|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
Note from the Webmaster: I intend to update this page every few weeks or months, replacing this with a new conversation when one really catches my eye. The object is just to give you a feeling for the sorts of conversations that we have.
This particular dialogue tells you a lot about SKS. For one thing, it's a very looooong conversation—that tells you something about how much energy and interest we have for this kind of topic. But if you make it through, and read between the lines, you'll learn a lot more about SKS. You'll learn that we have incredibly different religious viewpoints, including strong Christians, strong Jews, and at least one oddball Pagan guy. You'll learn that we respect each other's beliefs while also feeling very free to challenge and debate them. And you'll learn that we have something in common that goes deeper than these doctrinal differences—a passionate drive toward the Truth at all costs, and a lot of common assumptions about how you go about finding it.
The entire conversation took place by email. I have done a bit of reformatting, but other than that I have done no editing.
----------
James got me into one of the best think-talk discussions I've had in ages last night, and I want to hear other people's opinions on this one.
James had been reading C.S. Lewis, and for purposes of the discussion, we fell pretty easily into polarized roles: James as the Christian apologist, and me as the devil's advocate (in a perhaps more literal sense than that term is sometimes used). I don't think either of us exactly believed the positions we were defending, but it made for a good discussion. And it brought up some of the ways that SKS is really at odds with traditional Christian thought (or at least with C.S. Lewis.)
James: You have to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, Christianity is exactly right.
Me: But what about all the other religions? Does that mean they are all wrong?
James: Yes, it does. It's like, suppose you live in a world where hundreds of people all claim to have won the lottery. What do you conclude? You can take a defeatist attitude (none of them is right). Or you can take a sort of Unitarian attitude (each one is right and we will ignore the contradictions). But it's also entirely possible that one of them is right, and the others are all wrong. So you start searching for the one. Maybe—just maybe—Christianity is right, and all the others are just wrong. Jesus is not a metaphor or a prophet or a speaker of the truth. He is The One and Only, a person who was actually alive and actually God and the only way to God is through Him. Maybe!
Me: OK, but the burden of proof is on you. Mr. Rose taught that I should doubt everything, except my ability to doubt.
James: Why should doubt be the path to truth? Maybe it's exactly the opposite—faith, or belief, is the path to truth. Why does it make more sense to believe that you can "get there" through doubt than through belief?
Me: I just don't seem wired that way. Belief, or faith, doesn't come naturally to me.
James: Neither does doubt in everything. It's something you cultivate, in all the SKS ways. You hang out with people who believe, you read books by people who believe, you act as if you believed in the hopes that it will become real belief. You pursue the path of belief with all the integrity and earnestness that you were previously putting into the path of doubt. Why not?
Of course I'm leaving out a whole lot of the discussion—some of it because I don't remember, some of it because I don't want to "lead" your replies any more than that.
But there is a lot here. We are fond of pointing to the similiarities between religions, and talking about SKS as finding the common denominators (the "universal grammer") and so on. But to C.S. Lewis, and to many other Christians, Christianity is Just Right and all other religions are Just Wrong. To many Christians, the path to salvation is faith, faith, faith—just believe in Christ as hard as you can. It seems disingenuous to me to gloss over the huge differences between these beliefs and the path that we walk. And yet, as James insists—why should doubt be a better path to truth than faith? Is it really just because doubt comes easier to me?
Whaddaya think?
-k
----------
Kenny,
Of course, the Christian must also concede to the claims of every Buddhist, Muslim, and Zoroastrian who believes that they, too, have the One True Faith.
My twin brother was very fond of the exact opposite argument—"Well, it really doesn't matter that I really believe that this religion is true . . . because maybe, just maybe, I'm dead wrong. And that mere possiblity that I'm dead wrong is enough to give me pause, given the stakes of the game."
The only way you can get into the notion of the "One True Faith" is if you start to take religious scripture literally, at some level. I believe that almost all members of the SKS do not hold with a literal interpretation of religious scripture, and they tend to be a little cagey about the notion of "received wisdom" in general. However, the core philosophy of the SKS (and even the perennial philosophy from which it derives) does not automatically disqualify the die-hard fundamentalists from participating. Even a fundamentalist could practice all the same principles that Rose outlined—to question themselves, run experiments to test their character and their understanding, form communities to delve deeper into their faith, etc. That's the wonderful thing about our philosophic positioning—we don't knock anybody out. We merely let others opt out.
--Georg
----------
Wonderful wonderful wonderful stuff. Just the kind of thinking I want to spend my life listening to. We just don't do enough of this. I am buying my farm this Wednesday so some day people will come out there, gather together and talk about stuff like this.. This is very interesting. I look forward to some great replies. Let's put it on the agenda for the retreat this weekend at Avila. Augie
----------
All that (C.S.Lewis-->James-->Kenny) is saying is, it's *possible*—just possible, just maybe—it's possible that Christianity is right and Buddhist, Muslim, and Zoroastrian claims are wrong. Is your mind open to that possibility? Should it be?
And of course, C.S. Lewis would undoubtably concede that, at the outset, it's also possible that the Buddhist claims are right and the others are wrong. And he would concede your brother's point that the stakes are so high that you should pause before glibly accepting an answer.
But remember his caution that you can't stay in the general house (of religion) forever, you eventually have to choose one of the particular rooms. Just because the stakes are high, and just because you don't initially know who (if anyone) is right, doesn't mean someone isn't right. And precisely because the stakes are high, you don't want to go through your whole life waffling: you want to find out who (if anyone) is right. Which means you start with your mind open to the idea that there may in fact be a Truth to find, and someone may in fact have it.
So I ask again—on what grounds do you believe that Doubt is a better vehicle than Faith for finding the answer? We always claim to "listen to the wisdom of the ancients" instead of "reinventing the wheel." Haven't more people claimed to find the Truth through deliberate Faith (admittedly plagued by doubts) than through deliberate Doubt (unfortunately plagued by beliefs)?
I promise to shut up now until more people have had a chance to think this over and answer. (Then I may un-shut up again...)
-Kenny
----------
My mind is perfectly open to the possibility that Christianity is dead-on right . . . as soon as I get more evidence to suggest that it is (and I continually keep my eye out for such evidence) I am certainly ready to sway in that direction. However, I haven't seen anything lately that gave me a bigger push that direction. Just because I concede the possibility doesn't mean I am obliged to give Christianity any more mindshare. The SKS way is, after all, a methodology of playing the odds. I have given Christian a huge amount of mindshare in my thirty years of life, and it has still to win me over to a literal interpretation of it's absolute truth. I feel safe in my play of the odds, and nothing Lewis/James/Kenny has said has changed that conclusion much.
Also, I agree with Lewis that you have to move from the general to the particular, from the general household of faith to a very particular life of action. That does NOT mean that my particular manifestation of the particular has to be identical to someone else's. Lewis' thinking starts with the assumption that one or more established religions are the only legitimate manifestions of particularized Faith. The SKS maintains (and so does Rose and many others) that there is truth in the established religions but they have NOT cornered the market on Truth. I believe that the self-directed seeker's life of consciously groping toward the Truth (or away from Untruth) has just as much claim to being the "One True Faith" as any established religion.
Also, I think it is a mischaracterization to say that the SKS "puts its faith in doubt." I think it is more accurate to say that we put our faith in Faith . . . just a different kind of faith. It's the faith that there IS an answer to be found . . . the faith that God is seeking us as hard as we are seeking him. Especially in light of the experiences of the membership in the last few years, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we have more genuine faith than doubt built into the path. Doubt is the tempering agent, but not the soul, of this path.
--Georg
----------
The main reason I believe in doubt (yeah, yeah, yeah, I catch the contradiction—and by the way, it's probably more significant than just a cute choice of words), is actually a little masochistic. I think the premise that we go on is that most people who believe *like* their beliefs; most people who doubt don't really enjoy the possibility that everything is futile, it's all bullshit, God does not think you are a special person, and right now you have absolutely no idea who you are, where you are, and what the hell you're doing. It's supposed to be unpleasant, which seems like the saving grace of doubt. It keeps you up at night. It keeps you vigilant against yourself, your own preferences, and what you'd like God to be like. The Christian God isn't sunbeams and rainbows, for sure, but I've never meant anyone who truly believed in a God they did not ultimately like the idea of. Even if they don't dismiss the fact that the creator created the ostrich that crushes its own egg and all that other Job stuff, somehow, some way, they believe their loving Father will make even that ultimately okay.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that a path based on continually accepting that you know nothing and everything you hope is true might be very, very wrong offers you less opportunity to kid yourself. But maybe I truly just am a masochist to think there's something wonderful about all the unpleasantness in doubt.
And I know plenty of people who at least dislike some parts of their faith. For instance, very few Christians like the idea that all their non-Christian acquaintenances will go straight to hell when they die, and many of them just reject that particular belief, but others don't. So I guess it's possible to be a believer and still steer clear of just believing what you want to believe and what helps you rest easy at night.
Complicating all of this is the fact I have never stopped trying to be a Christian. I'm not doing a very good job, but I can tell you a big part of why I go to church on Sundays. It is incredibly important to me to have a time where I *submit* to something, if not God, at least some proxy or idea of God. This is the great upside of belief—as much as I dismissed it up top for the way you can manipulate it and make it what you want, there is also a way in which belief can render you much more powerless than doubt. The path of doubt seems to be a path that has everything to do with your own mind, your own strength, your own stamina—for how long and how intensely can you grapple with the fact that you might be living a lie? We spend so much time "doing" and trying to "figure it out." Yes, yes, we say we can't figure everything out sitting around thinking hard, but still, we are depending on our own minds and our own wills to accept that and get us going on some path. The value of belief, of getting down on your knees, is that for a second you say, "all my ideas, including my ideas about what my path is and the value of doubt, might be wrong. I may never get anywhere with my own methods and my own actions and will."
So now I'm confused. I think doubt gives you less opportunity to kid yourself with pretty fantasies, but belief also rids you of the idea that everything's your call and up to. This feels messy, not quite right. Where am I blurring lines and making illogical leaps? I can't tell.
Anna
----------
This is a topic which has really been plaguing me these past few months, so I am very glad to see it being brought up in this way through the SKS. Thank you James and Kenny!
First of all, I guess I should say that I am very much on the side of the position which James proposes. And I am biased because my only direct experience with God has been through Christianity and the chills that went up and down my back when I first talked with someone who really, really believed it and the sense of incredible peace and beauty that I experienced one night last fall when considering Christianity in my heart and suddenly it felt so real and I was so sure that it was right and that I was finally standing on solid ground and I was so sure about it as I felt such a wave of peace that I felt I would never and could never doubt it as the truth again. So it is from this background which I say that it seems clear to me that faith and not doubt is the way to go. I don't feel a burden of proof, because I just think that it is not set up as something that is meant to be proven, but rather as something which requires faith so that no one can boast of "figuring it out" or "proving it."
However, of course, memory of such events and experiences fades all too easily with time, and upon hearing metaphors of Augie's such as the tension between dualities which exists throughout the universe and faith and doubt being one such duality and also such as the wheel metaphor with all the religions as spokes and the point being to make it as close to the middle as possible rather than circle around the outside and once in the middle they will all converge to the same thing once we are past the superficialities and to the core, this seems to make a lot of sense to me. And although I regret not having gotten around to reading The Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hahn, from what I understand from others who have read it, he does an excellent job of showing the equality in the teachings of Jesus and of the Buddha. So I struggle because I want to be able to say that any path which has the same framework of love, humility, prayer, service, compassion, faith, and grace as Christianity must also be a path to God.
