A question from the undecided
- Thread starter seeking
- Start date
Bellator
Catholic. Formerly StarshipEnterprise
- Messages
- 122
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 18
Greetings, Seeking. Welcome to CR!
Personally, I'm opposed to the idea of "joining a religion". It would imply taking everything that religion says to be the truth, and not thinking for yourself. I think thinking for yourself is important, and you need to critically examine all the possibilities before deciding on your own beleifs.
Personally, I'm opposed to the idea of "joining a religion". It would imply taking everything that religion says to be the truth, and not thinking for yourself. I think thinking for yourself is important, and you need to critically examine all the possibilities before deciding on your own beleifs.
seeking said:
Hi Seeker,
Welcome!
The short answer (imho) is that in essence we are spiritual beings having a human experience. The goal of this earthly life is to develop the spiritual attributes we need to progress in the next world. The most direct way to acquire these attributes is to study the teachings of the prophets, who were sent by God to educate us in His ways.
I cannot tell you which religion to choose, i can only tell you that after my own investigation, I am now a member of the Baha'i Faith as I believe it to be the most recent stage in the unfolding religion of God. As a Baha'i, I accept the previous messengers as essential requirements for an ever-advancing civilization. So I embrace all of the great prophets as different stages in this process.
Best Wishes on your journey.
"But, O my brother, when a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading to the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, before all else, cleanse and purify his heart, which is the seat of the revelation of the inner mysteries of God, from the obscuring dust of all acquired knowledge, and the allusions of the embodiments of satanic fancy. He must purge his breast, which is the sanctuary of the abiding love of the Beloved, of every defilement, and sanctify his soul from all that pertaineth to water and clay, from all shadowy and ephemeral attachments. He must so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth. Even as thou dost witness in this day how most of the people, because of such love and hate, are bereft of the immortal Face, have strayed far from the Embodiments of the divine mysteries, and, shepherdless, are roaming through the wilderness of oblivion and error. That seeker must at all times put his trust in God, must renounce the peoples of the earth, detach himself from the world of dust, and cleave unto Him Who is the Lord of Lords. He must never seek to exalt himself above any one, must wash away from the tablet of his heart every trace of pride and vainglory, must cling unto patience and resignation, observe silence, and refrain from idle talk. For the tongue is a smouldering fire, and excess of speech a deadly poison. Material fire consumeth the body, whereas the fire of the tongue devoureth both heart and soul. The force of the former lasteth but for a time, whilst the effects of the latter endure a century...
...Only when the lamp of search, of earnest striving, of longing desire, of passionate devotion, of fervid love, of rapture, and ecstasy, is kindled within the seeker's heart, and the breeze of His loving-kindness is wafted upon his soul, will the darkness of error be dispelled, the mists of doubts and misgivings be dissipated, and the lights of knowledge and certitude envelop his being. At that hour will the mystic Herald, bearing the joyful tidings of the Spirit, shine forth from the City of God resplendent as the morn, and, through the trumpet-blast of knowledge, will awaken the heart, the soul, and the spirit from the slumber of negligence. Then will the manifold favours and outpouring grace of the holy and everlasting Spirit confer such new life upon the seeker that he will find himself endowed with a new eye, a new ear, a new heart, and a new mind. He will contemplate the manifest signs of the universe, and will penetrate the hidden mysteries of the soul. Gazing with the eye of God, he will perceive within every atom a door that leadeth him to the stations of absolute certitude. He will discover in all things the mysteries of divine Revelation and the evidences of an everlasting manifestation."
The Kitab-i-Iqan, Pages 192-196
Have a great day!
Loving Greetings, Amy
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Buddhists get invited to the best parties
Awaiting_the_fifth
Where is my mind?
Seriously though, your faith is in your heart.
There's no need to rush into it, but if it comes along, dont push it away. I cant explain why "your existence will be improved" without sounding a like Im trying to convert you into my cult, but I definately gained something.
There's no need to rush into it, but if it comes along, dont push it away. I cant explain why "your existence will be improved" without sounding a like Im trying to convert you into my cult, but I definately gained something.
Curios Mike
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 139
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Religion is corruptible, as well as some sciences, and Phylosophies.... Anyone can make a statement and call if fact.... But maybe the facts you seek are not seen. What you need is to find the one True God, not a religion, science, nor denomination...... Granted certian Religions can help you out moraly in teaching you certian moral codes, but to have a relationship with God IS the only way to Go. Their is only one way to God. Its not through rituals, doctorines of men, or following a certian set of rules. Its not through philosophies, theories, or sacred stones. But it all starts 1st with a belief of God.
Saponification
Happiness to all
It's not going to make your life better, it's just going to help show you the way.
dharmaraj02
Member
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by 'improving your existence', but I'll try to answer. I fear it's going to be a long one, but I promise you substance. I won't waste your time.
