[causey]

Sometimes people talking against religion are as fervent as zealous "faithful"... That energy harbored in the soul, pitted against X or Y, might be related to the demon that original Christianity aimed to overcome.

In various forms religion has been around since the advent of man. Wouldn't it be odd if something as old as religion didn't have a deep significance? A significance profoundly related to the human form of life?

Believers, especially those zealots who nowadays generally call themselves Christians, miss the significance of faith, IMO. Focusing on beliefs as a way of caring for oneself is missing faith: what "I" believe makes up the image to which "I" hang insofar as it gives "me" a comforting idea of the world and of "my" place in it. The image is secure and it secures a place for "me" in the scheme of things--"I" understand "myself" in light of it. It yields "my" identity.

Religious or anti-religious, spiritualist or materialist, such an image is metaphysical. If I'm not grossly mistaken (which is as possible as anything) faith is anything but metaphysics. That is, it doesn't have anything to do with personal beliefs and thinking, nor with anything personal: "my" values, "my" ideas, "my" plans of life, "my" personal identity--"myself." My, my, my...The Ego, the obsession with who "I" am and the anxious caring for the "I". Faith is the overcoming of that form of internal life (motivation) which the personalized self (or ego) is. In faith, one ceases to keep to beliefs; one ceases to keep to images that give one a (necessarily false) sense of identity. In faith, one gets in touch with one's genuine self insofar as one ceases to keep to one's personal self. Only a disburdened self is free--free of all those "oughts" towards which the personalized construct of the self forces one's motivation.

Only when one ceases to care for one's ego has one become free. And meaning flows from one's non-personal--i.e., so to speak, "universal"--self, the self that is in genuine touch with oneself. In religious stories the state in which one receives meaning is called Heaven. I prefer to call it wholeheartedness. In that state one is unconcerned with images of afterlife. More generally, one is unconcerned with any metaphysical images (that is, images that presuppose beliefes concerning what lies beyond life). The wholehearted lives the only life that's available to him. (In a sense, he does not live in this world, which is a world of blind egos. He lives in a re-signified world, which is the world as it is--our world understood.) Living for meaning is proper living. Thus, suffering for meaning is the opposite of dyinig. It is overcoming death. It is "eternal life." The sacrifice of the ego (self-sacrifice) is what rises the soul in meaning--this, in my view, is the (non-metaphysical) significance of the Cross.

Faith has to do with understanding, not with belief; indeed, it is the root of understanding. Understanding is a kind of receiving; it is illumination. (Buddha is the one who has awakened--the Illuminated.) One does not make an effort in order to understand something. Attributing oneself merits for understanding already is a misunderstanding, since understanding can only come to a person, and it comes to a mind that's at peace with the soul (or the self, or the "inner"). One understands only with an open heart; only an open heart can receive meaning. Understanding is the reception of meaning. An open heart is the heart of someone who understands himself. Thus, self-understanding is self-reliance: it is reliance on the non-personal self, on the genuine self, on the sheer life in us, from which most of the time we are disconnected. The light of self-understanding and of self-reliance also comes from the pure depths of one's heart, not from the worried mind. The nameless and non-personal life that's the source of the meaning of anything--God. Nameless, because being in touch with it is not conceptual knowledge; it is not a kind of seeing. It is faith. Faith, the root of understanding.

Wasn't Jesus a Teacher before anything else? Of course, He was the Son of God, but so are we. It's just that He was the Son of God in ways that are much more authentic than ours. And He is alive in those for whom His life shows the Way. (Which needs not be exclusive showing--other things and traditions might point in the same direction. Exclusivism would be contrary to the spirit of this showing.)

All religion(s) has a "symbolic" significance which can be captured by anyone who realizes the futiliy of either embracing or battling metaphysically interpreted religious stories. Or so I think.

Happy Christmas everyone!

---

Last edited by causey; 12-21-2011 at 03:39 AM.

