Is religion/spirituality useful for 21st century?
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:21
#1
Is religion/spirituality useful for 21st century?
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:21
#2
This is a spinoff thread from [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=002355]Yo... desecrates religious ceremonies[/url].
That thread scratched the surface of a much larger discussion:
Is religious and/or spiritual belief important to help people deal with the challenges of the 21st century?
Edited to add "spirituality" to thread title.
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:22
#3
No.
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:29
#4
cuz?
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:48
#5
Religion IS one of the challenges of the 21st century.
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:49
#6
Well, let's look at this logically.
If I say:
"Study of Giordano Bruno's works is important to Canadians in the 21st century."
Then surely the onus would be on me to provide some evidence for my proposition - not on you to prove the contrary.
I believe religion and "spiritual belief" have been largely negative forces in European civilization since approximately the 17th century.
But if you think religion is important for dealing with 21st century issues, perhaps you have some point that I've overlooked?
Mon, 2007-06-11 19:51
#7
remind
quote:
Originally posted by gram swaraj:
[b]cuz?[/b]
Because it has made everything in the 21st a hellva lot worse.
Mon, 2007-06-11 20:49
#8
ceti
One can also argue that so has atheism, nationalism, etc.
The major conflicts of the 20th century weren't fought over religion, but ideology, imperialist rivalries, and the struggle for national liberation. Even sectarian conflicts were sparked by broader political and economic factors, as opposed to religious identification alone.
Moreover, to even think that the conflict in the middle east and even 911 or Sudan are solely the work of religious fanaticism is also missing the point! The primary reasons are still the same - political and economic.
Also we need to see the relationship between globalization (McWorld) and talibanization (Jihad), as they are intertwined.
Mon, 2007-06-11 21:05
#9
remind
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]...I believe religion and "spiritual belief" have been largely negative forces in European civilization since approximately the 17th century.But if you think religion is important for dealing with 21st century issues, perhaps you have some point that I've overlooked?[/b]
Set the date on negative force by religion back to the 15th century, please.
According to dude on the other thread, religion, and no religion, are because we fear death.
So, I guess neither matter in any way shape or form.
Other than the fact science can mitigate the fear of death, while religion drives it.
Tue, 2007-06-12 00:06
#10
laine lowe
I think religious influence for the most part diminishes when people are doing well. I'm not into bashing orgainized religions per se but I do feel we have the right to criticize when these groups interfere with limiting the people's voice and freedom. At the same time, I do give kudos to those religious groups that have empowered poor people. Catholic liberation theology for one helped Latin Americans. The United Church in Canada has taken a strong stance against bottled water and water privatization. I think we should applaud those groups that have a progressive stance whether or not I believe in their religious convictions.
Tue, 2007-06-12 03:51
#11
N.Beltov
I certainly value my own church, [url=http://www.uuwinnipeg.mb.ca/]the First Unitarian Universalist Church of Winnipeg. [/url] The first illegal reading of the banns (a public announcement that a marriage will be taking place) for a gay couple in Canada was held at our church prior to the first [b]legal[/b] ("authorized" actually) reading of the banns at the Metropolitan Church in Toronto on January 14, 2001. There are a number of activities that I find "useful" although I would likely use different language.
When Nelson Mandela was released from jail in Apartheid South Africa, after 28 years of imprisonment, he made a public statement in which he thanked all those who made his release possible and who contributed to the unstoppable anti-Apartheid movement. It was quite a list - an encyclopedia of the struggle. Mandela pointed out that, in the repressive conditions of the Apartheid regime, there were times when all other organizations of civil society that spoke about the repressive regime were criminalized. [b]Mandela thanked the churches of South Africa, specifically, for having raised their voices against Apartheid when all other voices had been [i]silenced.[/i][/b] [note] Apparently, religion can be "useful". It's not hard to find other examples.
[note] Canada's [i]Globe and Mail[/i] "edited" the published version of Mandela's speech, censoring all references to the SACP and cleverly changing the wording of Mandela's speech to downplay the horrors of Apartheid; organizations that had been [i]silenced[/i] became, in the Globe, [i]silent.[/i] But that is another story.
