Peace Among Religions

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
41

There are many who are more than willing to say that any effort is doomed to fail for any variety of reasons. And if we accept a historical viewpoint, they are probably right. For whatever reason, I cannot see how sitting on our…hands helps anything.

It seems to me that to pooh pooh the concept of making some effort is short-run safe and may be intellectually satisfying, but ultimately does a disservice to all. It may be futile, but we need to begin applying the brakes now. The edge of disaster canyon is right before us.

noos, Your answer would be mine as well, but that would be our answer and not theirs, and theirs is the only one that counts. We could wish or hope, but the sessation of violence must happen within each religious and non-religious grouping. This cannot be about everyone seeing the world the same way, but that all the ways share a common desire for peace, and that violence is a perversion within any system of faith.

JT

42

Hello F(r)iends,

Scythekain, I was not talking about myself… I was using a hypothetical person. I imagine there are people who would not care if their daughter’s husband cheat on her… Mankind can rationalize anything if they need to…

Thanks for making a great point. Translations can add to ambiguity, thus we are able to rationalize even more.

I think I failed to make it clear that I do not think or believe the posts I made, only that there are some people that justify their actions by interpreting their morals differently… some of them do it unconsciously.

Remember, that it is not me that believes this. In any case, it is not difficult to imagine that the man that has all will do everything in his power to prevent others from stealing… isn’t that what happens today? We have people who stole land, who had it stolen, and want it back, and are willing to steal it? All it takes is one action to send these golden rules out the window… Do you think everyone will accept the golden rule? They will do everything to take your land? What then? Do you kill them? Do unto others huh?

Not everyone will care if it is in the best interest of mankind. I wouldn’t steal or cheat on my wife and I wouldn’t want anyone to steal from me or cheat on my wife… do you think that out of 6,000,000,000 people there will not be some that do not care or will justify their actions in any way they deem it justifiable? That is the point.

-Thirst

43

I think it’s telling that nobody who actually practices mainstream religious beliefs has had anything to say in this thread so far. Perhaps the very very first step would be to actually get religious people involved in these sorts of conversations, instead of people who aren’t religious anyway deciding among themselves what everyone else needs to do to improve the world. Wouldn’t be a hoot (far fetched as it may seem) if atheists, agnostics, and eclectics had to change some things about their attitudes as well?

44

Man as a species loves to argue and justify itself. It has become natural for us. Religion is something to fight over as with politics, sports, and games. You cannot assume that just because anyone can look at the ancient teachings and find similarities that all of a sudden people will want to think it of any importance. The personal psychological truths of religions have become secondary to the defense of their secular appeal which is for status and self importance. You are appealing to an ideal that is not wanted by the majority.

This is why I believe in the value of the potential minority that are willing to work on themselves, on their own capacity for undestanding, rather than continue to tell others what to do or how they should be.

Assume for a moment that I am right and that the real importance of religion is not secular but personal psychology: the psychology of "being. Prof. Needleman wrote:

I believe it would be hopeless. Life is as it is because of this lost capacity for consciousness in the moment. We’ve even largely lost the human urge “To Be” so how could we know what “meant to be” means?

I know Bob will correct me here if this quote is wrong:

Prof. Needleman wrote:

This presence to oneself is the missing element in the whole of the life of Man, the intermediate state of consciousness between what we are meant to be and what we actually are. it is perhaps the one bridge that can lead us from our inhuman past toward the human future.

We may not be able to change the world but we can change ourselves and through the change in ourselves, contribute towards a human future for those open to it. This requires the humility to admit our nothingness and the need for the help true religion can supply. The trouble is that such change is not immediately recognized as anything worthwhile by our ego so it is ignored at the expense of our “being”. Platitudes are somehow more impressive and personally satisfying.

Tentative wrote:

It doesn’t help but beginning with oneself does. How can one become the person everyone seems to want everyone else to be?

45

We aren’t “meant” to be anything as humans are a random occurance.

The word “meant” is a “should” and that means that it is an unrealistic word in this case. Most religions tell you how things are meant to be and that is not realistic. It’s the “should” that separates all of these systems.

