Religion and hatred

[smaneck]

http://www.amazon.com/God-Search-Man-Philosophy-Judaism/dp/0374513317

Yeah, certainly not mine.

Hershel, my favorite Jewish theologian. Okay, I like Martin Buber too.

 

[light upon light]

An example of what I believe religion should inspire us towards:


"...for this reason must the lovers of God in this contingent world become the mercies and the blessings sent forth by that clement King of the seen and unseen realms. Let them purify their sight and behold all humankind as leaves and blossoms and fruits of the tree of being. Let them at all times concern themselves with doing a kindly thing for one of their fellows, offering to someone love, consideration, thoughtful help. Let them see no one as their enemy, or as wishing them ill, but think of all humankind as their friends; regarding the alien as an intimate, the stranger as a companion, staying free of prejudice, drawing no lines.
In this day, the one favoured at the Threshold of the Lord is he who handeth round the cup of faithfulness; who bestoweth, even upon his enemies, the jewel of bounty, and lendeth, even to his fallen oppressor, a helping hand; it is he who will, even to the fiercest of his foes, be a loving friend...

Soon will your swiftly-passing days be over, and the fame and riches, the comforts, the joys provided by this rubbish-heap, the world, will be gone without a trace. Summon ye, then, the people to God, and invite humanity to follow the example of the Company on high. Be ye loving fathers to the orphan, and a refuge to the helpless, and a treasury for the poor, and a cure for the ailing. Be ye the helpers of every victim of oppression, the patrons of the disadvantaged. Think ye at all times of rendering some service to every member of the human race. Pay ye no heed to aversion and rejection, to disdain, hostility, injustice: act ye in the opposite way. Be ye sincerely kind, not in appearance only. Let each one of God’s loved ones centre his attention on this: to be the Lord’s mercy to man; to be the Lord’s grace. Let him do some good to every person whose path he crosseth, and be of some benefit to him. Let him improve the character of each and all, and reorient the minds of men. In this way, the light of divine guidance will shine forth, and the blessings of God will cradle all mankind: for love is light, no matter in what abode it dwelleth; and hate is darkness, no matter where it may make its nest. O friends of God! That the hidden Mystery may stand revealed, and the secret essence of all things may be disclosed, strive ye to banish that darkness for ever and ever." - Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha

 

[dlamberth]

How do we escape the cycle of religious hatred and blame? How do we stop seeing people of different faiths as misled, evil, or even as followers of Satan?

As human beings on a single small planet, we can no longer afford hatred, antipathy and violence anymore. Our technology has become far too powerful. How do we let go of our tribalism and embrace our common humanity?

I've asked that question myself many, many times. Sometimes I feel that we have reached a tipping point of no return and that we will always be stuck in this cycle until we commit genocide of the human race. Other times I feel that there is a creative pull of God such that a more conscious and loving being will evolve out of this mess.

.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I'm defining it as the Church has historically defined itself, by the principle of Apostolic Succession.

You are defining it as the Roman Catholic Church has historically defined itself. The Church predates the Roman Catholic Church and has never been limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

Denominations are a fairly recent concept in Christianity. I don't think you will find the term prior to the Reformation.

The word is recent, the concept was there from the beginning. There were multiple "churches" we would now call denominations throughout Asia Minor, the Middle east and North Africa with multiple takes on the Gospel before the Roman Catholic Church was even thought of.

That tells you how to be saved, not how to be a church member.

Being saved is what makes one a Christian and a member of the Church not being accepted by an organization run by clerics.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can't blame American Evangelicals for this one. It goes back to Karl Barth.

Except that, if I recall correctly, Barth's point was that Jesus, in a sense, came as the end of religion; not because "religion" is some icky thing other belief systems are but Christianity isn't because Christianity involves a subjective "me and Jesus" motif. Christ, in a sense, tears down all temples and altars, sets to ruin all our idols and conceptions about God--it's in that sense that Christ is the end of religion. At least that's how I remember it.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

Except that, if I recall correctly, Barth's point was that Jesus, in a sense, came as the end of religion; not because "religion" is some icky thing other belief systems are but Christianity isn't because Christianity involves a subjective "me and Jesus" motif. Christ, in a sense, tears down all temples and altars, sets to ruin all our idols and conceptions about God--it's in that sense that Christ is the end of religion. At least that's how I remember it.

-CryptoLutheran

I would agree that the "me and Jesus" motif was probably something evangelicals added to what Karl Barth was trying to say. Still Barth's statement that religion is man reaching up to God while Christianity is God reaching down to man, completely ignores what every religion says about itself.

 

[Robban]

You should know. There are 613.

