AletheiaRivers

I would be willing to bet that it was Huston Smith that decided to change the title. Why? My guess would be to change the implication of the title: That it's not man's religions, but the world's religions. He does see the major world religions as being "divinely inspired" (ie: more than something made up by men). I believe he thinks Christianity holds a special place though. Of course, I could be wrong and I certainly don't want to attribute anything to Smith that he didn't do or say. It's just my impression based on what I know he's said about religion. He thinks the term "religion" has gotten a bad rap.

Wow! I love serendipity! After Darby posted his reply to you Des, I googled the scripture to see what would come up. One web page listed all the different time "fishing" and "nets" showed up in the scriptures and what they were representative of. It made mention of how the Kingdom of God is likened to a dragnet. POP! A little light went off in my brain that said: "Fishermen become fishers of men ... nets ... dragnets ... cast on the OTHER SIDE of the boat. Not this side, where you've been casting, but the OTHER SIDE. Could this mean the New Covenant?!" The miracle of the catch proclaimed Jesus divinity. The method of the catch, I think, told a story too.

The Worlds Religions is a great book. I've read it a couple of times. It's basically a primer about the worlds major religions. It covers Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism ... I've forgotten the rest. It's not a book about spirituality per se, but it does give a good introduction into all the major religious traditions.

Excellent!

I would never have said that from any of your posts. I wouldn't say that everyone that quotes scripture is a "bibliolator." If someone thinks that Jesus basically told the thief on the cross to "Just figure out the correct interpretations to all the scriptures that haven't been written down yet (and which I never commanded anyone to do) and join the correct denomination, THEN you'll be with me in paradise" - I would say that person is a bibliolator. (I know no-one really says that, but you get the idea. It is a mindset that exists, especially in fundamentalist and evangelical circles (although it seems to be changing a bit in the later)).

Very true! "Spirituality" rants against religion because many who are "spiritual" don't want an organization telling them what to do. And "religion" rants against spirituality because many who are "religious" think that those who are outside organized religion are in a relativistic, "sin-fest", free-for-all. There are grounds for both points of view. Dogmatism and bibliolatry can be a turn off, causing many to avoid organized religion. But relativistic, feel-good spirituality often lacks depth and direction and can lead to escapism. Many who are "religious" NEED to be more spiritual, and many who are "spiritual" NEED some organization and perhaps a kick in the pants. Discernment is the challenge.

Thanks Bill! Or is it Ted?

I read some interesting thoughts about "religion vs spirituality" yesterday as I was web surfing. The quotes below are one side of a conversation (so if the comments seem disjointed, that is why). It's a little long, but it has some interesting points. Opinions (for or against) appreciated. I have nothing against spirituality in itself, but I am concerned with the way it is debasing language by (wittingly or not) turning religion into a bad word. My students during the last decade of my teaching are my population. Spirituality was invariably a good word for them; I never encountered a student who did not think that she had a spiritual side to her nature. Religion, by contrast, was not a good word for them; they equated it with dogmatism (we have the truth and everybody else is going to hell) and moralism (don’t do this, that, and the other thing). At first I attributed this to unfortunate brushes they had had with churches and synagogues, but toward the end I came to suspect that they were merely stereotypes they had picked up on campus, for as far as I could tell, most of them seemed never to have darkened a church door. So with spiritual a good word and religion not, what’s the difference between them? Religion is organized, institutionalized spirituality. Is the problem with religions religious or institutional? On balance the latter, I think. By their very nature, institutions are mixed bags — I don’t know a single one that doesn’t have a shadow side. The same is true for religion. Even so they are (as I sometimes put it to my students) necessary evils — we have to take them on and try to minimize their defects because they are the only way that spiritual truths gain traction in history. Had Jesus not been followed by St. Paul who created the Christian church, the Sermon on the Mount would have evaporated in two generations. The Buddha knew that and created the sangha to prolong his dharma. Religions are time-tested traditions filled with proven pointers on how to proceed through life. Of course you must cultivate self-responsibility within any tradition, but I certainly do not advocate throwing out whole traditions in order to create entirely new ones. That seems like a tremendous waste of some of humanity’s most glorious creations. Religions are not all-good, nor are they all-bad. Rama Krishna compared religion to a cow. “A cow kicks,” he said. “But it also gives milk.” The problem with cafeteria-style spirituality is that Saint Ego is often the one making the choices at the salad bar. What tastes good is not always the same as what you need, and an undeveloped ego can make unwise choices. I believe that it is most helpful for people to choose one main meal, to commit and focus on that tradition, and then to add to it if the need arises. I am a firm believer in vitamin supplements. Christianity is my main meal to which I have added several supplements over the years. In the public mind spirituality gets the good points, religion the bad marks. Of which there are, needless to say, many, but I find little effort to balance the account responsibly. What demands and proscriptions does spirituality carry with it? When Barbara Walters interviewed Monica Lewinsky, she quoted Clinton as having confessed that he sinned and asked Monica if she felt that she had sinned. Monica squirmed uncomfortably, and then she said, “I’m not very religious. I’m more spiritual.” I admit that my relating this is a low blow in our discussion and in a way apologize for mentioning it. My intent is merely to balance the record and try to restore religion to even terms with spirituality. As I have said before, certain aspects of religions are far from wise, especially their social patterns — their support of the mores of their times in regard to class distinctions and gender relations. But in their view of the nature of reality, there is nothing in history or in the modern world that rivals them. Cafeteria-style spirituality (or New Age spirituality as it is sometimes called) is a mixed bag. Its optimism and liveliness appeal to me. But how deep does it go? Has it come to terms with evil? Where is its social conscience? Where are the New Age equivalents of a Mother Teresa or a Dalai Lama? So, at its best New Age spirituality is an energizing force, but at its worst, it can be a kind of private escapism, devoid of the power to do real good in the world.