Yet, then I think about how different Christianity is in that it is the only one which says that God became a man and came down from heaven and lived on Earth and He sent His only Son to save the world from sin and through faith in this Son and imitation of this Son we too can reach God. And even though I believe that Jesus actually lived and was actually God and was actually crucified for us in accordance with Scripture, I do think that it is all a metaphor also. And I wonder how this and the contradictions it brings up can ever possibly be worked out with another religion which does not even mention a Son of God or sin in the slightest. And perhaps this is solely from my extreme ignorance of other religions and of Christianity.
But then I think of this. . . One must look past the superficial and look deeper into the meaning of the metaphors. Take Christianity and Buddhism for example. Christianity saying that God is separate from us and we come to be saved through becoming like Christ (God's only Son) and becoming the Church, the body of Christ. Buddhism on the other hand saying that "Thou art That" That the world is illusory and that we are God, we just don't realize it. If one thinks in terms of us becoming like Christ and in doing so becoming a mystical part of God's Son and that Christ was in fact God, then Christianity does not seem all that far from Buddhism.
And to end it all, I am left wondering why God would even do this to us? Why He would state in Scripture that Jesus is the One and Only and then also allow people through Buddhism and meditation to reach Enlightenment and direct experience of God without ever learning about Jesus.
I don't know, Buddhism does have quite a draw on me and I am very curious to learn about it. But the only thing that I am willing to trust my soul and eternity with is Christianity at this point.
A few of my friends have been asking me questions along these lines recently and I had been giving them the spokes on the wheel metaphor in response, but I had begun to feel guilty especially in considering how my extremely faithful Christian friends would respond and so this is what I wrote upon second thought to one friend recently.
"One more thing which I wanted to add to that email that I sent you and that I'm curious of your opinion on.
Supposedly, the Buddha's last words were, "Work out your own salvation." Now I have no idea how anyone knows this or how it is verified, but everyone seems to repeat it. But anyway, I really believe in that and believe that people should do that because seeking God whatever that means to you is certainly of utmost importance. And I also really believe, thus far anyway, in advising people that all major religions which say things along the lines of Christianity and which can be interpreted into that main framework of humility and love and faith and all that are true. But, for myself, salvation and God are so important, that with myself, I would not feel comfortable to trust anything other than faith in Jesus Christ as my only assurance of salvation and of reaching God, however, I would not want to push that on someone else and would want them to make up their own minds. But how badly would I feel if I did not advise others with the same care that I would take with myself and my own soul and then because I state things more loosely and more openly, they do not have faith in Jesus and become saved or reach God or whatever, and what if that is the only way??? Wouldn't I feel terrible knowing that I should have held firm to solely Christianity because what if that is the only way to God? So I would have a very hard time telling someone that faith in the Son of God is not of utmost importantance because I would not trust my own life with anything less, yet I do feel or I would hope that this is in some way or other central to all the major religions even if it is not directly explicit but instead metaphorical and mystical."
I guess there is sort of the purely Christian side of me which completely agrees with James' side and then there is also the more SKS side of me which agrees that seeking God is the most important and that all religions have the same central grammer and so on and so forth. And these two sides have been having battles and I'm not sure which one is winning.
So those are my only thoughts for the moment and I look forward to hearing everyone else's responses!
Chuck
----------
hiya folks.
a few things i was thinking about what yall have to say...
1 - i dunno, anna, i think that a rigid doubt can be just as dangerous as a rigid faith. you can rationalize your way out of things using doubt just as easily as using faith—i think the biggest danger doubt can present is becoming cynical to the point of apathy. i don't see many sksers with that problem, but i see it in other doubters all the time. and i'm no more impressed by their ability to be honest with themselves about themselves than i am with most fundamentalist christian types.
2 - i really agree with what georg was saying about what sks has faith in—in my mind, it's not doubt. i think we have a faith in Truth—in the very literal sense that we believe there is an experience called enlightenment that entails a total loss of ego and a union with the heartbeat of the Universe, and furthermore that enlightenment is the *ultimate* accomplishment or goal or zenith of our particular brand of spiritual seeking. and in the meantime, we have a faith that we can move closer to the Truth through a diet of intellectual and emotional work both by ourselves and with our fellow seekers. and in a way, i think this is as dogmatic as your average christian's beliefs. it's more "formulaic," if you will, due to our "scientific" approach. and our faith in this mode of thinking and seeking and our belief that there *is* something called "Truth" or "God" or whatever is probably stronger and closer to being blind faith than your average christian.
3 - this leads me to question what kinds of questions we sks kids (or former sks kids) are actually asking. whatever "doubt" we have is pretty controlled, in that we can always rest on the safety net that there is indeed a truth out there to be found. what *is it* that we're doubting anyway? and i don't think it counts to say "traditional brands of religion," because *that* is the pre-requisite to any religious belief system. wait, i should make that clearer: how can you say a christian is having serious doubts if s/he doesn't think mohammed is the Prophet and mecca the holy city? that doesn't count as doubt. neither, i think, does the belief held by the majority of sksers that christianity/a literal interpretation of scripture doesn't cut it. so again, somebody remind me *what* we're doubting? 'cause i'm doubtful that we're doubting all that much.
4 - a last little thing. the best definition of faith i've come across yet is the one dave xeroxed for a (duke?) meeting from either the _iron cow of zen_ or the other book by the same author. i don't remember it exactly, but it's something like "faith is standing with your sword unsheathed and hefted, come whatever may." faith is not closing your eyes, and maybe just being *honest.*
those are my two cents. talk to yall later,
R.
----------
My response to C. S. Lewis would be that he needs to define his terms, namely "belief" and "doubt."
In any context outside of religion, belief or doubt is not a path one chooses, but simply the result of recognizing something to be more likely true than not. Say I believe Georg will work long hours today. I don't believe it because I'll be better or worse off if I do, but simply because I think it's probable, based on past experience, that he will work long hours today. If I were to be damned to Hell for believing that, it wouldn't matter—I still couldn't consciously change my belief.
It's only in religion (actually—only in some religions) where belief is considered a choice. But if you only believe something because you're supposed to, you don't really believe it. So no, you don't eventually have to choose one of C. S. Lewis' doors—in fact, if nothing causes you to believe one door is right, than you CANNOT willingly believe in one of them. Btw, the whole idea that you have to choose one set of beliefs is based on goyish preconceptions of what a religion is. Christianity is just about the only religion I can think of that puts much weight on what you believe. Judaism says all morally upright people have a place in heaven, regardless of religion. Islam goes even farther, and recognizes other religions as legitimate paths to the truth. So, sorry Mr. Lewis—Christians might have to choose a room, but the bigger party's out in the hallway.
Of course, you could UNconsciously choose to believe or doubt something—that is, you fall into the trap of believing whatever you want to. (ie: God will save me because I'm special, all cats will go to Hell, etc.) I think this is qualitatively different than choosing to believe, because in this case you don't actually will it. Rather, you unconsciously avoid facing something because it's too painful. It's to avoid this trap that most religions and spiritual traditions emphasize character morality, character development, and confrontation. Morality, because it's easier to face nasty stuff about yourself if you aren't too bad to begin with (As Rose puts it, the only difference between a saint and a whoremaster is that it's easier for a saint to admit he's a saint.). Character development, because no matter what you're gonna have to face something, so you better be in decent enough condition to handle it. And confrontation, because something's got to push you to make you move.
Most mystical traditions also say that when you find out the truth about yourself, you'll also find God. But there's nothing to believe or doubt about that—you have to just give a try. In fact, the mystics all agree that you can't even express anything about God that you could agree or disagree with! (the Toa that can be spoken in words...). But they also claim that if you find something, you will know it as surely as you know the back of your hand. That's not something you have to worry about believing in.
Yours truly,
Zachary S. Klughaupt
----------
Man, now I just gotta put on my Christian hat. There's a lot here, so I'm responding to this piece by piece below. By the way, on Rachel's response, as far as what we doubt, I think it comes in just constantly considering that your ideas about yourself and how you're supposed to live are dead wrong. And yes, definitely, it's very much in our control what we choose to see and therefor doubt, and the really rocky stuff we're usually totally avoiding. Most of the time, we only have doubts that we can live with, or we only doubt to the extent that it's livable, thinking there's a 1% chance we're wrong, not a 10% or 20% chance. Still, I think we're on the lookout for where we're wrong.
Okay, just this junk below and then *I* shut-up!
Skorupa
In any context outside of religion, belief or doubt is not a path one chooses, but simply the result of recognizing something to be more likely true than not. Say I believe Georg will work long hours today. I don't believe it because I'll be better or worse off if I do, but simply because I think it's probable, based on past experience, that he will work long hours today. If I were to be damned to Hell for believing that, it wouldn't matter—I still couldn't conciously change my belief.
I'm not sure that's the right definition of belief, "recognizing something to be more likely true than not." C. S. Lewis probably *did* define his terms (he's hard to challenge on mental rigor), but in any case, we should probably define them ourselves, as well. Okay, I give up! Anyone have a good definition? My criticism for the one Zach offers is that it only describes purely rational, mental belief. Where's intuition? Where's the two-thousand-and-two times in our lives where we've "believed" something was right, where our guts told us so, though it didn't seem probably in the least. And lots of religious, spiritual stuff just falls way out of range of probability. For instance, I do believe in moral absolutes. I feel strongly that some things are just right, and some are just wrong. There isn't prior experience to back this up. Sure, there's reward and punishment, but that only tells me that according to my parents and society there is right and wrong; it tells me nothing about the absolutes. Am I just extending conditioning to the nth degree?
All I can say is, there are two arguments against this. The first one comes from the original argument Kenny set up, that you can at least hang out with believers and read about belief and make it more *likely* you'll believe. The second is, plenty of experiences fly in the face of the idea you can not choose to believe. I've read about more than enough Christians who have in some way chosen their belief, whether by the technique I just mentioned or "fake it 'til you make it," or prayer in a God they didn't believe in to help them develop a belief they did not have. How do you pray to a God you don't really believe is there? I don't know. I just know it happens.
I don't want to be defensive, but C.S. Lewis would probably tell you that's *exactly* what makes Christianity so revolutionary. It's why a Catholic monk wrote Tuning Into Grace, why Christianity is so controversial, why it repulses so many people, and maybe part of why it attracts so many others. (yes, I know the reason it's so prevalent is more cultural and historical than anything else, so we don't have to go into that; still, it also has a strange drawing power all its own) In Christ's teachings, you *don't* have to be a morally upright person or do anything well or right. The salvation story is the centerpiece, and part of it is that only the truth of Christ's sacrifice, and not being good like the other religions might say, saves you. I'm not saying I believe any of this. But pointing out what distinguishes Christianity from most religions does not make it dismissable. It doesn't do anything to answer Kenny's first question: should we take the chance that Christians (or any other religion with its own unique ideas) might just be right?
----------
Kudos to everyone. Haven't had so much fun in years. Lots of crisp thinking. Find myself being swayed this way and that by every email—just the way I like it. Keep the cards and letters coming....
