|
If desired, you can go off-line to read this page. Comments have to be done online.
next
Welcome to:
The given, the assumption, that underlies the thinking presented on these pages is this:
That the physical, cultural world we know is our ideas manifested into reality,
And that among our strongest ideas are our religious ideas/beliefs.
( how strong?
When Ideas Change, The World Changes.
What is religion, anyway?
What idea is at the center of the predominant religions?
Where did the idea of conquest in religion come from?
What could be different in a new religion?
Recommended Sites:
Continuum Concept (Very important for any who may someday have children): http://www.continuum-concept.org
Church of God Anonymous (A religious community worth consideration): http://www.churchofgodanonymous.org/index2.html
Discussion Forum free by www.bravenet.com
Space for this page is provided free by angelcities.com
The Strength of Religious Ideas, Beliefs
As to the impact of religious ideas on the design and structure of our physical, cultural world, the following is offered:
An archeological puzzle concerns the disappearance of the pre-historic South American cultures. Different from
other parts of the world, South American civilizations appear to have grown and prospered, only to disappear for
no apparent reason. The remains of almost all other dead civilizations show signs of conquest, natural disaster,
climatic change that necessitated relocation or other causes. Not so in the South American cultures. They appear
to simply have been abandoned.
Among the known aspects of old South American cultures is the fact that self torture was part of their religious
beliefs and practices. This, I believe, is significant. The reason I find this significant is that a culture's
standards, or strictures, are applied most heavily to the upper classes. Consider the Victorian era as an example.
The Victorian standards of manners, sexual mores, dress, etc. were more strongly enforced on the upper classes
than on the uneducated masses. Or, young men with wild oats to sow went "slumming". So it is in our own
culture where the rural poor seldom wear neckties or high heeled shoes. So it is in all cultures, that the social
standards are taught more thoroughly to the upper classes than to the lower.
In South America, where civilizations appear to have sprung up about every 800 years and died without cause, a
part of their religious beliefs, as was said earlier, required self torture. Among these self inflicted punishments
was the repeated slitting of their own tongues. The self inflicted punishments were, in other words, extremely
painful. I would submit that as a culture becomes more successful (larger and older), that the cultural standards
are correspondingly more fully applied (to the upper classes). It then should be the case in the South American
cultures that being upper class became so painful that the public eventually was unwilling to become upper class.
Thereby denying leadership to, and causing the disappearance of, those cultures.
While it is a conjecture that this is the reason for the apparent abandonment of the South American civilizations,
I believe the premise sound, and verifiable by the disappearance (through low birth rates, change of beliefs, etc.)
of other leadership groups in other cultures and in other times.
The significance of the South American example is that the beliefs were religious. Religious beliefs are, easily
and demonstrably, more strictly followed by their believers than are the varied sets of economic class-distinction
beliefs. Religious beliefs are, I believe, so resistant to violation (on a cultural level) that a civilization
can be allowed to collapse before the beliefs will be ignored by the culture. It follows that religious beliefs
are stronger (on a cultural level) than desire for power and wealth.
Religious ideas are more successful at teaching customs and mores in a culture than are ideas about materialism
and class. Ignoring or denying religion leaves, in the hands of those who promote religions, the strongest tools
(ideas/beliefs) that mold our culture.
Premise:
To change this to a peaceful world, do not abandon or ignore religion.
But instead, seek a religious belief that supports a world you envision.
What Is Religion, Anyway?
Religion is an experience.
( more
Later in life I decided that religious beliefs, ideas, were among the most powerful sets of ideas that molded,
and mold, the entire world's civilizations. Not to be ignored.
What Is A Religious Experience?
It might be better to say that a spiritual experience exists. That most such experiences are interpreted as being a religious experience of some specific religion. That a spiritual experience is attainable on some level by every person. That the various religions are doctrines that, in part, attempt to explain the spiritual experience.
So then, what is a spiritual experience? At a Society of Friends Meeting (Quaker), a man described to me one of
his early spiritual experiences. He said, "..and all I can say is that what I saw was like the center of the
light when you're welding." Seeing a brilliant white light is a frequently reported spiritual experience inside
all religions, and is also experienced by many without any specific religious beliefs.
When having a strong spiritual experience, the feeling is an ecstatic sense of profound peace and love. This ecstasy
is accompanied by an experienced inner knowing, a sure knowledge, that your personal existence has meaning. While
Thoreau observed that "The mass of (people) lead lives of quiet desperation." a strong religious or spiritual
experience often transforms a life filled with despair into a life filled with joy, with direction, and with meaning.
