I have been having this issue with religion that is similar to what I have had with spirituality in that generally it’s belief can seem to condone or support views that are a little too removed or attached for me. Like for example, I truly believe that it is quite observable but progressively society is becoming more and more artificial, nothing is very natural anymore. I am starting to think that generally it is considered that the only way to understand or perceive God is to practice complete detachment from just about everything our own thoughts and feelings and even our experiences of the immediate environment around us. Do you think this is accurate and even possible? This is practically what Buddhist and Taoists practice and achieve that compete unattachment is the most achievable state. I have meditated and achieved they say is enlightenment but I was left thinking that it is not somehow true in someway or that it is not really an accurate understanding of the experiences.
I always felt that Christianity accepts and supports the notion in individual experiences and differences and does not disavow them entirely if they are in alignment with God, but largely what I get to see from most practices of religion including Christianity is complete detachment. But then I wonder if this is really completely realistic and achievable, as human beings we have certain needs that need to be met and achieved. I think it is comparable to leave someone in a shit padded cell and just expect their belief in god to be sufficient enough, while providing no social interaction or stimulation. In a sense, that is what civilization and society is, detachment and disconnection, I do not understand how religion is supposed to facilitate that. Though obviously I understand, you’re supposed to look for God for fulfillment, I don’t wholly see that happening. Only that you’re supposed to look to God for contentment or connection, only by yourself and you’re supposed to be completely happy with that contentment. Despite whatever your experiences, as long as you believe in god enough it is enough to endure and tolerate all and any experiences and you’re “state of transcendence and illumination or enlightenment” is enough for everything.
Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of being alive? How enlightened does a person have to be to not experience suffering? If a person is generally happy or content but there is one aspect of society or their life that makes them unhappy is it because they are not enlightened enough?
I always felt that Christianity accepts and supports the notion in individual experiences and differences and does not disavow them entirely if they are in alignment with God, but largely what I get to see from most practices of religion including Christianity is complete detachment. But then I wonder if this is really completely realistic and achievable, as human beings we have certain needs that need to be met and achieved. I think it is comparable to leave someone in a shit padded cell and just expect their belief in god to be sufficient enough, while providing no social interaction or stimulation. In a sense, that is what civilization and society is, detachment and disconnection, I do not understand how religion is supposed to facilitate that. Though obviously I understand, you’re supposed to look for God for fulfillment, I don’t wholly see that happening. Only that you’re supposed to look to God for contentment or connection, only by yourself and you’re supposed to be completely happy with that contentment. Despite whatever your experiences, as long as you believe in god enough it is enough to endure and tolerate all and any experiences and you’re “state of transcendence and illumination or enlightenment” is enough for everything.
Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of being alive? How enlightened does a person have to be to not experience suffering? If a person is generally happy or content but there is one aspect of society or their life that makes them unhappy is it because they are not enlightened enough?
Last edited: