Christianity

[Lacewing]

Naturally, you will not like what I say and think,

That's very perceptive of you. And I thought I was hiding it so well.

you are an example of the sort of person who has become subsumed in the *decadence* I refer to.

Not yet, but I have plans.

You'd have to begin to entertain and work with a range of ideas you have (apparently) never felt any need to examine

I'm already engaged in entertaining a range of ideas, and I also intend to fully examine them. Just not your ideas.

Whether you understand what I am talking about or not is not of great concern.

How true.

I love your brilliance and wit, Harbal.

[Harry Baird]

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.

Yes, that's fair, and I agree*. It's possible to take a more abstract perspective in which all religions are kind of getting at the same thing, and the differences are not so important as the similarities.

* Although I simply don't know Vedanta well enough to express either agreement or disagreement with you there.

[Harry Baird]

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

IC: I also gave that explanation.

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

IC: 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.

What? None of those quotes defines "religion". Please just provide a straight definition in your own words.

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?

The shades of grey don't invalidate the black and white at either end of the spectrum. I'm not interested in trying to quantify exact shades.

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.

I don't know how you define Pragmatism (with a capital P and all!) in this context, but, in any case, Christians are no less pragmatic in the way that you describe. Christians, too, decide that their purpose is salvation, and, based on the teachings of their religion, further decide that what "works" to achieve this purpose is to declare faith in Christ and accept his sacrifice.

As for your claim that the spiritual but not religious "[fail] to make any evaluation of [their spiritual] purposes", that's awfully presumptuous of you. How on Earth would you know?

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

Quite. So, how much of your religion (Christianity as you conceive of it) is "made up"?

[Harbal]

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.

And, of course, you can hardly be blamed for what you did with them after you got them.

[Immanuel Can]

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...

No, no presuppositions. Just facts.

It will turn out to be one way or the other.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

And, of course, you can hardly be blamed for what you did with them after you got them.

I didn't do anything with them...yet.

I'm not saying I won't. I'm just saying that so far, I haven't.

[Harbal]

I love your brilliance and wit, Harbal.

I can't take any credit for it, it's just one of the outcomes of decadence.

[Immanuel Can]

Please just provide a straight definition in your own words.

A "religion" is some version of man's attempts to get to (or become) God.

Simple. Clear?

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?

The shades of grey don't invalidate the black and white at either end of the spectrum.[/quote]
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not asking about any "spectrum."

I'm asking what makes a prayer, or meditation or whatever, "spiritual" rather than "religious."

I don't know how you define Pragmatism (with a capital P and all!) in this context,

It's a philosphical movement. People like John Dewey or William James, or more recently Richard Rorty are associated with it. It just abandons all foundations, and makes up its values as it goes, based on what "works" (in some vague and obviously contestable sense). It tries to find its teleology through constant dynamics, and postpones all ultimate questions indefinitely.

It also has a less formal definition: for a person to be "pragmatic" means "to go with whatever seems to "work," particularly without much attention to either ultimate ends or principles. It's a personal orientation towards the here-and-now, to the exclusion of the "then."

Christians, too, decide that their purpose is salvation, and, based on the teachings of their religion, further decide that what "works" to achieve this purpose is to declare faith in Christ and accept his sacrifice.

No, for them, the teleology is fixed beforehand, as are the basic ethical foundations. What "works" works for purposes already prescribed by God.

A Pragmatist doesn't do that. No fixed teleology, and no set ethics are fundamental to Pragmatism.

As for your claim that the spiritual but not religious "[fail] to make any evaluation of [their spiritual] purposes", that's awfully presumptuous of you. How on Earth would you know?

I would know because when you ask them, so many of them can't tell you. If they knew, I'm sure they would be more forthcoming. But the very question often disconcerts them; and it seems that this is because they regard "spiritual" as a sort of vague honourific at which you're supposed to bown and withdraw, saying, "Well, I guess you're alright, then."

And if you don't, they don't know what to tell you. Most of them don't have a deeper answer, it seems. At least, if we judge by their responses, they don't. Maybe they do, and they're just very shy...but it's hard to see why, if it's so great to be "spiritual."

[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...

No, no presuppositions. Just facts.

It will turn out to be one way or the other.

My argument is that you do not deal in facts. You deal on, and in relation to, claims of various sorts. Truth claims. Stories or ‘pictures’ about this reality, this sphere of existence.

You are locked into a view which has necessary mechanisms. It is more a mental system, based in idea-imperialism, than it is an accurate revelation of what may come for any of us in an afterworld.

