Cafeteria Christians? Cafeteria Buddhists?

[Nick the Pilot]

Hi everybody!

The term Cafeteria Christian refers to someone who picks and chooses what they believe, and leaves the rest behind. How does everyone feel about people who set up their belief system this way? I have a strong feeling in one direction, but I am curious what other people think.

 

[InLove]

Hi Nick--

How ya been? I've been meaning to respond regarding the sunrise that we "shared". (Edit: Please no one take that the wrong way out there--it was just a conversation about the beauty of it all!) But there has been so much discussion in so many areas around here since then that I haven't done it yet. So anyway, yes--that was cool.

I would hesitate to use the terminology "cafeteria Christian" because for some reason, it seems a bit derogatory, or maybe just not quite accurate. I dunno. However, I can say that for me, if a concept from another religious philosophy does not conflict in my mind, heart, and spirit with the way I understand and relate to The Source of Being/The Absolute/God/Love/.../.../.../ , then I have no problem incorporating or combining or however you want say it. In fact, I find it uplifting and peace-inspiring when this happens. It brings me closer together with others and shines the Light in the dusty corners that might otherwise remain forbidding.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[lunamoth]

You can take a highway, a beaten path, or go four-wheeling. If you go four-wheeling and your compass is off, you might end up lost...or not.

 

[flowperson]

Everyone is an individual and very different from their brothers and sisters in some important ways when trying to order and make some sense of what they see in the world out there. When the world is presented to each, they perceive it in different ways and end up believing different things about it.

Religions are generalized, institutionalized systems that view the world in a certain way to satisfy broader spectrums of belief. This has been done over the millenia to enable human community development into coherent political and moral groupings. Now that we all live in a world essentially without boundaries, especially when it comes to our senses, people are more open to sampling alternative beliefs.

Have you noticed that as this way of seeing and believing in the world has begun to develop in earnest the cafeterias are disappearing ? Is there a connection d'ya think ?

flow....

 

[InLove]

flow--I think there is definitely a connection. If one can reside in peace within one's original community, and know that the neighboring community is also peaceful, and we might even get together for ice cream and fellowship in honor of our diverse but sincere ways of knowing Life, then I can see it. But apparently, this is not a vision that is beautiful to all individuals at this time. It is a vision of hope, nonetheless. Am I thinking along similar lines with you?

InPeace,
InLove

 

[lunamoth]

Everyone is an individual and very different from their brothers and sisters in some important ways when trying to order and make some sense of what they see in the world out there. When the world is presented to each, they perceive it in different ways and end up believing different things about it.

Religions are generalized, institutionalized systems that view the world in a certain way to satisfy broader spectrums of belief. This has been done over the millenia to enable human community development into coherent political and moral groupings. Now that we all live in a world essentially without boundaries, especially when it comes to our senses, people are more open to sampling alternative beliefs.

Have you noticed that as this way of seeing and believing in the world has begun to develop in earnest the cafeterias are disappearing ? Is there a connection d'ya think ?

flow....

That is a very astute observation flow.

 

[Prober]

Have you noticed that as this way of seeing and believing in the world has begun to develop in earnest the cafeterias are disappearing ? Is there a connection d'ya think ?

flow....

But laundromats are still around!

 

[InLove]

Like the dirty sock that longs to see more than the sock and underwear drawer when the laundry is done, I seem to have escaped through the dryer vent along with lots of other things and I am now flying free in the hozone layer.

InPeace,
InLove

 

[Prober]

Like the dirty sock that longs to see more than the sock and underwear drawer when the laundry is done, I seem to have escaped through the dryer vent along with lots of other things and I am now flying free in the hozone layer.

InPeace,
InLove

Nyahaa! The hozone layer! To the VanHeusen belts and beyond!

 

[earl]

You can take a highway, a beaten path, or go four-wheeling. If you go four-wheeling and your compass is off, you might end up lost...or not.

