For those who are looking toward the future and are spiritually inclined, it is often difficult to find a path or practice that makes deep sense. It’s difficult to find a spiritual path that has a truly contemporary orientation—one that doesn’t compel us to embrace ancient belief structures that may no longer be relevant to our time.As the world evolves, as knowledge grows, and as life conditions change, we change. For religion to remain relevant and effective as a source of spiritual guidance and support for billions of people, it too must change.
Today, the world’s great religions find themselves at a critical juncture. Adhering to values and beliefs that are often thousands of years old, they are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the spiritual guidance and moral authority necessary to face the challenges of modern society. So the question is: Can the great religious traditions of the world reinvent themselves in order to address the needs and hopes of a complex, materialistic, and increasingly secular twenty-first-century world?
Peter Savastano said "Part of the problem is that religious authorities, unable to appreciate the value of metaphor, allegory and symbol, insist on literal and historicist interpretations of doctrine and dogma. For example, within my own tradition as much as I marvel at the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, I simply have no personal experience of One God in Three Distinct Persons, even though I spend a great deal of time meditating on the Trinity in my own personal spiritual life. As one Catholic priest friend recently put it, 'The Trinity. That was a fourth-century answer to a fourth-century problem'".
"I encounter more and more people who identify themselves as “spiritual but not religious.” What exactly does this category of self-identity mean? Perhaps anthropology can offer some clues. Anthropologists of religion recognize that there is a universal human capacity to wonder at the mysteries of life and death, and a need to make sense of or find meaning in the strange circumstances we find ourselves in. Drawing on the insights of the anthropology of religion, it seems it is universally common for human beings to strive to make meaning of the mysteries of birth, life, death, and the cosmos". - Savastano reflected.
The religious landscape of the future is likely to see a greater capacity for ambiguity. Along with globalization and rapid technological advancement comes increasing complexity. As a result of this complexity the human capacity for spirituality can no longer be met now or in the future by a one-size-fits-all approach to religion.
.jpg){kind=small}
121 comments:
This is not going to be a popular view, but I stick by the Bible, the King James version. I have received Christ as my Savior.
Religion is mans way of reaching up to God, Christ's death on the cross i sGod's way of reaching down to man.
It is not a simplistic question that can be answered in a simplistic way.
In order to understand the spiritual reality, one must absolutely know the historical imperatives that the dogma and doctrine sprang from. And in that knowing one must be able to see what has grown from those doctrines and dogmas. Not only what has grown but what should have grown (and indeed did).
There are certain conditions to understanding spiritual matters, not the least of which is one must have spirit or be spiritually aware. But if one does not also read in the original Aramaic, Greek, Hindi, Chinese, etc. then one has to research certain key words in order to understand the spiritual principles laid out through translations.
But the question is more about how religion is relevant to today and this modern culture, so i will try to restrict myself to that.
Truth is truth. always has been always will be. Truth is not conditional on what I believe or think. Do we agree with that?
I am going to go on thinking that you accept that postulate as confirmed Mariana.
From the first recorded history of man to this day...how has Homo Sapien changed? Evolution of species happens over many centuries, even slower for man. But species do adapt to their current climate.
It is the trappings of our humanity that has changed not the man within those trappings so the ancient spirituality does and is applicable. Regardless of the cultural bullshit we surround it with.
Religion as you use the word here is more properly defined in the Greek for church (ecclesia). Religion in Hebrew has no word other than the totality of ones life. Religion (ארח orahh)
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/word/archive.html
about 3/4 of the way down the page.
Orrah (religion)is more concerned with the way you live your life and not the life you have. Religion as I think you mean it intends that you live your life in service to self, community, and the world at large.
But again in order to understand spiritual principals one must be aware of the spirit born within. God is a spirit and in order to visit with God one must also have a spiritual presence. This has not changed and it is one of the principals in all of the worlds theologies.
I do not identify myself as any member of any religion though I practice principles found in all of them. For example, although I see the logic and the threads that are related through out all of the Judeo/Christian texts. I am neither Christian nor Jew. The former way belongs to them who follow The Christ as God and the latter is a condition of birth and practice. I do neither.
I adore the One who created all, not any of the prophets who came to reveal Him to us. I do not worship Buddha nor Jesus. I am grateful for the teaching they left behind but they came to teach the way to God.
Buddah in fact said to the effect Do NOT build a religion around his teachings. But of course his followers did not hear that part of the teaching eh? They added to it and expounded upon the teaching adding twists and turns and man made bullshit which only served ultimately to disorient man for a course to God.
Here is what I have learned over the past forty years.
1) The Creator of all physical mass and matter, and the one who is master of all spiritual reality lives and has not abandoned man.
2) That being has provided ample opportunity to anyone who wishes knowledge of the eternal to acquire it.
3) That with knowledge of God comes knowledge of truth as truth knows itself to be.
4) Of all the power within man (which is much) faith (Faith ~ Emunah) is the most important and potent. faith is not interchangeable with belief.
5) If you would know God in this modern world then ask God to teach you, not man, including me. That imparting of eternal knowledge to his creation is a pleasure to the age worn heart.
A fin de comprender la realidad espiritual, es absolutamente necesario conocer los imperativos históricos que el dogma y la doctrina surgió de. Y en saber que uno debe ser capaz de ver lo que ha pasado de las doctrinas y los dogmas. No sólo lo que ha aumentado, pero lo que debería haber crecido (y de hecho lo hizo).
Hay ciertas condiciones a la comprensión de los asuntos espirituales, no menos de la que es uno debe tener espíritu o ser espiritualmente consciente. Pero si no se lee también en el original arameo, griego, hindú, chino, etc, entonces uno tiene a la investigación de ciertas palabras clave para entender los principios espirituales establecidos a través de traducciones.
Pero la cuestión es más acerca de cómo la religión es importante para hoy y esta cultura moderna, por lo que trataré de ceñirme a eso.
La verdad es la verdad. siempre lo ha sido siempre lo será. La verdad no está condicionada a lo que cree o piensa. ¿Estamos de acuerdo con eso?
Voy a seguir pensando que usted acepta que postulan como confirmó Mariana.
Desde la primera historia escrita del hombre a este día ... ¿cómo ha cambiado Homo Sapiens? Evolución de las especies que ocurre durante muchos siglos, incluso más lento para el hombre. Pero las especies se adaptan a su clima actual.
Se trata de la parafernalia de nuestra humanidad que no ha cambiado el hombre en las trampas por lo que la espiritualidad antigua y no es aplicable. Independientemente de la mierda culturales que la rodean con.
La religión como se utiliza la palabra aquí es más bien definido en el griego para la iglesia (ecclesia). Religión en hebreo tiene otra palabra más que la totalidad de la propia vida. Religión (ארח orahh)
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/word/archive.html
aproximadamente 3 / 4 del camino hacia abajo la página.
Orrah (religión) está más preocupado con la forma en que vives tu vida y no la vida que tiene. La religión como creo que significa que tiene la intención de que usted vive su vida al servicio de sí mismo, la comunidad y el mundo en general.
Pero, de nuevo, a fin de comprender los directores espirituales uno debe ser consciente del espíritu nacido dentro. Dios es un espíritu y con el fin de visitar a Dios, uno también debe tener una presencia espiritual. Esto no ha cambiado y es uno de los directores de todas las teologías de los mundos.
Yo no me identifico como cualquier miembro de cualquier religión, aunque los principios se encuentran en la práctica de todos ellos. Por ejemplo, aunque veo la lógica y los hilos que se relacionan a través de todos los judeo / textos cristianos. Yo no soy ni cristiano ni Judio. La primera manera es de ellos que siguen a Cristo como Dios y el último es una condición de nacimiento y la práctica. Yo tampoco.
Adoro a Aquel que creó todo, no cualquiera de los profetas que vino a revelar a nosotros. Yo no sirvo Buda, ni Jesús. Estoy agradecido por las enseñanzas que dejaron atrás, pero que vino a enseñar el camino a Dios.
Buda, de hecho, dice que el efecto no construya una religión en torno a sus enseñanzas. Pero, por supuesto, sus seguidores no saber que parte de la enseñanza ¿eh? Se añade a la misma y expuso en la enseñanza añadiendo giros y vueltas y el hombre hizo una mierda que sólo sirve en última instancia al hombre para un curso de desorientar a Dios.
Esto es lo que he aprendido durante los últimos cuarenta años.
1) El creador de todas las masa física y la materia, y el que es dueño de toda la realidad espiritual de la vida y no ha abandonado el hombre.
2) Eso se ha dado amplia oportunidad a cualquiera que desee conocimiento de lo eterno para adquirirla.
3) Que con el conocimiento de Dios, viene el conocimiento de la verdad como la verdad que se conoce a sí mismo.
4) de todo el poder en el hombre (que es mucho) la fe (Faith ~ Emuná) es la más importante y potente. la fe no es intercambiable con la creencia.
5) Si desea conocer a Dios en este mundo moderno, a continuación, pedir a Dios que le enseñe, no, hombre, incluido yo. Esa transmisión de conocimientos eterna a su creación es un placer a la edad de tu corazón gastado.
in your opinion, is this 'spiritual but not religious' approach wrong? or by so practising, can it create a 'better' society since the value system will be higher than none at all?
Little Lamb
I completelly respect and apreciate that you are being sincere, I always tell that many times I wish I belived in god, but for me it is impossible, it is not a choice, it would be a lie if I pretend I do belive in that.
