What is Religion?

I appreciate the fact that people who have no religious experience tend to ridicule the whole concept. Therefore I will attempt to describe what Religion is – for me of course. I think it is primarily conceivable if I try to describe what I have observed in conventional Religion, not entering into Mysticism, which is, if you want, just a very consistent form of what I describe below.

Considering what it is that I experience when in a Church Service (in my case a protestant Service), I think it is in particular the exchange within the liturgical process (from Greek leitourgia = public service, or from leitourgos = public servant). Having an established formula for public worship, or an entire ritual for public worship in a church which uses prescribed forms, means that people are supported and drawn along through the process. We begin with a hymn, recite an appropriate Dialogue, speak the confession. After singing a further hymn we hear the canticle, respond to prayer, make an offering, hear the lessons and sermon, speak prayers and supplications, receive the blessing and close with another hymn. The sequence varies in the different churches.

You could argue of course, that the process requires the surrendering of cognitive abilities and a preparedness to abandon ones own self determination. I don’t believe so, I would say that I am not required to give up my own personality but enter into communion with another, a mysterious personality, who is in the Spirit of dialogue that the Liturgy supports. Even though the Roman and Greek Church does utilise sensorial and symbolic elements more so than the Protestant Church and reduces the amount of Dialogue, the exchange can occur here too.

It may well be that people believe or are led to believe that they should give up self. What they are required to do, is to concentrate on the communion with another, who is woven within the rhetoric - the whisper of doubt, who is answered by the breath of assuredness, almost bantering with each other for cognizance of a deep truth. What we need to do is leave the superficial and enter the intrinsical depths of being and listen – not enter a trance and give ourselves up to an uncontrolled and vain repetition of words (Christ said we shouldn’t “burble”).

This is what being “born of the Spirit” means (putatively “born again”), which leads to a behaviour that others fail to understand - something which we are regularly experiencing within the Forum and which Christ described as such: ‘You shouldn’t wonder that I said to you, it is necessary for you to be born from above. The Spirit blows where he will, and his voice you can hear, but you do not know where he comes from, or where he goes - so is every one who has been born of the Spirit.’

Christ here is trying to pull an acknowledged Teacher of Israel away from the simple cognitive teaching (which is also important) of Torah and show him that the Spirit is intertwined in the Dialogue of the Synagogue and the movement that it produces. He is saying that believers who are such moved can proverbially „move mountains“ and achieve things otherwise not expected. He is drawing Nakdimon (Nicodemus) from the static to the dynamic.

That is what Religion is about for me. Perhaps this has been enough to start a discussion. We’ll see.

Shalom
Bob

Bob, I want to start a discussion

I’ve been studying what people classify as ‘mysticism’ or monism or whatever you call it for a while now and I think that I have a good intellectual grasp of what’s being said. I see all religions and most philosohies saying the same thing.

Here’s the problem. I can’t translate all this talk about ‘the One’ or God, Absolute, or what have you into anything deeply felt (or at least not much)

From what I understand, this is the purpose of the activity of religion as opposed to the study of philosophy.

I don’t go to any church, (I wouldn’t even know where to begin) and I fear that all that it would do in any case is stir up more of the banter that goes on in my brain.

Your post seemed to strike a nerve, but it’s a little too heady for me right now. Could you restate what you’re religious experience is like. Maybe dumb it down a little for me?

Thanks

Hi ksterling1979

welcome, and thanks for replying!

At least all Religions have a common denominator and a basis for communication. We too often assume that Religions are non-compatible (and forget the psychology) and see things only superficially.

For example the continuing argument about the Bible not being historical: Of course it isn’t and it never was meant to be. But again that doesn’t mean that there is nothing historically reliable in the Bible - it means that this aspect isn’t what the Bible is about. It is about the Dialogue and the Spirit intertwined within.

Is the Qu’ran spiritual? Of course it is, but within cultural boundaries and maybe even only in arabic, which is the recital language whereby the believer can enter into communion with another, a mysterious personality, who is in the Spirit of dialogue that the recital supports.

The same goes for the lyric and prose of Indian and African tribes, the prayers of the Navajo, Pawnee or Cherokee medicine-men or the Dalai Lama, various modern Prayer and prose from Asia and Arabia and other countries, ancient lyrik and prayer like from the Sumerians, Azteks, Upanishads etc.

I can follow that, what an unquiet world we live in! I believe that it is the peace of mind that is lacking in the first place. Modern man has so many disorders because he is deaf and blind spiritually and wanders continually into the spiritual smog that is spread about through the many media outlets. We are estranged from our environment, alienated from our natural abilities and needs. No wonder that many people can’t connect anymore.

