A question from the undecided

[dharmaraj02]

There is a universal spiritual base. All life posesses and is influenced by (an inexaustible supply) this spiritual awareness. As "life" expires, the body (or plant life) decays and returns their spirit energy to the universal base.
From this basic idea I can say;
1. We and all life are fundamentally related.
2. Death does not destroy, it merely shut downs an otherwise lifeless body.
3. The gift of spirit comes with no comitment. All living things are free to enjoy or abuse life as they wish. (there may be some restrictions to those at the bottom of the food-chain)

Further, I can guess at;
1. For an "individual" there in no after life.
2. Morality and respect are essential for personal and relational life-styles, but have nothing to do with protecting the uncorruptable spirit.
3. The performance of religious rituals and following man-made rules may enhance a person's well-being, but does nothing for the pure spirit.
4. Scientists claiming to have "created" life, have in reality just found a clever way of tapping into an abundant spitual base. Insects seem able to "perform this miracle" without too much effort.

These views may seem harsh (or cynical) and conflict with age old beliefs, but I believe them to be solid. As I said earlier, I am not educated in religious matters, or much of a writer, so my statements above could perhaps be better worded.

So what am I seeking?
I would like to know if there are organised religions/groups that share my views. Maybe I have deluded myself and these are just ramblings stating the obvious. I think everyone on this site is seeking some inner truth, it seems to be an in-built human desire. Maybe for some, they just want to be sure they are not offending a supreme presence.

I apologise for not being able to directly answer all the points made by respondees, I am only human and I my body now requires something to eat!

Hey, Seeker. Fascinating theology. I'd be interested in its motivation. How do you infer a universal spirit supply? It seems like you don't believe in creation or destruction. Is this an extension of physical laws. If so, how do you motivate the idea that physical laws can be extended to the metaphysical. If all life is related, in what sense are we not related, ie. individuals? How do we have different selves, and how do you account for the concept of property, ie. one self can own something more than another self. If life comes with no commitments (am I to interpret that as obligations?), what do you even mean by abuse?

Also, a note on independent thinking:
Maybe I'm too harsh, I don't really know. I think even determining the legitimacy of independent thinking is a non-trivial question and requires some careful thought at least if not a dissertation. What I really mean when I say 'independent thinking is a myth' is '_reliable_ independent thinking is a myth'. Anyone can start at the bottom and try to carefully deduce the truth. Very brilliant and rational men have done so well, and yet they have gone in all sorts of directions. For example, while I think the theist's path is rationally compelling as described in my previous post, I think a position equally invincible is the hard nihilist who forsakes the concept of truth value. The man that throws away knowledge and reason cannot be argued with except aesthetically. After all, he doesn't need to be consistent. He doesn't need reasons for his actions. For a seeker, it's not an empirical choice in deciding whether or not to pursue the nihilist path or an alternative. It's an aesthetic choice. In fact, aesthetics govern many of our beliefs, even when we try to be rational. The truth is, it's very hard to figure out the meaning of life, the nature of the soul, whether or not there is a spiritual dimension to existence. These are very non-trivial questions, and it's hard to believe any one person can figure it out. It's hard for me to believe that mankind could ever figure it out without someone higher up the ladder telling him. Practically speaking, most or all of us will aesthetically and/or rationally choose our sources or aesthetically and/or rationally develop a theology ourselves that is at a glance unreliable to any outside observer.

[seeking]

Hi dharmaraj02,

Pleased that you are fascinated by my ideas! <insert smiley here>.
I'll try and deal with your points as you raised them, but first I do have to re-iterate that I have no theological education on which to draw. In that sense, I am attempting to forward a view that is purely based on personal reason. I have deliberately explained this in the most simple terms, partly due to an ignorance of formal religious semantics and also because my ideas are still developing.

