oui
Create your own religion
Posted on: 05/30/2013 14:18
Original link: http://www.alternet.org/books/why-we-must-reject-dogma-religious-frauds-and-find-our-own-truth?page=0%2C4&paging=off
Why We Must Reject the Dogma of Religious Frauds and Find Our Own Truth
May 16, 2013 |
The following is an excerpt from Create Your Own Religion: A How-To Book Without Instructions. Reprinted with permission.
The whole notion of creating one’s own religion goes against the claim made by many religions that they alone possess the Only Truth revealed to them by the deity of their choosing. In their eyes, religion is to be followed by human beings, but is never created by them. Countless people have been burned at the stake for simply urging others to challenge religious dogma and question beliefs. While this injunction is no longer followed literally, Jewish scriptures sanction the murder of anyone inviting us to change religious outlook. The Inquisition, which lasted over 600 years, fills the history of Christianity with plenty of mass killings of people whose only crime was holding unconventional opinions in matters of religion. Still today, in some Muslim countries, any Muslim who decides to abandon Islam faces the death penalty for apostasy.
Why such venom and brutality? Because many of those claiming to be speaking for God have little patience for people who want to figure out for themselves what life is about. What is so terrible about it? Because you should not search for what is wise and good. You should listen to what we tell you is wise and good.
In light of these attitudes, it should become clear why a call to “create your own religion” is by its very nature quite radical. But it doesn’t have to be that way. OK, since you are a most pleasant reader, I’ll share a secret with you. Lean toward me so that I may whisper it in your ear. . . . Everyone already creates their own religion. Some people just don’t lie about it.
Did I say something offensive or shocking? It’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it. At the risk of raising the blood pressure of some modern wannabe inquisitors, let’s look at the ugly truth for what it is. Despite their professed devotion to a text or a teacher or a path, even members of established religions don’t observe literally the dictates of their religion of choice. Many believers claim to be strict followers of their traditions, and some actually believe they are. But the reality is that they all are engaged to some degree in a selective reading of their sacred texts, adopting what suits them and rejecting the rest. It’s a simple process, really. Pick up the sacred books of your religion, look for passages supporting your values, and adapt them a little to your liking. Then highlight their importance in the overall balance of the religion, and conveniently forget all those other unsavory passages that either downright contradict your values or support behaviors and attitudes that don’t fit with your inclinations. Rather than having the guts to admit what they are doing and openly defend their right to pick and choose the passages they want to live their lives by, most people prefer hiding under the fable that their particular take on religion is the only correct one. All other people who put the accent on different messages and values contained in the same scriptures, they claim, are heretics who are twisting the essence of the religion. If this strikes you as intellectually dishonest, it’s because it is.
Hey Bolelli, are you really accusing billions of orthodox believers worldwide of being consummate liars? Not necessarily. Some don’t lie consciously. They just happen to be masters at self-delusion, so skilled at lying to themselves that they can do it without ever becoming aware of it. Why would they do this? you may ask. Because it would be too scary to take responsibility for choosing which values, among so many, to live by. It’s much more reassuring to go on pretending that one’s values are the only true eternal ones that enjoy God’s stamp of approval.
Other believers, on the other hand, don’t lie at all—not even subconsciously. What shields them from facing the contradictions that exist in every religious tradition, including their own, is plain old ignorance. As is the case with many faithful followers, their ac-tual knowledge just doesn’t match their religious passion. Great numbers of Christians have never read the Bible cover to cover. Many Muslims only know the Koran through the passages their preachers decide to share with them. The same goes for the adherents of most religions. In the absence of direct knowledge, most people end up espousing some simplistic fairy tale version of what they believe their religion is about, never bothering to find out that reality is quite a bit more complicated. They are too lazy and unwilling to deal with complexity to want to dig a little deeper. It is easy to avoid facing contradictions if you don’t know about them. And the dealers of second-hand religious fairy tales are very careful to feed their audience only coherent, simple stories that will not require them to ask questions and think for themselves. Still mad about the day when they were told that there is no Santa, masses of people swallow up these stories and gladly ask for more.
Even if ignorance were not so widespread, things would not be much simpler. If you care to lean toward me again, I’ll share with you one more secret: most sacred books revered by various religions are filled with internal contradictions. Since the contradictory character of most scriptures leads believers to pick and choose which passages to follow and which to ignore, it should come as no surprise that the very same sacred books have been used to support drasti-cally opposite ideas. During the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln noted that, “Both [Southern and Northern soldiers] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other.”6 It was in this same time period, after all, that Christians used the Bible to argue for the abolition of slavery while just as many Christians found in the Bible the ideological ammunition to support slavery as a divinely ordained institution.
Other time periods tell the same tale. Early Christians were as divided then as modern Christians are today. For example, Saint Paul advocated celibacy and held a very negative view of any type of physical pleasure, whereas second century CE Christian teacher Carpocrates stirred his followers toward juicy sexual orgies. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian and so were the members of the Ku Klux Klan. Protestants and Catholics have slaughtered each other for a couple of hundred years all in the name of Jesus. Even today, you can find Christians who are gay and Christians who consider homosexuality to be the most horrid of sins; Christian feminists and Christians who abhor feminism; anticapitalist Christians who view the accumulation of wealth as a sin, and Christians who believe wealth to be a sign of divine blessing; Christians who are very liberal, and Christians who are very conservative. Naturally, they all believe God supports their point of view.