Thanks for stepping by
I have realized how little we humans know of God. That's because so many just don't listen, and just don't think about what they hear. To assume that anyone knows God perfectly seems to be the height of nonsense to me. We have much to learn and should open our minds.
rhe walking man:
Sure it is not, it is a very hard subject.
You are right you should understand that fist to understand the main question. The problem is how do you evaluate the things you propose in an unbiased way (we are biased due to our beliefs, cultures, mass media influence, amd a millon more things)
So we restrict to an area, I think that is ok.
I belive that truth is truth, but it is very easy to be confused with other stuff.
I agree that the man has not change, that is a great reflection, so if religious texts and thoughts where interpreted well they woun t need to be changed because we aer exactely the same. True, but why does the human brain disort by external things so easily? That is a hazard.
Congrats for your hebrew! I raad the old testament, and I did it in hebrew many years ago. Jewish religion has lots of interesting stuff, pretty wise.
I agree with your two following paragraphs, maybe given there is not systematic of way of teaching spirituality they stick with the first hard not preciselly apropiate precepts.
But you search for spirituality in religions, I do not. Which is my loss.
Maybe the problem with buddha is that his teachings where taken as absolut truth.
The only one of te conclusions I can fully agree is number 4. But the others seem very wise too, I profoundly respect them and hope I could experrience them myself
Thanks a lot walkig man
the walking man
Your spanish is amazing, thanks a lot for translating your post for my friend's. It will help them understand it better.
Let's hope rayuela talks here, you shou get to know her, she is a great writer, her blog is in my blog roll, and it is called in-zigurat.
Shadow
All aproaches are right as long as they are attempting to have a better faith and spiritual life. And our society desperately needs guidance for rearenging their values, therefore every real (not pretended) aproach is valuable.
Charles G
It is true we know nothing about that, that is a good point to start at, cause if we think we know it all we are never going to learn or improve stuff. You should open your eyes but you are also the one who should the the effort to see the truth under a different light.
Thanks a lot charles
Mariana...Simply said. Where one starts on the path is not as important as where one ends. Some start with Buddha some with Christ, some with Mohamed and others with Krishna. All are decent enough places to start but poor places to finish. Most never get beyond their prescribed practices and cultural influences.
It is looking beyond the "culture of religion" that one is found by God and taught by God. I am always suspect of anyone who claims a religious practice as THE TRUTH.
That is God's to teach as he will and as we as individuals ask. In the learning is the proof of God's being.
Mariana...Simplemente dijo. Cuando se inicia en el camino no es tan importante como cuando uno termina. algunos comienzan con algunos de Buda con Cristo, algunos con Mohamed y otros con Krishna. Todos los lugares son decentes, pero suficiente para empezar a lugares pobres para terminar. La mayoría nunca ir más allá de sus prácticas prescritas y las influencias culturales.
Se trata de mirar más allá de la "cultura de la religión" que se encuentra uno por Dios y enseñada por Dios. Estoy siempre sospechoso de cualquier persona que denuncia una práctica religiosa como la verdad.
Que es de Dios para enseñar como él y como nosotros, como individuos preguntar. En el aprendizaje es la prueba de los Dioses ser.
"Adhering to values and beliefs that are often thousands of years old, they are finding it increasingly difficult to provide the spiritual guidance and moral authority necessary to face the challenges of modern society."
well, theft today is as wrong, and infidelity as poisonous as it ever was -- changing the message from "thou shalt not steal" to "...unless you're a big banker, a politician, a..." so as to 'fit' modern society is just foolishness, imo -- there are some things in the 'moral authority' of 'relious doctrine' which cannot and should not change
faith is a gift from god...
religion is man screwing it up
mariana, great post!
× × ×
/t.
I would have expected to see the 'god gene' theory presented here. How is it that some are convinced of the existence of God and others just don't get it (given that both groups have strong healthy brains)?
I like Bataille's theory of religion, that along the way in the evolution of humans, our increasing sense of separation from the rest of the animal/natural world caused a rift or a sense of loss, that of connectedness to the world. We have attempted to heal that rift by filling it with religion. It dosesn't work perfectly, and for many people it doesn't work at all.
people seem apt to believe whatever brings them comfort and happiness... even if it is irrational... me included...
LINK
The walking man
I would say about the first paragraph, that they never get the real spiritual life inside their own selves, therefore they do not grow up.
I like a lot what you say that in the learning it is the proof of good being.
Nice resume, thanks a lot for doing it for us. You understand so much about this things, I wish I was closer to your level of wisdom (well I guess it is up to me to walk the path)
Bye bye
t
It is right that many of the "sins" so to speak did not change with time, but since they where explained in an other context and society, they tend to be missinterepted causing a lot of missunderstands. That is some times a problem in our actual life.
Interesting two sentences, they are very good, never heard of that.
Thank you very much my friend, be well and detached
mark Kerstetter
My intuition tells me that there is not such think as a god gene, but there could be a god meme instead. Remember I worked in genetics analizing how mixing genes from diferent especimens express in real life.(Of course not with humans).
It is interesting the theory dough, I never heard about that evolutionary theory of religion before. But I would stick with the one that says that it is just a by product of the mind (mainly the belief in the existance of god)
Thank you very much for the information and thought
Jon
Well we all seek to feel good in life, and if beliving that make us feel better we would probably stick to that.
It works kind as the brain reward system, you keep repeating what makes you satisfied.
Interesting post the one you had.
Thanks!
Mariana...
really LOVED this discussion as i believe a big favor we can do to ourselves and others is discriminating between spirituality and religion... since these two are two different things... can we call two people with similar clothes twins?
;)
spirituality comes from critical thinking... it's a CONSCIOUS journey taken by self... it's a long and difficult path... but so rewarding and satisfying as it brings peace to self and others...
peace and love to you...
btw, why did you mix me up with dear friend 'the walking man' in the previous post?
:D
and my mind tends to take it as a beautiful mistake... containing a message... as i have not been to his blog for quite a long time...
thanks for the award again, dear friend...
My religion is being able to sleep a good night's sleep. Every night. All decisions during the day (and the night) must reflect that.
But that again depends on the standards I was brought up with. I shouldn't steal, therefore I won't. If I do, I won't sleep well. I shouldn't plagiarise, therefore I won't. I shouldn't kill, therefore I won't. And so on.
Which, again, reflects religions' subjective, (recurrently) reconstruable and manipulative nature.
Religion, for me at least, is more a level of faith than an actual faith. Money, girlfriends, jobs, sentiments.... they've all been turned into religions (and not only by me).
But there's nothing like a good night's sleep.
human being (not walking man)
I am really happy that you loved the discussion, and I agree with you that is very important to distinguish between spirituality and religion, cause most people mix the terms most of the time.
Great analogy the one about the twines, I really like it.
Good description of spirituality, I agree with it, and it probably will help more people understand it.
Peace and love for you too.
I am relieved that you liked my mistake, is that your names in my mind have the same meaning, it is a human that is alive. That is why.
I am glad that you posted here again thanks man.
jinjir minjir
Interesting religion you have, is as valid as any other one.
And of course it has also the good and the bad, the sinner and the saint concept that most have.Which is crap, as you say there are no absolutes about that, therefore they can be manipulated and applied very bad.
They turn in to a bad group of music, if you see what I mean.
With the last I agree
Thanks jinjir!
Can religion reinvent itself? The Egyptians went from one God to two, to many, and back to one, several times over the period of at least a thousand years. What good did it do?
Religion absolutely has to be all about the personal; all about one's own experiences, that one can never explain, nor decipher for another. We are separated from the get-go, except for that one thing. That thing is spiritual...the part of you that never can, nor never will change. Period.
What are you doing right now? (whoever is reading this.) What are your intentions for the future? In the end, who can you really rely on to be there for you? Can human beings be trusted? Can we be totally sincere, as a matter of fact? Can you even trust yourself?
10,000 years from now, what will it matter? 1000 years is a long time. Will you be remembered by anyone? I can think of three or four people who might be. Do the math. We are so inconsequential it's pitiful.
Good golly! That's what makes us so lovable, and endearing, that the Universe can't be...it couldn't possibly be itself without us. Thank God!
I have for a very long time struggled with the concept of spirituality. I had a fundamentalist religious upbringing which placed great emphasis on the Bible as a source of moral guidance and a book of prophecy. As you can imagine I was studious when I was young – no change there – and so I knew my Bible very well and yet, although I was going through the motions of life as a Christian, I felt nothing. I persisted for many years assuming that a non-academic appreciation would come to me as I matured, by a process not unlike osmosis. But it didn't. Great emphasis was placed on having a personal relationship with God but, and this is from a very early (and hence impressionable) age, I did not. This was a source of great guilt because I could see (or at least I believed) that there was something wrong with me. As I grew into adulthood I began to realise that a lot of people were going through the same motions hoping that if they just did it long enough then it would come to them. My peers, one by one, left.
Of course my interpretation of the word 'spirituality' centred on a belief in God. I accept that one can think of it in broader terms but I've never been able to tune into that mindset. Nor do I feel disabled by not having a feeling of the spiritual. Perhaps I am. There is an old adage that says you can't miss something that you've never had; it's perhaps an oversimplification of things but the logic is basically sound. Although I lack a spiritual side I feel that I compensate. It's said that if you lose one of your five senses then the other four step up a gear. Perhaps this is also true with the spiritual. My aesthetic side is highly attuned. I seek solace in it rather than anything supernatural.
