Survey: Americans switching faiths, dropping out

[juantoo3]

One can only determine the truth of oneself according to an external point of reference.

Kindest regards, and forgive my intrusion,

I can agree with this sentiment, but I must first ask if "an external point of reference" must needs be an institution or tradition? I mean no insult by asking, and I doubt it is any new revelation that I might believe that "external reference" source to be other than institution or tradition.

I see no need to go around my a$$ to get to my elbow. Which is another way of saying "why complicate matters?" Why not go directly to the source?

 

[Ciel]

Kindest regards, and forgive my intrusion,

I can agree with this sentiment, but I must first ask if "an external point of reference" must needs be an institution or tradition? I mean no insult by asking, and I doubt it is any new revelation that I might believe that "external reference" source to be other than institution or tradition.

I see no need to go around my a$$ to get to my elbow. Which is another way of saying "why complicate matters?" Why not go directly to the source?

With all respect Juantoo........... agreed.

- c -

 

[Thomas]

I can agree with this sentiment,

Actually, it's not sentiment ... it's philosophically the case.

but I must first ask if "an external point of reference" must needs be an institution or tradition?

It needs be a vehicle of transmission, of some sort.

I mean no insult by asking,

None taken.

and I doubt it is any new revelation that I might believe that "external reference" source to be other than institution or tradition.

What is it then?

I see no need to go around my a$$ to get to my elbow. Which is another way of saying "why complicate matters?" Why not go directly to the source?

Because the Tradition is the source?

If you mean, why not do it yourself, that I believe to be founded on sentiment.

Thomas

 

[wil]

7 directions we may choose.

like the seven sides of a die.

North, East, South, West, Up, Down.

All external.

Seventh direction is within, like the seventh side of the die the in-side.

We can look wherever we wish for guidance, the answer is within.

Six days of external creation, spend the seventh working on the internal.

Look neither high, nor low....

Trying to change others is futile, or changing external circumstances, however changing perception is relatively easy, and it occurs by keeping the sabbath holy.

peace

wil

 

[Ciel]

No Thomas, the tradition is not the source.

God is.

And God is a free agent able to respond to all when their "sentiments" rise.

- c -

 

[juantoo3]

What is it then?

G-d. Between fervent prayer and listening to the still small voice, it is possible to go directly to the source. Jesus showed us all how, if we will only listen.

There is value in tradition and institution. There is also abuse of the trust that is required. Some need the safety net of tradition and institution, and don't mind the accompanying fetters. Some of us don't need a safety net anymore...we garnered what we needed to point us in the right direction, the same direction Christ pointed, and loosed ourselves from the fetters and stepped out in faith to reach for the outstretched arms of our Heavenly Father.

It is not a path for everybody.

 

[path_of_one]

The Buddhist imagery comes to mind...

First, to be careful that we do not forget that our finger points at the moon. The moon is the source, the goal, the truth. The finger is just a means of communication to point us there.

Second, that if we consider life to be a river, and the opposite shore our goal, and our tradition the raft that brings us to that shore... once we have reached the farther shore, we must step out of the raft and onto land. I do not think this means we must abandon our tradition, but rather we see it for what it is- a vehicle, not a destination.

I believe that Christ gave us a means to go directly to the Father. He taught us how to pray, how to behave, and how to love. I am not sure there is need for more than right thought (prayer), right action (ethics) and right consciousness (love). For me, it is a lot more simple than most traditions make it.

 

[Thomas]

No Thomas, the tradition is not the source.
God is.
And God is a free agent able to respond to all when their "sentiments" rise.

Indeed He does — and every good man and woman in the world will get their just reward in God, according to their sentiments.

But the Path that is Tradition goes beyond that, it is "the narrow gate" into an engagement with the Mystery itself, and transmitted by, through and in the Tradition (this is the aspect everyone fails to see) are the graces by which man might transcend himself.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juantoo —

Jesus showed us all how, if we will only listen.

That is what Tradition is. But as ever, we pick and choose the bits we like, and discreetly ignore the rest.

There is value in tradition and institution.

The Christian Tradition is a body: a physical body, a liturgical body, a sacramental body ... without an understanding of that, one doesn't begin to understand what the authentic Christian Tradition is — nor have any grounds on which to truly appreciate its real value.

Some need the safety net of tradition and institution, and don't mind the accompanying fetters.

So you see the Way of God as a safety net and a fetter?