Sometimes, a figure of Lao Tzu, Jesus, the Buddha or another religious leader will appear inside the brilliant
white light, and speak. A voice in the Light (that which people call God) and visions frequently, if not always,
accompany a strong visitation of the Light. If a figure appears, which figure depends upon the perceiver's religious
training, it seems, but the experience of the light has been reported by mystics in all religions. The experience
of the light has been recorded across written history, and in virtually all cultures.
Concerning these mystics, while doing some reading on Eastern mystics, it said that one was unusual because as
well as saying very wise things, communing with plants and such, that this person could also provide for their
own food, clothing and shelter. Since a large majority of famous mystics could not provide these things, being
a religious mystic sounds suspiciously like being seriously mentally ill.
This accords with my personal experience, and I accept that religious mysticism is a form of mental illness. Some
may feel justified in refuting the validity of the religious experience on this ground, but I believe that is not
justifiable. For instance, Abraham Lincoln was seriously mentally ill, and his ideas quite obviously could not
be ignored. Also, his example is far, far from an isolated case. While 2% of the general population has a sibling,
parent, child or themselves that is seriously mentally ill, some 30-50% of writers, composers, etc. have direct
family members, or are themselves, seriously mentally ill. Mental illness has a strong association with idea creativity,
a force that brings about cultural change.
My own opinion of what mental illness is would go further. I would suggest that present in all forms of mental
illness is a characteristic where the mind makes positive connections, but not the negative. If making positive
connections without the negative is taken as a basic symptom of mental illness, mild or serious, then it follows
that "falling in love" is a mental illness, albeit a mild form. Try talking someone who has "fallen
in love" out of it, and it will be obvious that their mind makes the positive connections and ignores the
negative. Restating this, what we call mental illness is, in it's mild forms, a widespread and normal aspect of
human existence, frequently improving our lives.
Just as many people who are not in love desire to fall in love, very many people desire to experience the ecstasy
of spiritual union with the Light. Union with the light is experienced by numerous people, often igniting in them
a religious fervor. I believe the desire for and realization of this union is the recurring and driving force that
has kept religions strong over the millenniums. Union with the light is, literally, one of the strongest forces
that has molded, and molds, the shape of our cultures. Both for better and worse.
The Idea at the Center of the Predominant Religions
The first consideration is of the term "Judeo-Christian-Moslem". These religions share a common base, the Old Testament, or are variants of that idea system. To be sure, there are large differences in the cultural forms that each has developed, just as there are large cultural differences between the Mormons and Free Will Baptists. But just as Mormons and Free Will Baptists are both within the Christian idea system, so are Judaism, Christianity and Islam variants of the Old Testament idea system. All three have manifested into reality the central ideas of the Old Testament, and do still.
And what is the center of the Old Testament, at it's core? What is it about? I submit that the center of the Judeo-Christian-Moslem
idea system is conquest. It is true that the idea system has room for Love, just as it has room for hate, but the
idea at it's center is conquest.
Consider, as an example, the story of Exodus. In that story God killed the first born of every Egyptian family.
If the story were not a part of the dominant religion of our culture, it could be presented as a simple story teaching
the believers how to win wars. The message is, "You can kill all the first born of a 'they' group and God
will still love you." (It should be noted that at the Nuremberg trials you would've been hanged for crimes
against humanity, or our secular ideas of war morality have moved beyond the standards of the Old Testament.) In
the Hindu faith, one story has a soldier telling God that the "enemy" includes his cousins and uncles
whom he knows to be good people, and whom he doesn't want to kill. God tells him his duty is to follow the command
of God and kill them. The center then, of most of the predominant religions extant today is conquest. The peoples
with idea/belief systems lacking a strong component of conquest having "lost", during millenniums of
war.
Returning for a moment to the corollary that the dominant religions have room for Love, it can safely be said that
religious idea systems are a large improvement over idea systems that lack a religious element. Comparing the Nazi
murder of 11 or more millions of non-combatants with the US wars against Native Americans, the minority in the
US who helped the Native Americans did accomplish some good, where the minority who helped the victims of the Nazis
were themselves sent to the camps. Numerous examples would make clear that an idea system that allows Love is
a great improvement over one without. Nonetheless, at the center of the predominant religions is conquest.
While these religious teachings of conquest were probably very wise 2-6,000 years ago, our world today can ill
afford the strength with which our predominant religions still teach them.
Where Did Conquest in Religion Come From?