I take it that you are mainly referring to the Abrahamic faiths. As an atheist I find religion interesting from a cultural and historical point of view but see many of its problems stemming from the centralised power of one institution, i.e., the Vatican over an x amount of people. Also, as a Cuban who was born and grew up in a country ruled by a government with a similar dogmatic line to that of the Abrahamic faiths I see with increasing concern the predominant role religion is acquiring in today's modern polity.
Many thanks for such a brilliant post.
Greetings from London.
I like thinking of the Trinity, forme it's Buddha-Dharma-Sangha, as the intersections of a knot appearing to be there when they are really not. When the knot is undone, like when one of the Trinity is spoken about, they do not exist due to the nature of speaking because there is not one without the others. Each member of the trinity intertwines with the others into one form that cannot be spoken about all the way.
As long as this is/is not thinking is going on in social relations then religion will never be able to help with anything as there never is a one-size-fits-all from is/is not, but it does point to there being no-one-size-fits all. So maybe religion is just a pointer and we've wanted to make it out to be more for centuries.
That's my take anyway.
Great post, Mariana, very much mirroring my own thoughts.
I think the Trinity is still relevant today because it reflects a relational spirituality, so that just as we are ontologically distinct from God and one another, we can be close, intimate, personal, even "one" with God and each other. That experience is paralleled within the Trinity where there is unity and wholeness as well as that distinctiveness. What 4th century doctrine perhaps failed to acknowledge was a feminine aspect to the divine, hence the rise of Maria veneration, which continues today and is complemented by a vision of the Holy Spirit as feminine - one example of a progressive move within Christianity.
I definitely think that religion has to adapt to scientific discovery, just as science has to acknowledge that it can't explain things religionists have known since way back. A literal reading of scripture then becomes increasingly irrelevant.
A very interesting post, and thought provoking. I’m not going to add to the discussion about the future of religion since its way over my sphere of competence. I personally find “small gods” ei not monotheistic religions, more sympathetic.
Hi Mariana,
I read your post with interest. I called myself a Christian until a couple of years ago. I was one of those people who believed everything I was told simply because I was told it as a child and thought that was the way it was; I just accepted that view without question. After all, it's not a bad way to live one's life.
Before I go any further just let me say I have no problem with religion per se; I have a problem with the way it is used to control people, much like government is used in the same way. I have no desire to try to tell anyone they're wrong in their beliefs. We all have our own belief system. It's just that mine has changed.
If you or any of your readers are interested in watching a documentary movie that challenged some of my beliefs and helped me question things much more than I ever did, then I think the link below is worth visiting.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197#
This movie was made in 2007 and I imagine many of your readers have viewed it already.
Anyway, I've prattled on long enough, Mariana.
Have a great day.
Paul
Hi mariana,
This post was very well written and balanced. Religion didn't always exist on this planet, but I think people forgot this somewhere in bibles, torahs, korans etc.. I think when the world didn't end at the turn of the century and when Catholicism et al began to vomit out their corruption, it became quite obvious that it is really all quite flimsy and stone age. We have passed through all that and now we are ready to evolve some more, but this time it's about thought and the implications of conscious and subconscious brain activity as it relates to our separateness from our bodies and our physical world.
One final thought/story to share:
My first husband was a math head. He was an open minded free thinker and many times we would talk of life after death, god, the soul etc. One day after one of these chats, he said, "Lets make a pact. Whoever dies first has to promise to come back and let the other know if A. They survived and B. What it's like there. We shook hands on it. He lived for five more years and he kept his end of the pact. Exactly like a math head would do. ;)
"I simply have no personal experience of one God in Three Distinct Persons, even though I spend a great deal of time meditating on the Trinity in my own personal spiritual life."
Does this mean there is not one God, then, or is there a conflict in your meditation?
"Petit question: Why are you asking for "forgivance" for NOT believing?
I understand it somehow, for at least in my religion & cultural background it was a "mandato" to believe, etc.
But one of the few intelligent things I've heard about religiion once was that faith is a "don". You can't "fight" for it.
Consequently, what would be your "default" for "not believeing"? Definitely not "not trying enough" :)!
By the way, I fret at your "universal quest for meaning of life, death, the Universe" and so on. In any case, for the adscription of "religion" to it. So is "philosophy", for instance... What's the need to postulate an "universal need"? What's the proof of it? I wonder if it's even an universal belief in anthopology :). I'm talking about many things I don't know: religion, antropo, faith. Let I speak no more :)."
Uncle Tree
So it can, at least the egyptian could, interesting fact. I do not if it was useful to them, but it seems not, it seems it was just a waste of time.
Interesting point you make in your second paragraph. I always wander about our own exclusive innter life which is impossible to share for us. I often think about it as being related to the fact that in real life we are all alone, just by ourselves, when it comes to certain stuff such as this one. You define that part as spiritual, which is a definition that I like and find reasonable. What I do not understand is what is the thing that can never change? I understand that somethings we will never be able to share (that we can not change), but I am not sure about us being unable to share what we refer here as spiritual, why do you think that is settled for ever?
I seem very few humans can be trusted, although they all make eventual mistakes, they is no perfection in human beings. I doubt that we can be totally sincere, because we do know understand lots of stuff, and we missunderstand another bunch. We might trust the intentions and values we have ourself, that I think we can, but as with others we sometimes can make mistakes along the path.
I agree that almost everybody will be forgoten (but I do not think it is important to be remember), and almost everybody is inconsequiential, which I think is important cause you should life your life in part to cause an improvement in future generations quality of life.
You are right the univese can t be itself without us. Interesting thought to refelct about.
Thanks a lot for you interesting insights and thought provoking sentences, I should think about this things for a long time if I want to understand them at a deeper level than the one I understand them now (and I do want to understand them better)
jim murdoch
Extremelly interesting history about your religious history since childhoud till adulthood. And it is a relevant fact from your story that sharing with others made you realize new things, and also allowed you to doubt about thinks that where a certainty till then in your mind.
I see what you mean about spirituality, which is not what most of people does, but I do understand you.
I do not think you do not have a spiritual side, I disagree with it, I just think you might not know how to define it, in your own self (it does not matter the outside). You where trained for many years and in a pretty strict way to think (using the language) one thing about it, now it is difficult to change that, which is logical, makes sence.
I guess you can search for it in yourself, you can even encourage and develop it, if you want, but it is a hard and long task, that only you can make, and you should guide yourself, there are just a few clues about it on the outside.
Thanks a lot for sharing your story Jim
A Cuban In London
I like this, a completelly different viewpoint, an athest one.
Since I do not belive in god either I agree with you about finding religions interesting from the cultural and historical point.
I do agree that centrailized power has its serious problems, you probably know it pretty well, being born in cuba. And I had an experience with that living in a military regime.
It might be a problem religion role in modern politics, but not necesarily if it does not monopolize it and it is given a role in which it can be usefull to society. Maybe I am wrong, if you want you can expand why you are concern about that.
Many thanks to your for your
refreshing and interesitng comment
Ted Bagley
I liked you idea of the trinity, I would do a parallel with the math knot theory, where you can have those 3 pieces of fabric that intersect each other, and they can make a knot or not, you do not realize there is not know untill you try to make the knot harder by pulling from the 3, and you see there is no more know, there are just 3 separate pieces of fabric.Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knot_theory
I agree that it can not be talk about, also I agree that is imposible to help if you have a rigid doctrine cause there is no one size fits all solution.
Religion might be a pointer, but for what? I have to think about it.
Thanks a lot for sharing your original and interesting thoughts
My, "It's about the one knot and the others that are not" Post of Feb. 09
Stephen Nelson
Thanks a lot Stephen for your kind words.
I find it very important also to have relations that reflect that different entities can be one and that they also can be different.
It is a very important spiritual teaching.
You give in your first paragraph a good example of evolution in religion(the one about the femenin aspect of the divine), which was one of the things I was hoping to find examples about in this post comments, and your example is a great one, thanks for providing it.
I agree with what you say at the end, I wrote a post related to that, where it speaks about colaboration between religion and science:
http://singyourownlullaby.blogspot.com/2009/04/buddists-and-scientists.html
Thank you very much for your valuable insights
Ande:
Thanks a lot for your kind and original post. I found it very interesting that you belive in small deities. There where indeed many cultures that did, and some that still do, I gues the idea of evolving aplies to politheistic religions too. And I do not think it changes much from the monoteistic ones, while appliying this post thoughts.
Take care and thanks for participating
paulandrewrussell
nice to know how you where in the past, I was kind of submisive as a child too. But because I was too shy. I do not know if it is easier or not to be that way, cause it is easy to go trough life fitting in society and doing the what the right thing is supossed to be, but it is hard to live pretteding you are a different person than your own.
I guess you think of religion the same way I think about technology (that is a tool, it is not perse good or bad, it depends on how it is used)
Thanks a lot for the link I started watching it but it is 2 hs long, so I will book mark it and divide it in parts. By the way it seemed very interesting.
Hope you have a great day to paul, take a lot of care of you and your wife, and never forget to enjoy life.
The Trinity is imaginary, so you're Three Strands of fabric wouldn't work in what I said. See above.
val:
I want to thank you a lot for your compliments, and for sharing your thougths on this complex subject.