This same story could be repeated about pretty much any other religion. Each denomination is usually firmly convinced that it is the only one that is faithful to the original message of its tradition and accuse all others of having strayed away. The simple fact that every religion always gives rise to multiple variations (Christianity, for example, has over 30,000 different denominations) is enough to tell us that Truth with a capital t is not exactly self-evident.
Trying to figure out who is right is a hopeless undertaking. We are too far removed from the origins of most religions to establish with any degree of certainty what the founders really meant. Most established religions, in fact, are based on shaky sources. Divine revelations seem to indulge in the very annoying habit of popping up in semiliterate corners of the world at a point in human history long before accurate, modern means of recording information were invented. What results, then, is an endless chain of revelations being told and retold over decades until somebody finally writes them down. Clearly, this is a process that leaves much room for error.
Did you ever play the game “Telephone” as a kid? Yeah, the game in which you whisper something in someone’s ear who then whispers it in somebody else’s ear, and so on down the line until the last person says out loud what he heard and everyone laughs because it usually has nothing to do with the original message. Imagine doing this for a few decades with a few thousand individuals before writing the results down. Then, let a few more decades/centuries go by before a council of “authorities” gets to vote on which versions are accurate and which ones need to be destroyed. As weird as it may sound, this is exactly how the modern versions of most sacred texts were produced. No wonder these texts are littered with contradictions. And it is on the authority of these very dubious, very old documents that followers then fight among themselves regarding the essence of the original message.
Far from being an obstacle, this confusion is a gift that most members of organized religions actually cherish. The fact that their prophets are long dead and little information is known about them makes it easier for followers to project their own ideas, values, and expectations onto their favorite authority figure—something that many believe gives more legitimacy to an ideology. This allows people to create their own religion within a respected, established tradition while keeping the appearance of following the “official” version.
In the midst of these endless arguments, the founders’ original intention is clouded beyond recognition. Organized religions end up killing the insights of the prophets/gods they supposedly revere. Like demented kids hugging a puppy too tight and crushing him to death out of “love,” followers destroy their founders’ teachings with blind devotion. The freshness, beauty, and vital energy of the original message dies a miserable death when the message is turned into dogma. And what followers are left to worship is the dried-up, mummified corpse of what was maybe once a wonderful idea.
What this book invites you to do is to take responsibility for your ideas and, without slavish devotion to dogma, create your own religion. Rather than groping the past to find justification for your values in centuries-old texts, and using revered corpses as a source of authority, it is time to grow the heart and guts to follow your own insights and defend them on their own worth. Don’t believe something because Buddha said it, or Jesus said it, or Muhammad said it. Don’t believe it because I say it. (OK, don’t listen to this last sentence. I just threw it in there to look democratic. Of course if I say it, you should blindly believe it.) Better yet, don’t believe anything at all that is not born out of your own experience. Belief is the habit of those too lazy or too scared to trust in themselves. Let’s try a more courageous path: find out for yourself. If we want to stop wiping each other out over religious dogma, this is the healthiest step we can take.
If rejecting dogma and nourishing the courage and creativity required to make our own choices is a good idea in all times and places, it is a talent that is becoming even more essential in today’s world. This, after all, is the age of globalization, choice, and syncretism. More people on earth have access to more information now than at any other point in human history. We know more about each other than ever before; ideas circle the globe at a speed our ancestors never even imagined. The most learned intellectual from just a couple of centuries ago had access to far less information than anyone alive today who happens to have Internet access. Being exposed to different stimuli and ideas coming to us from every corner of the world means we have more material to play with. It is only natural then that greater numbers of people are mixing the ingredients, making new connections, and revolutionizing traditions.
This explosion in creativity can be seen everywhere. For example, just about any song born today comes from the union of musical traditions that just a few decades ago had never been introduced to each other. “Fusion” seems to be the operative word at the root of everything, from the types of food we eat to the movies we watch—even the diverse ethnic makeup of many people alive here and now.
With every facet of human culture being touched by this rapid exchange of information, it only makes sense that religion would be affected as well. In the days before our globalized, interconnected world, people practiced whatever religion happened to be the dominant one in the country of their birth. Thankfully, the stupidity of the belief that by random luck one is born in the one true religious tradition, while the rest of the world needs to be shown the light, is beginning to become progressively more evident. In the face of increased knowledge and choices, traditional forms of authority are collapsing. Rigid identities—be they national, ideological, or religious—are becoming more obsolete. Prepackaged answers satisfy fewer and fewer people. Solutions and ideas that appeal to a particular place and time reveal themselves to be painfully narrow-minded in a global world. Many of the answers people still turn to were born in a world where one couldn’t see beyond the confines of one’s village—where what existed in the next valley was foreign, exciting, and mysterious. But this will no longer do. Nostalgically holding on to the past is not going to help us face a reality that’s changing at breakneck pace.
Damn, it’s an exciting time to be alive. We are just a few steps away from self-destruction, but we are also a few steps away from creating a better world that could exceed the imagination of the most optimistic prophets from our past. We are dancing on a tightrope stretched on the abyss, the destiny of the world in our hands. The weapons we take into battle are heart, vision, and creativity. What we need are new solutions that reflect the greater degree of knowledge and the radically different experiences that characterize the modern world.
The availability of a much wider range of choices is transforming the face of religion today. Many individuals belonging to several mainstream religions have responded by dramatically reshaping some of their core beliefs. Increasing numbers of people are opening new paths outside of the confines of mainstream religions altogether. Most traditional religions, in fact, change only under duress; otherwise, they resist change and any challenge to their authority with tooth and nail.
