After the recent spate of religious based threads, I decided that we should all see how much we agree on this little detail.

Following religious writings in spirit means taking what the writings MEAN not what they actually SAY.
For example:
The letter: If you act as a martyr, you will receive 72 virgins in heaven.
My take on the spirit: If you do not throw aside your beliefs easily and help non believers to see the light and come to understand and cherish your beliefs as their own, then you will be deemed a good person for giving someone's life direction and having the guts to stand up for what you believe is right.

Now I used that example simply because it would be the most widely recognized. I don't know for sure if that is actually written in the Qur'an, but that's what we have been lead to believe, and it also makes no difference anyway, because I don't believe in following the letter.

Let's look at Shakespeare. Anyone understand each and every single word that he wrote in his plays? Anyone with their hands up, get out. Right now. And pick up your pitchforks and suicide bombs on the way. No one knows, because none of us ever lived in his time period. What we say today, even though we use the same words as generations before us, means something often completely different. A brilliant example is the video that was recently posted showing a kids program from around about the 60's. They obviously didn't offend anyone, and we know how mothers love to be offended, but if that program were aired today I am sure that we would have coronaries all over Beverly Hills. Those poor women would be dropping like flies at the prospect of their little darlings hearing such innuendos and insinuations.

Meanings change, objectives change, languages change. I believe (and I have been called unreligious, blasphemous and a whole host of other things for believing this) that living a good life is all that it takes to be close to whoever or whatever you consider to be your God. Not hurting other people intentionally, helping those in need when you are able, protecting the weak when you can, and playing your part in bringing a new, better generation into this world.

I honestly don't believe that any sort of higher power, be it God (my vote btw ), Allah, Buddha, Bob Marley or Maggie Thatcher, no matter how obscure the writings about them may be, would ever want one human being to intentionally do harm to another person, or to sacrifice his or her own life in the name of belief.

Let's open up the floor, peanut gallery feel free to throw whatever is close to hand.

You've hit the nail bang on the head

I follow religion strictly, namely because their is nothing in Mainstream Hinduism that is in conflict with the changing world, nothing about converting people (you must be born a Hindu), nothing about HIV AIDS etc.

Very simple principles that help you lead a better life with a sense of guidance and purpose. The caste system is being pushed out of order, slowly but surely and this gradual cahnge seems to be the only major thing that has changed. Our texts were never written by people with ulterior motives as when it was born over 4000 years ago - there was nothing to have a motive on.

I always have used my common sense before making a decision, if their was a statement saying that i was to jump off a cliff, i simply wouldn't do it. Why?
Because im not an idiot.

I follow religion in spirit. Follow the guidance and use common sense to live your life

Following the spirit of it is better. A lot of the 'laws' were guidelines, not concrete principles. Would it change if people followed it in spirit though?

The moment you do that it is open to interpretation. Let's use christianity and the prescribed biblical attitude to homosexuality. According to the letter, they should be shunned, condemned and so on. The people who don't have an issue with it would feel following the spirit would be to ignore the stuff written against them and treat them like anyone else, those who personally object to it would believe following the spirit of it would mean condemning them. What would change?

( at )Nukes, you say that following a religion in spirit is important, why are you so adamant that the bible must not be rewritten then?

I am just using the Bible as a point of reference. If it was rewritten people (such as fanatics) can add in whatever they want and complete carnage would then ensue.

For example all of the Al Qaeda and cohorts are quoting passages from the Koran as propoganda - since the text is so open ended they are able to say it means xyz. And look at the result.

If people can physically rewrite texts than we could have a far worse situation at hand

No we wouldn't have a worse situation. If as it stands the Koran is used to lead people to become suicide bombers changing it wouldn't make any difference. Those who are ready to become suicide bombers would, those who have more than two braincells huddling together wouldn't become a suicide bomber regardless of what the book says, or what the religious leaders tell them it means.

The bible, koran and so on have given us the crusades, the inquisition, the salem witch trials, jihads, the situation in palestine/israel, afghanistan under the taliban, afghanistan now (which isn't much better), iraq then and now, america now, abductions by the Vatican, crazy messages about condoms in the light of Aids, shunning of stem cell research, persecution of scientists. That's just the beginning of the gifts it has given us, and it's taken a lot away from the world as well. I fail to see how things could get any worse by a rewrite.

You could never re-write these texts.

You would just have the 'Church of the First Text' and the 'Order of the Original Writings', blah, blah.

Fundamentalists from all religions will never let go. This is just a conduit for their twisted minds.

Lol, RevQ I'm afraid I'm going to have to go with Milano here, if you rewrite the Bible, next year we wont have wars between Islam Judaism and Christianity, you will have wars between Islam Judaism, Christianity and the new Christianity.
Like you already said, people with brains wouldn't care, people without brains will do it anyway.

Nukes:
If you honestly believe that people of 4000 years ago never had any motives at all I would seriously question your thinking. Of course they had motives, whether they were what they said they were is a different question all together, but still one that is completely plausible.

I wasn't actually in favour of a rewrite of any of them, I just saw it as a contradiction that in one thread Nukes said it mustn't be rewritten, in this thread he's holding that it's only the general principles that matter, and they are the one thing that would survive a rewrite, so why be against it.

Haha, now I see!
Nicely spotted RevQ

So Nukes, whats the story?!

Show me the motives....

I shall go step by step to explain my thinking

1. Hinduism is extremely old, from a time when their was very little to go on
2. There are no motives in the texts that conflict with anything (except the caste system for example)
3. Essentially the only major thing that you are asked to do is:
a: Do not eat Beef. Cows give milk, which is what life requires to begin with, hence it
b: Obey caste rules, the reason behind it is that we believe that life is a circle of birth, death, reincarnation etc. The only way to break out of this circle is to lead such a pure life that you are fit to be re-united with god in the heavens. Or lead such a life that you are sentenced to hell. The caste that you are in is based on your karma in your past life.
c: Then comes the do not lie etc. rules
4. Hinduism does not preach conversion at all, people can only be born a hindu, if you convert and then you will be reborn as a hindu.
5. We do not have one founder. We have many. They all have said the same things
6. Tell me when Hinduism has started a conflict in History (before you say Pakistan - that was cause because the muslims wanted a state. Granted that both sides commited atrocities but it was started because of the British plans of vivisecting idea and some very dumb politicians etc.)