We have to begin this with, "Where did war come from?" To examine that let's start on the North American continent. We know that at about 1000 CE the Hopewell, the Moundbuilders, had a culture that spread from Nova Scotia to beyond the Great Lakes, south to Alabama and over to Florida. We know this because they had common tools and art forms throughout the entire area. As well as being aspects of a common civilization, to have common tools and art forms requires frequent contact, or the freedom to travel.
We also know that less than 500 years later, when Columbus arrived, there were a multitude of Native American nations,
a multitude of languages, and some significant differences in art forms. There was no freedom of travel, the common
practice being to kill or enslave any foreign Native American found on the land of another nation. There also were
wars.
War then, appears to be a human response to overcrowding.
Switching to the Eurasian continent, there are common tools and art forms for a period of some 25,000 years, stretching
from the British Isles to well into India. Therefore, contact was frequent throughout the entire European land
mass, or there was some level of peace, for some 20,000 years. Looking at Jerico, in Israel, which is an area subject
to easy invasion, it is completely dug now and, as a city, is some 7,000 years old. Early on, there were no defensive
walls around Jerico; the walls being dated to about 4,000 BCE. Jerico then, was a city for about a full millennium
before there were invading armies, or before there was war.
The story was probably different in the Eastern Hemisphere, but that's too lengthy a consideration for this spot.
War then, appears to be a human response to overcrowding, and appears to have arrived in the Mediterranean area
at approximately 4,000 BCE.
Considering religions, in Greece at Plato's time, some 2,500 years ago, the story of Gilgamesh (new religion) killing
the Mother God (old religion) was already a very old story. Gilgamesh's killing of the Mother God was not only
a Greek story, but was widespread through the civilizations in the land between the Tigris and Euphrates. The multicultural
use of the story should make it at least 1000 years old by Plato's time.
The old religions then, appear to have been replaced by the new religions at roughly the date war came to the Eurasian
continent. We know, of the old religions, that they were celebratory of birth, of the seasons of the year and of
life. Circular and celebratory. The new religions all had a transcendent God, a God outside ourselves, and can
be characterized as being progressive. The old religions had no answer for the war that came with overcrowding,
while the new religions had an effective answer.
Other comparisons between the old and the new religions will be undertaken in other parts of these writings, but
at this point one conclusion is acceptable. It can be seen that the cultures that could go to war quickly and fight
effectively survived, while the cultures that were slow to mobilize and regretted the taking of life were destroyed.
Teaching the ability to effectively conduct war was a necessary and integral part of the new religions.
What Could Be Different in a New Religion?
It would be nice to begin by saying a new religion could cease teaching the conduct of war. And while I would like to say that, I cannot. War came as a human response to overcrowding, and was responded to by the rise of the religions still dominant today. They did not initiate the practice of war.
Meanwhile overcrowding, the cause of war, is still with us. The people who tabulate these things say it took until
1800 for there to be 1 billion people on earth, until 1930 for there to be 2 billion, and that there are now over
6 billion people on earth. In another 70 years there could be 18 billion, or more, but reason dictates against
that. Given no significant changes in our belief/idea systems, my estimation is that somewhere between our 6 billion
and the unlimited progression, we will strike a balance of horror. Again assuming no significant change in our
beliefs/ideas, a balance of horror is the only force I see which can presently contain our numbers. The horror
being some mix of disease, famine and war.
A new religion then, could drop the parts of our Judeo-Christian religions that assure a large population.
Concerning population growth, there are other possibilities. Somewhere in the 1990's, a US Gov't. report predicted
the world's population would top at 16+ billions. The same report also stated that a Southeast Asian country had
stabilized their population, accomplished by the simple expedient of sending the means of birth control to every
citizen. There are then, ways that retain our freedom of choice, and whereby we willingly limit our growth in population.
Human happiness: Numerous writers with a philosophical bent have referred to life as a "veil of tears",
and there is Thoreau's famous statement about despair. It would seem that if any problem facing humanity were complex,
that group happiness would be, but I suspect not. To begin, I've noticed that few contemporary writers make the
"veil of tears" reference, or I suspect that life is not the complete veil of tears it used to be. I
see this perceived improvement in the general happiness as being linked with the past few decades of change in
sexual ideas.
As support for this thought, when perusing examples of Hopewell artifacts it can be noticed that a significant
percent have art decorations of genitalia. The later nations, those present when Columbus arrived, commonly had
"lover's leaps", or there were severe strictures on sex and human love. Genitalia, of course, is virtually
absent from their art representations. I would therefore submit that strictures on sex provides a function that
augments a culture's ability to conduct war.