In general, the common ethic is to believe what is true, disbelieve what is false. One should believe a religion insofar as he thinks it is true. Now, there are a lot of questions for which we may not have questions and perhaps they're not all worth pursuing. Religion, however, is very much worth pursuing because of its extra incentives. For example, maybe it's true that the moon landing is a hoax, but it's not too necessary for me to exhaustively pursue the truth there because there's little impact on my life. Whether or not God exists, on the other hand, impacts all sorts of things like the validity of reason and logic, morality, and knowledge. Moreover, part of religion is determine whether we have have obligations to one another and to our Creator, whether or not there are rewards and penalties to behavior, etc. All of this is pretty crucial to live.
Finally, there are all sorts of psychological rewards that come from the assurances and answers that religion provides. In a minute, I'll start motivating some of theism's advantages in more detail, but the truth is, once you really become a part of a religion, it isn't the logic or pragmatism that keeps you there. You really fall in love with the person of God, and that is what sustains belief. Once upon a time, I thought I believed in God because I needed a warrant to believe in morality, logic, and knowledge. Now, I believe in God because I love him, and you can't love (or hate, for that matter) what you don't believe, and you can't easily stop loving.
1) Morality
This is a common argument, but it's often very misunderstood. Theist's often say that morality depends on God. Atheist's deny it. They're both so certain because they use different semantics. When a theist says 'morality', he refers to an intrinsic property of rightness/wrongness apart from the harms they cause. When an atheist says 'morality', he means rules of behavior that have developed in society to keep peace. The atheist is right in saying that people can live good (i.e. well-behaved) lives without God. The problem is that people that live 'bad' lives really just have an aesthetic disagreement with society. A serial killer just 'likes' to kill people, whereas the world doesn't 'like' people killed. It's not clear what distinguishes this difference of opinion from vanilla v. chocolate. One difference, of course, is that the serial killer affects other people when he kills. That may matter to society, but not to the serial killer. It's not clear why he ought to change his beliefs to match the majority. Certainly, society has an interest in stopping him, but it's an aesthetic interest, and when they jail him or kill him, it's an aesthetic imposition of force like his own aesthetic imposition of force when he claims a victim. The theist avoids this quandary, because in his view, morality is spiritual in nature. Society can stop the serial killer, not because they have the power, but because they have some magical thing called 'justice' or 'rightness' that justifies them. In general, when we make moral criticisms, we really have to believe in the spiritual reality of morality. Otherwise, we're imposing our tastes on other people, and power = justification. Morality as a spiritual reality suggests a spiritual author, and pursuing that nature of God is understanding our moral obligations.
2) Reason & Knowledge
The fundamental assumption of any generalized statement is the law of induction. This law simply states that we can make generalizations if we have repeated confirmations of a hypothesis. For example, we all take for granted that gravity works the same way everwhere. Of course, no one has tested every point it space, but we take it for granted because we've seen repeated confirmations everywhere that we've tested. Pretty much all our knowledge, every theorem, every postulate, every truth, depends on induction.
So, how does one motivate induction? Well, one might say that we've used induction so many times successfully, we feel pretty confident that it works. The problem is, this reasoning is induction. We can't use induction to prove induction. So, how do we have confidence in the idea that the universe is ordered and uniform? Theists say that the created is like the Creator. Without that, it's not clear how induction can be motivated, and if we give up induction, we give up reason and logic.
3) The spiritual self
Most all of us presume a spiritual aspect of the self whether we know it or not. For example, consider the concept of ownership. Take a 5 year old girl named Julie that owns a teddy bear. Say, she puts in in the attic, and then 25 years later retrieves it. Is it still hers? In virtue of what? She may look different, have a different personality. Physically, she shares very few cells in common with her 5 year old self. Most or all of her attributes have changed, so how come she still owns the bear? Maybe there's another 5 year-old girl next door who more resembles the 5 year-old Julie. Shouldn't she have a better claim to the bear?
It's hard to believe that Julie still owns the bear because her cells have certain chromosomes, or because the bear actually belongs to one of her brain cells that hasn't yet died. Certainly, almost no one believes this. Rather, we all believe that there is some part of Julie that hasn't changed, a spiritual part, wherein lies her identity. Understanding the spiritual nature of man, however, is one of the goals of religion, and its existence suggests a God.
There's a lot of other things one can say about what God means for man's capacity to love, his relationship to the environment, his relationship to his fellow man. Theism says that there are actual instrinsic obligations here, whereas atheism by and large asserts that there are only social conventions (though they may advocate social conventions as vigorously as any theist might advocate righteousness).
Religion is about answering a category of questions that cannot be answered by science, that is, the knowledge cannot come from consistent observables. Religion, according to some, is about finding a way of life that maximizes happiness or harmony or something. It doesn't make sense to me that we ought to pursue any 'value' unless we know that we can and ought to pursue it, so it's not a definition I subscribe to.
As for which religion, that's another big question. I'm a Christian, fairly Orthodox in my views, and I strongly advocate it as the most reasonable and reliable of religions. I'll make some quick statements here, and if you want more detail, I can offer that later.
The pluralistic religions generally don't seem reliable to me because the tenets of many faiths are mutually exclusive. The most fundamental question in philosophy is 'Does anything exist.' In reference to the external world, the western faiths have said yes. The eastern faiths have said no. That's just the beginning of the disagreement. Besides, truth is by nature exclusive. To believe one thing is true is to believe distinct alternatives are false. Otherwise, you lose the meaning of truth.
