- May 27, 2008
- Reaction score
- Olney, Maryland
Ah. I see where you are coming from. And yes, I agree. I was thinking of asceticism more in the way that monks are ascetic.I agree: like I said, it depends on the religious doctrines in question. But my main point generalised was that most religions out there do promote (from 'divine sources')
certain discipline/asceticism. It's the selective memory of most followers that I find hypocritical - remembering all of the good things that the doctrine will bring to them (a utopic heaven and immortality), and quietly forgetting or extremely toning down all of uncomfortable elements (be it abstinence from drinking, drugs & materialism; philanthropy, etc.).
Again, I see where you are coming from.Agreed again - my point is that asceticism should be practised if the doctrine is fully believed (for most of the doctrines do promote this, to some degree - which is disproportionately followed by most "followers").
Lol. One of the reasons that I withdrew from participation on a religion forum. Lack of productivity.But personally speaking I think religion is based on such flimsy and subjective evidence, that there's no concrete and objective point of reference to discuss anything - it seems that as a result, the participants in most religious debates, despite apparently polar-opposite views, are actually 'violently agreeing'. Consequently, religious debate universally heads nowhere.
Too many people try to prove or disprove. I just figure that a person believes as they do and leave it at that.For the record, I think a lot of the lifestyle tenets promoted by the various religions are most noble. If religion lacked this unprovable 'divine' stuff, I think I would quite certainly subscribe.
Most lifestyle tenets are fairly universal across religions and are, divine aspects excepted, fairly universal with those who espouse no religion; nobody wants to be stolen from, murdered, cheated, or have an unfaithful spouse, and the idea of charitable work is generally well received.