Responding to you, edbyronadams. Can you tell me more? Does the natural selection of such behaviors apply to homo erectus, for instance? My sense from reading the archaeological record--admittedly a little sketchy--is that they weren't so given to such excesses, being primarily migratory rather than territorial. But I'd be willing to read a counterposing view if you know of one.

Also, I'm wondering if the adaptive behaviors you mentioned are, in fact, not being amplified by modern living conditions and the rapid loss of environmental contexts (niches) that human beings have suffered from over the past few thousand years (a few thousand years being a relatively short period of time to adapt to new conditions where biological wiring is concerned). Your thoughts?

It isn't just religion that people select from. Fervent believers in evolution recoil in shock and horror at the information presented by evolutionary psychologists. There are many who are invested in the Rousseauian notion of the noble savage and do not want to recognize that war, genocide and rape are all selected behaviors.

lepidopteryx

When I wrote, "If there is no God, then life is ultimately meaningless."

ULTIMATELY is the key word.

When you wrote, "Is a kind word or a helping hand from an atheist any less kind or any less helpful because it is given out of a personal sense of compassion or empathy rather than out of a belief that there is a divine being watching and keeping score?"

This statement, to put it mildly, is the height of bigotry taken at its face value.

Not all "atheists" do "good" for good reasons and not all that believe in God, believe in a God of your conception.

I have said many times that it doesn't matter if one believes in God for that person to be "right" with God and conversely just because one believes in God does not mean that that person is "right" with God.

"Righteousness" means being "right with God", it doesn't mean knowing God's Name.

You also wrote, "What meaning our lives have is what meaning we choose to bring to them."

Someone can have a loving and meaningful life but if "life" is just an accident and eventually the sun either burns out or explodes then ULTIMATELY, as I have said, it is meaningless.

I would also like to add what I have said previously, if the big OFF switch, so to speak if life is just an accident, were pulled one day that would be better than what some people who believe in God thinks is in store ultimately for mankind.

As I have said: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

iReligion is not itself a religion. It is a provocative, timely description of what we all know is happening to religions right now. People are leaving those religions and are searching for something else that allows them a form of expression for their spiritual longing, hunger and curiosity. It is not a prescription for a free-wheeling life-style of reckless abandon.

It is a description of a rising wave of response of religious people who feel held back, help up, held down, or unheld by the religion they once gave a part or all of their life to.

Others may be spiritual refugees who find themselves shipwrecked by institutional religions which are sinking in a sea of territorial warfare, waves of scandal, abuse, and political and self-protective scheming.

They haven’t gone overboard without cause. And what they take with them or leave behind is really not a matter of convenience or relativism.

When our ship is sinking, and we have been cast into the sea, what we find ourselves with is less a matter of planning and deliberated choice, and more a matter of what we had closest to at the moment we hit the water. We find ourselves treading water, with only what we are, what we have inside us, and what we share with the others who are in the water with us.

Whether we are at sea because we were abandoned, betrayed, abused or unmoved by religion is not really the crucial point at this moment. Clark Strand’s iReligion didn’t drop us in the ocean. It’s telling us where we are, and pointing the way to where we need to go if we are to survive and thrive.

The water is all around us, and yet there is so much thinking, and arguing and debating here. Can we accept that iReligion is only showing us where the current is taking us?

God is the ocean that is holding us up, and not what we are clinging to.

Thom Baum: If there is no God, then life is ultimately meaningless.
**************************************************************************************
Why? Is a kind word or a helping hand from an atheist any less kind or any less helpful because it is given out of a personal sense of compassion or empathy rather than out of a belief that there is a divine being watching and keeping score?

Is sex between two atheists in love any less satisfying for them because they do it outof sheer love and desire for each other rather than as a reflection of their belief in the bride-groom analogy of Jesus and the church?

No one knows for sure if there is or isn't some form of deity running the show. People have various beliefs on the subject, but none of them are objectively provable, so it boils down to each individual's perceptions and interpretations of those perceptions.

What if there is no God/gods? Does that make every kind word or deed you did before your death meaningless? Not to the person to whom it was offered.

Does that make your love for your wife a waste of emotion? Or would it still have been worthwhile just for the sake of the happiness you brought to each other while you lived?

What meaning our lives have is what meaning we choose to bring to them.

clarkstrand

Supposedly, most if not all of the "major" religions have a varient of the "Golden Rule", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I would think that most people whether or not they believe in God would concur with this "Golden Rule" but do we even attempt to live it or do we sometimes water it down to meaninglessness?

It is our choice how we treat others, isn't it? If God forced us, it would not be free will, would it?

Living by the "Golden Rule" as best we can and when we don't live up to it, if we believe in God or know that God is Real, ask for forgiveness and move on, doesn't mean, at least to me, that we should divorce ourself from reality.

If there is no God, then life is ultimately meaningless. If God was even remotely like what some think, then life is worse than meaningless, it would be a cosmic nightmare beyond anybody's imaginings.

As I have said, God is not the egomaniac that some think. Knowing God's Name is for some, the extent of what they know about God.

God is a Being of Pure Love and one could say, to put it in human terms, that God has streched Himself beyond the worst of humanity's wrongs to emcompass ALL.

Yes, we will all be judged but God is the Judge, THANK GOD, not us.

God's Plan, which God has had since before Creation, is unfolding before our very eyes and will come to Fruition.