If you choose the western religions, look at the texts. Do they have one author or multiple authors. One might guess that a single author is less reliable. Are there contradictions? In fact, its very hard to find contradictions in any religious text, because generally the rules of interpretation by the faith are such that the text is self-interpretive. If something 'looks' contradictory at first glance, one simply examines the context to find a reconciliatory interpretation. If you want to argue about what a religious text's rules of interpretation 'should' be, go ahead, but I think that's hard. I'd suggest you study contradictions hard before you believe them a proof of any texts unreliability. Finally, ask yourself if the message makes sense. Does it make sense that people can do enough good to approach a perfect God? If God separates out the 'best' people, how does he draw the line, and is it arbitrary. Christianity, of course, is not about discriminating righteousness based on behavior, but by grace. It's very unique in that sense.
I think someone objected to your phrase 'joining a religion' because it suggests a lack of independent thought. Firstly, let me say that there is a lot of independent thought in organized religion. If lots of people tend to share similar beliefs in an organization, maybe it means that the people are weak fools, or maybe it means the organization has a rigorous and compelling theology. Often, it's some of both.
Also, a word on independent thinking: it's mostly a myth. 99% of everything anyone believes depends on relying on other people's information (I'm estimating the statistic myself, so don't quote it, but think about whether or not I'm right). We depend on media, elders, books. Even the way in which we choose our sources is random and based on feeling or what we've been taught. How much knowledge has any one person actually come up with? Almost nothing. Most of what we don't get from others, we choose based on pragmatic concerns or feelings. Does the external world outside your mind exist? Nothing can prove it to you. You just make a choice, and it's nonsensical to talk about the reliability of such a belief. Moreover, independent thinkers are apt to come to very different conclusions. You would think that if independent thinking was reliable, they'd all gravitate toward the most reliable truth. To be a thinker is no easy to task, and wisdom is hard to obtain. Discernment isn't about finding your own truths, but rather about finding who to trust. That latter part is no easy task either. I'd start with prayer. In fact, I do, daily.
Let me know if you have further questions.
In general, the common ethic is to believe what is true, disbelieve what is false. One should believe a religion insofar as he thinks it is true. Now, there are a lot of questions for which we may not have questions and perhaps they're not all worth pursuing. Religion, however, is very much worth pursuing because of its extra incentives. For example, maybe it's true that the moon landing is a hoax, but it's not too necessary for me to exhaustively pursue the truth there because there's little impact on my life. Whether or not God exists, on the other hand, impacts all sorts of things like the validity of reason and logic, morality, and knowledge. Moreover, part of religion is determine whether we have have obligations to one another and to our Creator, whether or not there are rewards and penalties to behavior, etc. All of this is pretty crucial to live.
Finally, there are all sorts of psychological rewards that come from the assurances and answers that religion provides. In a minute, I'll start motivating some of theism's advantages in more detail, but the truth is, once you really become a part of a religion, it isn't the logic or pragmatism that keeps you there. You really fall in love with the person of God, and that is what sustains belief. Once upon a time, I thought I believed in God because I needed a warrant to believe in morality, logic, and knowledge. Now, I believe in God because I love him, and you can't love (or hate, for that matter) what you don't believe, and you can't easily stop loving.
1) Morality
This is a common argument, but it's often very misunderstood. Theist's often say that morality depends on God. Atheist's deny it. They're both so certain because they use different semantics. When a theist says 'morality', he refers to an intrinsic property of rightness/wrongness apart from the harms they cause. When an atheist says 'morality', he means rules of behavior that have developed in society to keep peace. The atheist is right in saying that people can live good (i.e. well-behaved) lives without God. The problem is that people that live 'bad' lives really just have an aesthetic disagreement with society. A serial killer just 'likes' to kill people, whereas the world doesn't 'like' people killed. It's not clear what distinguishes this difference of opinion from vanilla v. chocolate. One difference, of course, is that the serial killer affects other people when he kills. That may matter to society, but not to the serial killer. It's not clear why he ought to change his beliefs to match the majority. Certainly, society has an interest in stopping him, but it's an aesthetic interest, and when they jail him or kill him, it's an aesthetic imposition of force like his own aesthetic imposition of force when he claims a victim. The theist avoids this quandary, because in his view, morality is spiritual in nature. Society can stop the serial killer, not because they have the power, but because they have some magical thing called 'justice' or 'rightness' that justifies them. In general, when we make moral criticisms, we really have to believe in the spiritual reality of morality. Otherwise, we're imposing our tastes on other people, and power = justification. Morality as a spiritual reality suggests a spiritual author, and pursuing that nature of God is understanding our moral obligations.
2) Reason & Knowledge
The fundamental assumption of any generalized statement is the law of induction. This law simply states that we can make generalizations if we have repeated confirmations of a hypothesis. For example, we all take for granted that gravity works the same way everwhere. Of course, no one has tested every point it space, but we take it for granted because we've seen repeated confirmations everywhere that we've tested. Pretty much all our knowledge, every theorem, every postulate, every truth, depends on induction.
