Premise: Organized religion is by definition ex-clusive in that what it declare’s itself to be, also defines what it is not. Within any religion the “path” to God is carefully defined, with its’ followers exhorted to obtain and observe those attributes leading to ‘salvation’. This finding of God is a process that cannot help but create an us/them (saved, not saved) world view. Those who would be saints create the sinners.
Given this process, this organizational system, fundamentalism is simply the logical conclusion of the inherent dichotomy. Violent fundamentalism may be considered extreme, but it is quite logical within the larger organizational structure. Religious organization gives birth to violence even as it piously proclaims tolerance and peaceful co-existence, because at its’ base, no religion can be tolerant. Its identity relies on exclusiveness.
“Organized religion is by definition ex-clusive in that what it declare’s itself to be, also defines what it is not.”
How much of “organized religion” is organized around doctrinal propositions, i.e. I believe “x”, (as perhaps opposed to believing “y”), and how much is it organized around ritual, i.e. all those are included are those who perform ritual “x”, so that it is only a question of performance and participation, from which no one is excluded? While “organized religion” spends a great deal of time proclaiming belief-content stipulations which actually seem to divide, it seems to me that organized religion is really functionally, operationally and one could even venture spiritually, constituted by its rituals - some of which may involve formal proclamations of belief - and therefore have no basis in exclusion.
Curious? Jesus is on the cross and says: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
Exclusivity when a result of a man made interpretation of a teaching initiating with a conscious source, is part of the world and can become intolerant of other parts of the world. The teaching itself, not originating with the world, in contrast results in awareness that is rejected by the world. It is the world that becomes intolerant which is why it creates its own interpretation that it accepts as tolerable.
Intolerance is really an attribute of the world and not the teaching. The teaching exists within the world but not as part of it. It must be exclusive since the world rejects it. The fact that the world wants to interpret it out of existence to make it tolerable should not imply anything inherently wrong with its necessary exclusivity. To the contrary, it is precisely the quality of its exclusivity that must be maintained at its core in the face of intolerance in order to preserve the worth of the teaching.
Ah, but at what cost? Just the word organized elicits a methodical based system set in stone. The dogma and ritual and its “secret handshakes†leads to discomfort in outsiders thus encouraging exclusiveness, jealousy, hate and war. All in the name of love and God. The “right/only path†is not what Jesus taught, but tolerance and love. I have said before (and this might sound sacrilegious to some), but I think Jesus would be/and is appalled at fundamentalists and their extreme views on being “saved†and their exclusivity into the pearly gates. Appalled.
Each of you has, in their own way, made the point that there is a difference between spirituality and religion. It isn’t that any religion ignores spirituality, indeed, it is the base of every religion. All religions begin with the simple message oft tolerance and love (thank you, Bessy), but in the down-stream defining of what the message means, how it is to be expressed, what are the guiding principles, lines of authority, etc. the message is obscured and twisted into something not quite what the messenger had in mind.
God loves you. God is love. Really?
As Dunamis pointed out, the bulk of what a religion becomes is taught and reinforced through the specific rituals of each religion, and most of those rituals are benign, both spiritually and pragmatically as related to the individual practicioner, but functionally, the dogma and so-called principles of the organization allow for the most malignant of practices. Coersion and violence are accepted because of our beliefs.
An individual may abhor violence, but will never ever challenge the beliefs of the individual perpetrator of that violence.
The line between the declaration of this is/ this is not and the most despicable acts of violence is as straight as an arrow.
All religions tacitly proclaim inclusiveness, but what they mean by that is, that just as soon as everyone sees it our way…
The quran IS the word of Allah. Jesus Christ IS the savior. None will see the kingdom of heaven unless… This is inclusive?
I disagree with this idea. That organized religion creates a dichotomy is not the only cause of fundamentalism. If dichotomy alone created fundamentalism then we would expect to have seen fundamentalism far earlier.
Fundamentalism is a contemporary phenomenon. It cannot be explained without addressing the element modernity. Fundamentalism is a reaction against modernity.
Fundamentalism is a form of ideological regression. It is an effort to go back to what is supposedly fundamental or foundational to the religion. However this is really an invented position rather than a return to a previous position that the organization used to occupy. The legitimacy of this position depends on it being identified as an older and therefore truer position. It is a way for a new idea to gain power in a system where tradition usually holds power.
This pattern of new idea getting presented as an older idea to gain legitimacy may not be a new pattern.
Yet Bible fundamentalist do put their own modern view on the Bible. They tend to treat the Bible as if had been written in the same manner as a scientific document or a journalistic account of events.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