See you and the rest of humanity in the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth. After the night of the sixth day, the dawning of the seventh day shall arrive.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

RESPONSE FROM CLARK: Part 2

This brings me to another idea—that having a religion is intrinsically better than NOT having one. A number of people in this forum seem to believe whole-heartedly in their tradition, which in some cases they feel to be under attack. And yet I find it hard to believe that most of them would willingly deprive another of his or her religious freedom. (I know some will disagree here, but let’s give them the benefit of the doubt now that GWB is gone). Why is this? I think it is because most people value their own religious freedom.

I think it is important to remember that anyone who has left one denomination and gone over to another (and that’s HALF of the U.S. population at this point) has practiced i-Religion to some extent in the process--unless they were able to completely abolish those traditions they grew up with in the course of adopting new ones. Things just aren’t as clear as we would like them to be.

It’s nice when we can properly categorize ourselves and others and have those classifications stick. But they rarely do. A recent study shows that the more often one attends church, the more likely he or she is to endorse torture as a means of gathering intelligence during times of threat. It would be a really great thing if all Christians turned the other cheek, forgave their enemies, and treated their neighbor as themselves. And I, for one, would be deeply relieved if all Muslims followed the advice of Muhammad to live and let live where other religions are concerned, or if all Buddhists were peaceful and filled with good will. And I personally would love it if, when a person told me they were Jewish, that meant they could be counted on to “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.”

Religion doesn’t live up to its mandate and never has, as history makes all too plain, but individuals sometimes do, and often they are inspired by religions—as Gandhi was, as Martin Luther King, Jr. was, as the Dalai Lama was and is . . . the list could go on.

Clearly there are parts of religion that are beautiful and good and even effective at promoting peace in the world. I believe that we are entering a period as a species when we can’t afford to lose what is good and beautiful in religion, just as we can’t afford the obligation to take the worst along with it, as religious orthodoxies would have us do. To those who feel they can’t trust themselves (or others) to tell the difference, I would simply say, I trust you. And I trust others. How else are we going to go forward together into the age of changes ahead?

RESPONSE FROM CLARK: Part 1

Thanks, everyone, for posting. What a lively debate. I can't do more here than just comment on a few general concerns that seem to keep cropping up.

The first is this idea that i-Religion is self-indulgent egotism, to which I can only answer that religions the world over have long since written the rules of play for legitimate forms of devotion, practice, and expression. Judged by those rules, a person such as myself—born a Christian, ordained a Buddhist monk, but who subsequently also embraced the practices of Judaism, Islam, and several other traditions, but who is currently unaffiliated, and happy that way—is a complete failure. Even though, as Travata1 pointed out, I might take those practices far more seriously than the person whose observance of them is a kind of religious reflex.

On the other hand, as an i-Religionist, I am a success. The opposite holds true for those who are content to buy and listen to the “whole-CD” of denominational religion. They are brilliant successes at limiting their thoughts and deeds to what is authorized by one of those traditions. And yet, they fail completely when it comes to i-Religion. And so it depends on whose rulebook you are following.

People will cry moral relativism, I’m sure. But in my experience that cry is invariably the last resort of those who want the whole world to follow their book. Too often we say, “God said,” without admitting that what God has supposedly said tends to favor the rights of our particular tribal group over those of others, if only because it says that our customs and traditions are the right ones (i.e., the ones that will win us divine protection or get us into Heaven).

Really fascinating, Clark, and I agree that those who mix and match their religion aren't necessarily uncommitted. But as a fellow Zen student once told me, "It's not a religion's job to be relevant to you. It's your job to be relevant to it." I think a religious practice is shallow unless you practice selflessly, and i-Religion is extra dangerous for those who have difficulty with selfishness, like me. Do you agree? How can we be sure we choose the parts of different religions that are truly best for us, rather than those that most comfort our egos?

Chops2 PART I

You wrote, "thought only those that died went to hell? How is it that u can experience hell and still be alive? Seems odd to me."

You could say that it can as a surprise to me too. Some seem to think that hell is some kind of monolithic place that God created to sling people into whereas hell is personally made by the occupant and they will come to realize that they have no one to blame but themself.

You also wrote, "Why does god tell people of all different faiths and religions, even those that are polytheists, that they are right and the others wrong? Is he lying? Why does he perpetuate with these lies the never ending violence that people commit in his name? E.g. He could simply tell the Jews and the Arabs that Jerusalem belongs to both of them and that they should live together in this "love" u talk about. He does not. Why?

Who said that it was God? Could be the god-wanna be, satan. Does God "perpetuate" the violence or does man? God gave us free will. It would not be free will if it were not free, would it?

Something to think about: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

You also wrote, "With reference to 2 above, If god is "love" as u claim, why does he not put an end to this violence by having one clear coherant message of love to all?"

Supposedly, most if not all of the "major" religions have a varient of the "Golden Rule", "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I would think that most people whether or not they believe in God would concur with this "Golden Rule" but do we? It is our choice how we treat others, isn't it? If God forced us, it would not be free will, would it?

Chops2 PART II

You also wrote, "Where was the love when he butchered men women and children in Sodom and Gomorrah?"

You will have to take that up with God when you meet Him, I am not God, I am just a messenger. There is more to life than the short time that we are physically alive on this earth. You don't know what happened when and after they died.

You then wrote, " Describe your meeting with the trinity. What did god look like, sound like, the tone and texture of his voice. Some details please."

The "Persons" of the Trinity are referred to as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

God the Father came into my heart and I just "knew" that it was Him, I did not see Him and He did not say anything, He didn't have to.

God the Holy Spirit came into my body, again I just "knew it was Him and He also did not say a word but He did reveal to me that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus.