So, how does one motivate induction? Well, one might say that we've used induction so many times successfully, we feel pretty confident that it works. The problem is, this reasoning is induction. We can't use induction to prove induction. So, how do we have confidence in the idea that the universe is ordered and uniform? Theists say that the created is like the Creator. Without that, it's not clear how induction can be motivated, and if we give up induction, we give up reason and logic.
3) The spiritual self
Most all of us presume a spiritual aspect of the self whether we know it or not. For example, consider the concept of ownership. Take a 5 year old girl named Julie that owns a teddy bear. Say, she puts in in the attic, and then 25 years later retrieves it. Is it still hers? In virtue of what? She may look different, have a different personality. Physically, she shares very few cells in common with her 5 year old self. Most or all of her attributes have changed, so how come she still owns the bear? Maybe there's another 5 year-old girl next door who more resembles the 5 year-old Julie. Shouldn't she have a better claim to the bear?
It's hard to believe that Julie still owns the bear because her cells have certain chromosomes, or because the bear actually belongs to one of her brain cells that hasn't yet died. Certainly, almost no one believes this. Rather, we all believe that there is some part of Julie that hasn't changed, a spiritual part, wherein lies her identity. Understanding the spiritual nature of man, however, is one of the goals of religion, and its existence suggests a God.
There's a lot of other things one can say about what God means for man's capacity to love, his relationship to the environment, his relationship to his fellow man. Theism says that there are actual instrinsic obligations here, whereas atheism by and large asserts that there are only social conventions (though they may advocate social conventions as vigorously as any theist might advocate righteousness).
Religion is about answering a category of questions that cannot be answered by science, that is, the knowledge cannot come from consistent observables. Religion, according to some, is about finding a way of life that maximizes happiness or harmony or something. It doesn't make sense to me that we ought to pursue any 'value' unless we know that we can and ought to pursue it, so it's not a definition I subscribe to.
As for which religion, that's another big question. I'm a Christian, fairly Orthodox in my views, and I strongly advocate it as the most reasonable and reliable of religions. I'll make some quick statements here, and if you want more detail, I can offer that later.
The pluralistic religions generally don't seem reliable to me because the tenets of many faiths are mutually exclusive. The most fundamental question in philosophy is 'Does anything exist.' In reference to the external world, the western faiths have said yes. The eastern faiths have said no. That's just the beginning of the disagreement. Besides, truth is by nature exclusive. To believe one thing is true is to believe distinct alternatives are false. Otherwise, you lose the meaning of truth.
If you choose the western religions, look at the texts. Do they have one author or multiple authors. One might guess that a single author is less reliable. Are there contradictions? In fact, its very hard to find contradictions in any religious text, because generally the rules of interpretation by the faith are such that the text is self-interpretive. If something 'looks' contradictory at first glance, one simply examines the context to find a reconciliatory interpretation. If you want to argue about what a religious text's rules of interpretation 'should' be, go ahead, but I think that's hard. I'd suggest you study contradictions hard before you believe them a proof of any texts unreliability. Finally, ask yourself if the message makes sense. Does it make sense that people can do enough good to approach a perfect God? If God separates out the 'best' people, how does he draw the line, and is it arbitrary. Christianity, of course, is not about discriminating righteousness based on behavior, but by grace. It's very unique in that sense.
I think someone objected to your phrase 'joining a religion' because it suggests a lack of independent thought. Firstly, let me say that there is a lot of independent thought in organized religion. If lots of people tend to share similar beliefs in an organization, maybe it means that the people are weak fools, or maybe it means the organization has a rigorous and compelling theology. Often, it's some of both.
Also, a word on independent thinking: it's mostly a myth. 99% of everything anyone believes depends on relying on other people's information (I'm estimating the statistic myself, so don't quote it, but think about whether or not I'm right). We depend on media, elders, books. Even the way in which we choose our sources is random and based on feeling or what we've been taught. How much knowledge has any one person actually come up with? Almost nothing. Most of what we don't get from others, we choose based on pragmatic concerns or feelings. Does the external world outside your mind exist? Nothing can prove it to you. You just make a choice, and it's nonsensical to talk about the reliability of such a belief. Moreover, independent thinkers are apt to come to very different conclusions. You would think that if independent thinking was reliable, they'd all gravitate toward the most reliable truth. To be a thinker is no easy to task, and wisdom is hard to obtain. Discernment isn't about finding your own truths, but rather about finding who to trust. That latter part is no easy task either. I'd start with prayer. In fact, I do, daily.
Let me know if you have further questions.
seeking said:
Hi Seeking,
Why do you think your existence needs improving?
In the manifest world perhaps it may appear to look like it needs improving yet inwardly you will see everything in your existence thus far is as it should be no more no less.
When one ventures on to the “Religion” path to try to improve that which does not need improving, often times more than not one can become highly disillusioned with the “Religion” of his or her choice. Simply, because religion does not always improve ones existence in the way that he or she thought it would at the beginning.
