why are you religious?
- Thread starter cognitivefun
- Start date
- Status
Josh, I just did what you suggested. 
It is a pity. I found this link:
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/carter.html
It is beyond my imagination.
Sorry, I do not want to hijack the thread nor offend any Native American by mentioning Carter's books.
cosco
It is a pity. I found this link:http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/carter.html
It is beyond my imagination.
Sorry, I do not want to hijack the thread nor offend any Native American by mentioning Carter's books.
cosco
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
Some wonderfully conceived and well-written reflections in this thread. Thank all of you for helping me think.
Dave Hahn? (and anybody else)
you might appreciate and enjoy Zen and the Birds of Appetite, jointly written by Thomas Merton and D.T. Suzuki. Here is a review from the Amazon site:
"Zen enriches no one," Thomas Merton provocatively writes in his opening statement to Zen and the Birds of Appetite--one of the last books to be published before his death in 1968. "There is no body to be found. The birds may come and circle for a while... but they soon go elsewhere. When they are gone, the 'nothing,' the 'no-body' that was there, suddenly appears. That is Zen. It was there all the time but the scavengers missed it, because it was not their kind of prey." This gets at the humor, paradox, and joy that one feels in Merton's discoveries of Zen during the last years of his life, a joy very much present in this collection of essays. Exploring the relationship between Christianity and Zen, especially through his dialogue with the great Zen teacher D.T. Suzuki (included as part 2 of this volume), the book makes an excellent introduction to a comparative study of these two traditions, as well as giving the reader a strong taste of the mature Merton. Never does one feel him losing his own faith in these pages; rather one feels that faith getting deeply clarified and affirmed. Just as the body of "Zen" cannot be found by the scavengers, so too, Merton suggests, with the eternal truth of Christ. "It was there all the time but the scavengers missed it...."
What would be neat is to have those who would be interested, in some domitory situation, where all could read and then discuss throughout the day, selected topics from this, and other works. An examination by our selves of our selves, with some mild structure to talk, go away and think, and talk again. A closed time, with the world outside us and all of our respective responsibilities put in abeyance for a while, as we examined and tried to understand and accept the personal perspectives of other individuals who have or have wanted to look at this aspect of life.
I used to go on "closed retreats" and found them rehabilitating in many, many ways. But then, as a young man, I was formed in large part by eight years of Jesuit thinking.
Be well and safe.
Dave Hahn? (and anybody else)
you might appreciate and enjoy Zen and the Birds of Appetite, jointly written by Thomas Merton and D.T. Suzuki. Here is a review from the Amazon site:
"Zen enriches no one," Thomas Merton provocatively writes in his opening statement to Zen and the Birds of Appetite--one of the last books to be published before his death in 1968. "There is no body to be found. The birds may come and circle for a while... but they soon go elsewhere. When they are gone, the 'nothing,' the 'no-body' that was there, suddenly appears. That is Zen. It was there all the time but the scavengers missed it, because it was not their kind of prey." This gets at the humor, paradox, and joy that one feels in Merton's discoveries of Zen during the last years of his life, a joy very much present in this collection of essays. Exploring the relationship between Christianity and Zen, especially through his dialogue with the great Zen teacher D.T. Suzuki (included as part 2 of this volume), the book makes an excellent introduction to a comparative study of these two traditions, as well as giving the reader a strong taste of the mature Merton. Never does one feel him losing his own faith in these pages; rather one feels that faith getting deeply clarified and affirmed. Just as the body of "Zen" cannot be found by the scavengers, so too, Merton suggests, with the eternal truth of Christ. "It was there all the time but the scavengers missed it...."
What would be neat is to have those who would be interested, in some domitory situation, where all could read and then discuss throughout the day, selected topics from this, and other works. An examination by our selves of our selves, with some mild structure to talk, go away and think, and talk again. A closed time, with the world outside us and all of our respective responsibilities put in abeyance for a while, as we examined and tried to understand and accept the personal perspectives of other individuals who have or have wanted to look at this aspect of life.
I used to go on "closed retreats" and found them rehabilitating in many, many ways. But then, as a young man, I was formed in large part by eight years of Jesuit thinking.
Be well and safe.
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2004
- Messages
- 1,011
I must say I can't ever remember seeing such a respectful, polite discussion of religion and spirituality on the 'net. I wish I had time to respond to every post, as I agree with some of what everyone has said.
I didn't realize that being "religious" has more negative overtones than being "spiritual." While there's certainly a difference in definition, I had no idea that describing oneself as "religious" could reflect poorly on someone.
