Virtually every religion ”” including the most conservative sects ”” preaches positive concepts, such as “love thy neighbor” and “to forgive is divine.” Religions often encourage us to seek positive emotions such as joy, peace and hope. But we must always be aware of the eternal battle between those parts of the brain that are prone to push others away, and the parts that are inclined to build cooperative alliances with our fellow human beings in times of need.
In this sense, whether we embrace spiritual or secular values, the ultimate goal is the same. For as Albert Einstein stated when he described the similarities between spiritual and scientific epiphanies, it is the overwhelming awe and beauty of the universe and the deep sense of connectedness to the world that we all seek, if not crave. At their best, both science and religion can evoke inspirational meaning in our lives, and when this occurs, God and science are great.
But we always have to watch out for the times when God, religion, or science can turn a blind eye toward others. We have a brain that is filled with both loving and hateful ideas. We can turn to religion and spirituality as a way to foster the good in us, except, of course, when we don’t.
“All religions essentially preach the same things.”
Ah, ubiquitous syncretism.
Actually, No! We don’t.
Christianity must be about a real relationship with the transcendent God, made accessible by His only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. The true doctrines about God serve this relationship. Other religions have doctrines about how to live or how to understand reality, but Christianity is unique. Syncretism has been and always continues to be the slippery slope into apostasy.
The author states: ” it is the overwhelming awe and beauty of the universe and the deep sense of connectedness to the world that we all seek, if not crave.”
I am willing to say that this is true, but it cannot be the whole story. Science describes God’s universe, but God is not co-terminous with the universe. The one thing that the rational materialists fear most is a truly transcendent God who does not fit into their little boxes.
There is a movement out there these days which is seeking to justify religion’s usefulness on the basis that it produces positive human values. (updated Kant) That’s all well and good, but it inevitably precludes any orthodoxy which justifies itself on the basis of transcendent truths.
— — a plush and velvet trap, but a dangerous one nonetheless.
This article ultimately preaches that ‘God’ exists in the mind and, though useful if thought of in a manner to evoke civil behaviour, may also be harmless.
It does not speak of a God who sent his Son into the world and who, through his Holy Spirit, is alive and active in this world and found in tabernacles throughout the globe.
I choose the former which renders much of this irrelevent. My God does not live in my brain- he is seated on his throne of Glory.
“Virtually every religion — including the most conservative sects — preaches positive concepts, such as ‘love thy neighbor’ and ‘to forgive is divine.’ Religions often encourage us to seek positive emotions such as joy, peace and hope.”
Yes, Christ did teach and preach and encourage, but to reduce Christianity to teachings or to moralism is to invest in a faith that cannot possibly sustain us. Christianity is the announcement of the fact that the Mystery has become flesh in a man. This is not a thought. It is not an idea. It is not a teaching. It is an unrepeatable event in history. The question is not: how do I follow this or that teaching? The question is: have I the courage to be transformed by this momentous historical fact? I can try to love my enemy, or I can let Christ love my enemy through me. The former springs from a misconceived Christianity, a reduced Christianity, a Christianity that relies only on oneself. Only the latter is genuine Christianity, which results when I invest my “I” in a sovereign Other.
that should of course read; harmful at the end of para 1
and i choose the latter! at the start of the final para!!!
Ideological materialism in psycho-religio dress.
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/06/shaken-confidence-of-materialists.html
I’m not sure if this is syncretism, but it would be odd if religions did not have similarities. Further, there are lots of differences within religions. There are “hate your neighbor” Christians and “love thy neighbor” Christians, depending on who the neighbor is.
Certainly, Religion, or religious identity, can’t easily be reduced to a phrase (or even a creed) or an action.
But if you believe that assenting to a proposition about Jesus Christ is primarily important about the afterlife and has little behavioral impact on this one, then God bless you. But is it possible to be certain that one’s personal relationship with Jesus Christ ensures one’s own salvation, while being an agnostic about how God is treating other people?
Or does being a Christian mean having omniscience about the status of other person’s souls?
To say that Christianity is simply the act of assenting to a proposition about this life, the afterlife, or both, is to reduce Christianity to a proposition. It is to attempt to take control of the infinite, or to ensnare the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not a proposition. Christianity is a person. A person who appeared in the flesh in at a moment in history and who continues to appear throughout the world and throughout all time. This is not to say that the Scriptures or the creeds or the historic teaching of the church are no longer true. They are as true as ever. They are our starting point, our ground, our frame of reference. But while creeds and teachings give us a yardstick by which to measure our experience, they cannot by themselves sustain us. Only Christ can do that. If Christ sustains me, my acts toward my neighbor are not the result of my assenting to a proposition. They are Him working in me– no more, no less. Christianity is not me acting in the world. It is Christ acting in the world.
Once again, kudos to USA Today for trying. Alas, yet again they manage to come up with a monumentally clueless and vapid assessment. Consider the assumptions: 1. a religion is a means (in this case to good health) vice an end in itself; 2. a religion’s object is the believer vice God (it’s all about me); 3. the definition of what constitutes a positive vs. negative attitudes is inherently self-evident (self acceptance = positive, condemnation of anything = negative – what about negative attitudes toward, say, slavery; will that be attended by deleterious effects?). Then there are the just plain silly assertions about the universality of “the ultimate goal”, entirely aesthetic – truth, apparently, need not apply – of both religious (entirely without reference to the obvious differences between religious goals – nirvana is a fundamentally different thing from salvation) and secular believers. Ridiculous. Then we are handed bumper sticker-sized quotations, lifted entirely out of context, from two people we are evidently supposed to have negative thoughts about (apparently without consideration for the supposed negative health effects of such) as evidence of the sort of supposedly dangerous thinking that goes on in the lower realms of religious thought – note the assumption of violence attached (as with everything else in the article, no evidence is on offer). And of course, the gulag mentality: wrong thinking will be punished (with ill health); right thinking will be rewarded. What if negative assessments of yourself reflect the actual views of the diety? Is He then responsible for the ill effects that will follow? Whenever religion is discussed without any reference to objective truth – even the individual believer’s perception thereof, which may or may not be wrong, but at least has a claim that grounds aesthetics – you know you are being treated to an inexcusably shallow assessment. Which alas is the case here.
# 6: With all due respect, Mr Wilkins, from where I stand, you sound deeply confused and more than a little peevish.
You see, no convinced and committed Christian is any kind of agnostic. You said: “f you believe that assenting to a proposition about Jesus Christ is primarily important about the afterlife and has little behavioral impact on this one, then God bless you.” [I am assuming your final phrase there is an attempt at sarcasm]
Salvation is not merely about an afterlife but about who we are and how we are here and now. The Kingdom of God is here and now, and as the original hippies used to say, “You are either on the bus or off the bus.” Everyone is invited to have a life-giving relationship with Jesus Christ, but no one is forced to do so. Whichever choice you make, there are consequences in the here and now that continue for eternity.
Of course there are some similarities among various religions. However, no two religions are just alike. Christianity is essentially different from all others in the insistence that God became a real human being, and that a relationship with that living Person is a relationship with God Himself and is necessary for salvation.
Also, there are not “neighbor hating Christians” and “neighbor loving Christians” as if there were different flavors of Christianity among which one is able to choose. There is the Great Commandment which those who call themselves Christians either strive to live by or fail to live by.
Have you ever turned to Jesus Christ to be your Savior — really to save you from your sins? [We all have those] If not, may I suggest that you take a moment to explore that possibility. Jesus loves you more than you can know, and calls to you.
Answering that call not only gives life, it answers a whole lot of questions.
God bless you, too.