In this article I would like to share one of my ideas regarding religion and choosing a spiritual path. There are many religions, but how do you understand which is true, which, I’m not afraid of this phrase, suits you personally? For this purpose I coined the term “Effective Religion”. I warn you that my somewhat utilitarian and down-to-earth approach may inadvertently offend someone's feelings. If you think that your feelings are easily offended, and if you really do not want to think about the essence of your religiosity and leave everything as it is, it is better not to read the article so as not to experience dissonance.
Before moving on to the idea of “Effective Religion,” let me write about a phenomenon in the religious world that has always amazed me and from which, in fact, the idea of “effective religion” grew.
Religiosity by territorial basis
And what has always surprised me is the unshakable confidence of representatives of various religious movements, traditions, movements that their religion is the only path to spiritual salvation, while everyone else is mistaken.
Most Christians have “indestructible” and “most convincing” arguments in favor of the truth of Christianity and the falsity of other directions. But the most interesting thing is that Muslims have the same arguments, but only regarding the truth of Islam. The same can be said about Jews, Hindus and representatives of other religions.
(Not to mention the schisms and contradictions between sects of Christianity, directions of Hinduism, etc. That is, the detail of the depth of this antagonism is much deeper).
All these people are united by the belief that only their understanding of the nature of the “Absolute”, “God”, “universe” is truthful.
What is even more surprising is that most religious people surrender their eternal salvation to purely arbitrary factors: one who was born and lives in Europe professes Christianity only because he was born where the most widespread religion is the teachings of Christ. A person from the Middle East is most likely to be a Muslim or a Jew, and from a more distant East - a Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, also professing the traditions of his country.
I want to say: “Hey! Wait! We are talking about the spiritual path, the Absolute, the salvation of the soul! These things seem to stand high above the factor of territorial birth and local culture. If, indeed, there is only one truth, then how can you choose which one to follow based only on what religion is widespread in your territory and which holy book fell into your hands first?”
Exactly! Most Christians have not read the Koran, Bhagavad Gita, Buddhist, Hindu Sutras, texts of Confucianism and Taoism. And vice versa! They simply chose what the majority around them professed, recognizing it as the unconditional truth. It’s not even entirely correct to talk about choice here, because there was none! And all this against the backdrop of a strong confidence in the correctness of one’s own spiritual choice.
It turns out that all religious wars, all world victims of religious repression, all crimes based on fanaticism grow from purely random factors of culture and upbringing. “I was raised in a Christian country, in a Christian environment, unlike you, and although I am not familiar with your religious tradition, I am right only on the basis that I was lucky enough to be born in the West, and you are wrong, since you were born in the East and therefore, you must forcibly adhere to my views/be punished!”
My God! What nonsense!
But does this mean that we should discard all “local” religions, moving towards a global and universal one? Not at all. I just want to talk about the conscious choice of religion and a conscious attitude towards one’s own religiosity. And this is the concept of “effective religion.” Already in this very phrase the contours of a certain alternative approach to the issue of religiosity are outlined.
We are not accustomed to using such a utilitarian word in relation to the most sacred. Rather, for us, our own religion is an instance of unconditional truth, deep emotional experiences, rather than effectiveness. But wait, now it will be clear where I am going with this.
The concept of "effective religion" is based on several important premises.
The features of world religions, from the point of view of an outside observer, are difficult to discern. Only Buddhism stands apart, not encroaching on closeness to God and not deifying any mortal.
Judaism, the oldest of the world's religions, declares that one individual people is chosen by God. Christianity, being half the age of Judaism, is somewhat closer to modernity in its understanding of the role and responsibility of man not only for his actions, but also for his words, and even for his thoughts. Islam is the youngest of religions, and therefore the most perfect, but it is not without features that cause surprise.
World religions are united by faith in one God, but they call him differently. What is especially strange is that world religions diligently affirm similar principles of behavior and coexistence, and at the same time base them on peace, but...