I like that metaphor Luna! Guess I'm more of an "off-roader." Thing is I can't fully accept the road as laid out by most major traditions-the ruts don't fit my feet-or wheels. But I'm much more of an experiential sort than "theological," i.e., religion or spirituality is a living thing for me more so than a "belief" system in the sense of believing whole buncha hard & fast things. Spirituality for me does have a certain belief structure involved that guides the practices I use, but it is a "light" structure without a whole lot of certainty to it, except in the very broad picture. My practices are meant to keep my mind and heart open so don't want too much conceptual baggage to weigh that down. In my case, my choice of spiritual practices is then based on whether it seems to me that they can assist in that end. So my vehicle can and does veer all over the place at times. have a good one, earl

 

[flowperson]

Yes InLove, we're thinking in like terms. But as we cross more and more boundaries that used to be inviolable, we are forced to adapt more and more as individuals and community life becomes more difficult. You and Jack are indeed fortunate to live in the situation that you do. Churches, OTOH, are basically once a week communities that are intended to reinforce common values and carry one spiritually from time to time. I believe that places like CR are beginning to pick up the slack though and provide the needed day-to-day support and affirmation for some of us.

Thanks for your comeback Luna, there don't seem to be as many cafeterias as there used to be, huh? But I understand what you meant. I tend to be an off the track four wheeler much of the time (quelle surprise!), but then that's me, so I've been doing the cafeteria thing for a while now. Even got lost once or twice along the way, but learned much in the end.

Prober...I've got lots of single socks looking for mates. Wanna start an online dating service ?

Earl...next time I go driving in the wilderness I'll look for dust clouds and imagine that it's you.

flow....

 

[earl]

Actually when I saw this thread it got me to thinking re certain historical "spiritual" movements-particularly Theosophy and the amalgam termed the "New Age," which to me seems to be an outgrowth philosophically from Theosophy. When I see the ideas of Theosophy that have been represented here by Andrew & Nick, it appears to me is that these approaches are attempts to pull together into a coherent schema attempts to accomodate all the experiences of humanity that otherwise could not be accomodated under the 1 tent of a particular religious tradition. There is an old adage so clouded in the mists of my memory that I cannot recall the name of the originator but seems apt for all schemas of experiences: "the map is not the territory." I have to admit I'm more fond of maps that include more "points of interest" on them than not. But ultimately we walk on best we can into unknown territory where regardless of the map we think we're following, we need to never lose touch with our internal compass of the spiritual heart. Always in my opinion heart/intuition is more reliable than the "head." take care all, earl

 

[Prober]

The way I see it, my spiritual belief system comes from life's observations and experiences and from what the voice of G-d has told me.

I select my religion cafeteria-style to select the best one that fits my beliefs and communal needs.

In other words (IMO), my personal relationship with G-d comes before my religion.

 

[cavalier]

You can take a highway, a beaten path, or go four-wheeling. If you go four-wheeling and your compass is off, you might end up lost...or not.

Well, if you take the highway, you have to know where to get off. You also have to know that must, at some point, get off. There are those though who don't know, or forget this. The highway and its rules becomes more important than where they were going.

I was a cafeteria Christian, I'm not sure about the Christian part anymore though.
I don't see anything wrong with the practice, but it does take work. It is too easy to skim off the top of lots of different dishes, feel like you're full, but later on realise you've had nothing substantial.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

InLove,

Yes, that was a cool sunrise we "shared." And, I agree, if we can find ideas that we have in common, it does bring us closer together.

Flow,

I am afraid I do not understand, "Religions are generalized, institutionalized systems that view the world in a certain way to satisfy broader spectrums of belief." What do you mean?

You said,

"...people are more open to sampling alternative beliefs."

--> This is definitely the era of the New Age in more ways than one. Things are changing quickly, and we also have the New Age movement going on around us. I heard someone say how we used to live in small villages, and everyone in our village would be members of the same religion. Now, we can live in a town where people from several faiths and nationalities can all live on the same street, or in the same apartment building! This has really changed our perceptions. Perhaps this has increased the sampling you mentioned.

Flow,

I agree that the move toward fellowship with peoples of of different religions, nationalities, etc., is a good idea. That is the very purpose of this Forum.

