Spirituality vs Religion

[KerryM]

smiling- good topic-

K

[Valkenar]

It comes down to an unprovable question (but empiricism gives us a strong hint). Is Man's natural state good or evil.

Another possibility is that humans are neither good nor evil in their natural state. We possess some good traits and some bad traits, and whether a given trait is good or bad depends on the context. It doesn't seem to me that man is either, but is instead a mixture of both. Asking if man's natural state is good or evil is like asking if a kata should be completely relaxed or completely tense. The answer is neither, but just the right combination of the two, and at different times. Okay so that analogy is kind of a stretch, but I wanted to at least pretend to keep it martial arts related

For my money, the goodness and evil of humanity is a result of instinctual drives being filtered through these brains of ours.

As an interesting (imho) sidenote, it's impossible to even rigorously define what a natural state is in a way that correspends at all to how people typically use it.

[Panther]

Originally posted by Valkenar:
Another possibility is that humans are neither good nor evil in their natural state. We possess some good traits and some bad traits, and whether a given trait is good or bad depends on the context. It doesn't seem to me that man is either, but is instead a mixture of both.

A human, left to mature based on instinct and desire, will notinherently have the same moral values as one who has been trained by outside forces. Even given a certain amount of training inherent in societal life, this became evident in the educational experiments over the last few decades. As part of that new educational establishment, students ceased being taught that "cheating was bad" and in place of that moral value lesson, students were instead asked "how did you feel when you cheated?" The results are indisputable... a rise in the percentage of students who admit to cheating in order to get ahead and the common stated belief that there is nothing wrong with it (as long as you don't get caught)! With that empirical evidence, it is not hard to wonder, given a lack of morality imposed by an external belief system (religion), what the morality of people would be. It appears that, without external moral training, the moral values would revert to an instinctual state where what benefits me is good and what doesn't benefit me is bad. In that regard it is arguable that there would be nothing "evil" in forceable sexual relations (commonly referred to under our handed-down "moral value system" as incest). Without the morality imposed by religion, it is arguable that such sexual relations would benefit both parties because the initiator would gain from the gratification of the act while the "partner" would gain from surviving the act with their life intact. Fortunately, we do have moral values handed down through religion that impose both the moral value and the legal value that such an act is evil.

Asking if man's natural state is good or evil is like asking if a kata should be completely relaxed or completely tense. The answer is neither, but just the right combination of the two, and at different times. Okay so that analogy is kind of a stretch, but I wanted to at least pretend to keep it martial arts related

For my money, the goodness and evil of humanity is a result of instinctual drives being filtered through these brains of ours.

Equating good and evil (as defined by religion and passed down through moral value systems) with being relaxed or tense in martial arts, does not equate in any stretch. In martial arts, there are times for being tense, times for being relaxed, and times for being various combinations of the two. In a moral value system, good is good and evil is evil. There is no excuse for commiting an evil act and claiming it is good. Fundamentally, this is why part of the moral values handed down through religion teach against vengence and revenge. Additionally, (to maintain somewhat of a martial arts tone), while taking a life in defense of self or other innocents is morally acceptable, murder is not (Research and translations have shown that the original version of the Ten Commandments reads, "thou shall not murder" not "thou shall not kill"). And while stealing or cheating are considered bad moral values, we often see these acts commited and being rationalized with being part of a "business deal". This is even taught in the schools under the "gray area" principle by using the story of the distraught parent who has to steal bread to feed their starving children. Under all of these guidelines, the lessons are being taught that morality is "subjective". However, morality (as imposed by following religious beliefs and teachings) is not subjective! If left to merely follow the "instinctual drives" of our human brains, the moral compass of the world would be far different than it is today as evidenced by the (re)education of the youth of the world towards a world morality based on the "religion" of man in the form of the State rather than the religion of a higher power/ideal in the form of a Creator.

The "natural man", to which you allude, was the brain-child of Jean Jacques Rousseau (who is the great-Godfather of modern "Liberalism"). Rousseau's "natural man" seeks morality only from within himself and has been the "siren call" of the modern Liberal for over 200 years. That is the "spirituality" espoused by the modern Liberal movement. It denies absolute right and wrong, and ultimately leads to the moral decay of society which leads inevitably to totalitarianism.