The most conservative, fundamentalist branches see the global world as a threat. To them, more choices mean more opportunity to fall in error and stray from the One True Way. In their worldview, choice is the Devil’s tool to lead us away from the truth. Confronted with a world offering greater chances for choosing one’s own way, their answer is to dig deeper trenches and become even more radically rigid. The more freedoms human history offers us, the more fundamentalists will fight them. Despite their mutual hatred for one another, Jerry Falwell and the Taliban are twins separated at birth—modernity makes both of them recoil in horror.
I see the global world as the greatest opportunity humanity has ever had. In my view, it is healthy for traditions to be challenged. If traditional values lose popularity, it’s either because they are poorly communicated or because they are not relevant anymore. No healthy solution was ever born from whining about the good old days. As Nietzsche puts it, “[The sage] does not acknowledge custom or tradition, but only new questions from life and new answers.”7 While it is not necessarily true that newer is always better, it is certainly true that any theory, religion, or philosophy that was born in the midst of intellectual poverty can only be improved upon today. Whatever was good in it will endure, and whatever fails will do so because it belongs to a darker, more ignorant world.
What we will do here then is take aim at all the central questions debated by different religions in order to see what gifts of wisdom the past has to offer us, and how we can use that to come up with our own answers.
Copyright © 2013 by Daniele Bolelli. Reprinted with permission of Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC.
Comments
chansen
Posted on: 05/30/2013 15:12
Why such venom and brutality? Because many of those claiming to be speaking for God have little patience for people who want to figure out for themselves what life is about. What is so terrible about it? Because you should not search for what is wise and good. You should listen to what we tell you is wise and good.
There's one other reason I can think of: Weakness. Religion is weak. It has no good reasons to believe it, so it has to puff up its chest and bully people into believing.
So, we see people getting mad about challenges to religious beliefs. We see people claiming offense and personal injury, and more who want to make calling out religion a hate crime at the UN and even in Canada. You see people arrested for opposing religions and exposing religious scams. Religion can not stand on it's own - it needs artificial support of some kind. It needs people to make threats of eternal torture, if not immediate torture. It needs people like Berserk/uccprogressive to lie for it and embellish and spread any anecdote in favour of the supernatural claims of religion, because there is no real evidence for any of it. It needs the easily lead to go out and spread the word of the scriptures to make them sound less crazy through repetition and baseless sincerity.
Back in the day, all that was much more effective, before we gained fast access to shared information and arguments for all sides. Now, in the light of the Internet, religion is crumbling faster than anyone could have thought possible just 15 years ago.
And in those instances where religion puts away the threats and becomes docile and accepting of others, it seems to simply crumble faster because there is still no reason to believe it, and no threats to worry about.
MikePaterson
Posted on: 05/30/2013 15:38
Oui: Faith is a always and necessarily a personal endeavour for every person. Unless a person formulates his or her own faith out of his or her personal experience, and finds meaning for that in some larger context that self, there is no "religion" there.
The Religions of the World can be helpful to some and not to others but, — they embed a lot of cultural baggage implicitly — and, like any sort of learning, they have no cnsequence until they are applied and lived by.
This is where the good and the evil are found and come into play. Physics has achieved son helpful, interesting things for the whole of humanity… and is complicit in every weapon of mass or personal destruction ever made.Bad applications of phtsics; bad applications of religion… or politics, or reason, or economics or whatever you like.
On the other hand. to formulate a personal "religion" all on your own is is very likely to be an act of ego-worship: we call it secularism. To invent a religion that's any use takes a movement of people. it takes exceptional open-ness to reality and a develop[ed awareness of self, society and the Universe. Making up your own makes as much sense as making yout own aeroplane.
Happy flying… can you guarantee your invention won't hurt other people?
InannaWhimsey
Posted on: 05/30/2013 15:51
i heartily endorse this thread
onward to the co-creating!
subnotes: "Old Dogs New Tricks: you never lose the ability to learn like a child" in the May 25-31, 2013 issue of NewScientist :3
Perennialism
as it looks like the act of observing does, indeed, 'create reality', what then the role of the ego and its containment/maintenance?
uccprogressive
Posted on: 05/30/2013 15:55
I once sat beside a drunk guy on a subway from Cambridge to downtown Boston. Though drunk, he poured out a raft of complaints about why he was so disillusioned with his own faith, Catholicism. I had only a few minutes before my stop, so I asked him to invent his own religion and share the truths that would emerge if he were in charge. He loved the idea and provided a very credible restatement of my own belief system. Almost everything he said could be justified bibically; he just didn't realize that. Since then, I've found this approach quiet effective because it helps flush out the noblest spiritual instincts of which the other person is currently capable and serves as a good foundation for helping that person launch a new quest that can be biblically grounded.
Pilgrims Progress
Posted on: 05/30/2013 18:13
Thank you, Oui, for posting this brilliant article......
I'd almost given up on reading anything "fresh" in the Religion and Faith forum until you posted this.
It's clear to me that, whatever we profess, we do "make up" our own religion.
I'm on the progressive side of the Christian spectrum because (1) I was raised in a Christian culture (as opposed say, to a Moslem) and (2) because of my own ethics values.
(By that I mean I'm a pacifist, and think condemnation based on one's sex, gender, or race is wrong).