----------
I'm still sticking with my original definition of belief (we're a stiff-necked people, as Jeremiah would say). If you trust your gut feeling or intuition, there's no reason why either cannot be factored into your personal judgement of the probability of something being true. Of course, this begs the question of how you know when you can trust your intuition, which is why self-knowledge is necessary in any spiritual quest. As long as we have egos, we'll drift towards whichever belief is easiest or most gratifying. Hanging out with believers (of anything) will make you more likely to become a believer because it will be easier and more gratifying to fit in than not to. For some people it's easier to accept that there are no absolute rights or wrongs, because then they can sin with impunity. For others, it's easier to accept that there are, because they don't want to imagine the possibility that we're just a bunch of animals whose actions are entirely inconsequential. But the more we know and accept ourselves, the more we can know what we tend to drift towards, and account for that drift. (Special extra credit section for the Saturday group: What did St. John of the Cross have to say about this drift?)
You're right that Christianity's uniqueness is not a valid ground on which to dismiss belief. It's circumstantial evidence. But I still say that if you only believe something because you want to, you don't really believe it.
Yours truly,
Zachary S. Klughaupt
----------
I had a similar discussion with James recently on the same subject (and heard the lottery example as well) and it got me thinking too. I read a lot of C. S. Lewis about a year and a half ago (including Mere Christianity, The Great Divorce, Screwtape Letters and A Grief Observed) when I was going through a period of curiosity about Christianity. Curiosity is the wrong word though—for the first time in my life, I was considering, like James suggests, that Christianity could really be THE TRUTH (an especially frightening thought for those of us who were brought up inundated with the unspoken message that we were destined to Hell because we weren't Christian).
I was set on this path by my friend Anna—a serious and very believing Christian, who also happened to be one of my very best friends, and one of the most intelligent, genuine and (truly) angelic people I have ever met. We talked about religion a lot, esp since I was getting involved with SKS. And after many many times of my expressing incredulity that she could POSSIBLY believe that Christianity was THE ONLY correct religion, she finally turned things on me: if I expected her to consider the fact that what she truly believed in her heart to be the absolute truth was totally wrong (because, like Chuck, I think Christianity without believing Jesus is the only way, is not really Christianity at all), then I had to consider, with real openness, the possibility that it was the ONLY TRUE WAY to the TRUTH (i.e. a life led outside of Christianity was essentially meaningless). This was a huge shock to me—that I needed to really face that possibility.
So, I read a lot of C. S. Lewis, I talked (and argued) for hours with Anna, and I remember meeting with Georg to discuss all of this stuff going on—how much would I have to read, how much data could I collect, before I would be convinced one way or the other? I even asked Anna, honestly and with hope that it could be fruitful, to pray and ask God if other religions/paths besides Christianity could be a way to the Truth. She tried but didn't feel like she could get a clear answer (which I thought was very honest of her). I tried and I couldn't either.
So, in the end, it was the ridiculous length and complexity of the search that helped me figure out what I believe—I could spend years studying Christianity and find out all I could about it, and then what? Study every possible religion in the world to make sure I find the right one? If it's possible that a Buddhist could think Buddhism was the TRUE PATH all his life, where Christianity is the REAL way that would reveal itself and unlift the illusion of the "rightness" of Buddhism, if only he seeked it out, how could I know that Christianity wouldn't seem equally TRUE to me, while there would be some other obscure religion buried away deep in Africa that was just waiting for me to discover it, so it could unlift the illusion of the "rightness" of Christianity? It just seemed insane, like there could be no way to know if you'd really finally found the right religion....
... which leads back to exactly what Chuck was saying: Why would God do that? Why would God have one "right" religion, and allow us to have all these others that are so similar and seem and feel so right, that would lead us astray? How could THE TRUTH be trapped inside one religion that not everyone could reach, depending on their life circumstances?
So, the only thing that makes sense to me now, is that the TRUTH must be something that we can find within ourselves—it's the only thing that each of us has—our minds, our desire to understand the Truth. If God is out there and there is a Truth to be sought, it must be accessible through direct efforts of ANY individual who honestly desires to know God/The Truth—prayer, meditation, thought, etc. In fact, I thought that's what most people in SKS believed, and I'm sort of surprised to find that a lot of people identify with a particular religion.
Mandy
----------
Let the Recovering Methodist add his .02:
I realized the other day that my spiritual mores are very reliant on my own experiences; that may be a tad egocentric, but there you go. While our beloved (born again) Mr. Todd uses the lottery example of various religions, I see it in terms closer akin to different languages. They may sound different, but at the end of the day the words are very similar; most of the differences in religions, IMO, have less to do with spirituality and more with social of cultural differences.
It disturbs me, to be honest, how widespread Christianity's "sports mentality" (i.e. "We're No. 1!!!") has become and all those with different value systems are inferior. None of us have the right to speak for God, but we are free to interpret and conceptuality Him/Her as we will. No one, regardless of faith, has the right to condemn that in favor of their sports mentality. That's why my internship with a Christain organization was agonizing for me: they wanted to be "looser" and welcome people of all faiths to "dialogue," so long (of course) that they would see Christianity was right in the end. It was insulting.
I see the Divine in terms of balance, passion (in the general sense, not merely "having it off"); those are my biggest gripes about Christianity, since they lack the former and fear/condemn the latter.
The way I see it (and I am a Gemini), everyone's has two halves: one of light and one of darkness. Christianity fears everybody's "dark side" and seeks to curb it, using it as justification that we are separate from God. Our "Dark Sides" aren't necessarily sinful or evil but are made out to be like that. What I think that does is pervert this part of ourselves and get us in trouble; people can't accept their inner darkness and throws the psyche out of balance.
For example, look at Christianity's big figures: Virgin Mary and Jesus; Mary Magdeline and Lucifer. Christianity focuses so heavily or Mary and Jesus, as they represent humanity's inner light and are "good"; but dammit, to have inner light you have to have inner darkness too! Why isn't that respected?
Why is Mary M. (I read somewhere she was a pagan high priestess, as close a peer to Jesus as possible; I dunno if it's true) cast as a whore just begging for the "Righteous Touch" in the Bible? Why is she "sinful" or "bad"? I won't even get into Lucifer. Condemning one half for the other is nonsense: the four form a circut, all of us have elements of all four within us and that is NOT a "bad" thing at all.
Does this mean I'm a Satanist or hedonist? Or course not. But I think, psychically speaking, Christians would be a lot better off if they realized that they need to spend some time with the "Dark ones" to become much more comfortable with themselves, and thus be more at peace with their inner light too. I used to sing in a "freelance" choir, which meant I've sang at every Christian church in town. I saw a lot of anxiety in all those pews, and I think that's why.
When I say passion, I'm really talking about personal power. The Divine gave us all sorts of powers—intellectual (as this thread is proving
Best,
Russ
----------
hello again everybody,
If I might be permitted to add another couple pennies worth . . . :)
So I'm curious then, what does this mean for our actual day to day lives and personal searches? If we can all agree that Enlightenment or Union with God or whatever you want to call it is the goal . . . and we have some vagueness about how that goal is best reached, then what does this debate mean for that goal as we day to day seek God? Even those who believe that all religions represent a path to Truth/God have to pick one to follow there right? Or can we take a hodge-podge, patchwork approach? Does that work or does one need to be immersed in one? Supposedly the SKS is more about process than actual religious content right? So it seems to me that the way it would work would be that we all take our own paths and work together through the SKS to be sure that we are seeking God in our own ways to the fullest. And then our strength lies in that we can report back to the group on what we've discovered and learned and how we've progressed thus far and we can compare notes. If James and So and So are using Christianity as their brand of the process, and say Ed and I are using Zen Buddhism, and Zach and Whoever are using Judaism, then we should be able to all get together and not only encourage each other down the path, but also to compare how we've progressed and as we take different spokes down to the center, we should be able to see as we get closer if they are becoming more similar or if a certain spoke is doing better even. If Christianity were the one correct one, wouldn't we then be able to see that as we go by the example of those in the group who are following it? And then the more diversity in paths and options we have in the group the better. Our strength lies in our diversity then. I guess if God had any reason at all in mind in having so many different brands of religion (if we can even allow ourselves to attribute that diversity to God . . . ) then perhaps it was so that people could get together in groups and try them out and debate about them and try to resolve the conflicts and try to sort it all out and in doing so the entire process would be able to spread and be encouraged, but instead, unfortunately, it seems that apathy rules and that is the biggest hurdle that most people need to cross. Another thing that's intrigued me recently is that I've been reading Autobiography of a Yogi and the author uses Kriya Yoga to reach Enlightenment and touts it as the most direct and scientific route to the Divine. How do we know what our process of "intellectual and emotional work" is the most efficient way to reach Enlightenment? Shouldn't at least some in the group be experimenting for a least longer periods of time with other methods such as Kriya Yoga just in case they work more efficiently? Then those who are committed to one approach can stick to it and report what they've come across back to the group and those who do not have the slightest clue which path or process to take (what content in other words) can then go from person to person and try different things out and learn in that way. In the end, then the Truth should be able to come out of the mix on top whether it be one in particular or all together.
What do you think?
Chuck
p.s. I've felt a little out of the loop, can everyone please make sure to reply and forward all messages on to everyone on the list and can someone please forward me anna and georg's and any other replies that I've missed? Thanks!
----------
I really like Anna's argument that it may be very important to have to SUBMIT to something. Some area in which we completely surrender the idea that we are the champions of our own destinies.
I also agree with Chuck that SKS does have a faith: "I think we have a faith in Truth-in the very literal sense that we believe there is an experience called enlightenment that entails a total loss of ego and a union with the heartbeat of the Universe, and furthermore that enlightenment is the *ultimate* accomplishment or goal or zenith of our particular brand of spiritual seeking. and in the meantime, we have a faith that we can move closer to the Truth [or farther from untruth] through a diet of intellectual and emotional work both by ourselves and with our fellow seekers."
The sad thing is, that I cannot even claim to have either brand of faith. I cannot even easily submit to the SKS brand of faith, although it makes much more sense to me, intuitively, than believing in the claims of one particular religion (Christianity), even though it is the religion I was raised in. I just cannot buy into any one religion's claim to have the exclusive presentation of Truth. So I guess I do have some kind of faith—in my own intuition or judgments. There's conceit for you. :-)
- Joyce
----------
wow...what to think about all of this.