As Katherine Hepburn said to Humphrey Bogart in the "African Queen":
"Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we are put on this Earth to rise above."

As the admonishment or lamenting of the fact that others have not done their homework by reading the Bible and studying religion is raised, it is noted that the "foot soldiers" of the modern Liberal movement rarely, if ever, realize that they are being manipulated as a means to an end. This was admitted by Castro (who supported the "no rules, do what feels good, morality is subjective" beliefs and indeed joined and encouraged those rising up for those beliefs prior to seizing power) who was quoted by Susan Sontag, in 1969, after the "revolution" was successful that:

"The American new left is correct to be anarchic, because it is out of power. The freaky clothes, rock {music}, {recreational} drugs, {free} sex, are prerevolutionary forms of cultural subversion and so you can have your grass and your orgies, and still be moral (ed note: there is the modern Liberal's "subjective morality") and revolutionary. But in Cuba, the revolution has come to power, and so it follows that such disintigrative 'freedom' is inappropriate."

This undisguised confession of Communist double play brought to light an important point; namely, that the (knowing or unknowing) pro-Statist leanings of those with a "subjective morality" or belief in Rousseau's "natural man" do not follow normal moral values, but rather what exists as a drive toward radical condemnation of the social order built on religiously passed down morality that exists in this country.

Therein lies the paradoxical fact that those who curse the Constitutional Republican society which treats them nicely and allows them free horizons (the very freedom to exercise their "subjective morality" within the boundaries of the law), are causing the disruption of former religion-based morality leading to the ultimate replacement of this society with one that is totalitarian and which oppresses and enslaves men. This paradox can only be understood under the assumption that those who espouse "subjective morality" have been manipulated by the Statist's subversive propaganda machines.

In fact, V.I. Lenin referred to those manipulated in such a fashion, on all levels, as "useful idiots".

As an interesting (imho) sidenote, it's impossible to even rigorously define what a natural state is in a way that correspends at all to how people typically use it.

This is only true if one believes in morality as taught by the "religion" of man rather than morality as taught by the religion of a Creator/higher power. Interestingly enough, there are those that are currently pushing a "new world religion" and this is backed-up in the UN. Complete with all the ritual and trappings of a major religion, but with common moral values passed down over generations replaced with a system of moral values that teaches the superiority of the State through the "religion" of ecology (A belief system partially plagarized from certain Native American religious moral values and twisted to suit the desired results of an elite few).

[Brian Barry]

Regkray,
My responses are in bold.

“I like a lot of the Tennets of Buddhism which the People who started Christianity appropriated.
Like doing good for others, not stealing, not kiling etc.

These are what the Buddha taught 500 years b4 the story of Christ supposedly started. “

Christ does not draw these tenets from Buddhism, but states them in his exegesis on the Ten Commandments, written about 1500 years before Christ. His statements on them were not merely not to kill or steal, but that even looking upon a person with hate was equivalent to killing them, because the real sin was in your heart condition. Also, doing good for others generally comes from the Old Testament command to love your neighbor. This love for your neighbor, however, did not come from nothing, but was rather an extension on the command to love God, which he considered the greatest command. If you love God and God loves your neighbor, so should you, thus you should do good for others. These principles do not come from a Buddhist source, are explanations of what had already been revealed to Israel thousands of years before. Also, the principles that Jesus teaches are meant to be in unity to a belief in and love for God. He was not just being a humanitarian.

Karma in this life makes some sort of sense ie if I'm bad bad will come upon me.
But the idea of Karma going from one life to another or in Christian terms if your good on Earth you get your reward in heaven.

Yeah right.

I see the idea of the old man with the white beard rewarding us in heaven for our earthly merits as Father Christmas for adults.

I absolutely agree that many people see God as a Santa Clause figure. However, this is not the case. In fact, all of Biblical teaching points to the fact that God is not rewarding us for our earthly merits after life. For our deeds to not merit such rewards, but our sin, in comparison with God’s perfection, makes us deserving to be eternally separated from him. However, out of an unconditional love for us, he sent his Son to bear all of the wrath that our sins deserve so that he can, while still being just, be reconciled to his people. This act of mercy must clearly extend beyond this life, for he has gone to the trouble to bring his people into a relationship with him that not even death can break. Thus, it is not a picture of a Santa Clause giving toys to those who have been good, but of a loving, merciful father who, in his love, arranges for us to spend eternal life with him. The reward is not ours, but instead is Christ’s for being truly good and suffering in our place.