Thus, if faith is belief based, I would define myself as a humanist or agnostic.
There is one reason - and only one reason - why I call myself a progressive Christian. I've experienced, rather than believe, in what others have defined as "The More" and I simply call "The Other" in my life.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/30/2013 18:18
Hello oui:
I am joining Inna in wholeheartedly endorsing this thread:
Yes, onward to the co-creation!
Actually, oui, you took my thread "How To Create Miracles" and improved it. The newly created miracles I hoped to encourage with my thread are the creation of our own faith.
Like Mike, I prefer to use the word "faith," because "religion" probably is formalized and institutionalized religion, although "religion" and "faith" are sometimes used interchangeably. The name of this forum is "Religion and Faith."
Religion presupposes some kind of faith, but faith does not necessarily mean organized religion, unless a particular faith becomes a popular movement which organizes itself into a religion. But creating our own faith is what I wanted to discuss on my thread. And this can be done within or without any organized religion.
Well, I'll continue posting on this thread, as well as on mine. Maybe some miracles will happen and some of us will create their own faith.
What I really wanted to discuss, though, was not the theory of creating our own faith but the "how to."
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/30/2013 18:40
One classic UU education program that I have not, alas, had a chance to participate in since my first year or so as an active UU, is "Building Your Own Theology". It's basically a series of sessions guiding people through examining their beliefs about various spiritual/religious issues with the endpoint being each person drafting their own "credo" or Statement of Faith. It's acknowledged right in the course that each person will be different and, more importantly, that it is a repeatable course that can, and should, be taken periodically rather than just once because our ideas and beliefs do evolve and change over time.
Mendalla
Arminius
Posted on: 05/30/2013 18:45
Excellent, Mendalla, I wish other denominations had similar courses!
BetteTheRed
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:03
I'm not sure why a progressive group couldn't use that course; I think mine could. There's actually a series of three books, each lending themselves to a 10-session program. Link to the first book at the UUA bookstore is here: http://www.uuabookstore.org/productdetails.cfm?PC=678
We should be sharing more resources across denominations. Our progressive group has relied very heavily on the Living the Questions materials from the U.S.
waterfall
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:17
I'm wondering, what would anyone add to their "new religion" that isn't already included in the Bible or other faiths?
Anyone got an example of something that's different?
Arminius
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:21
Hi BetteTheRed:
I see that Volume 1 of Building Your Own Theology is divided into ten sessions. Ideal for a book study group. And Volumes 2 and 3 are similarly divided. Perfect. Thanks!
BetteTheRed
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:27
I'm wondering, what would anyone add to their "new religion" that isn't already included in the Bible or other faiths?
Anyone got an example of something that's different?
I would add some very feminine Godde aspects to 'my' religion. I struggily mightily with all the masculine/Father images that seem to be central to most Christianity.
I'm not quite sure about Mary per the RCC, but I do think we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on that one.
BetteTheRed
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:29
Hi BetteTheRed:
I see that Volume 1 of Building Your Own Theology is divided into ten sessions. Ideal for a book study group. And Volumes 2 and 3 are similarly divided. Perfect. Thanks!
You're welcome. Seems to me that it would be perfect for a year-long project. 3 10 week 'semesters', with a bit of filler, would work well for my group.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:49
I'm wondering, what would anyone add to their "new religion" that isn't already included in the Bible or other faiths?
Anyone got an example of something that's different?
Hi waterfall:
If you look into wikipedia under "Theology," you get so many different theologies, it'll make your head spin. Also, the difference between "theism" and "deism" is well explained.
The advantage of wikipedea is that the initial explanations are brief and to the point. If you want do delve deeper, you can click on the subject or author of your choice and go deeper.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:32
Hi BetteTheRed:
I see that Volume 1 of Building Your Own Theology is divided into ten sessions. Ideal for a book study group. And Volumes 2 and 3 are similarly divided. Perfect. Thanks!
You're welcome. Seems to me that it would be perfect for a year-long project. 3 10 week 'semesters', with a bit of filler, would work well for my group.
Yes, exactly! Thanks again.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/30/2013 19:50
I'm wondering, what would anyone add to their "new religion" that isn't already included in the Bible or other faiths?
Anyone got an example of something that's different?
I would add some very feminine Godde aspects to 'my' religion. I struggily mightily with all the masculine/Father images that seem to be central to most Christianity.
I'm not quite sure about Mary per the RCC, but I do think we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater on that one.
Yes. The RC, for all its faults, has at least some aspects of Goddess worship.
I grew up in Catholic country, in Bavaria. The entire month of May was devoted to Mary, with a Mary worship each evening.
Sea Star, I salute you,
Oh Maria help!
Mother of God, you sweet one,
Oh Maria help!
Maria help us all
In our deep despair.
This is a verse of one of the Mary hymns that were typically sung in May.
Martin Luther, it seems, was Neo-Pauline, reinforcing the misogyny of Pauline Christianity.
uccprogressive
Posted on: 05/30/2013 20:05
Arminus, you do realize that Paul championed female leadership in th church. It was the Pauline "school" who muzzled women after his death.
waterfall
Posted on: 05/30/2013 20:26
I'm wondering, what would anyone add to their "new religion" that isn't already included in the Bible or other faiths?
Anyone got an example of something that's different?
Hi waterfall:
If you look into wikipedia under "Theology," you get so many different theologies, it'll make your head spin. Also, the difference between "theism" and "deism" is well explained.
