bravo bravus. everyone. rrrrespeckt!

--------------------

Struggling with religion in general and later the existence of God and Christianity I found that any experience that helps me realize that my ego is usually at the root of my problems (and it usually is)is a good thing.
As a Christian (within those confines), I believe that I can only exist in two states submission to God or submission to sin (ego definitely gets in the way of believing that I can only exist in a state of submission). The other problem with ego and religion is the realization that I am totally dependent on faith and the grace of God.
Religion that promotes awareness of the ego and the problems that egocentrism can create can be good.
Love thy neighbor as thy self.

"...she screams 'Religion kills more than it saves you man'..."

Flame away.

I agree with much of the sentiment behind that post, the destruction of the self (as a source of desire, not in the sense of self-destructive action like drug abuse or voting Republican) being a central tenet of Buddhism, for which there is a soft spot in my heart, which is otherwise as black, cold, and calculating as a German coffee pot. According to Buddhism, the self, and selfish desires, are central to all human suffering. We are at our most helpful and positive as members of our civilization when we are working primarily for others' good rather than our own.

However, limiting oneself to two possible existential states seems dangerous to me. After all, submission to god can be, and indeed has been, interpreted in many different and contradictory ways. Some of which include flying airplanes into buildings, or exterminating entire populations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anarchocyclist:
I agree with much of the sentiment behind that post, the destruction of the self (as a source of desire, not in the sense of self-destructive action like drug abuse or voting Republican) being a central tenet of Buddhism, for which there is a soft spot in my heart, which is otherwise as black, cold, and calculating as a German coffee pot. According to Buddhism, the self, and selfish desires, are central to all human suffering. We are at our most helpful and positive as members of our civilization when we are working primarily for others' good rather than our own.

However, limiting oneself to two possible existential states seems dangerous to me. After all, submission to god can be, and indeed has been, interpreted in many different and contradictory ways. Some of which include flying airplanes into buildings, or exterminating entire populations.

---

From (what I take to be) a Buddhist perspective,
Eric's idea of submitting to God can be another
method of destroying the ego. I think this is an
important aspect in not submitting to sin.

Of course, my view is sort of a unitarian approach
where everything is laid over a Buddhist (and
potentially Hindu) framework. I also think that
all forms of religion can take you to the same
place, it just takes a different religious
framework for different people. I realize now that
I really never had to stop being a Lutheran, but
it took me trying out other things (and ending up
joining a Soto Zen group) to see all of that.

I agree with Bravus' statement about not liking
the watering down of religion. IMO, the rosary
should be an important tradition in all of
Christianity.

Disclaimer: I mention Eric and Bravus because they
said things I want to touch upon. I'm not putting
any words into their posts and don't know whether
they agree or disagree with me, though I suspect
the latter. If people see things differently than
me, I have no problem with that and would, in
fact, like to see how other people view religion.

its funny that submission of the ego, self denial and all that rot are at the heart of most religions when at the same time that directly goes against our human drive to not only survive but dominate. Therefore it seems to me that in a way since being self willed is in a way hard wired into our systems it is almost impossiable to achive a perfect state of self denial so that the majority of mankind falls short of the ideal.

I mean give me a break. God puts us here on the earth to follow his set of rules and then makes us with self will. So we end up sinning because it is in our natures to sin and God is sitting on the sidelines judging our behavior. What kind of sick game IS this????????????????

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll tootsie pop?
Let's find out one, a two ...

I like the way you think deb.
All humans fall short (IMHO).
That's why I am dependent on faith.
If the whole thing is rot or a game then I spent my life in fiction.
If its not (and I believe it), that's what I think is terrifying.
(Religion never understood the essence of fear enough to make it real)

The problem of desires that go against the perceived will of god has been explored by a lot of very smart Catholics (and others) for a thousand years or so, so I'll avoid attempting to examine it from a theist perspective. If you're a literalist where scripture is concerned, this is covered in the first few chapters of Genesis. That bit about knowledge of good and evil, forbidden fruit, all that. Fig leaves and such.

I see it from a secular perspective as the struggle between rationality and biology, i.e. behaviors which were developed to insure survival versus abstract concepts of altruism, morality, etc. Frans de Waal is a Dutch evolutionary biologists who has written (convincingly, in my opinion) about biological foundations for altruistic behavior, so we may not be just selfish machines, adapted only to individual survival. Anyway.

