Spirituality and Religion

[righteousnesous]

Some interesting points were raised here.

"Specialization, segregation, and obedience to authority are three main characteristics of religion and of all hierarchies "

I have some problems with this. Firstly, the assumption that religion is a mere hierarchy is problematic. Religion may be many things, but I hardly think it accurate to define it as a mere hierarchy. After all, the main elements of religion that are (in my experience and reading) stressed by its practitioners, relate to morality, emotions, etc, but hardly a hierarchy of things. It may be that I'm missing something here. I am familiar with Leftist critiques of religion as being (I hate to say this again) "the opiate of the masses", but, beyond that, I hardly think it appropriate to cconsider it a hierarchy.

Further, a quick point on why people have a religion. Most would of course contend that their religion is the most accurate, the "truest" etc. For some, this may even be true. However, I, like I think, the vast majority of practioners, hold their religion primarily due to cultural factors. This is quite obvious to the more objective observer. And thus, though I may find much in common with Buddhism (except the hex on drinking!!) I remain catholic, even though there is much in the instituiton that I abhore. As the Dalai Lama himself recomended, before one changes their religion, he/she should be sure that that religion is incompatible with their self. For the moment, I still see much in the Church to recommend it, its emphasis on works and on community, for example.

That might have to do for the moment. I've been waging intellectual war on the off-site forum I was a member of before I came here. Its at purelightstudios.com/christiancountries/viewforum.php?f=3 if anyone is interested. Has to do with economics. Much of it comes from
www.right-wing-pseudo-christians.com/matthew-25.htm#_Toc34575466

a very nice little web site. Very useful for those from the US who have to contend with Christian fundamentalists. Use the bible for what it was meant for. Justice.

Other than that, my brain is frazzled, talk again soon.

[workerscommunes]

Good articles.

Hey Righters, can I ask why you choose to associate yourself with the Catholic church in particular, rather than just the christian faith? As someone with generally quite proggressive views do you not find many of the church's teachings and stances on social issues somewhat embarrassing? I can't see why you'd allign yourself with such an institution when it would be just as easy to call yourself a plain-old 'Christian'. You mention some of the positive characteristics of Catholic church ("its emphasis on works and on community, for example"), but these things are stressed in many, many communities both religious and secular. Saying it's worth supporting the catholic church because they stress charity and community seems to me like saying I should join the British National Party because they opposed the war in Iraq!

I'm no expert on the Catholic religion but from your posts you seem a pretty a-typical catholic. Could you clarify which aspects of the religion you embrace and which you reject? - The creation? The fall? Heaven and hell? Satan? The virgin birth? The miracles? The ressurection? etc.

For the record if I had to pick a label I would probably call myself an atheist, if the definition of an atheist is someone who does not follow a religion or believe in a god or gods. However I could also be called an agnostic if the definition of agnostic is someone who claims not to know if god exists or not, but then so could most people. I do not believe in the soul, the spirit or an afterlife. However there are certain aspects of several religions, including christianity, which I admire.

[righteousnesous]

Right fitst of all, why Catholicism, rather than say, Christianity in general? Two main reasons for that, culture and theology. Firstly, as a kid, I read Leon Uris' "Trinity" (about the Potato Famine, Easter Rebellion etc) and heard the stories of my Uncles about life in Ireland in the early 20th Century, hiding from the Black & Tans, etc etc, etc. I was brought up, hearing of the injustices wrought on Catholics in Australia. Sectarianism is a thing of the past here, but, the stories of it are kept alive, at least within the Irish Catholic community, who suffered from it. Ie, you couldn't get a job in certain big businesses if you were a Catholic, and, if the conservatives were in power, no Catholic would be appointed to senior positions of the public service.

I could go on and on. Suffice it to say, with that background, I have the affinity for my religion that I think is common to all those that have been discriminated against for their beliefs. Be they Jews, Muslims, whatever. I could thus never contemplate converting to another Christian church. I'd feel myself to be a selfish traitor. The kind that converted in order to find better employment opportunities.

