I honestly don’t see how my post mocks the term “realist”.
yes I get that, it’s another -ism. Reality based but one nonetheless, I was basing my comment more on “reality vs realism” though. as you’ll see below:
there is probably a split here. Most realists probably don’t “believe” in metaphysics or spirituality as it is “un-real”.
so the point of my comment was that fundamentalists either ground themselves in “reality” (atheists) or ground themselves in “un-reality” (theists, deists) while actual reality goes whizzing by.
The problem arises when theology and apologetics throttle inspiration and prevent believers thinking in a particular direction.
I think these two really purposefully discourage individual discovery of your own spirituality and focus on group think as being the path to “heaven”.
Those who begin to think for themselves in these situations are treated as outcasts and no one wants to be an outcast. (well not “no one”, obviously most people.)
It seems to me that all religion ultimately boils down to ‘Does some part of us survive the death of the body, or not?’. If not we should be doing something useful with our time and not buggering about on this part of the website. So lets assume it does, which I believe to be the case.
If we do it seems reasonable to expect the same thing to happen to all of us. Since nobody has come up with more than ‘It will be glorious’ it will presumably be in some way almost, if not completely, beyond our comprehension.
It would also seem reasonable that, if 'brownie points’ are there to be gained in this life, those who have done more to help their fellow man (and I include those nearest and dearest in this), and the world in general, will gain the greatest benefit. What you have actually believed would seem irrelevant since it is almost certainly wrong.
It would, therefore, appear that you do not require any of the established religions unless you need them to remind you of your purpose. If you do, however, then presumably any religion will do. Any one, that is, that does not in any way advocate ‘doing down’ another human being just because of his beliefs, or for any other reason, and is therefore losing you ‘brownie points’.
Logically it would seem that any religion which belittles others, in any way, only does so because of the weakness of it’s leaders and their wish to maintain power and status amongst their fellows, and that religion should be shunned.
What do we do with those who believe (firmly and totally) that ‘doing down’ their fellow humans is a sure ticket to a pleasant afterlife? It doesn’t matter that we take exception to this, that’s just confirmation that we’re one of those that need that ‘doing down’ thing.
By that you take the focus out of this life, which we are then only living for the sake of the next life. It seems all a bit like sitting in a waiting room and explains people “killing time” out of boredom.
Spirituality is about the basics of our existence, keeping balance on the rolling waves that we call time, finding meaningfulness, security, stability and charity. Of course we do this for ourselves, but we also know that ultimately it is better if we do it for all.
It is about living our own lives rather than being lived by others.
It should be accepted in response to what the person is looking for but often a belief is inherited from their family influence.
Some are only concerned with fellowship and some rules to live by in order to feel a sense of spiritual and communal value. This is not bad and a sincere person of this nature is celebrated in many traditions as the “householder” who is your basic good person and in Christianity is considered asleep in the body. This person stands at a higher level then many who appear to be spiritual leaders and “experts” whose primary strength is inner hypocrisy.
Yet some people long to feel meaning to a greater degree and gradually become disappointed in what the world continues to offer. They appreciate the need and value of life’s responsibilities but know in their hearts that there is more and somehow must be added on top of them.
These people are often able to make the leap from the logically probable to the existentially possible since they’ve outgrown the need to fake it. Then they will demand more from a teaching at which point as I understand it, if their time is right, the higher realities behind the teachings find them and are experienced in a personal and profound manner. Theology and apologetics can then begin filling in the blanks if read with the right mindset as a result of their experience.
Hi Bob,
If we do not in any way survive the death of the body all religion is irrelevant. It is merely a group of people trying to steer us in a particular direction using arguments based on a fallacy, claiming an authority which either does not exist or is, as I say, irrelevant.
If we do survive death your arguments about the focus of life apply to any religion. A lot of very intelligent people believe in different religions, most of which disagree with each other, so all that tells us is that the human race has a staggering propensity for believing in something that is not true. We therefore have a group of people trying to steer us in a particular direction using arguments based on, possibly some, truths and a series of errors. It strikes me that the most dangerous are those claiming the authority of ‘their’ god.
You may recall a series of books called ‘Conversations with God’ based on automatic writing. At one point the question was asked ‘Are you God?’ and the answer was ‘Yes’. This was far more authority than many of the worlds religions have for their existence, and if the mood and time had been right may well have led to yet another one. But none of us think this information came from ‘the supreme being’. I’m sure that most just dismiss it and, at best, it only came from a mind of whose existence we were unaware.