The wars started by the Jews in Old Testament times continue to this day. Christianity, through the hands of adherents and simple believers, has shed several tens of millions of liters of their own and others’ blood over two thousand years of belief. Islam from time to time declares either jihad or fatwa, and strives to make up for lost time. And only Buddhism calmly looks at everything from the outside, knowing that life is suffering...
Looking at the religious confusion and social turmoil, Jacques Duclos asked: “What do I believe?” It was simple for him, he was a communist and believed in the unity of the proletariat. Also, by the way, ephemeral, like forty houris in the Gardens of Eden, an angel with a fiery sword at the gate, or the principle of karma. The attempt to create a new world religion - communism - was unsuccessful. Although for more than seventy years in calendars, in ever larger letters, it was written: “Such and such a year from the day of V.O.S.R...” Communism diligently denied Christianity, fought Islam, ignored Buddhism, but it didn’t care...
New times have brought renewal to world religions. Buddhism marched along the European streets in the person of friendly and detached people in saffron-colored mantles. They beat drums and hand out delicious eggplant sandwiches and lemon donuts.
Islam raised the green banner of the prophet and sued a Danish newspaper, and severely threatened a respected Pakistani writer. Christianity was ashamed of the lack of fresh heresies, and invented them countlessly - just substitute the churches. The most interesting thing is that tithing is observed in all versions of the new Christianity...
So what faith should a neophyte convert to, having broken with paganism or simply unbelief? Which world religion should you choose? Should I join Islam or Buddhism, which is safer?
It's difficult to give advice. Four wives is cool. But the lemon jam donuts are perfection!
And yet, people need religion and spirituality, because where they are absent, degradation occurs. If you want to understand more scientifically about your mind and even yourself as an individual, check out Dianetics, the science of the mind at https://ponimanye.ru/
Premise 2 – Religions can bring good and benefit to people
Someone has probably already decided that such reasoning would look very natural in the mouth of some atheist scientist proposing to abandon religion. But that’s not where I’m going with this at all. On the contrary, I am sure that religions are or can be beneficial, both for a specific individual and for society as a whole.
They provide not only a set of moral rules, but also certain techniques (prayer, meditation, fasting, breathing practices, etc.) that help people develop moral, spiritual and volitional qualities, feel calmer, happier, and feel a sense of community with something , become kinder and more tolerant.
What distinguishes me from both a militant atheist and a deeply religious person is my lack of interest in the question of the “truth” or “falsehood” of religion. Religion interests me more as a technology, a technology for achieving certain states of consciousness and developing special personal qualities. And in this sense, in my opinion, religion can perform a valuable and irreplaceable function.
Effective Religion
And here we come close to the idea of effective religion. If, on the one hand, religions are beneficial, and on the other hand, we cannot know for sure which of them is more true than the others, then how can we evaluate them?
Yes, posthumous existence is hidden from our observation. But what is accessible to our comprehension is our earthly existence and the influence of religion on it.
The concept of “effective religion” means that we stop viewing any one religious teaching as an indisputable truth that does not accept doubt. On the contrary, we ask questions, we try to understand how much this religion meets the quality of our life, satisfies our desire for happiness, harmony and peace, that is, how effective this religion is.
We cannot know for sure whether the spiritual path we have chosen is true in a transcendental, otherworldly sense and whether it corresponds to absolute truth. We can only believe in it.
But what we can do is look at our lives, at the lives of those around us, and ask ourselves questions. Does my religion help me be a more harmonious, balanced person? Does this religion provide the tools and techniques to enable me to cope with both everyday setbacks and extreme emotional turmoil, grief and despair? Does my religion help me embody the values it proclaims: love for all people, compassion, control of passions, peace of mind? Is my religion more of a helper, facilitating my spiritual development, than a jailer, paralyzing my will and limiting my freedom?
If the answers to these questions are rather positive, then such a religion can be considered effective! Within the framework of this concept, we avoid theological disputes about the essence of God, the Absolute, about what is inaccessible to direct experience, but talk about things that we can understand and comprehend: our earthly life and the influence of religion on it.
