A religious question…

Majority of the problem is with people that understand half baked teaching then proceed to impose their own agenda due to power, greed etc calling themselves the one with legitimacy.

This is spot on.

We questioned them but nearly started a race riot! 😅
In my region if the race riot kicks off it would be a very serious matter and I mean not like some form of protest but people running amok …

This is spot on.

It’s inarguably true; however further than that, the problem with religion is that as it is, by definition, based wholly upon articles of faith rather than fact, it is uniquely vulnerable to being ‘interpreted’ any which way people want.

This combined with the unique sureness in their own righteousness that religion instils in people makes it a potential, as well as often a very real force for bad.

It’s inarguably true; however further than that, the problem with religion is that as it is, by definition, based wholly upon articles of faith rather than fact, it is uniquely vulnerable to being ‘interpreted’ any which way people want.

The problem is that people don’t ask questions. i.e. everything that is written has a reason but people just ignore that by only wanting a quick fix. To keep the explanation simple, some religious authorities simply start to provide short cut direction and as a result they end up with “do as I told” scenario. People than take on those advice blindly. Then you end up with “if you don’t do this you will go to hell …”.

I was listening to some religious scholars explaining the reasons for certain practices and there are logic to them with nothing much “magical” other than for practical reasons. For example, why in certain part of the world the death has to be buried almost immediately? This is because the body decade in warm temperature quickly and may spread diseases so they have to buried them quickly. A lot of the stuff are for practical reasons. Bear in mind many centuries ago the people with knowledge are those that could read and understand the scriptures. Most people were illiterate then.

This combined with the unique sureness in their own righteousness that religion instils in people makes it a potential, as well as often a very real force for bad.

Yes, as it evolves it becomes a profitable venture and this is also the time the politicians take note and hijack them for their own “profit”.

Catching up here, so excuse dragging this back to page 5…

I believe in dignity in death. I believe its a human right to chose the time and place of my death. Organised religous objections to this deny me this right. Thats them imposing their moral code on me. Thats a very personal and strongly held belief that I cannot exercise because of religious objections.

Do what????!!! Try going to your GP and asking to book your own Death Day and enquiring what substances they offer to facilitate your own death. Are you saying that the Hippocratic Oath is fundamentally determined by religious dogma and doctrine?

Bang goes my exit strategy.

slackalice. all over the world countries are legislating to allow dignity in death ( an umbrella term that encompasses a lot of measures not just active euthanasia) ( Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, some US states etc etc.

the abuses that some say they are concerned about simply do not happen

In the UK everytime someone attempts to move the legislation towards this the outcry from organised religious groups means that these attempts to make the law more humane fail.

Despite what others state on here the opposition to this comes mainly from organised religious groups often hiding behind a secular facade. Without that organised religious opposition we would have much more humane laws around end of life care in line with best practice worldwide

the net effect is that organised religion is preventing humane end of life care. this is the religious using their superstition to prevent me from exercising my right to have a death in a manner of my own choosing and forcing many people to have undignified deaths.

No one is saying the religious have to take advantage of dignity in death. Indeed I would and have fought for their rights to do as they wish at the end of their life. Why will they not accord me the same rights?

A good few folk on here are trying to make out this is not a religious thing. Well I have looked into this a lot. Its a subject dear to my heart due to what I have seen in my personal and professional life. Its clearly mainly ( not exclusively) a religious issue the opposition to measures to improve dignity in death. the vast majority of secular medical professionals are in favour of some moves down this road. The majority of religious medical professionals are against it. Objections to any move in that direction are overwhelmingly from religious groups. These religious groups often hide behind a secular facade but it is clear its religious belief that motivates them.

In the UK everytime someone attempts to move the legislation towards this the outcry from organised religious groups

Yup, see; the incredible demonisation of the Liverpool Care Pathway when the worried Christian middle Englanders became (mis)informed of its existence. Absolute travesty that set palliative care back decades in this country.

however further than that, the problem with religion is that as it is, by definition, based wholly upon articles of faith rather than fact, it is uniquely vulnerable to being ‘interpreted’ any which way people want.