That is an interesting idea, that our society is all about working to overcome differences, while our religion is all about identifying commonalities. I think you have hit a nail on the head -- why religion and modern society are at odds so much of the time. Many times religion preaches the exact opposite of what our inter-cultural needs dictate.

Earl,

I am impressed by your attempt to keep "conceptual baggage" to a minimum. This is exactly what I was referring to, when I started this thread. This seems to be an idea that has a lot of momentum nowadays.

As a matter of fact, Theosophy takes responsibilty for starting the whole New Age movement. It is something I am particularly proud of -- which brings me to the reason I started this thread. More and more people are questioning the ideas of their faith. Is this good? I say yes -- and I think most of the people responding here agree. (I suppose most fundamentalists would not....)

Prober,

You said,

"...my personal relationship with G-d comes before my religion."

--> It sounds like you are distinguishing your religious belief system from your set of moral standards. Is that correct?

Cavalier,

You said,

"It is too easy to skim off the top of lots of different dishes, feel like you're full, but later on realise you've had nothing substantial."

--> This approach is quite popular in many parts of Buddhism today. Many people say that being a cafeteria Christian or cafeteria Buddhist is bad, and I can appreciate why they say that. Many people feel the only way to get the full meaning out of a particular tradition is to really stick to it. I know what these people are getting at -- the ideas that a person who sits on the fence of religious convictions ends up being a Jack of all religions, and master of none. I have a stong set of personal beliefs, while I feel most people are heading in the opposite direction.

~~~

One point I wanted to make (a point that no one picked up on) is the value of questioning our beliefs. In a way, I see being a Chrisitan or cafeteria Buddhist as the beginning of questioning our beliefs. I feel that questioning our beliefs is good. I have found many people who are strong in their faith disagree.

Is it automatically bad to question our individual faiths?

 

[Thomas]

Hi all –

I think the question depends on the premise upon which one questions one's beliefs.

The over-arching premise of the West today is founded on Philosophical Rationalism, something that all the traditional disciplines have refuted by their very nature.

Philosophical Relativism, the inevitable outcome of rationalism, places the self at the centre of the cosmos, in place of the 'Other' (however that is defined).

'Liberal Christianity' in that sense is just another mode of fundamentalism ... it is its polar opposite.

In like manner Relativism refutes the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, because it insists that truth is determined according to 'me'.

Personally, I think 'cafe culture' will be a condemnation laid at the doors of western civilisation.

The Cartesian-Kantian thinking that governed the Enlightenment, was once all-pervading, but now is viewed as belonging to the Anglo-American school, whereas the Continental School is a mode of thinking that is in accord with the world's traditional disciplines.

So what I'm saying is that people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Sorry if the above is a bit spikey, but dashed off in 5 minutes (I'm at work).

One thing I would like to throw into the ring:

The Catholic/Orthodox Churches argue they have taught the same message consistently throughout history, the same message that was given to them by the Apostles, and hence the Faith today is the Faith of the Apostles...

The reason why Christianity, and indeed any religin, might appear contentious is because people insist on a doctrine that is other than the Apostolic teaching.

... so we would argue that what is contentious is those who do not like the discipline of the sacra doctrina, and who would change it to suit themselves ...

There is a world of difference, for example, between a theological discussion on the Holy Spirit in the light of an Augustine or a Palamas (who argue from within the deposit of Faith) – and that of, say, A Catholic and a Calvinist.

And then there are those, whom the faithful can only view as someone standing outside the communion, throwing stones...

+++

Thomas

 

[Prober]

Prober,

You said,

"...my personal relationship with G-d comes before my religion."

--> It sounds like you are distinguishing your religious belief system from your set of moral standards. Is that correct?

I'm not sure that's true. I'm saying my spiritual beliefs support my religious beliefs. If your spiritual beliefs are your moral standard, then I guess that could be said to be true.

Man creates religion.

 

[earl]