And obviously if god is Omnisient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Benevolent. then there would be no suffering obviously but there is and lots of it.

to children to old people to everyone.

One of the most difficult mysteries to deal with. However, we must remember that “God is a righteous judge, a God who expresses his wrath every day.” His justice is something that can not be forgotten in his character. Neither can his zeal for his glory be forgotten. (You may say that it is only an arrogant God who seeks after his own glory, but consider this. From a Christian perspective, seeking our own glory is wrong because we are failing to glorify what is infinitely glorious, that being God. However, the same principle, if followed by God, would cause him to glorify what is infinitely glorious, that being himself. So it is not arrogance, but the only righteous thing to do) This being the case, we can not fault God if, in accordance with his overall plan for the world, he allows people to suffer and die. Though he takes no joy in that suffering, he allows it so that greater good can somehow, beyond our grasp, occur. And this is not unjust, since every person is a sinner, no matter what age or position, and merits death. The fact that we live at all is because of his mercy and we have no right to obligate him to always act in mercy (which is by nature undeserved).


Spirituality what is this? Being good being moral you don't need an outside force for this?

And most major Religions have the same moral codes plagourising form one another as is historically shown.

The Bible would suggest that this is because God has written a moral code onto everybody’s heart, though our sin twists it and causes us to turn away from it to some extent. However, those requirements are still there and we still follow them to some extent.

The Catholic Religion is the most wealthy organization in the world.
If Jesus was a real person and he came back as has been promised to followers, for the last 2000 years.
He would have no conection to such a wealthy and corrupt organization, with it's links with the mafia and supporting of the third reich in the second world war.
But it is the most powerful Religous organization, go figure?

I would agree that there is much purification to go on in the church.



I see no Religion which is factually provable or even morally worthy.

Where is the moral unworthiness in Christ? I agree that many Christians have done wrong, but that is to be expected. After all, the Bible teaches that we are sinners and have a sinful nature that we are combating. The fact that we are not perfect does not discredit the teaching of Christ, but rather confirms it and shows our need for him.


I don't need to believe in after life rewards to be a good person.

I will use this opportunity to explain one more time that Christianity does not teach that the life after is a reward. In fact, our doing good works is not, in the end, to try to earn our way to heaven. Having expressed faith in Christ, that is guaranteed to us. No, it is rather because of a love for God that we act in obedience to him. As Christ says, “If you love me you will obey what I command”. The good works of Christians are not what earns them eternal rewards, but what signifies that they have been changed by God, and that they already have eternal blessings waiting for them.


Christianity is much misunderstood and misquoted. God is true. God is righteous, and I will testify to that and will attempt to explain this to all who ask me to, but there are times when his ways can not be understood. It is not then our place to throw God out the window, but to, with humility, admit that we can not comprehend the thoughts of the creator of the universe any more than we have been made able. I hope that I have explained my points clearly. If I have not, ask me to clarify and I will try to.

--Brian

[KerryM]

There is suffering because of free-will. We all have the God-given right to choose our paths- there are consequences for our actions. If God intervined and didn't let anything bad happen to a particular group of people studying a particular way of worshiping Him, then that would give away the answer huhmn? Let's all go do that because nothing bad ever happens to them-

The people are both makes a lot of sense.

To play "devils advocate" here- Brian- much of what you said was based on your interpretation of the Bible. So your whole aruguement is basically based on/against The Authority of the Bible, as well as the Authenticity of it. I believe it was a powerful Roman Emporer whom decided which books would actually be kept in the Bible and which wouldn't.

Everyone has a different view point on which they look at this from. Some people believe it is their "job" to "convert" people- because they feel so passionate about their beliefs- or because they believe they have to convert- to comply with the rules of whatever organization they belong to.

I think it best to understand that people are at different stages of spiritual growth, and it a very dangerous path to walk to try to influence people one way or the other. There is a difference between "talking" to someone about what you yourself believe, and or "telling them" this is the way it is.

