A dangerous Christian

I'll never be religious. It isn't in me. Religion is about social control and conformity, it has nothing to do with spirituality or living a good life.

Believing in God requires the infamous "leap of faith". That is where I struggle. However, even hard sciences like physics begin to become very wishy washy when it comes to the big questions.
 
the dangerous kind of Christian

I too am compelled by several of those in my life! How refreshing and unjudging and clear they are on the direction of their life in doing good with no trumpeting of it.
 
Religions all around the world contain the same archetypes. The renewal god who dies and is reborn is in this case Jesus. The sky goddess/earth mother is in this case Mary. People all around the world, often seperated by vast oceans are all venerating the same archtypes. I also think that many religious stories seems to be retellings of older myths.

For this reason I think it is tragic when people claim their religion is unique....it isn't...it is merely an interpretation of religion. I think that power elites who stand to lose by sharing have throughout the millenia used religion as a banner to rally people around them, so that they can jelously guard their wealth. They have highlighted the difference in the way their culture has interpreted the archetypes and claimed sole access to the grace of god.

They have used religion as one of many ways in which they control the masses. The people for the most part have failed to see the similarities of the global belief systems due to the fact that the power elites have also controlled the channels of information and therefore have been able to sculpt the perceptions of their public.

These processes are still at work today and it is fascinating to see them being done in the media, popular culture, religion and the education system.

If an individual can shake off their cultural interpretation of religion I think it then frees them to view religion in a more holistic way. it also allows a more favourable view of humanity because it focuses on the common ground instead of what are trivial cultural differences.

So if these things are archtypal then it opens up the question of what the nature of archetypes are...which is far more full of wonder and mystery then learning passages by rote from the same religious book!

It also leaves an individual free to reinterprete the meaning of 'god'. Suddenly a universe of possibility opens up.
 
muir said:
So if these things are archtypal then it opens up the question of what the nature of archetypes are...which is far more full of wonder and mystery then learning passages by rote from the same religious book!

It also leaves an individual free to reinterprete the meaning of 'god'. Suddenly a universe of possibility opens up.
Click to expand...

I agree completely!! It's paradoxically funny, but I have run into a good number of these folks within religion (more than outside). It's almost as if they have actually spent the time working with/pondering it all to deconstruct the core elements and find something else wafting around in there. And it doesn't invalidate the core elements, but transforms them into what they really are! This is very potent. In fact, I think this is the hidden dynamo that makes religion relevant, evergreen, powerful, and (frankly) far ahead of it's time. The rest of the trappings or illusions of power, could blow away tomorrow and it'd be fine. The real validity lies elsewhere.
 
Yes, its getting enough people to see the similarities. If enough people can see them, the barriers of prejudice cannot stand. The spell the power elites weave over the people will be dispelled and positive change can come.

That surely is a better reflection of the spirit of the Jesus story than the distorted perception that Jesus would support: massive inequality, the worship of mammon and the use of violence.
 
That is why I distinguish between religion and living.

Religion is about how you shape your beliefs and living is about how you shape your actions.

Of course, what you believe can often shape your actions. People generally do wish to remain true to their own personality or spirit. But when beliefs begin to lead to actions which run contrary to who you are, then it will lead to an atrophy of character.
 
Satya said:
I'll never be religious. It isn't in me. Religion is about social control and conformity, it has nothing to do with spirituality or living a good life.

Believing in God requires the infamous "leap of faith". That is where I struggle. However, even hard sciences like physics begin to become very wishy washy when it comes to the big questions.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Satya said:
That is why I distinguish between religion and living.

Religion is about how you shape your beliefs and living is about how you shape your actions.

Of course, what you believe can often shape your actions. People generally do wish to remain true to their own personality or spirit. But when beliefs begin to lead to actions which run contrary to who you are, then it will lead to an atrophy of character.
Click to expand...

I don't think we are really capable of full knowing. I also believe that functioning requires us to ground our actions on some system of belief that guides our each next step. So, if my beliefs are accurate (and they might not be) that in order to function we need to believe, and our belief can never be grounded in full and solid knowing, then we are all required to live on some degree of faith. It's just a matter of choosing. In life's double-blind study none of us really knows which is the placebo. We just have to make our best guesses, take our required leap of faith, and keep moving.

So you take the scientific pill, or the rational pill, or the spiritual pill, or the religious pill, or the myriad of other permutations of pill. It's all a risk. We just have to weigh which one seems to make the most sense to us at any given moment.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that beliefs leading to actions running contrary to who you are is an atrophy of character in an absolute sense. I believe that who we are is at some level a self-construction that we are free to take apart and rebuild at our choice. Yes, changing beliefs that may contradict with who we believe ourselves to be will at first lead to an atrophy of the character we have previously built, but over time, the new behavior will build a new construction on the previous foundation(--or maybe you rip that out too). It may not seem worth the effort to change, but changing is always within our power and, in my opinion, is not a demise, but a potential for something new to be built.

