Declaration On the Basis of the Common Religion

[dima]

Please, give this document to all people to read

Declaration On the Basis of the Common Religion

1. General statements
1:1. During the existence of the embodied people on the Earth God many times gave them His Teaching through His Messengers (Messiahs, Avataras) and prophets. Each time the information was given in the form that was adequate for concrete people — taking into account the levels of their philosophic-religious awareness, and the conditions of life in that concrete historical period (for example, in conditions of war — or peace; during the first stages of religion formation — or at the time of stable existence of the religion in the given region).
But in each of such religious knowledge grounds established by God people distorted His Teaching with time. For example:
— All religious duties of people got reduced to only participating in “saving” rituals; bodily movements and standard prayers became the main religious occupation of believers, instead of making real efforts on self-development on the path of personal spiritual evolution,
— So-called religious “fundamentalism” appeared, where the religious life is considered not as getting knowledge about God, about the meaning of our life, not as mastering of methods of spiritual self-development and helping others to do it, but is reduced only to crude, violent forcing of people to keep certain “rules of behavior” that have no religious value...
..................
For more information:
http://nabljudatel.narod.ru/declar.htm
http://www.swami-center.org/

[talamh]

Interesting stuff... but my first problem with the entire concept is that it is framed in patriarchal terms... "God"... no Goddess; "man"... not humans or men and women. At one point the writer does refer to the Creator as "he/she" but that's a pretty limited gender inclusion.

i also have problems with heaven/hell dualism.

But what really bothered me was this statement:

"2:11. One cannot include in the concept of “God” mythological (fairy-tale) and fictitious characters of national religious folklore (followers of such naive and essentially false conceptions are called “pagans”). "

Oh, dear!

I think the entire statement is interesting as a concept... but it has too many limitations... which is what i have come to expect from people who try to frame their concepts of the divine in a purely intellectual perspective. bb talamh

[dima]

Hi!

"2:11. One cannot include in the concept of “God” mythological (fairy-tale) and fictitious characters of national religious folklore (followers of such naive and essentially false conceptions are called “pagans”). "

Yes... God is not folklore persona.
But some knowledge (in Russia, for example) corresponded real.
One of "paganes" of the Gods, for example, referred to as Svarog (Uniform).
It also is the really existing God-Father.

Blessing,
Dima

[lucidfire]

I think the Christian religion (and probably many others) made a mistake to call this thing they understand 'God' when the term was already used to pagans for a very different purpose (in my opinion).

I mean, what most people refer to isn't exactly the same as Zeus or anything, it's closer to what I've heard Krsna devotees and other eastern faiths refer to as "the source of all time and space." So, if life needs a source, let's call it "the source." I mean, words have much power which can be dangerous. Is that so hard for people to understand? I think what some are afraid of is religion actually being taken seriously, instead of just being another 'fairy tale' based on faith and dogma, but akin to the realization that the universe is as infinately big as it is infinately small, and magick can take many forms. My mom wrote a story when she was little about this crazy little world, and it was a long story, and when the world 'died' it was because it was just a drop of water in a kid's bathtub or something. When she told me this story, I was like "wow!" That's the kind of thing that even Einstein understood.

Anyways, I'm babbling again, someone shut me up!! :woah:

[dima]

Hello!

There is only one real True.
All people differently describe TRUE, if achieve it.
This birth of set of Path.


>>> if life needs a source, let's call it "the source."

"The Source" is not fantasy, knowledge about Sourse is result of meditation.

Love,
Dima

..................
For more information:
http://www.swami-center.org/

[Myst]

I'm with talamh on this one.

[lucidfire]

I don't think any of us are qualified to assume that every religion, because their beliefs are false now (maybe because we've built too many walls?), that it's what was intended when the belief system was created. Sure, the greeks and romans and all that had a god for everything, but if you go far enough back, it is more akin to shamanism in its roots, which makes it a matter of perception/truth, and not fact

just an idea

I also think that no religions that exist today actually believe in god, they all believe in the source (talk to some older priests, you'll see what I mean), but call it god because of convention (most likely developed to confuse druids & pagans alike, by 'assimilating' their culture)

[Myst]

Originally posted by lucidfire
I don't think any of us are qualified to assume that every religion, because their beliefs are false now

I don't think any of us are qualified to assume that any belief or religion is false.

[lucidfire]

Ok I may have worded that wrong; I was just trying not to babble or be too long winded

by saying 'beliefs are false" I intended to say that there are many hicks in America who claim to be these holier than thow Christians and yet they sit there and judge people right and left based on "religious" reasons ignoring the fact that their religion tells them not to judge people; they pick and choose to suit themself, and use their religion and it's unity & faith to simply hurt other people, in effect, "hijacking" that religion (similar to these Muslims we're at war with).

So I guess I worded it wrong, I just meant that if something like that goes on long enough, it creates enough smoke where it's hard to see the wisdom that was the basis for that religion's founding. I meant that their beliefs are false because to them it's just an excuse, and I have the right to my opinion as much as they have the right to theirs.

It's like saying I have the right to say someone's stupid as much as they have the right to be stupid; it's not just a one way door you know :apirate:

[Myst]

Originally posted by lucidfire
So I guess I worded it wrong, I just meant that if something like that goes on long enough, it creates enough smoke where it's hard to see the wisdom that was the basis for that religion's founding. I meant that their beliefs are false because to them it's just an excuse, and I have the right to my opinion as much as they have the right to theirs.

It's like saying I have the right to say someone's stupid as much as they have the right to be stupid; it's not just a one way door you know :apirate:

Well, personally I've never met a prejudiced or judgmental Christian, but I've known many judgmental people who are Atheist, Pagan, Agnostic, etc. I think it has a lot less to do with religion then with people who think that there's right and wrong and if you don't agree with them you must be wrong.

And yes someone has as much right to call you stupid as you do to call them stupid - but if you're calling them stupid because they called you stupid what do you get other then a couple of pointed fingers and no answers?

[lucidfire]

You've never met a judgemental Christian? Humm, you should live out here in the suburbs... I still love them, but my mind isn't willing to sacrifice its perspective if it doesn't help them.


AND they're not calling me stupid, they're calling me evil

there is a difference; I dont' bother people when they're stupid, because, (***and you're right about this) ignorance is everyone's enemy. I just may be wrong by saying they're stupid, but the only way to learn is to trust yourself until you see otherwise.

I've never treated anybody differently because of their beliefs though; only their actions.

and if you're trying to hint at me being ignorant (which I never said about you) well...

love you anyways :heartthro (unsubbing from this thread) :ahhhh:

[Myst]

No I would never try to imply that at all.

I don't know, I just hate to see Christians judged as a whole as much as I hate to see any religion judged as a whole. I'd like to see everyone thinking "oh, you and I think differently, but that doesn't mean either of us is wrong/stupid/ignorant/evil/bad". Leading by example maybe?

I don't like this idea of "common religion" either - to me I'd like to see everyone having their own beliefs and learning from eachother without having to try to generalize or label. You just be you and let me be me and we can all be happy :)