Everyone knows of the importance of respect. Respecting other people's right to choose the way they live, how fast they grow spiritualy, how they grow spiritualy, or if they participate in a religion or not. Besides- every single person out there who believes in something- no matter what that is- has to accept the fact that part or all of what they believe might not be entirely correct. There isn't any proof either way- so it has to be a belief system. There fore you have to respect the fact that other people/cultures might not believe the same as you do- and they might have just as good reasons for feeling the way they do, that you do.

My point? Take a look back at all of your guys' posts. How do they sound? How would you feel reading them if you knew nothing about the subject at hand and only had the information posted here.

We as humans really can't comprehend all that is possible, within Gods unconditional love. I'd be a little nervous to procliam any kind of absolute. But that's me-

my 2 cents
K

[Brian Barry]

Kerry,
You are absolutely correct in saying that my statements come from an assumption of the authority of the Bible (which had its canon finalized by a church council, using a logical and easy-to-follow procedure for determining canonicity, by the way). My attempt was is not to prove anything to anybody, because as we have said, this requires faith, not mere logical assent. It was, rather, an attempt to clear up any confusion about the traditional Christian worldview, that it may not be misrepresented.

--Brian

[gmattson]

What a pleasure to read an interesting thread on a potentially volatile topic - where everyone kept their "cool".

Thanks.

[Valkenar]

A human, left to mature based on instinct and desire, will not inherently have the same moral values as one who has been trained by outside forces.

I fully agree that much of what a person considers and feels as moral behavior is based on what he was taught as a child. When I said morality results from instinctual drives I meant that morality is rooted in instinctinctual drives. Certainly other moral feelings can be trained in.

With that empirical evidence, it is not hard to wonder, given a lack of morality imposed by an external belief system (religion), what the morality of people would be. It appears that, without external moral training, the moral values would revert to an instinctual state where what benefits me is good and what doesn't benefit me is bad.

Definitely an interesting question. The thing is, an religious belief system need not be the form of the external belief system. Though there's an extent to which morality and logic overlap, I would agree that ultimately morality must be taken on faith. This can take the form a belief in a God that proscribes certain moral strictures, but it can also take the form of a moral construct that simply says "X is right simply because it is." Proof by fiat. This may seem less solid of foundation upon which to build morality, but is it ultimately less sound than belief in God? Is "because it is" really different from "because God says so?"

Unfortunately this gets into the question of "does God exist?". My argument admittedly hinges on the idea that belief in God is not a belief based on a series logical steps, but one based on faith. So if you disagree with that then there's no more that needs to be said to refute my argument, and while I'd happily discuss that assumption in some other context, it seems a little volatile for the forums. But we're doing pretty good so far keeping it calm so maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Equating good and evil (as defined by religion and passed down through moral value systems) with being relaxed or tense in martial arts, does not equate in any stretch. In martial arts, there are times for being tense, times for being relaxed, and times for being various combinations of the two.

It's not that that people should be both good and evil inherently, but instead that they are bothgood and evil. Yes, obviously in this regard kata and morality are different.

Further, the point is more that man inherently possesses a multitude of traits, which areneither inherently good nor evil in and of themselves (just as tension and relaxation aren't desirable or undesirable in and of themselves) but become so depending on how they manifest themselves in behavior. Ambition doesn't always lead to good, just as relaxation doesn't always lead to an effective strike. Certainly there's a breaking point for this analogy. I didn't really mean for it to be taken all that seriously and deeply analyzed, it was more as you say to "maintain somewhat of a martial tone."

The "natural man", to which you allude, was the brain-child of Jean Jacques Rousseau (who is the great-Godfather of modern "Liberalism").

Uh, I do? The natural man I was referring to was just in reponse to your question about what a man does in his natural state.

In a moral value system, good is good and evil is evil. There is no excuse for commiting an evil act and claiming it is good.

I entirely agree with this statement. The difficulty comes in determining when an act is good and when it is evil. Clearly killing is always a "bad thing" in the sense that we'd like for it not to happen. But as you say, sometimes it is morally justified for one person to kill another. The hard part is knowing when that is.

Rousseau's "natural man" seeks morality only from within himself and has been the "siren call" of the modern Liberal for over 200 years. That is the "spirituality" espoused by the modern Liberal movement. It denies absolute right and wrong, and ultimately leads to the moral decay of society which leads inevitably to totalitarianism.