The effectiveness of religion can be assessed not only in the context of individual benefits, but also social ones. Does a certain spiritual teaching help society become healthy and harmonious, and prevent both internal and external aggression?
(Of course, here I am giving an example of a very rough assessment. It is necessary to take into account many factors, such as the degree of religiosity of society (for example, people in India are much more religious than people in Russia, although the latter formally consider themselves Christians, but very often do not profess values and rituals of the teachings of Christ), the cultural and social context of society, the temperament of people, etc.)
In the latter case, we evaluate the effectiveness of religion on an objective plane: is this or that religion effective for the majority of members of society? But this does not mean that this concept cannot exist on a subjective plane: which religion is more suitable for a particular individual. That is, despite the fact that there are clearly some general standards of effectiveness and, probably, we can say that some religions are more effective than others in general (for most people), it does not follow that they will be more effective for each individual person. (Therefore, further in this article I will talk about two layers of efficiency: objective, general and subjective, particular)
However, I would like to further outline those features of religion that, in my opinion, correspond to its effectiveness.
Multi-level and versatility
What do I mean by multi-level and universality? This is the ability of a certain teaching to be accessible to a wide variety of people, at very different levels of development. I'll start with an example.
When Buddhism began to seep into the West, some Western intellectuals were amazed at the “elitism,” “intellectuality,” and “practicality” of this teaching against the backdrop of the “dogmatic” and “ritualized” Christianity they were familiar with and enthusiastically accepted the Eastern teaching. But Buddhism “seeped through”, that is, it passed through in parts, in an incomplete form. According to some researchers of Buddhism, such things as rituals and ceremonies, hated by intellectuals, were already contained in the earliest teachings of the Buddha; moreover, Gautama himself encouraged pilgrimage and veneration of the relics of saints.
And rightly so! Because religion should not be purely elitist! Because not every person is able to perceive subtle truths that require special states of consciousness, sophisticated teachings, the understanding of which requires a developed intellect. Not everyone is able to realize mystical experiences, a sense of oneness with “God” through diligent practice. But every individual needs a state of peace and integrity. And if someone needs rituals, acts of worship, pilgrimages for this, so be it.
Critics of the ritualization of religions miss the fact that rituals also play a utilitarian, psychotechnical role. They calm the mind and tune it to more subtle work. Despite the fact that I cannot call myself a representative of any religion (although I sympathize with Eastern teachings), I often do some short rituals before practicing. Agree, if you devote a little time to, for example, lighting a stick of incense in peace and quiet (it would seem, how stupid!), then this will help you think less about everyday affairs during meditation.
Religion should be accessible to everyone! Therefore, it should contain as a layer for initiates (these are Hesychasm and other mystical movements of Christianity, Sufism in Islam, Zen in Buddhism, Kabbalah in Judaism (by the way, a quick analysis of these mystical movements reveals amazing similarities between them. Mystics from different religions are in many ways different agree with each other)), and a more understandable and accessible area for all people: a description of ritual actions, rules for ceremonies and rituals, methods of pilgrimage, etc. (this area already varies greatly in different movements). But, in my opinion, the mystical, elitist layer should not isolate itself, but at least slightly integrate its practices into things that are more accessible to all people, as, for example, happens in Eastern religions (the focus on the development of consciousness, meditation is already in the most basic principles Buddhism). In the Abrahamic traditions, this layer is more closed and closed to the uninitiated (most Christians are not familiar, for example, with the breathing techniques of hesychasm, “Christian yoga and meditation”).
Available methods of self-development. Practicality
They are found in all religions: prayer, meditation, fasting, breathing techniques. But often not much attention is paid to their implementation, which is strange, because the spiritual development of a person depends on them. An effective religion will not allow its members to form the opinion that their salvation depends only on the formal implementation of norms and rituals (although this is also important).
An effective religion places great emphasis on the development of consciousness, the improvement of virtues, and teaches how to cope with anxiety and fear, doubt and self-criticism. (And not only prescribes prohibitions and restrictions, but also shows HOW we can become better) After all, no one doubts the fact of the existence of earthly life with all its hardships and suffering.