I think that people forget that their religion's did not always existed because they belive in the absolutnes of their religious truth. And in this truth are included the facts that god created the earth and all the beings that live in it. This implies that their god existed before the existence of humans.
Which is contradictory with what the history of religions says about when religions began. The belief that religion existed forever is a more natural belief than the other one for belivers.
I would love to be able to participate in one of those chats, with you and your new husband, I imagine it would be great, I would be able to learn a lot and also my mind would expand its limit in certain topics.
It seems so romantic to me what your first husband did. The way you tell it makes me feel he wanted to belive it was possible to keep his promise because he loved you so much that he wanted to please you even if he needed to do impossible things. I do not relate it that much to being a math head, maybe a little more to being too methodic (which math heads tend to be). Anyway I did not knew him, I barely know anything about him, so I am kind of guessing from a single anecdote why he acted like he did.
I enjoy a lot to read your thougts and to know a little more about yourself.
Be well Val
Ted Bagley
First he is just giving and example, a metaphor for exemplificating missinterpretation, consisting in 3 different persons meditating on one god, amd how this is not possible to experiment for a single human being.
Missinterpretation which is one of the problems with religion that is caused because of how humans interpret it, specially the so called authorities in that subject, like the cardenals.
Sp I do not see the relation with doing wrong my meditation in this part.
I know is a complicated text, specially this paragraph, I apologize for that.
If you still do not agree I will be more than happy to hear your arguemnt
thanks for making me think about the writting and the things that I write.
Take care ted
Ignacio Litardo:
First of all I wanted to welcome, and thank you a lot for participating in this discussions, since I consider you a very inteligent and full of knowledge person.
Sorry, where do I ask forgivance for not beliving? cause I can not find it, in order to reply why I said that better I need to see the context.
Indeed if you check up I say:I always tell that many times I wish I belived in god, but for me it is impossible, it is not a choice, it would be a lie if I pretend I do belive in that.
Regarding your last paragraph, I speak of religion in the spiritual meaning of it, in the personal search for faith. I can explain this with more detail if youwant me tod.
You are right what I say is really similar
here are 2 psts of each field definition that include universals:
1.antropology: The study of kinship and social organization is a central focus of cultural anthropology, as kinship is a human universal.
2.philosophy: questions about things which cannot be perceived by the senses, such as numbers, elements, universals, and gods.
In philosophy We do need universals to facilitate things such as:
the concept of Reality; and ontological universals active at the processual-relational-essential aspect of beings are to be maximized by the verbal, nomic, nominal and Transcendental universal, namely, the To Be of Reality-in-total. Maximization of transcendentals is by inductive generalization.
Regarding their proof:
After the Incompleteness Theorem of Gödel, we are not justified in fixing meanings of definitions and terms or validity of truth-statements as absolute. Tjerefore there are no absolute proofs that work, but you can use statistical proofs for this.
For more details cech:http://singyourownlullaby.blogspot.com/2009/02/godel-incompletness-clarifycation.html
I love the search for universals in humans, I have a project about it related to art. I will tell you about it one of these days.
Please let me know if you did not understand something I said, and I will try to put it in more clear words. A pleasure thinking about your thoughts
TED BAGLEY
You are right about my knot, because the threads do not disappear after it is untied. There should be threads with a property that says that ir they are not touching another thread they disapear from that universe. IT is more complicated but now it is similar.
Ted bagley
I found your sentence:"it s about the one know .." excelent, really poetic and representing the concept perfectly right.
Thanks for the thoughts you make me think about
Can you describe evolutionary religion, from the darwinian perspective of evolution?
INES
Within a biological evolutionary understanding of religion where do we go from here? The problem of change needs to be dealt with. Religion is involved in facultative adaptation, and all measures show that it promotes well being and survival. The
economic viewpoint sees rationality at work, which should help us understand how this
adaptation is working. It could be a starting point; yet it does not capture the insanity of
religious conversion. Trophic responses are involved in setting the course for religious
change. How does the brain link well being with the acceptance of an internal model of
reality? The normal way of thinking about survival problems is to apply rational logic,
but religion works at other levels of consciousness. Desire and hunger are part of
religion. How does a lack of well being stimulate the creation of new concepts of the
supernatural? Probably the largest source of religious symbols is food. Food is a
primary survival need for any organism. Food symbolism in religion needs to be
studied., because perhaps the trophic obligation involved in religion surfaces in cultural
symbolism in this way.
Is Evolution a Secular Religion?
#$erRah
A major complaint of the Creationists, those who are committed to a Genesis-based story of origins, is that evolution--and Darwinism in particular--is more than just a scientific theory. They object that too often evolution operates as a kind of secular religion, pushing norms and proposals for proper (or, in their opinion, improper) action. Evolutionists dismiss this argument as merely another rhetorical debating trick, and in major respects, this is precisely what it is. It is silly to claim that a naturalistic story of origins leads straight to sexual freedom and other supposed ills of modern society. But, if we wish to deny that evolution is more than just a scientific theory, the Creationists do have a point.
There are three things. First, if the claim is that all contemporary evolutionism is merely an excuse to promote moral and societal norms, this is simply false. Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry. Second, there is indeed a thriving area of more popular evolutionism, where evolution is used to underpin claims about the nature of the universe, the meaning of it all for us humans, and the way we should behave. I am not saying that this area is all bad or that it should be stamped out. I am all in favor of saving the rainforests. I am saying that this popular evolutionism--often an alternative to religion--exists. Third, we who cherish science should be careful to distinguish when we are doing science and when we are extrapolating from it, particularly when we are teaching our students. If it is science that is to be taught, then teach science and nothing more. Leave the other discussions for a more appropriate time.
Experiencing one's life spirit
This spark is the same in all peoples
A half-second flash of insight
Thirty seconds...a short-term feeling of absorbing that insight
Chaos dissolving, order establishing itself
My existence of being alive, and I am the only one having this realization
A moment worth my whole life
Never again needing another moment like that
Seeing it as a miracle
Wishing the entire world could have this experience
Wondering what would happen if they did,
everyone at the same exact time
The Day The World Woke Up
The idea of eternal death becomes ridiculous
Killing each other, no longer a reasonable prospect
Makes no difference. May as well
Live and let love live!
In harmony, we all sing the same song
Care to join me?
Religions always seem to cause wars *sigh*
But Religion to me, is really how I live my life and how I am to others.Not Church and Gods and Commandments and Sacraments etc.
Each to their own though; I am thinking.
BTW To tell you the truth, I just write what comes to me. 'Adjective Verb' just popped up!Really, I do not lie.
Uncle Tree
Excelent poem, I loved it, thank you very much for writting in my blog. It is so full of truth and nice thoughts about life in general which makesyou feel hopefull.
In jewish relition they say that the mesahiah will come the friday that every single jewsish of the planet respects shabat. This is a smiliar idea you have on your second paragraph.
Of course I will join you, right now I will follow any place you decide to go
Love
M
Sarah
welcome back
First of all it might be comforting for you the thought that is not religion take makes wars, it is fanatism the real cause.
Interesting to let me know how you live religion in your life. I am always curious about how others deal with things in life.
Sorry to ask you that, it is just htat I was curious if that combination existed (I work with linguistics)or if you did it on purpose.I I do not think poetry needs to be correct or realistic, poetry has it's own rules.
Be well sarah
Mariana: Why are you asking for "forgiveness" for NOT believing?
I'd ask it for the contrary :)...
Just an example. Your answer to the walking man: "But you search for spirituality in religions, I do not. Which is my loss".
I understand it somehow, for at least in my religion & cultural background it was "compulsory" to believe, etc.
But one of the few intelligent things I've heard about religion once was that faith is a "gift". You can't "fight" for it....
Consequently, what would be your "default" for "not believing"?
Definitely not "not trying enough" :)!
Both aspects are in your answer to L. lamb: "I always tell that many times I wish I believed in god, but for me it is impossible, it is not a choice".
Footnote: doesn't the "God" word imply a capital letter :)?
By the way, I fret at your "universal quest for meaning of life, death, the Universe" and so on. In any case, for the adscription of "religion" to it.
Doesn't "philosophy" do the same, for instance the Pre-Socratics...
Anyway... What's the need to postulate a "universal need"?
We all know many people who don't think once on these topics...
More to the point: What's the proof of it? I wonder if what you're quoting is even a universal belief in Anthropology :). Don’t you agree with me that social sciences are never in agreement about ANYTHING ?
By the way, Mark, "religion gene"… Come on! Many believe, but not everybody! Don’t “naturalize” it! Have you read Freud's "The Future of an Illusion"?
I'm talking about many things I don't know nor care much: religion, anthrop., "faith". So I'm
open to healthy criticism!
PS: I discovered I've got jinjir minjir's religion : "being able to sleep a good night's sleep". Thanks jinjir :)!
Agree with /t.
"faith is a gift from god...
religion is man screwing it up"
Mariana, I really enjoy your blog, and am so glad you've found me, and thus I've been able to find you. This is an extremely resonant subject for me. And I think the essence of this preference for spirituality over mere religion can be reduced to its essential element: faith is what's really crucial, while all the trappings of religion are far less so. Religion sometimes obscures matters of faith. And when it does, people react accordingly, by leaving it behind and focusing on what really matters.
very well written
Mariana how did you get so smart?
xoxox
Mi respuesta es que las religiones no evolucionan.Vemos, a lo largo de la historia, como las religiones,principalmente la católica,han dominado pueblos,han participado de genocidios,en nombre de Dios.
