religion

[Guest guest]

says: >>Yes, you've caught the underlying problem that makes so many 'educated' modern people hate religion. It has been almost totally corrupted into mere political parties.<< --I'm finding it ironic (not to mention tragic) that Muslims are killing each other in Iraq, engaging in the same kind of tribalism and relativistic morality that Mohammad attempted to stop. Mohammad was a warrior, true, but his goal was to unify what was shattered. That his name and religion are used to justify the same kind of gangsterism you'd find in any decaying urban area would sicken him, more than any cartoon. Many in the West think Islam is the problem, but at the time it was created, it was a solution. Christianity too will have to have a serious talk with itself about what it means to be a Christian. Is it a label you use to make sure God doesn't accidentally smite you while he's trampling infidels in the winepress of wrath? Or

is it a path you have to walk, and maybe even sacrifice for, with love for your enemy? Gandhi and some of the Buddhist teachers have promoted a more authentic form of Christianity than the fundamentalists who think Hindus and Buddhists go to hell. I'm wondering when their children will confront them about the beam in their own eye and ask what the responsibility of a Christian really is in approaching conflict. >>Most of the loudest voices for 'religion' -- both now and in the past -- are just politicians grasping for power but using a slightly different 'gimmick' than the mainstream sort.<< --At times it's hard to tell which ones are using religion as a tool, not really believing what they say, and which ones are hypnotized by their own rhetoric and believe they are expressing the will of God in the world. I'm pretty sure Bush believes he's a Christian. Since he was "saved" in the context of the conservative

evangelical movement, he may feel indebted to them. And since he was given his current position as political messiah of the free world by neocons and political insiders, he no doubt feels equally indebted to them. What happens when God and mammon diverge, when evangelicals and neocons fail to agree, or even worse for him, agree to criticize him publicly? He'd be torn in half. >>Genuine prophets make little impression in their own time because they speak to individuals not masses.<< --I think it would depend on their ability to harness crowd energy. There are verbal teachings, and there is timing and charisma. Even with weak teachings, timing is incredibly powerful. What Jesus did can be done today, and is done in various ways by people like Oprah, Bono and other media figures. Prophesy is above all about timing, saying what isn't being said, while it can still make a difference in the

outcome. >>It usually takes generations for large numbers of people to start to 'catch on' to a new message. But then it comes into the awareness of the politicians and they sieze control of it. (viz. Constantine and the hijacking of Christianity...)<< --Right. Jesus said as much, and the Christians still blew it. It's so simple in the presence of the original teacher, and so difficult in day to day compromises between self-preservation, loyalty and conscience. If Christians really walked with Jesus, he'd be telling them to bridge the gap between Muslims and Jews. What good are Christians for, if not to act as peacemakers, being perfectly situated for that function? Taking care of your own is something all human groups do instinctively. It takes religion or something analogous to it, to extend that instinct to include humanity as a whole. Once an argument arises over the Trinity or some other dogmatic sticking

point, it's easy for politicians to demonize and divide in order to serve their own power drive. Ironically, American Protestants who used to insist Catholics weren't "real Christians" had no problem uniting with them against Kerry. Perhaps when division and enmity become so toxic to the world's populations, war itself will become a uniting enemy, as Luther King and others suggested. One can dream, at least. Perhaps Satan in religion represents the division between tribes that perpetuates unbalanced and ecological moral codes, and when Christians refer to Satan as "prince of the air", I keep getting the sense that it has to do with a problem in communication, transference and projection making it impossible for people to experience reality through the eyes of others or walking in their shoes. >>That's almost amusing that some people are so unable to deal with a non-exclusive statement that they will get excited and demand a definitive

legalistic stand.<< --It definitely gets the little hamster wheels spinning in their heads. It's an emotional defense, disguised as a demand for logical consistency. To say you are a Christian and a Muslim and an atheist will offend all three. Gandhi did that sort of thing, and according to a number of Christians I've met, went to hell because he didn't exclusively pick Jesus as his mascot. What's really interesting to try as an experiment is to "set the trap" by claiming multiple allegiances, and then show Christlike compassion and tolerance toward a Christian whose body language is hostile and persecutory in response to such apostasy. Then, ask them if they're aware of their body language, and if they feel it represents the spirit of Jesus as well as the words they're quoting from the Bible ("do you think it's possible to give your tongue to God and your body to the Devil or a spirit of division and enmity?").

Observers immediately get the idea, and it's easy to render a fundamentalist speechless that way. And they'll even end up LIKING you, if you do it with a sense of humor and gentle teasing. Fundamentalists seem to have a repressed playful side, if you can get past the dogmatism. They respond to positive energy, they just don't know how to elicit anything positive from people they believe are hellbound. They are good at creating division around them, and then they react against the spirit of hostility they've cultivated, believing atheists/Muslims/whoever are inherently hostile. >>But then that's how completely the political corruption has taken hold, and so it's not amusing if you realize the implications. This 'ridiculous' attitude is the source of much of the world's strife.<< --It's not amusing, although there's a bumper crop of irony. One thing that seems to be a huge part of the problem is the "back

seat arsonist" phenomenon. People pour gasoline on a conflict from a safe distance, then watch the flames consume those more directly involved. Witness conflicts like the Israeli-Palestinian division, which would be a hell of a lot easier to solve without so much external manipulation. It will take a shift in consciousness so that people feel accountable for situations that do not directly affect them, whenever they throw around logical fallacies, rumors, demonizing stereotypes, or other mini-molotov cocktails. We are becoming increasingly aware as a species that the world is an interconnected system that cannot be compartmentalized in the mind without crucifying the spirit. C. Lockhartwww.soulaquarium.netYahoo! Messenger: grailsnailBlog: http://shallowreflections.blogspot.com/

Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.