46

Hi JT,

I agree completely. We are living in a world where there are millions of people suffering at least under the effects of the conflict between modern (and fundamentalist) Christian ideology and Islamic fundamentalism. This isn’t something we can just argue theoretically, there are existential interests at stake.

Vocational training has led me to understand that many of our disorders and illnesses are psychosomatic, physical malfunctions that occur because of a psychological imbalance, and that this imbalance occurs when we have lost the middle, heart or centre of our life. It is less the occurrence of something innately evil than inherent insecurity that causes much of our problems. Curiously, this is something that in varying degrees is common to all of mankind, wherever people come from and whatever religion they belong to.

Insecurity is what makes people try to find security, the more intensive their insecurity is, the more security they need. It is therefore not surprising that sentience can be a source of insecurity and security, depending on the social implications of expressing that awareness. In our modern age, there is a tendency to be very superficial with sentience. It is often kept hidden, a cause of embarrassment, or it is flaunted as though it is the universal panacea for all ills. The fact that it is a basic experience which we need to understand is often thrust aside.

It is no coincidence that to cope with stress a number of breathing exercises are suggested, which are intended to centre our lives, give us balance and help us meditate and concentrate, relax and work. The average person breathes 110 lbs of air per day. Air contains the basic building blocks for all physical matter, namely four gases, hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and oxygen. Our breath is a subconscious basal activity of our bodies, but one that is so central, that we can quickly diagnose a disorder by looking at how someone breaths. It is here that many religions begin too.

I think we can agree with the ancients that we are Spiritual Beings sustained by the metaphorical breath of life. We experience life in contrasts. Between every breath a man dies and is reborn, so every day he is born into the light of day and dies into sleep, that foretaste death wherein the dreams torment and taunt him with the deeds of the day. These are ideas that are transported in some form by a myriad of religions but it is something that western people pay hundreds of dollars to “rediscover”.

In the Bible we read that (Gen 2:7) “God formed the man out of dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

Kriya Yoga gives extreme importance to the breath, teaching that the Breath of God is our breath of life, and that breath control amounts to self control, breath mastery is self mastery, and it is life.

In Hopi tradition, on the fourth day after death, a person’s breath (hikwsi) leaves the body and goes to a place which represents the other realm of existence, not separated from the world of the living, but different in that this realm is not manifest, it is unseen, and not accessible to the senses.

The Maya, Zapotec, Mixtec, and Aztec religions all had a concept of a vital force that separated living from nonliving matter. For the Maya this was expressed in the concept of “ik,” or wind, breath, or life. For the Zapotecs it was “pee” or wind, breath, or spirit. For the Mixtec it was "“yni” or “ini” or spirit, heart, or heat. For the Aztec it was “tona” or vital energy, or heat.

It is interesting to read that when Jesus was speaking to the Samaritan woman at the well, she said to him, “Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet, our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where it is necessary to worship.” Jesus answered her, “woman, believe me that an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem… but an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth.” (John 4:19-23)

Jesus’ response puts the emphasis on what is spiritual rather than what is religious. The external is less important than the internal, indicating that the deeper reality of religion is spirituality. Looking at this in another way, we could consider the meaning of the two words religion and spiritual. The word religion in Latin refers to piety whereas the word spiritual (similar to the French word esprit) comes from spiritualis or spiritus “of breathing, of the spirit”. Therefore becoming religious, that is practicing piety, is a result of being spiritual. Jesus then is saying to the Samaritan woman, your breath, i.e. your spiritual nature, is given to you by God and is essential to your existence, concentrate on the internal, the external will grow out of that.

I think that this is where we have to begin, before we start looking at external piety, let us ask ourselves whether we acknowledge our own spirituality and awareness. Do we give this essential part of our lives, our soul if you like, room to breathe?

It is quite astonishing that Uccisore states,

I practise mainstream Protestantism in Germany and am an elder of our community. Again, it seems to be a question of acceptance and obviously the dependency of my belief on external form.

Shalom

47

that’s the only way it’ll ever work.

but Nick A. is religious and so is bob. I’m not religious but an agnostic that does believe in the spirit realm and god.