[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
Tue, 2007-06-12 04:01
#12
the fact that Jesus and Mohamid were born only a few years apart is not co-incidental. Human's at that time were changing the way they lived, from being small town hunter gatherers to being big town people. Other populations coped with the change to big towns by making their king also their god, however these religions have not continued after the death of the king/s for fairly obvious reasons. almost everywhere in the world big towns developed, big religions also arose. (proir to big towns almost all people worshiped many small gods, who were thought to have a direct and close relationship with the person concerned). So if big god religions, with accompanying human face, are so universal, and so tied to human big town development, then I can't see them going.
Tue, 2007-06-12 04:37
#13
for the record, there were 700 years between Jesus and Mohammed,
roughly the time between us today and , say, the first sea voyages of Vasco da Gama in the 1400s ....
[ 12 June 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
Tue, 2007-06-12 04:45
#14
Frustrated Mess
So you think Mohamed is more advanced than Jesus?
No, religion is not useful for the 21st century nor any century. Religion is not even useful for spirituality.
For humans to evolve and come to grips with our place in the eco-system, religion, particularly religions that preach "dominion-ism" must be tossed into the trash bin of history.
But that won't happen because humans are far too gullible and susceptible to simplistic and hateful ideologies. Which is why nature will eventually toss humans into the trash bin of the universe.
Tue, 2007-06-12 05:10
#15
uh, no:
I simply pointed out the "few years apart" fallacy of the previous poster
and no, on another issue, I certainly would not prefer the teachings of Mohammed over those of Jesus...
your dismissal or religion recalls the old joke.
God is dead: Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead: God
we will see who has the last word -- maybe
Tue, 2007-06-12 05:13
#16
Sven
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
[b]Which is why nature will eventually toss humans into the trash bin of the universe.[/b]
Subject for next thread: Would that be a bad thing?
Tue, 2007-06-12 09:09
#17
ceti
That would be a good thread.
I can argue that one both ways.
We are evolutionary dead end, our development a cancerous growth on the earth, and climate change a fever to put us back in our place!
Or we are a bit of starstuff pondering the stars, a bit of cosmic dust that has become aware of the cosmos, and so we speak for earth and we owe survival not only to our planetary cradle, but the universe from we have sprung (paraphrasing Carl Sagan here).
Tue, 2007-06-12 09:29
#18
There are some interestingly close minded views around religion here. Now, I'm a self proclaimed prophet of my own religion (no, you can't join, sorry.... you can however donate to the Church) and have my own beliefs about 'God' as it is, so I can't claim any specific religious beliefs but discounting God entirely is as fundamentally flawed as believing in Creationism.
I do find that ORGANIZED and specifically FUNDAMENTALIST Organized religions are absolutely a problem, however as already pointed out, there are many 'good' churches, and church communities.
In addition, sirituality and the search for a connection with God isn't something trivial to many people and to say it's pointless or valueless is discounting the personal improvements people make due to religion and God.
So back to the point at hand, is it useful? Definitely, for some people.
Should it be forced on anyone? Hell no, in fact, I find it dishonest to bring up a child in one church simply because YOU chose it, or you were brought up in that Church. The quest for spirituality is a solity one, and your views should be your own.
Should churches be tax exempt? Hell no. They provide a service for the community, yes, but they also impose on the political, economic, and social system. Anyone with that power should be paying back into the system.
Tue, 2007-06-12 09:34
#19
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:
[b]Or we are a bit of starstuff pondering the stars, a bit of cosmic dust that has become aware of the cosmos, and so we speak for earth and we owe survival not only to our planetary cradle, but the universe from we have sprung (paraphrasing Carl Sagan here).[/b]
And here both science and spirituality can enter.
Tue, 2007-06-12 10:06
#20
remind
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[b]...discounting God entirely is as fundamentally flawed as believing in Creationism.[/b]
Thank you, this is my perception as well.
quote:
[b]In addition, sirituality and the search for a connection with God isn't something trivial to many people and to say it's pointless or valueless is discounting the personal improvements people make due to religion and God.[/b]
Actually, I strongly disagree with this. As, this attitude, of believing something outside of one's self is where credit is due is wrong and dangerous. It divorces one's self from taking responsibility for one's own actions, be they good or bad.