What is religion...and spirituality, and what do we seek to get out of it? Are we talking about the ways we view the world...which would take into account the history of the Earth...through stories that we have grown up with. Historians take the Bible and analyse the hell out of it, trying to find out if passage after passage is "true." Crossan, one Jesus scholar, was said to have come to the conclusion that Yes, there was a man by the name of Jesus, and he lived in the first century. But when dealing with facts to appease one's mind, it is SO hard. We take all the "facts" and pile them up, and then draw and draw, and draw conclusions. The thing is, there could always be that hidden fact that isn't uncovered. That ancient document, the lost ark...and which way would these unfound facts turn the tables. So it seems that the search for God based on history, and did these various religious stories REALLY happen seems to go a lot of ways. For me, I catch myself saying "I would REALLY believe in god if god came down to me and I experienced it. But even then, how would I know? I had a "religious experience one time where I honestly felt that I experienced God, or was in the presence of God, in some kind of dream-sequence, meditation, vision-like time at the last "Avila" retreat. But I don't know the name of the sense in which I percieved God. And it was such a moving experience that I cried for about 20 minutes because not only could I not realize where God touched me, but I felt disabled....I wanted so much to be able to touch God back, like a Thank You or I love you, but I was, and still am at a loss of doing that directly. So what to do with this search for God that we are on? What IS God? How do we even know what we are searching for. Sometimes I spell god lower case, because not only am I not sure that You and I are talking about the same [thing], but I don't even know exactly what I am talking about. And forgetting for a moment that we are talking about Christianity vs. SKS, or Monotheism vs SKS, or whatever....There is SO MUCH CONFUSION WITHIN CHRISTIANITY ITSELF, before even boxing Christianity up and weighing it against something else. I mean, it wasn't the easiest to try and box up SKS. And so we are left with this urgentness in our life to try and grapple with all these unknowns, and all these hazy concepts and things and juggle them into some system of beliefs so that they affect our life so that our life means something more to us...or perhaps we don't even know why...but we try to anyway. Meanwhile, we have to wonder in our spare time: to what degree is it even possible to hack through our own beliefs, theologies, experiences and those beliefs, theologies and exp's of others too. And this whole process is hooked up to the meter that Aug and Dave have advertised for years. Are you BUGGED? So if that is the meter, or measure of progress, we are all doing well. And moreover, we are cleaning our lenses. The postmodern (I think i am using this right) desire to point the finger back at us when we ask this or that, or search for things is working on our minds. And hopefully, our lenses on life are getting clearer, and the actual image that we are looking for can even start to begin to form. And maybe the clarity only opens the curtains to a world that IS hazy, that has few streams of MEANING, and no apparent over-arching themes or theologies that can be boxed up or bound in leather with King Jame's name on it. Or maybe, when our lenses are clear, we will gain a key to finding the truth in all the searches that are meaningful to us....that my search for the truth of Christianity will be found, very bright and very clear...while another's search for the ultimate mystic or gnostic or enilightenment experience will be fulfilled...that YHWH is found, and Budda is understood, and all these individual things that are important so many of us...personally...is found. If this were the case, Life wouldn't be a practical joke, or hide and go seek, or horse race to try to win by betting on the right God, but it WOULD involve a huge and life time of effort of living to the best of your ability and understanding. And to me, at least, I wouldn't want to find the answers tomorrow, or the next day. The earliest I would want to know, is the day AFTER I die, because what would life be to me with out this question. And so for me, religion, theology and god....is an unanswered question, not a belief. And everything I know might be progressive to one nice finale, or it might be "knowledge" that is wiped clean every day, or every week, or kept for years and years and then knocked away from me like a spiritual bitch-slap. I don't know, but I am in "the game" whatever it is, and whereever it goes.
-Evan Harrison
----------
Evan, thank you . . . you inspire me, seriously. I think you spoke A LOT of truth and in a very beautiful way . . . and I agree with you. There's only one tiny thing which I would add though. As I was reading through the SKS webpage the other night (which I'm really impressed with by the way—left me even more inspired!) and I read Rachel Medlock's email about this old woman who showed up at an SKS meeting one night.
http://www.selfknowledge.org/whoweare/mail1.html
During the meeting, the old woman said something that really struck me, about the bridge that all of us are on. Clutching her white purse, leaning forward just a little, and speaking in that unidentifiable European accent, she told us, "There is Eden, there is the world of the everyday, and there is the bridge between the two. All of you are at the threshold of that bridge, getting ready to cross. But some people...me, I am an old woman now. Some people get stuck on that bridge in between for the rest of their lives."
So I read this and like Rachel . . . uhg, it hit me right in the stomach. So I began to consider, what makes the difference, between those who get stuck on the bridge and those who make it across to Eden? And then my mind wandered back to Into Thin Air, and the thought entered my head, pure will power, pure determination. They want so badly to make it to the top that they won't accept anything less. While they love climbing mountains, they are not content being on the side of the mountain, it's the exhilaration at the top of the mountain that they are in it for. And so it's almost a paradox, we love living the path, we love the game, but at the same time, it seems that we need that sense of urgency, that sense of wanting and loving God so incredibly much that we can't accept anything less, that we would do anything, that we cannot wait to cross the bridge and be in God's presence constantly, that we yearn so incredibly, desperately much for that touch of God again and constantly and we yearn more than anything and with all the heart to touch him back, that we ache to find Him and be with Him more than anything in the world. And I think that it is only that kind of faith, that kind of seeking which will lead us no matter where we begin or what path we start out on . . . finally across the bridge and back to God.
~Chuck
----------
chuck, et al,
- an aug quote: "some people are just *bugged.*"
- a carl jung quote: "for him to whom no question is posed, no answer need be given." (implicitly, "for him to whom a question *is* posed, an answer is unavoidable.")
and from a recent email conversation i've been having with marcus smith...sheer determination, maybe. but maybe some people are just bugged and have had questions posed—and those questions will always boomerang back to you, and hit you smack upside the head, disrupt your life, whether you will it or no.
"sheer determination" implies an individual has made a choice to chase something. i dunno. i don't feel like "i" chose "it." i feel like "it" chose "me."
whatever those pronouns mean.
R.
----------
Wow guys this discussion just blows me away. This is all I really ever wanted for the SKS. To live my life surrounded by people like you who just care so much about the only thing worth caring about.
----------
Philosophy Crew,
I wrote my response over the weekend, so it's a little outdated. I am replying to some emails in the string written before the weekend.
For my .02..
People talk about life being a beautifully woven tapistry when seen in a certain mood. Everything and everyone is interconnected—we're all just knots in the tapistry made from the the same long piece of string. One small tug on one part of the tapistry can have miraculous effects on another corner of the tapistry (the butterfly effect, synchronicity, and miracle). Being in the group (and in general) I have gotten a taste of this beautiful, miraculous, tapistry quality of life. Of course the other side of the world-is-a-beautiful-interconnected-tapistry thing is that life is ball of tangled yarn. Sometimes the yarn is tied up in a beautiful pattern and sometimes it's a fucking mess. And the fact that everything and everyone is interrelated is not so wonderful because no matter how you push and pull and where you put your efforts you'll only manage to rearrange the yarn into another pattern (whether you are successful in your pursuits or not). And no pattern seems to be ultimately any better than another. There is no exit. I don't think it's an accident that Sartre's play has that title (in the Engish translation) because I think he is expressing a similar feeling. I know this all sounds abstract, but I also think a lot of the people on this list know what I am talking about and have a similar analogy of their own (i.e. life is awe-ful). No matter what I do, even when I am more or less successful at achieving my highest goal, I only suceed in rearranging the way a small part of the energy in the world is distributed. I am left with the sense Carl Jung had that whether there is a God or not is debatable, whether I need a God or not is not debatable. So when Christians talk about God, I am glad to hear that He is not a part of the world and sits outside all the yarn-tapistry-everything-is-interconnected-and-can-be-huge-mess stuff.
The other compelling part of Christianity is original sin. For a long time "sin" has been such a stupid idea to me—some big father figure in the sky is shaking his finger at me. Ironically enough, through being in the SKS and doing Buddhist-style meditation sin has become much more real. Just watching my mind can be sickening—so much of my energy is spent trying to defend my fragile ego. I am constantly judging people, making up interpretations of life's events that cast me in a good light, and playing out arguments to justify myself. There seems to be no end to the ego's (my) desire to conquor and control. No success is enough. Death is the only end to eating and sex (or at least wanting to have sex). I realize this is all very "natural" and is well described in lots of psychology books, but it's still sickening. That's where I agree with Anna and Joyce that I just want to submit to something outside of myself. Even if it's some flawed belief or arbitrary ritual, it can't be much worse than following all the desires my ego pumps out.
Another draw to Christianity for me is. self-knowledge. The only time that I am regularly afraid in my life is when I am landing in an airplane. My stomach gets queazy and knotted up and the thought crosses my mind, "holy shit, this could be the time when this thing crashes and I have absolutely no control over that." I do my meditation breathing and try to relax, but as the plane nears the runway I find myself thinking, "Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thine name, Thy kingdom.." A number of times I have come across the self-knowledge-ish question, "If you were stranded on a deserted island by yourself and could only bring one book, what would you bring?" For years (even before this latest interest in Christianity) I have known I would bring the Bible. Recently a friend explained to me that T. S. Elliot's conversion to Christianity was much more an admission that he is a Christian than any great leap or choice. Putting these things together it struck might that I might discover I am Christian rather arbitrarily deciding to be Christian.
Reading Mere Christianity brought into question a lot of the assumptions in the SKS and seeking in general by providing a really solid apology for Christianity (as Rachel pointed out in her response, it's not clear that we are always asking radical questions). The first ah ha I had reading Mere Christianity was exactly what Anna said in her first response. In the SKS, are we doubting belief or believing in doubt? Why is the belief in doubt better than the belief in Christ's resurrection? What criteria do you use to say that doubt is better than belief? Why is truth at the end of the road of doubt and not at the end of the road of belief? As Kenny pointed out, plenty of wise people have suggested belief is as good or better a path to the truth than doubt. C. S. Lewis goes as far as saying that belief, belief in Christ's resurection, the Trinity, the church, the Bible, and communion in particular, is the only road to truth.
The other thing we emphasize in the group is process over content (check out the SKS "I Do and I Understand" white paper at http://www.selfknowledge.org/whoweare/transform.htm for more on the SKS approach). It's more important to have the right approach than the right answer. Or better stated, the right approach is the only way to the right answer. The first paradox here is the same as with doubt vs. belief. Why is the content of the SKS which says that the process of seeking is the most important thing better than the content of Christianity which says being saved by Jesus through certain beliefs, practices, and a particular community is the most important thing. It is not any more compelling to say that you know that the process of spiritual seeking is best because of the spiritual seeking you have done than to say that belief in Jesus is best because Jesus says so in the Bible.
We're fond of using the analogy of the scientific method to explain the SKS emphasis on process. But this analogy doesn't entirely hold because a scientist doesn't have to live his life every day based on his findings. That is, our religious conclusions inform (or at least they are supposed to inform) how we live, everything we do day to day. With that in mind a better analogy to science would be that we are incharge of building a bridge from the island we live on to the mainland. The ocean is rising and we have to build the bridge in a limited amount of time and everyone on the island has to use it to get across to avoid drowning. There are competing scientific theories on the island which lead to different bridge designs. Is the prudent thing to do to start doing scientific experiments or to trust that one of current theories and build the bridge accordingly? The guy running the experiments is no more likely to escape alive than the person who blindly accpets a scientific theory and builds his bridge accordingly (especially if these island people had been building bridges for hundreds of generations). Even this analogy doesn't entirely hold because the Christian would contend that no amount of experiments would ever lead to a working bridge. That is, they would contend that experimentation will lead to truths about the universe but not to The Truth. What criteria do you use to say that the Truth is found and not accepted?
The other seeker assumption that Rachel mentioned is that the Truth is an experience (enlightenment, Satori, Nirvana, etc.). While C. S. Lewis would contend that Truth is a choice—you decide to accpet Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour. Once again I don't see an obvious way to decide between these. In fact of the experiences I have had, I am inclined to think that the Truth is not an experience (Bob Cergol agreed with that today). The paradox here is that your experience could tell you the Truth is a decision or you could decide that Truth is an experience.