48

The Adlerian wrote:

Prof, .Needleman is not speaking of a dogmatic “should.”. Regardless of whether or not organic life including man is a random occurrence, would you agree that it is “meant” that a baby grow into an adult and finally die in conjunction with a life cycle regardless of its cause?

It is also possible, if you agree and again regardless of the cause, that a person’s psychological being can grow and mature much like the physical body can. We experience this in the contrast of our differing depths of perspective.

I know in my case my perspective can change in quality depending upon external influences. I can be in a very collected state with a good perspective of the “forest” (wholeness) while participating within an event (interaction of trees within the forest). Yet something can occur that touches a sore spot in me and I’m right there groveling in the mud between the trees with no sense of the forest.

So as I see it, the human body is born, lives, and dies, as part of a mechanical process. We can verify this in ourselves by how we’ve aged and by how it has been the same with others.

We can also verify in ourselves how we can acquire and lose conscious perspective. Assuming conscious perspective as something desirable, since we experience it on occasion, it may be possible that it can grow and mature much like the physical body does. Just like the baby cannot comprehend what it means to be an adult, the inner child cannot comprehend its potential. It needs to develop and we get a hint of it through the differing quality of our changing limited perspectives

But like the physical body needs exercise to grow in a healthy fashion so does our capacity for consciousness. If your arm were put in a cast at the age of six and the cast removed at age twenty six, it would be all shriveled up from lack of use. The same can be true with conscious human perspective. Consciousness (self awareness) is not necessary to live in society. All one needs is to continually follow acceptable patterns.

Through lack of use, our ability for conscious perspective becomes less and less until virtually non-existant and replaced by imagination. Then, as is said in the Bible, there is no alterntive but to “let the dead bury their dead.”

I would say that just as a baby is meant to mechanically mature into an adult even though it is not assured, human “being” is “meant” to mature but it is not a mechanical process but requires consciousness manifested in life as “presence”.

Christianity, Buddhism, and all the great traditions refer to it in one way or another as “awakening.” I believe awakening even for a small minority is not only beneficial for the individual but its effects are a healthy societal influence from the quality of the energy it produces entering into societal life.

49

It would seem then, that what most of us see as important is about spiritual awareness and that religion, or no religion is only important in that it becomes the expression of spirituality.

This is important because it allows us to focus on encouraging individual spiritual awareness without attempting to impose any particular way of seeing, but just to see. It implies a faith in the essential goodness of humanity: the ability of the individual to see themselves as part of peaceful co-existence with their fellow man separate and apart from any belief system, religious or other.

It would allow Uccisore, a mullah, and a heathen like me to consider ways of encouraging those who share our specific beliefs to examine their own lives without asking for a particular outcome, but having faith in our basic goodness.

Any ‘changes’ in a belief system would be from the bottom up, rather than from top down - and all without asking for change, just relying on…

If this concept has any validity, how could we begin some sort of collective call for people to pause and consider? Again, the nagging question, who, what, and how?

JT

50

Hi JT,

Isa 6:9-10 And He said, Go and say to this people, Hearing you hear, but do not understand; and seeing you see, but do not know. Make the heart of this people fat, and make his ears heavy, and shut his eyes, that he not see with his eyes, and hear with his ears, and understand with his heart, and turn back, and one heals him.

The Prophet is sent to Israel, the chosen people, with this message. It seems to me to be typical for organised religions that such moments repeatedly occur. We need to understand that we are always in danger of having a “fat” heart, “heavy” ears and closed eyes. The danger is to not see the forest because of the trees, or to be unable to doubt because we have such a firm faith.

I do not doubt that many believers are forthright and believe in what they do and say. But if faith is the “description of the suspension of or even release from doubt”, then we may be in a bit of a pickle. If the God of the Bible has continually had to correct the course of his people, why shouldn’t it be applicable today? And if the Prophet Mohammed repented 100 times a day, can it be that this is just as applicable in the modern day?

It has always been precarious to be a Prophet – the least that can happen is that he is ignored. But he proverbially has most of his problems with his own household, in his own land, within his own Religion. How often has a new Religion or a new Church or a new Denomination arisen out of the attempt to reform or just alter a direction? It is curious that modern churches with such a background think that it can’t happen to them, since the tendency is to avoid compromise for the sake of dogma.

