I was recently invited by a friend to consider taking part in a discussion group that "examines, in a scholarly manner, diverse aspects of the world's religions. Caveats include no attempt to argue the superiority, inferiority, correctness, or incorrectness of any religion(s)." While tempted to join in if they allowed me, I had to decline. Here is why:
-------------------------
I don't think I would be a very good participant in this group. In my estimation, good scholarship requires not only comparison, but critical evaluations with a view to choosing a more correct and superior idea as a course to follow and apply. I always remember what G.K. Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."
One of the most scholarly and idea-changing books I have read recently is The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by agnostic Rodney Stark, former University of Washington sociologist. He argues brilliantly from the evidence that the title 'Dark Ages' was largely a smear campaign by Voltaire and a few other adamant anti-religionists. They were 'enlightened' and the religionists were 'in the dark.' Stark provides overwhelming evidence that the advent and gradual evolution of the Christian religious methodology and spiritual principles brought on the modern era, including technological advances, democratic freedoms and capitalist economics. Eastern religions in particular so identify with Nature that they could not and cannot harness natural phenomena to serve humankind while simultaneously worshipping the Natural Forces as Divine. They have since adopted Western ideas, but ideologically could not have discovered them. Another internationally recognized sociologist, Peter Berger, said something similar in his classic book, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, "In Genesis, with man being made in the image of God, you have the seeds of modern democracy." According to a growing number of scholarly sociologists, psychologists and historians, Christianity appears to be superior in certain ways. This is not to say that one religion or culture is superior or more correct in all areas, but that superiority and correctness are not ipso facto bad qualities. Thomas Cahill does something similar in his series of books on various cultures and their superior ideas.
It constantly puzzles me that people who argue superior political or economic ideas and policies are afraid to argue superior religious ideas. What makes religion sacrosanct? The same person who has a bumper sticker that reads, OBAMA/BIDEN 2008, makes fun of the intolerant fundie whose bumper sticker reads JESUS SAVES. Frankly, while one could and should argue with either bumper sticker, each has the right to 'close his mouth' on what he feels to be the most solid idea with regard to matters of politics and/or religion. It seems we have become obsessed with being 'being polite', politically and religiously 'correct' and appropriately 'multi-cultural'. Lewis Carroll saw this 'politeness' trend decades ago when he wrote Alice in Wonderland. After the Dodo set up a race course and the participants ran and ran, the Dodo randomly declared the race over. Someone asked, "Who won?" "At last the Dodo said, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’ ‘But who is to give the prizes?’ quite a chorus of voices asked."
We seem to live in an age where everybody wins and there is no one to give out prizes. It seems to me that we have made feeling good a virtue over the universals of Truth, Right and Beauty. I see that as the bane of the New Age and much so called 'liberalism,' and God knows that conservatives exude their fair share of poison. The reason I moved out of the evangelical camp was because people strongly critiqued and challenged my religious ideas; I fought them ferociously, and gradually saw they were Right. I do realize this is a complicated subject and has many other angles that I haven't addressed, but the bottom line is that I think we need to cease being afraid to critique as we compare - and ideally with a spirit of respect. If I were in that group, based on their criteria, I would be a trouble maker. Nuf from me...
Monday, October 27, 2008
I was recently invited by a friend to consider taking part in a discussion group that "examines, in a scholarly manner, diverse aspects of the world's religions. Caveats include no attempt to argue the superiority, inferiority, correctness, or incorrectness of any religion(s)." While tempted to join in if they allowed me, I had to decline. Here is why:
-------------------------
I don't think I would be a very good participant in this group. In my estimation, good scholarship requires not only comparison, but critical evaluations with a view to choosing a more correct and superior idea as a course to follow and apply. I always remember what G.K. Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." “Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.”
