Though most religions and spiritualities tend to posit a same essential core to everyone human. And I am not sure they are correct.
If you think most religions and spiritualties posit the same essential core to every human then you simply have not looked deep enough into religions.
This would be like saying that most psychologies posit the same essential core to every human (like saying Skinner and Rogers viewed humans as having the same essential core).
Even within Christianity there are very different views as to the nature of what it is to be human (let alone other religions/spiritualties).
Maybe each religion/spirituality thinks it is correct in its view but this is no different to any other human behaviour (even you think you are correct within the view in this thread).
Even believing that each human finds their spiritual fit is an ontological view that is believed to be correct (there is no escape).
Actually I was comparing the 1960’s in Germany with Northern Ireland, but that situation (in Germany) was still a faint echo from the Thirty-Years-War. I thought that was clear, I apologise if it wasn’t. You seem desperate to show how knowledgeable about European history you are, but it shouldn’t block your view of the subject at hand.
Another thing is that I am afraid Roman Catholics are often very conservative, probably more so than any other group in Germany, except Muslims perhaps. The fact that there are other conservative groups shouldn’t be suprising, since everybody is strangely disposed to preserving existing conditions here.
Another thing: When I say that “nearly half the population was killed”, I think a third isn’t far off since it is more than a quarter and less than a half. It is also a question of what you are trying to bring across. In my case it was the fact that Christianity, the religion of neighbourly love, was able to decimate a population and that this animosity actually lingered into modern times. It is well documented how protestants and catholics youths fought each other, how inter-denominational marriages were frowned upon or even prevented, how neighbours belonging to different churches didn’t speak to each other and I personally experienced the Grandmother of my wife slag the Catholics. Of course the relaxation of such animosity took place quickly in some places, but very slowly elsewhere. Remember, the sixties were fifty years ago.
Hello, Bob.
The consequences of the Thirty-Years-War have shown how people with different religious denominations come together again - after such a great war with so much harm (! [in spite or because of that? {that is an interesting question}]) - and be able to live peacefully together. My wife is a Lutheran (Protestant), I am a Catholic - no problem at all! Relating to what you said about “the 1960’s in Germany”: We are of the opinion that also in the 1960’s there were no problems between Catholics and Lutherans (Protestants ) in Germany.
When did you come to Germany, Bob?
I came to Germany in 1973 and witnessed the fact that animosity was mostly amongst the war generation and because they were making way for the generation born in 1930’s and 40’s, the whole situation was relaxing. In the seventies there was a rise of evangelical Christianity with a Billy Graham “crusade” and, on the other side, a general secularisation of society - although this was much less present in the Catholic church. In the generation born in the 50’s the secularisation of society progressed and between the churches the ecumenical movement began to spread.
Having been an elder in the evangelische Kirche (protestant church) I have spoken to many people, including Catholics (I worked for the catholic church), about the past and they confirmed what I have written here. It may be that around Bielefeld (Arminia) there was a different development, but I can assure you that up until the 60’s there was a polarisation in society and to this day I still know very conservative catholic priests and parish members who find some consolation in the fact that I am anglican rather than lutherian - which is quite comical.
I was born in the 1950’s in a 99%-Catholic village, I went to school in the 1960’s, when one of my best friends was a Lutheran (Protestant) - in addition to three other families which were refugees / displaced persons from East Prussia in East Germany) his family was the only Lutheran family in our village, all other families were Catholic. There was no problem at all between all the Catholics and the Lutherans. And I did not make any other experience in other regions of Germany at that time. So relating to cantacts between Catholics and Lutherans I have been making no bad experiences in Germany since my first experience with such a contact.
And since I was about 15 years old I have been asking myself whether the Thirty-Years-War was the cause / reason of the fact that Catholics and Lutherans or Huguenots (they were refugees / displaced persons from France) and other denominations have had as well as no or even no problems with each other since the end of that Thirty-Years-War.
Secularization of society.
Maybe, Moreno, but I don’t know certainly. “Secularization of Society”, as you said, has many problems too, and I often think: more problems than societies without securalisation. Secularised societies put their huge problems in other societies, so secularised societies do not have to manage problems inside themselves and unlearn / forget to manage problems inside themselves because it is easier to source problems out. The religion of secularised societies is almost exclusively money, consuming, running in debts, and other decadent doings.
Note what I said
Not ‘the’ same essential core.
What I meant was that most religions say that each human has the same essential soul. This last word may be different in different religions: buddha, atman, Brahma, spirit, whatever - but the religion says that everyone is, at core the same. Sure, each religion may have a different idea about what that core is,but that is a different point/issue and not one I am making.
I don’t think you really understand the kinds of points I am making. It is a slightly different kind of point, my main one, but I am not criticizing religions for thinking their path is the right one or for believing their beliefs are true. The latter would be a rather silly thing to criticize since that is what a belief means. One cannot believe something and think it is not true. And least not at that moment.
I think I understand now, thanks.
Every religion/spirituality/atheism hold on to an ontological view that each individual interprets in their own way and assumes to be correct for everyone.
Whichever way you turn, you are screwed once you ask yourself the question “what is the nature of being?”.
In asking this question you will come up with an ontological view that aligns with your own sense of self.
It would be suicide of the self (identity) if you came up with an ontological view that was a direct threat to your sense of self (identity).
If this is what you call finding a spiritual fit then it is fine to call it that but this is in itself an ontological view of the nature of being (which is believed to be correct).
And at the same time, we cannot read minds and can only infer that our own ontological view of self is the same as other peoples ontological views of self.
The irony is that the sense of self (identity) we have is purely fabricated and upon this fabricated sense of self (identity) we create a fabricated ontological view.
The only escape is to not ask the question in the first place.