This struggle and the experiences central to it (doing something "bad", satisfying urges, battling same urges for a greater perceived good, occasionally giving way in a controlled environment to alleviate stress, etc) is what makes being human interesting, as far as I'm concerned. It's what makes the human experience unique (unless those dolphins really are sentient). The duality of what I think of as my monastic, ascetic side, and my decadent, selfish side is endlessly fascinating to me, and without it, I wouldn't have a whole lot of interest in living at all.

quote:

---

Blaming christianity for teaching nontolerance of homosexuality would be placing blame where blame is due.

---

Well, maybe I should have been more clear that my point was that *on balance* religion may very well have done more good for people than harm. This is not to diminish the evil done in the name of religion. I might also argue that much evil done in the name of religion has been done by irreligious people wraping themselves in religion. Lotta evil done in the name of democracy or communism, too, that was not the fault of those ideas.

On this particular point, however, I will not defend those religions. Homosexuality may in the biological sense be an error but so is my nearsightedness, and nobody's made it a crime for me to wear my glasses so far. Least I can do is return the favor.

Further, I cannot see why tolerance of homosexuals or homosexual marriage would be a greater threat to the institution of marriage than say, adultery, divorce, or, to use an increasingly outdated term, fornication (all sex outside marriage), and yet marriage endures and I expect it will continue to do so.


But for those of you making distinctions between religion and spirituality,where does that leave nonbelievers like me?

I retain a sense of ethics, does that make me moral? Maybe. I have an aesthetic sense as well. Does it make me spiritual? I would think not, unless we are using a very generous, and metaphorical set of terms.

I hold no belief in the supernatural, not merely a lack of belief in any particular pantheon or hierarchy of spiritual beings. What does that make of me?

quote:

---

Originally posted by deb:
I mean give me a break. God puts us here on the earth to follow his set of rules and then makes us with self will. So we end up sinning because it is in our natures to sin and God is sitting on the sidelines judging our behavior. What kind of sick game IS this????????????????

---

Yep and he even breaks his own rules by impregnating a married woman, Mary. He/she/it may not have done the physical thing but the results were the same.

I refuse to believe that a "god" would create us and then have us worship he/she/it.

There probably is a "creator" but it's nothing like we have imagined.

What God wants God gets, God help us all....

I think a definition of spirituality is in order here. The only poster who has attempted to offer one is Hex, thus:

quote:

---

Spirituality gives meaning to the lives of people who would otherwise feel their lives have no meaning.

---

Somewhat out of context, I know, and more of a description than a definition. So...sorry, Hex. It was offered as one of the three components of religion. Others seem to use it interchangeably with the word "religion", which is just downright confusing. Anyway, I'm with Bellham in feeling left out of the discussion by this word. I am deeply moved by some religious concepts, but I utterly lack belief in any supernatural phenomena. I lack any creedence in the concept of supernaturality, to be absolutely clear.

However, I feel there are things which give my life meaning. A search for knowledge, taking care of my family, helping other people, working to improve the world. These things are not spiritual in a religious sense, so where does that leave me?

The closest dictionary definition to how I understand the word being used that I can find is this:

quote:

---

1. The quality or state of being spiritual; incorporeality; heavenly-mindedness.

---

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.

I think that covers about 15% of the word's usage in this thread. Anyone, believers, nonbelievers, in between, care to elaborate, maybe offer a working defnintion for the purposes of this discussion?

At any rate, can anyone offer

Nice Roger Waters reference, Dog Soldier. I tend to read that one in conjunction with another Roger Waters gem: "...as I've always said, I prefer your lips red: not what the Good Lord made, but what he intended". In other words, the subtext is "What (men who are using religion to mask their own desires say) God wants is what (all the rest of us) get, God help us all..." But that's just my reading...

I don't think spirituality, at least as I understand it, requires a belief in the supernatural. I might believe that my spirit is something innate to me - what makes me special and unique. The greeting 'Namaste' - loosely translated as 'I bow to the sacred in you' - can be understood that way. I don't hold to the definition cited above about adding meaning to otherwise meaningless lives - everyone's life has as much meaning as s/he chooses to recognise, IMO.

We continue to confuse morality and spirituality. Trying to live a good life might grow out of an awareness of the spiritual, but it's a separate thing... I guess in a sense it's possible to be spiritually aware but immoral, although it's a strange concept.

I don't think an atheist (or a 'naturalist' who believes there is no supernatural) is in any way disqualified from spirituality - my earlier assertion that *everyone* has a spiritual nature and yearning kind of requires that... Peter Gabriel and Leonard Cohen, among others, do a nice job of describing (as much as it can be) the spirituality of sex...