It is seldom the question of spirituality that causes such derision, it is piety. Spirituality in fact tends to connect rather than split. I think that we have to understand that it is important to recognise the hierarchy of spirituality over religion, being the basis of religious practise. Each of us, in whatever deportment we have towards religion, must ask his or her self whether his or her own spirituality (in whatever form) is a heart-matter, and let it shine.

There is a well known quote that is applicable here: (Luk 11:33) “But no one having lit a lamp places it in secret, nor under the grain-measure, but on the lampstand, that the ones entering may see the light.” The same applies when we aspire to work for peace amongst religions.

Shalom

51

How very Satanic of you. Not very christian, though. How can you ignore the overwhelming biblicle push to prosletize?
What about ‘all men are created equal’?
Why claim christianity when you clearly do not agree with its tenets?

Guess what? By definition you are no longer agnostic!
You are a theist.

52

Hi. I have another idea on this, and Bob can tell me if I’m wrong.

I think what would bring religious peace would be some good ol’ medieval scholastic philosophy. I think we have literal interpretations of scriptures because we cannot philosophically relate to The Metaphysical as real. And how can religions relate if there is not reason of God in which they can all discuss? It is my opinion that fundamentalism is a result of modern “anti-realist” philosophy. (Although I have heard of contemporary philosophers trying to ground theology without metaphysics, I don’t know how sucessful they are.)

my real name,
un pauvre chevalier mal fet

53

Dr. Satanical wrote:

This is one reason why I dislike tampering with Christianity. It has been tampered with enough. No good can come from the sacrifice of its eesential value in the quest of some artificial egotistic harmony. There is nothing wrong with the teaching but the problems have come when it has been taken advantage through the loss of its wholeness and for personal gain.

You forget that I distinguish between Christianity and Christendom. There is a big difference between proselytizing and the effects of Christian love from the few that possess it and which is concerned with man’s awakening.

Men may be created equal as a seed but circumstances as described in the parable of the sower in Matthew 13 prevent the majority of seeds from growing as they are capable.

It is in allowing the seed to grow where both the effort and the help comes in. Consider:

The things that are of men become secondary. That is not to say that they don’t have their societal worth but that they are secondary in priority.

Being able to carry ones cross requires inner work. We are lucky if we can even hold a respectful discussion let alone carry our cross. We must make the initial efforts but we need help from above at some point.

The difference between our conceptions of work on oneself is its intent. You wish to establish your ego while I’ve come to believe that it is through work on oneself that one can be able to come to see its corruption for what it is and be able to sacrifice it. The ability “to do” from your perspective I believe is in acquisition in service to egotism while from my perspective it requires first the eventual ability to recognize and sacrifice imagination in order to acquire what is truly human.

This is the temptation on the mountain top. When one has the ability “to do” is it better to serve in heaven or rule in hell? Jesus chose to sacrifice the earthly temptation to rule.

So assuming the reality of a higher life, being caught up in the preservation of regular and identifying oneself by it, loses the higher life. Yet if one becomes able to sacrifice these attachments, then the higher life can be found and gradually acquired.

You do not recognize life beyond egotism so I presume your choice would be to gain the whole world. I’ve come to believe that real human life is beyond the limitations of the whole world and a person can eventually be put them into the context of a higher perspective: “get thee behind me, Satan”, becoming open to the truth this freedom brings and part of the higher cosmic purpose normal for the term “Man.”

54

Hi mrn,

I am only authoritative about what I think; everything else is subject to interpretation. It is always good to get a different line.

Metaphysics as the branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value, is of course extremely important, but where does it start? That is why I brought the discussion down to basics, starting with the breath, where in my opinion all contemplative approaches to life begin.

The reality of something can’t only be measured by its physical reality, but by its effect and value too, which is my mind gives meta-physical value to things that from a purely material approach may seem banal. To indulge in a priori speculation upon questions which are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment, don’t help us here. In my mind, this isn’t the nature of Spirituality and such speculations have in the past given rise to understandable criticism of Religion.

