat,

If the message comes from him and he is connected to ''truth'', then the message which comes from him (being connected) will also come from truth.

For you maybe, but his teachings reveal a lot more than a mere popularizer who just simply thought he may be on to something.

Who or what decides what is fair?

Is it ''right'' to be fair, and ''wrong'' to be unfair?
Or is fair to be right, and unfair to be wrong?

jan.

 

Why do you think "people's sexual inclination is their privacy", and what is your criteria for concluding their sexual inclination is neither right or wrong?
Why can't it be either right or wrong, or even a bit of both if everything is taken into consideration?

As you made a claim regarding my knowledge of Buddhism, can you please respond to the question I posed?
Thanks in advance.

jan.

 

Eating pork is a sin for Muslims, do you agree with that?
Do u eat pork?
Eating pork is right or wrong? Can u tell me?

Muslim, Judaism, Christianity's God, are from the same source, but why different rule?

Do we need God to tell us what is right or wrong?
I don't think so, because God can also change his rule.

 

Eating pork is a sin for Muslims, do you agree with that?
Do u eat pork?
Eating pork is right or wrong? Can u tell me?

Muslim, Judaism, Christianity's God, are from the same source, but why different rule?

Do we need God to tell us what is right or wrong?
I don't think so, because God can also change his rule.

 

I was a buddhist, I read its scripture, in chinese language.

The main teaching of Buddhism is Cause-and-Effect.

Do good and get good, do bad and get bad.