almost all world religions have their origins in the change of mind and hearts of a chosen human being - for instance buddha for buddists,
prophets for monotheistic religions.
however, without pre-judging this statement as secular, would we give it a thought that religion as a personal study and adaptation is much better than an organized act of feeling one with a group?
From the Islamic point of view, as much as Islam is for a person to practice, it never completes without any organized structure of society, without which it is just a mere set of Rituals translated in Arabic is “Madhab” whereas Allah:swt: made it a “deen”- a way of life where you interact with fellow-followers too who have rights and duties.
Why can't you still be an individual and still be a muslim or any other religious follower? Just because you share some beliefs in common with other people doesn't erase your personality! We're each different aren't we? Does God ask us each to be clones of each other? No.
Now, I don't know what you mean by "individualizing" a religion. How do you exactly do that? Give examples of what you're talking about. Because being an individual within a religious community can mean different things.
When you live in a Non-Islamic land your religion is individualized as far as can understand here. You are not governed by an Islamic state, which fulfills the tenets of Islam that are pertinent to laws and economics of the society.
Religion lies where the individual and society meet.
Yes, a lot of it is deeply personal...but much of it pertains to how we relate to one another. Not just as an individual, but as a community.
Those who seek to make religion purely personal either have a monastic view of faith (i.e. want to isolate themselves from society, or consider that a good thing) or are rabidly secular.
^
Withdrawing from society as a trade-off for being spiritual...consider those who values asceticism of any kind...that typically invokes an image of monks...of any order. Not that being a monk is a bad thing...those who do nothing can do no wrong...personally it's hardly something I value as a religious practice. No doubt many who think faith is deeply personal are quite worldly, but if asked who they think are "good" examples of "religious" people, they are quick to respond with "buddhists", or even "sufis"...not because they're superhumanly good, but because their ideals of how to be spiritual fall in line with a pro-ascetic world view.
Those who value action typically do not focus on the self/individual...they make demands of society, or at least act with a social agenda...and so have no problem if their moral imperative is driving them to alter society.
[quote]
almost all world religions have their origins in the change of mind and hearts of a chosen human being - for instance buddha for buddists
[/quote]
disagree...
[quote]
would we give it a thought that religion as a personal study and adaptation is much better than an organized act of feeling one with a group?
[/quote]
Those who value action typically do not focus on the self/individual...they make demands of society, or at least act with a social agenda...and so have no problem if their moral imperative is driving them to alter society.
All your points are well taken and absolutely right. This is the gain of this discussion, in and of itself.
although. what I would like to restate is the issue of mass madness, when emotionally embroiling situations take place by people from one religion, against those following the othe – that kind of 'organized religion-hood' is what i am suggesting to assess, here.
All your points are well taken and absolutely right. This is the gain of this discussion, in and of itself.
although. what I would like to restate is the issue of mass madness, when emotionally embroiling situations take place by people from one religion, against those following the othe – that kind of 'organized religion-hood' is what i am suggesting to assess, here.
interesting point. but to this day people that u speak of, the worldly individual types, are still a teeny minority and most of this worlds madness can be contributed to manipulating ignorant masses using religion (or nationality for that matter....again an organized concept) as a mobilizing tool. u cannot ignore the fact that buddhists and sufis have the non-violent track records and to this day people tend to find inner-peace and meaning in buddhist and sufi writings. not doing anything IMO is better than going around killing people in the name of religion.
not to mention that most of the PROPHETS and scientists/philosophers that contributed more than anything to the world were great INDIVIDUAL thinkers of their periods. The masses always opposed them.
True...I admit, it's a tricky thing. But I think withdrawing, or suggesting that it's better to withdraw, is a recipe for disaster. When pushed, it's necessary to push back. People will always resort to violence...I think it's better to embrace that fact and deal with it (or, at least prepare for it) than to ignore it.
Although one can do no wrong if they do nothing, it's questionable if they can in fact do any good as well.
Yes, the average Monk isn't out waging war...but their not stopping them either. That's not a value judgment of the Monk, just an observation.
By the same token, you won't have people like Ehdi...who don't do what they do as Individuals...but in spite of their base instincts to be only self-interested. Or, at least this is what I claim...
Religion reifies control enough; organized religion would make me even more powerless.
I believe religion is gnosis; praxis is unimportant to me because the emphasis comes to be on community rather than any true connection with God and praxis is mechanistic. Gnosis is idiosyncratic, sui generis. Religion must be individual because organized religion constructs one strain as authentic and all other interpretations are pathologized and labeled heretic. If there is to be an in-group there will always be an objectified out-group, which contributes to violence in the name of religion. The concern comes to be on labeling others, dividing the group. How is this true connection with God?
Spot on. Perhaps strict interpretists and literalists of organized religion feel validated when they have dogma, tradition and millions of others to be a part of. It gives a sense of belonging, community and structure. A documented lits of do's and don'ts, no need to figure it out for yourself.
There have been centuries of people smarter than us that have figured out all the answers and we can be told exactly how to live, pray and make it to heaven. Perhaps man can't trust his own spiritual connection to God, and the fear of not making it to heaven by "playing by the rules" is a big reason organized religion has flourished.
Whereas organized religion does not preclude the possibility of a personal connection with God, personalizing faith (...and this is a political concept...it is enforced using the coercive apparatus of the state...) precludes the possibility of acting in accordance with one's faith as a community.