Gonna be hard to hold.

613 Connections, a rope with ten strands is stronger than a rope with two strands,
but to be connected is the main thing,

A ladder with 613 rungs, if one is on say, rung two and moves up to rung Three after say a year, one is moving in the right direction.

If one were to be on rung 613, the only direction to move would be downward,

not a good direction to be moving in.

 

[smaneck]

613 Connections, a rope with ten strands is stronger than a rope with two strands,
but to be connected is the main thing,

A ladder with 613 rungs, if one is on say, rung two and moves up to rung Three after say a year, one is moving in the right direction.

If one were to be on rung 613, the only direction to move would be downward,

not a good direction to be moving in.

You know, I haven't the foggiest idea how many laws there are in my own religion? I never bothered to count them!

 

[muddleglum]

How do we escape the cycle of religious hatred and blame? How do we stop seeing people of different faiths as misled, evil, or even as followers of Satan?

You just contradicted yourself. :-/
Take the atheistic Communists, for instance. Same thing happened, right? How about football? Same thing? What is better, Windows or the Mac? Python or Pascal? So why are you picking on religion?

In essence, it has a lot to do with human nature. Right? And interestingly enough there are some religions that bring that out and work against that aspect of human nature. Buddhism, for instance. I'll let other people chime in with other religions and philosophies. (I'm not Buddhist, BTW, but just noting a fact.)

 

[light upon light]

You just contradicted yourself. :-/
Take the atheistic Communists, for instance. Same thing happened, right? How about football? Same thing? What is better, Windows or the Mac? Python or Pascal? So why are you picking on religion?

In essence, it has a lot to do with human nature. Right? And interestingly enough there are some religions that bring that out and work against that aspect of human nature. Buddhism, for instance. I'll let other people chime in with other religions and philosophies. (I'm not Buddhist, BTW, but just noting a fact.)

I'm not picking on religion.

You are absolutely right that tribalism is something people inherently do in all those areas you mentioned. And they do it about religion too.

The point of my OP is that, if religion is to be of value in the world, we must hold to higher standards. We must not use our religious identities as a kind of tribal club with which to bash others. Instead we must hold to the core and heart of religion, which is good understanding, good action, peace and goodwill to all human beings, and working for the betterment of the world and all its's peoples.

 

[smaneck]

You just contradicted yourself. :-/
Take the atheistic Communists, for instance. Same thing happened, right? How about football? Same thing? What is better, Windows or the Mac? Python or Pascal? So why are you picking on religion?

He's not picking on religion. He is saying that if religion is to serve any useful purpose it should be a an instrument for overcoming these things.

 

[muddleglum]

The point of my OP is that, if religion is to be of value in the world, we must hold to higher standards. We must not use our religious identities as a kind of tribal club with which to bash others. Instead we must hold to the core and heart of religion, which is good understanding, good action, peace and goodwill to all human beings, and working for the betterment of the world and all its's peoples.

I see. I wish that you added that to the OP in the first place. As it was, it could have easily been the statement of many a modern atheist. As it now is, it leaves the atheist out in the cold. They, too, can have an altruistic philosophy proceeding from their inherent needs. They, too, can go beyond mere tribalism.

 

[dms1972]

How do we escape the cycle of religious hatred and blame?

Distinguish between Religion and Truth and Faith. Allowing for varied expressions of Faith.

Authentic Religion is part of the human condition and seems to be a need, even part of a quest. Even psychotherapy tends more or less towards a religious position.

Therefore distinguish those things which are true in religion:

justice, charity, mercy and sobriety.

Bad religion is about manipulation, advancement in the world, or an inordinate craving for security.

People sometimes blame religion for something that hasn't had a religious motive.

 

[light upon light]

I see. I wish that you added that to the OP in the first place. As it was, it could have easily been the statement of many a modern atheist. As it now is, it leaves the atheist out in the cold. They, too, can have an altruistic philosophy proceeding from their inherent needs. They, too, can go beyond mere tribalism.

I was specifically addressing religious people (I am myself religious) because right now I see many religious people are using their religion to foster prejudice against those of other Faiths.

You are of course correct that atheists also should embrace altruism and that is an excellent thing!

 

[LoAmmi]

Christianity is a unique form of faith and spirituality.

Every religion is unique. People just tend to view their own as THE MOST UNIQUE because we like promoting the things we are a part of.

 

[dms1972]

I can't quite see your ground for objecting (if you were?) in what you say. Christianity is expressed often through religion, but its a faith and spirituality. I might not understand things well enough yet. Its personal but not an individualised thing. I didn't say it was the most unique in its religious expression, or that it had no areas of commonality.