How are you using the word absolute? Maybe you mean something different than I'm accustomed to when you describe subjective morality. I've always heard it used to describe the idea that there exists no right and wrong that applies to everyone. Morality almost has to be absolute, because otherwise it's simply a personal code of ethics, isn't it? Anyone who believes that their moral opinions don't apply to anyone beyond themselves doesn't have any excuse for moral outrage if they're stolen from or their loved ones are killed. Have you ever met a person who really feels this way? Because I certainly haven't. I'm not sure who this modern Liberal movement is I guess.

As for the rest of your analysis of how subjective morality relates and leads to totalitarianism, it's very interesting (and I really do mean that) but I'd rather discuss it in its own thread so as not to sidetrack this one into a discussion of politics rather than religion and spirituality (though the two are closely related).

[jorvik]

I'd just like to make a few points
The "Lords Prayer" says " Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven".........so God's will is not being done on Earth, that's why there's evil.
Also....just for interest The Buddhist term Karma ( As I understand it) is often missued. Karma means to perform an act which has a result in the future..and not the result of that act.
I only know the Thai terms for this, the act is called "Kama" ( Karma).......the result is called "Vipakka" .......and this ties in with some Christian thought, although expressed in a totally different way " The acts of the Father shall be visited on the son".... ( Proverbs)

Hope I'm not boring folks but I love all this stuff

[Panther]

When I said morality results from instinctual drives I meant that morality is rooted in instinctinctual drives.

I've already given an example (and many more are self-evident if one takes the time to think it through) that shows that merely following primordial instincts would reduce man to a morality which could essentially be summed up as "what is good for me is good, what is bad for me is bad" with no other constraints.

My argument admittedly hinges on the idea that belief in God is not a belief based on a series logical steps, but one based on faith. So if you disagree with that then there's no more that needs to be said to refute my argument, and while I'd happily discuss that assumption in some other context, it seems a little volatile for the forums. But we're doing pretty good so far keeping it calm so maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Almost by definition, religion is based on "faith", so there is no reasonable articulable argument to this point. I too think we are doing pretty good in the discussion...

The thing is, an religious belief system need not be the form of the external belief system. Though there's an extent to which morality and logic overlap, I would agree that ultimately morality must be taken on faith. This can take the form a belief in a God that proscribes certain moral strictures, but it can also take the form of a moral construct that simply says "X is right simply because it is." Proof by fiat. This may seem less solid of foundation upon which to build morality, but is it ultimately less sound than belief in God? Is "because it is" really different from "because God says so?"

Unfortunately this gets into the question of "does God exist?".

I think I can simplify this. In doing so, I will... for sake of argument allow the assumption...

Assume there is no God (I include this assumption just to simplify the discussion and to stop the entire "but what if it was something else and there wasn't a God" arguments). Therefore, we will assume that men are not exclusively good or evil. We will also assume that some men are "more good" than others.

Given these assumptions, it stands to reason that over the course of history, the "good" practices of man will have gradually (through thousands of years of trial and error) been codified into codes of behavior. These codes would have been handed down formally and informally from generation to generation because they work. There may be some variations to these codes in different regions of the world, but they also include certain fundamental core codes of conduct.

I propose that we call such time-honored codes of behavior "religion". The Ten Commandments come to mind as one such example (ignoring their ostensibly divine origin). I'm sure you can think of others and those familiar with other "religions" will also be able to add more examples. (My late Daddy used to point out that whether you were "religious" or "spiritual" or something else, "the Ten Commandments, regardless of origin, is still the best set of rules to live your life by"... Even if you want to change his use of the word "best" to "one of the best", the point is made. And part of that point is the moral values that have been handed down from generation to generation.)

As I've already acknowledged, to respect and adhere to religion as described above is an act of faith. Faith that the best traits and knowledge of our ancestors has been handed down to us to use for our own good, and for the good of all Mankind.

Now... If we choose to reject this "religion", and "decide for ourselves" what is moral, we (at a minimum) elevate ourselves to a level of moral wisdom surpassing the best that Mankind has ever produced! If enough people do this... well, we've already gone there.

While not necessary, the conclusions are the same (and even more dramatic) if we assume that religion actually comes from a divine source.

It's not that that people should be both good and evil inherently, but instead that they are both good and evil.