Theology likes to understand itself as the study of the nature of God, but in fact it has become the study and defence of piety or religious practise. Theology is more various systems or schools of opinions concerning religious questions than an authority on God. It tends to build fortresses around its opinions to defend them. I am truly interested in what theologians have to say, but am sceptical about to what degree Theology can be regarded as a science. Religious leaders need to be spiritual leaders first, aided by what rational knowledge is available, but should not claim to have rational proof for what they proclaim.

Spirituality seems to me to first of all a mystical experience, but an experience that is closely related to our own being. Mystics like Meister Eckhardt have stressed the affinity between the Spirit of God and the Spirit of man, which he is said to have had “breathed” into him to make him a living soul. However we describe this experience, we can acknowledge the immediate wordless inspiration that it is. What the inspiration “says” is subject to interpretation through the cultural filter we all have, and explains the variety.

We must also acknowledge the need for Myth, Legend, Allegory and Verse to present such inspiration, since it is a common trait of varying religions. It is the means of memorising those words that mean so much to us, making a recitation easier. Although recitation is especially in protestant circles proscribed, it seems quite feasible that Jesus used verse and a play on words to make his point. In fact, as I have said before, we shouldn’t underestimate the importance of language – especially within the triad of the book religions – which were all philologically related.

Shalom

55

no, like me you got that wrong as well, a theist is someone who adheres to the rules and laws of a religion. You could call me a deist at most.

but I don’t accept god through and through enough to be a deist, I have my doubts of his/her existence.

mrn,
fundamentalism is a result of modern “anti-realist” philosophy.

I can agree whole heartedly with that. Fundamentalist get caught up trying to prove unreality, while reality is rushing by.

bob said:
We must also acknowledge the need for Myth, Legend, Allegory and Verse to present such inspiration, since it is a common trait of varying religions.

I agree with this as well, there are even secular myths, like “sleepy hollow”, and “Paul Bunyan”, “Johnny Appleseed”, “huck finn” etc.

The importance of myth is the allegorical lesson we can learn from it… some apply to this life, some apply to how we can become more human than human.

56

Peace amongst religions assumes first of all that that the desire is there for it. Show me by what we regard as valuable how this is the case. We value what we are free to spend money on as opposed to the necessities of life. Look at what passes as arts and entertainment that flourish because we collectively spend money on them. Do they reflect any attraction towards a higher cause or is the attraction on a base level? If the religion is secular, why should it reflect anything different since it only can give lip service to ideals while reflecting what we are.

Next, the essence or depth of religion is being more drawn into the secular. Consider this investigation into the mysterious Q document various “experts” in the art of self deception are trying to reconstruct to express the “real” meanings behind Jesus intent in the Gospels. Without any real understanding, nothing but secular imagination will be produced and lacking any sort of transformative influence, can do nothing but maintain the status quo while giving better speeches.

The third problem to consider is the depth of our willingness to avoid the issue or be content in our ignorance. Consider the Terri Schiavo case. The best solution to be found was to subject a helpless person to the probability of an agonizingingly slow death. Politics reflecting the collective level o fbeing prevented any sort of humanitarian conclusion and people lacking the ability to put matters into perspective agree and our sleep makes the absurd acceptable.

So between the effects of our need to justify ourselves dominating our desire for understanding, the effects of misguided “experts” and our tendency towards being influenced by the power of suggestion, peace between secular religious teachings will be publicly rejected because of the ill will of “other guy”, but in truth, it isn’t wanted. The questioning of self importance it would produce would be found collectively too offensive.

It is only a minority of individuals having transcended these limitations through personal efforts that will have any real beneficial effects since they will serve as examples for the development of more individuals that can allow others to experience through the acquisition of a conscious perspective, the reality that “only fools fight in a burning house” and what is lost as a result of being oblivious of it.

57

Perhaps I should have titled this thread, What cost peace? and avoided excluding any social grouping. There is no social group that isn’t threatened by today’s violence. To put it bluntly, we’re all in the soup together. Whether the most pious of religious entities or the largest multi-national corporation or the most secular of governments, the threat of sectarian violence overshadows all. To accept a world-wide spiral of violence answered by violence answered by… This isn’t SEP, it belong’s to all of us, each of us, every individual. That is the issue.

