Christianity

[Harry Baird]

How do you define "religion" such that this attribute of Christianity [its being "not works-based"] is relevant?

I also gave that explanation.

Kindly repeat your definition of "religion" in the current context, because I don't know what it is nor where to find it.

Look, it's simple. Prayer is spiritual no matter which context it occurs in - so, yes, whether or not that context is institutional is irrelevant in that sense. A prayer is in addition a religious one if it occurs in the context of an institutionalised system of spiritual belief and practices (i.e., a religion).

There is is again.

You reverted to the "institutional" = religious prayer, and presumably non-institutional is "spiritual"? But then you used the word "spiritual" to describe those "beliefs and practices" within an "institution."

So is "institutionalization" the defining characteristic of a "religion," or is it possible alternative for the "spiritual"? In which case, "non-institutionalization" does not distinguish "spirituality" at all, but is merely an optional feature.

Maybe this will help. I hope so, because I feel like I'm beating my head against a brick wall.

In my understanding, the sense in which people use these terms when defining themselves as "spiritual but not religious" is something like this:

Both "religions" and "spiritualities" consist in sets of spiritual belief and practice.

All religions are spiritualities. Not all spiritualities are religions.

A spirituality becomes in addition a religion when it is institutionalised, or, in other words, when it is organised; codified; systematised; doctrinal; formalised - that is to say, when a large enough community of believing and practising adherents coheres around it as an agreed-upon set of spiritual beliefs and practices.

Clear yet?

"Formalized"?

You know what I mean, or at least you ought to: Christianity (including in your view of it) is a clearly defined and codified set of spiritual beliefs and practices (including normative scriptures) shared by a sufficiently large and organised community of adherents to qualify it as a religion - at least, in the sense intended (in my view) by those who refer to themselves as "spiritual but not religious".

Well, so I'm right, then...your view is subjective and personal. A person "makes up" his or her own "spirituality," according to his/her tastes.

I put it differently: a "spiritual but not religious" person might to an extent experiment with and innovate some of their spiritual practices (if any), but to an extent might also or alternatively base them on research into what objectively "works", perhaps borrowing from both science (e.g., research into the outcomes of particular meditation techniques) as well as from existing spiritual/religious traditions.

As for that person's spiritual beliefs, I expect that such a person wants them to conform to reality as much as possible, so, no, such people don't in general just "make up" their beliefs: they try to develop them consistent with their experience of and reasoning about reality.

All Christians believe their faith is objectively real and true

As do adherents of all religions...

I just note that you and Lace have different answers to what "spirituality" is. [...] If you don't agree with her, it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are.

Yep. Just as you and a Hindu have different answers to what the correct religion is, and it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are...

[Harry Baird]

I've been thinking we agree and speak similarly on quite a lot, Harry.

Good to hear.

I suspect that Lacewing would at least roughly agree with my general definition of "spiritual but not religious" as something like "having a set of spiritual beliefs and practices that are not institutionalised", but I don't know for sure, so I ask: what say you, Lacewing?

I agree.

Excellent. There you have it, IC.

[Harbal]

Hold the fort, and I'll eventually tell you what I think about whatever I end up getting.

Look, You expressed curiosity about spirituality, and I tried to tell you what little I know about it, according to my own limited understanding of it. If you want to attack it, then attack it, but please don't do it through me.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I can't seem to read less that nothing, which is what I actually do read.

There you have it.

[Harbal]

There you have it.

Well you hardly had to trick it out of me. I'm quite happy for the whole world to know that I DON'T READ STUFF.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC writes: "Well, so I'm right, then...your view is subjective and personal. A person "makes up" his or her own "spirituality," according to his/her tastes."

I put it differently: a "spiritual but not religious" person might to an extent experiment with and innovate some of their spiritual practices (if any), but to an extent might also or alternatively base them on research into what objectively "works", perhaps borrowing from both science (e.g., research into the outcomes of particular meditation techniques) as well as from existing spiritual/religious traditions.

Interjection

The key to understanding IC's position is that, for him, there is no other religion, nor religious mode, nor means of spirituality that is recognized as having any real validity. 'Spiritual' and 'spirituality' can have no meaning or significance if they are not associated with the precise form of Evangelical Christianity which IC represents.

Roman Catholicism is invalid as are (I am guessing) the various modes of American Christianity such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormonism, Christian Science, etc. He may have something of a relationship to Pentecostalism though which has strongly influenced the world-spread of a form of evangelical Christianity.