One of the most scholarly and idea-changing books I have read recently is The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by agnostic Rodney Stark, former University of Washington sociologist. He argues brilliantly from the evidence that the title 'Dark Ages' was largely a smear campaign by Voltaire and a few other adamant anti-religionists. They were 'enlightened' and the religionists were 'in the dark.' Stark provides overwhelming evidence that the advent and gradual evolution of the Christian religious methodology and spiritual principles brought on the modern era, including technological advances, democratic freedoms and capitalist economics. Eastern religions in particular so identify with Nature that they could not and cannot harness natural phenomena to serve humankind while simultaneously worshipping the Natural Forces as Divine. They have since adopted Western ideas, but ideologically could not have discovered them. Another internationally recognized sociologist, Peter Berger, said something similar in his classic book, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, "In Genesis, with man being made in the image of God, you have the seeds of modern democracy." According to a growing number of scholarly sociologists, psychologists and historians, Christianity appears to be superior in certain ways. This is not to say that one religion or culture is superior or more correct in all areas, but that superiority and correctness are not ipso facto bad qualities. Thomas Cahill does something similar in his series of books on various cultures and their superior ideas.
It constantly puzzles me that people who argue superior political or economic ideas and policies are afraid to argue superior religious ideas. What makes religion sacrosanct? The same person who has a bumper sticker that reads, OBAMA/BIDEN 2008, makes fun of the intolerant fundie whose bumper sticker reads JESUS SAVES. Frankly, while one could and should argue with either bumper sticker, each has the right to 'close his mouth' on what he feels to be the most solid idea with regard to matters of politics and/or religion. It seems we have become obsessed with being 'being polite', politically and religiously 'correct' and appropriately 'multi-cultural'. Lewis Carroll saw this 'politeness' trend decades ago when he wrote Alice in Wonderland. After the Dodo set up a race course and the participants ran and ran, the Dodo randomly declared the race over. Someone asked, "Who won?" "At last the Dodo said, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’ ‘But who is to give the prizes?’ quite a chorus of voices asked."
We seem to live in an age where everybody wins and there is no one to give out prizes. It seems to me that we have made feeling good a virtue over the universals of Truth, Right and Beauty. I see that as the bane of the New Age and much so called 'liberalism,' and God knows that conservatives exude their fair share of poison. The reason I moved out of the evangelical camp was because people strongly critiqued and challenged my religious ideas; I fought them ferociously, and gradually saw they were Right. I do realize this is a complicated subject and has many other angles that I haven't addressed, but the bottom line is that I think we need to cease being afraid to critique as we compare - and ideally with a spirit of respect. If I were in that group, based on their criteria, I would be a trouble maker. Nuf from me...
-------------------------
I don't think I would be a very good participant in this group. In my estimation, good scholarship requires not only comparison, but critical evaluations with a view to choosing a more correct and superior idea as a course to follow and apply. I always remember what G.K. Chesterton said, "Merely having an open mind is nothing; the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid." “Art, like morality, consists in drawing the line somewhere.”
One of the most scholarly and idea-changing books I have read recently is The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success by agnostic Rodney Stark, former University of Washington sociologist. He argues brilliantly from the evidence that the title 'Dark Ages' was largely a smear campaign by Voltaire and a few other adamant anti-religionists. They were 'enlightened' and the religionists were 'in the dark.' Stark provides overwhelming evidence that the advent and gradual evolution of the Christian religious methodology and spiritual principles brought on the modern era, including technological advances, democratic freedoms and capitalist economics. Eastern religions in particular so identify with Nature that they could not and cannot harness natural phenomena to serve humankind while simultaneously worshipping the Natural Forces as Divine. They have since adopted Western ideas, but ideologically could not have discovered them. Another internationally recognized sociologist, Peter Berger, said something similar in his classic book, The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion, "In Genesis, with man being made in the image of God, you have the seeds of modern democracy." According to a growing number of scholarly sociologists, psychologists and historians, Christianity appears to be superior in certain ways. This is not to say that one religion or culture is superior or more correct in all areas, but that superiority and correctness are not ipso facto bad qualities. Thomas Cahill does something similar in his series of books on various cultures and their superior ideas.