The advantage of wikipedea is that the initial explanations are brief and to the point. If you want do delve deeper, you can click on the subject or author of your choice and go deeper.
Hey, that sounds like Wondercafe and when I want to go deeper I read books or sit on a mountaintop.
uccprogressive
Posted on: 05/30/2013 21:22
To me, the OP article makes illicit use of straw man stereotypes and largely replicates what many mainline pastors already do. Most of us start where you already are--your questions, beliefs, needs, and experiences. We don't confront prospective new members with 30 or so doctrinal distinctives that they must embrace to become members. In our Bible studies, we share standard interpretations of texts, but place the stress on each text's personal relevance and how the group members react to its teaching or attitude. We want each seeker to feel free to grow at their own pace--another way of saying they are free to develop their own unique spirituality. We take this approach because we discourage second-hand spirituality, a religion based solely on the experiences, beliefs, and expectations of others. Of course, sometimes our sermons ruffle feathers because we feel compelled to share our true convictions which may clash with those of others present.
If pastors could force each attender to take a surprise theology exam, even those who deem t themselves good United Methodists *my denomination) would vary widely in the details of their grasp of Scripture and the extent and depth of their belief system.
There is one idea in this vein that I do reject. Many say I can be just as good a Christian without ever attending church. At its core, Christian love requires participation in a spiritually supportive community that also serves as the center of outreach. But if some believers actively participate in a mutually supportive community that is not really a church, then I agree.
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/30/2013 21:46
I'm wondering, what would anyone add to their "new religion" that isn't already included in the Bible or other faiths?
Anyone got an example of something that's different?
There is nothing new under the sun, as someone (Shakespeare?) once said.
Even in an organized, established religion like Christianity, there is ultimately little that is really totally original. Much of what Jesus taught had ample precedent in previous Jewish teaching. Festivals like Christmas and Easter were built on the festivals of previous faiths. Christian theology owed much to classical philosophy.
In UU'ism we have the concept of sources, which I have spoken of here before. Essentially, through the sources we explicitly acknowledge that all (or at least most) of what we think and believe has come from somewhere or someone else.
Why would a personal religion be any different?
Creating/Building your own theology/religion isn't about creating something new. It's about how you understand your own sources (for you, primarily The Bible), how those sources shape your own thought, and how you live your life based on that understanding.
In the field of personal spiritual exploration, there is plenty of room to draw on a wide spectrum of existing ideas to recombine them in new ways without having to have wholly new ideas.
In my later Christian days, the Hindu vision of God from the Gita influenced how I saw God. So did my first encounter with process theology (in a course taught in a UCCan college by the way).
My ideas on my place in, and relationship to, the universe is largely built on my own reflections on science and my experience of nature.
I don't know that any of my insights are especially original to anyone but me, but they are insights that I have found meaningful and important and the way I understand and live them is certainly my own even the ideas are not.
Mendalla
Mendalla
Posted on: 05/30/2013 21:51
There is one idea in this vein that I do reject. Many say I can be just as good a Christian without ever attending church. At its core, Christian love requires participation in a spiritually supportive community that also serves as the center of outreach. But if some believers actively participate in a mutually supportive community that is not really a church, then I agree.
Overall, you are quite right on this. And it isn't just Christians. Most faiths require a degree of community. However, there are those believers (and I have met them) who find that a Christian church (or community of their faith if not Christian) is explicitly not a mutually supportive community. Thus you have Christians in UU or Unity congregations or not involved in a church at all simply because they cannot find a Christian church that gives that mutual acceptance (e.g. gay Christians, though that is changing thanks to churches like the UCCan and Metropolitan Community). Even in UU'ism, I've seen UUs go to Christian churches because they find the humanism of many UUs doesn't accept or support their beliefs.
Mendalla
Arminius
Posted on: 05/31/2013 00:53
Arminus, you do realize that Paul championed female leadership in th church. It was the Pauline "school" who muzzled women after his death.
Well, then, it was not Paul personally but the Pauline school that muzzled women. Now, that you say it, I do remember he appointed a woman as the leader of one of his diasporas. Was it Antioch?
If he was somewhat of a male chauvinist, then he merely reflected the spirit of his culture. One can hardly fault him for that. We all are conditioned by the culture we grow up in.
qwerty
Posted on: 05/31/2013 09:58
Holy crap! That was the longest topic introduction I ever saw! I didn't even try to read it. Sorry. Just sayin'.
Arminius
Posted on: 05/31/2013 17:21
Well, qwerty, you can speed-read it, as I did, and get the gist of it on the quick. It does not require deep-reading to get the meaning.
So what do you think of creating your own religion, world view, belief system, philosophy, or theology. I bet you've done it all along.
qwerty
Posted on: 06/01/2013 13:45
I think creating your own religion is fine. I steal liberally from other religions as well as science and when I'm finished I find that exactly none of the doctrines of my religion are unkind or hard to swallow.
It works for me!
Mendalla
Posted on: 06/01/2013 15:24
For me, I didn't consciously set out to create my own religion. For a long time it was an organic thing, with my thinking on spiritual/religious matters evolving in response to what I was reading and learning as well as my experience of the world. I didn't really think of it in terms of a conscious "creation" or "building" until I became UU and took "Building Your Own Theology". In some ways, I wish it was still the other way. I find I spend more time thinking about it consciously which often distracts from really getting into and finding where I'm really at spiritually.
