my findings in religion are

[Jhanananda]

My conclusions about humans is they are mostly: lazy, stupid, ignorant, delusional, and addicted; which goes a long way to explaining why every mainstream religion on the planet aggressively sells a belief system that has almost no association with its progenitor.

Thus, my findings in religion are:

1) Most religions are a big stinking pile of lies with just a sprinkle of truth.
2) The progenitors of all of the major religions were contemplatives
3) They all professed a way, truth and life
4) The way, truth and life that all of the progenitors of all of the major religions professed was remarkably similar; and what they professed was a cogent and logically true philosophical system, at the foundation of leading a self-aware, contemplative life.
5) No mainstream religion today teaches a cogent and logically true philosophical system, nor supports a self-aware contemplative life.
6) Instead all mainstream religions today teach blind faith in a deeply flawed philosophical system 
7) All mainstream religions today rely heavily upon a deeply flawed translation and/or interpretation of their religious literature, which in every case relies heavily upon translator bias and language shift.  Or, the religious hierarchy outright rewrote the book to suit themselves.
The reason why all mainstream religions today teach blind faith in a deeply flawed philosophical system, is because most humans are: lazy, stupid, ignorant, delusional, and addicted, and want to follow a simplified belief system; and they are not at all interested in a cogent and logically true philosophical system; and too lazy to lead a self-aware, contemplative life.

So, you can see why my 40 year research into religion and religious experiences has not been widely accepted; and has been rejected by Accademia, and the priesthood of most religions, and why the GWV and this forum have so few members.

[Alexander]

My conclusions about humans is they are mostly: lazy, stupid, ignorant, delusional, and addicted; which goes a long way to explaining why every mainstream religion on the planet aggressively sells a belief system that has almost no association with its progenitor.

Thus, my findings in religion are:

1) Most religions are a big stinking pile of lies with just a sprinkle of truth.
2) The progenitors of all of the major religions were contemplatives
3) They all professed a way, truth and life
4) The way, truth and life that all of the progenitors of all of the major religions professed was remarkably similar; and what they professed was a cogent and logically true philosophical system, at the foundation of leading a self-aware, contemplative life.
5) No mainstream religion today teaches a cogent and logically true philosophical system, nor supports a self-aware contemplative life.
6) Instead all mainstream religions today teach blind faith in a deeply flawed philosophical system 
7) All mainstream religions today rely heavily upon a deeply flawed translation and/or interpretation of their religious literature, which in every case relies heavily upon translator bias and language shift.  Or, the religious hierarchy outright rewrote the book to suit themselves.
The reason why all mainstream religions today teach blind faith in a deeply flawed philosophical system, is because most humans are: lazy, stupid, ignorant, delusional, and addicted, and want to follow a simplified belief system; and they are not at all interested in a cogent and logically true philosophical system; and too lazy to lead a self-aware, contemplative life.

So, you can see why my 40 year research into religion and religious experiences has not been widely accepted; and has been rejected by Accademia, and the priesthood of most religions, and why the GWV and this forum have so few members.

it's incredibly tricky. not only does someone have to get out of the quagmire of bollocks claiming to be "religion" but they also have to avoid the pitfall of unchecked skepticism, and come back to religion but with an immensely discriminative mind. truth is there, but no one finds it.

[Jhanananda]

it's incredibly tricky. not only does someone have to get out of the quagmire of bollocks claiming to be "religion" but they also have to avoid the pitfall of unchecked skepticism, and come back to religion but with an immensely discriminative mind. truth is there, but no one finds it.

I am not sure what the value is of coming back to religion, if religion is an institution that has forgotten the message of their progenitor and has become nothing more than a group of pretentious priests looking for a subsistence?  Or, do you think that my take on religion is nothing more than unchecked skepticism?

[Alexander]

I am not sure what the value is of coming back to religion, if religion is an institution that has forgotten the message of their progenitor and has become nothing more than a group of pretentious priests looking for a subsistence?  Or, do you think that my take on religion is nothing more than unchecked skepticism?