So, where are we? I stick to what I said in my earlier reply. I have my own beliefs, some of which are undoubtedly wrong. I have no objection to others beliefs, some of which may well be right. I don’t believe that anything can be proven, one way or another until after our demise. I do object to decisions being made on the strength of one particular set of religious ideas, particularly if they are claimed to be the authority of a supreme god. And I’m quite prepared to meet you in a hundred years or so to discuss the matter over a beer or two; come to think of it maybe I said that last time!
Nick A semed to get meaning out of “the logically probable to the existentially possible”. (Apply Aquinas and Kierkegaard: God’s existence is provable, His Church can be known probably, acting like it exists is in practice possible.)
And Nick A,
Beware of calling names like “hippocrite”. I have long believed that insults often apply to the insulter…not that I know your condition any better than you know the hippocrite’s
And both of you could try to be a little more vague and rancorous, or you might express something meaningful.
(Never thought i’d have to write that to either of you.)
Proof comes in the form of scriptures, but first we must live our lives and find our way otherwise the scriptures are gobbledygook and that kind of religion is for the believers. The other kind is for the ones who find their way, find their heart. When we find our heart - all religion makes sense.
Was I name calling or just stating a condition that I believe exists? I believe that there are many spiritual leaders and “experts” that are hypocrites.
You raise an interesting question though. If hypocrisy does exist and is part of the human condition as suggested by Jesus in regards the Pharisees and St.Paul when he described himself as the “wretched man,” should we acknowledge or avoid it as “insulting” in the interest of peace amongst religions in a discussion like this?
I would say it is vital to consider this question of hypocrisy in the esoteric sense yet I know how others can view it as disturbing to a feeling of good will as one speaks of ideals in a secular sense. It sort of punctures the balloon. Maybe it is better to just look the other way?
How should we respond to naked emperors? Not such an easy question
Were you serious? If so I’ll have to prctice attitudes and postures that will help me to become more rancorous. I’ll have to adopt that slumped over look with a scowl and practice my grunts. Oh well, in the interests of world peace, why not.
Are you sure of this? Some, a few, find religion to be both spiritually and temporally rewarding, even necessary. I understand the negative appraisal given how we see religion practiced, but as a non-religious person, I find much wisdom in the bible, the quran, talmudic writings that help me ‘see’ both my spiritual nature as well as my temporal ‘home’.
At the heart of this is our personal appraisal and decision; are we in this world but not of it? Or is our presence here to have meaning? This, I think, was what Bob was referring to.
The current religious violence assumes the first scenario. The suicide bomber see’s their ‘real’ life as somewhere, but not here, and their wordly death is not only irrelevant, but sought out. The same thing is seen in christian fundamentalism, full of apocalyptic pre-occupations. They want the ‘second coming’ and they want it NOW. Both hate the world and are impatient to leave for ‘heaven’. (if they only knew)
The second scenario includes those who are religious or non-religious who try to live their lives in the best of their abilities. They may believe in an after-life, whether that is the second coming, reincarnation, or any other form. Some of us either reject or suspend judgement as to any thoughts concerning an afterlife, but either way of seeing, our lives are committed to being as complete as our capacities allow us. For anyone who is ‘of’ this world, life is to be experienced to its’ fullest and not rejected, after-life or not.
It is the apocalyptic view that spawns the radicals and extremists who would willingly destroy or help destroy our lives - and this is the dark side of religion which either encourages or casts a blind eye to those who pervert and twist a vision of life into a vision of death.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I think that the life “after†is secondary, and I say that at a stage in my life when I clearly see that this life is limited. I think a lot of things that have become religiously important come from people who have been able to reflect on their lives, and then look forward to what can be beneficial to later generations. That is a gift that too few people in the modern day can appreciate.
Of course it applies to any religion, but that is the point that I am making. Spirituality is common to us all, even when it goes astray. Religion is about giving spirituality its social characteristic. The fact that Religion uses Myth, Legend, Allegory and Verse doesn’t make it untrue, despite multitudes assuming it does - although this assumption in itself makes your statement right. Questioning or arguing or the existence of God isn’t comparable to questioning or arguing the existence of the Moon.