In short, peoples with sexual strictures are unhappy peoples, who will go to war much more quickly than a happy
people. Speed of war mobilization being a survival benefit in a war torn world, virtually all the predominant religions
teach sexual strictures (more strictly upon the female and same-sex relationships). Conversely, in the few surviving
cultures that did not have organized warfare, the Inuit (Eskimo) for instance, sexual strictures were much lessened,
or nonexistent.
While I regrettably am still convinced that ceasing the religious teachings on war could be to choose extinction,
I also believe we no longer need to include every individual. A new religion could, I believe, drop the teaching
of sexual strictures. It should not be necessary to state, but this also includes dropping the religious teaching
of unequal treatment of the sexes, and same-sex relationships.
The modern situation is that while we conduct wars, only a small percent of our population takes direct part (This
could indicate that the religious teaching of war conduct could be dropped, but I've found no large historical
examples, though that doesn't mean there aren't any. But, considering the fates of the civilizations that erred
on this point, I lean toward keeping some war teachings.) An analogous situation to our less than complete war
mobilizations existed with the civilization at Knossis, home of the labyrinth which was in Crete, and was destroyed
by the Greeks. An island civilization, war arrived on their soil much later than in other parts of the Mediterranean
basin. Some interesting aspects of Knossis culture includes their art, which was happy, that they kept no lists
of past leaders, had no statues of past war leaders, had numerous female leaders, and dominated shipping in the
Mediterranean. Since they had a successful war making capability, but one that did not dominate the form of their
culture, an in depth study of what is known of that culture could give guidance to what religious beliefs might
have supported their situation.
In sum:
Religions succeed at teaching the basic ideas and forms of a culture's organization.
Religion, as a political force, is here to stay because the power of religion is based in the persistent human desire to attain union with the Light, and recurring visitations upon individuals by the Light.
Further, union with the Light can be attained inside, or outside, of any religion's doctrine. The religion the recipient was trained in being of extreme importance in how they interpret what the Light imparts to them.
Therefore, any who envision a more peaceful world cannot afford to blindly accept, abandon or ignore religious beliefs.
It is easily conceivable that a religion that supports a world we desire could
be founded, through the Light (religious experience), and would grow.
( more
A Religion Without A Founder
As to the steps to follow to establish a new religion, my observation would be that a religion would be initiated through the religious experience. By following what the Light leads one to do.
The title, a religion without a founder, is meant to express my belief that a modern religion would desirably begin
somewhat differently from past religions. Most religions and sects started through the energies of a founder who
had a strong experience with the Light. A founder who had visions and heard voices. The majority of people with
nervous breakdowns (psychotic episodes) have visions of, and hear the voice of God. Today, most of these people
are put into institutions and/or are drugged; usually beginning early in their visionary experiences.
This could be just as well, and may even be for the best. Founders of religions in the past, having a strong inner
experience of Truth, are not noted for their tolerance. They knew Truth, expounded Truth, and often had very little tolerance for opposing beliefs. We
already have too many religions that cannot admit error.
The modern Quakers offer a wonderful example, in their religious practice, of a way to establish a religion without
a founder. They worship in silence. Their worship is an expectant waiting for that of the Light in each of us to
make itself known to us. And the Light frequently does make itself known to a silent worshiper, who then speaks
what the leadings of the Light have made clear to them. Not a perfect system, as several visits to any Quaker Meeting
will make clear. But over time, it works.
When a group of like minded people wait in an expectant silence for that of the Light in each of us to make itself
known, the Light will make itself known to some of us. It works. It means, also, that a group can, with intent,
begin a new religion by expectantly asking the Light how to do so.
A second valuable example the Quakers offer is that of testing, or making clear. One individual's leadings from
the Light are not accepted by a meeting until there is complete agreement. Together, these two offer a group a
way to a "weaker" enlightenment than strongly enlightened individuals receive, but one that is "better".
For instance, the Quakers, beginning in the 1650's, immediately discovered that women and children were as prone
to openings to the Light as were any. From their inception then, they were shown the wisdom of religious equality,
while it has taken the rest of us an extra 350 years to (mostly) get there. Religious equality of women and children
was a revolutionary concept in England of the 1650's, and I offer it as an example of the average level of wisdom
that comes when a group silently waits for the leadings of the Light.
It will work. A group, perhaps preferably a group of six to fifteen, can agree that they do not want to use the
Analects of Confucius, the Koran, the Bible or the whole of any previous writings, and in an expectant silence
the Light will make known what they should do next. By applying a rule of complete agreement, a religion that will
grow could be founded by that group. A religion that would quickly respond to the needs of an era, for in the establishment
lies the method of change.