Relevance and clarity. Protection from religious deviations
An effective religion must avoid ambiguity. It must have built-in protection from manifestations of fanaticism and deviation, from the implementation of sadism and cruelty under the guise of piety. On the one hand, this protection can be presented in the form of practical advice on spiritual development.
In my opinion, extreme manifestations of religious fanaticism and religious cruelty are a consequence of underdeveloped consciousness. A fanatic is a person who has not learned to cope with lust, cruelty, greed, thirst for power, but has now received the imaginary right to display these qualities under the guise of religiosity. Morally, he is no better than criminals, although he considers himself righteous. Therefore, it is so important for religion to give clear and precise instructions for self-improvement, so that a person clears his consciousness of darkness and vices before committing rash acts under the banner of his faith.
In addition, the religious texts themselves must clearly define the norms of righteous behavior and take into account unacceptable actions (taking into account the analysis of history), including those hiding behind the mask of religiosity (for example, the inadmissibility of religious persecution, violence, “inquisition”).
Religious practices and fasts should also neither harm the individual, nor lead to the suppression of desires, nor give rise to new vices and deviations. An effective religion should not avoid agreement with scientific data, psychology, not in the cosmogonic sense (issues of the origin of the world - here they will never converge), but in matters of balanced personal development.
Consistency
In general, it is difficult for religious teaching to be consistent, especially taking into account point 1 (multi-level), different levels can conflict with each other. Theologians have done everything they could to link the idea of a merciful Christian God with all his Old Testament cruelty, human sacrifices, the cause of which was HE, in order to connect the Old and New Testaments with a conceptual bridge, seeing in the death of Jesus Christ the atonement of original sin, going back to the book of Genesis .
Probably, in the sophisticated constructions of theologians, all these contradictions are removed, but not in the heads of ordinary people, relying on common sense, which exposes all this antagonism between the early Jewish roots of Christianity and the later Greek influences, between the ancient Jewish religious book and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Sometimes it seems that Christianity is an attempt to combine two completely different religions into one.
And the point is not only this, but the fact that, trying to reach as many people as possible, religion inevitably gives rise to new contradictions. This is a natural process and no teaching can be blamed for this. Again, this is a matter of multi-levelness. Some people need to be provided with food for the intellectual knowledge of God, others with ecstatic revelations, still others with the idea of love and care, and still others (who can no longer take anything) with the fear of eternal torment. Therefore, within the framework of one religion we can see both a merciful, loving God and a cruel, punishing God.
Nevertheless, the structural, ideological framework of an effective religion can be built more logically and consistently, avoiding any sharp corners and contradictions. Quite elegant, in my opinion, in this construction is Buddhism. The idea of God is not there, and it can just give rise to a lot of confusion and questions (“If God is merciful, where does all this suffering come from?”). There is no punishment or reward: all responsibility for moral transgressions is “determined” by the impersonal law of cause-and-effect relationships. Everyone can “save themselves” by gaining enlightenment, and cosmogonic questions (questions of the origin of the world, the meaning of life) remain outside the boundaries of Buddhist discourse as unimportant. That is, Buddhism “found” a way to get rid of unnecessary contradictions simply by not creating many “entities” (such as God, the meaning of life, punishment and reward) within the framework of its doctrine. That is, it is much more minimalistic and therefore slender. But many people will find it more controversial than Middle Eastern religions. We are all different and I am simply expressing my opinion.
Problem of choice
Hello, dear Aniga! I noticed that you are a broad-minded person. And since you are a believer, you obviously recognize that we all need guidance from God's Word.
While studying different religions, you noticed that almost every religion has sincere people. And we all need to consider what God's Word says, Ephesians 4:5,6 says: “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all.” ." This is consistent with other Bible verses, for example Matthew 7:13,14,21 records the words of Jesus Christ: “Enter at the narrow gate; For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go therein; Because narrow is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it. Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord,” Lord!” He who does the will of My Father in heaven will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”
But how to find true religion? How to determine which religion is correct?
