The Common Ground of Religion

How do you reconcile this with Jesus' claim to be *the way?

Not just Jesus. ALL religions insist that their way is THE way.

I think I made the point that Jesus shows the way, is "the way", i.e., Christian Humanism. But simply saying Jesus is the way doesn't put us on "the way". It's about understanding "the Way" and making choices in life that are informed by "the way". Secular reality imposes on spiritual reality. Grace supposes nature, the "natural" way. Sensitivity to natural grace is a necessary aspect of authentic spirituality.

I have a Masters of Science in Biology, I read, speak and write "governmentese" and "scientese." I have an IQ of 146. I understood not ONE word of this post.

WhutinELL are you talking about?!?

Hi Chuck. Couldn't leave this alone either. My IQ is only 138. So if you can't understand it, I'm worse. Also, since English is a second language for me, I am lost also. Maybe one of the earlier commenters will translate for us.

The word "postmodern" appears more than once. To my non-anglophonic mind, the word is a self-contradiction.

Education in the modern/postmodern era doesn't value liberal arts. I'm quick to admit that my posting presupposes knowledge of Christian theology, medieval and renaissance politics/ history, wars of religion, and the intramural conflicts of Christian denominations that continue. It isn't easy to make sense of religious/ political conflicts, but it is really important that we try. Ultimately, all wars are "religious" wars.

No - no. It's not a lack of knowledge about medieval/renaissance etc. (well, I admit to a limited knowledge of Xtian theology - more a matter of forgetting, actually)... it's the WORDS! I understand the need for 'jargon' at times. Nothing else is os precise. but your words and sentence construction seem more designed to obfuscate than to illuminate.

I don't deny my density, but I think the point is getting through

Dennis, "postmodern" is a term of art (as is "modern") that relates to a time and cultural movements within the time. "Modern" is an era that was, and "postmodern is the era that follows it. I understand what you are saying, but who says that terms of art have to be logical or literal? Google can probably tell all you want to know about either term

My difficulty, like Chuck's is not ignorance, but the verson of English that this is written in.

If I have not misunderstood it, the current thrust is toward what I cannot agree with. It would require often adopting two accepting mutually exclusive beliefs as being both correct. The intolerance, arrogance etc. of the past is unacceptable, but moving to an ideological\doctrinal comprise is not logical.

In my opinion, a sincere believer should think and act as if his faith is the true path, therefore all others are wrong. That however still makes it wrong for anyone to even attempt to dictate doctrine to anyone.

I hope that I now have an accurate interpretation of the post.

Dennis, you say "...what I cannot agree with. It would require often adopting two accepting mutually exclusive beliefs as being both correct. The intolerance, arrogance etc. of the past is unacceptable, but moving to an ideological\doctrinal comprise is not logical."

I don't understand what you are saying or what you mean by "require often adopting two accepting mutually exclusive beliefs as being both correct." I don't know where what I say requires one to accept "mutually exclusive beliefs".

I'm not talking about ideological or doctrinal "compromise" but growth that allows new understandings of truth to be accommodated when errors of past ideology and/or doctrine are exposed. God-given intelligence requires the ongoing pursuit of truth, and openness to new insights into truth. This is especially true for teachers of faith for it is a terrible thing to cause others to persist in belief that is inconsistent with truth.

Thanks for that. I now know that we are on the same page. I had slightly misinterpreted you.

I would just love if the religions would make the change you suggest. However I keep seeing them holding on to practices and belief that contradict the clear evidence in new discoveries. But then, they were already contradicting what is clearly stated in their own "holy books", even amending it to make it seem as if it supports their beliefs or practices.

Most of my information is about. Those claiming to be Christians, but they are all guilty of that error.

I would like to think you are right, Sylvester, that the world is moving beyond narrow adherence to "sacred" scriptures. But the rise of fundamentalism...both Christian and Islamic...seems to be a counterforce opposing any kind of universal canon.

Economic, ecologic and societal implosions are converging in these times to unsettle global (religious) consciousness. Old religious dogma is irrelevant if nature can't tolerate the destruction caused by religious arrogance. Either global humanity seriously moves to correct humanly induced collapses of natural systems, or nature will make humanity pay ever more dearly by imposing the havoc of eco-social collapses directly on humankind.