[Jasvox]

I am curios to the OP if you copied and pasted this "definition" (defamation) just a few days before Christmas for a particular reason, or just in order to take a cheap shot at those who relate with Christianity and enjoy celebrating Christmas?

Jason

[ihasa]

A history teacher once told me that religion was invented by the rich to opress the poor.
When you start to think about it and look things up you'll see some connections.

I think it's more accurate to say that religion usually gets hijacked by the rich to oppress the poor. I don't think Jesus can ever have had in mind the monster that was created in his name... If he had known he probably wouldn't have bothered

[causey]

I think it's more accurate to say that religion usually gets hijacked by the rich to oppress the poor. I don't think Jesus can ever have had in mind the monster that was created in his name... If he had known he probably wouldn't have bothered

Amen to that.

[Falke]

religion usually gets hijacked by the rich to oppress the poor

That makes sense and has always been the case - at least in the case of Christianity.

Besides....God? I don't think she would care that I don't believe in her.

[jolepp]

...

Besides....God? I don't think she would care that I don't believe in her.

I suspect some people who insist they are Chirstian would like to have you burned at the stake for the choice of pronoun alone.

[newmikey]

Being Jewish myself I've had some issues as well accepting the fact that a hundreds of years old man managed to climb a mountain to just happen to find 3 stone tablets with 15 commandments(*) with 2 of which his merry band then walked through the desert for a looongish time before finding a land of milk and honey that he himself never got to enter.

(*) As per Mel Brooks' HOW part II the 3rd tablet must have slipped from the old guys' hands and crashed to bits on the rocky desert floor, a fact many people ignore although its source is at least as reliable as many other sources.

[GeneV]

Some say they believe in God, but not in organized religion. Some may wonder why Christians need someone (priest, pastor, etc.) to define your beliefs.

Christians are no different there than anyone else. But that is a very good question.

[GeneV]

I think it's more accurate to say that religion usually gets hijacked by the rich to oppress the poor. I don't think Jesus can ever have had in mind the monster that was created in his name... If he had known he probably wouldn't have bothered

And that hijacking usually happens with church and ruler marry. It would be fascinating to experience pre-Constantine Christianity.

[JohnBee]

I think it's more accurate to say that religion usually gets hijacked by the rich to oppress the poor. I don't think Jesus can ever have had in mind the monster that was created in his name... If he had known he probably wouldn't have bothered

Not only that, who could be Poorer than Jesus?
The man had no home, no belongings, flashy garments, jewelry. He didn't even have a church. In fact... Jesus stood against everything the wealthy stands for and so there simply is no way Christianity could cater to the rich when you think about it.

[causey]

Not only that, who could be Poorer than Jesus?
The man had no home, no belongings, flashy garments, jewelry. He didn't even have a church. In fact... Jesus stood against everything the wealthy stands for and so there simply is no way Christianity could cater to the rich when you think about it.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

[mikemike]

I watched an interesting show on PBS last night which expressed the difference, or polarization between Christians and non-Christians, and more specifically, two separate factions of Christians.
Christianity is defined for some as being compassionate, helpful and accepting of others. I can't say that I am extremely religious, but I like this form of Christianity. Somehow there is a segment of Christians that seem to be opposite from this vision of Christianity. This group is drawn towards hate based on someone's sexual orientation etc. This, to me, is anything but Christian and I think this is why so many are walking away from Christianity.

Or simply the belief that it is better to give than receive, love than be loved, ... It is too easy to get lost in all the metaphysical mumbo jumbo. It's all about the message. Other than that, it is quite easy to shoot apart any ancient belief system.

If you take the self-sired zombie out of CHRISTianity, you are still a moral and loving person but happen to be an atheist, jew, muslim, hindu, or wiccan are you still a Christian by the merit of your behavior? No.

If you are a child molester, rapist, murderer, thief, or a preacher advising poor people to donate to their church before paying their light bill but you accept Christ as your God, Lord, and Savior are you still a Christian by merit of your belief? Yes.

