Religious Organization = Exclusivism

Hi xander,

I’ll agree that today’s fundamentalism is far more complex than I earlier described, but the root is still the us/them dichotomy. The violence in earlier times would probably have to be labled ‘originalism’ or something like that. The malignancies arising from religion do and will continue to evolve, even if it is regressive as you have pointed out, but whatever form organized religion takes, it will still be under the umbrella of exclusivism.

Apologies for painting with a 4" house brush, I was deliberately avoiding the fine details, but I’m up for it if you are. :smiley:

JT

who the hell lives in a 4" house?

-Imp

a 3" mouse?

I completely agree with this, I also think that unless one wants to take time discussing the minority that doesn’t fit into your generality it’s not worth discussing. In general all god based religions have exclusivity.

Hi Bessy

The cost is life itself. If the truth of its organization is lost then it will die and more will celebrate the new illusion of life.

Maybe by considering the Sangha in Buddhism you may see another side.

Sangha is a sanscrit word meaning “spiritual community”. Best known as one of the three pillars of Buddhist teachings and philosophy - The Buddha, The Dharma, The Sangha - the community of beings aware of the spiritual connection between all life. The Sangha is an organized effort with its rules. Some may find it preferable to dismantle it as old fashioned and exclusive because outsiders may become suspicious resulting in all sorts of tantrums but I would disagree. I believe its exclusivity and its organization preserves its value.

We are incapable of true tolerance and love. Jesus taught re-birth and from this level acceptance as opposed to tolerance and the love for life as opposed to selective love becomes possible.

Why would Jesus be appalled at the obvious? People become appalled through surprise and people acting as predicted would be no surprise.

scythekain

I don’t see any problem because I read it from the goal of Christianity: re-birth

Thomas is thinking future (where you are going) and Jesus instructs him to think “now”: “I am”. “I am” is the way. The Father is the “Head” and the Christ purifies the “heart” allowing re-birth to transcend the heart (through me) and approach the head.

No one is denied anything but it will instead be rejected. Where is the problem?

Actually it appears that Jesus was instructing us to follow him, to become like him. When we become like him we would also know God. If we really know Jesus, there is nothing else to know because we we know ourselves. Knowing ourselves is knowing God.

I don’t see any exclusivity here, I only see interpretation according our own preferences, our opinions, our limited understanding. Jesus asks for us to expand ourselves - religion belongs to mankind. God does not need Religion - Religion is simply a method to know Jesus, to know God. We think our method is better than others’ methods, that is the problem…The problem lies with the psychology of the practitioner, not with the religion.

What are you thinking Nick? No-one is rejected, this is exclusivity thinking. We reject ourselves by remaining attatched to worldly matters. God has NEVER given up on us. We give up on ourselves, we give up on God through our ignorance thinking ourselves to be very wise. A moment of personal realisation brings us right back into knowing God. Knowing God we choose eternal life. If you have one moment of deep understanding, that is all that is needed. One moment of absolute realisation brings unity. If we don’t have a unified mind, we can never have a unified heart. The problem is in the minds of men (and women).

A

Nick_A quote:

Hi Nick,

I believe that you have a point in acknowledging the value of a community that thrives on spiritual growth through its teaching and ritual, but also within the realm of that teaching one must not lose sight of the destructive nature of its inevitable exclusivity. There is power to those brought together in large numbers crusading for the good and righteous life, but many followers whose original intentions were honorable fall short of their core beliefs thus holding their heads high above all others. One man is not better than another. We are all sinners and we all have the right to a heavenly life in the hereafter - in our own quest, in our own beliefs, and yes, even if it is in our own private and solitary way.

I say this only because Jesus looks to the sinner, the outsider, the nonbeliever, the loner, the Jew, the Buddhist, the racist, and the evil one… he doesn’t close the door to anyone, but open it up and invite them in. (even when there is NO door.) I believe many Christians have lost sight of this and have come to believe in their hearts that they are the “lucky ones,” the “chosen” ones, and the “exclusive” ones allowed into heaven. This is against the core value of Christianity in my view. Thus, the heavenly son of our Father could be watching over us at this moment with shame in his heart over what has transpired to his flock. To me, many fundamentalists are no better then a group of sorry Nazis, and all they need is the nice uniform and to perfect the high kick when they march.

Please explain why it is so essential to have a “unified mind” in our quest for the truth. What about a person who is cut off from society, or too sick to leave their house, or mentally incapable of communing intellectually with others… are they excluded from the unified heart?

Hi A

I agree completely assuming of course that the religion has a conscious origin.

I agree. It is us that does the rejecting. The only thing that cannot be accepted is the imaginary that is taking place of the real because it doesn’t exist. If we don’t come into existence to some degree, then there is really nothing to accept.

I am also not sure what you mean by unified mind. I know of inner unity or"presence" dealing with the quality of the whole of oneself but you may mean something different.

Hi Bessy

The problem IMO isn’t exclusivity but the natural degeneration into secularization of the teaching which results in the normal contradictory manifestations of secular life…

Is a hunting knife a good or bad thing? It is considered “good” if people understand its purpose and use it correctly. It is considered “bad” if used as a means to kill people for pleasure. The knife has no good or bad connotation itself.