This is religion. For Spirituality, find some place and time where you can be alone without being disturbed by other people, close your eyes and focus on what you hear. Allow all of those sounds to be there, but don’t allow them to disturb you. Slowly concentrate on your breathing and try to relax, so that your breath becomes even, that your lungs fill moderately, and you feel at ease in the position you are sitting in. Imagine the universe having a breath and try to connect; becoming one with the cosmic Unity we call God, breathing with the universe.
Imagine the millions upon millions of human beings being part of that universe, all having been born into chaos, making the best they can all living their lives in complete diversity but all breathing their breath, all having a pulse, all needing a centre that gives them balance. If you have followed me, you are praying. You are becoming responsive; listening more than just hearing, breathing rather than talking. If you read the words of a prophet, if you recite meditations or chant mantras, these words and sounds speak to you between the words and sounds. You can find here the peace from which you can begin the rest of your life.
Once you have done this a number of times and become at ease with the practise, you can use any number of methods – I like Anthony de Mello’s Sadhana, but I also use the Bible and even anthologies of literature and verse. We need to find our balance, our rhythm, our breath to understand how much people around us are off balance, out of rhythm, out of breath and how their lack of peace threatens our peace. Scores of people fall through life, some cannot flow but become staccato, and many hyperventilate – and they are glad when it is over.
Finding Shalom has a number of words, some call it grace, and some call it tranquillity or serenity. Some call it composure, calmness, level-headedness, self-possession, peace of mind, nirvana, heaven. But it is what we are looking for, a way out of the distress that makes time worth “killingâ€.
Well, you might take it seriously if you don’t want to “express something meaningful” to me. Men who can sleep with a good conscience are definitely not harased by the Furies. Is that what you wish to say?
Our greatest concern cannot be with the killing of time. If religion is only for this world, it rates a second to survival. But if religion relates us to the God of Salvation, revelation must trumph the experiences of this life.
Time is “killed” when time=distress and people experience their lives as a rush from the womb to the grave, with lots of stones along the way. The God of Salvation doesn’t just point to the hereafter, he sends messengers that help people regain the peace they have lost. He is the unity in which we can find this peace, build up our faith and become healers in a sick world.
The Greek mentality that the world or body is bad, and that Salvation is there when we have been freed of that body, is not something that you will hear Jesus say. He says, you have anxieties in the world, but fear not, I have overcome the world. This overcoming had a lot to do with what he said about being unassuming, having sympathy for loss, feeling a hunger for righteousness, being merciful, pure in heart and peacemakers.
It still comes down to answering whether you’re here or not. Either be of the earth and live life as life, or look impatiently past life, seek an early ending, and claim your heavenly reward.
How each of us ‘sees’ this issue is it’s own explanation of how we value life, or value death. I find it amazing that organizations founded on the celebration of spiritual awakening and living can allow anyone claiming to be a follower to commit violence toward others, but historically all religions have encouraged violence toward others at some point. Being an agnostic has a few advantages. There aren’t any books or authorities that tell me I need to kill anyone. Religious leaders must stand up to any group who would kill in their name. So far, none of the major religions seem willing to do that.
I think that what we have to face is the fact that Spirituality isn’t usually practiced by people who ride the Moloch. Religion on the other hand is. There are a number of people who practice religion, but they are faithful followers of the Moloch. The Moloch is about Power, and they even envisage God as a kind of Moloch - because they are not spiritual.
Religion can be about Power just as much as Politics are. Anything that can move masses has Power and most people know when they have power. But perhaps that is where the biggest problem lies. I believe that most of us who are spiritual shun power - except little areas of responsibility. Power is to some degree an opposite to Spirituality and only few spiritual people can cope with it - and even they are often assasinated or betrayed.
It depends on who has power over you. And there are more people than you think. And it depends on whether the Moloch decides to take your livelihood, because then you have a choice: Either ride the Moloch, or fight it and die.
The number of Martyrs is high. And the power of spiritual religious leaders doesn’t seem to me to be as great as you might think.
It’s not the body that is “bad” but the fact that its concerns become the dominant influence for the psych of man. This denies the experience of the higher realities which are the concern of Christianity.
You can appear as Mr. Wonderful by secular standards but since attachment is the key issue, its “good” is limited.
(cuts notch in philosophy stick)