Some of us don't need a safety net anymore...we garnered what we needed to point us in the right direction, the same direction Christ pointed, and loosed ourselves from the fetters and stepped out in faith to reach for the outstretched arms of our Heavenly Father.

So you don't need Jesus anymore? You've outgrown Him? In effect you're saying, I'll have God, thank, you, but He comes to me on my terms.

Doesn't work, Juantoo — by 'fetters' you imply you're above all that, you're too good for Scripture to apply to you. God gives you gratis what everyone else has to work for.

Read the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew Chapters 5-7, and come back and tell me you've got it all covered off ... you don't need the seven Beatitudes, the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit, the seven petitions of the Lord's Prayer.

Sure they're fetters — if you want to see tham that way. But they're also freedoms — if you want to see them that way. It depends which way you want to see them. It depends what freedom you really want.

Christianity is a holistic thing. It's all or nothing, Jesus Christ Himself was most explicit about that.

It's not a path for everybody.

That's the point. Everyone wants the rewards, but on their own terms. Even Christ Himself lost followers by the tough lessons he taught. It's many things, but easy it ain't ... it'll test you to your limits.

If one truly understood the truth of oneself, then one would begin to understand tradition, and know that without it ...

Thomas

 

[Ciel]

If one truly understood the truth of oneself, then one would begin to understand tradition, and know that without it ...

Thomas

.............. there is freedom to love and accept others without hypocrisy.

- c -

 

[Thomas]

there is freedom to love and accept others without hypocrisy.
- c -

There always was, but man has shown himself, and continues to show himself, incapable.

For all their (human) faults, the Spiritual Traditions of the world have given us a language and a vision without which we would be blind and dumb ... for that alone we should be truly thankful, and if we believed in what they tell us, we'd cherish them as close as our hearts.

To cherry-pick those traditions for the 'feelgood' factor, the 'nice bits' and the 'meaningful aphorism' with which to impress oneself and one's neighbour, whilst in the same breath we find fault with him, is the greatest hypocrisy of all.

Those who only see the sin when they look at the Church are those who cannot see the Spirit beyond the letter — their gaze is fixed on the material world and their mind on the judgement of their neighbour ... whilst they, of course, are exemplars of the right way, beyond such mundane matters ...

I know the faults of my Church, Ciel, probably better than you. And I suffer them. And I pray for them ... but that does not turn me away from the Truth, or from the Source ... and I know that I am no saint, either, and it's for people like me that She exists, because without Her, such as we are lost.

Perhaps I do you a disservice ... perhaps you are already perfect ... if so, then mea culpa.

But there are those, like the 'rich young man' of Scripture, who fulfil the letter of the law, but who cannot embrace its poverty of spirit, and who turn away ... it is for those that Christ wept.

There will always be sin attached to the Church, Ciel, as long as the Church is composed of people. That is who it's there for.

I think it's a hypocrisy when people assume the Church must be perfect and blameless ... if that were so, there would be no place for them in God's plan of Salvation ... I also think it's a tragedy to turn away from the Truth because other people find it hard to live up to, in the same way that so many accept sin because everyone else says it's OK ...

In the end all one's doing is interpreting the truth to suit oneself, to make it more palatable, more attainable, and convince oneself one is doing alright.

The lesson of Easter ... the hard lesson of the Cross ... is that as man, we are incapable of working our own salvation, "take this cup from my lips, less thy will it be so", we have no choice nor voice in the matter, that is the lesson of the Passion that few want to face ... and in our modern comfort-orientated world, where self-importance has become nothing short of a cult, it seems that God exacts a high price for it.

Thomas

 

[Ciel]

Thomas,

I accept you for what you are.

I question the love of God you promote that allows for no other to live in their own salvation through the love of God's grace.

God is free to bless unfettered.

- c -

 

[Thomas]

Hi Ciel —

I question the love of God you promote that allows for no other to live in their own salvation through the love of God's grace.

Then you misread me, and you misread Scripture, for God offers salvation through His grace, asking only that man does as God wills, not that God does as man wills.

It's not that they don't love God, it's rather that they love themselves more. It's because they love themselves more than they love God they think the Church He founded — the Mystical Community in which that Grace is given — unworthy of them.

There seems to me no way round the argument that they want God's grace, but on their terms.

They want to talk the talk, but don't ask them to walk the walk.

They are the modern model of the parable of the rich man and the publican in the temple — and their part is not that of the publican.

Thomas

 

[Ciel]

Thomas,

It is impossible to misread you when you state your self so clearly.

