View Single Post
Old 09-11-2017, 07:42 PM
blossomingtree blossomingtree is offline
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 940
Originally Posted by Lorelyen
That may be the case these days but in former times things weren't quite as simple. People don't study history so they can't spot the dangers prevailing today in certain "faiths". We no longer burn witches or flail recalcitrant slaves because most religions have lost their power. But there remain faiths that if they have their way will stamp on an individual's right to their personal spiritual development. (I see this happening in the UK and Europe, anyway). With the world in its current state it's impossible to guarantee there'll be no repeat of the religious past.

The point is that religion is a package deal that takes over an individual's spirituality; it becomes responsible for it, limiting that individual's chance of self development. Even the occult has its religious tendencies.

The aim is that one has to follow the doctrine - or one isn't part of that religion. The follower obeys the creed. That's how it is.
Sure, there are breakaways from the hub of most faiths but they are no less religious. You don't own your spirituality while you're "believing in" someone else's doctrine.

I appreciate that it's difficult for many to comprehend. Most of us were brought up from birth with some kind of "faith" and shaking that off can be a problem. Such shaking off usually happens when an alternative is presented prompting an individual to question the whole edifice of religion.

I don't agree with this:

a) Lumping all religions into one type of modus operandi
b) Ascribing negative and limiting repercussions to people of all faiths in religions across the world
c) Not recognizing the reality and greys of a situation - who are you or I to say what works best for each person and what door will lead them to which path?

Often posts like these - including the huge trend of anti-guru "you don't have to do a thing and you are enlightened already" posts on this forum - have another implicit baseline - that is, that the poster's view and "spiritual religion" (of no religion or no path or no teacher) is the superior one.

i.e. they cannot posit inferiority of a sect/religion without trying to imply that their "freewheeling" "free thinking" "unguided" path is the better - i.e a newer better mousetrap or religion.

You say that things could happen again. Yes they could, and yes they do. This is life. All patterns re-engage and re-emerge, including in this latest fad of "you don't have to do a thing or follow anyone else but my own thoughts" thing.

Speaking to some traditions I am familiar with e.g. Buddhism, Sufism, some Christians, there is wide and immense range of freedom of thought so again, please do not cast all your stones in one direction, when you have no realistic understanding or experience of how they actually operate.

Reply With Quote