It’s not unique. Politics is not fact based, nor is nationality (beyond the trivial), race or gender politics. Or social conservatism. Many of the things that cause problems today are not based on facts. If they were we’d be living on Vulcan, and we’re clearly not.

A good few folk on here are trying to make out this is not a religious thing. Well I have looked into this a lot.

You might have read a lot but if you go in with a desired conclusion you’ll re-inforce your beliefs regardless of what you read.

It’s not unique. Politics is not fact based, nor is nationality (beyond the trivial), race or gender politics. Or social conservatism.

Yes, but the uniqueness comes from the protection and ‘special status’ that is conferred upon religiously based opinion though. No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate. It will still get criticised,but that criticism in turn becomes open to counter criticism as ‘religious intolerance’ ‘islamophobia’ ‘antisemitism’ etc.

An awful lot of criticism that would be entirely justifiable if it’s target were based on a purely political ideology gets neutralised by the protection afforded by religious legitimacy.

Yes, but the uniqueness comes from the protection and ‘special status’ that is conferred upon religiously based opinion though. No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate. It will still get criticised,but that criticism in turn becomes open to counter criticism as ‘religious intolerance’ ‘islamophobia’ ‘antisemitism’ etc.

An awful lot of criticism that would be entirely justifiable if it’s target were based on a purely political ideology gets neutralised by the protection afforded by religious legitimacy.

If you think religion is unique in that respect then you’ve not been following gender issues.

No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate.

Environmental extremists like XR use bigotry and pass moral judgement on people and infringe upon their rights.
On both sides of the B**** debate you have people using political ideologies to demonise and dehumanise people with opposing veiws. I don’t recall the guy that shot Jo Cox following any religious doctrine. Also people who supported B**** were duhamised in various ways for not conforming to a polical ideology.
The illiberal fringes of the labour party use political doctrine to shout bigoted views about people who have alternative views about how society and the economy should be organised.
The crowd at a Donald J Trump rally aren’t using any kind religious justification for viciously attacking anyone that opposes them.

At the very worst extremes, Pol Pot didn’t need any religious cover to do what he did.

I cannot understand how anyone can look at current affairs or human history and conclude that an organised religion is required to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimitination.

Try going to your GP and asking to book your own Death Day and enquiring what substances they offer to facilitate your own death. Are you saying that the Hippocratic Oath is fundamentally determined by religious dogma and doctrine?

You can (almost) literally do this. My mam made an active decision to end her life prematurely when her cancer spread to her brain, by stopping all medication, food and fluid. As a family we discussed which drugs would facilitate this with a doctor.

Because of (primarily) religious objections to euthanasia she had to spend more than a week dying, instead of almost instant.

Because of (primarily) religious objections to euthanasia she had to spend more than a week dying, instead of almost instant.

This saddens me greatly. When a beloved pet is suffering, no problem, it can be put to sleep and end the suffering. People, on the other hand, are expected to suffer. If an individual wants to die in pain then fair enough. Me, I’d want to slip away peacefully. We have the cheek to call ourselves civilised.

Because of (primarily) religious objections to euthanasia she had to spend more than a week dying, instead of almost instant.

Please read this with open mind as this is the explanation/logic based on our “religious” (some say it is philosophy rather than religion) belief. Just do as you wish as I am Not trying to criticise etc but trying to explain the logic of how we see things. This applies to all living beings including animal (hence we never put down our animals especially our pets or even beings from other dimension).

Sorry to hear about your mum. A very brave woman.

In our belief we normally let life expires naturally rather than intentionally cut short no matter how hard it can be. Intention can be referred to as deliberate action. i.e. simply put, mind first to be followed by action a bit like the legal term of intention.

The logic is that if a person intentionally cut short own life then his/her karma has not fully exhausted. i.e. has not repaid all the debts as it should be in this life. The unspent karma will then be brought forward to next life where or what ever that might be.