I use the male form of pronouns in speaking of God even tho it is incorrect because God is not a Male, a Female or an It but is a Being of Pure Love of course God-Incarnate was a Male, seeing as God had to become either a Male or a Female but also God asked permission of a Lady to become One of Us.

You then wrote, "What does Satan look like if u have met him? How did that happen?"

I did not see satan but just a few hours after meeting the Trinity, God allowed satan to "come down" and work me over, so to speak, for 24 plus hours.

God knew that not only did I need to know that God is Real and a Trinity and Pure Love but that satan was also real.

You also wrote, "Take care, seek help,"

Don't worry, I know that I need help and I am counting on God to give me the help that I need to do the "job" that He has chosen for me to do.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

It has everything to do with brain structure and chemistry which is derived from your genetic makeup, that is according to scientific reductionists, a category I usually ascribe to atheists.
Posted by: edbyronadams
**************************************************************************************
No, it doesn't. I can choose to hit you or not to hit you. Even if you hit me first, I can choose to hit you back or not to hit you back. The fact that my ability to flex my fingers to form a fist is genetically based does not obligate me to beat the living crap out of you with them.

I think this trend you report on is a very big deal, but I don't know how much it's for good or ill. The marketplace has done much to open up space for people to act in nontraditional ways (especially oppressed minorities), but in the end the marketplace itself seems too often to have the victory: by which I mean that in a commercial civilization like ours commercial values eventually reign.

Those values subvert and overwhelm the values of caring for each person for their own sake (as sacred beings if you use religious language) and for the natural world for its own sake, which is the essence of spirituality. Someone commented here that he didn't know what spirituality meant -- he assumed it was about beliefs about the supernatural but I think it's about values and experience, about love in action, which can be expressed in atheist or religious language. i-religion helps those values and experiences to spread with one hand, and with the other subtly elevates market values above them. I don't know which values will predominate.

I wrote this at greater length in a post today in response to this one on the Tikkun Daily blog at www.tikkun.org/tikkunblog/2009/05/29/capitalism-and-spirit/.

I want to follow up on an earlie comment on "cafeteria Catholicism."
A couple of posters have seemed to imply that in i-Religion approach is necessarily superficial, that only by committing to an orthodoxy can we understand the true requirements of a faith or practice.
I disagree.
I long ago let most of my Catholicism lapse.
BUT
I started doing the rosary (which I was never taugh properly I might add, as a convert) and I read about it, and I did it, and I let my understanding of the Heart Sutra in Buddhism understand my experience of the mysteries, and I let my understanding of Shin Buddhism's doctrine of the Evil Person illuminate my understanding of Christ's teachings (which it did.) And I love the rosary and I do it and I'd challenge any normative Catholic dutifully saying a couple hail mary's as penance or for lent to match my understanding of those ancient prayers.
When we "assume responsiblity for the full catastrophe" to quote a Zen Master (whose teachigns I enjoy but whose student I don't need to be), we grow up. We stop letting priests and popes make our spiritual decisions for us. We come into direct contact with God and with ourselves.
Long live this i-Religion approach.

"Free will has nothing to do with DNA.
The mechanism by which I bend my fingers is the result of DNA and biochemistry. That doesn't mean that if I make a fist and punch someone in the nose, that my DNA made me do it."

It has everything to do with brain structure and chemistry which is derived from your genetic makeup, that is according to scientific reductionists, a category I usually ascribe to atheists.

Someone tell me what this spirituality business is.
It strikes me as some kind of right-brain masturbation to be honest.
Letting your right-brain feel good is not a bad thing, I'm not saying that. It's the idea that there's some spirit part of spiritual that I don't understand, you know: ghosts, goblins, gods.

EDBYRON ADAMS: Our view of organized religion is the same. YOU took the time to state details. Thank you.

We can pray anyplace and any time. Do not need a mediator or a cleric for ORDERS.

Parents have the responsibility to guide their children toward adulthood when THEY will then decide how they wish to communicate with The Creator. OR, simply examine their inner being, soul.

I don't want to hear "God Bless America." Rather, GOD BLESS THE WORLD. I believe one can look inside themselves and make positive changes.

This past 8 years has been far too much religious talk for political advantage. It has sickened me. I NOW have more negative views of both religion and politics.

All those flags!!! Yuck. Why attach importance to a symbol?

I am trying to create a WORLD FLAG to represent the entire world...that I could go for.

Thanks to all of you who seem to 'have it together.'

There have been too many excesses from so-called Christians including the RC Church.

One size does NOT fit all.

The surveys about church attendance, for example: (1) The restrooms are waaaayyy too far from the pew (2) the sermons, homilies, etc. are not applicable to my life (3) too much self-righteousness (4)
try to legislate THEIR beliefs - far too political (4) too judgmental re saying the Bible tells them who will go to Heaven and who won't (5) literal interpretation of Bible, Koran; Hebrew criptures (6) far too many WARS over religion - IS THIS LOVING AS GOD LOVES US? (6) WHO WROTE THE Bible and WHY? Was it to keep some law and order? To control people and their money? Too much blood and gore in the
Bible to believe it was inspired by The Creator.

The Golden Rule is my philosophy.

"But the idea of religious orthodoxy--which required preserving the worst ideas and practices, along with the best--is surely reaching its end."