Exclusivity is like that. It is necessary and valuable for spirituality when understood rightly. But as a tool for the expression of egotism, it becomes its opposite.

Followers will always fall short and some lose it completely forming their own schools of interpretations or sects. This is why Christianity and the many facets of Christendom can exist simultaneously though Christianity is no longer visible on the surface.

“Right to” and “opportunity for” may not be the same.

The problem really isn’t “fundamentalists” but IMO our tendency to believe anything as long as an "expert"is saying it. Because of this gullibility, we end up acting in ways completely unnatural for ourselves. In this way we are sheep.

Fundamentalists, Nazi’s, liberals, etc. are the same in that they are all sheep. As sheep, life just continues as it is. They seem to differ because of personal preference, but they are all sheep. This is why I admire the “black sheep” It knows it is a sheep but desires to understand so as to become itself even though its individuality will be rejected by the contented flock.

Bessy

I have to say something here. It sounds, Bessy, almost like you're saying that humans are [i]entitled[/i] to heaven.  That certainly flies in the face of every religion that teaches that there is a heaven, which mainly claim just the opposite.  We are sinners, and thus, don't deserve heaven.  Luckily, God is good. 
 That said, I agree with most of the original post. I would extend the model beyond religion, though- any set of ideas is defined by exclusivity. Communism is one thing by virtue of the fact that it's not something else.  G.K Chesterton said it best when he pointed out that the only alternative to dogma is prejudice:  A Dogma says "It is like this", where a prejudice says "Whatever it is, it's not [i]that[/i]". Those are really the only options we have.
Now, just because a system of a beliefs must be exclusive, does not mean the adherents must be. For example, I'm sure there are many Communists that are more than willing to consider the benefits of Capitalism, provided they come with a solid argument. Nothing in Communism says that Capitalist arguments cannot be entertained, it simply says that in the final analysis they must all be false. So then, a Catholic can consider arguments for Judaism, and in fact can come to accept Judaism as true on the basis of those arguments. In so doing, though, they cannot sensibly call themselves a [i]Catholic [/i]anymore. That's where exclusivity plays a part. 
 The logic of violence depends entirely on the nature of the belief structure- not in the fact that it is exclusive, as they all must be. Is the belief system about something very [i]important[/i]? Is there must disagreement? If Yes to both, the violence is an option.

Well without knowing God, having personal realisation, there is no way that we can know that we are all ONE. All part of the same universe, all part of the same principles. Truth exists within us in the same way that it exists within the world. I’m not talking about your truth and my truth…these are simply pieces of the Truth. There is an absolute Truth that bonds us all. There are people all over the world who grasp this fact and yet I have never met them. What when I travel and I meet someone who grasps this fact - we look into each other’s eyes and there is recognition. There is no need to discuss it as there is a heart to heart communication. Having knowledge that we are all part of God, we are all God individually and collectively, unifies our minds. With a unified mind we are able to move past the issues of our differences and focus on our sameness. We are all different, we have different personalities, different cultures, different hair colour, different realities, and these things are what have seperated us thus far…yet there is a part of us that is all the same, we all carry within us the seeds of truth, we all have the same Christ consciousness or Buddha nature or Bodhi seed or simply we have a True Nature or maybe we can call it our heart - the part of us that never changes - is always and always - it never dies - when we recognise this in each other, we have come a long way to having a unified mind. We have been so focussed on our differences that we have excluded each other and we are afraid that if we shift our perceptions to include others we have to lose something…we have to lose ourselves. I feel that we must lose ourselves (the ‘I’) in order to gain a deeper understanding of this unity.

A

A-

A beautiful answer. So well stated, and my thoughts exactly.

I’ve never had problems with this saying. For some reason, most people read this as say “believe in me” where as I read it as saying ”think and behave like me"

Lets face it, it literally says “through me” which means it has to be interpreted somehow… but “believing” is to easy… its what most capitalistic, ego-centric christians want to think – i.e. they can have this world AND the next just by “believing” in jesus. I’ve seen Christian TV programs where the preacher (salesman) is literally saying: “jesus wants you to have that car, he wants you to have that nice home, he wants you to be happy” apparently all you have to do is believe he will save you and you get it all?

Well, the devil believes in jesus too. The devil believes in jesus more than any christian ever could so there must be more than “believing”.

I think its interesting to note that the word “believe” seems to be made from two words: “be” and “live”. This is obviously a quirk, but interesting and telling, just the same.

Thinking, behaving and becoming christ conscious is difficult. It means giving up the pleasures of this world, it means sacrifice, it means living a life of service to others – not of self serving, consumerism.

So I don’t think this saying (or anything Christ said) is exclusive at all. If you want a higher consciousness, then its open to all, you simply have to practice (i.e. think and behave in the ways jesus does). If you don’t, that’s your choice. But no one is excluded unless they exclude themselves. There’s nothing outrageous in that; that’s the “way” one acquires any skill– through sacrifice and dedicated practice.