That leads to another argument which Kenny threw in my face before we parted. Even if you decide Christianity is the best path, it's still you who decides, which means you need. self-knowledge. That's a tough one, but I think this is just another belief-doubt loop. C. S. Lewis says that much of Christianity he takes on authority. Just like we take it on authority that Anchorage, Alaska exists (at least those of us who haven't been there), C. S. Lewis takes it on authority that Jesus was resurected from the dead. So then the question is: do you take it on authority that self-knowledge is primary to belief or that belief is primary to self-knowledge?
I know that all this philosophizing can turn into semantic games, but playing out this SKS vs. Christianity argument has given me a bunch of ah-ha experiences (thanks to all who have participated). So, while I am playing Christian apologist I want to respond to a couple of people.
Zach argued that belief is not a choice, and I agree with Anna's two arguments against that. C. S. Lewis actual does define his terms. He says there are two levels of faith. Where the first is belief and the second is real faith. Belief is "accepting or regarding as true the doctrines of Christianity." And faith is discovering our total dependence on God. (It's in explaining faith where he uses his six-pence-none-the-richer analogy to explain man's relationship with God.) My own thumb nail definitions are that beliefs are truths you are trying out—you pretend that they are true, fake it until you make it, etc. You believe the stock market will go up so you take some of your savings and invest in the market. Faith is what you implicitly or explicitly base your life on. You have faith that the stock market will go up, so you sell everything you own and invest all of that money in the stock market. Then you get a loan from your friend by saying that he can shoot you if you don't pay him back, so you can invest even more money in the market. It's entirely possible that belief is required before you get real faith. Which raises the original point of contention—it's possible that Christian beliefs in particular are required for real faith or knowledge of the truth.
Zach and Anna both pointed out belief can really be wishful thinking. I would point out that there is a difference between belief and hope. You can believe that there is no hope, we're all animals and die a meaningless death. A seeker can have hope that their efforts will lead to enlightenment even if he doesn't believe he will necessarily become enlightened. I also agree with Rachel and Anna that belief is no easier than doubt. In fact reading the chapters in Mere Christianity on Christian morality make me think that being Christian is at least as difficult as being an SKSer. When discussing the book with a more-or-less Catholic friend of mine (who happens to have a beautiful girlfriend he loves), he was most interested in, and had the most contention with, the six pages on Christian sexual morality. Like Father Christian said all religioius problems are really moral problems.
Mandy points out that the mass of differing religious views make choosing one and excluding the others very complicated. If one of them is right then some people may never even come in contact with it—how can God do that? To draw an analogy, the theory of relativity is very complicated. Many people will never understand it and the majority of humanity will never hear of it. Does that make it untrue? Does God have to be egalitarian?
Zach mentions that, "most mystical traditions also say that when you find out the truth about yourself, you'll also find God." I don't know if that's true since I haven't researched it enough. I did just reread Bernadette Robert's Experience of No Self where she explains that belief in Jesus as Christ was an essential part of her path. Simply throwing out, "well the mystics say." doesn't seem to be a convincing argument against the possibility that Christianity, as C. S. Lewis explains it, is right. Of course I have yet to read Professor Cheely's Christain mysticism paper for a definitive answer.
Russ, I absolutely agree that common Christianity doesn't do a great job dealing with the human dark side or shadow. However, I don't think you can dismiss the whole religion on that basis. I understand that having Christians in your face can be annoying, but when you say that Christians can't claim they're right, then can you claim that anyone including satanists are wrong?
Take Care,
James
PS Chuck, you would be surprised how many experiments people in the group have run.
----------
I want to take the bait here. The question is between "relativism" (everyone is kind of right) and "absoluteism" (someone is right and everyone else is wrong). For a long time I struggled with the fact that neither extreme really worked for me, but I couldn't find a middle ground.
The obvious answer came like a bolt of lightning from my Romantic Literature prof. He said "There are many valid interpretations of Wordsworth's Tinturn Abbey poem. You cannot possible say that one interpretation is right, and all others are wrong. On the other hand, if you think it's about cars, you're WRONG!" In other words, it may not be possible to declare one Absolutely The Only Right interpretation, but you can still throw out many interpretations as dead wrong.
I can't begin to tell you what a revelation that was to me, and I hope it's clear how it applies to James's argument. There's nothing inconsistent in suggesting that "there is no one true religion" or "all religions point to the same basic truth and none has a monopoly on it" while, nonetheless, completely rejecting Satanism and many other religions. Or, to use Augie's favorite metaphor, there may be many languages that derive from the Universal Grammar, and they are all different on one level and all equivalent on another level; but if you invent a language that doesn't derive from that grammar, it just flat won't work.
-k
----------
A couple of questions/comments from the peanut gallery...
"unfortunately, it seems that apathy rules and that is the biggest hurdle that most people need to cross" I wonder if apathy is really the problem when it comes to this type of debate. Maybe apathy is just a symptom of a bigger, underlying issue like fear (of losing conrol, of being wrong, of not finding an answer) or just not having a way to do it. I used to think that maybe a select few were bugged. But then I found myself talking to a fair number of random people, all of whom had something to say about the topic of 'the meaning of life'. Maybe we are all chosen in some way, but we just want to feel special and thinks it's just us.
"the author uses Kriya Yoga to reach enlightenment and touts it as the most direct and scientific route to the Divine" Okay, so this is probably just irksome to me because my life is so (overly, sometimes) 'sciencey' right now. How exactly did this author determine that it is the most direct and scientific route?
"I wanted so much to be able to touch God back, like a Thank You or I love you, but I was, and still am at a loss of doing that directly."/"So when Christians talk about God, I am glad to hear that He is not a part of the world and sits outside all the yarn-tapestry..."/"the Christian would contend that...experimentation will lead to truths about the universe but not to The Truth" I am speaking here from a Catholic perspective, so I'm not 100% certain that this is true of all Christians, but the belief is that God IS a part of all the yarn-tapestry. I think it would be easier to think that he's not, and often times I find myself falling into the mindset that I'm praying to a god that is sitting in a throne in the clouds. Sometimes that I would like to think of God as a mystical experience that I can understand if I ask enough profound questions. To an extent, I think that the profound questions are important. But the part that doesn't seem so glamorous is that part about loving the people around you—and while maybe that isn't exactly a 'direct' way of saying thank you, I think it's the closest thing to it that we have. And it's considered the only way to get to The Truth, which is (difficult in our society but) possible.
"common Christianity doesn't do a great job dealing with the human dark side or shadow" I'm not certain what the definition of common is, but I think I disagree with this one. I think that some people do have a tendency to whip out the list of do's and dont's, and to ignore the 'lesser' aspects of their personalities... but I think Christianity is all about acknowledging your shadow. In fact, I think it's all about dealing with your shadow. The 'doesn't do a great job' part usually means that you don't want someone judging your actions. Or that you don't want to judge your actions. (I say 'you', but I could/should say 'I' ;) Given, most people are okay with the 'don't murder anyone' but the sex stuff and the poverty tends to be rather bothersome. The way I see it, it's not that you absolutely cannot do these things, but by doing them, it makes it harder to put yourself in the position to lose the ego and become enlightened. Given, you usually don't figure that out until you've screwed up (been there, done that).
If anyone has spare time to read, I just finished a (short) book called Your God Is Too Small (sound familiar?), which addresses all of the stereotypical images we project onto 'God' and then offers an alternative definition. (I can't remeber the author's name.) Also, I've finally started to read the Catechism (which is the book that states what Catholicism actually teaches)—even the most intellectual and agnostic among us might be interested to see how much it sounds like an 'sks document' (or rather how much sks sounds like it). I recommend the section on faith (part I).
Becky
----------
Hello!
The following email is rough, admittedly, and yet it is my hope that it serves to get your head spinning, once again. At the very least it may explicate my current dizzy moments. Here I go ...
The issues currently floating in the SKS fray have intrigued me and also have sparked much concern. What is the point? I feel distant and separate at these times. Is that the point? To work past those (these) moments in order to come across a new plateau of peace? Compounding these sensations is that I really do have some alone feelings—missing a certain dear loved one, family, and friends—and so these thoughts get bombarded and combined. Yes, I miss these people. And yes, sometimes I wonder why I am here in Baltimore (doing an internship). The root of that question spouts forth to a deeper level—'why I am here'. Why am I here? To what purpose have I been created? And to function properly do I require a complete answer?
I was getting rather puzzled at the split between Judaism and Christianity. If we worship the same God, why are more bonds not created than broken? Why did I sense in reading a few of the past emails that it was Christianity against Judaism, James against Zach, offense producing defense? I read Zach's email as a defense of his faith, and was confused. Does Jesus care about brands? Is everyone else just going to Hell? Do we has humans require that point, that name—Jesus—Buddha—do we cling to the idea of enlightenment and God as man so that we can understand? Or is it to make us feel special—hey look—humans are part of this process. We are the ones to whom religion has been presented, we are the ones worthy of this outpouring of love. We are the ones having been created for this purpose. If the point of these figures is to show us, and after we have seen, what next? Or is that also a false piety to believe that to see is to understand? Will humanity move past these figures? And if so, is it to dwell more fully with the Maker, the Absolute, the Ineffable?
The process of my faith has been to become closer to God. Desiring that communion. I understand intellectually the sacrifice of Jesus yet to fathom emotionally these details is incredibly challenging for me. Add to this process that I tend to work more on the intellectual level than emotional, and I have quite a challenge ahead of me. I do not want to bypass Jesus, it is rather my fear that the current development of my faith is moving in that direction. In what, then, is this faith based? I believe in God, the Almighty Creator. I believe that this God is 'above' all else, not just here on earth but everywhere, meaning God is All. I believe that God is love.
The idea that we couldn't experience God's love until Jesus' appearance is aberrant to me (and, I admit, potentially rather erroneous). Why would we be created and then not be able to sense this great bond of love with our Maker? I am questioning a lot. Yet I cannot imagine a world without our great teachers—Abraham, Jesus, Buddha, etc. . I cannot imagine the sorry state we would be in if we did not have these examples of compassion and sacrifice. Or, rather, I can imagine, and promptly shut down those circuits for the horrid-ness of the image. I am not trying to rule out Jesus, Buddha, etc., but am instead trying to understand more deeply their importance. And what about Christianity's separatism?
If Anna S. is correct in presuming that most people enjoy and care deeply for their beliefs, then would it not be correct to assume that people belong to different religions precisely because the minor differing aspects put their minds to relative ease? I am not Jewish, though Judaism may bring another peace. Likewise, I am not Hindu, yet Hinduism may bring another peace. I am not Catholic, yet Catholicism may bring another peace. My family is Protestant, does it bring me peace because of the implicit familiarity and overlapping ideals of comfort? Stated in another way, do I embrace Protestantism because I embrace my family, who happens also to embrace Protestantism? And therefore, if I did not have a good family relationship, would I then deny whatever faith to which they belonged? I am reminded of sociologist Emile Durkheim's stipulations that religion equals society and that society equals religion. Fascinating.
What does any of this current discussion have to do with getting closer to God? Paradoxically, all and nothing.
Comprehending the necessity of overcoming stumbling blocks is at some times crucial to advancement. However, at other times other measures of advancement may prove beneficial. These times, I believe, are when the intellect falls aside.