Religion, is one of many pathways to help one become aware of the true nature of our existence, however it is not the only way. Inherent in each and every one of us is the underlying need to evolve, to unfold or to reach that awareness of knowing our true essence and re-discovering our connection to all of life. It is this underlying current that sets us on a path to seek a way that is suited to our particular way of evolving.
If it is Religion for you or some other method, only you will know what is the right path. Your inner essence will inevitably lead to where you wish to go if you have ears for it. Whether what you choose improves your existence will depend entirely upon your expectations and perceptions of what you wish to gain from it.
For me “improvement” as you put it, arises only in our ability to release that which we have so long held to be true but in all reality was in fact false. The improvement then is the cleansing if you will of our falsities revealing a much clearer picture then the one we previously held, of our true existence.
Hope that helps you find the path you are seeking.
Kelcie
Gee wiz! NO-ONE can advise you on this one at all mate! Go with the flow, whatever feels good. You'll just know when you're on the right path. heck....I'd debate as to whether you could be on anything but the right path. I wouldn't put another second of thought into this one, hey. It will come when and how It's supposed to. Maybe it already has?
M
mee
Guest
Keep on asking, and it will be given YOU; keep on seeking, and YOU will find; keep on knocking, and it will be opened to YOU. For everyone asking receives, and everyone seeking finds, and to everyone knocking it will be opened...matthew 7;7-8
(James 1:5) So, if any one of YOU is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him.
(James 1:5) So, if any one of YOU is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching; and it will be given him.
Firstly, thank you all for your responses and welcomes.
The depth of the replies is going to take me some time to consider and answer.
I should state that my formal religious education is very limited, just the normal UK national school level. Since I am fifty years old, this may exceed the current standard for christian understanding, but I believe they teach a more multi-cultural subject these days. (no bad thing)
As to my views; I am highly sceptical of most mainstream religions and the way they are administered. The problem as I perceive it, is that a religion's ideals may be truly righteous in moral and spiritual guidance. Unfortunately, religions are man-made and managed, consequently suffering from man's inadequacies. These people range from the well-meaning "Father Ted" type to the machine-gun weilding, hate filled cleric. In order to "teach" or construct scriptures, they have the imposible task of describing a supreme spiritual presence in basic man-made language. Merely speaking or writing invites corruption of thought processes. I will not dwell on the "control" issues or their obvious subordination of women, I'm sure these are all well known.
I think it is only fair to fully state my personal spiritual beliefs and I might allude to the outstanding reply by dharmajaj02. (I'm still attempting to absorb all your points!). However, I must disagree somewhat with your latter statement, regarding independent thinking. If I agreed with you, then my own carefully thought out (and I think, empirical) beliefs would amount to nothing. I don't pretend to have arrived at anything unique, but here goes.
There is a universal spiritual base. All life posesses and is influenced by (an inexaustible supply) this spiritual awareness. As "life" expires, the body (or plant life) decays and returns their spirit energy to the universal base.
From this basic idea I can say;
1. We and all life are fundamentally related.
2. Death does not destroy, it merely shut downs an otherwise lifeless body.
3. The gift of spirit comes with no comitment. All living things are free to enjoy or abuse life as they wish. (there may be some restrictions to those at the bottom of the food-chain)
Further, I can guess at;
1. For an "individual" there in no after life.
2. Morality and respect are essential for personal and relational life-styles, but have nothing to do with protecting the uncorruptable spirit.
3. The performance of religious rituals and following man-made rules may enhance a person's well-being, but does nothing for the pure spirit.
4. Scientists claiming to have "created" life, have in reality just found a clever way of tapping into an abundant spitual base. Insects seem able to "perform this miracle" without too much effort.
These views may seem harsh (or cynical) and conflict with age old beliefs, but I believe them to be solid. As I said earlier, I am not educated in religious matters, or much of a writer, so my statements above could perhaps be better worded.
So what am I seeking?
I would like to know if there are organised religions/groups that share my views. Maybe I have deluded myself and these are just ramblings stating the obvious. I think everyone on this site is seeking some inner truth, it seems to be an in-built human desire. Maybe for some, they just want to be sure they are not offending a supreme presence.
I apologise for not being able to directly answer all the points made by respondees, I am only human and I my body now requires something to eat!
The depth of the replies is going to take me some time to consider and answer.
I should state that my formal religious education is very limited, just the normal UK national school level. Since I am fifty years old, this may exceed the current standard for christian understanding, but I believe they teach a more multi-cultural subject these days. (no bad thing)
As to my views; I am highly sceptical of most mainstream religions and the way they are administered. The problem as I perceive it, is that a religion's ideals may be truly righteous in moral and spiritual guidance. Unfortunately, religions are man-made and managed, consequently suffering from man's inadequacies. These people range from the well-meaning "Father Ted" type to the machine-gun weilding, hate filled cleric. In order to "teach" or construct scriptures, they have the imposible task of describing a supreme spiritual presence in basic man-made language. Merely speaking or writing invites corruption of thought processes. I will not dwell on the "control" issues or their obvious subordination of women, I'm sure these are all well known.