Y recuerdo que Erich Fromm,en "El arte de amar", en su capítulo dedicado a las religiones,dice que, a medida que la humanidad evoluciona, debería ir desprendiéndose de las creencias "sobrenaturales".
Vaya tema el de esta publicación,Mariana!Mis felicitaciones!
Un beso.
Hi Mariana,
Glad you decided to watch the movie. The part on the history and origins of religion and Christianity is extremely enlightening.
Thank you for the good wishes. Have a fabulous Friday.
Paul
Wow! You expressed my sentiments perfectly in this article. And I love the anthropological part.
I've never liked it how many "religious" people today take their holy texts literally. Holy texts are filled with metaphors and are subjects of many interpretations. To discriminate in the name of the holy texts should be invalidated. I personally don't like how people defend themselves just because the bible said this or that.
I don't know if it's a good thing but I've turned my back on Christianity and many religions. I was born Catholic. I don't want to believe in a religion that supports discrimination and hypocrisy among people. I squirm with the thought of Christianity's bloody past, and the corruption that it (not in general, but parts of it are) still breeds today.
But I do believe there is something powerful out there. I am not yet sure what it is. But the world is too beautiful to have just happened by chance.
Good day to you, Mariana. And I hope you are doing well.
Tazeen
Thanks you very much for the compliment
Renne
That is so sweet of you, like you always are thanks!
Mr Uncle tree, for you
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kqyLSZWso
ju 87 stuka
Sorry, where do I ask forgivance for not beliving?Anyway I guess it might be because some how I feel guilty about it.
I do not follow yur thread of thought, what how is asking forgivance related with thinking it is my loss?
I hope I could fight for it, and I did but I could not belive in religion anyway. But I think I can belive in my own spirituality and fight for that kind of faith.
My default for not beliving in a determinate religion like judaism is not being able to, I do not think you can choose to belive in god or not.
I agree it is confusing what I think, but I am just making up my mind about it, I never thought about what you people are making me think now. Which is good because trough the contraditions and the wrong answers I learn what It is my position about this subject.
You are right what I say is really similar
here are 2 psts of each field definition that include universals:
1.antropology: The study of kinship and social organization is a central focus of cultural anthropology, as kinship is a human universal.
2.philosophy: questions about things which cannot be perceived by the senses, such as numbers, elements, universals, and gods.
In philosophy We do need universals to facilitate things such as:
the concept of Reality; and ontological universals active at the processual-relational-essential aspect of beings are to be maximized by the verbal, nomic, nominal and Transcendental universal, namely, the To Be of Reality-in-total. Maximization of transcendentals is by inductive generalization.
Regarding their proof:
After the Incompleteness Theorem of Gödel, we are not justified in fixing meanings of definitions and terms or validity of truth-statements as absolute. Tjerefore there are no absolute proofs that work, but you can use statistical proofs for this.
For more details cech:http://singyourownlullaby.blogspot.com/2009/02/godel-incompletness-clarifycation.html
I love the search for universals in humans, I have a project about it related to art. I will tell you about it one of these days.
Please let me know if you did not understand something I said, and I will try to put it in more clear words. A pleasure thinking about your thoughts
Ruela
t is a wise guy, I know it.
Thanks for reminding me his wonderful quote
Rayuela says
My reply is that religions do not evolve. We can see along history, how religons, mainly the catholic one, has dominated different populations, participated in genocides, in the name of God.
And I remember that Erich From in The art of loving, in the chapter where he talks about religions, he says that while humanity is evolves, it should be getting rid of "supernatural" belif.
What a subject (the one from this post), Mariana! Congratulations to you.
Kiss
Rayuela
First of all I need to tell you that you are amazing, you are the only person that stricly replies the question I make here, most of the people ask about what I think about religion, god, faith, and so on. Which are subjects I was not expecting to have to talk about.
I used to think about you that religions did not evolve at all, and that was probably the main problem with them, that nowadays the traditions we follow are out of context, because they where not made to be aplied in this kind of society. But after reading a little bit of history, I noticed that religions sometimes change, so it is possible for it to happen, like in the example given by uncle tree about the religions Egiptians had.
Interesting quote from that book, I read it like 20 years ago. By the way I found several mp3 to download where he reads his own work, I thought you might find it interesting to hear how he sounded, because is really not like one imagines, in this website there is one http://www.erich-fromm.de.
Besos y espero que estes bien
I agree about what you say about religions having done bad things in the name of god, but that is due to fanatism in part, which I agree it is more likely to be a fanatic if you are a believer of "supernatural" things. But lately catholics did not seem to have cause that much harm, or am I forgetting about something?
geek
It is great that you felt I expressed your sentiments!
You know what I usually think about, the fact that jews still have two completely separate eating sets,two washing sinks and there is also everithing else that is needed for a complete meal and the cleaning of the rests of it. This is because they can not mix meat with cheese, which made sense thousands of years ago when that mix could be harmful for people, but it is not any more, and they still follow the same old rule.(Out of context is my main thought).
I do not know what to tell you about catholicism, I do not think I should say what I think, which is not specifically bad, but since I jew I prefer to silence me. Instead I can speak about jewish and I think they discriminate other people and I hate that about them. I am sure you will know what is right for you to do about religion, you will feel it, just do not feel guilty, it is completely useless.
I do agree with your beautifull last sentence, and I think each one has to find its own faith and spiritual path.
Good day to you too, I had a nice day luckly. Thanks for sharing your thoughts here
Anonymous
great poem he recites in a part where he talks about becaming the sun or being a seagull and says he will always be a little in love with death. That poem is great
And I relate it to uncle thoughts and style.
Thanks
Paul
I remember now that this movie was recomended to me by some of my friend and I was told it was crap by others, mainly due to being sensacionalistic and because it had facts that where not properly justified.
I just watched the part that talks about:
"Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems empowers those who know the truth, but use the myth to manipulate and control societies"
and found it very interesting, and made me thougt a lot, it still is. I never thought of the theory that jesus could be a "human creation" or at least strongly manipulation for controlling purposes. It sounds to me that it could have been like that after watching it.
Thanks once again paul
M
John Ettorre
I am happy about what you say regarding my blog. And how we found each other.
To tell you the truth I learned a lot about the differences and definitions about religion, truth and spirituality just by reading the fantastic comments that some people post here. And I came to the same conclusion, that religion is not important to me, but my own spiritual life and the faith in it is fundamental.
Thanks a lot for comming here
Thanks for the reply. I am not very knowledgeable of the doctrines of the Jews, therefore I'm not comfortable about commenting about them, just as you are with regards to Catholicism.
I would just want to share what I dislike most about Christianity and the bible itself. I hate how Christians look down upon gays, lesbians and transgenders and how they use the bible to support their hatred and discrimination. Mostly, they use the story about Sodom and the verse in Leviticus, "Thou shall not lie with another man. It is an abomination." Well homosexuality is very different from the case of Sodom. In the case of Leviticus, a very knowledgeable friend told me that it was written before because a man would rape another man to induce humiliation back in the old days. Again, very different from homosexuality and the context then is very different from now. I have yet to research more about it.
I am glad that you're doing well.
Oh, my dear, dear Anonymous,
you have lightened up my day,
even though the sun has yet to rise.
Wherever the waters move, men will learn to be still.
And in that stillness, after all has been said and done,
the chattering mind subsides into solitude,
and the soul floats to the surface of our realizations.
Thank you very, very much for that special youtube presentation!
Why don't you come out from behind that curtain?
Paul and Mariana,
When you talk about Jesus as a human creation, are you meaning to say he was a real man, or a totally man-made myth?
I, myself, have allowed into my constitution the thought that Jesus had his beginnings as a ordinary human being. I hadn't seen a depiction(painting) of him ending up as a man until I saw this. Dostoevsky brought it to my attention. He said a picture like this could cause a man to lose his faith. I can't talk about it, but here is the link so you can see for yourself.
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/H/holbein/christ_entombed.jpg.html
Personally, I also harbor the wish that Jesus 'became' the Christ after his baptism. If we are to 'believe' anything at all about a man becoming a god, we need to believe that god IS, and forever will be, alive and well, and with us. Closer to us than our own skin, be the God of my forefathers. Religion needs say nothing more than that. It's up to us to look...or not. Love is not demanding.
I'm not asking you to love me, I'm asking you to love Love. That's why it can give you a lift. Ride on!
Geek
Interesting what you say about catholicism I did not know some of the things you wrote here. But some of them I do not like, such as the homosexuality discrimination. I think that is not right
Just for you to know other think I do not like about jews is that womans have to wear wigs forever once they are married, they also should wear clothes that cover at least their elbows and their ankles, even in the hot summer.
Thank you for being glad for me my friend.
uncle tree and anonymous
I love that you to understand each other well. I have to confess I am dying of curiosity of who you are. Uncle, it might be a friend of mine, who I used to work with, because he also writes as anonymous here when he does. Dani is that you?
If not you can write to uncle by email, so nobody will find out who you are.
Take care both of you and be well.
Uncle tree
What I mean by that is that the idea people have of who jesus is was created on purpose by some men. Whether he was an invention, a simple human being, or a more enlighted one, it does not mater, they invented him at will to acomplish their own purposes.