So then my doubt lies in questioning of whether or not I have the capacity to move past these moments. To get to a point where at I no longer need to address concerns either intellectually or emotionally, rather, that the 'I' questioning is beyond that level of comprehension. I neither doubt that I should express love to others, nor that I should be constantly striving to better my person. The doubt, then, is in my potential. Who am I to be granted the capacity for these gifts, to reach these heights?
No one. I am no one. There is no one, only One. Until I actualize my place as part of this One, I am, to avoid the use of that 'o' word once more, nothing. The potential is achieved in this peace, this completion.
Thus the great teachers came, helping others to understand what they are and who they can become. To offer this belief when it feels so very distant. To say—look—mere mortal—another has done this, has survived, and has come into Being—look—it can be done. Now do it.
In this way I can perceive hope.
Doubt is good in that it brings us back to our basic questions. Doubt—are you really so sure—and in answering once again we are strengthened. Acknowledging this utter lack of knowing, this humility, this process it opens us.
The debate between religions, then, is not of primary focus to me. What is crucial in my eyes is in the search of answering again and again the basic questions regarding my faith and in the resulting growth, no matter the presentation of the questioning. Each time, getting further along before getting booted back home. It's like that children's game, Sorry, in which the goal is to get your 4 men around the circle. The catch is that others are trying to do the same thing, and at times their advancement hinges on pushing you back to ground zero. Are we playing a game of Sorry when debating the relative strengths of the world's religions? Stated differently, are we externalizing our basic questions, desiring through this interplay with others an attenuation of the doubt? Going back to the game metaphor, is the focus the color of each player's pieces or the circle at the end of the loop around the board?
Therefore, I challenge each of us to look again, where is our focus? Does it really matter what way another choses? Really? Be not hampered by these concerns. Come to know the "God of your understanding" (a beautiful phrase lifted from Al Wheeler, Mary Alice's amazing uncle). Is faith working? Do it. Is doubt working? Do it. (Aww, I sound like a Nike commercial. Sorry.) Just do it.
Final question, to which at my level understanding I cannot conceptualize even the beginning of an answer, how do I know when the process is 'working'?
Faith?
-Emily Roach
----------
Hey y'all,
This is what I get for writing an email with a 102 temperature. :-) My ability to articulate takes a nose dive after 100F.
I don't necessarily disagree with any points anyone has made; as many have said, they are indeed beautiful. I respect that, although I see that beauty elsewhere.
As if I need to say, a lot of my beliefs stem a lot more from Paganism than Christianity—they always have been, even before I knew to give it that name. It speaks more truly and openly to me than any of the 5000 sermons I heard when I'd sing at churches.
What I originally meant to stress is, okay, Christianity doesn't work *for me.* This is not to say that it is without merit in total or that I think those who follow it are "bad," "naive," "stupid," or any of the other piles of names most Christians are called. But when the "sports mentality" inevitably is discussed (and thrown about in everyday life by God Knows Who), then I demand mutual respect.
I'm way past the "I hate all Christians" phase. I've been fortunate enough to meet quite a few people (within and without the group) that have an incredibly strong, pure, "un-stupid" faith in Christianity that I truly admire. Those people helped me do away with my angst. It took their positive examples, along with my own developing understanding of my own faith, to accept their beliefs, as well as my own, for what they were.
Let me give you an example:
Her name is Shelley. A preacher's daughter by trade, but somehow Shelley escaped the rebellious stigma of such a title. I knew her from a chorus I sang in throughout High School. After a year or so of hardcore fundraising (of which the world isn't likely to see again), the lot of us take a mini-tour of England and the Netherlands.
Wouldn't you know one of the stops was the Red Light District.
So me, Shelley, and a group of friends, ahem, "window shop" (a story for another time) and eventually browse through a bondage store (don't ask). Shelley and a few other ladies understandably declined to enter the shop and stayed out on the street.
After about five minutes of shocking merchandise, one of the girls awaiting my departure from the store runs in (straining not to look at anything), grabs my arm and looks at me in terror.
"Russ, you need to get out there NOW."
"What's wrong?"
She looked around the store and hesitated. "...Shelley's PRAYING."
I replied, "Well darlin', Shelley *is* allowed to pray."
"No, you don't understand!"
At which point I'm dragged out of the store and see Shelley, on the streets of the Red Light District, on her knees with hands clasped, fiercely praying for the numerous lost souls on the street.
The rest of the entourage was mortified or amused. I do have to admit I was a little of the latter ("Darlin', you don't know where that street had been!" I joked as we discussed the happening later), but more than anything else I respected and admired Shelley more than I have anyone before then or since.
Even when conventional wisdom would suggest otherwise, Shelley followed her intuitions and her conviction and did the right thing. Although she always seemed flighty, she was never naive or stupid as many people thought—just not "worldly." She trusted the manner in which God spoke to her and let the Divine take care of the rest. You don't see that kind of faith in many people.
And right then, as we were walking away from the Red Light District for good, I was wondering, "Could I do any less?"
And the answer is no. Thus it was spoken: Russ Lane had an epiphany in the Red Light District.
True story, honest to God. I couldn't make this up if I tried.
Like I hinted at before, I think each individual's concept of God is a subjective thing: I applaud anyone who has the strength to follow the manner in which God speaks to them and do the right thing. That's the strength Shelley possesses: that's the strength I aspire to when I'm called on my thoughts of Christianity/God/etc. being somewhat "unconventional."
But, as James pointed out, that can lead to a great deal of pitfalls. I think Kenny (paraphrasing Augie) said it best when he discussed a "Universal Grammar."
I'm not well read enough to make this claim, but many of you are and could tell me I'm on to something/tell me I'm wrong. But aren't a lot of religions/cults/whatever that have poor "grammar" are somewhat reactionary to the Unbalance to which I referred earlier. Could one not argue that Satanism is a response to Christianity's unbalance, or the New Age's current focus on the Goddess, to the exclusion of the God.
I see truth and beauty in many different faiths. Check out the book "The World of Myth" by Robert Flemming (I believe). What Flemming does is take many of the world's various religious myths (including Christianity) and broke them down into archetypes: creation, destruction, etc. The similarities were amazing and the differences were more cultural than theological, IMO.
That said, I think none of them has the right to rouse the 'ol "sports mentality" and say "We're Number One! Whoo Whoo Whoo!!!"
I *demand* mutual respect for followers of different faiths. I've been riding Christianity pretty hard but I made a scene at a metaphysical convention after I saw some granola muncher Wiccan fool selling Christian-bashing bumper stickers: among others, there was one with a big fish eating a little fish—the big fish said "Darwin." I have no patience for such nonsense, and told the little moron so.
This has been a pleasure.
Best,
Russ
----------
Well it saddens me to see this conversation fizzling out, so I thought that I would try to add a little and maybe spark something else or at least get someone to argue with me, or at least contribute a little to the wonderful head spinning a la Emily! :) And it is mostly to her last email which I tag on and attempt to spring from.
To the analogy of the Sorry game . . . although I never played this game, I can imagine what you are saying and I think that it is this at times, although I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing (I don't think that it is necessarily concentrating on the color) . . . perhaps at the times when we think that we are being pushed back to the beginning, we are not even being pushed back, but farther along?
To the question spouting forth from a deeper level of 'why am I here', although I certainly cannot begin to answer the more specific implication of anyone personally . . . from the more general standpoint—and you can think that this is cheesy if you will, but i honestly believe that the only main reason that God could possibly have for creating us is that his grace and generosity and goodness were so overflowing that although He does not need a single thing, His incredible goodness overflowed so that another creature could enjoy His infinite bliss. And the only way to this perfect bliss is by finding Him, loving Him, and following His will, only this could not be forced because otherwise such a love would not be unconditional. I can think of other reasons, such as God wanted to behold God or know what it is like to be limited and reasons along those lines, but I guess it is the nature of perfection that it has infinite reasons for every perfect part of it . . . does that make sense, do yo know what I mean? But anyway, I believe that the main reason is simply his grace.
A beautifully moving quote from Autobiography of a Yogi puts into words much more sweetly than I can what I mean.
"To allot God a secondary place in life was, to me, inconceivable. Though He is the sole Owner of the cosmos, silently showering us with gifts from life to life, one thing yet remains which He does not own, and which each human heart is empowered to withhold or bestow manšs love. The Creator, taking infinite pains to shroud with mystery His presence in every atom of creation, could have had but one motive a sensitive desire that men seek Him only through free will, With what velvet glove of every humility has He not covered the iron hand of omnipotence!"
Once again, I don't really know, but to get the ball rolling, I'm going to suggest that it is when others see more humility in us, when we feel more trust in God, more love of God, more awe, and out of gratitude find ourselves wanting to pass God on to others more than anything else. But I think it is important to say that this is certainly not to say that one shouldn't expect these results in any way especially without struggle or in any short time.
Finally . . . I add in my own question. I am very much still open to and even at times lean towards the possibility of there being but one bridge to be built through Jesus to God, but of those who might take the apologetic Christian stance (shows my ignorance, but I finally figured out the apologetic part :) but anyway, can someone explain to me if Jesus is the only way to God, how buddhists can experience enlightenment and speak so confidantly of the bliss of union with God and the miraculous abilities of the advanced yogi? This is the one piece which tends to convince me of the unity of all religions. I just don't see a possible explanation for how or why God can allow such enlightenment experiences away from pure Christianity if we are to believe that Jesus' name is the only way. Surely you can't tell me that these men of incredible humility and service and gratitude who speak with such splendor, wisdom, authenticity, and confidence of enlightenment and direct experience of God and the miracles thus resulting can be the product of the devil trying to deceive us away from Jesus?
~ Chuck
----------
I am not replying directly to Chuck's comments, but I have yet to chime in on this conversation so I thought I would add what I was thinking about just yesterday.
I think religion in and of itself is a useful tool, but not the end obviously. The end is where we reach unity with God, but with the exception of those who reach that by pure grace, the rest of us have to think about, have to try to live lives that make us more prone to "accidental grace". Sometimes people who are bugged by the questions about why they are here, what is the purpose of my life, etc. look for more than what religion offers because the religoins seem limited. They seem to contradict each other (i.e. Chuck's question about the enlightened yogis and the Christian stand that Jesus is the only way to God). They sometimes seem to ask for blind faith, to just take the word of the Church and believe it because these are the teachings. If you cannot simply accept these then you are a heretic or lacking in character.
And I think that for a large part of the world, having the laws cut out in black and white is necessary. Not everyone wants to or knows of an eternal longing (maybe we all have this somewhere) to look on the face of God and live. Those who have this desire feel it almost as a tangible object. Not quite real since you can't pick it up, burn it, or throw it away to get rid of the "bug", but still a sense that all is not right with the world, that there is something unfulfilled of a much higher purpose than whatever you may doing at any given moment (i.e. working all day in a computer lab). I think religion can help to set the focus and tone of your daily life more in accordance with God, to help you forget the petty things and focus in on (for me) what I try not to think about most of the time: life seems futile but at the same time there is such beauty and joy and devestation and sadness too, so what is the master plan here? how do I find out this master plan? Prayer and meditation work with religion to find focus, to make time for devotion to what we KNOW is the most important thing. That is what the SKS tries to help you do, stay in the game, think about the big picture, and not ignore the tough questions. Religion is not opposed to any of that if you are utilizing religion in the truest sense of what is was designed for, bringing you closer to God. However, religion can be grossly mis-used and abused and thus has to be approached with the same mentality that attracts people to SKS, the same drive that wants to use whatever tools and means available to help them answer the ultimate question rather than the attitude of "tell me what I want to hear, that God is all loving, father of everything, blah, blah, blah".