It is the people who have made the changes themselves, if they do not acknowledge this truth, then they can never take responsibility for their actions. Why? Because they believe control of their actions, somehow exists outside of themselves, and is controlled by some mysterious force. This belief at its extreme degree is dangerous. Also,IMV, that is the main reason why 12 Step programs have such a high failure rate.
quote:
[b]So back to the point at hand, is it useful? Definitely, for some people. [/b]
IMV, there is no way you can definitely say this.
quote:
[b]...I find it dishonest to bring up a child in one church simply because YOU chose it, or you were brought up in that Church. The quest for spirituality is a solity one, and your views should be your own.[/b]
This is the way my family raises(d)their children. The Path to spirituality, is equal to the point of eventual self-realization acheived, and the journey for the most part is solitary, but with many shared cross roads, with others who are upon their own Path.
quote:
[b]Should churches be tax exempt? Hell no.[/b]
I concur, they should be paying taxes.
Tue, 2007-06-12 10:31
#21
quote:
The major conflicts of the 20th century weren't fought over religion, but ideology, imperialist rivalries, and the struggle for national liberation. Even sectarian conflicts were sparked by broader political and economic factors, as opposed to religious identification alone.
Sure that is true but religion has brought massive inequality for women, segregation, slavery and a host of other evils, many of which we are still trying to make up for today. Look what organized religion has done to the First nations people. Look what it has done to people of colour. You can argue that man has done that, but without religion would man have gotten not only the justification for such evils, but widespread social acceptance of same? Not likely.
quote:
For humans to evolve and come to grips with our place in the eco-system, religion, particularly religions that preach "dominion-ism" must be tossed into the trash bin of history.
Absolutely agree, and I'll go even further. People must come to grips with the fact that we need to treat nature itself better. Humans need to understand that nature is doing us a favour and we are killing it. If respect for nature were drilled into our collective conscience as much as respect for some white dude in the sky is, we'd be much better off.
quote:
discounting God entirely is as fundamentally flawed as believing in Creationism
How so? That is quite the weird statement. I discount God. I see zero correlation between discounting God and the belief in Creationism. You can't prove God exists. Creationism is based upon belief systems, not facts. What am I missing here?
I find it closed minded that those who are religious can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that many of us do not and will not believe in 'their' god.
I believe in the power of nature. That is not a religion, and I find it offensive to tie spirituality in with religion. One can be very spiritual without believing in god.
Tue, 2007-06-12 10:34
#22
Frustrated Mess
quote:
I certainly would not prefer the teachings of Mohammed over those of Jesus...
Why not? Have you studied both, er, religiously? Or is their just a bit of old time religious bigotry in that response? A "my prophet is better than your prophet" response? Not that I'd want to start a religious war or anything. Those fervent believers are quite bloody.
quote:
your dismissal or religion recalls the old joke.God is dead: Nietzsche
Nietzsche is dead: Godwe will see who has the last word -- maybe
I see the joke, I think. Nietzsche [i]is[/i] dead; God was never alive. The last word belongs to nature and it is: "Bye".
Tue, 2007-06-12 10:38
#23
I'm often accused of being anti-religious but for the most part I would say I feel much the same as Quelar describes above. I get hot under the collar because of the assumption that non-religious people are somehow inferior, immoral, bad examples, etc. Or that my sense of wonder and appreciation of nature and the universe can't be as full as those of the believer.
So some people are inspired to do good things by their faith. Good for them. Does the good outweigh the evil done in the name of religion? Depends who you ask; I'm inclined to think not.
I just wish it was understood that every single wonderful, charitable, good and kind thing you can do in the name of any religion you can also do without mentioning or believing in any deity(s) at all.
Is belief in Santa Claus useful in the 21st century?
Tue, 2007-06-12 10:39
#24
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
Actually, I strongly disagree with this. As, this attitude, of believing something outside of one's self is where credit is due is wrong and dangerous. It divorces one's self from taking responsibility for one's own actions, be they good or bad.
[/b]
Not in my view. Although God is the impetus behind some improvements, it does not take away from the fact that you are trying to be a 'better' person. I guess this is the difference I have with many religious folks about the difference between an active (playing his hand) and the inactive God I see (the watchmaker in the sky). I see your point though, and this one would come down to a matter of how you see God's involvement (in the case of fundamentalists, God tends to be VERY involved, which is an issue with me)
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
IMV, there is no way you can definitely say this.