If it is not IC's brand of Christianity, it cannot have any validity. Ultimately, it must be 'of the Devil'. Thus and again, and at the core, I say we see evidence of the original religious form: Hebrew Idea-Imperialism.

[Harry Baird]

The key to understanding IC's position is that, for him, there is no other religion, nor religious mode, nor means of spirituality that is recognized as having any real validity. 'Spiritual' and 'spirituality' can have no meaning or significance if they are not associated with the precise form of Evangelical Christianity which IC represents.

Yar. That's the underlying problem which renders the whole exchange and IC's deliberate obtuseness rather farcical.

[Alexis Jacobi]

IC: All Christians believe their faith is objectively real and true.

Harry: As do adherents of all religions...

IC: I just note that you and Lace have different answers to what "spirituality" is. [...] If you don't agree with her, it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are.

Harry: Yep. Just as you and a Hindu have different answers to what the correct religion is, and it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are...

We need a key here, and once we have it all things are made clear.

But first let's start with a comparative position. Let us take Vedanta as a starting point. Must Vedanta (a relatively modern religious and spiritual perspective I should say) insist that one religion, one spiritual path, one type of religious focus, is superior to another one and to the degree that that other one must be attacked and destroyed? The answer is no.

But where do we find strong evidence of a religious modality that operates, at the most core and essential level, from the ideological position that attacking & destroying other religious modes is necessary -- and indeed a good?

We have to examine those religious, or existential, or cultural and social modes which are based in intolerant absolutism and, having done that, decide if such is indeed 'good', and why it is good, or if it can also be seen as being 'bad' and then why it is bad.

Just as you and a Hindu have different answers to what the correct religion is, and it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are...

There is an alternative, of course. In Vedanta, which is necessarily a tolerant religious conception, each spiritual tradition is seen as having validity. One need not subscribe to an absolutist ideology when it is possible, from a position of some detachment and say *higher understanding*, to grasp that there are positive, as well as negative elements in any given religious perspective.

There are *metaphysical perspectives* that see things from a height or a remove. In this sense they see behind the Story, as well as through the Story, and identify unifying principles. But it requires a type of mind that is interested in unifying narratives to seek that route.

One thing that really did happen in the Occident is that people -- intellectuals within our own tradition -- made the choice to examine other modes of religious life from a more *open* perspective. The critical perspective became possible when they had gained enough perspective of their own traditions -- its positive and less positive aspects -- and to choose toleration and more subtle understanding as opposed to the need and desire to act imperiously; to ridicule and devalue; to see as either inferior or ultimately *of the devil* and demonic.

All the gods and goddesses of the peoples surrounding the Hebrews were, literally, evil spirits and demons. One need only begin to think about the implications of carrying forward this essential ideology. Once one grasps that one is dealing with an anthropology, one quickly sees that Christian imperiousness could not help itself in making the vast array of judgments that it did make.

The fact of the matter is that these judgments are tied to a worldview -- a metaphysical conceptual order -- that can be easily understood when considering The Great Chain of Being.

See The Chain of Being A Hierarchy of Morality:

For centuries, philosophers, theologians, and scientists have used the idea of the Great Chain of Being to rank all beings, from demons to animals, humans, and gods, along a vertical dimension of morality. Although the idea of a chain of being has largely fallen out of academic favor, we propose that people still use an embodied vertical moral hierarchy to understand their moral world. This social cognitive chain of being (SCCB) encapsulates a range of research on moral perception including dehumanization (the perception of people as lower on the SCCB), anthropomorphism (the perception of animals as higher and the perceptions of gods as lower on the SCCB), and sanctification (the perception of people as higher on the SCCB). Moral emotions provide affective evidence that guide the perception of social targets as moral (e.g., elevation) or immoral (e.g., disgust). Perceptions of social targets along the SCCB enable people to fulfill group and self-serving, effectance, and existential motivations. The SCCB serves as a unifying theoretical framework that organizes research on moral perception, highlights unique interconnections, and provides a roadmap for future research.