So we are left to wonder exactly which parts of religious orthodoxy are "worst" and which are "best"...while we can certainly pick and choose those parts which are the most convenient for us this hour, this day, this month, or that make us feel good in the moment, I don't know that I have the expanse of understanding or experience to know for sure what my a la carte selections should be. Christian religion exists to communicate the revealed teachings of Christ (all of it) to a fallen world, to help us all get to heaven...period. For me, orthodoxy is a magnificant gift handed down by saints for the last several thousand years. The purpose is to mold oneself to the teachings...not mold the teachings to your own will. Not to be a mindless lemming, but to help us grasp and understand the deep wisdom contained within authentic orthodox teachings. Mindless? Hardly, this is remarkable stuff! It's been my observation that most folks don't understand what truly orthodox teachings are and/or haven't really given them a shot.

I believe CK Chesterton said it best when he penned: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." - Chapter 5, What's Wrong With The World, 1910

Why does it surprise anyone that religion is constantly being repackaged to attract new practitioners? "I-religion" is marketing, pure and simple, just as were the Billy Graham Crusades and TV evangelism in the Robert Schuler and Jim Baker mold. Christian churches see attendance falling and seek to replenish the fold by using rock music and multimedia to attract the young. I see nothing wrong with this, but I wonder if it's sending the right message. For example, several churches in the area in which I live have ramped up contemporary services with video, loud contemporary Christian music, only a cursory nod to scripture reading and prayer and a short sermon delivered by a pastor in shirtsleeves. However, when the local paper interviewed attendees at one of the services, their comments were, "I like it -- it's not like religion." and "It doesn't seem like church." In other words, tastes great AND less filling.

I-religion is nothing new, it's just religion repackaged. More than any other group, Christians have been taking their god ala carte for centuries, and Henry VIII wasn't the first person to decide to reinvent the church to suit his own agenda.

What all religion comes down to is personal choice. I don't believe it has to be practiced en masse or according to strict guidelines to be of value. What bothers me most about all religions is that neither "believers" (a term I despise, by the way) nor "non-believers" seem willing to admit that each could be wrong. It takes just as much courage to admit that one does not believe as to admit that one does, and perhaps it takes even more courage to admit that, despite a lifetime of struggling, one simple just does not know what to believe.

Whether there is one great reckoning at the end of time or whether we simply shuffle off this mortal coil to oblivion is not something that can currently be proved, and there are camp followers willing to fight to death to support each side. But in the fighting, the living is lost. Better to live your life the best you can, with an eye toward helping others, than to waste time pondering if someone else is doing it better.

I'm with lepidopteryx, Well said!
Although, I'm more of a moth than a butterfly.

Interesting. You are the product of your complement of DNA and nothing more. It is the junction of the atheists and the believers in an omniscient God. Free will goes out the window. We are wind up dolls, controlled either by an outside being or the biochemical machinations of our set of genes.
The purpose of religion is to relieve suffering and make people happy. Nobody does not suffer the vicissitudes of life, old age, sickness and death.
Posted by: edbyronadams
**************************************************************************************
Free will has nothing to do with DNA.
The mechanism by which I bend my fingers is the result of DNA and biochemistry. That doesn't mean that if I make a fist and punch someone in the nose, that my DNA made me do it.

People are generally happier when they live ethically. My religion certainly enhances my happiness. My happiness in the moment is in no way diminished by the knowledge that no one here gets out alive.

"As for why I exist, that's simple. I came into existence as a result of my parents having had unprotected sex, one of my father's sperm penetrating one of my mother's ova"

Interesting. You are the product of your complement of DNA and nothing more. It is the junction of the atheists and the believers in an omniscient God. Free will goes out the window. We are wind up dolls, controlled either by an outside being or the biochemical machinations of our set of genes.

The purpose of religion is to relieve suffering and make people happy. Nobody does not suffer the vicissitudes of life, old age, sickness and death.

"The point of religion, IMO, is to provide the individual with a framework within which to make ethical decisions."
You don't need religion for that. John Stuart Mills and Immanuel Kant will do nicely, but why ponder them when a towering ego provides you with all the answers. Go to the mirror and ask why we exist. I'm certain that the answer, if you deem to publish it, will provide reasons for millions of people to carve likenesses of a butterfly to help them ponder it.
**************************************************************************************
Part of the point I was making was that religion is NOT necessary for living an ethical life, but that some people find it a useful tool for doing so, and for those that do, any religion that furthers that end is okay in my book (not that I have a Book).
As for why I exist, that's simple. I came into existence as a result of my parents having had unprotected sex, one of my father's sperm penetrating one of my mother's ova, nine months of development within my mother's uterus, followed by forcible expulsion from said uterus.
If you're referring to the question of what purpose my existence is supposed to serve in the Grand Scheme of Things, I don't see that there needs to be one. It is enough for me that I exist. The quality of my life is enhanced by my making ethical decisions.
Anyone that wants to carve an image of a butterfly based on that answer is free to do so - it's no scales off my wings if they do or don't.

"The point of religion, IMO, is to provide the individual with a framework within which to make ethical decisions."

You don't need religion for that. John Stuart Mills and Immanuel Kant will do nicely, but why ponder them when a towering ego provides you with all the answers. Go to the mirror and ask why we exist. I'm certain that the answer, if you deem to publish it, will provide reasons for millions of people to carve likenesses of a butterfly to help them ponder it.

Many of us now consider churches to be nothing more than "big businesses", since they appear to be run as such. It is a matter of pride to have the biggest edifice, the largest congregation, the biggest offerings, the loudest leader.

Nowhere in the Bible can I find where you have to be within the walls of a building in order to worship. I prefer to do my praying - just a simple "Thank You" - while I am on my knees pulling weeds, scrubbing a floor, driving in the desert, seeing a sunset or many other mundane things.