Christianity advices its followers to obey a certain moral code, which is good, but it does not reject people who fail to meet that code and does not accept people into the "flock" based solely on their character without them rejecting other beliefs or non-belief.

[causey]

If you take the self-sired zombie out of CHRISTianity, you are still a moral and loving person but happen to be an atheist, jew, muslim, hindu, or wiccan are you still a Christian by the merit of your behavior? No.

If you are a child molester, rapist, murderer, thief, or a preacher advising poor people to donate to their church before paying their light bill but you accept Christ as your God, Lord, and Savior are you still a Christian by merit of your belief? Yes.

Christianity advices its followers to obey a certain moral code, which is good, but it does not reject people who fail to meet that code and does not accept people into the "flock" based solely on their character without them rejecting other beliefs or non-belief.

You can think of a religious group--call it Christian--in two ways. The first one presupposes a kind of club membership that's ascribed to individuals at birth and which refers to a number of properties that members must have (such that gays, for instance, cannot belong to the group). The club has rules, rituals, etc. This sort of membership is exclusivist; hence my calling it "club membership." But belonging to a religious group need not be exclusivist.

People with a certain kind of understanding, who experience the world in a certain way, may recognize each other and come together in virtue of--so to speak--a "force higher than themselves," which they also acknowledge. They may call themselves Christians insofar as they take Christ's life as showing the Way with which their understanding resonates. After all, it is the Way that brings them together in the first place. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (But they may gather within a different--say, Buddhist--tradition if they happen to be close to that tradition.) Which doesn't mean they would reject others, since the Way that brings them together in the first place applies to all. (I avoid saying it's universal, since although the religious experience is in principle open to all, not all will be open to having it.)

Besides, genuinely religious people could not reject another's beliefs, because faith has nothing to do with belief and does not care about belief. Taking belief for faith is a category mistake.

Early Christians were calling themselves "philosophers."

[JohnBee]

If you take the self-sired zombie out of CHRISTianity, you are still a moral and loving person but happen to be an atheist, jew, muslim, hindu, or wiccan are you still a Christian by the merit of your behavior? No.

If you are a child molester, rapist, murderer, thief, or a preacher advising poor people to donate to their church before paying their light bill but you accept Christ as your God, Lord, and Savior are you still a Christian by merit of your belief? Yes.

Christianity advices its followers to obey a certain moral code, which is good, but it does not reject people who fail to meet that code and does not accept people into the "flock" based solely on their character without them rejecting other beliefs or non-belief.

The problem here seems to be where Christianity hasn't been properly defined. Granted, anyone can call themselves Christians today(and many do). But that hardly means they are actually living up to the claim in the end.

ie. can a child molester claim to be Christian while he is actually molesting or hiding his wrongful deeds from others? Has he faced the consequences of his actions under the law in an effort to earn genuine repentance? The same can be said for the murderer, thief and rapist. None of which could ever claim to be Christian while either practicing or hiding the consequences of their actions from those around them. And so a genuine repentance(AKA. the new personality) is far more demanding than many would care to admit.

In closing I'd point-out that the bible is quite clear as to what is required to be a Christian, and contrary to many religious enterprises today, it does not involve paying fee's and retiring. And so I think the main issue with your illustration is where it doesn't take the terms of Christianity(by the book) into account, and is likely why there is controversy.

[kenafein]

The bible, taken as a whole, is a horrifying and disturbing book. It is no basis for morality. Most Christians scan the good parts, as they see them, and try to hold true to those. They make up their own individual religion and call themselves Christians. If that's what you want to believe, and you use it to make yourself a better person then fine, I really don't care. When people start pushing their will on others, standing in the way of education, civil rights and progress then the gloves come off. At that point I hold them accountable for their viewpoint, I will not show reverence, I will fight with time, money and words. Ridicule does have its place, but this doesn't seem to be it, this was unprovoked. I can take a joke, and I imagine most Christians can too, when the atheist version of this goes around I don't take offense, unless offense was intended.