[/b]
Ok, I can DEFINITELY say that people BELIEVE that. Whether it's true or not is up to.. ah..the heavens??
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
but with many shared cross roads, with others who are upon their own Path.
[/b]
And this is the case where I see religion as a part of society as being useful. When paths cross and discussions are open (still very rare unfortunately) then these crossings can be useful to all involved. Too bad religious discussions tend to be about either God existance or not or My book is more true than your book.
True debate is hard to come by, which is why I respect a number of eastern religions (Taoism and Buddhism) and Judaism, which allow and encourage direct discussion of the texts, and the principles.
Tue, 2007-06-12 11:02
#25
quote:
Absolutely agree, and I'll go even further. People must come to grips with the fact that we need to treat nature itself better. Humans need to understand that nature is doing us a favour and we are killing it. If respect for nature were drilled into our collective conscience as much as respect for some white dude in the sky is, we'd be much better off.
This is another excellent point that I wish I had made! We would probably have a much better understanding of our our place in the universe and the effects of our actions on our environment if we had shed the notion that it was all put here for us by our loving and mysterious invisible sky dude a few centuries ago.
Tue, 2007-06-12 11:02
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[b]Not in my view. Although God is the impetus behind some improvements, it does not take away from the fact that you are trying to be a 'better' person.[/b]
No, when you put the mythos aside, it is the individual who is seeking to be different, because they are sick and tired of their actions and want to change them. It is not for "God" is for self. And it is still putting the locus of control outside of one's self. And people really are not trying to be "better" people, per se, they are to to realize SELF.
quote:
[b]And this is the case where I see religion as a part of society as being useful. When paths cross and discussions are open (still very rare unfortunately) then these crossings can be useful to all involved. [/b]
When religion is entered into to for relions sake, it is not useful.
When religion is used as a tool, on the Path to find one's self, it contains nuggets, for the person to pick up and move along with.
quote:
[b]True debate is hard to come by[/b]
That is because people are usually woefully mis-informed by the people who control the religious type to which they belong. It is dogma, not enlightenment.
Tue, 2007-06-12 11:10
#27
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]
No, when you put the mythos aside, it is the individual who is seeking to be different, because they are sick and tired of their actions and want to change them. It is not for "God" is for self. And it is still putting the locus of control outside of one's self. And people really are not trying to be "better" people, per se, they are to to realize SELF.[/b]
[In my best Deepak Chopra voice] But is to realize the SELF not to realize the implications of God and Spirituality all around you? You cannot disassociate yourself from the power of the universe, so what is the purpose of trying to disassociate the Universe from the power of the SELF?{[/In my best Deepak Chopra voice]
Tue, 2007-06-12 11:48
#28
remind
quote:
Originally posted by quelar:
[b][In my best Deepak Chopra voice] But is to realize the SELF not to realize the implications of God and Spirituality all around you? You cannot disassociate yourself from the power of the universe, so what is the purpose of trying to disassociate the Universe from the power of the SELF?{[/In my best Deepak Chopra voice][/b]
It does not matter the potential result, it is the intent to change, is what was discussed, and that it is motivated for reasons of SELF.
The state of self-realization brings further understanding of the interconnectedness of all, and of the infinite, or eternal, that can be neither created nor destroyed, only transformed.
The first key is taking ownership of one's actions, and not farming responsibility out to another.
Tue, 2007-06-12 17:13
#29
Religion is quite usefull in the 21st century. But like Professor Frinks death ray, it really only has evil applications.
Wed, 2007-06-13 01:17
#30
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
When religion is used as a tool, on the Path to find one's self, it contains nuggets, for the person to pick up and move along with…The state of self-realization brings further understanding of the interconnectedness of all...
I agree.
Although it can’t be denied, religion can be applied in bad ass evil ways.
Wed, 2007-06-13 01:46
#31
I've modified the thread title to include "spirituality" (which I mentioned in my original opening post). I hope this doesn't change the topic too drastically in the view of others. In my view religion and spirituality are closely linked.
Religion can inform us how to be better towards each other. But it can obviously be perverted to motivate and excuse atrocities.
I define spirituality as one's own private belief in a greater "something". It can draw much from what religions have to teach.