Hello all,

The thread has sort of wandered off the original path. Gee, first time that’s ever happened! :unamused: To summarize so far, it didn’t appear that anyone wanted to challenge the original premise, but everyone was suggesting that exclusiveness was more of a ‘property’ of personal or individual perspective. So let’s go there. I’ll start a new thread shortly.

JT

:astonished: Sorrrrrry… I didn’t realize this was an “exclusive” thread

(PS I was about to apologise that this wasn’t what your were asking… but I thought bugger it! What I’m talking about is (always) far more interesting :smiley:)

Excellent observation - “Don’t just do what I say, but live as I live, be as I am”
Perhaps someone should pop back a millenia or two and shoot the translators of the gospels…

I think Religion is compelled to engender exclusivity for a numbers of reasons:

I’m not a very theistic person, but if I’m wrong and there is anything resembling the traditional big-guy-in-the-sky knocking about, and he does do great deals on the afterlife vis-a-vis you and me - I think the BGITS must be a fairly magnaimous entity - there is no hell, and everybody gets a ticket to heaven, though perhaps the nastier element of humanity gets the evangelical equivalent of a crappy apartment and a dead-end job. But that’s another thread subject.

No - I think God’s fairly neutral on the subject of sin. Think about it. You’ve got ants in your back garden - yes…? They’re all tiddly, black and busy. Now - some of the those ants must be bad ants (they carry slightly less than their share of the leaf, they sometimes post the wrong trail-marker pheremone, and snicker into their antennea when their friends walk into a wall…) … Bad, bad ants… But I daresay the thought has never even crossed your mind. You could pick up the worst serial ant killer ant in the entirety of ant history between your finger and thumb, and feel absolutely zero connection. Ant sins mean nothing to humans.

So why should human sins mean anything to god…? If God is the light and the way to a non-physical continuance/semblence of life after death, and perhaps the door, the support medium and the generator motor too… Does he stand at the gate with a list and a bow-tie…“Sorry mate, but yer not gettin’ in…” How can the heavenly bouncer make value judgements on beings of a lower order it really can’t feel an empathy with…? Would you be able to sort out the good ants from the bad ants…? Okay - suspending disbelief for a second - perhaps Jesus was God’s attempt to obtain some basis for empathy with us, fine and dandy, time for an update don’t you think…? I mean they didn’t even have i-pods back in year 0AD… Society changes, sin changes. Nothing is static. The Heavenly Bouncer’s dress-code(x) is out of date.

Anyway - sorry, I digress. It’s all very well for God to be magnanimous and allow the most miserable into heaven along with the most pious, but a Religion cannot afford to be so… forgiving. It needs rules, it needs carrots, it needs sticks. [Just a thought, but God should be ALL carrot in my book, and no stick, otherwise, well - God’s no better than us.]

Imagine how long a Religion would last if it preached:

Jocular Chap:“Yeah, well, like there’s this God-bloke, up in the sky, and he, y’know - deeply loves your ass… And when you die… He’ll replace your batteries and take you into, like, this really cool cosmic club, wiv angels and stuff…”

[the great unwashed]: “Tell us O teacher - what must we do…?”

JC “Er… Do…? Well, er - whatever you were doing before I suppose…”

[the great unwashed]: “Tell us O teacher - what must we not do, for fear of God’s wrath…?”

JC: “Wrath…? Er… Look - you guys… You guys ain’t gettin’ me here, God, like doesn’t judge… No Godly Justice - He just is. Just do what you think is okay… Okay…?”

The people would just go okay, I’m a “Just-Is-ian” -then hedge there bets by joining the “raving-kill-every-sucker-who-looks-funny-ians” down the street… People eh’ (as God says) - gotta love 'em.

No - Religions need rules and sticks and carrots, and exclusivity, because a carrot, freely munchable by all, has no worth. And no useful leveredge over the muncher.

Hi km2,

No need for apologies. If I had to apologize for everytime I helped take a thread off course… well, I’d have about a thousand ‘I apologize’ posts to make. No problem going to the personal perspective that creates exclusiveness. We may find that religious exclusiveness is the creation of individuals rather than the other way around. Possible?

Hi Tab,

If I didn’t know better, it almost sounds as if you have a theistic streak you’ve been hiding behind that wall of atheism. :sunglasses: Come along for the ride. I’ll get a new thread up in a bit.

JT

Hi Tentative - et al,

A few more religious sound-bytes I couldn’t contextualize, or just plain forgot to get down…

  • Rather than God making us in his image, Religion creates a God in ours…

  • Religion is compromized simply by trying to please too many people, think of a cheap suit bought off the peg at a supermarket, it may look okay, but it never really fits anyone. The relationship between a person and God should be an totally exclusive, one off, custom made affair.

  • Organized Religion is mankind’s most cynical response to the spiritual side of human nature, pawning whatever beauty it could of had, for the baubles of pomp and power.

Where was I gonna go with them…? God only knows.

One whose heart and soul
Are at one with the great Void
Steps into the mist
And suddenly thinks they
Are stepping right out of this world

  • Saigyo

Sorry tentative. You know I had to do it.

[

Amen, amen, amen. Did I say AMEN?

[size=75](why didn’t I think of that, Tab?)[/size]