Where is the boundary drawn?
Do the public institutions of religion enhance or restrict the evolution and development of personal faith?
If a person becomes ‘enlightened’, do they really need the guidance and advice of clergy who carry their own opinionated dogma and experience? Can the clergy really provide an impartial view?
The hypocrisy of a cleric extolling the virtue of living a simplistic life, and assisting the poor and needy, and deriding selfishness, whilst living himself in grandiose surroundings grates against my craw, especially when I see the wealth that exists in the churches of the old religions.
Tele-evangelists don’t always seem to have a ‘good grasp’ either. They encourage their congregations to pray for a new car or for money for this or that desired possession. Is that the true purpose of becoming a spiritual person? So as you can attain more material wealth, and then by supposedly guaranteeing your place in the eternal hereafter? Should their guidance for us be more of a ‘spiritual’ kind?
Where does caring, compassion and trying to be a better person fit in the prayers of material wealth?
Finding one’s inner strength and using that to better the conditions of one’s life and those around us, sits better with my values and what I view religion or faith to be. The dogma of God first, others second and me last does not always seem to universally apply to public religion.
Something to ponder about…..