I agree, but how can we prevent the self-destructive actions of "religious arrogance?"
I surely wish I knew how to do that.

Bert, I don't pretend to have the answer, and I don't know if there is one. But at least we can do personally what we can not to go along with the religious culture of institutional arrogance, i.e., seek common ground that is essentally universal, and by whch religions might recognize their arrogance and misdirection. History can teach us, but only if we want to learn.

I hope you are right...I wish you were right...but I see absolutely NO evidence of any effort on the part of the world's religions to "recognize their arrogance and misdirection."
Instead, I see increasing arrogance, increasing self-righteousness.
I see extremists hysterically denouncing those of differing beliefs.
I read every day about suicide bombers...today, 50 killed in Pakistan by Taliban terrorists who are trying to punish the government for its failure to embrace their extremist views.
The same is happening in Iraq and Indonesia. Where will they strike next?
Saudi Arabia is a powder keg waiting to blow.
Meanwhile, here at home, we have our own extremists, calling for the replacement of our Constitution with "biblical laws."
The people who advocate these things are no different from the Taliban...or even Al Qaeda.
But an appalling number of people agree with them! Appalling!
I don't share your optimism. I see only the continued growth of mindless, intolerant fanaticism.

". . . the world is moving beyond narrow adherence to "sacred" scriptures."

I would prefer that the world move away from letting their beliefs and practices depend on what they were told the scriptures say, but to check for themselves to ensure that they are not being fed man-made philosophies in the guise of scriptural doctrine.

The adopition of Platonic philosophies by Augustine and other early teachers was very unfortunate.

Sylvester:

". . . I don't pretend to have the answer, and I don't know if there is one. But at least we can do personally what we can not to go along with the religious culture of institutional arrogance . . ". That seems to be the answer to me. What do others think?

Sylvester: Wow!!! Well written. Why comment on par? Who would read or understand it save, for a moment or two, but those on this page. You wrote something about "...evolved genetics." Couldn't you get a bit more on the Twilight Zone for others that want to unite and understand one another? Do you believe in life after death? Do you believe in something like a Spirit? I just reread you article: Are you a Christian? Look, it's late at night and I'm tried. You actually appear to be saying your a Christian, but then again a Humanistic Christian, but then again...you appear to be saying that Jesus set up the best, as recorded, model for altruistic behavior(Which the New Testament shows he did not)....Who knows...Once again a very good article...Next time you write one about joining the world's religions together by following the Jesus model...make it simpler, at least for people like me. By the way...our we talking about saving the Earth, or are we talking about one another's ego's?

Clifford, we are talking about saving the Earth and ourselves; if Earth isn't "saved", neither are we Earth inhabitants. Spiritually, physically, we are Earth dependent. Being intentionally symbiotic in the manner of evolved life is an act of love, of altruism, consistent with human/divine trust as Jesus taught. Consumer capitalism (ego-culture) is killing Earth, us.

I hope you have a good sleep tonight.

On the twilight zone of "evolved genetics":
Intentional consciousness supposes the quantum-electric tensions of cellular molecules, the root potential of evolutionary openness. Lessons of quantum-electric experience (purposeful outcomes) are structured in genetic codes—the scriptural “canons” of natural symbioses and mindful love.

RNA is a molecule about the work of integrating codes of nurture into the genetic codes of nature. RNA molecules function primarily in the synthesis of proteins in cells, and in transmitting genetic information from DNA (DesoxyriboNucleicAcid) to proteins made in cells. RNA instructs strands (patterns) of DNA to cell cytoplasm in maintaining and structuring individual genetic codes. RNA has deoxyribose units, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), uracil (U), while DNA has A, C, G, and thymine (T), in place of deoxyribose and uracil.

Cells are nurseries of genetic coding (DNA) and of RNA that reproduces faithful patterns of cellular DNA. Ribosomes (akin to chromosomes) are cites within cellular cytoplasm that translate and transmit genetic information, in form and function. (Google, DNA, RNA, and ribosomes)

Yes - observation tends toward compassion.