The thread title also asks about the 21st century. I think most people on this board can see what's on the horizon.
The future is not pretty, I think we can imagine ourselves on a big passenger ship with lifeboats for only a few. The water is entering the cargo hold at an accelerating rate, but the orchestra continues to play anyways.
As human population increases, and environmental degradation gets worse, stresses are going to mount. How are people going to behave towards each other?
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]
Wed, 2007-06-13 02:44
#32
Okay that is unfair Gram. You've changed the thread title in the middle of a question. A question in which at least one person said religion and spirituality are not linked.
Look, I am not religious. I do not believe in a God. That does not mean that I cannot have the same (and often better, morals). Please change it back. Also your dependence on tying religion and spirituality negates certain belief systems, like mine and others who follow earth based spirituality. Tying my beliefs to a religion is not cool.
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Stargazer ]
Wed, 2007-06-13 03:13
#33
Stargazer wrote: I do not believe in a God.
To quote Marcus Borg: Could you tell me about this God you don't believe in?
I had a roommate once who refused to call himself an atheist; he felt that was allowing the theists to frame the terms of the debate.
Wed, 2007-06-13 04:03
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Okay that is unfair Gram. You've changed the thread title in the middle of a question. A question in which at least one person said religion and spirituality are not linked.
[/b]
Hey, I mentioned both religion and spirituality in my original opening post, though regrettably not in the original title. But what diff does the title change make if people, starting with me in the first post, have already started discussing spirituality? I could start another thread that asks "Is spirituality useful for the 21st century?", but it would seem redundant, as some, like me, would argue that religion and spirituality are indeed closely linked, and then what, would they have to post on both threads? I'll change the title back if a moderator asks me to.
Wed, 2007-06-13 04:16
#35
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b] Tying my beliefs to a religion is not cool.
[/b]
I never said spiritual beliefs were [i]necessarily[/i] tied to a religion. (Hence the conjunction "and/or" in the opening post.)
On the other hand...I don't belong to one, but I find organized religion can be a source of spiritual guidance.
Religion and spirituality can be one and the same for some people. For others the two are mutually exclusive. I think this thread needs to accommodate this discussion.
Wed, 2007-06-13 09:24
#36
Frustrated Mess
quote:
We would probably have a much better understanding of our our place in the universe and the effects of our actions on our environment if we had shed the notion that it was all put here for us by our loving and mysterious invisible sky dude a few centuries ago.
Loving? You've never read your bible.
quote:
I never said spiritual beliefs were necessarily tied to a religion.
No, but you you did say "In my view religion and spirituality are closely linked" and to most people "linked" equals "tied". Is a dog tied to a tree not also linked to it? And then you added "I define spirituality as one's own private belief in a greater "something"," which is fine for you. But can't I have a spiritual experience by communing only with nature while refuting any belief in a "greater something"? If not, why not?
Wed, 2007-06-13 09:52
#37
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]Okay that is unfair Gram. You've changed the thread title in the middle of a question. A question in which at least one person said religion and spirituality are not linked.Look, I am not religious. I do not believe in a God. That does not mean that I cannot have the same (and often better, morals). Please change it back. Also your dependence on tying religion and spirituality negates certain belief systems, like mine and others who follow earth based spirituality. Tying my beliefs to a religion is not cool.[/b]
I agree with everythings stated. IMV, spirituality cannot be tied to religion. And it is definitely not appropriate to tie my belief structure to religion and it makes me very uncomfortable.
Wed, 2007-06-13 12:33
#38
quote:
Loving? You've never read your bible.
I was being sarcastic.
Wed, 2007-06-13 14:30
#39
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]IMV, spirituality cannot be tied to religion. And it is definitely not appropriate to tie my belief structure to religion and it makes me very uncomfortable.[/b]
I wonder at this, remind. For me, I have discovered FN traditionalism very late in my life, and am a poor acolyte (as it were) yet I find that the messages resonate intellectually with me. Given the thousands of years of practice, and the long standing institutionalization of the belief structure and ritual, I have no problem in identifying the particular type of Aboriginal spiritual pratice I am familiar with as religion. Now, should we debate Xianity and its effects within "Empire" that is different. However, I can still appreciate and have care for the reverence and ritual within this structure, whatever it's history among my peoples. And I do love the structure of Cathedral and the heart rending plain chant of the 16th century. I believe there are elements within every culture which seek that which is beyond the physical, and the perception of such is not delusion, but a mere touch of something grander.