For example, if a person has a natural life span of say 80 years but due to illness the person cuts short own life to 75, then the “soul/spirit” will linger on the human realm (some say immediately to next life and Not linger in human realm … I am yet to determine which is which) for unspent 5 years until the balance of the unspent 5 years is exhausted. If the 5 years is suffering then the soul will carry on with that burden until exhaustion before proceeding to next life. But before moving to next life/lives the soul will be judged for violating what was supposedly given (there are some flexibility here due to their action in that life and NOT predetermined). i.e. say a person is given a natural life of 80 but due to own own actions that life can be prolong or cut short naturally.

Alternatively, depending on many situations (different for all individuals) the remaining 5 years will be added to the future life. Added 5 years means either the future life will suffer for another five years or simply only given 5 years life. i.e. die at 5 years of age before starting the actual new future life again. The future life can be defined in the immediate next life or unknown future lives. The bottom line is that the remaining 5 years karma must be repaid regardless.

However, there can also be mitigating circumstances that the remaining 5 years karma can be spread into uncountable future lives. i.e. 5 minutes in the next life, 1 minutes in next next life, 1 day in next next life, 2 seconds in one of the future life etc. This all depends on the person actions in that future life/lives. The best analogy is like diluting a glass of ink with the entire sea water from the ocean. In a way it can be explained as doing more good means less suffering in the remaining 5 years karmic repayment. Note that there is no actual formula to determine the situation as karma is “organic” depending on oneself. In a way it is like a probability with many factors that we are unable to process and only Buddha or the enlighten ones whoever they are know (to calculate).

If a person endure the hardship or suffering that s/he should endure in this life then the karmic repayment is complete. Upon departing from this life, the person will start new but what sort of life the person will have, again, depend on the actions in before the new life.

Therefore, taking life intentionally or unintentionally (even with good intention) will have karmic consequences on oneself. The difficulty is to determine when karma will come knocking at the door demanding repayment.

@tjagain thank you for your response, I’m with you. As @miketually experience, it’s ridiculous that people are made to suffer when they have made their ultimate choice.

I’ve said before, the one human right we need only have, we are denied.

So I’m left to arranging my own exit strategy, so far I’m looking at overdosing on insulin, or possibly going out on a bit of a high (which I would prefer tbh) and considering a desert spoonful of ghb (or gbl). Not just yet, but I like to be prepared 😁

Dib dib dib an all that.

I’ve said before, the one human right we need only have, we are denied.

I have to say I agree.

Your life so do as you wish.

No one is going to excuse bigotry or insidious discrimination based upon which political doctrine they happen to support, but as soon as it’s based on religion, it becomes more legitimate. It will still get criticised,but that criticism in turn becomes open to counter criticism as ‘religious intolerance’ ‘islamophobia’ ‘antisemitism’ etc.

No, this is not true at all. There is a difference between religious intolerance and criticising a position. It is up to you to try and understand this difference. For example – ‘religious people are all idiots’ is religious intolerance. ‘I don’t agree with the Church’s position on assisted dying’ – this is reasonable criticism.

It’s not just specific to religion, it’s about the type of belief and the reason for the criticism. For example – my wife’s cousin became increasingly into spiritualism and self-help type literature. I was quite critical at first, but then I realised a few things. 1) it’s meaningful to her and helps a great deal 2) it does no harm and 3) who am I to criticise her? Why was I criticising? Did I think it was going to help? No, it was my own cockiness and desire to be clever and right, nothing more. I don’t have to read the books or join in the spiritualism, but I don’t need to lay into her for it. If she wants a discussion on it I’ll have one and take a different position, but I’ll treat the subject with respect because I care about her feelings.

All we’re saying is don’t be a dick, and discuss things carefully and with respect, where it’s appropriate. Anyhoo, we’re off topic now. And for the record, overall I’m in favour of assisted dying with significant controls.

2) it does no harm

… until it starts being used instead of conventional medicine.

Oh please @cougar, instead of conventional medicine? The example above suggests very strongly that she was benefitting from her efforts, more than likely gaining a sense of inner peace, where what and how does conventional medicine enable that?