Too many of the religious sects insist that you believe wholeheartedly, 100% in every little thing they teach or you are going straight to hell. How many of us have found a religious sect in which we truly believe 100%?

Plus, too many of the sects seem to be butting into the politics of our country. When they do that, they cross the line between tax-exempt and private business.

It all boils down to choice -

EDBYRONADAMS: Without a mentor, you are adrift. It takes a mountain of arrogance to think that your own made up morality and spiritual practice is superior to those who have crafted a philosophical whole from lifetimes of study.
**************************************************************************************
Even those "who have crafted a philosophical whole from lifetimes of study" have been studying something that someone, at some point in the past, derived from their unique personal experiences, saw in a dream, thought up out of their own heads, or made up out of whole cloth. So how is it any worse for me to follow a path that offers me spiritual fulfillment without harming others, even if I did make up parts of it myself?
The point of religion, IMO, is to provide the individual with a framework within which to make ethical decisions. Any path that does this, whether or not it involves the worship or even recognition of deities, is valid for the individual following it, even though that person may be the only person in the world for whom that particular path is valid.

If the "consumer" approach to religion is spreading, it must mean that people are starting to think critically about religion, spirituality and ethics. Ideally, that's what we do when we're buying a new TV or picking the best dessert in the cafeteria line. Furthermore, the growth of so-called "new atheism" shows that many people have concluded that they don't need to buy the supernatural bath water with the real-world baby.

Paganplace wrote:

"Said it to you earlier today how many of you monotheists seem to have to believe that just because you call it 'demanding' to take, really, the easy way out and follow certain dictates, however simplistic, nonsensical, and often harmful to others, ...you just turn it around and say that those you spend so much effort making life hard for, in the name of your simplistic package, must in fact be the ones being lazy and 'attacking' your pre-packaged-one-size-fits-all 'authorities.'"

Without a mentor, you are adrift. It takes a mountain of arrogance to think that your own made up morality and spiritual practice is superior to those who have crafted a philosophical whole from lifetimes of study. And it doesn't end at that, the spiritual offerings in this tolerant society are numerous. If you find a particular song in an album grating, perhaps you might find an album without a dissonant note.

That is not to say one that is easy. While my own Buddhist practice does not in any way run counter to scientific principles or everyday observations, it still demands hours of prayer and study, if you want to do it correctly and it doesn't condemn people who do not believe to everlasting suffering. It merely observes that lessons not learned must be repeated until education takes place.

Since it is not a legalistic religion, there are no arbitrary proscriptions but it also puts the burden on a thoughtful person to think about and study moral philosophy as well in order to act in a moral way.

Basically, as far as the mass media and conservative religious pundits were concerned, it was 'Look out for the spiritual-not-religious, traditional values are going out the window' until Bush was elected, then they used the same darn polls to say, 'This proves how triumphantly everyone in America believes in God...' In fact, *erasing* the previously-big 'spiritual-not-religious category to claim 'No, everyone else around you is really a conservative....'

Same damn numbers, same lack of reading them for anything but what they are.

The religious right decided to lie down with dogs, and it got fleas. (the gitmo fleas, the torture fleas, the wiretapping fleas, the 9/11 fleas, the new orleans fleas)

They should stay in their churches and with their own kind. They are not qualified to govern the 300 million diverse, good, people of this country. They have lost an entire generation of people whom they could have led to God. Instead they led them to GW. It will take a long time for people to see religious people, and thus religion, in a better light.

P.S. You're more likely to get a hard time from Hindus dressing or calling yourself a Hindu without doing some form of yoga than you are to get told you have no right to do yoga without dressing like or calling yourself a Hindu. It doesn't work like that. Best not to try, anyway. Very different from the kabbalah/yarmulke analogy. )

"However, the problem with the i religionists is that they edit out messages that might seem unpleasant or demand too much from them."

edbyronadams

You seem all too willing to label dynamics which well-predate any such thing as yer Ipods as somehow 'selfish consumerism,' Edbry, and in fact, columnist, but show little to no understanding: in fact, if you cast yourself in the role of an 'album purist' who 'darn well paid a lot for this whole album set, I'm gonna embrace the whole thing whether I like it all or not,' anyone who doesn't like track 8 on CD 4 is a damn lazy heretic...'

Well, that's a metaphor you cook up in whatever tech terms of the day make it sound 'hip' and 'insightful' when really you're just recycling the same old lines about why your own demands upon real people are simply not something they pay attention to until they shock you by making it clear when you intrude.

Said it to you earlier today how many of you monotheists seem to have to believe that just because you call it 'demanding' to take, really, the easy way out and follow certain dictates, however simplistic, nonsensical, and often harmful to others, ...you just turn it around and say that those you spend so much effort making life hard for, in the name of your simplistic package, must in fact be the ones being lazy and 'attacking' your pre-packaged-one-size-fits-all 'authorities.'

This kind of 'analysis' from both you and the author, is patronizing in the extreme, and only intended to say 'There really are very few people who don't believe what I say how I say it, even if the polls say otherwise.'

Which is just to try and marginalize others in politics... in fact, for any given monotheist religion in America, more people *don't* believe in it than *do.*

You just say, 'Those people who don't accept what I say our majority authority is actually do, but if they say otherwise, they aren't seriously-religious. Unlike *me,* of course, who never questioned the one-size-fits-all or else 'only industrial product allowed ' model of religion, which is of course 'eternal.' Really.'

Yah, right.

What idiotic piffle.