Joseph Campbell wrote extensively on this topic. It is fascinating that religions "sprung up" spontaneously throughout the world, often with the same themes - and even symbols.

My thought is that religions are like rivers. The all came about in forms that were appropriate to their surroundings. There are similarities and differences, and they are all "true" to their own ecosystems. But no religion is THE true religion, any more than a river is THE true river. The Buddhists say that religions are like fingers pointing at the moon - but they're not the moon. That's like saying that all rivers flow into the oceans. But none of them are oceans.

Thank you. How much to the point, and in "plain English".

I think "spontaneously" can mean "auto-poetically," sensitively responsive.

Sylvester: That's not the Twilight Zone I was speaking of. It is the zone, as yet, beyond Material Physics. By the way, I don't quite believe in Quantum Physics. Perhaps out of ignorance, perhaps out of common sense. RNA, DNA and so fourth are fascinating. There is probably a great deal of truth in terms of their relation of what they do, how they effect us and the development of religion. I'm not so sure about religions springing up spontaneously. One might suppose that it has to do with how one would define the word "spontainiouse." In terms or art, in terms of science and in terms of discovery; we're all being a bit dry. Now for a bit of a Twilight Zone question, Sylvester: What is your religion and how do you define it? I realize that on certain levels the last sentence is a bit impolite and impertinent, so you don't have to answer it; and I apologize in advance. Before you answer: consult your DNA. At the very least.

Clifford, your question is direct, TOTALLY APPROPRIATE, and deserves a straight forward answer. I am a Roman Catholic, of the Vatican II persuasion. See my personal biography at www.acolyte.gather.com
and my philosphy/ theology at www.secondenlightenment.org
and www.evolution101.org

You're Catholic. That gives me an excellent opportunity to illustrate what I would prefer to see. As a non-Catholic, I hate the religion, however I don't have a problem with Catholics. Although my opinion is that you are on a path that will lead to your destruction, I must never attempt to force you from that path. My duty to you as a Christian is only to warn you and leave it up to you to heed or ignore me. Anything more than that is a grave sin. (Matthew 10:11-14 and )Galatians 6:1)

I cannot adopt the view that the various different faiths are all lead one to God; that would make me accept that two mutually exclusive ideas to be both true.

Now, some differences are immaterial, such as the shape of the instrument that Jesus died on. My only objection is that the Greek word "staurus" should be translated as "pole" or any other word with similar meaning.

Dennis, thanks for commenting. Anyone serious about faith can’t deny that some things in Roman Catholicism (including understandings of faith) are mutually exclusive; even more so with faiths outside Christianity. All are usually taught that their faith is the “true” faith, especially denominational Christians.

Certainly it’s true that faith cultures contain incompatible ideas, as well as mutually exclusive expectations and practices. That’s true also about Roman Catholicism. The onetime politically expedient theology of dominion (imperial) that prevailed before the Second Vatican Council has lost its credibility, and notwithstanding the Church’s hang-on to imperial political structures, many Catholics don't believe in it. Even the Second Vatican Council opened the Church to evolution while the First Vatican Council condemned it with many other things about "modernism" that have come to be accepted, like religious pluralism. By the way, Christian denominations root in medieval Roman Catholic theology; they yet have to deal with that anachronism

The great conundrum of religious practice is how people understand faith, and how they understand religion. Faith and religion are not the same thing. Even the Catholic Church with all its inconsistencies and exclusivities recognizes that faith is personal and that personal conscience is the bottom-line arbiter of all personal decisions and actions. However, in practice the Church often doesn’t act like it believes in this dictum.

Obviously the God people believe in is idiosyncratic. Putting human dimensions on God, or putting any dimensions on God, get people off on a wrong track because God is outside human dimensions. How God self-manifests in Creation is a whole ‘nother thing.

Just an aside: your final comment about some differences being immaterial made sense to me, but your problem with the word “staurus” didn’t. Really, whether it means a beam, a tree trunk or a pole has nothing to do with Jesus and salvation history

Thanks for that reply. We agree on a lot.