Wed, 2007-06-13 14:41
#40
remind
Gregorian Chanting do you mean, Makwa?
I would not feel comfortable equating the FN spiritual practises I am familiar with as a religion.
And Cathedrals really fucking piss me off!
Wed, 2007-06-13 15:14
#41
Boom Boom
I like most cathedrals, myself, and I've visited Anglican (I'm Anglican) cathedrals across Canada, the US, and the UK. I especially like the ones in Quebec City, Ottawa, New York City, Cleveland, Virginia (it's an outdoors environment, set on a hillside), Manchester, Liverpool, and my favourite, in Chester, England. The RC cathedral in Manchester is a round building, with the altar set in the middle, and pews for the congregation emanating out from the altar. Interesting, but I didn't like it. It's a building that's also prone to water leaks for some reason. I'd like to see the Canterbury and Coventry cathedrals sometime.
ETA: I spent a day inside the National Cathedral in Washington - probably the largest cathedral I've ever visited. It's [i]huge[/i]. There was an Ordination the evening of the day I was there, and the cathedral was more than 3/4 full - must have been 3,000+ people inside.
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
Wed, 2007-06-13 15:37
#42
Makwa
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Gregorian Chanting do you mean, Makwa?[/b]
Yes, partially. Gregorian chant is a subset of the historical Catholic liturgy known as plainsong or plain chant. Essentially, accapella sacred music of many centuries in Europe. Tres Goth. Anyway, I am confused why you would consider my FN spiritual practices non-religious? There are traditions, teachings, places of worship (sweatlodge, shaking tent, etc.) leaders, healers, students, practices, prophets etc. Seems like a very long standing (some tens of thousand of years) religion to me.
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: Makwa ]
Wed, 2007-06-13 16:07
#43
remind
Religion, according to my personal accepted definition is conducted with "scrupulous conformity" and I do not perceive FN's spiritual practises as being that. Nor do I percieve them as having one ultimate diety.
Wed, 2007-06-13 17:49
#44
Boom Boom
Speaking just for myself, there are times when I appreciate conformity in religious liturgy, partly because it makes the service easy to follow - I've memorized much of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the Book of Alternative Services over the years. I also appreciate a break from conformity as when on special occasions - say a summer camp - the minister might put together a service that reflects the beauty of the surrounding environment. When I lived in the city, I've attended services in other denominations and other faiths, and I find a mix of conformity and open services. Even in our little social activist commune in Toronto in the 1970s, one of our members, being Jewish, wanted to have a service with the rest of us in the house, a Passover Seder, and we all obliged. It was heavy with religious meaning and symbolism, and I enjoyed being a part of it, and we had this service each year after during the time the commune existed.
Wed, 2007-06-13 18:07
#45
remind
Yes, making the service easy to follow, is always a strong point for those who wish to indoctrinate groups in to conformity. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
And no, I am not denigrating, as part of my spiritual belief system is of the forces of energy, and in which one of them is chaotic energy.
From this perspective, I believe that symbolic ritualism, as contained in religion, is part of another force of creation, and is equally as needed, as it's opposite.
Personally, I have found, I function best in a state of non-conformity, or in seemingly chaotic by way of actions. Though really, in the larger scheme, perceived solely by self sometimes, there really is a extended method, and outcome. I suspect this true for chaotic energy as well, there just isn't enough data yet to quantify what it is doing long term.
Wed, 2007-06-13 18:24
#46
RE: adding "spirituality" to the thread title
If the mods ask me to take it out, I will. But that would lead to me starting up at least one more thread that asks a very similar question.
Why not everyone clarify their own personal distinctions between religion and spirituality - and the usefulness of each for the 21st century - on one thread?
Some people think religion isn't useful, but that spirituality is. Others might think vice versa. Still others might think neither are useful.
So mods and all, I think we should keep this discussion within one thread.
ETA: And then others might have different definitions of spirituality, which is also open to discussion.