"3) With reference to 2 above, If god is "love" as u claim, why does he not put an end to this violence by having one clear coherant message of love to all? Where was the love when he butchered men women and children in Sodom and Gomorrah?"

If "God made an end to violence, your illusion of free will would evaporate. We all would be reduced to wind up dolls in God's playhouse. To paraphrase the bard, the fault lies not in our gods but in ourselves. The world is what we make it.

"Interesting that you put it that way, considering that there are many that are making "gods" of some of the "profound thinkers" of today, along with some of the "profound thinkers" of the past."

Well many religionists have made gods of earlier profound thinkers from Shakyamuni to Jesus. The messages are not about gods but about what ordinary people can do to raise their life condition and that of those around them.

However, the problem with the i religionists is that they edit out messages that might seem unpleasant or demand too much from them.

Bluefish2012

You wrote, "i-Religion appears to be the intellectual equivalent of a nervous breakdown.
Syncretism unleashed; the inmates building the asylum."

Could be some are taking an honest look at the mess that the world is in and looking for something rather than letting the "powers that be" tell them that they have "all of the answers".

Sometimes it seems that some of those that say people should "think for themselves" actually mean as long as they think along the same lines as themself, does it ever seem that way to you?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum:
"I would imagine that my meeting the Trinity and meeting satan and experiencing spiritual death and experiencing hell would seem like "nonsense" to you but it doesn't to me"

A few questions:

1) I thought only those that died went to hell? How is it that u can experience hell and still be alive? Seems odd to me.

2) Why does god tell people of all different faiths and religions, even those that are polytheists, that they are right and the others wrong? Is he lying? Why does he perpetuate with these lies the never ending violence that people commit in his name? E.g. He could simply tell the Jews and the Arabs that Jerusalem belongs to both of them and that they should live together in this "love" u talk about. He does not. Why?

3) With reference to 2 above, If god is "love" as u claim, why does he not put an end to this violence by having one clear coherant message of love to all? Where was the love when he butchered men women and children in Sodom and Gomorrah?

4) Describe your meeting with the trinity. What did god look like, sound like, the tone and texture of his voice. Some details please.

5) What does Satan look like if u have met him? How did that happen?

Take care, seek help,

please answer.

edbyronadams

You wrote, "i religionists should really be called e religionists, the e standing for ego. It isn't as if profound thinkers have not thought about spiritual matters for thousands of years, the egoists think the 15 minutes they spend on the subject per week qualifies them as experts."

Interesting that you put it that way, considering that there are many that are making "gods" of some of the "profound thinkers" of today, along with some of the "profound thinkers" of the past.

It isn't about religion, it isn't about spiritualism, it is about a relationship that we all have, not only with God but with each other.

God is available to ALL, not just the "profound thinkers", whatever you mean by that term.

I have seen on here where people have stated, why should God hide from us?, or words to that effect, maybe the question should be, who is doing the hiding?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

arancia12

You wrote, "It doesn't matter if you adhere to a specific religion or worship in a specific way if you don't behave righteously. As long as those who pick and choose what religion they worship with act decently towards others they are probably a step ahead of those die-hard Christians who think it's acceptable to cheat and torture."

I have said many times on here: God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and it is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows.

I have also said that I have met the Trinity and that Jesus is God-Incarnate and that there seems to be many that know God's Name but at the same time know nothing else about God.

As it says, "Faith is a Gift, that no man should boast" and it seems as if we all have faith, such as in: God, man, faith, religion, authority, religious books, power, intellect... .

I am thankful that God is not even remotely like what some who supposedly speak in His Name think that He Is.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

i-Religion appears to be the intellectual equivalent of a nervous breakdown.

Syncretism unleashed; the inmates building the asylum.

At one of the worst part of my life. I went to church at some strange time like the middle of the afternoon on a week day and meet a priest. I would have done anything, devoited myself to anything but he didn't care I wasn't a 'real' Catholic. I was dirt to him.

adrienne_najjar

You wrote, "Religion is BS."

It's not about religion, it is about a relationship.

And, "Realize that, and your life becomes instantly better."

There are different ways of what "better" might be.

And, "Religion was invented by ignorant savages to explain the inexplicable."

As far as "savages", do you really think that we are less "savage" or just more sophisticated in our savagery?

And, "Admit that the inexplicable is as such, and move on, marveling at the wonder of it all without inferring irrational and unsubstantiated drivel like the virgin birth and other nonsense."

And as we go even farther into the "wonder of it all" in both the micro and macro directions, it is or should be even more wonder-inducing.

I would imagine that my meeting the Trinity and meeting satan and experiencing spiritual death and experiencing hell would seem like "nonsense" to you but it doesn't to me.

Many people have absolutely no conception of what God really is yet they choose to say that they speak for God.

God Is Love, it is that simple.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

i religionists should really be called e religionists, the e standing for ego. It isn't as if profound thinkers have not thought about spiritual matters for thousands of years, the egoists think the 15 minutes they spend on the subject per week qualifies them as experts.

Simply, perhaps people are waking up. In this age of instant communication, they are better informed and thus not as gullible or susceptible to the baseless, morally bankrupt proselytizing of religionists.

It seems many young people are now confidently rejecting the absurd dogma that insists they are 'guilty' of some sort of 'sin/crime' the moment they are born -- they are rejecting it as the bronze-age superstition it is -- as well as the devious, ugly device the church uses to control its flocks.

Guilt...

They are rejecting the churches attempts to force on them a mantle of guilt and supplication to a god that is at best barbaric and at worst an absolute nightmare of vainglorious cruelty and profoundly repressive, inhuman ugliness.