Neither the one nor the other =)

My own experience was something like 1. grew up in mainstream religion -> 2. became critical of it, and irreligious -> and 3. became a mystic. I consider 3 my "coming back" to religion, but with a completely different understanding of how to evaluate it. So, I usually take my own experience as a model for what a lot of people go through. And my reference to unchecked skepticism is the 6th grave karma, which can happen when you become irreligious.

[Jhanananda]

Neither the one nor the other =)

My own experience was something like 1. grew up in mainstream religion -> 2. became critical of it, and irreligious -> and 3. became a mystic. I consider 3 my "coming back" to religion, but with a completely different understanding of how to evaluate it. So, I usually take my own experience as a model for what a lot of people go through. And my reference to unchecked skepticism is the 6th grave karma, which can happen when you become irreligious.

Being more clear in a response is a way to avoid being misunderstood.

My path was similar to your path: "1. grew up in mainstream religion -> 2. became critical of it, and irreligious -> and 3. became a mystic."  But, I would have to insert "became a contemplative" in between 2 and 3.

It has become clear to me that we simply must unpack our belief systems if we are intent upon not being just naive devotees.  However, unfortunately, too few unpack their belief systems, which supports my findings at the top of this thread.

[stugandolf]

How about spiritual without being religious? Not that I would want to define spirituality.  In a world that is largely driven by greed, hate and delusion;  it is not surprising that the founders of religion delivered messages that have been so corrupted that the original messages require incredible unpacking.  One example of corruption:  there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ  actually existed. 

[Jhanananda]

How about spiritual without being religious? Not that I would want to define spirituality. 

Well, I agree, one need not be religious, while being deeply spiritual.  However, spiritual often translates into being a contemplative.

In a world that is largely driven by greed, hate and delusion;  it is not surprising that the founders of religion delivered messages that have been so corrupted that the original messages require incredible unpacking.  One example of corruption:  there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ  actually existed.

Well, there is no physical evidence that Moses, or the Buddha, existed either; however, we can look at their legacy and accept that they may have existed, but the priesthood that grew up around each of these mystics has made it very difficult to unpack their message from the mass of nonsense surrounding that message.

[Soren]

I am not sure what the value is of coming back to religion, if religion is an institution that has forgotten the message of their progenitor and has become nothing more than a group of pretentious priests looking for a subsistence?  Or, do you think that my take on religion is nothing more than unchecked skepticism?

I think that by religion he meant becoming critical of all forms of belief that deal with anything supernatural.

So the steps a lot of people take are:
1. grew up in mainstream religion -> 2. became critical of it, an atheist/naturalist

The last two steps are taken less often
4. Research/search for truth -> 5. Follow this truth which is away from any organized religious system

1) Most religions are a big stinking pile of lies with just a sprinkle of truth.

Out of all (mainstream) religions I think Buddhism is the closest to the truth. But a lot of Buddhist have never actually read suttas, they have just read books that give a very general (and often inaccurate) summary.

[Jhanananda]

I think that by religion he meant becoming critical of all forms of belief that deal with anything supernatural.

I happen to agree with you that religion is more about providing a supernatural explanation for whatever, which, to me, is  sign of decay; because, the progenitors of all of the major religions were contemplatives who became mystics, so their "way, truth and life" was leading a rigorous, self-aware contemplative life to become a mystic, and not at all about pretending to be holy.

So the steps a lot of people take are:
1. grew up in mainstream religion -> 2. became critical of it, an atheist/naturalist

The last two steps are taken less often
4. Research/search for truth -> 5. Follow this truth which is away from any organized religious system

I happen to agree with you here, but I do not believe we need to leave organized religious systems, if those systems understood and valued the contemplative life, and what it leads to.  Sadly, none do.

Out of all (mainstream) religions I think Buddhism is the closest to the truth. But a lot of Buddhist have never actually read suttas, they have just read books that give a very general (and often inaccurate) summary.

Well, that is why I defined myself as a Buddhist for a long time, but Buddhism is; nonetheless, an organized religious system that tends to rely upon supernatural explanations provided by a pretentious priesthood, who have no idea what the contemplative life is, or what it leads to.