I acknowledge where you stand in perfect clarity.

But then you know me as one who looks toward the best in others and this world. And to you it seems this is a disclaimer of true intent. I promise you life has not been fifty seven years of fluffy clouds without experience.

I thank God for being able to adhere to love above all things.

peace Christina.

 

[Paladin]

I wonder just how many people drift away from religion altogether because they have simply outgrown the model. Thomas presents a very concise and exhaustive rationale that the religious use to see the world, but it is that very model I now reject. I am not alone in this, there are others who still look deeply into the mystery of that which is but do not cling to the model commonly referred to as God. Am I choosing this because I am spiritually, psychologically, morally and ethically lazy? The false dichotomy given by the religious would have you think so. Do I need a point of accountability for my thoughts and actions? Or, having spent a lifetime within the framework of religion simply found which actions and thoughts work for me and my relationships with Others, indeed my relationship with actuality.

There is no doubt that there are those who wish to live out their lives without the rigors of religion, whether it be Christian Scripture, The Dharma, The Tao or whatever, but to assume that anyone who comes to the end of their spiritual search and finds what Krishnamurti and others have found is lazy or seeking only comfort is offensive and intellectually disingenuous.

I agree that philosophically finding the self and dealing with the self using an external point of reference works, but what happens when you decide to look beyond self? What happens when you question what self is and are willing to let go of the models held so close these many years?

The common wisdom would tell us that we must spend years in a particular system doing all that the system tells us, dutifully following the map so that we can arrive at the desired end. But why must we assume that the end is what we are told it is?

And now, am I dangerous or stupid because I dare to question the established epistomology of generation upon generation of thinkers? Am I to be stoned because I wished to stand naked before that which is and ask of its nature? I have read the books, and have practiced austerities and now I get off my knees and walk away from the Gompa knowing full well that which I call self may not be important and may not even exist except in my own mind. I may even question the process of reason itself.

This is why I feel that dropping out of established religion needs more insight than to simply call those who leave "lazy" or simply wanting to "feel good"

 

[cyberpi]

I guess it would take a Social Scientist to figure stuff like this out.

So then are you a Social Scientist?

 

[path_of_one]

I think Paladin was referring to me. I am a social scientist (a cultural anthropologist, to be exact).

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Thomas!

Thank you as ever for your response.

I see there is one specific point between us where there is a misunderstanding:

So you see the Way of God as a safety net and a fetter?

No.

I see the various institutions as safety nets, and those who lord themselves over others by virtue of authority within those institutions as fetters.

Perhaps with this new understanding one might better translate what I initially wrote. In any case, it is not G-d whom I wish to remake in my own preferred image...rather, I have chosen to set aside my prejudicial preconceptions and allow G-d to reveal Himself as He is, in His good time, and as He sees fit; all while living by the example Jesus taught to the best of my understanding and ability.

The Christian Tradition is a body: a physical body, a liturgical body, a sacramental body ... without an understanding of that, one doesn't begin to understand what the authentic Christian Tradition is — nor have any grounds on which to truly appreciate its real value.

That is one interpretation, and a very functional one, for those who require the safety nets of institutions and the fetters of a fallible *human* leadership to direct traffic and save them from themselves.

I sense in my heart that people will not be impeded from the Father's presence who have chosen this manner / style / method of spiritual expression you advocate. Those leaders who lead their flocks sincerely (and with trembling) will be blessed over and above. But the Bible I read (KJV, among others) also says to beware of false leaders, to reject the traditions of men, and that church leaders who abuse their position of power will suffer exponentially more than the average sinner caught up in their sin.

It is a matter of degree.

I have no desire to be a big fish in a big pond, or even a big fish in a little pond. I just know I want to return home. So far I have been disappointed repeatedly when I put my trust in other *humans* to lead the way for me. I'll take the reins for a while now, thanks. I have a good horse, and the horse knows the way home. I'm just along for the ride.

 

[juantoo3]

There always was, but man has shown himself, and continues to show himself, incapable.

For all their (human) faults, the Spiritual Traditions of the world have given us a language and a vision without which we would be blind and dumb ... for that alone we should be truly thankful, and if we believed in what they tell us, we'd cherish them as close as our hearts.

To cherry-pick those traditions for the 'feelgood' factor, the 'nice bits' and the 'meaningful aphorism' with which to impress oneself and one's neighbour, whilst in the same breath we find fault with him, is the greatest hypocrisy of all.