They are beginning to understand that there is nothing wrong in being a healthy, reasoning human being -- to be proud of that fact, and to accept with courage that life and death are part of the natural order of things, and as such, there is nothing to fear but fear itself.

They are grasping the logic that, once you allow belief and blind faith in some sort of supernatural deity, you then open a Pandora's Box that allows belief in virtually anything or any 'god' anyone else might think up, which is absurd.

They can better witness in this age of instant communication that the majority of the world's bloodiest, most horrifically cruel wars are religion-inspired and they are aware that there is no greater evil than a religion that wears the guise of peace incarnate while promoting murder and mass human suffering.

Here is an example in today's headlines:

'Taliban threatens "If We Now Kill Schoolgirls, You Shouldn't Be Surprised" - http://is.gd/HXOu

No, we will not be surprised because we have seen this same murderous insanity throughout history -- that religion can and will justify the most horribly inhuman crimes imaginable to perpetuate itself, like some ancient, rotting, machine gone mad.

It is possible humanity is finally waking up. It is possible that we may yet live to witness the true dawn of reason on Planet Earth -- leaving our faith in faeries, and angels and gods behind with our childhood.

.

You're an idiot!

I don't understand why any rational person would find objectionable the approach of "ask not what you can do for religion, but what religion can do for you". Why would a person put ANYTHING into one's body, mind or soul if it did not serve or improve their existence in some way?

Do you eat things to please someone else?

Do you wait for a food to crawl onto your plate and say "devour ME"?

Do you simply read whatever's put in front of you by someone or something else - rather than the material that contains what you want to learn - just because THEY want you to consume it?

If so, I feel sorry for you, for you are not a person but an enslaved object.

This is the threat, by the way, that modern religions are feeling (at long last!). People are now doing what is best for themselves, and not what is best for the churches. That erodes the power of these institutions, as they no longer control so many walking (and tithing) automatons. Three cheers for this! Humankind is finally emerging from childhood (one hopes).

Trollgoal wrote: Just a quick glance at the holy scriptures ie. 'the Bible' allows us to see that not all forms of worship are acceptable to GOD.
____

I think you've misinterpreted the scriptures. No all ACTIONS are acceptable to God.

James 2:24-25 YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.....Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

It doesn't matter if you adhere to a specific religion or worship in a specific way if you don't behave righteously. As long as those who pick and choose what religion they worship with act decently towards others they are probably a step ahead of those die-hard Christians who think it's acceptable to cheat and torture.

Religion is simply the endoctrination of young children into belief of the supernatural and primitivism. No person who had not been through this brain-washing as a child would hang up his rationality to believe in such drivel.

While religion may have provided some form of morality, it is time that we made our final separation from blind faith-based systems. Civilization went from many Gods to one God. Its time to make the final separation from mythology and primitivism.

Religion is BS. Realize that, and your life becomes instantly better. Religion was invented by ignorant savages to explain the inexplicable. Admit that the inexplicable is as such, and move on, marveling at the wonder of it all without inferring irrational and unsubstantiated drivel like the virgin birth and other nonsense.

Just a quick glance at the holy scriptures ie. 'the Bible' allows us to see that not all forms of worship are acceptable to GOD.

Matt 7:13-23 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
[Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work lawlessness.

2Tim 3:7 Always learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Matt 15:8-9 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

2Tim 4:3-5 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled;and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do [the] work of an evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.

Titus 1:6 They publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works, because they are detestable and disobedient and not approved for good work of any sort.

James 2:24-25 YOU see that a man is to be declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.....Indeed, as the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

The Reality of Contemporary Religions: (free of charge- no downloading required)

(Reiteration is a fundamental part of the learning/teaching/mental information gathering system)

1. Abraham is the reported founder of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Based on all we know now, Abraham was at best a combination of three separate individuals with 1.5 million Conservative Jews no longer believing he existed at all. (ditto for all the characters in the OT).

references: National Georgraphic review on Abraham and New Torah For Modern Minds
By MICHAEL MASSING (NYT)
origin: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

2. The founders of Christianity and Islam were both illiterate. i.e. neither one proof read or approved the NT or the Koran so we are taking the word of scribes and embellishers with their own agendas.

references: NT exegetes from the last two hundred years, Karen Armstrong's reviews of Islam and http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

3. Christianity is based on the whim of Pilate, Paul's false prophesy of the imminent second coming, and the sword of Constantine.

references: NT exegetes and their conclusions/books from the last two hundred years

4. The caste/laborer system and cow worship/reverence are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

Current crises:

The caste system, reincarnation and cow worship/reverence.

6. Buddhism- In Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.)

e.g. Buddha by one legend was supposedly talking when he came out of his mother's womb.

Belief in reincarnation is also a major stumbling block for Buddhism in the modern world.

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations, embellishments, lies, and myths surrounding the founders and foundations of said rules of life.

I see this as a trend, but I think it is bad for spiritual health. Before one goes about picking and choosing, they need to have training and practice in their religious area. While they may want to choose between different organized faiths, they still need to choose one, and learn the prinicples creeds and beliefs. They need to do this to compare new ideas to their own beliefs. Without a foundation and knowledge, they can't see what is good and what is bad.

Also, the benefits of choosing an organized religion is that they are used to Christian education, and have the materials needed for spiritual study and discipline; the company of like minded Christian adults; a system or calendar of seasons and events to discipline the Christian to study the spiritual world alongside the earthly world.