So, in my sense of belief the choice is always ours and is always to some degree a neutral choice. We have no idea really what is "right". We only have the current living evidence in front of us, which is likely incomplete, and we have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide, what should I build?
 
tovlo said:
So you take the scientific pill, or the rational pill, or the spiritual pill, or the religious pill, or the myriad of other permutations of pill. It's all a risk. We just have to weigh which one seems to make the most sense to us at any given moment.

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that beliefs leading to actions running contrary to who you are is an atrophy of character in an absolute sense. I believe that who we are is at some level a self-construction that we are free to take apart and rebuild at our choice. Yes, changing beliefs that may contradict with who we believe ourselves to be will at first lead to an atrophy of the character we have previously built, but over time, the new behavior will build a new construction on the previous foundation(--or maybe you rip that out too). It may not seem worth the effort to change, but changing is always within our power and, in my opinion, is not a demise, but a potential for something new to be built.

So, in my sense of belief the choice is always ours and is always to some degree a neutral choice. We have no idea really what is "right". We only have the current living evidence in front of us, which is likely incomplete, and we have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide, what should I build?
Click to expand...

There was a philosopher named Rene Descartes who made it his goal to find an absolute in life. After a fairly exhaustive search he settled on one absolute which you may know as "I think therefore I am". The only thing which we can know with certainty is ourselves. We exist. All subsequent action must therefore come from what we know of ourselves. Existentialists understand this concept as "authenticity" in which a person's actions reflect their true personality or spirit.

That is the basis of my approach to the "leap of faith". I am willing to take such a leap if doing so will better help me live in accordance to my true personality and spirit. Does that mean others will agree with my beliefs or actions? Perhaps not, but they aren't me. You can escape from me, but I cannot, so I might as well like myself.
 
Satya said:
"leap of faith". I am willing to take such a leap if doing so will better help me live in accordance to my true personality and spirit. Does that mean others will agree with my beliefs or actions? Perhaps not, but they aren't me. You can escape from me, but I cannot, so I might as well like myself.
Click to expand...

This is so true. It is almost a certainty that few if any will agree with your's or my beliefs or actions...they do not share your experience or perspective. Except for rare exception, they cannot. One must always respect this within onesself even while, at the same time, allowing this dynamic to continue and grow. People most experienced in the truest sense of religion or spirituality know this.

I think the "leap of faith" (as many might understand it) does involve an interesting thing, though. It should be a leaping, not away from ourself, but towards ourself....our true self....one we may not know. Now, in the case of your friend, it might be that his belief/faith in God and in Christ makes this leap totally safe, logical, even a bit of an adventure. It is less a leap into the darkness and more an invitation. Loss would not be a factor...only gain. This essential trust would be critical.

While a rational existence is a gift, living with mystery is also a gift....the two relate to each other. Belief in God may assume order, knowledge, benevolence, generosity even in the state of unknowing, mystery, transformation and paradox. There is some knowing, some rationality there.....it is just not ours to possess/control per se, only to partcipate in.
 
Satya said:
I might as well like myself.
Click to expand...

Sorry to have taken that out of context, but it is key. Let me elaborate.

I used to read,"Love your neighbor as yourself" and think I should surely love my neighbor more than that. I went through a period of life where I did not care about whether I lived or died. I often thought the verse could have been better had it said, "Love your neighbor and yourself." I required some type of self-acceptance of myself the way I was. I wanted to be acceptable, but found it impossible by myself. I related so well with Isaiah 53 it was almost scary.
 
The thing I can't reconcile about God is that if he is both omnipotent and omniscient then he'd presumably know exactly whether or not we'd believe in him, which completely thwarts the idea of free will.
Click to expand...
You should try arguing that with a compatablist. Anyway, my personal response to that would be open theism. Despite the name, it has less to do with aspects of theism though and more with what can be known. If free-will exists, the future is contingent upon the choices of the present, hence the future can only be known in terms of possibility and not in terms of actuality.

Since to define omnisicence as knowing that which cannot be known is self-defeating to begin with, omniscience can only be knowing all that can be known.

Aquinas actually dealt with this argument in the 13th century. But it seems like they don't teach this in schools much anymore. :/
 
Last edited:
quote "Aquinas actually dealt with this argument in the 13th century. But it seems like they don't teach this in schools much anymore. :/ " unquote

Aye, but there are books to include those thoughts.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aquinas/
 
Last edited:
Don't confuse being a Christian with being a good person; the two can and do overlap to a degree in some individuals, but it is their actions, not their Christianness, that defines them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top