It constantly puzzles me that people who argue superior political or economic ideas and policies are afraid to argue superior religious ideas. What makes religion sacrosanct? The same person who has a bumper sticker that reads, OBAMA/BIDEN 2008, makes fun of the intolerant fundie whose bumper sticker reads JESUS SAVES. Frankly, while one could and should argue with either bumper sticker, each has the right to 'close his mouth' on what he feels to be the most solid idea with regard to matters of politics and/or religion. It seems we have become obsessed with being 'being polite', politically and religiously 'correct' and appropriately 'multi-cultural'. Lewis Carroll saw this 'politeness' trend decades ago when he wrote Alice in Wonderland. After the Dodo set up a race course and the participants ran and ran, the Dodo randomly declared the race over. Someone asked, "Who won?" "At last the Dodo said, ‘everybody has won, and all must have prizes.’ ‘But who is to give the prizes?’ quite a chorus of voices asked."
We seem to live in an age where everybody wins and there is no one to give out prizes. It seems to me that we have made feeling good a virtue over the universals of Truth, Right and Beauty. I see that as the bane of the New Age and much so called 'liberalism,' and God knows that conservatives exude their fair share of poison. The reason I moved out of the evangelical camp was because people strongly critiqued and challenged my religious ideas; I fought them ferociously, and gradually saw they were Right. I do realize this is a complicated subject and has many other angles that I haven't addressed, but the bottom line is that I think we need to cease being afraid to critique as we compare - and ideally with a spirit of respect. If I were in that group, based on their criteria, I would be a trouble maker. Nuf from me...
Saturday, October 11, 2008
OBAMA OR McCAIN: Does God Have a Favorite?
“Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right” Abraham Lincoln
-------------
Recently, a group of non-traditional spiritually-minded friends met for lunch. We discussed metaphysics and spiritual growth. Then the conversation turned to politics and the upcoming election. Even though this group would be considered very progressive by most standards, some clear differences emerged in the discussion. Many were Democrats, but there were a few Republicans and Independents as well. The conversation became quite heated and passionate, as political chats often do. Afterward, one of my friends asked me privately, “How can we say it is all One when even those of us in this spiritual community cannot agree on a President?”
I think some of our spiritual communities put undue emphasis on, and misunderstand the idea of 'The One.' We sometimes forget that ‘The Many’ are as critical and eternal as ‘The One’. All religions have some notion of Plurality within Unity. Greek Polytheists established Zeus as The One Leader. Both Hinduism and Christianity agree that there is One Ultimate God (JHWH) or Power (Brahman), yet each speaks of a Trinity within the One. Islam and Judaism are most adamant in their Monotheism, yet each has a plurality of names and qualities of the One God; and each refers to the One as We or Us. Soul-making on this planet requires Multiplicity in Unity. It is the nature of the Cosmos and the human mind.
Furthermore, the Many always contains opposing sides. That is Reality. We can speak of one football game, yet there are two teams comprised of dozens of clashing players. We speak of owning a car, yet it has a motor and drive shaft to propel it forward as well as brakes to stop it. The One always contains the Many which is comprised of opposites.
As nauseated as it might make you feel, it is not inaccurate to say that ‘God’ or Reality is both Republican and Democrat. These archetypal opposites drive soulful evolution; Love and Hate, Life and Death, Male and Female, War and Peace, Negative and Positive, Illness and Disease, Youth and Old Age, Fear and Courage, etc..
We humans are co-creative players in this terrestrial game of soul-making. The Universe has cast each of us into his/her role with a certain amount of destiny involved. Some of us have more ‘liberal’ propensities and others more ‘conservative’ predilections, though each of these reductionist labels is abysmally simplistic, stereotypical and inadequate.
Debate and conflict are prevalent within humanity; life has always evolved materially and soulfully through the clashes of opposites as much as through cooperation. One Hindu comedian put it like this, “God routinely has a nervous breakdown and each fragment gets to do therapy to put God back together again.”