Bravus

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBellham:
Well, maybe I should have been more clear that my point was that *on balance* religion may very well have done more good for people than harm. This is not to diminish the evil done in the name of religion. I might also argue that much evil done in the name of religion has been done by irreligious people wraping themselves in religion. Lotta evil done in the name of democracy or communism, too, that was not the fault of those ideas.

On this particular point, however, I will not defend those religions. Homosexuality may in the biological sense be an error ...

---

Religion is organisation of masses of people (sometimes approaching slavery) by higher (or the highest) authority and their "appointed' spokespeople.
Of course, it is all about control, money and power.
I have a lot of trouble thinking of much that justifies religion. Even if all it does is stop you thinking for yourself....
For instance, your use of the term 'evil'. What is evil if it is not just something you have been told exists?
This 'evil', you say, is done by irreligious people within religion. No, it is religion itself, i.e. dogma or the lack of clear and careful thought perhaps resulting in dialogue that is the cause of "fucked-up-things" (your 'evil' probably).
By the way, there are plenty of scientific (evolutionary biological) arguments that would explain the presence of homosexuals representing approximately 10% of the population. Simply, if you have a gay uncle with no offspring responsibility, you het parents will have a better chance of bringing you up to reproduction age and so passing on your homosexual gene(s) (carried recessively) to your own children.

I rant
But I if I win the beauty pageant,
I am going to rid the world of religion.
I think starvation might follow.


p.s. the devil made me say all this. I am an innocent pawn of evil.

Chillton

quote:

---

By the way, there are plenty of scientific (evolutionary biological) arguments that would explain the presence of homosexuals

---

And to my knowledge, none of the theories has received much in the way of confirmation. Personally, I cringe when I see those theories. The unstated assumption seems to be 'we need to find an adaptive explanation so we have a reason to accept gays.'

Political motivations make for bad science. As I originally stated, even if it's an 'error' in terms of biology, I don't see a case for homosexuality being immoral any more than I see a case for my being an abomination because I'm nearsighted. Better to separate the social argument for acceptance from the particular evidence for any given causal explanation.

And wrapping up, I'm going for a toofer: It seems we don't require that spirituality actually have anything to do with a belief in spirits. Ok, would anyone who objects to the idea that religion may have done more *net* good than harm in human history still object if the claim were that spirituality had, on balance, done more good than harm?

And if so, does that have anything to do with the idea that religion and spirituality are separate? Does that get us anywhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnBellham:

quote:

---

By the way, there are plenty of scientific (evolutionary biological) arguments that would explain the presence of homosexuals

---

And to my knowledge, none of the theories has received much in the way of confirmation. Personally, I cringe when I see those theories. The unstated assumption seems to be 'we need to find an adaptive explanation so we have a reason to accept gays.'

Political motivations make for bad science. As I originally stated, even if it's an 'error' in terms of biology, I don't see a case for homosexuality being immoral any more than I see a case for my being an abomination because I'm nearsighted. Better to separate the social argument for acceptance from the particular evidence for any given causal explanation.

---

An 'error' in biology is like an 'evil' biology.

My comment is based on curiosity not acceptance or non-acceptance. These sorts of theories are hard if not impossible to prove. However, these theories are not refuted either. They remain the best possible explanation. I agree political motivations make for bad science. Can you see/suspect the political motivations behind religion?
Be spiritual I say
To me religion is anti-spiritual
it squashes the spirit and tries to control it.
C

Chillton

John - yeah, I think as we've defined the terms here, there's value in separating religion and spirituality. I like your point about spirituality not requiring belief in spirits, but would say that defines spirits as supernatural entities - what about the 'human spirit' that encourages people to do amazing things, or the 'spirit of the age'? These are natural (it could be argued) things, for which it would be possible to provide reductionistic, scientistic explanations, but those explanations kind of miss the point.

As we've defined the terms (or at least, as I've tried to), 'religion' is a set of rituals, beliefs and practices, and also a community. It remains morally neutral - there can be good and bad religions, in terms of their effects in the world. But in this definition a religion is something you join or subscribe to. Different religions require different degrees of homogeneity of their adherents - notionally it would be possible to have a religion that was completely 'open' to whatever beliefs its members held!