In 1936, Arthur Lovejoy published his seminal book on the history of the Great Chain of Being, an idea that had its root in Plato and Aristotle and continued to influence theologians, philosophers, and natural scientists until its eventual fall from academic favor during the industrial revolution. The original chain of being, or scala naturae as conceived of by Aristotle, was used to represent all things, whether they were living and breathing animals, photosynthesizing plants, or lifeless rocks and minerals. Everything had a place on the chain and every link of the chain was occupied. As the idea of the chain of being progressed, it became less a dimension of existence in general and became a dimension of morality (Russell, 1988). The top of the chain expanded from humans (presumably the most complex and “perfect” animal) to saints, angels, and supernatural deities. Humans were repositioned toward the middle of the chain, with animals slightly lower. The bottom half of the chain included a hierarchy of increasingly evil demons and ending with Satan himself. The present analysis uses this version of the chain of being to represent a theoretical framework we call the social cognitive chain of being (SCCB). This framework describes the processes and perceptions that help humans organize their moral universe. We argue that the vertical moral continuum of the chain of being persists in people’s conception and perception of their social world, allowing people to perceive others and themselves along the continuum from devilish to divine.

[Immanuel Can]

You are a con-artist.

We'll see.

Well, we will if I'm right. If you're right, nobody will ever know...not even you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You are a con-artist.

We'll see.

Well, we will if I'm right. If you're right, nobody will ever know...not even you.

Talk more about this. "We will see", you say? When will we see? You mean in the course of this conversation? Or at some other point? What point? What do you mean exactly?

When you say If I am right no one will ever know not even me -- what do you mean?

[Immanuel Can]

How do you define "religion" such that this attribute of Christianity [its being "not works-based"] is relevant?

I also gave that explanation.

Kindly repeat your definition of "religion" in the current context,

I just gave it to you. If you go back and read the Ephesians passages, or Titus 3, you'll know everything you need to. I don't know what more I can say, than what the Bible itself tells you.

In my understanding, the sense in which people use these terms when defining themselves as "spiritual but not religious" is something like this:

Both "religions" and "spiritualities" consist in sets of spiritual belief and practice.

All religions are spiritualities. Not all spiritualities are religions.

So far, I have your meaning.

A spirituality becomes in addition a religion when it is institutionalised, or, in other words, when it is organised; codified; systematised; doctrinal; formalised - that is to say, when a large enough community of believing and practising adherents coheres around it as an agreed-upon set of spiritual beliefs and practices.

Well, what if they do so informally, meaning "not as a collective"? What if it's just a bunch of different people responding to the same information? Is that "institutionalized"? It wouldn't seem so. And yet, they'd have "agreed upon spiritual beliefs and practices." But the "agreement" would not come from the "institution," but from the fact of reference to a common Source.

Is that a "religion," even though it has no "institutional" nature?

Well, so I'm right, then...your view is subjective and personal. A person "makes up" his or her own "spirituality," according to his/her tastes.

I put it differently: a "spiritual but not religious" person might to an extent experiment with and innovate some of their spiritual practices (if any), but to an extent might also or alternatively base them on research into what objectively "works", perhaps borrowing from both science (e.g., research into the outcomes of particular meditation techniques) as well as from existing spiritual/religious traditions.

That's just Pragmatism. It's the creed that makes its basic value what "works."

But things only "work" for specific purposes. And Pragmatism fails to make any evaluation of those purposes, or justify any account of which purposes one should "work" towards. So it's essentially amoral.

As for that person's spiritual beliefs, I expect that such a person wants them to conform to reality as much as possible, so, no, such people don't in general just "make up" their beliefs: they try to develop them consistent with their experience of and reasoning about reality.

I think it's obvious that people "make up" stuff all the time. They love to, in fact. And then they love, even more, to tell everybody that their "made up" beliefs are "reality."

But, of course, if one "makes something up," then its chances of being true are between random and nil.

I just note that you and Lace have different answers to what "spirituality" is. [...] If you don't agree with her, it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are.

Yep. Just as you and a Hindu have different answers to what the correct religion is, and it's logical to assume that one of you is wrong, or both of you are...

Yes, that's exactly right.

[Immanuel Can]

Hold the fort, and I'll eventually tell you what I think about whatever I end up getting.

Look, You expressed curiosity about spirituality, and I tried to tell you what little I know about it, according to my own limited understanding of it. If you want to attack it, then attack it, but please don't do it through me.

Hey, I haven't "attacked" anything. I just asked for information.

If it happens that the information that people can offer in response conflicts or makes no sense, that will have nothing to do with me; I just asked an honest question, and took the answers I got.

[Immanuel Can]

You are a con-artist.

We'll see.

Well, we will if I'm right. If you're right, nobody will ever know...not even you.

Talk more about this.
When you say If I am right no one will ever know not even me -- what do you mean?

