Dick Wolff wrote:
> I might even dare to suggest that if you think you can get away
> *without* committing yourself to a particular religious path, you're
> kidding yourself that you're open to learning.
>
> Truth is either true or it's not, and religious truth is no exception.
> It has to be "proven" by faith experience, which comes from prior
> commitment. You can't get it second-hand from books. Admittedly human
> beings are good at kidding themselves things are true if they really
> need to believe them, but I can't go along with some of the posted
> suggestions that religious truth is purely subjective individual
> experience.
>
> If I believe God is as Christianity claims God is, then that's true for you
> as well as me. I may be wrong - the truth must be continually tested; I must
> keep learning. Doubtless there is some truth in many philosophical and
> religious systems. But to suggest that religions' claims to truth are
> equally valid, and it's a matter of 'what works for you' is *actually*
> a closed system of thought in itself. Tolerance comes from recognising
> that "I may be wrong" whilst having a firm position myself. Relativising
> all religion is not tolerance, and undermines the human capacity to learn.
>
I was pretty much with you until this point. Then I simply lost it.
Ana-Maria Rizzuto in the book The Birth of the Living God makes a very
strong point that God is created in our own image. After initial
rebellion to this idea, I calmed down and have since found it to be one
of the truest statements I have read concerning religion. If you look
carefully at an individual's characterization of God, you will find
some elements of father, mother, or significant others in that
individual's life. An over-bearing parent who exercises a great deal
of influence in an individual's life will typically yield a God who is
to be feared and who punishes at the slightest transgression.
Conversely, an individual who has loving and nuturing parents or
significant others (peers, friends, etc.) will typically have a God who
is more loving and forgiving, interested more in helping each person
learn and grow rather than damnation to Hell for any transgression.
I am reminded almost daily of something my Grandfather, a Cumberland
Presbyterian preacher, once said to me. "Religion is between man and
man; faith is between man and God."
Looking at Rizzuto's argument and considering what my Grandfather said,
I believe that a pretty good argument can bemade that experience with
God, faith, defining God, are all VERY personal, very indivdiual
experiences. My problems with religions in general, and Christianity
specifically, is the all-too-eager efforts to define God for me ...
according to someone ELSE's experience.
We all know that women can't do math and become engineers ... just as
us guys, we'll tell you. We all know that black people are lazy and
good for very little except manual labor ... just ask us white people,
we'll tell you. And, of course, we ALL know that God is (.......) ...
just ask us (....) we'll tell you.
My point is simply this: Whether God exists or not, whether God is
loving or punitive, whether Christianity is the answer to our problems
rather than Hindu or Buddhism, or Islam ... these are very personal
questions. They cannot be decided, nor IMO SHOULD they ge decided, for
one person by another person or a group. I dare say that my direct
personal experience with God has shown me that there are MANY ways to
experience oneness with that which we call God or Spirit, or Fred, or
whatever. The name is immaterial. What IS important is how we relate
to it. Christians profess to believe that we are saved by Grace
through Faith, not by our works. Yet, so many will quickly tell you
that unless you profess to believe what we believe and DO what we DO,
you are lost. That is a contradiction in message, plain and simple.
I believe that Jesus was (and is) the Son of God. I believe that
Buddha was (and is) the Son of God. I believe that Mohammed was (and
is) the Son of God. Each approached the subject of spirituality in
ways that were appropriate to his own culture. Many say that the
Mormons are crazy and that Jesus couldn't have possible appeared to the
South American Indians after his ascension in the Middle East. Why
not? Are we so arrogant that we can conclusively know what God had in
mind all along, simply because we didn't experience (and OUR book
doesn't say anything about) such an adjunct in Jesus' travels?
OF COURSE WE CAN, just ask us and we'll tell you.
I apologize for getting so emotional about this, and please understand
that this is not intended as a flame toward Dick. Dick simply,
finally, stated what so many others have talked all around. I have a
great deal of trouble when this is done because it opens the door to
rabid intolerance of any other possible interpretation or viewpoint.
If this is the essence of Christianity as a religion, then it and the
5th discipline principles are IMO, indeed, incompatible.
Rick, since you have sent some of my previous postings back for various
reasons, you may decide that this is simply too emotional to include.
I ask in advance that you let this one go.
[JR here, temporary LO host. I did let this one go, but I have serious
reservations about this entire thread, never mind this message. As
I've been reading the thread, I've been trying to decide if my concerns
are about the deep emotions brought up by the thread or by the subject
matter itself. I request that all of you please consider your thoughts
carefully, and the implications your words have for other people. One
of the reasons I have not contributed to this thread is that I am sure
I will just offend >90% of you, and still not get my point across.
Sorry for the interruption, back to your messages...
Johanna, jr@world.std.com]
I have resolved some time back that getting so excited about a subject
is not good. It obscures what I understand to be the the real intent
of my own spirituality (and I DO claim to be a Christian). Therefore,
I think I will stop reading this thread for a while since I am sure
that things will only serve to get me to this point again and probably
soon.
--Clyde Howell orgpsych@csra.net
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>