This story is another instance of Religion inventing, and in this case, re-inventing itself.

It's another instance where you can say,

"This isn't God doing this, it's Humans"

So to all of you who think God created EVERYTHING, here is a story that tells you that for the most part, religion is in the hands of man, and was created, and morphed, and followed by man and man alone.

God(s) really (doesn't/don't) have any influence on how people change religion, as in this case. He/she/it is benign and takes on the fashion of the day, as applied by humans.

It's about Men and Women inventing and re-inventing religion.

If this isn't a perfect case of advancing human interest in an imaginary being by making it more appealing to Man at the hands of men, in the trendy clothes you ask it to now wear, then I don't know what is! Madison Avenue would be PROUD!

You tough guys and your imaginary friends.

Why not put them Gods on FaceBook? It's all the thing and a bag 'o chips. Everyone will fall in love with the idea.

But God will stay in the background, as in a figment of your collective deusional imaginations.

It will be Men, like those who dove into the Twin-Towers with Passenger Jets, told by a God that they need to take things into thier own hands.

And while less destructive, you bring the same message to Men and Women alike; God is in the hands of Men, not the other way around.

Sheesh.

Do what you will, that's my motto.

But, Mr. Strand, you're not talking about God or religion or even much in the way of Faith.

You're preaching lifestyle, with fancy language and a lower-case vowel in front as means to sell a book.

We all gotta make a living.

But just because it's the 21st century does not invalidate centuries of tradition, dogma and belief. People have worked for going on two thousand years to lay the stones down for a rock-solid Christian tradition.

Chasing after fads is no way to run a railroad, or a religion.

I'm not a follower of "trends," but what Clark Strand says here resonates with me. For a long time now I have been "mixing and matching" religious practices and teachings. Holding on to some sort of religious purity or orthodoxy feels to me like allowing some old patriarch, or matriarch, who needs to control everything in order to feel safe, to continue to dictate his or her adult children's lives - not for the adult children's benefit, but for that of their own. Religions need to grow and change with life, but it seems that many of the people in them never do.

Having grown up experiencing some of what has made Christianity intolerable for many - its moralistic tendencies, its lack of education about child development ("You can't miss church, but make sure you keep your toddlers still and silent during a long boring sermon,") the tendency for its clergy to be authoritarian, cold and, oftentimes, just plain unloving, goes totally against what I see as Jesus' embodied messages. I found Buddhism more liberating, but I have encountered some of the same authoritarianism, and infantilization of its members.

As a result, I don't belong to any organized religious organization. I consider the great spiritual liberators of our time to be those that are open to combining and learning from the religious traditions of others. So I'm more than glad to see the old inflexible religious ways fall away ...

If you are looking for language from this author that speaks of things of the heart and soul then check out Strand's new book HOW TO BELIEVE IN GOD: Whether You Believe in Religion or Not.

I first became aware of Clark Strand's writing when I read his poetic and spiritual SEEDS FROM A BIRCH TREE: Writing Haiku and the Spiritual Journey. I used it for years to offer high school students a simple, organic writing practice that touched the nature beneath their techno-dependent lives.

I'd say that the author has used an effective attention-getting metaphor that cuts across generations and cuts through a lot of other "spiritual" jargon that has kept us spinning our humanistic wheels as the planet weeps for the kind of conversation AND action that can save it. Hey, it got you and me on the same sheet of music.

I like the iPod analogy: it's like the churches are radio stations, playing a set playlist and we've finally figured out that we don't have to let someone else decide our playlist.

But I don't think this is new. Christianity lifted what it wanted from Egyptian mythos, Buddhism declared local gods to be "Protectors of the Dharma"--we always pick and choose from what has gone before. What's novel is that it is individuals doing the picking and not larger conglomerations.

Religions are human constructs: our attempts to get closer to God, however we conceive Her. It only makes sense that those constructs change and evolve with our culture and understanding.

I've heard "cafeteria Catholics" condemned as being non-serious types, as if they only thing they'd choose to put on their tray were french fries and dessert leaving behind all those nutritious green beans and steamed spinach.
But I don't think that's so.
In fact, in cafeterias I am more likely to forgo desserts and just get a salad, a yogurt, to get what I need for my health.
What we are leaving behind is all the misogynist dogma, the ridiculous rules and hypocricies...for instance, I continue to say the rosay with all my heart but I think a celibate clergy has been disasterous...
I guess I agree with this blooger. When we can pick and choose, we can choose the best of what we need. And I think we are capable of choosing what is best.

For me, true spirituality is something you hold deep inside and don't blather on about ad barfum to anyone who will listen.

Also, it has nothing to do with a church or a religion. Or software.

Spirituality is something you pull together over the course of your life by picking up bits here and pieces there -- bits and pieces that you want as part of your spiritual home. Kind of like the way birds build their nests.

The bits and pieces can be anything you've drawn from your experience, and they needn't be many or complex. You know them when you encounter them...or perhaps a bit later.

I don't understand why everything nowadays has to be reduced to computer metaphors -- software, download, network, blah, blah, blah. People can still understand things when they are explained in non-computer-inflected language. Especially things of the heart and soul.

"Download what you like, use it as you will" has pretty much been my approach to spiritual practice for the past couple of decades.
There is no single "whole path" that completely fulfills my spiritual needs, and just as I don't feel the need to take portions of foods I don't like at the buffet, I don't feel obligated to follow every tenet of a particular path just because I agree with some of them.
Since all religions are man-made anyway, I see no problem with creating my own via sampling from others as well as adding elements that are uniquely mine.