I found Spectre's post very interesting. Much like him, I am predisposed to certain tendencies regarding belief, was somewhat indoctrinated as a child, and have a strong (and in my case, sometimes egotistical) desire to be right. However, we have nearly opposite views. I'm generally skeptical (cynical, even), was raised by an agnostic Methodist and a fallen Catholic, and don't have any spiritual or religious beliefs.
That said, I think "existence as a human being" (to paraphrase Munk) requires faith and belief of some sort. I generally accept that the scientific method is the best way to explain physical and psychic phenomena, but I do so as much out of a belief in the validity of the scientific method as rational reasoning for the same. I find the idea that everything around us can (or will someday) be explained by physics and biology et al very appealing at a very basic level.
That said, I belive very strongly in the right of every individual to believe whatever one wishes, thinks, or feels to be true, and to practice accordingly, provided noone is harmed.
Jeremy
I didn't realize that being "religious" has more negative overtones than being "spiritual." While there's certainly a difference in definition, I had no idea that describing oneself as "religious" could reflect poorly on someone.
I found Spectre's post very interesting. Much like him, I am predisposed to certain tendencies regarding belief, was somewhat indoctrinated as a child, and have a strong (and in my case, sometimes egotistical) desire to be right. However, we have nearly opposite views. I'm generally skeptical (cynical, even), was raised by an agnostic Methodist and a fallen Catholic, and don't have any spiritual or religious beliefs.
That said, I think "existence as a human being" (to paraphrase Munk) requires faith and belief of some sort. I generally accept that the scientific method is the best way to explain physical and psychic phenomena, but I do so as much out of a belief in the validity of the scientific method as rational reasoning for the same. I find the idea that everything around us can (or will someday) be explained by physics and biology et al very appealing at a very basic level.
That said, I belive very strongly in the right of every individual to believe whatever one wishes, thinks, or feels to be true, and to practice accordingly, provided noone is harmed.
Jeremy
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2001
- Messages
- 4,500
cosco said:Josh, I just did what you suggested.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/carter.html
It is beyond my imagination.
Sorry, I do not want to hijack the thread nor offend any Native American by mentioning Carter's books.
cosco
Cosco--I didn't think you'd mentioned Carter with the intent to offend
--just passing on some unfortunate info. 
Josh and Cosco- I read the stuff about Carter. Hardly all of it. But I read enough to raise an important question, THE question; if a man was one way in a portion of his life, but became another way later, should he be judged only on the first?
Yes, when he was younger he was a racist who went on to write some non racist good stuff. Why is there even a controversy? Is it better to think of him as a racist?
And one side of his family says 'no way we're ndn' and the other says, yes, there was Cherokee blood.
I guess out of respect for the thread I'll leave this alone. No sense going there. But instead of scorn it is just possible this man deserves respect for becoming a finer person. (I'd certainly have to read more to find out)
munk
Yes, when he was younger he was a racist who went on to write some non racist good stuff. Why is there even a controversy? Is it better to think of him as a racist?
And one side of his family says 'no way we're ndn' and the other says, yes, there was Cherokee blood.
I guess out of respect for the thread I'll leave this alone. No sense going there. But instead of scorn it is just possible this man deserves respect for becoming a finer person. (I'd certainly have to read more to find out)
munk
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2002
- Messages
- 746
I am turning into a bit of a rebel about this stuff. I continually ask 'why' about Church and Bible matters even though I've been in a very conservative reformed background for years. I don't care too much for doctrine or details. This irritates people in my Church.
I am getting frustrated with apologetics and what I percieve to be an almost blatant attempt to scare people into staying within the confines of the organization. 'The Bible never contradicts itself, and is the perfect Word of God.' When one would point out an inconsistency then others say the fault is with the translation. But when one suggests that mistakes in translation could make for false interpretation the answer is that there are no mistakes. However 'those numbers in the Old Testament are routinely exaggerated' but the world was unmistakeably created in six 24-hour periods. People seem to pick and choose no matter how much they say they adhere to the Authority of Scripture.
I've been working in the Arctic on a routine basis for 10 years and Pastors and Elders have expressed no concern over that time period. Now I have an elder who says I have been sinning for 10 years. Black and white for him: I've been judged. There is no room for discussion with him so I'm headed for the door. Nothing makes me walk out faster than people who know they are right. Faith requires humility or it simply becomes arrogance.