If, as you say, people are both good and evil inherently, how can one expect them to consistently act in what we would all generally agreee to be a morally "good" fashion without ever having had those moral values instilled (trained... through "religion", whether divine or not) into them from prior generations?

How are you using the word absolute?

Unquestionable, positive, fundamental, unmitigated, pure, "having no exception"...

Maybe you mean something different than I'm accustomed to when you describe subjective morality. I've always heard it used to describe the idea that there exists no right and wrong that applies to everyone.

You have answered your own query as to what "subjective morality" is... In doing so, IMNSHO, you inadvertently contradict yourself. You first wrote (quoted above exactly) that man is inherently both good and evil. Then, in saying that my definition of "subjective morality" isn't consistent with your use or understanding of the term, you wrote: "...the point is more that man inherently possesses a multitude of traits, which are neither inherently good nor evil in and of themselves ... but become so depending on how they manifest themselves in behavior." In the context of "subjective morality", the terms are defined as:

subjective: modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background; arising from conditions not directly caused by external stimuli; arising out of or identified by means of one's perception.

morality: a doctrine or system of moral conduct; particular moral principles or rules of conduct; conformity to ideals of right human conduct.

Therefore, "subjective morality" is a system of moral conduct modified or affected by ones own personal views or experiences and thuse arising out of one's own personal perception without external influences. Bluntly, it is the belief that one's own code of moral conduct is followed regardless of what others think of as "good moral conduct"... and the belief that one's own definition of good and bad moral conduct supercedes the commonly agreed upon codes of moral conduct. In effect, "subjective morality" is the belief that there is no inherent good or evil, but rather good and evil are defined depending on how they manifest themselves in behaviour! Prior to the "revolutionary" days of the 60's, it was considered bad moral conduct to have indescriminate sexual relations, shirk one's responsibilities to country and society, act out in violent ways without provocation, contradict most of history with a belief in pure anarchy, and waste hours upon hours of time with drugs while expecting others to supply the needs of your existense. The destruction of those set moral values, in a great part, can be traced directly to the desire to destroy our morality-based society so that it may be replaced with a different society. Espousing the beliefs that such cultural and moral subversion are acceptable was (as previously posted from Castro) part of the revolutionary plans of the Communist/Socialist totalitarians who wished to replace our Constitutional Republican society with their totalitarian society. It seems self-evident that over the last three to four decades, those "subjective moral beliefs" have started to become the norm for a significant number amoung us. (By the way, people who want to "conserve" the best that mankind has produced and handed down to us over the millennia are generally referred to as conservatives. While those that would try to sever the People from their rightful inheritance of the wisdom of the ages are the polar opposite of conservatives... and are politely known as "free-thinking liberals".)

Morality almost has to be absolute, because otherwise it's simply a personal code of ethics, isn't it? Anyone who believes that their moral opinions don't apply to anyone beyond themselves doesn't have any excuse for moral outrage if they're stolen from or their loved ones are killed. Have you ever met a person who really feels this way? Because I certainly haven't. I'm not sure who this modern Liberal movement is I guess.

No. Those who espouse subjective morality do believe that their ethics apply to others... As does the modern Liberal movement. The difference is that those who use subjective morality (a code of moral conduct that is based on their own personal, convenient views), generally contradict the handed-down for generations morality. In fact, many of those people have sought to claim their own "spirituality" based on their own "subjective morality" over the years. There are many examples out there and they teach the "non-religious" spirituality which many fall into and take on as if it was a true religion. They are abundant in the "new age" set and claim various types of "guru" status. To lend them an air of credibility, they often teach around, beside, or near others who are true religious teachers. The Buddhist monk... the Catholic priest... the jewish rabbi... the Tibetan lama... the Christian preacher... and the list is endless which we can all add to... Those are religious gurus/leaders who teach codes of moral conduct which we can trace back for generations. They are the religious equivalents to the martial arts sensei who can show you his lineage, lessons and training. Alternatively, just as there are martial arts "masters" for whom there is no definitive lineage, lessons or training, there are those "spiritual gurus" who, at best, can be traced back to some "profoundly spiritual transformation earlier in their life" (an exact quote from one such "guru"... but the truth is more akin to having a "profound LSD trip" ), and at worst, can be traced back to specific teachings and goals of the revolutionary Marxists (and "yes"... I can and have made that connection between the two... even had it reluctantly confirmed by one such "guru" ) I have made it a point for decades to broaden my spirituality through learning about various different religious teachings and from many different religious teachers. They all have one constant that is carried throughout the true religious teachers... They have an established, set code of moral values (morality) that has been handed down over generations and which -not surprisingly- contain many of the same values and rules as other true religions).