D'oh! Thanks Fred.

What Was Jesus' Core Teaching? - Let God's constant, unstinted love flow through you unobstructed. - By Huston Smith (Excerpted from "The Soul of Christianity") "Everything that came from Jesus’ lips worked like a magnifying glass to focus human awareness on the two most important facts about life: God’s overwhelming love of humanity, and the need for people to accept that love and let it flow through them in the way water passes without obstruction through a sea anemone. Time after time, as in his story of the shepherd who risked ninety-nine sheep to go after the one that had strayed, Jesus tried to convey God’s absolute love for every single human being and for everything God has created. The hairs of each head are counted. God notices the death of each and every sparrow. And not even Solomon in all his glory was as majestically arrayed as the lilies of the field. If the infinity of God’s love pierces to the core of a being, only one response is possible--unobstructed gratitude for the wonder of God’s grace. Stated slightly differently, the only way to make sense of Jesus’ extraordinary admonitions as to how people should live is to see them as cut from his understanding of the God who loves human beings absolutely and unconditionally, without pausing to calculate their worth or due. We are to give others our cloak as well as our coat if they need it. Why? Because God has given us what we need many times over. We are to go with others the second mile. Again, why? Because we know, deeply, overwhelmingly, that God has borne with us for far longer stretches. Why should we love not only our friends but also our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us? “So that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the unrighteous as well as the righteous.” We must be perfect, as God is perfect. We say Jesus’ ethic is perfectionistic--a polite word for unrealistic--because it asks that we love unreservedly. But the reason we consider that unrealistic, Jesus would have answered, is because we do not allow ourselves to experience the constant, unstinted love that flows from God to us. If we did experience it, problems would still arise. To which of the innumerable needy should limited supplies of coats and cloaks be given? When we run into mean bullies, are we to lie down and let them tromp over us? Jesus offered no rulebook to obviate hard choices. What he argued for was for the stance from which we should approach those choices. All we can say in advance as we face the demands of our extravagantly complicated world is that we should respond to our neighbors--all of them that we think might be affected by our actions--not in proportion to what we see as their due but in proportion to their need. The cost to us personally should count for nothing." Any thoughts regarding what Smith has said in the above quote?

AMAZON BOOK REVIEW: THE SOUL OF CHRISTIANITY by Huston Smith I haven't bought the book yet, but I will have it by tonight!

Hehehehe. I make this fruit cake every year, but I usually use tequilla or rum.

I think that if I had kids I would probably tell him or her that God is both; that God is both Mother and Father. It depends on the age of the child I guess. If they are a bit older, I might tell them that God is neither male or female. I used "she" for a while, to help myself appreciate God's being both mother and father. Eventually though I slipped back into "he." I'd never say "it." Trying to remain completely neutral by saying stuff like "godself" got old really fast. It's too bad that English doesn't have a gender neutral pronoun.