Well, Thomas, I guess I'd have to disagree with you that the Age of Reason necessarily puts the self on center stage, though it most certainly has seemingly eliminated uncritical, "blind" faith. Though, as I believe humans always will "see through a glass darkly," we can only know so much and as a result faith will always have its role. But we are aware of too many things now that don't neatly fit into traditional boxes and cannot ignore some "reason." To give you an example of why "cafeteria" appoaches sometimes legitimately appeal, I'll use myself as an example-I've spoken of my beliefs elsewhere. First my "Budhist" half- to me the Buddhists are right that when one gains a certain degree of insight into the mind and/or reaches a certain meditative point, one sees that one cannot be defined/delimited by anything we typically take to be "ourselves-" our thoughts, feelings, roles, etc. In that awareness we then tend to drop any self-referentiality which Buddhists take to mean "no self." Though Buddhists themselves confuse and debate what that may imply tending at times toward nihilism implying that what's left at the center of the onion is literally "nothing," when what's left is simply an open conscious awareness which seems all pervasive and co-extensive with the Big Picture, resulting in "less me" with more interweaving connection with all that is. Important realization and therefore to me all the practices associated with achieving that awarenees also important. Also, of course, I don't believe anyone's life ends at death-too much research to suggest things like reincarnation exist which doesn't tend to fit the traditional theistic traditions. Now I'd probably be OK with being "all Buddhist" except again research into NDE's suggests that for many folk they've experienced a sense of an all pervasive, loving Presence beyond death that many would interpret through their Christian lens as "God," though that does not have to imply God is a being. Further, in terms of spiritual practices, I find prayers of the heart associated with theistic tradiitons important, profound ways of opening the spiritual heart just as I find mindfulness and some other Buddhist meditations profound ways of opening the mind. Further as to prayers of the heart-I find a devotional sense of prayer and gratitude a natural response to an Other. Buddhists also "pray" and express gratitude, though typically to ill-defined others of importance to them such as various bodhisattvas & to the Buddha himself or Amida, (which is why I've suggested that even non-theisits have a tendency toward devotionalism to an "Other" however they define that). Of course, my theism is apophatic-that God to me is no more definable than what we are in essence (Thomas I consider that unbounded consiousness we have at essence to be the very root of what we are as "persons"). The essence of "person" or "God" that we are talking about is an indefinable, unbounded relationship more than a "thing." So that's why I can't browse at just 1 table. earl

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi all –

I think the question depends on the premise upon which one questions one's beliefs.

The over-arching premise of the West today is founded on Philosophical Rationalism, something that all the traditional disciplines have refuted by their very nature.

Philosophical Relativism, the inevitable outcome of rationalism, places the self at the centre of the cosmos, in place of the 'Other' (however that is defined).

'Liberal Christianity' in that sense is just another mode of fundamentalism ... it is its polar opposite.

In like manner Relativism refutes the Second Noble Truth of Buddhism, because it insists that truth is determined according to 'me'.

Personally, I think 'cafe culture' will be a condemnation laid at the doors of western civilisation.

The Cartesian-Kantian thinking that governed the Enlightenment, was once all-pervading, but now is viewed as belonging to the Anglo-American school, whereas the Continental School is a mode of thinking that is in accord with the world's traditional disciplines.

So what I'm saying is that people enjoy the right to question their faith, but never bother to question where the questions are coming from, and thus assume that they have an absolute right to do so.

Thomas

I think you're making an excellent point, Thomas. I would just add a couple of observations:

There has to be a mechanism by which one's religious assumptions can be tested, otherwise objectivity is impossible. I think that's the impetus, and value of enlightenment philosophy. But that sort of questioning should always be considered a means rather than an end. It's a valuable tool to help one get outside the box far enough to look back with objectivity and appreciation. It's a way to shed superstition and evolve toward a more mature appreciation of religion. It's a a manfestation of a global coming of age, philosophically speaking, which absolutely needed to happen.

Philosophy is like starlight. By the time it reaches mass consciousness it's already long dead at the source. Even postmodernism is talking about something that's a contemporary relic.

Chris