Well, there’s also religions as knowledge/assertions, religions as social practice, religion as custom, and likely a few other things. Not everyone is focused on it as a means and not everyone is focused on it as a means to spiritual goals.
Though many Christians and some Hindus would disagree. But even this difference need not be a difference for those in either religion who Think they are different approaches to the same deity.
Here’s Jesus getting a bit like Shiva…
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.
35For I have come to turn "‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–
36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’
At least, Ganesh might Think it sounded like Shiva.
That is merely a perception, not reality.
The social practices and customs of religions are merely the byproducts of the spiritual journey, not its untimate goal.
And, that is precisely that mistake that creates the wrong perception.
If one sticks to words of the texts only, this is what he will get.
But, If one acts upon those sincerely in person, the words of texts would fade away and their true sprit would revel itself.
I agree with that.
That is true and a large number of people believe that too.
Those may not be your goals. One could argue that it should be anyone’s goals. But with each of my suggestions there are people for whom it is the main goal and for many others important factors in why they participate. So it is not completely one thing, it is a complicated human phenomenon with a number of motivations involved, even if one Thinks it should only be for spiritual goals.
Me, I am talking about what people do. You seem to be talking about what you Think people should do and be like. That’s fine.
More Hindus than Christians. And this is because Hinduism itself has a history of radically different interpretations even main Gods being the center. There are polytheist hindus, monotheist hindus, even what could be called atheist Hindus since Brahma or Shiva is more like a principle or universal energy to them. There are other versions. It is a much more openly pluralistic set of religions, where the difference generally do not lead to wars, for example. Christianity is a whole nothing kettle of fish.
If you really want to compare the situation in Northern Ireland with the past (very long tima ago!) situation in Germany, it is merely possible by adding that on the one side (Northern Ireland) it took place ein the 20th century and still takes place in the 21st century and on the other side (Germany) it merely took (thus: not take) place in the 16th century, in the 17th century till 1648 (top: Thirty-Years-War), and after that very much less, mostly even no more, but quite the contrary (think of the Huguenots who were displaced by the French despots Louis XIV., XV., XVI. and found a new home country in Germany). One can say that in Germany the dualism of Catholics and Protestants had been no problem anymore since this catstrophe of the Thirty-Years-War, the graetest catastrophe in German history (the Thirty-one-Years-War - 1914-1945 - was merely the second greatest catastrophe in German history).
[/quote]
No. I am a Roman Catholic German and my wife is a Protestant (Lutheran) German. According to the confessions and their possible effects there is not a great difference between her, her parents, her grandparents on the one side, and me, my parents, my granparents on the other side - except some bagatelles.
By trend the Catholics are a little bit more “conservative” than the Protestants (Lutherans) - that’s right -, but this difference is merely very rarely diagnosable. So in former times it was more diagnosable, especially in the 16th and in the 17th century till 1648.
Correction: not half, but third the population. Nevertheless: it is a high number.
To put it more bluntly, Hinduism and also Indian society to some extent, is like female inn owner of old times, who does neither mind nor object to sleep with those who visit her place, but never marries anyone. And, in the case of each pregnency, she gives birth and takes cares of all her children.
All guests are welcome.
You could, but since you know as well as I do that evangelism exists because it works, that would have to be a case by case decision, not a rule you could make about any person X.
Which pushes you further into unfalsifiability. I mean, I don’t disagree with you- any given Christian is going to be doing Christianity in their own way just as any given biologist does biology in their own way. Do you want to say something unique about religion?
But what would they say if you asked them about this? When I see people say something like the above, it's usually a case of the secular trying to own/dictate to the spiritual: The secular takes it for granted that the claims about God couldn't possibly be true, and that the whole bit about needing to do this or believe that to avoid Hell or earn Valhalla or whatever are baloney, so what's left? Helping the poor, and the uplifting quotes you see on the internet from spiritual leaders. Now, I should clarify that it's not just secular sorts that do this. You will see Christians talk about other religions in this way- what value would a Christian place on arguing a Hindu into becoming a Confucian? At the end they're both false practices that advocate peace and treating the poor ok and have neat things to say about the human condition, so...whatever, right?
I just don't think they're beliefs were what you imagine them to be, is all. If this tribe fears that tribe's bird god, or thinks that tribe is valid in praying to spiders, it can only be because [i]their own beliefs[/i] include the reality of bird gods and magic spiders and whatever. If YOU think that religions are personalized to the person and that people finding their own path is more important than trying to force everybody to believe the same thing, then that's not because you're a crazy person who believes a bunch of contradictory stuff can all be mutually true, it's because YOUR belief system includes an understanding of spiritual reality not being absolutely tied to belief, and of religions/visualizations/symbols playing a role of focusing a person towards a reality who's real nature is ineffable/incomprehensible/irrelevant. But what if I [i]don't[/i] think so? What if I'm a Catholic? You've nothing to persuade me that wouldn't involve me ceasing to be Catholic to come around to your way of seeing it. And so it goes.
My focus is not on the religion. My focus is more on the person who is religious - really any belief system, but that ends up on a lot of tangents - and what this means about interacting with someone who is a member of religion X, subgroup A2. (and yes, I think unfalsifiability is present, but I think the idea is useful anyway. And unfalsifiability is really just Popper’s obsession, though I do realize I brought it up)
In a sense I am being critical of the online - let’s consider religions as a set of truth statements and move from these truth statements to an interaction with the religious person focused on epistemology.