Please refer to:

No, it was my own cockiness and desire to be clever and right, nothing more. I don’t have to read the books or join in the spiritualism, but I don’t need to lay into her for it. If she wants a discussion on it I’ll have one and take a different position, but I’ll treat the subject with respect because I care about her feelings.

All we’re saying is don’t be a dick, and discuss things carefully and with respect, where it’s appropriate.

A blanket approach of complete denial to anything away from your own comfort zone is really quite a narrow minded approach to life, do you not feel?

… until it starts being used instead of conventional medicine.

That is the person’s individual decision as s/he sees fit. All you can do is to explain your logic to them and it is up to her/him to accept or to reject what you said.

A blanket approach of complete denial to anything away from your own comfort zone is really quite a narrow minded approach to life, do you not feel?

Seems to be the default position on here these days, increasingly from people I’ve known on here for years who never seemed to be like that in the past.

To my mind, there is no credible evidence to suggest that our concept of an Abrahamic god has any basis in fact. Evidence aside even, there’s no reasoning to think that this might be true.

I was out on a bike ride the other day. Couple of friends (both avowed atheists) each had tyres go flat. I didn’t.

As it says in the hymn, “God moves in mysterious ways, His punctures to perform”.

Oh please @cougar, instead of conventional medicine?

There’s plenty of examples of this happening. People shunning chemotherapy in favour of homeopathy, folk like Matthias Rath peddling vitamin pills as AIDS prevention / cure in developing nations. I’m not saying it happens in all cases (and in Molgrips’ example there’s nothing to suggest that she is doing so) but it absolutely does happen.

@chewkw

I guess that’s the orthodox interpretation of reincarnation/ karma.

I find that to be a very restricting interpretation.

It’s based on a very narrow conception of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma, and thus ‘suffering’ is seen as something to be avoided.

However, it appears that many souls seek out ‘suffering’, like the way roadies seek out really steep climbs.

Incarnating, especially on earth is like altitude conditioning. It can be a means of ‘powering up’ with enhanced skills for the next life.

Maybe planet earth gives really good opportunities for spiritual growth. Maybe this is due to our lifespan or the specific density of our organic flesh.

On other planets, your consciousness may take other forms. So the kinds of challenges we face here on earth may have no equivalent on a planet in which consciousness manifests as say, a black gas.

I can’t condone it, but if we mistakenly burn people on the belief that they’re witches, their consciousness will become very focussed up till the moment of death (surprise, surprise!).

Next time they incarnate, they’ll have some ‘mad-skills’, which may be misinterpreted as witchcraft, and get thrown on the bonfire again. Oh the irony!

And the orthodox interpretation of karma sounds very dis-empowering, as though there’s an echelon of bean-counters in the afterlife, weighing out your ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deeds.

Maybe you have much more ‘agency’ in the afterlife than the orthodox beliefs would like to accept.

The orthodox approach to karma just sounds like a load of sales-pitch to me.

When the buddhists, etc, tell you that your chances of re-incarnating in human form are very slim (especially after you’ve just passed your driving test, for example) then its basic human psychology that you’ll sign up for whatever they’ll offer. Doubly so if they lay on the sp whilst your chest implodes. (What WAS in that tea?)

So, to me, the orthodox interpretation of karma not only serves as a fetter on our spiritual development, and is really nothing but a recruitment con.

Take the dahli lama himself. Nice enough bloke, but I’ve seen more profound insights on the back of a cereal packet.

The wing of the Chinese communist party that selected him knew that he wasnt the reincarnation of some former deity, but just some ordinary bloke.

Hope I haven’t put too much shizxle in the game…

Like why do you have coffee every morning? Did you investigate all other possible morning drinks and rigorously test them to arrive at coffee as the most superior drink? How did you determine the best way of making it? What criteria did you use to judge superiority – cost, taste, health etc?Nope, for most people me included we’ve just kind of stumbled there being blindly influended by something or other.

I don’t. In fact, I hardly ever drink coffee, the only time is when I go into town at the weekend, and have a couple. The only criteria I apply is that I prefer tea.

Environmental extremists like XR use bigotry and pass moral judgement on people and infringe upon their rights.