One of my respected friends at the lunch table became very animated about her political views, unafraid of stating her position brilliantly. A couple of others intelligently and strongly disagreed with her. I personally found the honesty from both sides refreshing. Neither was concerned about politically correctness...each said what they really thought and felt. Some at the table held McCain to be the incarnation of war mongering evil, while others felt Obama to be an inept wolf in sheep's clothing. Only time will tell. The conscious participant learned a lot about his/her self. He/she was looking in a mirror. The peacemaker found herself becoming a warrior for her position, the warrior found himself uncharacteristically advocating for tranquility. Each was challenged to see if they were teachable, or simply debating from a position of limited information, more motivated by ideological prejudice than reasoned fairness. This is soul stuff to the conscious person. The election itself is secondary to these character revelations and psychic rearrangements.
These two candidates will be distant memories in a few decades, but the souls forged in each of us by playing the game will last forever. I am not suggesting nonchalance or quietism. Life on this planet matters. Choose an informed position, listen to the other side fairly, play hard with both reason and heart, and play to win! But play with respect – God is the other team too.
-------------
Recently, a group of non-traditional spiritually-minded friends met for lunch. We discussed metaphysics and spiritual growth. Then the conversation turned to politics and the upcoming election. Even though this group would be considered very progressive by most standards, some clear differences emerged in the discussion. Many were Democrats, but there were a few Republicans and Independents as well. The conversation became quite heated and passionate, as political chats often do. Afterward, one of my friends asked me privately, “How can we say it is all One when even those of us in this spiritual community cannot agree on a President?”
I think some of our spiritual communities put undue emphasis on, and misunderstand the idea of 'The One.' We sometimes forget that ‘The Many’ are as critical and eternal as ‘The One’. All religions have some notion of Plurality within Unity. Greek Polytheists established Zeus as The One Leader. Both Hinduism and Christianity agree that there is One Ultimate God (JHWH) or Power (Brahman), yet each speaks of a Trinity within the One. Islam and Judaism are most adamant in their Monotheism, yet each has a plurality of names and qualities of the One God; and each refers to the One as We or Us. Soul-making on this planet requires Multiplicity in Unity. It is the nature of the Cosmos and the human mind.
Furthermore, the Many always contains opposing sides. That is Reality. We can speak of one football game, yet there are two teams comprised of dozens of clashing players. We speak of owning a car, yet it has a motor and drive shaft to propel it forward as well as brakes to stop it. The One always contains the Many which is comprised of opposites.
As nauseated as it might make you feel, it is not inaccurate to say that ‘God’ or Reality is both Republican and Democrat. These archetypal opposites drive soulful evolution; Love and Hate, Life and Death, Male and Female, War and Peace, Negative and Positive, Illness and Disease, Youth and Old Age, Fear and Courage, etc..
We humans are co-creative players in this terrestrial game of soul-making. The Universe has cast each of us into his/her role with a certain amount of destiny involved. Some of us have more ‘liberal’ propensities and others more ‘conservative’ predilections, though each of these reductionist labels is abysmally simplistic, stereotypical and inadequate.
Debate and conflict are prevalent within humanity; life has always evolved materially and soulfully through the clashes of opposites as much as through cooperation. One Hindu comedian put it like this, “God routinely has a nervous breakdown and each fragment gets to do therapy to put God back together again.”
One of my respected friends at the lunch table became very animated about her political views, unafraid of stating her position brilliantly. A couple of others intelligently and strongly disagreed with her. I personally found the honesty from both sides refreshing. Neither was concerned about politically correctness...each said what they really thought and felt. Some at the table held McCain to be the incarnation of war mongering evil, while others felt Obama to be an inept wolf in sheep's clothing. Only time will tell. The conscious participant learned a lot about his/her self. He/she was looking in a mirror. The peacemaker found herself becoming a warrior for her position, the warrior found himself uncharacteristically advocating for tranquility. Each was challenged to see if they were teachable, or simply debating from a position of limited information, more motivated by ideological prejudice than reasoned fairness. This is soul stuff to the conscious person. The election itself is secondary to these character revelations and psychic rearrangements.
These two candidates will be distant memories in a few decades, but the souls forged in each of us by playing the game will last forever. I am not suggesting nonchalance or quietism. Life on this planet matters. Choose an informed position, listen to the other side fairly, play hard with both reason and heart, and play to win! But play with respect – God is the other team too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)