Religion is an ascent to find God, Christianity is about God's search for lost humanity.

Totalising narratives, and monism (not monotheism) have been more the problem for the last two centuries than religion. That and a almost monolithic imposition of multi-culturalism in parts of the West.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

How do we escape the cycle of religious hatred and blame? How do we stop seeing people of different faiths as misled, evil, or even as followers of Satan?

As human beings on a single small planet, we can no longer afford hatred, antipathy and violence anymore. Our technology has become far too powerful. How do we let go of our tribalism and embrace our common humanity?

I suggest reading Grassroots Post-Modernism: Remaking the Soil of Cultures, by Gustavo Esteva and Madhu Suri Prakash. I recently discovered that there is now a 2014 edition. I do not know what the 2014 edition is like--I read the edition published in the late 1990's.

The book does not directly address your question. It is basically a criticism of globalization/neoliberalism and an emic account of how the oppressed majority of people in the world are responding to it. However, the authors' thesis that says that the people they call the "social majorities" have quietly moved beyond all of the things like the problems that you bring up, and the evidence that they provide, such as the First Intercontinental Encounter for Humanity and Against Neoliberalism, are powerful reminders of the abilities of diverse people to find solidarity between themselves, to transcend the social constructs that divide them, and to be resilient through all of it.

Also, the online publication written by the late David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom, is an excellent analysis of from the perspective of clinical psychology of things like our common humanity and how we are divided and manipulated.

 

[dms1972]

You are of course correct that atheists also should embrace altruism and that is an excellent thing!

Love is the most excellent way (Corinthians chapter 13) Altruism is a more secular version of philanthrophy, its better than mere selfishness and egoism, but its not the same as charity. Its the best the enlightenment could come up with as an alternative, when they realised what they'd thrown out. Altruism is a cold sort of love.

There is a fable that when the badger had been stung all over by bees, a bear consoled him by a rhapsodic account of how he himself had just breakfasted on their honey. The badger replied peevishly, "The stings are in my flesh, and the sweetness is on your muzzle." The bear, it is said, was surprised at the badger's want of altruism. (George Elliot)

 

[dms1972]

Also, the online publication written by the late David Smail, Power, Responsibility and Freedom, is an excellent analysis of from the perspective of clinical psychology of things like our common humanity and how we are divided and manipulated.

Hi, I enjoy reading some of your comments, and questions, as you don't pretend to know it all, but share what you have found helpful.

I glanced at this and read the first page or so even though you are directing it to another poster.

It was interesting though I am not familiar with the writter at all, but he seemed to be touching on a area I am interested in...

It was interesting to see that he thought psychiatry the 1960s behavoristic, and that there was greater openness to RD Laing and existential writters.

Karl Stern also experienced training (and went on to question the approach) in the kind of psychiatry that he said was sandwiched between medical teaching on Ear, Nose and Throat, and which viewed the mind similiarly. Psychiatry it seems has been more closely aligned with medical training, one I think often has to be medically trained to then go on and practice as a psychiatrist. I still tend the view the two as a good combination medical doctor along with psychiatric skill.

There would be quite a considerable difference however between existential approaches to Responsibility, some like Sartre and Neitzsche would I feel be at odds with helping people placing as they seem to an intolerable burden on the shoulders of the lone individual. Better , or more human and closer to christianity would be Kierkergarrd, or Dostoyevski.

I think part of the topic would be the power-structures and those involved in them and how they can fail by abdication of responsibility - "mistakes where made" statements. What mistakes, how were they made, what lessons? Was it just a mistake or was it incompetence, or systemic failure?

It remains that those within power structures, upholding law and order and such can place an intolerable degree of responsibility on the vulnerable individual while shirking the same with a laugh at themselves at times - and that is despicable. Those who haven't helped in the past, move away so others can. Stop trying to make up for mistakes by making the opposite mistakes!!

A vulnerable individual would very likely defend themselves with lies, when confronted by those with a measure of power, especially if they don't know whats going on. The article didn't answer anything and just left it possible to shift the blame back onto the troubled individual (who while lying may have been involved beyond their grasp of what was going on)

I don't wield authority, I am not an expert - I might reluctantly sometimes offer a layperson suggestion (but often its some ingrained problem that is past solvable by mere common-sense and needs some structural reform).

But those who take them (others suggestions) and try them, if they take them with the attitude if this fails it was his idea not mine - they should look for other work, as they are not of very noble character.

 

[Winken]

Ah, but you said "no" when answering the question if there is a sliding scale for how bad non-Christians are.

Sin is the status of being unsaved. Lots of folks who are unsaved are nice, good, loving, kind. Then there are the Hitler types.