After reading delusion's post about religion and beliefs, I feel that what he mentioned partially are very correct indeed, like why should we limit ourselves because of certain religion and beliefs. But I think it depends on what are we limiting ourselves from. Taking all the consequences into consideration is a crucial process before an act. However, if you do so, you will never succeed to do anything.
In old days, people are mostly very religious and have intense piety. They MAYBE don't know much about the nature. Like during solar eclipse, they will wonder why this thing will happen. In order to calm all the people down, answer has to be found. When the answer cannot be defined, they will push all the responsibilities to God. Before the solar eclipse, maybe something unusual happens like a crow perching on someone's roof, a snake is killed or anything else that is not seen or done in daily life, and they will relate it to the occurance of this natural phenomena, saying God is mad with their doings ..... and so God..... In some areas, slaves are to sacrifice to please the God. Suddenly, many beliefs, dogma and taboos emerge from nowhere. Those things have become part of tradition, and no one can tell whether it is right or wrong.
Actually, some of the precedent made is based on the thought of the fundamentalists only. So, the fundamentalists MAYBE wanted to give the people or even the next generation know some moral values or some leasons through talks. People live during ancient time have a great faith in those thoughts. Soon or later, it turned out to be religion doctrines. So, can you tell that the fundamentalists' opinions are all correct or wrong? But something for sure, the fundamentalists live decades before, so his thoughts will only depend on things happen at that time. As time passes, many things have undergo changes. So, people nowadays won't have the same thinking as the fundamentalists. So, there will be contrast.
Therefore, should those dogma be changed? Maybe they are true? Once you change the doctrines, can you bear the consequences? Maybe many things in this earth shouldn't be changed. We will never know what will happen after that.
Ok, I am a Buddhist and I do practice some of the doctrines. I think large percentage of the doctrines are rules to prevent humans from doing harms. Many other ways like through education or punishment through law can also prevent humans from becoming demons. Not all people are well-educated. Not all people scare the police. Of course, not all people will do "what God tells". According to "God", humans who commit sins will be punished when they die, that is they will suffer in hell. While those with good deeds will be in heaven after they pass away or God will treat them well in lives.
Many people tell me not to do good deeds only to hope for the rewards. But, will I? Have I ever done so? Usually, I will use "good treat from God" to push myself to do good things. So, no matter God will actually treat me well or not after I did something good, it will push me on doing so.
Delusion, sorry for using many of your terms and phrases because I don't know much about words related to this topic.
2 comments:
These are my thoughts:
If we see something as "wrong", then the wrong-doing cannot be justified just because they happen a long time ago, if the same measure of right and wrong is still applied.
If we expect certain ways of doing things (or traditions) to change because we find it unfit with present time, then what involved in judging the traditions is a matter of convenience rather than ethics (right or wrong).
Pick slavery for example. My first thought is that the practice of it is inhumane. But 2 seconds later,I realized without slaves, great civilizations may have not been built. So it is convenient to use slaves at that time.......
Oh shit, I've just contradicted myself......Hence trashed the "Convenience vs Ethics" theory.
Anyway, according to someone, "We can't change society, but we can understand it and try not to be influenced by it."
But, in the year of 1873, Susan B. Anthony ignores the law that says women can't vote, walks out the kitchen and casts her vote for the presidential election, and was fined 100 USD. One hundred years later on the same day, Sally K. Ride becomes United States first female astronaut.
Hence shown that culture is not static.
-------------------
* Don't need to say sorry. I feel happy that my post gave you ideas to write another post. Like your post.
I want to membela my "Convenience vs Ethics" theory:
Just because something is convenient, doesn't mean it is right.
:P
Post a Comment