Nice second paragraph uncle, wise religious one.
I think that spirit is and faith also must be. But the word god is hard for me, I do not know why.
Fantastic last line, Lets ride!
Marianna don't forget that I don't do any of the art on my blog.
I have downloaded them from somewhere when I was on chemo for 3 years so I don't even know where I got half of them.
Have a wonderful weekend.
Love Renee xoxo
Hi Mariana,
Yes I agree, in some respects the movie is sensationalistic but it is also thought provoking. Like you, at one time it never occurred to me the Jesus story could have been an invention of man.
Of course, as with all forms of media there is an agenda behind this movie. I took from it what I wanted and discarded what was obvious agenda driven propaganda.
As far as any kind of media is concerned, I subscribe to the mantra, "if you believe half of what you see, read, hear and watch, and disbelieve half, you won't be far from the truth."
Have a great weekend Mariana.
Paul
Renee
Ups, seems I was really confused about that.Hope I did not confused any body else with that, and I also apologize.
Thanks a lot for explaining where the images from you blog came from.
I think that having good taste in images is almost as important as producing them.
Hope you have a couple of nice days yourself
Love
M
"First, there is a mountain,
then there is no mountain,
then there is." Remember that Donovan song? Exchange the word 'mountain' with 'god', and you'll understand what my mind goes through every day...several times a day...and the sun shines on whether we can see it or not.
I don't remember where I first read it, but this thought has stuck with me ever since. It concerns eternal life. The idea is: If there is literally a Heaven, a place to go after life on Earth, then it's all-for-one, and one-for-all. We all go! No matter what we believe, think, and/or acknowledge as being a rational, and logical possibility. I do not believe in a literal Hell. That was most definitely put in the scriptures as a scare tactic. The concept of evil is a tricky one, no doubt. That only makes sense.
So I'm not worried in the least about your soul, Mariana. "One way!", is what I was brought up with. I thought that for a long time. If it's true, like Pascal says, then I think it's okay to hedge my bets, as it were.
Btw, what did you think of Holbein's painting?
It's quite repulsive in these eyes of mine. I almost wish I'd never seen it. Obviously, there is a part of me that believes, and has faith. I've come to the conclusion that I cannot consciously will that part of me to go away. You know, "Devil, get thee behind me!" It doesn't work.
You are the nicest, kindest, most considerate self-proclaimed atheist that I have ever met. And I've met more than a few on the net, believe you me. Arrogant assholes they were, nihilists even, who only loved to shame and embarrass those of us with old-fashioned, traditional viewpoints. You're not like that at all, sweet niece. That makes it easy to love you, in my estimation. Wink!
No, I am not that person Mariana. Glad you liked it mr Tree, I thought it apt.
It's not commonplace to find religious experience like that in modern drama, I think, and so well expressed and acted I can only think Eugene O'Neill wrote from experience, though I could not find it in his biographies.
Uncle Tree,
I personally believe Jesus is a pure invention, a myth, built on from previous myths. This wasn't always the case; I once wanted so much to believe but always had that niggling doubt in the back of my mind.
I don't dismiss anyone else's beliefs, because I used to be there in my own beliefs.
I made a conscious decision to believe the facts versus my desire to have a faith in something I inherently knew was a falsehood.
As far as a higher power ( God or whatever) is concerned, I have my own views on that. It's nearer science than spirituality.
Best Wishes
Uncle tree
You wrote such a nice comment! thanks. You are an incredible person, cause I do not usually relate much with strong religious believers, cause they tend to be extreme and full or predjudices, not like you.
Of course I remember that song, I can not stop singing it right now.
"the catherpillar sheds his skin to finda butterfly within" that sentence is the best
I never did care about eternal life, I do not know why, but I do care about all of us being one, that is very important. Interesting what you say about hell, I never belived there where one either. It seems to be like a story they tell kids, so they do behave ok.
I saw the picture and it is digustring. I agree with what you say after that. I am going to make a confesion to you, I hate the image of jesus, it was awfull to me since I was a child, and it makes sense in a way, because it is a guy with nails in his hands and feets, with the crawn in his head and suffering like hell. Sorry to tell you this fact
You are incredible uncle, you are so nice, I think what differentiats me from the other non belivers is that I have faith, I am little confused about that, but I know that I do have.
Lots of love
Anonymous
excuse me for having mistaken you for someone else.
Oh, I don't mind, I just didn't want you to get the wrong end of the stick.
PaulAndreW
Sorry to make a couple of comments about what you say here, I know it is meant to be for uncle, but I just can not help it.
I think all the people who does not belive in jesus any more, must have always had same doubt you said you did.
I think sicence and spirituality are not necesarely excluyent, neither different, it all depends how you deal with them.
Love and take care
anonymous
Thanks a lot for clarifying. If you want to check who I mistook you for you can check for example this post
http://singyourownlullaby.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-do-we-make-our-choices.html
and read the comments that say either anonymous of D.I.D. And also you can check several of the post before that where he commented as well.
My curiosity is killing me, you have been so nice and smart, I would love to know who you are.
Do you have a web? an email that I promise not to reveal ever?
you know the saying "curiosity killed the cat"
Bye bye
Mariana, I'd recommend Caputo's book 'On Religion' if you haven't already read it. :)
stu
No, I have not, thanks for the recomendation, I will see if I can get it here, I do not know if they edited in this country, but I will try. The truth is that I do not have a clue about religion, algthough nowadays it is interesting for me, but it was not before. I read what I could in amazon, and it sounded interesting for me.
Thanks Pal
Hi Mariana,
I agree. I always had doubt; was never a true believer. I believe in science and spirituality. I can of course be certain about science.
I'm still searching, spiritually.
Best wishes,
Paul
M,
There’s a good conference today at UdeSA which may be of relevance: http://www.udesa.edu.ar/Unidades-Academicas/departamentos-y-escuelas/Humanidades/eventos?eid=2420 I’ve got to go for a friend organizes the cycle. I know the 12:30 is a turnoff, but Migliore seems to be a strong brain from the UCA according to my brainy friend.
Sorry, where are these "2 psts of each field definition that include universals”? I mean, Who wrote them? Where were they “published”?
I know the difference btw. religion and spirituality, and what Universals are (at least according to B. Russell's tiny Problems of philo) :). Mariana... :). To be honest, Bertrand's deceptively clear prose made me believe I understood, but your abstract paragraph proved me wrong :(. I need a translation! And I thought Calc. was hard :).
As I'm writing this I am listening/ suffering with "The American composer", XX century piano composers. Most are rather hard, like "serial music", so to speak. Fitting to the topic :)!
Rayuela: I'm afraid religions do evolve (Russell again, but in his monumental History of W. Philosophy, gives a readable if biased account). The whole book II “Catholic Philosophy”, about 400 pgs. Specifically: II.II.VII.“The papacy in the Dark Ages”. Even an atheist like him writes that without a thorough know it, “you can’t understand the rest”.
The paradox is that while many have said that "Religion is dead" (I think about the popularized version of Nietzsche onwards) it's still alive and kicking :(!
I didn't "answer your question" (I didn't realize that was the "point") perhaps because I remembered my catholic upbringing, summarized in a phrase: "In religion you can't 'pick and choose', it's a 'whole package'".
I don't understand why you do meditate on the Trinity for purely spiritual (vs. religious) motives.
Following your answer to Uncle T: You have faith in...what?
Well, you could clarify me this *(yours): "I think that spirit is and faith also must be".
I didn't know this thing about Judaism and "wigs forever for married women". Isn't that x a particular branch of J, and if so, which one?
Why are you impressed by the Holbein pic? It's death, yet again… I’m afraid it will turn people into religion (if not, as you say, why would there be 1/ many “suffering Christ” in all churches. “If he hadn’t suffered x us, what guilt should we have” : )?
*(Your Rayuela answer):
If you want a commonplace of "damage lately done by Catholics" you have priests abusing children. In the States at least they take them to Justice, but at least I saw and taped a BBC documentary on how in Brazil priests are moved to remote communities, on and on, where they are given the nth chance to go on with their exploits.
About your search for Universals, I wonder what Foucault, Derrida & all the deconstructionist bunch I was taught at UBA Letras would think about, but I'm sure your intentions are pure :).
I still wonder why "you wanted to believe" in Judaism. Do you still do, I mean "now"?
Paul
Interesting what you say about beliving in science, I did not have that idea about you. One can have suprises with people, I like that a lot.
I think one is always looking for spirituality, that the quest for it never stops. If you settle you get stuck.
Thanks for the nice and interesting comment paul
Ignacio Litardo:
Sounds really interesting the event, thanks for letting me know, but as usual, I might be too busy to go. Although I raelly love to.
Sorry I must have forgotten to include the links, here are the main explanation of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology and http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.001205
for the first one
for the second one goes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
http://www.friesian.com/universl.htm (this is really intersting)
Do not trust my opinons about that subject, I am just learning and exploring, it is something new for my, so I am just jugling with ideas, but if you make me a clear question of what is it that you do not get i will be happy to answer it.
It is true that that is a paradox, what you say about niszche and religion.
I was just trying to give an example with the trinity, which was obviously failed, cause a few people did not get it. But as I told you I am just learning this.
Faith in that I will find my spirituality and lead it trouth the right path, whether is discovering new scientific things or praying to a bird, I do not know, well I guess I do towards were I will go.