In keeping with the original query of the thread, I would posit that when martial artists attempt to teach "spirituality", they in fact are acting as lay-preachers for a code of moral values that is part of a set of religious beliefs handed down over generations. One might trace that back to Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism, Confusism, or even other religions, but the connection to religion is there none-the-less.

As for the rest of your analysis of how subjective morality relates and leads to totalitarianism, it's very interesting (and I really do mean that) but I'd rather discuss it in its own thread so as not to sidetrack this one into a discussion of politics rather than religion and spirituality (though the two are closely related).

Fine... If you wish, you are welcome to start that thread. Here or on the "Tough Issues" forum...

Take care and be good to each other...

[KerryM]

just offering a little reminder- I so very much appreciate the topic and response, honest responses that I can't express it to you.

I honestly do see a difference between religion and spirituality. I also have tried extremely hard to understand and practice un-conditional love. The whole concept is too deep and broad with regards to "doing-it" it seems an endless journey of searching and learning. That's ok with me. I also firmly believe that that was the basic essential message Jesus was trying to get across- I excersize my ability to respect other people's free-will by listening and "discussing without manipulation" all the different ways to believe one is practicing "love" as God intended. Religions on the whole don't bother me, "Docturn" wise- until they impose on a person's free-will to choose. When it comes to who's right and who's wrong? Everyone is both. This is where I was talking about "absolutes"- when you refer to things- it should really be in the context of "I'm thinking- I believe"- so that it leaves the door open for discussion. Why do I say this? Respect of free will and "un-conditional" love. In it's most basic meaning- no- conditions. If people have an evil heart and wish to harm people animals, etc, than there will be consequences to pay because of un-conditional love.

Choosing a belief system- someone at some time had to do that. (I'm saying in the family trree of each person) A culture at some point in time had to choose a path. Right and Wrong- Good and Bad, run pretty close to the same meaning teh Ten Commandments vrs Law.

Choosing- persay, is being "spiritual" practicing MA to change your reactions and behaviors in any given situation to to a person, is being "spiritual"- choosing a religion is spiritual, and letting it effect your behavior to me, is also spiritual- but I still hold fast to the thought that- someone can be spiritual- without being religious.

smiling- thanks again for the candor! I love this stuff too!

K

When I mentioned the Authority of the Bible, etc- that was for people of other faiths to show them that respect.

[jorvik]

Hi Kerry.
Just to make another point, How many people believe in an " Afterlife"?......I've often considered this. Many Scientists now believe that the body is a housing for consciousness.
check out
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/artic ... ummary.htm
the whole site is pretty good too.
Here is another site that I enjoy
http://sped2work.tripod.com/humphreys.html
The problem with religions is that they go off course after a time, somebody discovers a fundamental truth and then people try to bottle it and sell it.......What do folks think about all these TV psychics.....Jonn Edward ....and the like......seeking " Closure" and Sylvia Browne, check out Randi.
http://www.randi.org/jr/032803.html
and this is how it's done
http://www.randi.org/library/coldreading/index.html
And of course we have the " Bible Code" ...also mentioned on Randi,
But I've heard that this will also work with the Microsoft agreement
It's difficult to be spiritual, sometimes

[KerryM]

lol well, on the psychics I guess we'll have to disagree, I think Sylvia, Johnathan, James Van Prague are all pretty awesome people with an awesome gift. So that's at least what I think of psychics.

There are extremes in everything- extremes aren't good no matter what the subject. Psychics aren't always right, and "Holy Men" aren't always "Holy" that's for sure, science isn't always right either- scientists keep measuring the age of the earth using a "carbon dating system" that was in fact proven incorrect.

If everybody kept an open mind and left "judgements" of other people's thinking process' out (except for the lawless)- I think people would get along a lot better. again- that's just me though.

K

[Panther]

I honestly do see a difference between religion and spirituality.

I too, honestly see a difference.