Mendalla
Arminius
Posted on: 06/01/2013 15:35
After forays through atheism, Sufism, Zen Buddhism, and aboriginal spirituality, I realized that all religions pretty much have the unity of being at their core. They just express it differently due to different cultural traditions. Unfortunately, in some religions, the oneness of being is obscured or superceded by rigid dogmatism.
Neo
Posted on: 06/01/2013 15:45
I think creating your own religion is fine. I steal liberally from other religions as well as science and when I'm finished I find that exactly none of the doctrines of my religion are unkind or hard to swallow.
It works for me!
This works for me too Qwerty. In the end it always comes down to finding the truth from within.
yogggiii
Posted on: 06/03/2013 10:10
As a minister, I try to encourage people to intentionally think about their faith and ask themselves why they believe what they profess to believe? I mostly get blank stares. This is a wonderful article and it illustrates much of what I've been teaching for years.
In the United Church of Canada we profess to believe in the "primacy" of scripture. But, which scripture? Old Testament? New Testament? The writings of Paul? What the writers of the gospels say about Jesus? We do pick and choose what we want to believe...those things that fit in with our own opinions. I don't believe in having another person's experience of God. I want my own and encourage others to have their own. Therefore I shall continue to think for myself and encourage my congregation to think for themselves. There are, however, three things I will adhere to, and Jesus as well as others, said them. "Love God; love yourself; love others." If we could all just live our lives by this short phrase, life could certainly be much better.
chansen
Posted on: 06/03/2013 11:15
If you're going to be religious, I think assembling your own religion a la carte is probably the best way to do it. Automatically, you're doing away with anything that could be construed as "inerrancy" in the scriptures, as you're basically saying that parts of the bible and other texts are farked up, and you're going to sever the good parts from the bad and leave the rest of the books in tatters. I can agree with that.
And of course many Christians have no clue what they are supposed to believe. Most Christians haven't even read the entire bible. Polls on the topic suggest 10-25% of Christians have read the bible.
So, perhaps the answer is to have more people read the bible. Until you consider what's in the bible. And then consider that about the same percentage of atheists have read the bible, and actually score very well in biblical knowledge, usually beating Christians. That's why I say that one of the best ways to make an atheist, is to make someone read a bible.
Personally, I can't get through it. It's not the violence or the immorality - I just find it exceedingly boring. I can not bring myself to slog through it all. I'd rather be waterboarded.
The above is why I don't think it's the church, or the people, or institutionalism that is to blame for the decline in the number of believers and churchgoers. I think the problem is the bible and the beliefs themselves. You can be the absolute best salesperson in the world. You could sell ice to the Inuit, but with the free exchange of information and the advancement of science, you just can't sell a zombie son-of-God who is God. Not any more. It's getting impossible. Finally.
Neo
Posted on: 06/03/2013 12:40
I came across this quote today and wanted to share it with everyone. This seemed like the most likely topic to post it under.
The older order changeth, yielding place to new,
And God fulfils himself in many ways,
Lest one good custom should corrupt the world.
- Tennyson, Lord Alfred
I was led to this while reading the following from the Tibetan:
"In these days of the shattering of old form and the building of the new, adaptability is needed. We must avert the danger of crystallisation, through pliability and expansion. The "old order changeth", but primarily it is a change of dimension and aspect, and not of material or of foundation. The fundamentals have always been true. To each generation is given the part of conserving the essential features of the old and beloved form, but also of wisely expanding and enriching it. Each cycle must add the gain of further research and scientific endeavour, and subtract that which is worn out and of no value. Each age must build in the product and triumphs of its period, and abstract the accretions of the past that would dim and blur the outline. Above all, to each generation is given the joy of demonstrating the strength of the old foundations, and the opportunity to build upon these foundations a structure that will meet the needs of the inner evolving life."
Hopefully, in creating 7 billion new religions, we take this wisdom into account.
"We are like dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours."
- John Salisbury, 12th century theologian and author.
Arminius
Posted on: 06/03/2013 13:40
Didn't Einstein say something similar: "I have been able to see as far as I did only because I was sitting on the shoulders of giants."
Neo
Posted on: 06/03/2013 13:22
Many people did, but your quote was Issac Newton.
Kyle B
Posted on: 06/03/2013 22:47
This is one of the silliest and most incoherent rants I've read in a long time. The way he fails to link his ideas, many of which are purely based on emotional arguments, makes me feel embarrassed for him.
Ironically, he begins by seemingly rejecting incoherent reasoning, but in the end, invites his readers to embrace it.
dreamerman
Posted on: 06/04/2013 22:37
This is one of the silliest and most incoherent rants I've read in a long time. The way he fails to link his ideas, many of which are purely based on emotional arguments, makes me feel embarrassed for him.
Ironically, he begins by seemingly rejecting incoherent reasoning, but in the end, invites his readers to embrace it.
Kyle B
Posted on: 06/05/2013 03:20
Hey dreeeeeamerman,
What is all this about decency and mocking? If it was unclear, I was referring to none other than the words of the author of the big article at the top that we are all discussing, Daniele Bolelli :)
dreamerman
Posted on: 06/05/2013 17:41
Hey dreeeeeamerman,
What is all this about decency and mocking? If it was unclear, I was referring to none other than the words of the author of the big article at the top that we are all discussing, Daniele Bolelli :)
Kyle B
Posted on: 06/05/2013 19:24
dreamerman
So, are you asking who am I to judge, (in which case I would respond by asking who are you to judge me, and further point out that that is not a rebuttal to my statement), or whom was I speaking about (which I clarified)? I don't see any relation between both versions of your question my friend. And as for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry! :)
BetteTheRed
Posted on: 06/05/2013 21:38
The original post is an excerpt from a much larger book. Geo, would you please detail what it is about the exerpt that you found silly, incoherent, or indeed, 'ranting'? I'm almost wondering if we're reading the same OP. The author is an American history professor, not some self-published ranter or media twit. I doubt his academic peers think of his work as silly or incoherent.