I think it is only fair to fully state my personal spiritual beliefs and I might allude to the outstanding reply by dharmajaj02. (I'm still attempting to absorb all your points!). However, I must disagree somewhat with your latter statement, regarding independent thinking. If I agreed with you, then my own carefully thought out (and I think, empirical) beliefs would amount to nothing. I don't pretend to have arrived at anything unique, but here goes.
There is a universal spiritual base. All life posesses and is influenced by (an inexaustible supply) this spiritual awareness. As "life" expires, the body (or plant life) decays and returns their spirit energy to the universal base.
From this basic idea I can say;
1. We and all life are fundamentally related.
2. Death does not destroy, it merely shut downs an otherwise lifeless body.
3. The gift of spirit comes with no comitment. All living things are free to enjoy or abuse life as they wish. (there may be some restrictions to those at the bottom of the food-chain)
Further, I can guess at;
1. For an "individual" there in no after life.
2. Morality and respect are essential for personal and relational life-styles, but have nothing to do with protecting the uncorruptable spirit.
3. The performance of religious rituals and following man-made rules may enhance a person's well-being, but does nothing for the pure spirit.
4. Scientists claiming to have "created" life, have in reality just found a clever way of tapping into an abundant spitual base. Insects seem able to "perform this miracle" without too much effort.
These views may seem harsh (or cynical) and conflict with age old beliefs, but I believe them to be solid. As I said earlier, I am not educated in religious matters, or much of a writer, so my statements above could perhaps be better worded.
So what am I seeking?
I would like to know if there are organised religions/groups that share my views. Maybe I have deluded myself and these are just ramblings stating the obvious. I think everyone on this site is seeking some inner truth, it seems to be an in-built human desire. Maybe for some, they just want to be sure they are not offending a supreme presence.
I apologise for not being able to directly answer all the points made by respondees, I am only human and I my body now requires something to eat!
lunamoth
Episcopalian
Hi Seeker, welcome to CR.
Hi also to dharmaraj02--I share seeker's admiration toward your reply.
Seeker, I don't have a lot of insight for you, just that it sounds like you already have a well-thought-out belief system, a personal theology. Your name implies that you are still looking for something, as you said perhaps a community of people of similar beliefs? Perhaps you might be interested in checking out liberal Quakerism, esp since you start from a Christian background. Also what you described sounds a bit like pantheism, which I'm sure you probably already know.
One thing I've come to think about, with respect to the mainstream religions, is that even if you don't fully accept every article of faith on, well, faith, it is a place where you can press on your personal theology, questioning why you do not accept the dogma and doctrine of a particular denomination (or even other religions), and in a sense continue to question and grow. Sounds actually pretty much like what you've done. Anyway, that's my humble little pitch for sticking with a main road as a general course, even if you decide to go four-wheeling a lot.
peace,
lunamoth
Hi also to dharmaraj02--I share seeker's admiration toward your reply.
Seeker, I don't have a lot of insight for you, just that it sounds like you already have a well-thought-out belief system, a personal theology. Your name implies that you are still looking for something, as you said perhaps a community of people of similar beliefs? Perhaps you might be interested in checking out liberal Quakerism, esp since you start from a Christian background. Also what you described sounds a bit like pantheism, which I'm sure you probably already know.
One thing I've come to think about, with respect to the mainstream religions, is that even if you don't fully accept every article of faith on, well, faith, it is a place where you can press on your personal theology, questioning why you do not accept the dogma and doctrine of a particular denomination (or even other religions), and in a sense continue to question and grow. Sounds actually pretty much like what you've done.
Anyway, that's my humble little pitch for sticking with a main road as a general course, even if you decide to go four-wheeling a lot. peace,
lunamoth
seeking said:
Namaste,
Reading your views I can not help but think that they align somewhat with mine. Who am I you ask? I am a Sanatan Dharma adherent.
The spiritual base you talk of is known as Brahma in sanatan dharma.
I apologize, I haven't read the whole thread yet but have you got some responses from adherents of Dharma specifically Sanatan Dharma?
satay
dharmaraj02
Member
Hey, Seeker. Fascinating theology. I'd be interested in its motivation. How do you infer a universal spirit supply? It seems like you don't believe in creation or destruction. Is this an extension of physical laws. If so, how do you motivate the idea that physical laws can be extended to the metaphysical. If all life is related, in what sense are we not related, ie. individuals? How do we have different selves, and how do you account for the concept of property, ie. one self can own something more than another self. If life comes with no commitments (am I to interpret that as obligations?), what do you even mean by abuse?