I also firmly believe that that {unconditional love} was the basic essential message Jesus was trying to get across- I excersize my ability to respect other people's free-will by listening and "discussing without manipulation" all the different ways to believe one is practicing "love" as God intended.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to imply with this. Is this an implication that there has been "discussion with manipulations" or a disrespect for other people's free-will?

Religions on the whole don't bother me, "Docturn" wise- until they impose on a person's free-will to choose.

In this country (the USA), everyone is free to worship or not as they choose... of their own free will. That is recognized as part of our 1st Amendment Rights and forcefully imposing a religious doctrine on someone against their will is a violation of that fundamental (bestowed by their Creator ) Right.

When it comes to who's right and who's wrong? Everyone is both. This is where I was talking about "absolutes"- when you refer to things- it should really be in the context of "I'm thinking- I believe"- so that it leaves the door open for discussion.

Ummmm... As we used to say in the days of yore... "That's a cop-out." There does exist right and wrong. To state anything else is to believe in "subjective morality" (previously explained) and to abdicate personal responsibility for one's "wrong" actions.

Why do I say this? Respect of free will and "un-conditional" love. In it's most basic meaning- no- conditions. If people have an evil heart and wish to harm people animals, etc, than there will be consequences to pay because of un-conditional love.

And "in the meantime", while everyone is waiting for unconditional love's consequences to take effect... how many more victims will be tortured and murdered by the next Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer? There is right and wrong. It is up to God to forgive, but whether you wish to espouse the Bible (old or new testament), Koran, {insert name of favorite true religion here}, if you've read and studied those religions, you know that there are many tales of God (while being forgiving in the afterlife) punishing those who commit evil deeds which violate the code of moral values which have been handed down from generation to generation. And regardless of the admonishments of "vengence is mine saith the Lord", Men have instituted laws and systems of justice to enforce those moral codes and punish the breach of those moral codes.

Choosing a belief system- someone at some time had to do that. (I'm saying in the family trree of each person) A culture at some point in time had to choose a path. Right and Wrong- Good and Bad, run pretty close to the same meaning teh Ten Commandments vrs Law.

Choosing- persay, is being "spiritual" practicing MA to change your reactions and behaviors in any given situation to to a person, is being "spiritual"- choosing a religion is spiritual, and letting it effect your behavior to me, is also spiritual- but I still hold fast to the thought that- someone can be spiritual- without being religious.

Not in any true sense of the word... You can claim "spirituality" without being religious, but you are not "spiritual" in a vaccum. For example, you've invoked the desire to emulate the teachings of Jesus, at least as far as "unconditional love", in your spirituality. That is a lesson taught of religion. Therefore, your "spirituality" and morality, by definition, are based in religion. I would hazard a guess that you also harbor a set morality with a full code of moral values that also influences your personal conduct, actions and beliefs... and, from what you've written, I would guess that those moral values can be (at the very least) traced to a Judeo-Christian up-bringing. (Though a similar set of moral values could be had from a number of true religions.) Hmmmm... I bet James Randi, a self-professed, non-spiritual atheist and great debunker, would say I was simply using preacquired and deduced information in my "guesses"... he'd be correct.

And I mentioned James Randi, someone who's work in various ways I admire, simply because jorvik invoked his expertise. While I can admire James Randi and his work in debunking ESP, mediums, etc, that does not make him an expert on religion or Faith... the basis for religion. Randi ( and others) have offered to give $1 million to anyone who can prove their religion. But that is part of religion... Religion cannot be proven or disproven... it is a matter of Faith. While Randi (and others like him) are atheists, they also have a set of moral values that can be traced back to some point when they learned those values from a religious background. Which brings me back to the words of my late Daddy... "the Ten Commandments, regardless of origin, is still the best set of rules to live your life by"...

[LeeDarrow]

regkray"Hi,

I'm surprised not more people took up my challenges in my last post.


No one has defined their interpretation of both spirituality and religion.?"

To get really Zen about it (and in NO way meant in jest):

Religion is the kata. Spirituality is the practice.

One is form, the other function, based on the teachings of days gone by or the internal awakenings of the individual.

Both contain elements of the other. In fact, they really comprise two halves of a whole, even though each can (and often do) exist independently of the other - see "practicing religion for form's sake" and "spirituality without a church" as proofs.

But then again, I could be wrong.

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.
http://www.leedarrow.com