Recent CNN article

[blogworthy]

I'm bringing this to the Forum because (to slightly abuse Shakespeare) I think I may be skating fairly close to becoming the argument of my own scorn. In my view, you're either tolerant or you're not. This is one of the few subjects on which I get truly and profoundly irritated. I read this article on CNN's Belief blog.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/2 ... ?hpt=hp_c2

My response:
So let me get this straight, by deciding to establish your own ideas about what is Sacred, ideas that are independent of a Religion - that's copping out? By taking on responsibility for your actions form a first person perspective -that's a cop-out? If I'm not like you I'm wrong? I really don't agree. No apologies offered, either. People - a lot of people - generally believe that if you don't have a Religion you are somehow defective. Many people also believe that you can't have Spirituality - that you can't express Spirituality - without a Religion. Like Spirituality and Religion are the exact same thing. I really try to understand peoples perspective - I struggle with it though. I think too many good and useful notions have been sacrificed on the altar of Similarity. Difference is not inherently evil - it's just different.

So that we're all clear: I really do appreciate bluntness. I've come to relish being challenged and even proven wrong. Crow can be a sweet and savory dish if you season it with learning. And getting honest feedback from people helps me to see things from perspectives I might have missed. Take aim folks - Let's throw down.

[Hennie]

The word 'ignorant' once meant just 'not knowing', thus incapable of making a sound opinion on the subject at hand. Sometimes I wonder: if you don't know about the things you are experiencing you can freely make up fantasies about them, or you can ask a person you trust, a friend, a scientist, a doctor, a priest to give their view on your thoughts. Until very recently we would rely on their advise. But something strange has happened : on the one hand we don't trust advises anymore and on the other hand there is a feeling like we should "know for ourselves'. It seems that there is going around a lot of feelings of shame or guilt, when one has to admit one just doesn't know. Sometimes I think many people are turning to the Goddess/God to know, to no longer be ignorant. That is OK of course, but I hope we can come to a point where the Oneness is motivating us, because Oneness is all that matters.


The above is something I wrote elsewhere not so long ago.
Oneness to me means all the advantages of society, working together, interrelating, but without the obedience asked by formal institutions like churches - though in America there are indeed Witch-churches, often called Temples; and the spiritual world is indeed much more organised than the writer of the blog knows. His remark that the spiritual people would not know about the "scriptures" (of all directions) is false; many followers of the spiritual read these books because they have to search for themselves instead of being 'spoon-fed" like in the churches. I think the writer of the blog essentially doesn't have a clue about the sometimes intense social bonds that do exist in the spiritual community. Perhaps he should take on studying in one of the many curricula available; my guess is he won't, because his God doesn't allow him.

[DJ Droood]

Saw this article on the weekend...my feeling is that the American writer sounds frustrated and scared...mainstream religions are extensions of politics...to not align oneself with a traditional system makes one dangerously unpredictable and harder to manage.

[DaRC]

In my view, you're either tolerant or you're not.

Yep but being tolerant does not mean there are no boundaries! Toleration without boundaries is anarchy not just being tolerant.

But I fundamentally disagree that you have to be religious to be spiritual. Religion is all about power politics and social control, spirituality is not.
When it comes to religion the quote about LouisXIV sums it up...
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."
I can point at many 'religious' leaders throughout history who fulfil that particular paradigm. Just check out the Borgias or the 3 Pope's period of history.

But ultimately I'd just put his blog down to the usual I'm-a-Christian-so-I-must-preach hyperbole.

[blogworthy]

Thank you for your replies. They are truly appreciated.
Blessed Be!

[Whitemane]

The Wild Hunt has some fun with this column too.

This is all very sad.

[blogworthy]

Thank you, thank you, thank you for posting that! I'd managed to miss that one. I think I need to de-spam my Inbox again.

[Al Hakim]

I am sorry to say that - as an outsider - that article almost made me vomit. It is a nice summary of what the Christian church is rejected for. If you browse through history the Catholic church has murdered almost as many people as the Nazis did. -
Particularly the protestants had been successful by telling people that they are on Earth to suffer. I consider that idea as nonsense. To be in line with nature and feel happy cannot be wrong. If I am wrong we'll meet in hell later.

[blogworthy]

I've come to realize that I never truly bought into the whole 'thou shalt suffer tremendously' dogma of any religion. One thing I can say is that this article really did enforce my notion of being Spiritual and not Religious. I tried for a very long time to find some kind of Religion to belong to and just really had a hard time with it. Life is for the Living. I don't want to grovel on the ground and moan and gnash my teeth and weep. I want to stand and run and sing and laugh and LIVE.