So my essential take is that I don't care what one religion says versus another if I can glean something from any of them that helps to clarify (or even confuse in some cases) the quest for God.
Sarah B.
----------
dear guys.
well i feel like i have something to say, although i'm not sure what it is and i'm not sure how to say it and i know it's way off topic. so here it is anyway.
i spent all day saturday with one of my best friends, who finally admitted to herself around april of this year that she's an alcoholic. she just completed an intensive 6-wk. out-patient program and she's been going to AA meetings 6 nights per week since May.
i can't even begin to explain to you what a magnificent, radiant, transformed person i met on saturday. i didn't understand before what rose meant when he said that AA is the best spiritual program around...but then i was listening to one of my best friends tell me with tears in her eyes that every morning she gets down on her knees and thanks god for making her who she is, for giving her this disease and this second chance.
this wasn't movie melodrama cheese, and it wasn't affected, either. she was *there*. i could look in her eyes and know she was *present* in the world, that she was in touch with something profound, that she was strong in a way only people who have been completely broken and then recovered can be strong. and wise.
she said: "i have to get sober, or i am going to die. it's that simple."
she has submitted.
she's terrified. i can see that in her eyes, too. but she is *going there.* and she made me realize i have not gone there yet...but also that i can—and for the first time in my life, i think i will. (my suitcase is already packed.)
i have to get sober, or i am going to die. (and by that i don't mean i'm an alcoholic or that i'm literally going to die (although, literally, we are all going to die)...but, well, you know what i mean.)
the only way to do it is to go there. it seems so obvious. so many of the words and stories augie used to tell us again and again have been ringing in my ears lately because it's finally clicking. i guess it took so long because there were places i had to "go" in my life before i could really see the truth behind those words...
you just have to go there. stop talking about it and just go there. it's not about belief-doubt loops and c.s. lewis' "mere christianity," it's about "a grief observed." it's about being willing to take the plunge. i know that the intellectual side is necessary...it's sort of like trying to hang a picture without a hammer and nail if you don't use the intellect...but there's a thin line between using the intellect and bullshit.
my friend said, "alcoholics are the most honest people i've ever met in my life. they don't have time to bullshit. if they bullshit, they die. and that's all." she added, "they also have the best sense of humor of anyone i've ever met."
and we both laughed.
we all gotta do what we've been asked to do, and some of us have been asked to do more than others. but like nike, we gotta just do it.
anyway. i hope that made sense & i hope it was at least somewhat relevant...please try to understand...and please try to admit that you're an alcoholic...it wants to come to you but you have to meet it halfway...
still stupid but maybe finally learning,
R.
----------
Yo,
Like Chuck, I am having a good time with this and want to respond to the last round of emails which I have appended below.
I definitely agree with Rachel that religion, spirituality, SKS, Christianity, or anything else worth while is always ultimately a matter of "going there." I also agree that the intellect is necessary. I would add that a large group email exchange is more conducive for the intellectual part and reporting back on "going there" than actually "going there" over email (in fact "going there over email" sounds pretty disgusting ;) ).
A couple of thoughts from the latest emails. Who says that religion/spirituality is so different for each individual? We all drive the same cars (more or less). No one feels compelled to invent their own car to get to New York. We're quite happy to buy one of ten thousand off the lot from Ford. Why would religion be different for each person? I remember Doug telling me about some random guy he met in some random Eastern European country (is anyone surprised so far?) that bragged that his orthodox Christian sect was the best because they had the best dogma. Americans never seem to brag that their religion (no matter what it is) has the best dogma. It seems that the more personally engaging the religion is the better it is. What if the truth of the religion is totally independent of how we feel about it? I realize I am overstating the case, since I tend to dismiss churches after a couple visits if the Holy Spirit doesn't walk down the aisle and wrestle me to the ground. But the notion that religion has very little to do with me was a recent ah-ha.
Chuck has baited me into playing Christian apologist again. Chuck wrote:
My Christian apologist answer to "How can it be true that Jesus is the only bridge to God?" is: Because it is. How can it be true that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth? Because it is. In Christian theological terms (at least from what I understand from C. S. Lewis, Andre Louf, and a couple of others), Buddhism and other non-Christian religions are "natural religions" as Louf puts it or "simple religions" as C. S. Lewis puts it. That means they are based on many worldly truths about the natural world and human psychology, but not on the Truth, i.e. Christian doctrine: God the Father as separate from the world, God the Son as the human being Jesus Christ, who is the only route to salvation, and God the Holy Spirit who animates the world. Someone can take a drug and have incredible visions, blissful feelings, insights into the mind, and become a more well adjusted person because of it. Someone else could study with a guru and develop some incredible ability to stand on their head for years. Neither of these people have necessarily discovered the Truth.
My personal answer is that I don't know, and find it an intriguing uestion. I am a lot more weary of any intuition that says that a mood, ision, or experience is The Answer. I think that powers, the personal haracteristics Chuck mentioned, and moving experiences are symptomatic f people who Know, but they are neither necessary nor sufficient in etermining what is true. At the same time, it's pretty tough to wave a ismissive hand at the Dali Lama and say, "Who cares if he's ompassionate, wise, and powerful, that doesn't say anything about uddhism." His being seems like a pretty good argument for Buddhism to e. The best advice I've gotten on this recently came from Father rancis via Ed Cheely. Father Francis pointed out that all of the great igures in the Bible had personal encounters with God and struggled to bey God. He said that you need not believe every inch of Christian octrine right away to be a Christian. It's great if you can, but it's ot a prerequisite. With that in mind, I try to take Rachel's advice to just go there," keeping Christian dogma in mind, but not using it as an xcuse to sit around waiting for beliefs to come to me.
James
----------
Remember that the Bible warns explicitly that there will be false prophets, and they will do miracles. The Pharoah's men were able to turn their staffs into snakes, just as Moses was.
So if the devil were to sneak down and try to dissuade you from accepting Jesus, what would he do? Would he appear to be a snake oil salesman with a forked tongue? Presumably he would be sneakier than that. He might, for instance, appear to be a very sincere, good man who has found a way to God that doesn't involve Jesus. He might give himself a funny name like "Dalai Lama" and preach something that is very close to the truth, while still critically missing. He might successfully seduce entire cultures into following him. Most importantly, he would be convincing. It's no good saying "my intuition says he is sincere" because then you are claiming that your intuition is too subtle for Satan himself, the origin of all evil and formerly God's right-hand-man.
So why am I going into all this? I'm certainly no Christian apologist. But my real point is that I don't think you will ever be able to disprove the Christian worldview by any set of facts and logical arguments. I don't think you will be able to disprove the scientific materialist viewpoint by any set of facts and logical arguments either. All of these world views are perfectly self-consistent. They work.
Which is why, James, I think that religion does have to have something to do with you. You cannot choose one religion over another, I am claiming, based on finding logical nits. So you have to choose based on your own intuition, your own experiences. If the One True Religion has nothing to do with you, then you have no way (other than blind luck) of finding it. Now there's a sadistic God!
-k
----------
Call me a relativist, but why believe a Christian's claim to have knowledge of ultimate truth over that of a Buddhist or anyone else for that matter? No one can take another person's word, because they haven't had the experience themselves. You can choose your religion/faith based on your history or your intuition, but If you don't KNOW, then how do you know you're not choosing poorly? Those who have had an experience of GOD can try to convince others that the only way is their way, but upon what do you base a choice between competing only ways?
I prefer to believe that exclusivity is a claim that has been exaggerated to far greater proportions than Jesus originally intended. To me it's a big red flag in general. But then, I am a relativist, to some extent. ;-)
- Joyce
----------
Well, I just feel the need to walk the plank again, jump in the debate, and see where I land.
I can see how someone proclaiming to others that one path is the ONLY TRUE WAY would have some bad side effects if one's goal is to try to get people to seek a better relationship with God. And there are all the Devil's Advocate questions...where we assume something, and make an argument and think we are getting closer to the truth. But I think this is all our own little way of trying to feel better. now feeling better about things is very legal...but how far are we going to carry this? All this logic we use or try to use (I am a fan of logic myself) seems to me to be the weakest link in our chain to God. We say "if we could only understand..." "If only it was obvious to us that we are going the right way and that there will be no danger of being wrong..." Well, let me say something about SKS. It is intense. It is NOT safe. Well, being a Christian isn't safe either. I am a Christian...and I am grappling with hard questions left and right. I see the red flags that Joyce Felder sees. And I do use logic to try to get around them...I grapple with it, and always will...I will feel better about one question, and then feel worse about another.
SO...my thesis is: This questioning will not help you unless you commit. Go ahead and pick your way. Pick your teacher...dogma...whatever. I picked Christianity. And only in the last year or so have I really felt like I am really going somewhere as far as a Seeker's journey. Things are looking good. And so here is the Risk that I have... I am getting deeper into it, and I feel my life vectoring a little into a direction set by my understanding and soul searching through Jesus the Christ's teachings. And so the Risk is that my life as a vector will be so narrow that I will be speeding and speeding and at the end of my life...when I have done all I could, or at least done all I did, I will either hit the Kingdom of God, or a brick wall.
So picking the Way is personal. And though I am [lucky] enough to believe very strongly in Christianity...that it is a real way. I don't know about the others. And I WON'T know unless I went into them with the same intensity as I have Christianity.
And so what do you do, once you picked? Just follow the teachings, trying to get the message. "love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all of you mind, with all of your strength." And so for ME, the hardest is with all of my Mind. Because I feel like my understanding of God holds ME back when my heart and soul are chomping at the bit...wanting to go ahead very much. And so for me...I believe in God. my idea of God comes from Jesus...and it is a very fine-tuned thing that takes a heck of a lot of time, and grappling. And it changes. And so I am working on strengthening my logic...or setting the control of my logic use to the best level, I should say...so that it doesn't hold me back. In the Bible, some people have to get Jesus to prove himself...others don't need to. So I am still struggling with the role of logic.
And as many of you can see...all the stuff I just said is a mixture of things I "learned" in working with Christianity and with SKS. So I wouldn't give up any of my experiences, or inspirations from either one.
So to sum it up...I think the value of Questioning depends on why you're questioning. If questions are a creative way of one of the oubting/afraid voices in our head holding us back...then keep your eyes pen for an answer...but in the mean time, keep on truckin'. If the uestions are a genuine way of trying to clarify a concept, that after aving it straight will enhance your seeking God, or loving others...or some ther good thing....the I say...Keep your eyes open for the answer...even earch a little...but still Keep on truckin' unless you have No faith that t the end of all this...you are going to be okay.
Who knows...(not a statement about myself...more of an expression)
Evan
----------
Hello. I was reading the transcribed email conversation that was sparked by C.S. Lewis' book Mere Christianity. I was struck by several ideas raised, namely that of there being One True Path to God. Some people suggested, "Why would God do that?" I would like to offer a thought on that. Is it physically possible for a man to walk two different paths at once? Can someone walk directly toward two separate objects at once? The point is that every person can only choose one path for his life. Many at SKS seem to think that they reject the notion that there is one path to be traveled. But in truth, everyone has already chosen the path he/she thinks is the true one. At SKS, the consensus seems to be that the path is doubt, constant questioning, constant searching, without rest, without resolution. The path chosen here seems to be that of deliberately not going down the path of any religion, but taking bits and pieces of agreeable material from each and using them to mark out a new path, aptly dubbed, Truth, or Enlightenment.