It is necessary to consider: 1- on what are her teachings based, are they from God or are they mainly invented by people? (2 Timothy 3:16; Mark 7:7).
2- Does it reveal the name of God to people? Jesus said in prayer to God, “I have made Your things known to the men whom You gave me out of the world” (John 17:6). He also said: “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him only” (Matthew 4:10). Have you become acquainted with the Person bearing this name: with his plans, deeds, qualities - so well that you can rely on him in everything?
3- Do its members demonstrate genuine faith in Jesus Christ? Such faith means being grateful that Jesus sacrificed his human life for people and recognizing his position as heavenly King (John 3:36; Psalm 2:6-8). Such gratitude motivates obedience to Jesus, zealous participation in the work that he entrusted to his followers. Members of true religion prove their faith by works (James 2:26).
4- Is it just a matter of formal observance of rituals or is it rather a way of life? God does not approve of religion that is merely formal observance of ritual (Isaiah 1:15-17). True religion adheres firmly to biblical standards regarding morality and speech; it does not blindly follow what is accepted in the world (1 Corinthians 5:9-13; Ephesians 5:3-5). Its members manifest the fruits of God's spirit in their lives (Galatians 5:22,23). Therefore, those who profess true religion can be identified by the fact that they earnestly try to act according to biblical standards, not only where they worship God, but also at home, at work, at school and in play.
5- Do its members really love each other? Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love one another” (John 13:35). There are no racial, social or national barriers to such love. It unites people with brotherly bonds. This love is so strong that those who show it stand out from the rest of the world.
6-Is she really separated from the world? Jesus said that his true followers would be “not of the world” (John 15:19). For God to approve of any religion, its members must “keep themselves unspotted from the world” (James 1:27). Is it possible to speak of a religion whose leaders and members interfere in politics or lead a lifestyle centered on materialistic and carnal desires? (1John 2:15-17).
7- Are its members known for telling others about God's Kingdom? Jesus predicted: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14). What religion proclaims that the Kingdom of God, not human rule, will solve mankind's problems? (Revelation 21:3,4).
Is it right to change your parents' religion?
If what our parents taught us is based on the Bible, we must hold fast to it. Even if we have learned that their religious views and traditions do not agree with the Bible, the parents are still worthy of our respect. What would you do if you learned that one of your parents' habits was harmful to your health and could lead to premature death? Would you do the same as them and teach it to your children? Or would you respectfully share what you learned with your loved ones? Likewise, knowing biblical truth comes with responsibility. Whenever possible, we should share with our loved ones what we learn. 1 Peter 1:18,19 says, “Knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from the futile life handed down to you from your forefathers, but through the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” Apparently, the early Christians broke with the traditions of their fathers, since adherence to these traditions would never lead them to eternal life. Out of gratitude for Christ's sacrifice, they willingly abandoned everything that made their lives fruitless, meaningless, and that did not bring glory to God. Shouldn't we do the same?
Reincarnation is the belief in rebirth, that living beings pass from one existence to another one or more times. It is usually believed that some intangible soul, after the death of the body, moves into a new body of some animal or person. This is not a biblical teaching. The Bible says: “... The fate of the sons of men and the fate of animals is one; as they die, so do these, and everyone has the same breath, and man has no advantage over cattle;... Everything goes to one place; everything came from their dust, and everything will return to dust” (Ecclesiastes 3:19,20). As with humans, no part of the animal survives the death of the body. There is nothing left that can be reborn in another body. Ecclesiastes 9:10 goes on to say, “Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your strength; because in the grave where you will go there is no work, no reflection, no knowledge, no wisdom.” As we see, all dead people go to the grave, and do not move into other bodies.
However, God promises that all the dead will be resurrected. This is not about reincarnation, but about the same person coming back to life (Acts 24:15). Most people will be resurrected to live on earth. This will happen after God destroys the modern wicked world. Sickness, suffering, and even death will forever be a thing of the past (Revelation 21:3,4). Would you like to know more about this hope and receive evidence that everything will be exactly like this?
With respect to you Lyubov Alekseevna.