The fact that there are two different Daves (plus I'm married to one) participating in the discussion may have added to the confusion a bit. My last comments were directed at DaveD (in case that needed clarification). Did you guys know that there is a club for "Daves"?

Did you do anything for Thanksgiving this year Cythia? Hmmm? Hmmm? Hmmm?

Ah Bob, I'm so sorry that happened and also so glad that she's ok! Was it her medication? I was afraid from your description that she had had a stroke! My prayers are with you.

I, my husband, my mother and my father went to my sisters house. Also in attendence were my nephew and his wife, and my niece and her girlfriend. I took a Dutch apple pie. My mother made a cream cheese, shrimp dip (with triscuits and wheat thins as dip transports). My niece made the most incredible yams. They were all whipped up and put in a lasagna dish. On top went a "crunch" mixture consisting of butter, brown sugar, flour, pecans and fresh vanilla. It was the most amazing yam dish I've ever had. She also made homemade cranberries with just a touch of cinnamon and orange zest in them. We had turkey and honey baked ham, mashed potatoes and gravy, rolls, stuffing, baby peas, and jello "ambrosia." For desert the choices were the apple pie, pumpkin pie, banana cream pie, lemon pie and double chocolate brownies. The drink of choice for the evening was Baccardi's vanilla rum in lime coke. It was the best rum and coke I've ever had! We watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. I laughed way too loudly at a movie I've seen way too many times and never get tired of. So spill it: What did you do for Thanksgiving this year? Anything? Nothing? Anything new? Do you have traditions? Put up the tree? Has it snowed where you live? Etc ... etc ... I'm hoping this thread will be more than "I ate too much."

Pssst <whispering to neandergirl> I didn't get it either. I just decided to pretend I did and offered to bring food to the party.

PS - I've been researching Advent over the past few days. I've never celebrated it (and really wasn't even sure what it was). I've been considering fasting from an Orthodox perspective (no meat or dairy at all, and 2 days a week of 1 meal only). I ran it by my husband and he just gave me "the look." I've read that the Orthodox tradition views Advent as a time of "penitence" (similar to Lent), but that most Protestants view it as more of a celebration. I don't know how the Catholic tradition views it. Anyway, this is OT for a book discussion, but I've been meaning to post a new topic about Advent, but you brought it up first.

The Mystic Heart by Teasdale discusses mysticism from a "Hindu-Christian" perspective, with wise words from Buddhism, Judaism, Sufism, and "natural mysticism" as well. "Coming of the Cosmic Christ" by Matt Fox is a wonderful Christian mysticism book that deals with the healing of the Earth.

Welcome to the board neandergirl!

Hey, I was just thinking about watching that movie!

The Wise and Wonderful Flow has spoken! (Please ignore the man behind the curtain.) The yin/yang kid

True about the new age quackery affecting the ability to discuss metaphysics. It's just like fundamentalism affecting the ability to discuss "creationism." I've always been drawn to panentheism because it is NOT emotionally distant. Guess it's all in how you view it, eh? And because I'm Christian, I think God entered into the universe too. I'm enjoying it. I've gotten frustrated over nit-picking and wish that sometimes we could discuss ontological ideas without getting so entrenched in philosophical language , but it's the best theological discussion I've had in months.

Dave, I haven't seen anyone in this thread insist that God is absolutely a certain way. Just because we are discussing God's potential attributes doesn't mean that we necessarily even believe them. We are discussing IDEAS as far as I can tell and even then, there is massive confusion and misunderstandings. For example: I wouldn't equate my idea of a "bell boy God" with your helper God at all. I believe deeply in the Holy Spirit and that it helps me all the time. What I don't believe in is a God who is expected to help my favorite football team win, find my keys and a parking spot at the mall, bless my country (but not any others) and make me win the lottery. That is what I mean by "bell boy God." Perhaps that IS what you mean by helper God. If so, I don't mean to offend. I'm just discussing MY empirical observations that God does not work that way. I'm a little confused by your attitude towards philosophy. Any person who has any idea about God, who then discusses his ideas about God, is "philosophizing". Many philosophers start their discussions based on an empirical observation. They then discuss that observation. Why is that a bad thing?