The point is, though many of you may believe there is no One True Path, that, in fact, is your chosen path. The trouble is, many paths do not lead to God. God has said that He Himself is the path. So, it is impossible that there can be more than one of Him. He made Himself the path for us, and that is the message of C.S. Lewis' book. I hope that people at SKS will rethink the assumptions that a)Humans do not possess the truth but must look hard for it, work for enlightenment, read and seek and reflect and philosophize in order to receive understanding. Couldn't it be that we all know the truth already, but habitually deny it and cover it up so that we can experience the thrill of receiving "enlightenment"? and b)God is reaching out for us just as we are reaching out for Him. If God is really omnipotent and omniscient, then why should He have to struggle for us like we struggle for Him? Couldn't it be that He has already revealed Himself to us, given us free will, and is waiting for us to choose Him? He has done all He can for us. All that is left is for us to believe, not doubt. Doubt will never, ever lead to the truth. This is a fact that anyone can observe. He/she who walks in doubt is as transient as the dandilion seed blown about by the wind. He/she is blown this way and that by any reasonable-sounding philosophy out there, always swayed by a good argument. He/she never finds the rest of being rooted in unshakable truth. No doubter is ever happy when set next to a true believer.
A. Davis
----------
I'll be interested in replies to this very thoughtful email. My intial take is that she is talking about "just surrendering to that which IS" which is God. The implication is: "Why work, strive, doubt, seek, when it is all right there? Just SEE it and yield to it." I agree in many ways except that if the lives of the most famous saints are of any indication surrender is the most difficult thing in the world and requires so much work. (See Louf's Tuning into Grace). T.S Eliot was right when he called the true Path a "condition of complete simplicity costing not less than everything." We all want the simplicity—it is the cost that scares us back into our ego. Also one of the problems with the way we communicate the SKS path is that it appears to be just a hodge podge of paths thrown together at the whim of the seeker. And that is dangerous. If we are so obviously fallible in everything we do, feel, or say, how can we trust ourselves to "build a path"? Hell, we can't even trust ourselves to go on a diet and yet we presume to be able to self construct the path to God? However, I also believe that there is a basic unity even dogma that underlies the apparent in the SKS. What is that? A hint to the analysis is to remember that we are more often criticized for being too dogmatic and/or authoritarian as we are for being wishy washy. But we get it from both sides—plenty. How can that be (and I'm talking about the philosophy here not how we are organized as a community)? What is the proper relationship between outside authority and being true to one self?
----------
well...where to begin...I don't normally get into these email discussions because I don't seem to be able to cover all of my bases here...but at any rate, I shall try. I remember a conversation I had with Aug one evening after a UNC meeting. The basic crux of why I had started the conversation was because I had told him that I wanted the truth...and he cracked a smile...well as disquieting as the smile was, I knew Aug had to have a reason behind it, so I sat through the rest of the meeting wondering exactly what the smile meant. When the meeting had finally adjourned—I walked outside with Aug and asked him why he had smiled the way he had. His reply was a very short, simple and endearing: "You don't really want the truth yet." I didn't have much else to say that evening to Aug or to anybody. I did do a lot of thinking though, and I realized how attached I was to the people around me still. I had (and still do) the feeling that the transformation would leave me estranged from my friends and loved ones. I guess I always equated enlightenment with being ready to die—I mean the same permanance anyway. And still, even though I have not been in a near death experience or close to my own death—the only problem I would have with dying would be that I was leaving so many wonderful people behind. I know everyone can take care of themselves but—there is a definite element of loss there. There may also be hidden motivations as well—but I can't see them and if anyone else can—please help and point them out to me—but anyway—I did realize the definite fear there—the loss of all connectedness...I don't know where or how I need to approach this stumbling block but I am very aware of it. I am about to be late to class so I better go—thank you all for listening—I know I didn't address the topic directly but it is the best I have to put down in an email—
take care,
----------
My question to [Alicia] would be, what would you say to a devout Muslim? Would you tell him he should go right on believing in Allah and Muhammed? Ah, but then you run the risk of suggesting that there are many, equally valid paths. But on the other hand, would you tell him to switch his faith to Jesus? Problem is, he can't—he can't change or lose his faith—unless he first learns to tinge his own faith with an element of doubt. Until he does that, he cannot even consider your point of view.
But I have to stress—I am just speaking as Kenny, a guy who lives down the road from you. I am not speaking for all of SKS, many of whom are devout Christians or Jews. (Don't think we have any Muslims at the moment.) The only thing we all have in common, perhaps, is a belief that these questions are worth asking—and not just asking once a week—worth building your life around.
----------
In answer to [Kenny's] question, I would tell the devout Muslim about Jesus and how He is the only salvation. I would not ask the Muslim to change his faith because (brace yourself) the Muslim doesn't yet have faith to begin with. What I mean by that is what most people consider "faith" is simply the intellectual acceptance of something (a philosophy, religion, or idea) because it appears to be sound or logical. It "works". Rarely does anyone equate the word with an actual genuine belief that what he has faith in is actually real—actually the way things are. The word "faith" seems to be a sort of qualifying statement these days. But what I am asserting is that faith is genuine and true belief. I assert that a true Christian is the only person who truly has faith—truly believes—in the message he is living for. He knows it is true. How can I say such a thing? How can a Christian "know" his God (Jesus Christ, the only Salvation) is real any more than any other person of any other supposed belief can "know" his is real? Because of a simple, yet circuitous fact: because He is real. The reason I, for example, know that Christ is for real and His words are true is that He is here with me right now. I've met Him, I talk with Him every day, and He lives in me. People tend to get these claims confused with wishful speaking, i.e. "Santa Claus lives in every one of us who loves, because he is love." I'm not equating love, or kindness, or honesty, or selflessness, or anything else with the idea that Christ is in me. I mean that He Himself is in me. I can remember before He came to live in me, I can remember when He came, and I can remember after He came. He is actually here. No other God promises to come and dwell in His people Himself. But Christ (who is God) does promise—and does do it. When I knocked on the door, it really was opened to me. When I asked, I really did receive. What others perceive as "faith" is simply Christians giving God credit for what He has actually done. We don't have to wonder who did it, or whether anything was done at all. We have been changed—saved—and we know who did it.
So to the Muslim, I would encourage him to receive faith which he has yet to have. If this seems arrogant, saying that others do not really have faith and do not really believe even though I've never looked through their eyes, consider this: If it's possible that their God's promises are real, and their God is real, then mine has to be false. It's as if John is standing in the room with me, and someone calls on the phone and says John is at someone else's house. That can't be, because John is here with me! Now, John is easily imitated, and therefore you could argue that maybe it's not really John in the room with me. But the Creator of the universe cannot be duplicated. He is who He is (note Exodus 3:14). Only He can give humans the ability to live the life they've tried and failed
From: "Kenny Felder"
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2000 11:59 PM
Subject: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Georg Buehler"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 8:04 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "August Turak"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Kenny Felder"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 10:53 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Georg Buehler"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 11:14 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Anna Skorupa"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 11:35 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Charles Eric Eesley"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 1:44 PM
Subject: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Rachel"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Zach Klughaupt"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 2:56 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Anna Skorupa"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
My response to C. S. Lewis would be that he needs to define his terms, namely "belief" and "doubt."
It's only in religion (actually—only in some religions) where belief is considered a choice. But if you only believe something because you're supposed to, you don't really believe it. So no, you don't eventually have to choose one of C. S. Lewis' doors—in fact, if nothing causes you to believe one door is right, than you CANNOT willingly believe in one of them.
Btw, the whole idea that you have to choose one set of beliefs is based on goyish preconceptions of what a religion is. Christianity is just about the only religion I can think of that puts much weight on what you believe. Judaism says all morally upright people have a place in heaven, regardless of religion. Islam goes even farther, and recognizes other religions as legitimate paths to the truth. So, sorry Mr. Lewis—Christians might have to choose a room, but the bigger party's out in the hallway.
From: "August Turak"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Zach Klughaupt"
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
I'm not sure that's the right definition of belief, "recognizing something to be more likely true than not." C. S. Lewis probably *did* define his terms (he's hard to challenge on mental rigor), but in any case, we should probably define them ourselves, as well. Okay, I give up! Anyone have a good definition? My criticism for the one Zach offers is that it only describes purely rational, mental belief. Where's intuition? Where's the two-thousand-and-two times in our lives where we've "believed" something was right, where our guts told us so, though it didn't seem probably in the least. And lots of religious, spiritual stuff just falls way out of range of probability. For instance, I do believe in moral absolutes. I feel strongly that some things are just right, and some are just wrong. There isn't prior experience to back this up. Sure, there's reward and punishment, but that only tells me that according to my parents and society there is right and wrong; it tells me nothing about the absolutes. Am I just extending conditioning to the nth degree?
From: Mandy Schleifer
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 8:34 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Russ Lane"
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Charles Eric Eesley"
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 2:55 PM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Joyce M. Felder"
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2000 10:02 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "some one in the Harrison Family"
Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2000 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Charles Eric Eesley"
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2000 8:51 PM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Rachel"
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "August Turak"
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "James Todd"
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Kenny Felder"
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 9:23 PM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
I understand that having Christians in your face can be annoying, but when you say that Christians can't claim they're right, then can you claim that anyone including satanists are wrong?
From: Rebecca Pipas
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2000 10:52 AM
Subject: christianity vs. sks (?)
From: "Emily Roach"
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: A continuation of the current SKS thought string
From: "Russ Lane"
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Charles Eric Eesley"
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 12:10 AM
Subject: continuing the thought string
Final question, to which at my level understanding I cannot conceptualize even the beginning of an answer, how do I know when the process is 'working'?
From: "Sarah Mercke Barden"
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: continuing the thought string
From: "Rachel Medlock"
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2000 2:18 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "James Todd"
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
Finally . . . I add in my own question. I am very much still open to and even at times lean towards the possibility of there being but one bridge to be built through Jesus to God, but of those who might take the apologetic Christian stance (shows my ignorance, but I finally figured out the apologetic part :) but anyway, can someone explain to me if Jesus is the only way to God, how Buddhists can experience enlightenment and speak so confidently of the bliss of union with God and the miraculous abilities of the advanced yogi? This is the one piece which tends to convince me of the unity of all religions. I just don't see a possible explanation for how or why God can allow such enlightenment experiences away from pure Christianity if we are to believe that Jesus' name is the only way. Surely you can't tell me that these men of incredible humility and service and gratitude who speak with such splendor, wisdom, authenticity, and confidence of enlightenment and direct experience of God and the miracles thus resulting can be the product of the devil trying to deceive us away from Jesus?
From: "Kenny Felder"
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 10:05 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Joyce Felder"
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 11:02 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Evan Harrison"
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: Christianity vs. SKS
From: "Alicia Davis"
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2000 5:35 PM
Subject: About SKS
From: "Augie Turak"
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 10:01 AM
Subject: RE: About SKS
From: "Brad Rolen"
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2000 1:52 PM
Subject: RE: About SKS
Brad
From: "Kenny Felder"
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 9:57 PM
Subject: RE: About SKS
From: "Alicia Davis"
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: About SKS