Kyle B
Posted on: 06/06/2013 01:50
The author is an American history professor, not some self-published ranter or media twit. I doubt his academic peers think of his work as silly or incoherent.
If the man is merely an American history professor, then this further supports my point that what he is saying should not be taken seriously. In the same way, Dawkins speaks largely out of his field of expertise and has written embarrassingly ignorant critiques of religion, so bad that even his fellow atheists cringe.
What Bolelli has presented (at least in this excerpt) is a reproduction of recycled emotional anti-religious arguments in no particular order, starting out by calling out the incoherence (among other things) of the religious, but in the end, he invites his readers to embrace a form of incoherence all its own. If you would like, I will clarify this statement further when I have time.
revjohn
Posted on: 06/06/2013 07:33
Hi BetteTheRed,
I doubt his academic peers think of his work as silly or incoherent.
I cannot comment on what his academic peers think of his work. The book cited is not likely something that was submitted to an academic peer review. It is an obvious polemic laden with rhetorical gimmicks.
The book is published by Disinformation which doesn't make it self-published, it certainly doesn't rank as a reputable publishing source. Understanding that Wikipedia is not considered an academic resource it has this to say about Disinformation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinfo
For those interested Daniele Bolelli has a web page:
http://www.danielebolelli.com/
What I personally find most interesting about Bolelli's own page is that it has no links to anything that strikes me as academic. No journal articles or reviews. Most links appear to be concerned with his martial arts ability (he appears to be known well to the MMA community) and not his field of academic discipline.
He does note in his bio that he has taught as several colleges in Southern California, he fails to note which ones. That raises flags for me.
He also notes in his bio that "Unlike most scholars (he even uses rhetoric in his bio) who tend to specialize in one particular field of knowledge, Bolelli adopts a 'renaissance' man approach to teaching . . ."
While there is nothing wrong with writing your own bio, and probably nothing wrong with writing about yourself in the third person I am unable to take it seriously.
None of this means that the excerpt is "silly or incoherent" of course just because it isn't silly or incoherent it does not automatically become thoughtful or persuasive either.
Grace and peace to you.
John
BetteTheRed
Posted on: 06/06/2013 07:54
Geo, we're on a different page to start with. I think Richard Dawkins is brilliant, and just once, I'd actually like to see him fixed up in a debate with someone who actually has some points to argue. Most of the time, he's shooting fish in a barrel and it's a bit embarassing to watch what a poor defense of Christianity, or religion in general, are erected.
But I think that calling a long-ish, but reasonably well put-together excerpt (better than either you or I can write based on our posts here) "a silly and incoherent rant" without actually pointing out what is silly, incoherent or a rant is just a nasty and inadequate way to make an argument. It's a dismissal based on personal prejudice.
John, I think he must be an associate professor (or whatever they call non-tenured profs down there). There are two specifically mentioned on the Amazon synopsis of his book. I work in a Community College. We've got lots of part-time faculty who teach at two colleges to make a living. The academic life isn't the highway paved with gold some assume it to be.
revjohn
Posted on: 06/06/2013 08:16
Hi oui,
Why we must reject the dogma of religious frauds and find our own truth
I'm not fond of religious frauds either how do we identify who is or isn't a religious fraud?
Many of those claiming to be speaking for God have little patience for people who want to figure out for themselves what life is about.
Which, I'm presuming a polemic at play and not a point for debate.
The whole notion of creating one’s own religion goes against the claim made by many religions that they alone possess the Only Truth revealed to them by the deity of their choosing. In their eyes, religion is to be followed by human beings, but is never created by them.
If this was a point of discussion this would be the time for a proof. If it is a polemic a proof will not be offered.
Countless people have been burned at the stake for simply urging others to challenge religious dogma and question beliefs. While this injunction is no longer followed literally, Jewish scriptures sanction the murder of anyone inviting us to change religious outlook. The Inquisition, which lasted over 600 years, fills the history of Christianity with plenty of mass killings of people whose only crime was holding unconventional opinions in matters of religion. Still today, in some Muslim countries, any Muslim who decides to abandon Islam faces the death penalty for apostasy.
While all of this is historically true it does not engage the point made and it glosses over periods within history where vigorous debate shaped the face of religion. It also presupposes that a religious mindset does not grow or evolve in any way or shape. If it thought such was possible it would have noted that the Inquisitions that lasted 600 years (historically a succession of inquisitions and not one complete inquisition) were geographically limited and that all of them ended 300 years ago.
Why such venom and brutality? Because many of those claiming to be speaking for God have little patience for people who want to figure out for themselves what life is about. What is so terrible about it? Because you should not search for what is wise and good. You should listen to what we tell you is wise and good.
And the polemic is set. Those claiming to speak for God have little patience for people who want to figure things out for themselves. The inquisitions were nothing more than an effort to suppress individualism. If only history were that simple and that black and white.