It is for all orthodox jews in the world.
I am impressed because I discovered it by chance when I was five, and i had never seen such an horrorous paintfull image like that before. You are right we are no guilty for real.
Why don t you tell us a little about us, it can be intersrint, just a small brief of the important one. I care about universals because the fact that we have them is what make us able to relate to each other, and many other things.
I wanted to belive, yes, just for somebody to tell me what is right and what is wrong, what I must do and how. That is all. I do not want that any more dough
Thanks a lot for all your interesting (very) thoghts
Hi Mariana,
I like to see evidence for the things I choose to believe. Science produces evidence.
Theories however, I tend to take with a pinch of salt until they are proven. Many theories have proven to be false and some ultimately discredited.
For instance, string theory: it is a credible theory but it has yet to be proven and there appears to be a shift away from the concrete acceptance of string theory and more of an open mind among some parts of the scientific community, from what I've read, toward the thought that maybe string theory isn't the only answer.
Nothing is sure in this life but science is the nearest thing to the truth we have. We're alive because of the advances in science, we live longer because of them and when we die, who knows? I haven't seen any evidence of that particular scenario yet.
Have a great day Mariana.
Paul
paulandrew
It is true that science produce evidence, but, as you know I am in the academic scientific circuit, so I publish paper and go to congress to present them. The point is that when you write a paper or a journal article, you need to prove of course, generally using statistical methods, that your hipotesis is correct and that the results you got in your experiment work. Well let me tell you that this is done very badly in general, cause most scientist are not experts in multivariate statistics, how to evaluate them and how to convert the data to number that can be used in this statistical methods, therefore many papers, in my opinion, haven t got a proper demostration showing that the used method are apropiated and that the degree of properly produced/evaluate results is what they say it is in every case, not just in the one that they are showing in the paper.
Well of course you also have more tangible evidence which could be the existence of roquests that can fly you to the moon.
Well theories must be thought as frameworks that you use when working in science, but those frameworks are never perfect, neither "the truth", and as you know they tend to be replaced by new ones pretty often.
I do not know if you read the the structure of scientific revolutions writen by kuhn: "Since he considered problem solving to be a central element of science, Kuhn saw that for a new candidate for paradigm to be accepted by a scientific community, ´First, the new candidate must seem to resolve some outstanding and generally recognized problem that can be met in no other way. Second, the new paradigm must promise to preserve a relatively large part of the concrete problem solving activity that has accrued to science through its predecessors.'and overall Kuhn maintained that the new paradigm must also solve more problems overall than its predecessor, which therefore entailed the number of newly solved problems must be greater than those solved in the old paradigm but no longer solved in the new one."
Well I have conficts with quantum phisics, on one side I can not properly understand what they propose from the math viewpoint, second there are some ideas that I think are really interesting and coud be true, but there are other parts that I feel are just supersticious thoughts, like religious people who desperately want to belive. I do not know also if you read about the singularity and the transhumanity (or something like it) that is also related to the quantum phisics theory. You can check the following blog which talks a lot about quantum phisics: http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com
It is absolutely true what you say, when you check what happen concretely is science what helped us the most and also worked. I used to belive in science blindli, but I am trying to be more open mind than before, and I think I am already there. The problem with science is that it is not focused enough on helping humans lead a better life. Specially in spiritual terms.
If you review history of buddhism I think that it helped a lot to improve human beings life quality , and it also obtain knowledge aquired trough their own ways. This knowledge is in many cases the same one science arrive at trough traditional methodologies.
One think you can do is take the most usefull aspect of each paradigm, and use that.
Send you a hugh
Hi Mariana,
I must say I haven't read anything by kuhn but I will take a look at his writing.
I will also check out the blog you mentioned, on quantum physics, it sounds very interesting.
I understand some of the theories but when advanced maths comes into play then it is way beyond my capabilities.
I agree with you when you say more should be done through science to make life better for people. Sometimes scientists, in their race to discover and uncover, forget what they initially set out to do. Then the race to be the first past the post becomes the objective instead of the discovery.
As you illustrate with buddhism, science can learn from other more esoteric disciplines. For instance, many herbs have been used for centuries, the only requirement being the fact that they work. Now science is beginning to look into exactly why these things work. It's not enough to know, it's good to know why.
I agree that it's wrong to be too focussed on one thing, to be blinkered, when the whole is what we need to look at, kind of in a holistic way.
Take care Mariana.
God, in the modern world, is becoming more and more anonymous
God, in the modern world, is becoming more and more anonymous
Paul Peterson
You are right, but it is also becoming more personal and less universal I think.
Interesting thoughts peters, thanks for saying them here
PaulAndrew
To tell you the truth I also have some problems with some branches of math myself. I need to study more to improve that skill for me.
You are right, sometimes along the way the objective gets lots and you are not sure about where you where heading and why any more. That can be pretty dangerous, but it happens in many fields, not only in the scientific ones.
Yes, also from art, ancient oriental medicine, and also the great example that you give here about the herbs. That is a good point, a great one I would say, why do we want to know the reason and it is not enough to know that it works. I will have to think about it, maybe it is related to humans urges for controlling and having power.
Glad you found interesting what I said, and that you are pretty much on the same line about it with me.
Take care Paul, be well my friend
Hi Mariana,
Sorry I didn't reply earlier. We're having internet problems.
Oh I have more than a problem with maths lol. I managed to scrape into university with my maths but I'm abysmal at it. I understand theories on one level but the maths side is too much for me. I'm glad there are people out there like you who understand this stuff and can check theories out.
Yes, I checked out Rob Bryanton's blog too. It was very interesting.
I also watched a video presentation on the supposed coming singularity by Ray Kurzweil. What do you think of this?
Maybe you've already talked of it on your blog. If so, ignore my question.
Have a great weekend Mariana.
paulandrewrussell
I know how it is it happens all the time in my country please do not worry paul.
Thanks for being glad, but I have to tell you that it is pretty difficult for me to understand some of the paper formulas I am dealing with, it takes me a lot of time, but I am learning and improving that skill with practice. Like everybody else can with just a little patience and tolerance to the frustration of not understanding it inmediatelly.
Good, I like that you checked out Rob blog and found it interesting.
You watch it? guau you are ahead to me, I just read some stuff about it. To tell you the truth my opinion is not clear, I do not have my mind set about it, but I seriously many of the things they say.
No I never talked about it, because of the doubts and also due to not understanding good enough what they are saying.
Enjoy your weekend too paul, I send you a smile.
What a fabulous discussion you have started, Mariana. I just popped in to visit your blog for the first time and am so impressed with the content you post here. I'll refer back to your original post on this topic, and hope I am not repeating what others have said as i need to leave in a moment:
Part of the problem here, I believe, is that religious authorities, unable to appreciate the value of metaphor, allegory and symbol, insist on literal and historicist interpretations of doctrine and dogma.
YES--I believe this is a monumental problem. Why do some people insist that artistic language was absent in antiquity? I guess it's just human nature to search for an absolute, concrete truth that leaves no room for interpretation. I think we'd be well served to remember that the message here is LOVE, plain and simple, and any interpretation taken out of context that leads us in an opposite direction is not only not useful but also dangerous. Just my humble opinion. I could go on for hours about this.
Have you read any of Karen Armstrong's books? They are wonderful.
Calliospen
I am glad you stepped by, and do not worry I know it too much to read all the comment, although some of them are increadibly good ones, I am planning to make a compilation one time.
Exactely, that was one of my responses to a comment I recieve here, I completelly agree.
Very interesting what you say in your third paragraph! really I loved your question about why people believe artistic language did not exists? I loved that thouht, you could even do a post about it.
I did not read anything about her, what book or articles would you recomend, I guess might like her since you refered me to her.
Thanks a lot my friend and take caer.
PS check what the walking man said:
Mariana...Simply said. Where one starts on the path is not as important as where one ends. Some start with Buddha some with Christ, some with Mohamed and others with Krishna. All are decent enough places to start but poor places to finish. Most never get beyond their prescribed practices and cultural influences.
It is looking beyond the "culture of religion" that one is found by God and taught by God. I am always suspect of anyone who claims a religious practice as THE TRUTH.
Mariana,
YES-the walking man beautifully articulated my own thoughts. I agree with this sentiment whole-heartedly.
Perhaps I will post on the topic:)
Karen Armstrong is an ex-nun and a scholar who has written many books on religion. A History of God is one that is fascinating.
I kept thinking about your answer to Paul A: "The problem with science is that it is not focused enough on helping humans lead a better life. Specially in spiritual terms". A "hard" scientist may not answer? "Why should we"? Or: "That just wouldn't be science!". I remember that G. Mankiw on his economics primer is very clear about "normative" economics not being science. So I can only imagine what a real scientist (pun intented) would say about "helping people lead a better life", specially in spiritual terms. I ask because I don't know anything about Science, it's just not my field.
I asked my philo teacher R. Crespo (Economist and PhD in Philosophy, teaches at UCEMA & IAE) and Gallimidi (UBA & UdeSA) and they confirmed what I thought. M, I'm afraid: "There's no consensual definition of philosophy" 2) Wikipedia is just for "salir del paso" = "muddle along" (Please, find us a proper translation x your worldwide audience!).
I can't access the Anthropology Journal (Barnard's) article without paying.