The thread is adding a third construct to this - the distortion of religion by people who use it to seek power of various kinds. Some want to say that's an innate part of religion, others to say that it can be separated out: how it looks depends on where you stand. I think religion is very susceptible to such abuse, but that in fact Jesus and Buddha were trying to create faith systems that were less so. Of course, in Christianity, Paul came along and messed it all up pretty early. (He was the one with the anti-gay hangups, and a fair few about sex and relationships generally).

Bravus

"An 'error' in biology is like an 'evil' biology."

So, yer saying my eyeglasses are evil?

As for, "Can you see/suspect the political motivations behind religion?" That's why I suggested replacing the question about religion doing more good than harm with the one about spirituality.

If a person defines (usually prefaced with 'organized') religion as a political control mechanism, opiate of the masses, justification for oppressing the Other, etc. etc. then they've pretty much stacked the deck on the question.

I still have a hunch that there is something, which for lack of a better term I'm calling religion, that has served more often to inspire the expression of desirable qualities than undesirable ones.

Now, I'm not attributing that to any supernatural inspiration, just saying that historically exhortations to good behavior have been couched in those terms. Incitement to evils have also been justified by appeals to divinity, but even as a nonbeliever, I'm inclined to attribute those to a corruption of what I earlier termed the religious impulse, and not an expression of it.

I'll grant that self-righteous moralism leaves me feeling cold, but in my experience, the religious (or spiritual) among us have no corner on the market in that.

Oh, and Bravus, I agree, I believe in the human spirit or the spirit of an age, but those are necessarily metaphors to begin with. I know of no religious doctrine that says all humans share a common soul - we may all be part of the One Soul of a Supreme Being, but that's another thing.

But even so, if a nonbeliever can be said to be a spiritual person, what can that mean? I'm certainly not metaphorically praying to metaphorical spiritual beings. Does seeing myself as part of the human community, and searching for the best way to participate in that community count? Is a moral sense enough?

"it would be possible to have a religion that was completely 'open' to whatever beliefs its members held!"

Uhm, isn't that Unitarian Universalist?

So, religion is made up of spirituality, morality and superstition? Huh. Two out of three ain't bad, as far as I'm concerned. Er, I'm the last two. If you were wondering. Although I'm not as superstitious as I used to be. It was worse when I was a kid, but that could have been my choice of reading material, and/or lack of siblings, who knows? Anyway, moving on.

The point I'd like to address is this. Can you be moral without being religious/spiritual/theistic? I'd say yes, with qualifications, and hopefully a spark (But not a flame!) for further discussion.

Yes, you can lead a moral existence without subscribing to one brand or another of religion. The thing I've always wanted to know was, if you were lucky enough not to have been raised with any religion at all, how do you know what's moral and what isn't?

Not that I was raised with "religion" per se, since my family belonged to one of those weird, backwater American cults that sprang up in the 1930s, but still, amidst all the arcane and arbitrary rules (we couldn't eat Jell-O or we would "burn in the lake of fire", for reasons I can't clearly remember), there were still some basic moral tenets thrown in there. Just for effect, mind you, but at least they were there. So, all other grievances I hold against the cult aside, if I hadn't been exposed to it as a child, would I try so hard to be as moral as I do today as an adult?

The answer that comes to me at this moment, as I sit groggy and unwell before my computer late on a Friday night, is this: You can only really learn to be moral by observing how others act. Obviously, if you're paying attention, and everyone around is acting amorally, you can learn (if you're not completely stunned) the principles of morality. No Bible-whacking or proselytizing revivals necessary.

If you're not paying attention, or you don't realize when/if people around you are acting immorally, and you imitate them on the belief that is the right way to act, but they're really acting wrongly, then you're basically screwed. Or something like that.

So, the point of my long and rambling screed is this. Yes, I do believe you can learn to be a moral person, without benefit of exposure to religion (of any brand) when you are a child. It is just much, much harder, and requires a lot more vigilance and honesty, in my opinion.

Still, being able to function with an open mind and an unrestricted worldview far outweighs any disadvantages, real or perceived, that may arise as the result of my being agnostic. (Which is what I am, partly.)

(Sidebar: Kindly note the difference between agnosticism and atheism, and if you're not sure, I can explain how I view both philosophies, rationally and without recourse to a petty flamewar.)

I wouldn't go so far as to put Jedi or Minbari on my census sheet, but if pressed and I absolutely had to put something down or they'd hang me from the highest tree, I'd say Asimov's Law of Robotics is a fairly good summation of how we should treat each other. Which was kind of the point of Asimov "creating" the "Laws" in the first place....

Yelena