Also, a note on independent thinking:
Maybe I'm too harsh, I don't really know. I think even determining the legitimacy of independent thinking is a non-trivial question and requires some careful thought at least if not a dissertation. What I really mean when I say 'independent thinking is a myth' is '_reliable_ independent thinking is a myth'. Anyone can start at the bottom and try to carefully deduce the truth. Very brilliant and rational men have done so well, and yet they have gone in all sorts of directions. For example, while I think the theist's path is rationally compelling as described in my previous post, I think a position equally invincible is the hard nihilist who forsakes the concept of truth value. The man that throws away knowledge and reason cannot be argued with except aesthetically. After all, he doesn't need to be consistent. He doesn't need reasons for his actions. For a seeker, it's not an empirical choice in deciding whether or not to pursue the nihilist path or an alternative. It's an aesthetic choice. In fact, aesthetics govern many of our beliefs, even when we try to be rational. The truth is, it's very hard to figure out the meaning of life, the nature of the soul, whether or not there is a spiritual dimension to existence. These are very non-trivial questions, and it's hard to believe any one person can figure it out. It's hard for me to believe that mankind could ever figure it out without someone higher up the ladder telling him. Practically speaking, most or all of us will aesthetically and/or rationally choose our sources or aesthetically and/or rationally develop a theology ourselves that is at a glance unreliable to any outside observer.
Hi dharmaraj02,
Pleased that you are fascinated by my ideas! <insert smiley here>.
I'll try and deal with your points as you raised them, but first I do have to re-iterate that I have no theological education on which to draw. In that sense, I am attempting to forward a view that is purely based on personal reason. I have deliberately explained this in the most simple terms, partly due to an ignorance of formal religious semantics and also because my ideas are still developing.
You asked of its "motivation", which I think you mean, what has motivated my thought process? Thats not easy to answer, but I can say that I have been seriously thinking about spiritual answers for all my adult life. At the same time, being equally repelled by mainstream religious teaching. I believe these religions are more interested in authoritarianism than spiritual guidance. I am not here to criticise anyone's beliefs, so unless you ask directly I won't comment on your own views.
As for my concept of spiritual base, it is something that I find easier to imagine, than to explain in words. I could have talked of basin, well, font or reservoir, but as well as the cliche overtones, they also suggest liquid rather than an ethereal process.
If I gave the impression that the spiritual presence/movement was a physical phenomenen, then I certainly didn't intend to. I think the physicists have enough problems explaining observable space without burdening them with metaphysical thoughts. In fact it is 4000+ years of science's inability to even attempt an explanation of spiritual based existence that strengthens a belief in my basic ideas.
Individual character is directly related to thought processes, concsious or sub-concsious. Brain matter, being physical varies between individuals and reflects the way people act. The spiritual essence does not vary and is the same for all life, therefore fundamentally related.
I've never considered the concept of property in a spiritual way, I'll give some thought, but is it important?
I mean by "no commitment", that the gift of life comes without a "day of reckoning". For me, living piously does not matter one jot when one's possesion of spirit ends (i.e. you die). Afterlife and purgatory are ancient terms conceived to govern and control a populace before secular justice was properly administrated. However. I strongly believe that there an absolute need for moral and respectful living. I said abuse, because I feel that some (few) individuals choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering to innocents. Their choice entirely and completely evident that there is no divine punishment being ministered.
I cannot disagree with your last paragraph and I do concur that it seems ultimate solutions are forever denied to the minds of mankind.
Fortunately, we live to seek.
Pleased that you are fascinated by my ideas! <insert smiley here>.
I'll try and deal with your points as you raised them, but first I do have to re-iterate that I have no theological education on which to draw. In that sense, I am attempting to forward a view that is purely based on personal reason. I have deliberately explained this in the most simple terms, partly due to an ignorance of formal religious semantics and also because my ideas are still developing.
You asked of its "motivation", which I think you mean, what has motivated my thought process? Thats not easy to answer, but I can say that I have been seriously thinking about spiritual answers for all my adult life. At the same time, being equally repelled by mainstream religious teaching. I believe these religions are more interested in authoritarianism than spiritual guidance. I am not here to criticise anyone's beliefs, so unless you ask directly I won't comment on your own views.
As for my concept of spiritual base, it is something that I find easier to imagine, than to explain in words. I could have talked of basin, well, font or reservoir, but as well as the cliche overtones, they also suggest liquid rather than an ethereal process.
If I gave the impression that the spiritual presence/movement was a physical phenomenen, then I certainly didn't intend to. I think the physicists have enough problems explaining observable space without burdening them with metaphysical thoughts. In fact it is 4000+ years of science's inability to even attempt an explanation of spiritual based existence that strengthens a belief in my basic ideas.
Individual character is directly related to thought processes, concsious or sub-concsious. Brain matter, being physical varies between individuals and reflects the way people act. The spiritual essence does not vary and is the same for all life, therefore fundamentally related.
I've never considered the concept of property in a spiritual way, I'll give some thought, but is it important?
I mean by "no commitment", that the gift of life comes without a "day of reckoning". For me, living piously does not matter one jot when one's possesion of spirit ends (i.e. you die). Afterlife and purgatory are ancient terms conceived to govern and control a populace before secular justice was properly administrated. However. I strongly believe that there an absolute need for moral and respectful living. I said abuse, because I feel that some (few) individuals choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering to innocents. Their choice entirely and completely evident that there is no divine punishment being ministered.
I cannot disagree with your last paragraph and I do concur that it seems ultimate solutions are forever denied to the minds of mankind.
Fortunately, we live to seek.
dharmaraj02
Member
That's basically what I mean, but also, what compells you to choose the beliefs you have as opposed to the alternatives?seeking said:
I hear that.