Glad to hear you are jugGling with ideas too!
I asked why are you interested in trinity, there's nothing I didn't understand in my questioning :)!
First because I can't see why somebody intelligent would devote 1 nanosecond to it. It reminded me of what you said about your priest friend on "4th century problems" :). 2nd) Is that a problem in Judaism? (Dummies' question, I know).
Good to know about orthodoxy is not for me, not only in my "religion of origin" :)!
How did you discover that awful image when 5 y. o. :)?
Foucault wouldn't agree on your "humanist" premise that "it's what makes us bond together, etc".
I just can't summarize him, just a couple quotes to illustrate his inextinguishable genius and boundless erudition: "Or non seulement l'humanisme n'existe pas dans les autres cultures, mais il est probablement dans la nôtre de l'ordre du mirage" (...) Saint-Exupéry et Camus, chez Teilhard, bref, chez toutes ces figures pâles de notre culture" (he's talking about the "big heads of humanism, mind you!). (Both from "L'homme est-il mort?, Dits et écrits, tome I, p. 540-1.
Sorry, it's in French, I don't dare translate Michel :).
I like your "pantheistic" spirituality "praying to a bird"! You've read Spinoza, right?
Then, if you trust: "things are gonna be all right"... Are you an optimist?
calliopespen
Nice to see you here.
I think walking man is one of the most amazing poets I ever read. He is so lucid some times it is amazing, it is even more real than reality what he says.
Post on the topic, I think that s great.
I read about what Karen said, I found the following thoughts interesting: "I say that religion isn't about believing things. It's about what you do. It's ethical alchemy. It's about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness."
"The extraordinary and eccentric emphasis on "belief" in Christianity today is an accident of history that has distorted our understanding of religious truth."
You might want to check his articles at the guardian, they are pretty good
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/karenarmstrong
Thanks for telling me who this woman writer is, I will try to catch some more of her texts to have a look at them, I would like to know which ones where her mains ideas, her main doubts, her core thoughts.
Thanks a lot for stepping by C
ju 87 stuka
Sorry for the paper, I can not access it either, I owe it to you for the next time, they must have changed it recentelly.
Sience is a dangerous think, many time mistaken by the truth. That is one of the reasons why you have to take care of what you do with it.
This is something Einstein said "But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."
Where in my opinion, he is critisicing the des humanization of it.
I once read an article about philosophy which I found very interesting. By I can not find it now, I like a parat of what Wittgenstein said about it "Accordingly, ‘the word philosophy must mean something which stands above or below, but not beside the natural sciences‘ Not surprisingly, then, most of the propositions and questions to be found in philosophical works are not false but nonsensical". I agree mostly with the part that it is placed at a different level than the other sciences or disciplines, and I like the nonsense idea, because paradoxes, which are kind of nonsense, like when you say "this sentence is a lie" are created because the sentence is refering to itself from a different level and also from the same.
I am not really interested in trinity perse, it was just a misunderstandiing. We agree it seems, now that I read you next paragraph.
On a vacation trip in brazil.
and what would foucault said? I mean in english, at least the idea of it?
I read him a long time ago, yes.
I guess if you agree with that sentence most of the time you are and if you do not I guess you might be anything, depending what you agree with mostly. I do belive people change their mind, they do not feel or think the same all their lives.
Thanks a lot for the info.
Bye bye
interesting. i was raised presbyterian, but would definitely call myself "spiritual but not religious" these days. i think the cynical and horrible things that have been done in the past decade in the name of religion have thoroughly put me off of it, tho' i'd have to admit that cynical and horrible things have always been done in the name of religion. but, my point was going to be that i see a difference in the presbyterianism being "taught" today from what they talked about when i was a child. there was once a fatalism in presbyterians - a belief that there was no free will, but that all was preordained. they're definitely not talking about that anymore, because everyone wants to believe they have control of their destiny. not sure we'll ever know the answers, but it's interesting to ponder the questions.
Julochka
I never knew anyone raised liked you, probably because I am from a different country than yours.
I like anyway how you would define myself, you can see it is related to to what we talk here.
Yes i Think that the awful things that have been done in name of religion are one of the reason of why it is suffering of a low popularity nowadays.
It is definitely sure to let people ask themselves the question. I think most of us want that. Very interesting the change you describe, thanks a lot for it. Maybe due to it is why your original religion is not starting from where is was originally anymore. Which is a great example of a religion adapting to modern times, which was one of the main things I am trying to answer in this post.
And I strongly recommend you to read what walking man says "Mariana...Simply said. Where one starts on the path is not as important as where one ends. Some start with Buddha some with Christ, some with Mohamed and others with Krishna. All are decent enough places to start but poor places to finish. Most never get beyond their prescribed practices and cultural influences." I think this also applies to religions.
Thanks a lot for your interesting facts and thoughts, they helped me lean more on the side towards where religions evolve, thanks for that J.
Love to you
The subject is not a matter of reasoning but still from time immemorial we reason out things. And I think this is the main reason behind the pandemonium and so many sects and fights. I think spiritual means to understand your spirit, spirit is indivisible, invisible and eternal. In a spiritualism and religions both are conscious about what we call God, Allah, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, and various other names.
If both are circling around God consciousness then in a metaphorical language spiritualism is mental plane and religion is the gross body. The true religion is having faith among ourselves. We have never seen God but we learnt about God Men or saviors of human, they all taught us to love fellow humans. The methods were different but the goal is same. Love, compassion, harmony because they realised that God is nowhere but within us. If we can understand this we will also become God Men. That faith is needed and nothing more. Isn't it?
They are various beliefs such as dualist, qualified dualist, monist. Jesus the Christ was a dualist when he said: 'our Father which art in heaven. He was qualified non-dualist when he said My Father is greater than I and when he used the illustration of the vine and its branches. He was a monist when he said: I and my father are one, and the kingdom of heaven is within us.
Shri Ramakrishna strictly followed all principle religions and ultimately realized that all paths lead to the same thing like all rivers ultimately mingle with ocean. The true spiritualism, nay, religionist understand all stages and explain it to people (if require) according to their tastes.
But we need to know that ultimate science is to know the basis of all consciousness. The knower of Brahman is Brahman himself. Then only we can understand that we are living as slaves of our desires and until we understand that problem of our existence, how can we use the practical approach of religion that teaches us what we are, why we have come to existence, what's the purpose and how to live as masters and not as slaves and what is real bliss.
mariana, are you alright? you have been quiet for a bit of time now.
just checking....
xoxo
Shubahit:
Thanks a lot for pouring your wisdom here, I am honored.
Excellent, I loved the ending, purpose is fundamental what are things for should be the main question, I think mostly we loose tracks nowadays because it is so easy to get lost with all the blur that goes on top of real life.
I liked and agree almost completelly with your opinion, One think It made me thought of is that what you say is tightly related with opposing to seal reality with exact definitions, delimitation's, clear and true separation of things. Everything interacts, nothing is completelly isolated, so that pretension of clear differentiation is kind of a fake.
KJ
Everything I find from you keeps getting sweeter and sweeter, txs a lot!
Estimada Mariana: Super interesantes los temas que convocas en tu blog, y mucho mas los aportes que hacen lectores. Creo que en español se leerá mas clara mi opinión:
La religión y la espiritualidad han sido búsquedas que he hecho en mi vida. Me interesan mucho las interpretaciones divinas de los pueblos originarios, el sol, los astros, la luna, el viento, el mar y las sensaciones que estos nos generan: bienestar, miedo, deseo, funciones primarias y básicas de nuestra mente, que son díficiles de explicar en sus causas, y que las hemos expresado en un concepto:Dios, como interpretacion de algo inalcanzable.
Culturas precolombinas y sofistas interpretan y leen estas emociones en estructuras primarias: primero la geometria, la poseía, luego la arquitectura y la ciencia. Estos conocimientos se ocupan para construir templos y ciudades en torno a estos templos.
Luego se relacionan estos descubrimientos científicos con una idea de Dios: la trinidad:el triangulo, el sol:dios:elcirculo, la luna:lamujer:la virgen, el deseo sexual:el fuego:el infierno, el alpha y el omega. Largo sería hablar relaciones matemáticas: 12 apostoles, los 40 dias de jesus, el septimo dia, etc.
Con la llegada de "la moral", "la etica", "la justicia" hemos desarrollado religiónes modernas: una serie de normas que canalizan nuestros miedos y deseos en una organizacion jerarquizada, donde el no cumplimiento sea causal de penalidades. El premio y el castigo como dos caras de esta religión.
A esta parte, el mundo moderno relativiza estos conceptos, debido a que no puede normar complejidades sociales, como la igualdad de la mujer,diversidad racial y sexual, desigualdades sociales, libremercado, etc por lo que las bases de las religiones se quiebran, y las herramientas para repararlas están en un pasado muy lejano.
Creo en el inconsciente como el motor de la espiritualidad, como generador de imagenes y emociones a las cuales damos forma en nuestro actuar diario, y a los cuales damos significados divinos: el sol que miraron los antepasados es el mismo que veo ahora, y ahi está el vehículo que nos une y nos hace hombres. Las interpretaciones han cambiado, pero las emociones son la mismas. Aún le tememos a las mismas cosas, y esa es la base de la espiritualidad, y el camino por donde creo se encuentra Dios.
muchos saludos,
Pablo.-
Probably the best blog online!!!
Post a Comment