If we both one day stand before God to give our account, we'll both know I was right. If Atheism (or reincarnationism, or Deism, or some other -ism) is true, neither of us ever will. We'll be dead and gone, none the wiser.

But if I'm right...

[Alexis Jacobi]

If we both one day stand before God to give our account, we'll both know I was right. If Atheism (or reincarnationism, or Deism, or some other -ism) is true, neither of us ever will. We'll be dead and gone, none the wiser.

But if I'm right...

But here you presuppose not only the scenario but the sort of deity, and the deity that you envision is, as I have been saying, essentially the Hebrew god of idea-imperialism. You are wielding a narrative, a discourse, of the sort that derives from the Hebrew imperialism which I have identified.

The core assertion is: We have god. God has us. No one else has god and no one else can even define god. All their ideas are false-ideas and they should be destroyed.

Now, once you grasp that this is the function of imperialist concepts, and once you see that it is based in intolerant suppositions, and once you see that these have a function not in some *world beyond* (this is a lie) but in power-politics and psychological manipulation machinations in this our world now, once you see that then the scales fall away from the eyes. You can begin to see at least more clearly.

By stating what is possible to believe as "Atheism (or reincarnationism, or Deism, or some other -ism" you are, as necessary and as predicted, ridiculing and lowering those concept-sets in relation to your own -- those that you are certain are true and against those you are also certain are false.

The game you play depends on a weakened, susceptible individual who lives in existential doubt. The picture of the world that you have is pretty much as I have described it: it derives from the concepts of the Great Chain of Being and though you may have abandoned the other component elements (of the GCOB) still, I assert, you live in it and preach from that position.

You will resort to exploitation of 'existential angst' in order to hook the victim of the imperious ideology as long as the tactic remains effective. So you work this angle here yet with no results that I can discern. The fact is you drive people away from being able to appreciate Christianity and toward one of contempt for it -- because you make yourself fundamentally contemptuous!

So you lose ground among, let's say *your own people* (people of your cultural background). Who's left? Well, those that are left are those susceptible populations generally speaking in the global South. You are a missionary and you take your evangelical religion to those who do not have any sort of critical platform!

And given your adeptness at handling narratives (you are certainly clever if manipulative) I am sure that you have some success there among the populations of Central America or perhaps of Africa.

But my assertion is that among people who have intellectual discrimination and enough background in understanding our own cultural trajectory to challenge your manipulations and rhetorical shenanigans that your trickery is much easier to spot.

However, in no sense should it be made to seem that I am arguing against a philosophical, a religious or a spiritual frame of mind. The more that one understands, the more one can be those things but authentically. I will not say that any of this is at all easy though. Because so much is up in the air. We are in a time of tremendous upheaval.

You are an imposter Immanuel, and you are a con-artist. You surely have redeeming features in having a discriminating and an educated mind (you are adept at handling narrative and other perspectives) and you are often sharper than those who debate with you. But at the core you are a deceiver and a manipulator.

The advantage that I have gained (inadvertently) from you is to have it shown to me how a mind can become so devious and yet present itself as *upstanding* and *good*. You also have shown me how 'right thinking' must be developed and why the conventions that have you trapped must be seen and understood.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If we both one day stand before God to give our account, we'll both know I was right. If Atheism (or reincarnationism, or Deism, or some other -ism) is true, neither of us ever will. We'll be dead and gone, none the wiser.

But if I'm right..

No, this is actually an exposition of your error. Let us suppose a world and a life beyond this world and this life. Anything is possible really. Maybe it all ends in complete annihilation of the individual. But there are any number of different possibilities.

Where you situate yourself is within one extremely limited conception. Thus you can say, and I suppose genuinely believe, that if God exists and there will come some sort of reckoning about the life we have lived here, that it will be according to the terms you describe. You employ idea imperialism in such a way that it deliberately undermines other conceptual orders. You do this to create anxiety and angst. You are capable, as a psychologist, of exploiting those moods. Your Evangelical apology operates within that closed arena.

It is possible, then, to envision *standing before God* and realize and understand vastly different things than what you assume (given your limited palette).

But it seems to me that we must assume that we are standing right now 'before God' and that we must be authentic to what we see and understand.

Now with that said I must ask for your preference: Would you rather be slathered in butter and fed to the lions; or would you rather be slathered in barbecue sauce? I have been told that you will be more mercilessly and rapidly devoured if you go with straight butter.