Those who only see the sin when they look at the Church are those who cannot see the Spirit beyond the letter — their gaze is fixed on the material world and their mind on the judgement of their neighbour ... whilst they, of course, are exemplars of the right way, beyond such mundane matters ...

I know the faults of my Church, Ciel, probably better than you. And I suffer them. And I pray for them ... but that does not turn me away from the Truth, or from the Source ... and I know that I am no saint, either, and it's for people like me that She exists, because without Her, such as we are lost.

But there are those, like the 'rich young man' of Scripture, who fulfil the letter of the law, but who cannot embrace its poverty of spirit, and who turn away ... it is for those that Christ wept.

There will always be sin attached to the Church, Ciel, as long as the Church is composed of people. That is who it's there for.

I think it's a hypocrisy when people assume the Church must be perfect and blameless ... if that were so, there would be no place for them in God's plan of Salvation ... I also think it's a tragedy to turn away from the Truth because other people find it hard to live up to, in the same way that so many accept sin because everyone else says it's OK ...

In the end all one's doing is interpreting the truth to suit oneself, to make it more palatable, more attainable, and convince oneself one is doing alright.

The lesson of Easter ... the hard lesson of the Cross ... is that as man, we are incapable of working our own salvation, "take this cup from my lips, less thy will it be so", we have no choice nor voice in the matter, that is the lesson of the Passion that few want to face ... and in our modern comfort-orientated world, where self-importance has become nothing short of a cult, it seems that God exacts a high price for it.

I know this was addressed to Ciel, but if I may please;

Thomas, if you only understood how much I agree with your words here, although I must allow for some possible minor semantic differences.

There is however one miniscule point of misunderstanding with which I disagree, and I suspect this is the hinge upon which our different views turn:

I know that I am no saint, either, and it's for people like me that She (*the church) exists, because without Her, such as we are lost.

I am no saint either, it is for people like me that Jesus taught the way, that without G-d I and others like me are lost.

From where I sit, "the church" (however that may be interpreted; institution, tradition or collection of fallible people) does not do the saving. G-d does. Through the teachings and person of Jesus. (As I understand) Jesus' given name in Aramaic, Yashua, means "salvation is of G-d." G-d saves, not the institution.

The church is not G-d, G-d is not limited to the church. The church of itself cannot grant salvation to a soul, nor is it imbued with any special authority or privilege to do so. This I speak is a Biblical stance taken directly from the teachings of Jesus:

St. Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.

St. Mark 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

St. Mark 7:3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.

St. Mark 7:4 And when they come from the St. Mark et, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

St. Mark 7:5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

St. Mark 7:6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

St. Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

St. Mark 7:8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

St. Mark 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

St. Mark 7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:

St. Mark 7:11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free.

St. Mark 7:12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother;

St. Mark 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

St. Mark 7:14 And when he had called all the people unto him, he said unto them, Hearken unto me every one of you, and understand:

St. Mark 7:15 There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man.

St. Mark 7:16 If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

St. Mark 7:17 And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.

St. Mark 7:18 And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;

St. Mark 7:19 Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?

St. Mark 7:20 And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.

St. Mark 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,

St. Mark 7:22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:

St. Mark 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

I place my faith in G-d and Jesus, numero uno priority. The church is incidental at best. The church (as Path pointed out) is a tool, not the final product; the church is a raft, not the destination. The church is quite functional and serviceable, but it is by no means manditory. The church especially is *not* the instrument *of* salvation, it is the teacher only of what that instrument really is.

 

[seattlegal]

From where I sit, "the church" (however that may be interpreted; institution, tradition or collection of fallible people) does not do the saving. G-d does. Through the teachings and person of Jesus. (As I understand) Jesus' given name in Aramaic, Yashua, means "salvation is of G-d." G-d saves, not the institution.

The church is not G-d, G-d is not limited to the church. The church of itself cannot grant salvation to a soul, nor is it imbued with any special authority or privilege to do so. This I speak is a Biblical stance taken directly from the teachings of Jesus:




I place my faith in G-d and Jesus, numero uno priority. The church is incidental at best. The church (as Path pointed out) is a tool, not the final product; the church is a raft, not the destination. The church is quite functional and serviceable, but it is by no means manditory. The church especially is *not* the instrument *of* salvation, it is the teacher only of what that instrument really is.

I think that the example of Jesus walking on water might demonstrate that the raft is not necessarily manditory. (However, it would take a great deal of faith. The slightest doubt on the part of Peter caused him to start to sink, but Jesus pulled him back up out of the water.)