One key problem I've had is communicating my own personal spiritual beliefs. "Panentheist" seems to get close, but feels an awkward term that can easily leave more questions unanswered than answered when using it.
This is especially when using the term "God", which comes with so many inferences to different people, and is especially problematical if like myself you consider God to be beyond all human description.
This is even more so when you look at religious beliefs through history, and see how God is described in personal and cultural terms that tend to describe personal and cultural values of the people, rather than God.
Originally in 2003 I set up a site called Foundationist.org to try and explore these beliefs, by using the world's religions as a basis to understand ourselves and our relationship to the Divine - as different cultures saw it.
Unfortunately, I couldn't even begin to describe what I meant then, and so quickly replaced the site with comparative-religion.com - now interfaith.org.
I think we've had a lot of interesting and mature discussions among a community that is generally interesting and mature, so it's probably time to test whether I can define "Foundationism/Foundationist" as a system, and whether it can work.
There are only two basic pillars of faith with Foundationism:
1. Aspire to be selfless and respect if not love other people
2. God cannot be comprehended by the human mind.
The term "Foundationist" admittedly comes from the TV sci-fi series Bablyon 5, and there briefly mentions a movement that seeks to share in the foundations of human spiritual belief to find common ground. That always seemed an aspiration worth repeating.
Additionally, this also infers that all human religious belief and experience can be useful for learning more about ourselves and our place in the universe, and how we relate to the Divine.
Even more so, it cannot be an organised belief system - it is a point of view, an acceptance of basic principles, which can be shared among people with otherwise very different spiritual viewpoints.
And it's an inclusive system - one that does not different between people on any basis, and by nature implies everyone is Foundationist, unless they specifically declare themselves otherwise - on the grounds that belief in the golden rule, and acceptance upon the incomprehensible nature of God - the Divine - are common and potentially universal.
And so, the question is, is such a manifesto worth describing as a system of belief, or simply a principle? Is it acceptable as a label, or is it's inability to describe and explain therefore a problem for those who demand answers first?
This is especially when using the term "God", which comes with so many inferences to different people, and is especially problematical if like myself you consider God to be beyond all human description.
This is even more so when you look at religious beliefs through history, and see how God is described in personal and cultural terms that tend to describe personal and cultural values of the people, rather than God.
Originally in 2003 I set up a site called Foundationist.org to try and explore these beliefs, by using the world's religions as a basis to understand ourselves and our relationship to the Divine - as different cultures saw it.
Unfortunately, I couldn't even begin to describe what I meant then, and so quickly replaced the site with comparative-religion.com - now interfaith.org.
I think we've had a lot of interesting and mature discussions among a community that is generally interesting and mature, so it's probably time to test whether I can define "Foundationism/Foundationist" as a system, and whether it can work.
There are only two basic pillars of faith with Foundationism:
1. Aspire to be selfless and respect if not love other people
2. God cannot be comprehended by the human mind.
The term "Foundationist" admittedly comes from the TV sci-fi series Bablyon 5, and there briefly mentions a movement that seeks to share in the foundations of human spiritual belief to find common ground. That always seemed an aspiration worth repeating.
Additionally, this also infers that all human religious belief and experience can be useful for learning more about ourselves and our place in the universe, and how we relate to the Divine.
Even more so, it cannot be an organised belief system - it is a point of view, an acceptance of basic principles, which can be shared among people with otherwise very different spiritual viewpoints.
And it's an inclusive system - one that does not different between people on any basis, and by nature implies everyone is Foundationist, unless they specifically declare themselves otherwise - on the grounds that belief in the golden rule, and acceptance upon the incomprehensible nature of God - the Divine - are common and potentially universal.
And so, the question is, is such a manifesto worth describing as a system of belief, or simply a principle? Is it acceptable as a label, or is it's inability to describe and explain therefore a problem for those who demand answers first?