Now, this does not mean that LaceWing or Harbal will get off Scott-free — not by a long shot! They will each be unmercifully tortured for opposing my TRUTHS.

[Harry Baird]

A "religion" is some version of man's attempts to get to (or become) God.

I don't see anything related to being or not being works-based there, so I still have no idea why you think Christianity's being non-works-based excludes it from meeting your definition of a religion.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not asking about any "spectrum."

You're posing a case which is somewhat ambiguous, and essentially asking "Does this or does it not qualify as a religion on Harry's definition?" I'm saying that because it's ambiguous, the answer is "grey", not binary. More importantly, though, I'm saying that the existence of "grey" cases doesn't in any way detract from the contrastingly clear ("black or white") cases such as that of Christianity.

But to give you a clearer answer anyway: no, I don't think the situation you described qualifies as a religion, because it's just a bunch of separate individuals trusting the same source of information. They haven't agreed upon spiritual beliefs and practices in the sense I intended "agreement": that of getting together and organising as a community which explicitly endorses them collectively (as "the" truth). If they did that, then it might become a religion, and the situation you describe would in hindsight be seen as the religion in its nascent, gestational stage.

I don't know how you define Pragmatism (with a capital P and all!) in this context,

It's a philosphical movement. People like John Dewey or William James, or more recently Richard Rorty are associated with it.

Yeah, I don't think in that sense that it has anything to do with people who define themselves as spiritual but not religious, the vast majority of whom would be ignorant of it, let alone subscribing to it.

In any case, let's drop the labelling and consider the people themselves. The label carries baggage that doesn't apply.

The simple fact is that a person can buy into a prepackaged system of spiritual beliefs as you do, or a person can investigate, contemplate, and reason for themselves so as to arrive at their own spiritual understanding.

You ignored the question I ended with:

[H]ow much of your religion (Christianity as you conceive of it) is "made up"?

The correct answer is "A meaningful amount of it".

How do I know this? Because the idea that a loving God, who created the rest of reality and has full power over it, would create a place in which he burns people in unimaginable agony for eternity, with no escape and no respite is so insane - such an utterly, utterly absurd contradiction in terms - that it can only have been made up.

Since it is crucial to the Story, in that Christ came down to save us from this hell which he, as a part of the Trinity, created in the first place - a ridiculously absurd notion in itself - the Story as a whole must then at least in large part be made up.

Not only is it insane, it's also offensive towards God. Anybody who sincerely believes it can neither be considered to be rational nor a friend of God.

Moreover, it's an abusive idea to promote to others. Its only function is coercive. What a sick, sick thing to do.

I totally understand why AJ reacts to you the way that he does.

[Immanuel Can]

My argument is that you do not deal in facts.

Then your "argument" (i.e. your opinion) is incorrect.

[Nick_A]

I've experienced that much of Christendom or man made Christianity is seen as boring. But it takes a special kind of person, better than me, to experience that Christianity initiating with a conscious source is not boring.

Simone Weil wrote 75 years ago: “Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.”

It seems absurd until I remember nothing else is possible for those defending their life in imagination reacting to the darkness of Plato's Cave without questioning the human condition and why we are as we are.

[Immanuel Can]

A "religion" is some version of man's attempts to get to (or become) God.

I don't see anything related to being or not being works-based there

Really? It seems abundantly obvious to me. However, if I need to explain: "works" are means by which men attempt to do this.

Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. I'm not asking about any "spectrum."

You're posing a case which is somewhat ambiguous, and essentially asking "Does this or does it not qualify as a religion on Harry's definition?" I'm saying that because it's ambiguous, the answer is "grey", not binary.

Non-sequitur.

"Vague" is not a synonym for "spectrum." One can give a vague or obscure response to a totally binary question. If "spiritual" refers to anything, it should be explicable. And if all the self-proclaimed "spiritual" people are actually pointing to the same sort of thing, quality or experience, that should also become apparent, so long as people give an honest answer.

But to give you a clearer answer anyway: no, I don't think the situation you described qualifies as a religion, because it's just a bunch of separate individuals trusting the same source of information. They haven't agreed upon spiritual beliefs and practices in the sense I intended "agreement": that of getting together and organising as a community which explicitly endorses them collectively (as "the" truth). If they did that, then it might become a religion, and the situation you describe would in hindsight be seen as the religion in its nascent, gestational stage.

That seems wrong, too.

So if a bunch of disparate individuals trust the same source of information, then it means they "agree." But "agreement" of that kind is not an "institution." And whether or not they subsequently decide to form a "community" and "endorse" the same beliefs they already hold, that's not an "institution," either.

