What then characterizes the aspirations of a person to be religious?

Question

Thanks to all your answers. Have a great day!

Answer 1

First I will define the religious character types, then I will examine the motives as a derivative of those types.

There are three types of religious persons.

1. Those who are taught, by themselves, or others, and act habitually rather than thoughtfully. This is a deleterious practice which tends to be judgmental and reactionary. No intellectual argument can easily help these people, especially as adults, and actions too, of merit, are often rejected by them as any proof to anyone other method's superiority.

2. Those who are intellectually engaged in precept of moral, and ontological truths. These are are generally able to moderate their life, but most of their energy is put into discussion, and study, and not necessarily personal subjective practice. This will tend to help those who learn from them, and put their discovered precepts into practice themselves, even though they do not always themselves.

3. Are those who prove the merit of everything they do by practicing in all aspects will complete self, and cultural honesty. This group is the most rare, and aids large populace directly, and a much larger audience indirectly. This type include many of the saints and mystics. Ghandi, Mother Theresa, The Dalai Lama, etc. are generally included in this group, as evidenced by their lives and teachings, which have affected others, some of like kind, including Martin Luther King Jr., and Rosa Parks, even Pope John Paul II, etc.

What motivates the first group is merely the claims of the excellence of the teachings, even though they do not understand them. Thus such a motive is purely selfish aggrandizing without reason.

The second group is motivated by the rational purpose for things, and are thus included in the theological scientists, and contribute to society by the virtue of knowledge, though are not true philosophers and saints.

The last group are those who are motivated solely for the sake of truth which transcends rational reasoning - that.is even if nobody benefited by it because of their stubbornness, they would still practice it for themselves because it is true, and escapes the limits of culture and time. Socrates and other self practicing philosophers, and prophets and saints are of this kind.

Now in all these cases, if perfect practice is not innate - as claimed to be only to the Holy Teachers, such as Christ, et al. - it is the contrast between the very lack [sin] of these noble qualities in the observed life, and their innate [sinless] potential in the mystery laden inner life which is Conscious. This causes the force of love to act toward knowledge, and attainment to become apparent. In this way the Prime Mover acts upon the Creation, whose primary feature which regards itself is mind.

The first group has yet to distinguish mind from instinct and self preservation of body, and are indeed found with the mark of the beast/animal nature.

Thus the knowledge of sin compared to innate [potential] perfection is always the motive, and it exists in progressive degrees of manifest perfection. The basest of which is unconscious, incapable of its own development, requiring the Divine teachings to make the knowledge of its lack [sin] known. While the highest is the transcendence of need, and is deferential to innate potential Perfection in all things - the image and likeness of God.

God bless.

Answer 2

I don't know of any instance whereby I may give as example a person who was not shamed or manipulated by their guilt into a faith. That statement should not be confused or confounded with the notion of an evil manipulator; one is not needed. The products of the Judgment shame and guilt for the self in self do not have a naturally ac-curing true description for their true genesis. From infinite possibility for self in self the shame and guilt in failure is likewise infinite in its possibility, and when it is, salvation from it is an ecstasy beyond comparison. The wrath after it may also be beyond comparison.

The Will is positive, the Judgment is negative.


hope- Basic Trust vs. Mistrust

will- Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt

purpose- Initiative vs. Guilt

competence- Industry vs. Inferiority

fidelity- Identity vs. Role Confusion

love (in intimate relationships, work and family)- Intimacy vs. Isolation

caring- Generativity vs. Stagnation

wisdom- Ego Integrity vs. Despair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erick_Erickson

Answer 3

I liked the answers of Patti R, & I'm not that smart, although I don't totally agree with them. At least they gave you civil, & thoughtful answers. whatnowww was mean-spirited--I wonder how clever he is in his second language, if he has one? The truth is, he violated the guidelines, but isn't worth my time to report. I just wanted to comment, as I think such cruel insults are foolish & wasteful. I hope you have a great day, too!

Answer 4

I think, for me, there is a difference between "being religious" and having a relationship with God. I pray and study His word and I try to let Christ's teachings guide how I treat others and how I treat and take care of myself.

I aspire to a growing personal relationship with God - I don't (particularly) aspire to be "religious".

Hope I have explained the difference. God Bless.

Answer 5

"Religion" is the acts associated with faith, such as genuflection, prayer, etc.
Faith is belief in something that has no "reason" in existence.
Reason and faith are antitheses, which is why Boethius said, "In so far as is possible, join faith to reason." He knew faith alone was not enough.
But reason joined to faith proves nothing. No one has proved or disproved God's existence, and it will never be done.
So religion is the abandoning of reason in order to believe in what has no reason.

Answer 6

A search for truth. Perhaps a higher purpose.