I think there is something loopy about that portion of online culture. (of course religious people not only play into this, but come out swinging on occasion, in that game, with those social rules. But that also strikes me, generally, as loopy.)
Not where I am going.
[/quote]
[/quote]
This isn’t where I am going either. I am not trying to convince anyone to be tolerant, give up absolute beliefs, or leave their religions, take a postmodernist viewpoint or anything of the sort.
There are people who believe that the different systems or some of the different systems lead to the same God. By pointing this out I am not saying this is true or better. I actually think this is partially true, for example of a number of portions of the Abrahamic religions, and know people from each who also believe this, but I dislike the God they are all worshipping. IOW simply because I do think that different religions can have essentially the same methodologies and that this is even recognized by portions of those religions does not mean I share their beliefs, even in the methodology.
But this is all hovering around the area of discussion I think - though I am not totally sure - I intended this thread to be critical of.
I think there is something close to as absurd about arguing the epistemology of a Sufi’s beliefs
as arguing that his red hair is a mistake.
And I include all systems of belief in this, including, say modern physicalist scientism.
Some examples:
it might be the case that, yes, a number of religions offer paths that work and head towards the same God…but you must believe your choice is the only right one anyway. Or you don’t need to believe this. Or you need to believe it is the only right one for you.
it seems to me to be the case that there is a very great similarity between certain kinds of devotional religious practitioners (bhakti focused Kashmir Shaivites and certain Christians who focus on their religionship to Mary, for example). There seems to me to be a very close connection between practitioner temperments between theist Buddhist monks and Sufi practitioners who focus their lives on practices - as opposed to, say, religious people who focus on good works and being moral as the path to God.
It seems to me that those people who are not hiding some deeper ambivalence about what they are doing are making value based mode of life choices, that would include what would be Heaven or Nirvana or God, etc.
For one to either as an atheist or skeptic or as the member of another religion start to say the truth is not X as you believe
but rather Y…
is confused.
These people are doing something they want to do and this is motivated by their goals about what they want to be and experience.
Now of course since I do not really believe in Christian Hell, in the literal, burning place, torture forever sort of way, I am freer to believe this than others.
But my point is not to convince Christians, for example, who do believe other paths are wrong, that they are wrong,
but rather to make two other points…
you are trying to convince squirrels not to run up trees and make that sound when they don’t want you around
you are presuming that everyone is the same and wants the same thing. (of course they may not believe this or may also have other beliefs, but there is tucked in Christianity the sense that every soul would be ultimately happier if it ended up in Heaven. The souls are the same)
(Skeptics and physicalists are of course also simply another kind of animal, not squirrels)
Or, perhaps, I can be told that really we all want the same thing, deep down, though some of us will make mistakes, and also that, really, we are all the same, but with different cultures and superficial temperments)
I experience it is as much closer to use being like different kinds of organs or different kinds of animals.
I suppose I started this thread when I was deeply struck by this when encountering someone -who could have been in any number of belief systems, some New Age, some Western interps of Eastern religions) that all boil down, to me, to the same tempermental gestalt.
I am supposed to think we are really all the same in some way. I just don’t experience that. And the differences are not small or merely cultural or merely anything.
None of this means that if someone thinks there are in the right religion and other people are wrong
he must be wrong. I raise this issue not to dislodge anyone.
You think I’m an ignorant savage
And you’ve been so many places
I guess it must be so
But still I cannot see
If the savage one is me
How can there be so much that you don’t know?
You don’t know …
You think you own whatever land you land on
The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim
But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a spirit, has a name
You think the only people who are people
Are the people who look and think like you
But if you walk the footsteps of a stranger
You’ll learn things you never knew you never knew
Have you ever heard the wolf cry to the blue corn moon
Or asked the grinning bobcat why he grinned?
Can you sing with all the voices of the mountains?
Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
Can you paint with all the colors of the wind?
Come run the hidden pine trails of the forest
Come taste the sunsweet berries of the Earth
Come roll in all the riches all around you
And for once, never wonder what they’re worth
The rainstorm and the river are my brothers
The heron and the otter are my friends
And we are all connected to each other
In a circle, in a hoop that never ends
How high will the sycamore grow?
If you cut it down, then you’ll never know
And you’ll never hear the wolf cry to the blue corn moon
For whether we are white or copper skinned
We need to sing with all the voices of the mountains
We need to paint with all the colors of the wind
You can own the Earth and still
All you’ll own is Earth until
You can paint with all the colors of the wind.
The best spiritual fit is one which allows our “spirit” to feel loose/freeing/responsive/responsible/capable of personal evolution/transcendence…ecstacy though not for the sake of ecstacy alone (but it can’t be helped).
Yes, we are all really the same in some way and at the same time we are all really different in some way.
It is like saying an orange and an apple have the same basic shape but are different fruits.
So, by definitions humans have many physical, biological and psychological sameness’.
But at the same time the differences are not superficial differences.
It essentially comes down to how one defines:
[list=]Individual
Self
Person
Human
Me
I
Other[/list]
Each religion and spirituality and person has certain ontological view of these characteristics and this determines the match.
How do I see myself ontological self fitting into my ontological relationships within my ontological reality?
Each one of these ontologies will be different and changing but we could define the sum of them as “my spirituality”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