So the Authority of Scripture becomes the Authority of Those Interpreting Scripture. I am told that the Bible is a very simple and straightforward book. Then I am told that we need to study it daily with the help of preachers in order to understand it correctly. I tell them that I have faith that God will lead me through life wherever I am, and I and my faith cannot be denied as long as I believe in him. Then elders tell me that this is a dangerous attitude. So I should be afraid of losing my faith? Then how is it Faith if you are scared of losing it? Can you mistrust trust? I smell bullshit.
All I am left with after all the apologetics, dos and don'ts is the spirit of Jesus Christ himself. He desires mercy, not sacrifice. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your Neighbour as yourself. Much easier to follow than trying to decide whether or not to watch TV on Sunday.
I am getting frustrated with apologetics and what I percieve to be an almost blatant attempt to scare people into staying within the confines of the organization. 'The Bible never contradicts itself, and is the perfect Word of God.' When one would point out an inconsistency then others say the fault is with the translation. But when one suggests that mistakes in translation could make for false interpretation the answer is that there are no mistakes. However 'those numbers in the Old Testament are routinely exaggerated' but the world was unmistakeably created in six 24-hour periods. People seem to pick and choose no matter how much they say they adhere to the Authority of Scripture.
I've been working in the Arctic on a routine basis for 10 years and Pastors and Elders have expressed no concern over that time period. Now I have an elder who says I have been sinning for 10 years. Black and white for him: I've been judged. There is no room for discussion with him so I'm headed for the door. Nothing makes me walk out faster than people who know they are right. Faith requires humility or it simply becomes arrogance.
So the Authority of Scripture becomes the Authority of Those Interpreting Scripture. I am told that the Bible is a very simple and straightforward book. Then I am told that we need to study it daily with the help of preachers in order to understand it correctly. I tell them that I have faith that God will lead me through life wherever I am, and I and my faith cannot be denied as long as I believe in him. Then elders tell me that this is a dangerous attitude. So I should be afraid of losing my faith? Then how is it Faith if you are scared of losing it? Can you mistrust trust? I smell bullshit.
All I am left with after all the apologetics, dos and don'ts is the spirit of Jesus Christ himself. He desires mercy, not sacrifice. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your Neighbour as yourself. Much easier to follow than trying to decide whether or not to watch TV on Sunday.
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2002
- Messages
- 7,269
Phil?
For all my formal education in religion (or perhaps because of it), I mistrust anyone in any capacity who says "THIS IS THE TRUTH!"
Should one believe in a god, first-mover, prime ordinate...whatever, it always seemed to me that that relationship is personal and intimate beyond any other; i.e., a person's sense of a divinity is exclusively his own. Given the concept of a divinity of some sort, I think that the rules of behavior and ultimate reward or punishment will be sorted out rather nicely with the divine encounter, whenever that may happen.
I love the concept of a divinity and would like very much for it to be valid.
But I'm making my own judgements on my conduct, attempting to abide by a system of values and morality which has evolved in me by experience and examples of others I have admired.
The most difficult, and on-going, part of this self-judgement evolution is to attempt to accept all others as creatures doing the best they think they can in any given situation. Some are more successful (in my judgement) than others.
So, with irony implicit, I am trying to form judgements of self conduct as I attempt to NOT judge others.
Perhaps "Do no harm" is the foundation of my thinking. Dunno.
Namaste
(EDIT: kind of an interesting explanation of the word and gestures accompanying "namaste." http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/namaste )
Be well and safe.
For all my formal education in religion (or perhaps because of it), I mistrust anyone in any capacity who says "THIS IS THE TRUTH!"
Should one believe in a god, first-mover, prime ordinate...whatever, it always seemed to me that that relationship is personal and intimate beyond any other; i.e., a person's sense of a divinity is exclusively his own. Given the concept of a divinity of some sort, I think that the rules of behavior and ultimate reward or punishment will be sorted out rather nicely with the divine encounter, whenever that may happen.
I love the concept of a divinity and would like very much for it to be valid.
But I'm making my own judgements on my conduct, attempting to abide by a system of values and morality which has evolved in me by experience and examples of others I have admired.
The most difficult, and on-going, part of this self-judgement evolution is to attempt to accept all others as creatures doing the best they think they can in any given situation. Some are more successful (in my judgement) than others.
So, with irony implicit, I am trying to form judgements of self conduct as I attempt to NOT judge others.
Perhaps "Do no harm" is the foundation of my thinking. Dunno.