This statement sounds like it’s come from the White House press office. Please explain the bigotry aspect for the rest of the class.

I find that to be a very restricting interpretation.

So what is the alternative(s)?

It’s based on a very narrow conception of what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ karma, and thus ‘suffering’ is seen as something to be avoided.

Well, that depends your acceptance of the term ‘suffering’ as some might say that being alive is part of the process of suffering while others consider that a mere abstract concept.

On other planets, your consciousness may take other forms. So the kinds of challenges we face here on earth may have no equivalent on a planet in which consciousness manifests as say, a black gas.

Funny you say that. Yes, you can reborn in another universe or in black gas or in a different dimension or beyond that. There are many dimensions by the way. Being born as human is the physical state i.e. coarse. The “higher” the dimension the finer the “beings” are.

And the orthodox interpretation of karma sounds very dis-empowering, as though there’s an echelon of bean-counters in the afterlife, weighing out your ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deeds.

I can only explain it this way. The way I see it as in our physical state if we consume too much of bad foods we do ourselves harm in terms of health. Now, in terms of our mind if we “consume” too much of the negativity does that do much damage? Just like attachment to negativity as it will weigh you down. The accumulation of negativity will add weight to the a person “conscious or energy whatever you wish to call them” (let’s call it as karma) and that will take a person’s soul to another dimension. So you might ask so what happen in the other dimension? Well put it this way when you have all the souls residing in one location (dimension) it can become over crowded just like earth. I bet the rules are established there to “govern” the new arrivals and the way they decide (or judge) is based on your past deeds good or bad in previous life. There is a system in place.

When the buddhists, etc, tell you that your chances of re-incarnating in human form are very slim (especially after you’ve just passed your driving test, for example) then its basic human psychology that you’ll sign up for whatever they’ll offer. Doubly so if they lay on the sp whilst your chest implodes. (What WAS in that tea?)

Yes, the probability of being reborn as human again is slim or it takes time. However, if you believe in life after death i.e. afterlife, then you have bought into that concept already. In other words, you have already asked that question about your future many times already so are doubting yourself or the afterlife? i.e. if you are a person of science you shouldn’t be even concern about the chances of being reborn as human.

So, to me, the orthodox interpretation of karma not only serves as a fetter on our spiritual development, and is really nothing but a recruitment con.

It might or might not be a con but that is the logic of some beliefs. Whether it is for recruitment purposes that is up to individual acceptance.

If I accept the scientific explanation does that me I have been recruited to a new belief? i.e. scientific.
I can assure you that even without becoming a scientist I can give you a quick definite scientific fact which I am 100% right that when you died you turn to dust or fertiliser (some of your bacteria might live on) for the earth. The end. No more. As a human you will Not have a lifespan of more than 100 years (some can live to that age or beyond but not much give it +10% to 15% in rare cases)

Take the dahli lama himself. Nice enough bloke, but I’ve seen more profound insights on the back of a cereal packet.

I am sure he does no harm to other human beings nor force others to believe.

The wing of the Chinese communist party that selected him knew that he wasnt the reincarnation of some former deity, but just some ordinary bloke.

Why even bother to explain whether he is or he is not? All they need to do is to say he is bloke like every human beings. Funny thing is that the communist did not understand other religion during the cultural revolution such as those religion that opposed “idolising” and let the people continued with their belief, but now they are prosecuting them in droves. They don’t belief in communism and now being prosecuted.

Hope I haven’t put too much shizxle in the game…

No harm done as individuals just take whatever they can or cannot. You are who you are. I am just seeking to understand how things piece together and to listen to others’ views. Even Buddha said not to indulge too much on the details if a person has not truly cultivated own minds.

Reincarnation is a Hindu concept while the Buddhism refer to them as rebirth. Hence the term No Self. I used the term “soul/spirit” for simplicity sake as I don’t know what is the best way to describe it. Energy force perhaps? Bear in mind English language has difficulty in interpreting the meaning the true meaning behind those old language.
I have “listened” to some Abrahamic and Hindu explanations all with their own logic but not in great depth yet so will continue to research them when I have time.