You asked of its "motivation", which I think you mean, what has motivated my thought process? Thats not easy to answer, but I can say that I have been seriously thinking about spiritual answers for all my adult life. At the same time, being equally repelled by mainstream religious teaching. I believe these religions are more interested in authoritarianism than spiritual guidance. I am not here to criticise anyone's beliefs, so unless you ask directly I won't comment on your own views.
As for my concept of spiritual base, it is something that I find easier to imagine, than to explain in words. I could have talked of basin, well, font or reservoir, but as well as the cliche overtones, they also suggest liquid rather than an ethereal process.
If I gave the impression that the spiritual presence/movement was a physical phenomenen, then I certainly didn't intend to. I think the physicists have enough problems explaining observable space without burdening them with metaphysical thoughts. In fact it is 4000+ years of science's inability to even attempt an explanation of spiritual based existence that strengthens a belief in my basic ideas.
Individual character is directly related to thought processes, concsious or sub-concsious. Brain matter, being physical varies between individuals and reflects the way people act. The spiritual essence does not vary and is the same for all life, therefore fundamentally related.
I've never considered the concept of property in a spiritual way, I'll give some thought, but is it important?
I mean by "no commitment", that the gift of life comes without a "day of reckoning". For me, living piously does not matter one jot when one's possesion of spirit ends (i.e. you die). Afterlife and purgatory are ancient terms conceived to govern and control a populace before secular justice was properly administrated. However. I strongly believe that there an absolute need for moral and respectful living. I said abuse, because I feel that some (few) individuals choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering to innocents. Their choice entirely and completely evident that there is no divine punishment being ministered.
I cannot disagree with your last paragraph and I do concur that it seems ultimate solutions are forever denied to the minds of mankind.
Fortunately, we live to seek.

[dharmaraj02]

Originally Posted by seeking

Hi dharmaraj02,

You asked of its "motivation", which I think you mean, what has motivated my thought process?

That's basically what I mean, but also, what compells you to choose the beliefs you have as opposed to the alternatives?

Thats not easy to answer, but I can say that I have been seriously thinking about spiritual answers for all my adult life.

I hear that.

At the same time, being equally repelled by mainstream religious teaching. I believe these religions are more interested in authoritarianism than spiritual guidance. I am not here to criticise anyone's beliefs, so unless you ask directly I won't comment on your own views.

I think your position on mainstream religion is a little extreme, unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying. Maybe you're saying that the teachings have been designed or influenced by people historically that wanted control, and hence it establishes authoritarian structures. I won't argue that point, since it depends on many points of fact, but I can say that most advocates of any established religion today (and probably in the past) believe that their degree of structure and authority is not a detractor from spiritual growth but a means to spiritual growth. It's a nontrivial point. People tend to be overly critical of authority concepts and overly fond of free independent thinking, which while I understand the aesthetic appeal, doesn't obviously make sense.

As for my concept of spiritual base, it is something that I find easier to imagine, than to explain in words. I could have talked of basin, well, font or reservoir, but as well as the cliche overtones, they also suggest liquid rather than an ethereal process.

If I gave the impression that the spiritual presence/movement was a physical phenomenen, then I certainly didn't intend to. I think the physicists have enough problems explaining observable space without burdening them with metaphysical thoughts. In fact it is 4000+ years of science's inability to even attempt an explanation of spiritual based existence that strengthens a belief in my basic ideas.
Individual character is directly related to thought processes, concsious or sub-concsious. Brain matter, being physical varies between individuals and reflects the way people act. The spiritual essence does not vary and is the same for all life, therefore fundamentally related.

Spiritual questions are definitely beyond science's capacity to attack, since they don't depend on consistent measureable observables. Only when religion makes clear scientific claims can science retort. My questions about your 'spiritual base' are as follows: Why do you think the spirit is an eternal entity rather than one that is created and/or destroyed? Is it uniform? If it is uniform, and all of our spiritual selves are fundamentally identical, how do you derive individuality? Is the spiritual base a created thing? Doesn't the mechanism for spirit transfer from base to body beg for a creator/designer?

I've never considered the concept of property in a spiritual way, I'll give some thought, but is it important?

The idea of ownership, I would argue, is important. Without ownership, at least of your own body and mind, one loses the concept of individuality.

I mean by "no commitment", that the gift of life comes without a "day of reckoning". For me, living piously does not matter one jot when one's possesion of spirit ends (i.e. you die). Afterlife and purgatory are ancient terms conceived to govern and control a populace before secular justice was properly administrated.

This I can understand, given an impersonal spiritual base, though of course, I disagree that afterlife and purgatory have no spiritual functions.

However. I strongly believe that there an absolute need for moral and respectful living. I said abuse, because I feel that some (few) individuals choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering to innocents. Their choice entirely and completely evident that there is no divine punishment being ministered.