But I'm asking too much of you: the various experts in "World Religions," or "Comparative Religions" have never solved that question either, and continue to debate it. If one ever takes a course in the same, the first lecture is guaranteed to be, "What is relgion?" with a description of the various attempts, but no definitive answer arrived at. So perhaps it's just something you aren't going to be able to define.

The simple fact is that a person can buy into a prepackaged system of spiritual beliefs as you do, or a person can investigate, contemplate, and reason for themselves so as to arrive at their own spiritual understanding.

"Prepackaged," or "revealed"? Your language betrays your bias there. I would say the "packaging" is exactly as God "packaged" it. There are no other authorities.

But you've given yourself a conundrum, as well, Harry. And it's this: how does one "investigate" with no rules for the procedure? How does one "contemplate" without a subject being already given? How does one "reason" when one has not settled on the basic facts to be "reasoned" about?

So the "spiritual" person, thus conceived, has to assume some artificial, non-revealed, self-chosen suppositions of his own, design his own rules for what is in and out, and for what counts as "reasonable thinking" about it. Then he has to perform according to his own gratutious and imaginary "standards." And then, when he's done, does he hope somebody will congratulate him for this? Or that they should admire him as "spiritual" for simply following his own inclinations, preferred suppositions, arbitrary "rules" and "procedures," and prejudices?

It's hard to see why anybody owes him that. Or why even he should think he's a good fellow for having pulled it off.

You ignored the question I ended with:

[H]ow much of your religion (Christianity as you conceive of it) is "made up"?

I immediately detected the false supposition it contains, and refused it as a premise, actually. As such, it wasn't worth answering.

But since you persist and insist, I will make the appropriate reply, challenging the false premise.

Anything "made up" is not Christian. If you find something somebody "made up," it has no place within genuinely Christian belief.

[Walker]

I've experienced that much of Christendom or man made Christianity is seen as boring. But it takes a special kind of person, better than me, to experience that Christianity initiating with a conscious source is not boring.

Simone Weil wrote 75 years ago: “Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, while fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.”

It seems absurd until I remember nothing else is possible for those defending their life in imagination reacting to the darkness of Plato's Cave without questioning the human condition and why we are as we are.

That’s a brilliant observation by Simone. There’s a reason why businessmen fly all over the world to do business. It’s a rule of life like physics, as much as folks would like to think differently.

The final piece of the puzzle is always face-to-face. That’s where business originates and that’s where it is sealed. Face-to-face is business time, whether flying all over the world or staying local.

It used to be so in daily life, but these days it’s mostly face-to-screen, voice-to-voice, or text-to-text.

The implications? Indeed. Folks subsisting on small and infrequent rations of face-to-face presence could be the cause of all the modern troubles in the world, and we can’t go back to the old troubles unless Caeser burns the library again, which today would require nuclear fire and that comes with more troubles than its worth.

[Harry Baird]

I tire of much of this exchange. There is only one part that is truly meaningful. Briefly, though, in response to the rest:

1. Your definition of religion is self-serving, but that's understandable, given your beliefs.
2. The spectrum is from "a spirituality but not at all a religion" to "a spirituality that is also, definitively a religion". Black and white with shades of grey in between.
3. It's utterly irrelevant whether or not academics have settled on a definition of religion. The point is what those who refer to themselves as spiritual but not religious mean by "religion". I've given you a working definition in that context, with which Lacewing agrees. You've tried to pick holes in it by quibbling over what "institutionalised" means and when it applies, but, despite any grey areas, it remains basically sound.
4. Your "conundrum" is a figment of your imagination. Each of us simply confronts the mystery of reality, and tries to work out what's going on as best we can.

Now to the only truly meaningful part of our exchange:

You ignored the question I ended with:

[H]ow much of your religion (Christianity as you conceive of it) is "made up"?

I immediately detected the false supposition it contains, and refused it as a premise, actually. As such, it wasn't worth answering.

But since you persist and insist, I will make the appropriate reply, challenging the false premise.

Anything "made up" is not Christian. If you find something somebody "made up," it has no place within genuinely Christian belief.

In that case, much of what you believe is not Christian.

You did not, because you cannot - it is impossible - resolve or even attempt to address the absurd contradiction at the heart of your prepackaged system of belief: the deranged idea that a loving God would burn people in hell for eternity.

You thus were unable to further address the consequences of this contradiction: that, not only must it be made up (because the truth is not contradictory), but, also, because so much of the rest of the Story hangs upon it, the Story in general must be made up.