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]
Wed, 2007-06-13 18:38
#47
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
No, but you you did say "In my view religion and spirituality are closely linked" and to most people "linked" equals "tied". Is a dog tied to a tree not also linked to it? And then you added "I define spirituality as one's own private belief in a greater "something"," which is fine for you. But can't I have a spiritual experience by communing only with nature while refuting any belief in a "greater something"? If not, why not?
Sure you can.
I meant the slash between "religion" and "spirituality" to mean "and/or", as I wrote in my unedited original opening post. I'm not the only one who sees there might be a connection between these two words. It is up to individual posters to articulate the distinctions they draw between these two words. For me they are not identical, but yeah, they are closely linked - for me. If you want to uncouple them, you are free to do so, and say
"organized religion: absolutely useless; spirituality: indispensable", or whatever.
When I say they are not [i]necessarily[/i] linked, it's because I do not want to speak for everyone nor about all situations. The thread title modification was not meant to speak for other babblers, it was done to clarify the larger bounds of the discussion, as I did in the ORIGINAL OPENING POST.
[ 13 June 2007: Message edited by: gram swaraj ]
Wed, 2007-06-13 19:07
#48
Boom Boom
I grew up in a family that tried to get to their United Church every Sunday morning, and my summers were spent at a camp co-sponsored by the Ottawa Boy's Club and the United Church of Canada. I loved that camp, my brothers and I spent probably five summers there, each, and this was in the 1950s. We all dropped out of church during our teenaged years. At university I felt there was something lacking in my life and I drifted back to church, but now to the Anglicans, mostly because I loved their liturgy, and the singing, but mostly because my girlfriend was Anglican and active in her church. I've been Anglican now for 31 years, and can't imagine my life without the church - it's so much a part of me. In university I studied christian social movements, and I identify strongly with the social activist gospel - a line stretching back to William Wilberforce and the abolition of the slave trade; to social activist priest F. D. Maurice; all the way up to Anglican priest and former Toronto NDP MP Dan Heap. Some may say their spirituality is expressed in their social outreach and activism.
Wed, 2007-06-13 19:11
#49
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]And it is definitely not appropriate to tie my belief structure to religion and it makes me very uncomfortable.[/b]
Like I said, the thread title modification was not meant to tie your belief structure to religion. You've decoupled spirituality and religion for yourself just now, which is perfectly fine. Why is everyone getting so upset when you are all, I assume, adults who can and will articulate this distinction for yourselves?
Wed, 2007-06-13 19:28
#50
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b] I would not feel comfortable equating the FN spiritual practises I am familiar with as a religion. And Cathedrals really fucking piss me off![/b]
Although Makwa, himself of FN descent, does make a connection between spiritual practice and religion.
I agree with Boom Boom, cathedrals are nice architecturally.
I would guess you, remind, have roots in Christianity, which might explain your adverse reaction to the word "religion."
Actually, I've never really encountered strong secularist/atheist views until a couple days ago on babble. Do most ardent secularists come from families with Christian backgrounds?
Wed, 2007-06-13 20:43
#51
remind
quote:
Originally posted by gram swaraj:
[b]Although Makwa, himself of FN descent, does make a connection between spiritual practice and religion.[/b]
I perceive FN spiritual practises, that I have experienced, with little or no conformity, and no monotheristic diety, or dieties. How Makwa experiences them is up to his own perceptions.
quote:
[b]I agree with Boom Boom, cathedrals are nice architecturally.[/b]
I see them as expressions of avarice, unmitigated hubris, and a false exploitation of peoples, that was in fact criminal in action. Their abouts as good as an example of IDOLS, that you can get.
quote:
[b]I would guess you, remind, have roots in Christianity, which might explain your adverse reaction to the word "religion."[/b]
In actual fact, my family were agnostic, and religion was never discussed because of blended Protestant and Jewish realities.
quote:
[b]Actually, I've never really encountered strong secularist/atheist views until a couple days ago on babble. Do most ardent secularists come from families with Christian backgrounds?[/b]
I think they come from all back grounds.
Canada is Canada, because of its hard separation of church and state stance, and ideology. Or rather, perhaps the intent of acheiving that.
Early Immigrants to Canada, were sick of religious strife, sick of monarchy's and their whims and the constant warfare religion and monarchy created. Here they also had the ability to become landowners.