I think your position on mainstream religion is a little extreme, unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying. Maybe you're saying that the teachings have been designed or influenced by people historically that wanted control, and hence it establishes authoritarian structures. I won't argue that point, since it depends on many points of fact, but I can say that most advocates of any established religion today (and probably in the past) believe that their degree of structure and authority is not a detractor from spiritual growth but a means to spiritual growth. It's a nontrivial point. People tend to be overly critical of authority concepts and overly fond of free independent thinking, which while I understand the aesthetic appeal, doesn't obviously make sense.
Spiritual questions are definitely beyond science's capacity to attack, since they don't depend on consistent measureable observables. Only when religion makes clear scientific claims can science retort. My questions about your 'spiritual base' are as follows: Why do you think the spirit is an eternal entity rather than one that is created and/or destroyed? Is it uniform? If it is uniform, and all of our spiritual selves are fundamentally identical, how do you derive individuality? Is the spiritual base a created thing? Doesn't the mechanism for spirit transfer from base to body beg for a creator/designer?
The idea of ownership, I would argue, is important. Without ownership, at least of your own body and mind, one loses the concept of individuality.
This I can understand, given an impersonal spiritual base, though of course, I disagree that afterlife and purgatory have no spiritual functions.
This, I honestly don't understand. How do you derive moral imperatives from the impersonal spiritual base? What does it matter if people like to make other people suffer? Their choice entirely, right? I understand if you mean that you really really like a world in which people respect each other, and you like it so much that you'll work toward making it happen and stopping those that hurt others, but I don't see how you escape the 'might-makes-right' mentality.
Here, I think we agree.
enton
www.theoldpath.tv
Answer: James 1:27seeking said:
"That's basically what I mean, but also, what compells you to choose the beliefs you have as opposed to the alternatives?"
I suppose it comes from a process of reason. For me, this (developing) idea best fits the observeable and reasonably imaginable. If I have been influenced or inspired in my thoughts, then I can't directly identify the source.
"I think your position on mainstream religion is a little extreme, unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying."
So mainstream religions, that historically fund and raise armies to invade foreign countries/cultures to extinguish opposing ideas aren't extreme?
"........but I can say that most advocates of any established religion today (and probably in the past) believe that their degree of structure and authority is not a detractor from spiritual growth but a means to spiritual growth. It's a nontrivial point. People tend to be overly critical of authority concepts and overly fond of free independent thinking, which while I understand the aesthetic appeal, doesn't obviously make sense."
I'm sure they do, but its a bit like asking a cinema audience if they enjoy watching films. I firmly believe that "free thinking" drives human awareness whereas religious indoctrination induces stagnation.
"My questions about your 'spiritual base' are as follows: Why do you think the spirit is an eternal entity rather than one that is created and/or destroyed? "
I think an analogy would be the physical properties of energy.
"Is it uniform? If it is uniform, and all of our spiritual selves are fundamentally identical, how do you derive individuality?"
I believe I answered this earlier in the thread.
"Is the spiritual base a created thing? Doesn't the mechanism for spirit transfer from base to body beg for a creator/designer?"
Let me respond by asking a question. Could the creator be the spirit base?
"The idea of ownership, I would argue, is important. Without ownership, at least of your own body and mind, one loses the concept of individuality."
Doesn't this statement conflict with.........
"People tend to be overly critical of authority concepts and overly fond of free independent thinking, which while I understand the aesthetic appeal, doesn't obviously make sense."
Quote:
I mean by "no commitment", that the gift of life comes without a "day of reckoning". For me, living piously does not matter one jot when one's possesion of spirit ends (i.e. you die). Afterlife and purgatory are ancient terms conceived to govern and control a populace before secular justice was properly administrated.
"This I can understand, given an impersonal spiritual base, though of course, I disagree that afterlife and purgatory have no spiritual functions."
"afterlife and purgatory" are simply the carrot and stick inducements for people who wish to exercise control. We have to remove ourselves from these man-made doctrines in order to embrace a spiritual awareness.
Quote:
However. I strongly believe that there an absolute need for moral and respectful living. I said abuse, because I feel that some (few) individuals choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering to innocents. Their choice entirely and completely evident that there is no divine punishment being ministered.
"This, I honestly don't understand. How do you derive moral imperatives from the impersonal spiritual base? What does it matter if people like to make other people suffer? Their choice entirely, right? I understand if you mean that you really really like a world in which people respect each other, and you like it so much that you'll work toward making it happen and stopping those that hurt others, but I don't see how you escape the 'might-makes-right' mentality."
It is you who thinks spirituality is linked (or should be) to morality. I am saying that morals are a set of generally agreed rules that best suit the lifestyles of a given population. How these rules are administered is a challenge for us all.
Not wishing to sound too extreme, for me the executioner passes beyond life in the same way as the mid-wife. How he manages his conscience and earthly well-being is another matter.
I must finish by thanking you for taking the time to discuss my views, you have provoked more self-examination for me.
However, please don't let that thought detract from any negative feelings you may have towards me, regarding my (controversial?) views.
I remain in life,
- Seeking