We all have religious, cultural, and economic differences. There are probably another two or three hundred differences I forgot to mention, but that is beside the point. It is about our ability to look beyond our differences to our alikeness. Is there anyone in their right mind who would choose violence for his family? For his community or village? How many truly wish to kill their fellow man?

These are the questions that each individual must ask. We have to have faith that collectively, we can rise above ourselves and our petty differences and find a humanity that shuns violence that ultimately destroys us all.

And one more time; who, how, and what begins the process of reversal?

JT

58

Hi JT,

I’m not sure that it is a process of reversal, rather than taking a good look at what we, the religious, are asserting. To have faith that helps us “collectively … rise above ourselves and our petty differences and find a humanity that shuns violence that ultimately destroys us all” doesn’t require of religious people to shun all they have believed until now, but to ask themselves what elements of their faith are militant or at least which deny people the appreciation of their faiths?

From a Christian point of view, re-looking at exclusive statements that are said to be from Jesus (by means of looking at the Aramaic language) reveal that Jesus probably had a local development in mind, but saw the possibility of Israel loosing everything as very threatening. However, he seems to have placed the responsibility for this squarely on the shoulders of the Aristocracy and Priesthood, and warned the Scribes not to be a part of it.

His figurative statements about the Temple are akin to this, but perhaps the assumption of the eschatological should give way to a more protological leaning, which is a comparison of our role in life in relation to the potential of one’s destiny hypothetically pre-thought at our cosmic beginning. This means I have a role to play – am I playing that role? Jesus seems to have been assured that he was – but that it would be a betrayal by the Priesthood that would finally bring his role to completion (not poor Judas who became a scapegoat).

His statement that people from east and west will come to sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the realm of the Heavens, suggests a more inclusive than exclusive view, even if Jerusalem played a central role in his vision. But in his view, repentant tax-collectors and whores were more likely to enter than Priests, Scribes or the Pious who betrayed the faith, and it was the plain unassuming people, the weary and the heavy laden, whom he wanted to help.

That is why the emphasis is on spirituality, not religion; on the inner chamber, rather than the Temple, that could be rebuilt anytime. It is the reconnection with our planned destiny, getting back into the rhythm of the spirit/breath of life, finding our centre, our balance and our heart, and trusting the fatherly God who equates with the giver of life. On the basis of this, we have to appeal to, and live ourselves, the spirituality that is at the centre of all religions, indicating that our similarities at the heart of our religion are by far greater than the differences, despite what appearances may suggest.

Shalom

59

Doesn’t seem I can PM you for clarification, so I’ll have to ask here.

Are you mocking the term “realist” in your post, or do you know what it means? I’m using it with the meaning that a “realist philosophy” believes in the existence of universals, i.e. neither idealist nor empiricist. (…and i think, hence believes in metaphysics, or the spiritual. But one might be able to argue against this last connection.)

On what criteria should the believer accept a religion, if not on a leap from the logically probable to the existentially possible? Is not the unreasonable burden of choosing a faith based on inspiration alone a result of not doing theology and apologetics?

mrn

60

Hi mrn,

I don’t think that faith is only inspiration but all religions should offer inspiration, as well as help the enquirer find answers to his questions, give him a means of reflecting his existence, and show him the personal, the communal and the universal dimension of life as a sentient being.

The problem arises when theology and apologetics throttle inspiration and prevent believers thinking in a particular direction. Listening to theologians praise certain professors as being the “ultimate” in theology, considering the development of the last 2000 years, seems to be somewhat arrogant. Of course theology has a role to play, but from within the community, not above it. Apologetics has mostly been formal argumentation in defence of a position or theological system in a certain historical context. We seem to be gaining a lot of information along the way, so it would be feasible to rethink such positions.

But you had me on one point - What is a “leap from the logically probable to the existentially possible”? It is logically probable that I was born. It is rationally likely that I was brought up by parents. It is reasonably credible that I went to school. It is sensibly possible that I have a job. It is plausibly feasible that I am married. It is understandably plausible that I live in Germany. But what is existentially possible? Is it something that is likely in relation to, or in dealing with existence? Is it something that is probable based on experience? Is it something that promises a potential experience or is empirically promising? And what is the difference to the logically probable?

Perhaps you can explain it to me… :wink:

Shalom