In light of these attitudes, it should become clear why a call to “create your own religion” is by its very nature quite radical. But it doesn’t have to be that way. OK, since you are a most pleasant reader, I’ll share a secret with you. Lean toward me so that I may whisper it in your ear. . . . Everyone already creates their own religion. Some people just don’t lie about it.
Flattery is empty rhetoric but if it persuades individuals to adopt your point of view that is really all that matters rhetorically. Bolelli builds a straw man of religious leaders which is easily knocked over and then he stands ready to deliver the straight goods. What do we know about Bolelli that makes him more trustworthy than the religious frauds he stands against? My bet is nothing. We know nothing about him we are being led by the nose through his rhetoric.
Here's the thing. Everything he rails against is also a polemic. What makes his better than theirs?
Admittedly this is just an excerpt. I won't be buying the book nothing about the excerpt engages me. And that is not simply because I have a favourable bias towards religion or that I don't know how to think critically. I know enough to know that the only thing Bolelli is interested in is taking the place of all the religious frauds that came before him.
How do you know it is okay to think for yourself? Bolelli says so.
Well, if it is okay with Bolelli . . .
And the snare closes.
Grace and peace to you.
John
revjohn
Posted on: 06/06/2013 08:24
Hi BetteTheRed,
John, I think he must be an associate professor (or whatever they call non-tenured profs down there).
That would account for the lack of journal articles or reviews. There is no reason to publish academic works if your academic credentials aren't up for review. My wife is in a tenure track position so I am passingly familiar with the institutional need to publish or perish.
And of course publish or perish doesn't mean anything. It means scholarly material in your field of discipline. Nothing about Bolelli's book matches that criteria.
The academic life isn't the highway paved with gold some assume it to be.
I am well aware of that.
Grace and peace to you.
John
Mendalla
Posted on: 06/06/2013 08:48
Further thoughts of the base idea:
I do not think everyone needs to "Create your own religion" or even "Build your own theology". I do think religion has become more individual even within established denominations meaning that individuals need to take, and are taking, more responsibility in finding a religion/theology/spiritual path that is right for them. The days of "because x says so" are gone, even in Roman Catholicism where the Pope's words seem to be treated as more of a guideline than a rule by many North Amerian RCs.
Exercises like the UU "Build your own theology" (and another UU program called "Owning your religious past", which I believe Rev. Felicia Urbanski has imported into her UCCan ministry to some extent) are really about doing the examination, asking the questions, seeing where we have answers that satisfy us and where we need to explore more. It doesn't mean that each of us needs to start from scratch and create a religion or theology that is wholly our own. It could just mean better understanding what it means to be a "Christian" or more specifically a "Calvinist" or a "Universalist" or a "progressive Christian" or whatever. Even UUs start from some kind of baseline, whether it is the faith they grew up in (as I did, having grown up in the UCCan) or the faith assumptions of their family if they grew up unchurched or UU.
What I really advocate for is not so much creating your own religion (though that is certainly a possible outcome) as examing your personal faith regularly and making sure that the assumptions, doctrines, and actions of yourself and the institution you attend still add up. If they do not, then maybe it is time for some exploration. The most likely outcome is not each person having a completely individual, personal religion so much as a diverse church where there are many understandings of a shared core of belief, be that core "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour" or the UU principles or "There is no God but God and Mohammad is his Prophet" or whatever.
Mendalla
spiritbear
Posted on: 06/06/2013 13:53
Mendella wrote: "There is nothing new under the sun, as someone (Shakespeare?) once said." I find it just a bit ironic that this actually comes from the bible (Ecclesiates 1:9).
Mendalla
Posted on: 06/06/2013 13:59
Mendella wrote: "There is nothing new under the sun, as someone (Shakespeare?) once said." I find it just a bit ironic that this actually comes from the bible (Ecclesiates 1:9).
Argh. Major brain fart there. That's one of my favorite books of The Bible. Can't believe I forgot that.
Mendalla
Arminius
Posted on: 06/06/2013 14:03
An easy mistake to make, Mendalla. After all, Shakespeare is at least as spiritual as the Biblical prophets.
spiritbear
Posted on: 06/06/2013 14:07
The problem with building a religion for "ME" is that it by definition excludes the "WE". Religion is by its nature a social undertaking - how are we to live together, what are our priorities, and what values do we share. A religion with nothing to share is just a matter of personal preferences. And frankly, not very useful in a world of 7 billion people. One which we will destroy, and ourselves along with it if we do not come to collectively value our earth our role in it. With your own religion (a religion for one) you can be personally pious (meaning I am a more perfect person that you) because you are the one "setting the rules". But personal piety for its own sake does nothing to heal broken relationships with others and with our earth. Even those in a religion "build their own" to a certain extent, by the way they interpret their tradition. But there are fundamentals. In the Christian religion, it is that love is paramount - God is love and Jesus proclaimed that love. But in an "organized" religion, by meeting together, one's interpretation is always the subject of reflection and tested with and by others. There's no structure to do that with a religion for one person.
Neo
Posted on: 06/06/2013 14:28
While I totally agree with you, Spiritbear, that religion should be about how we live and share together, the irony is that to truly discover this fact we have to first find and become at-one with our own souls, the God within. Then, and only then, can we ever expect to find the souls and the God within others. It's on the soul level that we first discover the "One of humanity"; there is no "you" and there is no "me" on the soul level. Echoing this discovery on the physical plane, and through the personality which is the image of the soul, will be, I have no doubt, our ultimate "heaven on earth".