Secondly, theology. Firstly, the Catholic Church doesn't interpret the Bible literally, but rather, contextually. Ie, with regard for the context in which it was written. Also, unlike all Protestant Churches, the Catholic Church teaches that salvation is impossible without faith AND good works. Protestants however believe that faith alone is necessary, thus, you can do what you want, as long as you believe that Christ is your saviour. This is the main theological difference between Catholicism and the Protestant branches. In practice, the informed protestant accepts (at least, those I've met) that if a Christian has true faith, he/she will not carry out absolutely evil acts. However, for me, I find the initial difference important. Thus, in practice, you see the enormous effort the Catholic Church directs towards schools, hospitals, homeless hostels, etc. Also, the Catholic Church stresses both halves of Christianity - the importance of the individual, but also the requirement to treat others as you would yourself) whereas many Protestant Churches only stress the former - the individual.

As for the negative aspects of the Church, the worst aspect for me is the hex on contraceptives. A dogma that sprang from John Paul II's tortured mind, and which, as even he admitted, he only clung to out of stubborness. There is no major doctrinal or traditional reason for this teaching. The hexes against female ordination and homosexuality are also equally stupid. However, St Paul was a major homophobe (and sexist) and is thus harder to overcome. At least female ordination has doctrinal support and traditon, given that it occured for the first 3 centuries after Christ's death. But these can be changed by looking to Christ himself. The stances on abortion I can live with. Abortion is an inherently grey area. It is not open and shut. I'm uncomfortable with it, but I'm neither strongly opposed or in favour. Its the one issue where I have a (somewhat) conservative streak.

Am I embarased by the Churches stances on contraception, etc?? Yes. But I'm also embarrased by Left wing organisations that do the wrong thing. This doesn't mean that I throw in the towel and refuse to associate with them. All organisations have humans in them. And humans, inherently fallible as we are, stuff up. Ultimately, in this messy world in which we live, we have to get our hands dirty. Because if we try to remain completely clean and pure, nothing will get done. At least the Catholic Church accepts the primacy of the individual's conscience in such matters.

The fact is that the Catholic Church does a lot of good. Look at Romero in El Salvador, the liberation theologists, the work the Church does in the Phillipines.
I hardly think that you can compare the Church with the BNP. The Vatican is hardly representative of the whole Church.

Am I an a-typical catholic?? I wouldn't think so. Not in the circles I mix in anyway. As Catholic's don't interpret the Bible literally, there is no reason for there to be a conflict between creation and evolution. In fact, there is much to recommend it. As for the fall, it is a nice story describing how humanity attained free will. Heaven and hell? Sure, where do you think Hitler is?? I don't think there are many going to hell though, if that's what you mean. Satan? A nice little explanation for evil, blame an outasider. The Jesuites however rejet the existance of the devil. I think this is closer to the truth. In Earth, and with humanity, there are no guaranteed "goods" or "evils". Indeed, there is no need to accuse the Devil for the world's manifold troubles when one accepts, as one must, that God is not actively intervening in the World. The virgin birth? Meaning that mary was without "taints" when Jesus was born, why not??? The miracles? Sure. The ressurection? nice way to describe eternal life. Though what form eternal life will take, no one has ever come back to say.

That was long...

[laueria]

I also reject the view that religion is always a hierarchy. Even the religions that are most hierarchichal, such as Catholicism, Christianity in general, and caste Hinduism, were not always that way. I'll use Catholicism as an example. Back after Jesus died, the church lived in small communes of disciples. These communes were much the ideal form of life that we work towards today. It was not until the work of St. Paul that these communes were undone and the pope became the sole leader, along with the cardinals, bishops, priests et al. Right now, however, the Catholic church is possibly the mst rigid structural organization in the world.
However, as a Buddhist, i can say that my religion is relatively free of structure. I reject, thus, the assumption that all religion is hierarchical and thus naturally opposed to us.

[laueria]

However, most Mahayana Buddhism (which I practice) i found in Southeast Asia, India and China, where it is more of a personal experience. I agree about Japan, but that's not the point I was making. The only hierarchy in most Buddhist communities is found in the monks. Nothing is above them, for the most part.