This, I honestly don't understand. How do you derive moral imperatives from the impersonal spiritual base? What does it matter if people like to make other people suffer? Their choice entirely, right? I understand if you mean that you really really like a world in which people respect each other, and you like it so much that you'll work toward making it happen and stopping those that hurt others, but I don't see how you escape the 'might-makes-right' mentality.

I cannot disagree with your last paragraph and I do concur that it seems ultimate solutions are forever denied to the minds of mankind.
Fortunately, we live to seek.

Here, I think we agree.

[enton]

Originally Posted by seeking

Can anyone please explain why my existence might be improved by joining a religion?
If so which religion should I choose?

Serious replies only please.

Answer: James 1:27

[seeking]

"That's basically what I mean, but also, what compells you to choose the beliefs you have as opposed to the alternatives?"
I suppose it comes from a process of reason. For me, this (developing) idea best fits the observeable and reasonably imaginable. If I have been influenced or inspired in my thoughts, then I can't directly identify the source.


"I think your position on mainstream religion is a little extreme, unless I'm reading too much into what you're saying."

So mainstream religions, that historically fund and raise armies to invade foreign countries/cultures to extinguish opposing ideas aren't extreme?



"........but I can say that most advocates of any established religion today (and probably in the past) believe that their degree of structure and authority is not a detractor from spiritual growth but a means to spiritual growth. It's a nontrivial point. People tend to be overly critical of authority concepts and overly fond of free independent thinking, which while I understand the aesthetic appeal, doesn't obviously make sense."
I'm sure they do, but its a bit like asking a cinema audience if they enjoy watching films. I firmly believe that "free thinking" drives human awareness whereas religious indoctrination induces stagnation.


"My questions about your 'spiritual base' are as follows: Why do you think the spirit is an eternal entity rather than one that is created and/or destroyed? "

I think an analogy would be the physical properties of energy.



"Is it uniform? If it is uniform, and all of our spiritual selves are fundamentally identical, how do you derive individuality?"

I believe I answered this earlier in the thread.



"Is the spiritual base a created thing? Doesn't the mechanism for spirit transfer from base to body beg for a creator/designer?"
Let me respond by asking a question. Could the creator be the spirit base?


"The idea of ownership, I would argue, is important. Without ownership, at least of your own body and mind, one loses the concept of individuality."
Doesn't this statement conflict with.........

"People tend to be overly critical of authority concepts and overly fond of free independent thinking, which while I understand the aesthetic appeal, doesn't obviously make sense."




Quote:

I mean by "no commitment", that the gift of life comes without a "day of reckoning". For me, living piously does not matter one jot when one's possesion of spirit ends (i.e. you die). Afterlife and purgatory are ancient terms conceived to govern and control a populace before secular justice was properly administrated.

"This I can understand, given an impersonal spiritual base, though of course, I disagree that afterlife and purgatory have no spiritual functions."
"afterlife and purgatory" are simply the carrot and stick inducements for people who wish to exercise control. We have to remove ourselves from these man-made doctrines in order to embrace a spiritual awareness.



Quote:

However. I strongly believe that there an absolute need for moral and respectful living. I said abuse, because I feel that some (few) individuals choose a lifestyle that causes pain and suffering to innocents. Their choice entirely and completely evident that there is no divine punishment being ministered.



"This, I honestly don't understand. How do you derive moral imperatives from the impersonal spiritual base? What does it matter if people like to make other people suffer? Their choice entirely, right? I understand if you mean that you really really like a world in which people respect each other, and you like it so much that you'll work toward making it happen and stopping those that hurt others, but I don't see how you escape the 'might-makes-right' mentality."
It is you who thinks spirituality is linked (or should be) to morality. I am saying that morals are a set of generally agreed rules that best suit the lifestyles of a given population. How these rules are administered is a challenge for us all.

Not wishing to sound too extreme, for me the executioner passes beyond life in the same way as the mid-wife. How he manages his conscience and earthly well-being is another matter.



I must finish by thanking you for taking the time to discuss my views, you have provoked more self-examination for me.

However, please don't let that thought detract from any negative feelings you may have towards me, regarding my (controversial?) views.

I remain in life,
- Seeking