About my problem with the word "staurus". Having read the Greek classics as well as the Greek scriptures. I became irritated with the habit of "Christian" translators using word "cross" to translate that word. It suggests that it definitely had a cross piece. Yet whether or not it had one, the Greek word was "staurus". I say "light pole" whether the pole has a cross piece or not for the instrument on which the powerlines are carried. All non-Christian translators use "pole", "stake" or some other word of similar meaning to translate "staurus". Only "Christian" translators use "cross". But as I have stated, this is really immaterial.

Thanks for your obvious patience with my English on this thread. Communicating in this version of English is very difficult for me as you can see. But being able to talk to intellectuals on Gather is very stimulating.

I am inviting you to take a look at "Why I believe in God" and let me have yout thoughts and/or criticisms.

Dennis, I read and appreciate your thought in "Why I believe in God."

From 1983-1988 I wrote a manuscript I called "Eartheology, the Phenomenon of God." I'm now revisiting it for publication. On the back cover under the heading "God's Presence Lived" I write:

"If as much effort were put in living Godlike as in arguing God’s existence, all life would be better off and we would be less confused.

"Life is about experience that neither needs proof nor brooks denial. We grow up learning grass is green and give no thought to proof or disproof. Green grass doesn’t need proof, and what do we gain in trying to prove or disprove God’s existence? God doesn’t need proof of existence, but we need to live Godlike if we would experience Godlikeness in relationship with other.

"In EARTHEOLOGY the reader will find no arguing the existence of God. Serious effort is made however to understand what Godlike living is and how to live Godlike. The best evidence of existence is experience. Best proof of God’s existence is living Godlike relationships.

"In interpersonal relationships experience, faith and reason inform us that word is to communication, as information is to consciousness, as mindfulness is to conscience. The Godlike community is a people trustful in word, truthful to consciousness and faithful to conscience. Godlikeness takes seriously the work of truthful communication, of rightly informed consciousness and rightly formed conscience. The harmony of word, light and love, brought to life mindfully, purposefully, is persuasive of Godlike experience, of God’s existence/ presence.

http://www.secondenlightenment.org/SERVICE%20TO%20RELIGION.pdf

Many thanks. I'll look up that link.

The link you sent has a well written article. Of course I had to read it more than once to understand it. I am not used to thoughts being arranged and presented in that version of English.

Please let me know when you have publish it again especially if there are revisions.

Dennis, on the www.secondenlightenment.org website there are a number of essays under the section "Additional Resources"; also books there, and at www,evolution101.org, for example, "GREEN RELIGION, inside the Cultural Spectrum".

I expect it will be at least a year before "EARTHEOLOGY, the Phenomenon of God" will be published. Thank you for your interest and kind comments. Of course I encourage you to use and recommend materials at my websites, most of which are free.

Dear Friends,
I feel that I do not even belong in this conversation because I am only a high school graduate and I have no idea what my IQ is. However, I try to understand what I can regarding what you are sharing in your comments, and what I do understand I find interesting. I just wanted to say that my belief is that when Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life", He was saying love is the way, the truth and the life. If we live as He did, it doesn't matter whether are Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, or whatever. If we are laying down our lives for others; taking care of the sick, feeding the hungry, sharing what we have with the poor, forgiving those who have caused us harm, taking care of the earth the best we know how, doing our best to grow in knowledge, etc., we can make one small space on our planet a better place to live. A really good book that I read recently is "The Shack". I thought it contained a lot of wisdom about what it means to love. Rose B.

Rose, intuitional wisdom (faith, the universal "canon") is a deep well of universal humanity. The integrity of self-reflection (living by love) expresses deep wisdom and refreshes all. Thank you for the refreshment you bring. Love's intuition depends not on years of schooling, nor does I.Q. measure it. Only the integrity of living brings it to the surface (service) of consciousness. Welcome!

Pat, thank you for your reply. Sometime, I would love to just visit with you and Felicitas (I'm not sure of the spelling of her name). I have always admired both of you and all of your beautiful girls. Your family radiates beauty, intelligence and love. Your friend, Rose