We have to learn to connect again - in whatever way feels comfortable. That is why I suggest that people who grew up in christian traditions stick to those traditions - at least formally - and if you are jewish stick to that, and if you’re muslim etc. But if you have a problem with that, you can go out and buy some meditative lyrics or music or some manner of relaxing and connecting with the environment and our innermost being.

Some people say that “God” or the Spirit emanates from creation, is interwoven with the material, is the soul of nature, that the heavens are amongst us or the realm of God is in our midst. Our Spirit looks to connect with the likeness in who’s image we are made but we are blind and deaf. We need to find peace first and listen for the whisper of communion, the sharing of thought, the assurance of love.

With peace, it is no good to try and force it upon ourselves. We have to accept the fact that our mind is as loud as a tree full of monkeys. If we try to catch one, the rest would but ridicule. We have to find the peace that can accept our unrest, the noises outside, the cars and the airplanes and find ways of relaxing anyway. We need to listen - and music or prose or lyric, or liturgy can help us.

If we just practice finding peace - knowing that it is the source of enlightenment - the rest will finally come about. It is helpful to find a means of Dialogue - if you know that it isn’t the Dialogue alone. The “deeply felt” assurance is a fruit of the peace and connecting with the world again.

Once you have connected or are “born of the Spirit” - then it is about the dynamics of that connection, rather that a static belief. Your trust should “move” you - and subsequently you will also be able to “move mountains.”

Shalom
Bob

Alright Bob, here’s my definition of what happens in a religious service.

The group comes together emotionally under a unified system of thought. Everybody is ‘with’ everybody else because they’ve agreed for this time period to think within the same metaphors and categories.

Now, littered throughout these metaphors and categories is the philosophical concept of Unity. Since the congregation is unified, the ‘emotional energy’ if you will, is not distracted in it’s directedness toward that unity.

This is the worship service which is a beautiful thing.

Here comes the problem. The sermon.

After the worship service, with emotions still on high, the congregation is directed to an ethical system of which there is bound to be disagreement. Now all that emotional energy is directed to fragmentation and judgement, especially of the so-called ‘secular world’, wherever that is. So whatever ego de-centralization has taken place is replaced by an attachment to the Religion and no longer to God.

From here sprouts the self-righteousness and exclusion that drives people away from religion and spirituality and into consumer materialism and self-centeredness.

Sorry if that’s a little cynical, but that’s how I see it. My resentment is based on the fact that I have been cut off from the benefits of organized religion by that very religion.

Hi ksterling1979,

I think we understand each other.

The Sermon is a problem in terms of communion for some, I appreciate that. Above all, some sermons are just not spiritual. Some people lecture rather than sermon, some continually make some emotional appeal - but that isn’t a Sermon. I feel that a Sermon should reveal a Dialogue between the Preacher and the Text, and allow a Dialogue to take place between the audience and the text, via the Preacher.

I think there can be disagreement - but it mustn’t be that way. The message of the Bible - at least the way I read it - is that Mankind is continually missing the mark, but that the Creator has a means of helping us. However, because we are all missing the mark, there is no room for self-righteousness and the “haughty” will find themselves resisted.

Because all are sinners, it is a bit like the AA, those who can admit it can be helped. Those who deny it won’t be able to be helped. Those who say, I follow the Torah or I follow Christ or Islam, admit that they are in need of help. Their task (as forgiven sinners) is to be a light in the world and spread the love of God. This being their model, it is advisable to be as humble an opinion of oneself as Christ too was humble.

And if there is further need of an example for believers, there is Christ on the Cross, depicting an idea of Deity that is readily ridiculed. An antithesis of the “Gods” of the world and the despots wielding power then and now.
Those are the ethics of Christianity in a simple description. If we find ourselves confronted with these ethics and a conflict arises, then it is intended.

Whereas I know that it happens, as you can see, there is no basis for it. In fact, I believe that those who get carried away with the written word are quite oblivious to the Spirit, which is also something that Paul warned against. They become static and incapable of allowing the Spirit to “fill their sail” - even though their emotional outbursts and trance-like condition is supposed to suggest that they are “filled with the spirit.”

Yes, that is a danger, but not for those who allow the Communion with the Spirit. It is the danger of those seeking security in the written word, amusing themselves with the thought that they are “chosen” to look down on others - however they may want to disguise it. I believe too, that they make more Atheists than any “Devil” could achieve.

That is the way it happens to most, but there is nothing cynical about what you have written. I think there are many who can say the same.

Shalom
Bob

Thanks Bob, well said.

Truth is I’m probably not really that cynical. I agree with every point you’ve made. I was highly cynical in my younger days and I thought that there were some on this board who feel now the way that I did then.

Since you appear to be a more eloquent than I, I had hoped and am hoping that those who carry such resentment might be able to benefit from your response.

Good luck to all!