Posted by:
Tevai
(
)
Date: October 17, 2017 04:33PM
Razortooth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Religion was not created for the glory of god but
> for the glory of the preacher.
I think this is true for modern religions, especially in the global "Western" part of the world.
Religion in pre-modern times (whether native religions in most any part of the world I am aware of...or Hinduism...or Buddhism...or Judaism...or Zoroastrianism...) was mostly about serious attempts at "connection": connection between the individual-plus-the-community (on the one hand) and (on the other hand) whatever force or forces were larger, or more powerfully encompassing, than the human beings involved felt themselves, or their circumstances, to be (none of which involved preachers).
Two thousand years ago, when the beginnings of Christianity began to split off from Judaism (aided, in very large measure, by the increasing numbers of non-Jewish people who were converting directly to Christianity, without the "stop off" at Judaism first), "preachers" (of which Paul can reasonably be credited as the first of the Christian group) began to appear, but this specific kind of "preacher" was a relatively new phenomenon in world religions...even though a strong argument could be made that Buddha himself, who was born and raised Hindu, was the first non-Christian "preacher" we are aware of.
On a personal level, recently, I have been increasingly observing that spirituality (which I, personally, define as "connectedness," in the same sense that most any human being from cave times on would probably agree with), and religion, are---most of the time---two different things, both on an individual level, and (especially) on an institutional level.
"Religion" (particularly modern times religion) is often more about following set rules and formulae (and, despite the talk about inner connectedness, on a practical level usually not quite "getting there" for most people)...
...while "connectedness" (in the terms I am talking about it here) can USE (meaning: utilize) some of those outer practices that have proven to have value in creating "connectedness," but is also, and increasingly more often on an individual level, free from them.
I think what I am really saying here is that I see "religion," most of the time, as largely a matter of outer-practice conformity (even when practiced in private)...
...a conformity which can be utilized by "preachers" for their own personal or institutional ends....
...while "connectedness" is an interior process that can utilize anything practical from "religion" which is discovered to enhance the inner process, but is also (simultaneously, and on an inner basis) free of the outer, formalized, constraints of that same "religion."
To me, this entire subject is a work-in-progress right now.
I hope this "progress report" on what I have been mulling over makes sense!!!
:)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2017 04:47PM by Tevai.