Namaste
(EDIT: kind of an interesting explanation of the word and gestures accompanying "namaste." http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/namaste )
Be well and safe.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2004
- Messages
- 3,830
http://www.paganlibrary.com/reference/overview_of_the_wiccan_rede.php
The Wiccan Rede (or code) states
"An It Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
May I emphatically state, "I AM NOT WICCAN" - and am not defending, attacking or endorsing any thought or teaching of any kind.
If anything, I am a watered-down Buddhist of non-specific order.
I just read a lot, and that not harming anybody seems like a good idea.
Maybe we should all try it. Especially in the Middle East.
Never heard of a Wiccan car bomber taking out a crowd of.... anybody.
Ad Astra
The Wiccan Rede (or code) states
"An It Harm None, Do What Ye Will"
May I emphatically state, "I AM NOT WICCAN" - and am not defending, attacking or endorsing any thought or teaching of any kind.
If anything, I am a watered-down Buddhist of non-specific order.
I just read a lot, and that not harming anybody seems like a good idea.
Maybe we should all try it. Especially in the Middle East.
Never heard of a Wiccan car bomber taking out a crowd of.... anybody.
Ad Astra
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2005
- Messages
- 94
I don't think anyone can "enlighten" anyone else. the self, when listended to, will lead itself on the right path.
Me, I'm a tribalist, polytheist, heathen boy. I find folks from many tribes, with other similar or diff gods, godesses, rites, beliefs, are still tribal brethren. I fault none 4 their beliefs, if they will not fault me for mine.
In our talks in threads previous, I think Yvsa and I see eye to eye and walk similar paths, and we can discuss our similarities and appreciate the differences here and there.
All folks wuz wild once, just some of the free-rangers became domesticated...and the rest of us lie in wait like wolves in sheep's clothing.
Me, I'm a tribalist, polytheist, heathen boy. I find folks from many tribes, with other similar or diff gods, godesses, rites, beliefs, are still tribal brethren. I fault none 4 their beliefs, if they will not fault me for mine.
In our talks in threads previous, I think Yvsa and I see eye to eye and walk similar paths, and we can discuss our similarities and appreciate the differences here and there.
All folks wuz wild once, just some of the free-rangers became domesticated...and the rest of us lie in wait like wolves in sheep's clothing.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 1999
- Messages
- 8,911
Trying to recall a quote - goes something like this:
"You live this land, a time, you listen to the many peoples, the rocks, the mountains, the trees, the fur peoples, you are Indian. You may be a rancher, hate Indians. But the land, it takes you."
Makes some sense to me. I'm not saying it makes you Indian, but you see possibilities, you see harmonies, you begin to feel things. My mystic or transcendant experience just happened to occur deep in the heart of the reservation I was working on at the time. It was a generic thing, Light, Joy, Healing, out of body experience that could have been Great-Grandfather, could have been the Christian God, Could have been Buddhist. But it left me with no doubt that whatever it was, something is out there and involved with us.
"You live this land, a time, you listen to the many peoples, the rocks, the mountains, the trees, the fur peoples, you are Indian. You may be a rancher, hate Indians. But the land, it takes you."
Makes some sense to me. I'm not saying it makes you Indian, but you see possibilities, you see harmonies, you begin to feel things. My mystic or transcendant experience just happened to occur deep in the heart of the reservation I was working on at the time. It was a generic thing, Light, Joy, Healing, out of body experience that could have been Great-Grandfather, could have been the Christian God, Could have been Buddhist. But it left me with no doubt that whatever it was, something is out there and involved with us.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2002
- Messages
- 1,102
cliff355 said:
All I can say to this, and I am by no means an authority, is that do you believe the purpose of religion is meant to inspire us or do the thinking for us?
I have said to that crowd, faith is a mystery. Whatever is to be discovered (be it spirituality, knowledge, "closeness to God") must be earned, not by blind faith, but with questioning, skeptism, and the ultimate desire to expand one's mind.
You want easy answers? You want it all written down in a nice, easy to understand package? You want to turn off your brain and simply focus on "believing"? Than fanaticism may be for you!
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2004
- Messages
- 1,163
As usual, there is a lot I would like to say, but I have too little wisdom to know how to say most of it.
Just a few thoughts then
Doesn't any thesis imply the negation of its antithesis?
My point here is that if we hold or state ANY belief, we are, in some sense, passing judgement on beliefs that are antithetical. Isn't that unavoidable? Doesn't everyone pass judgement then? It can be masked, however, when a majority in a given group shares certain presuppositions. That shared position can appear "neutral". Antithetical positions then appear "judgemental".
My understanding of Christianity rests upon the following critical point. The person and work of Christ are central. His ethical and moral teachings are important and integral, but are, on their own, and divorced from him, of little import.
Christ, as the fulfillment of the Old testament, as the lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world, and as the Lord our righteousness, is what I need. A moral code cannot help me, and it cannot take away my sin and guilt. A moral code cannot clothe me in that wedding garment, the righteousness of Christ,that makes me fit for his presence, for that place of joy unspeakable, and full of glory.
The great thesis/anithesis in the world ( and especially in religious thought)is self earned righteousness vs. graciously imputed/recived righteouness. I believe any attempt at synthesis ultimately results in the former, still antithetical to the latter.
Jesus said he came not to bring peace, but a sword.
Thesis, antithesis.
The sword that divides between many things, including between proud Pharisee, and humble publican.
The publican went home justified, because he sought mercy, and found it, in Christ. The Pharisees, by and large, rejected Christ, because he would not accept their self righteousness, their outworking of their misunderstanding of the Old testament. "If ye had believed Moses, than had ye believed me."Their ultimate response was to kill him.
His respone was to rise again, and save even many of those very ones who called for his death!
That is why I believe in "religion", when I began to understand that such a person, such a savior, really existed.
I came to terms with my guilt before God in high school. I acknowledged myself as deserving of his wrath.
In Christ, I found, and find, mercy and grace, without any merit in me that would attarct his interest. A savior who would die for one who had hated him.
In Him, I find peace, joy, and a fullness of life, along with an expectation of eternal satisfaction in his presence forever.
The anithesis? A backbreaking, heart crushing road , upon which I must earn my own way,with no hope of success . I know my own heart well enough to despair of ever earning my way.
No thanks.
With Love and great desires for the ultimate well being of all,
Tom
Just a few thoughts then
Doesn't any thesis imply the negation of its antithesis?
My point here is that if we hold or state ANY belief, we are, in some sense, passing judgement on beliefs that are antithetical. Isn't that unavoidable? Doesn't everyone pass judgement then? It can be masked, however, when a majority in a given group shares certain presuppositions. That shared position can appear "neutral". Antithetical positions then appear "judgemental".
My understanding of Christianity rests upon the following critical point. The person and work of Christ are central. His ethical and moral teachings are important and integral, but are, on their own, and divorced from him, of little import.
Christ, as the fulfillment of the Old testament, as the lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world, and as the Lord our righteousness, is what I need. A moral code cannot help me, and it cannot take away my sin and guilt. A moral code cannot clothe me in that wedding garment, the righteousness of Christ,that makes me fit for his presence, for that place of joy unspeakable, and full of glory.
The great thesis/anithesis in the world ( and especially in religious thought)is self earned righteousness vs. graciously imputed/recived righteouness. I believe any attempt at synthesis ultimately results in the former, still antithetical to the latter.
Jesus said he came not to bring peace, but a sword.
Thesis, antithesis.
The sword that divides between many things, including between proud Pharisee, and humble publican.
The publican went home justified, because he sought mercy, and found it, in Christ. The Pharisees, by and large, rejected Christ, because he would not accept their self righteousness, their outworking of their misunderstanding of the Old testament. "If ye had believed Moses, than had ye believed me."Their ultimate response was to kill him.
His respone was to rise again, and save even many of those very ones who called for his death!
That is why I believe in "religion", when I began to understand that such a person, such a savior, really existed.
I came to terms with my guilt before God in high school. I acknowledged myself as deserving of his wrath.
In Christ, I found, and find, mercy and grace, without any merit in me that would attarct his interest. A savior who would die for one who had hated him.
In Him, I find peace, joy, and a fullness of life, along with an expectation of eternal satisfaction in his presence forever.
The anithesis? A backbreaking, heart crushing road , upon which I must earn my own way,with no hope of success . I know my own heart well enough to despair of ever earning my way.
No thanks.
With Love and great desires for the ultimate well being of all,
Tom
- Joined
- Mar 8, 1999
- Messages
- 8,911
Nice, polite discussion, and you guys should be proud of yourselves for keeping it open to those who think different.
This is one thread I'm going to close down while we are all ahead. I think most points have been represented. Hope this doesn't make anyone mad, but time to draw the line.
This is one thread I'm going to close down while we are all ahead. I think most points have been represented. Hope this doesn't make anyone mad, but time to draw the line.
- Status