Category: Think & Discuss

Thought Guide Posts

Posted on

Do All Religions Come From the Same God?

This week, we’re dealing with a very specific question, so keep reading before drawing any conclusions. We’re not asking “Do all religions worship the same God?” or “Do all religions lead to the same God?”. Those questions work from the bottom-up, i.e. viewing God through the lens of a man-made construct. Remember, we want to base our ideas and beliefs on who we say God is rather than trying to conform our conception of God into something that aligns with what we already believe to be true. We’re asking a top-down question, i.e. has God used religion, in general, as a way of revealing the character of God to humanity and guiding all of us to the same ultimate purpose or goal?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The Baháʼí Faith is a religion teaching the essential worth of all religions, and the unity and equality of all people. Many indigenous people throughout the Americas are members of the Baháʼí Faith.
    • Baháʼí teachings are in some ways similar to other monotheistic faiths: God is considered single and all-powerful. However, Baháʼu’lláh, the founder of the Baháʼí Faith, taught that religion is orderly and progressively revealed by one God through Manifestations of God who are the founders of major world religions throughout history; these include Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, and Moses, with Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad being the most recent in the period before the Báb and Baháʼu’lláh.
    • Baháʼís regard the major religions as fundamentally unified in purpose, though varied in social practices and interpretations. Baháʼu’lláh taught that the religions of the world come from the same God and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.
  2. In 1997, Billy Graham gave a television interview, in which he said: “Well, Christianity and being a true believer–you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think everybody that loves Christ, or knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. And I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival, that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time. I think James answered that, the Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for His name. And that’s what God is doing today, He’s calling people out of the world for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and they turn to the only light that they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they’re going to be with us in heaven.”
  3. In Acts 10:34,35, the Apostle Peter said, “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”
  4. In Romans 2:11-14, the Apostle Paul said, “For God shows no partiality. For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.”

The answer to this question bears heavily on the idea that members of any particular faith should be encouraged, or even required, to convert others. This is especially true in places where there is an established state religion or attempts at establishing a state religion and exercise of other religions is discouraged and/or suppressed. Further, it requires us to examine the meaning of life and why we are all here. If God is the creator, what purpose does God have for our existence and how does religion further that purpose? Is there only one religious avenue by which to fulfill that purpose, and is our ability or dedication to following that one avenue God’s ultimate goal and priority for us? Or is purpose the priority, with religion and spirituality being provided as tools to enable us to fulfill that purpose?

What do you think? Do all religions come from God? Is religion a means to an end, or is it the priority? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

The Golden Rule: Can Religions Work Together?

“I’d been reading up on comparative religion. The thing is that all major religions have the Golden Rule in Common. ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Not always the same words but the same meaning.”

— Norman Rockwell

The concept of the “Golden Rule” is taught in all major world religions. It is a statement, in summary, of the basic requirements for all human behavior. While the sentiment may be expressed in different ways, the message is the same: treat others the way you would want to be treated. The concept may seem simple enough, but oftentimes, it appears to be easier said than done. Although the Golden Rule is a fundamental obligation in all religions, as Blaise Pascal put it, “[m]en never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.” This week, we’ll be thinking about whether or not truly adopting the Golden Rule can allow people from different religious backgrounds and beliefs to work together to make the world a better place.

Studies have shown that religion can have a positive influence on many aspects of society, and throughout human history, nations have made religion a part of their governmental systems. For example, Judaism teaches that when God established Israel as a nation, He gave them a theocracy to help govern them. Currently, 20% of the countries in the world have an established state religion. However, in almost all of the countries where state religions exist, a variety of abuses and atrocities have taken place. Religion has been used to control people rather than to serve them.

That said, it is important to consider how and why something born of pure intentions becomes corrupted. How do we go from the Golden Rule to religion being used as justification for hurting and/or controlling people? Perhaps it is because of some combination of humans being imperfect, ignorance, and self-serving interests that religion can be turned into a curse rather than a blessing. Perhaps it relates back to a person’s perception of God being based more on condemnation and judgment than love. Perhaps religion is seen by many as a means to an end rather than a journey of growth and enlightenment. It’s important for us to ask ourselves what, if anything, we want to accomplish by believing and to assess how that agenda impacts us and the world around us.

If the Golden Rule is fundamental for everyone, is it so impossible that we could find a way to co-exist peacefully in purpose, even if not in belief? If nations or different ideologies wanted to become allies against anything that violated the Golden Rule…the Rule of Love…is it so impossible that they could do it as “equal-but-different” partners? Instead of pushing conformity to one thing over the other, is it possible to learn to accept and respect the fact that there will always be differences? Different people may be pursuing or encouraging different final goals, but why can’t the Golden Rule be the metric by which we gauge how we interact with each other right now? Couldn’t it be possible for everyone to encourage each other to achieve the best that their different traditions require of them while working together to oppose the negative things we can agree on?

The “fish-run principle”, which Zen Buddhists derive from Chuang-Tzu, states: “A fish-run is constructed to catch fish: we should keep the fish and forget the run. A snare is to catch a rabbit: we should keep the rabbit and forget the snare. Words are to transmit meaning: we should keep the meaning and forget the words.” We may not all speak the same languages or come from the same cultures or believe in the same things, but it isn’t impossible for different people to find common ground. If we can agree on things like compassion, love, respect, humility, empathy, and just treating others the way we want to be treated, who knows what kind of impact that collective mission and purpose could have.

What do you think? Is the Golden Rule fundamental? Is it possible for people from different religious backgrounds to work together? What areas of common ground do you think exist? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does Humanity Need a Messiah?

In exploring Western Christianity’s teaching of original sin and the impact sin has on the human condition, a question that needed to be considered was: do other religions teach the need for a savior? While most religious groups outside of Western Christianity do not teach that humanity needs to be saved from inherent sinfulness, many groups do teach the existence of a “Messiah” figure that saves humanity from the effect sin has had on the world. A Messiah is “the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible” or “a leader or savior of a particular group or cause.” All three Abrahamic religious groups, amongst others, believe in a Messiah.

Here’s what we know:

  1. In Jewish eschatology, the term mashiach, or “Messiah”, refers specifically to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to save the Jewish nation, and will be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. Orthodox views hold that the Messiah will be descended from his father through the line of King David, and will gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, re-institute the Sanhedrin, and so on.
  2. While the term “messiah” does appear in Islam, the meaning is different from that found in Christianity and Judaism. The Quran identifies Jesus (Isa) as the messiah (Masih), who will one day return to earth. Jesus is believed to have been anointed by Allah at birth with the specific task of being a prophet and king. The Mahdi will appear and unite all Muslims, ridding the world of evil. After the death of Mahdi, Jesus will reign as the Messianic king, bringing eternal peace and monotheism to the world and eliminating all religions besides Islam. Unlike Christians, Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but not as God himself or the son of God. Like all other prophets, Jesus is an ordinary man, who receives revelations from God. The Quran also denies the crucifixion of Jesus, claiming that he was neither killed nor crucified
  3. Within Christianity, Jesus is believed to be the Messiah, based on the Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christians believe that messianic prophecies were fulfilled in the mission, death, and resurrection of Jesus and that he will return to fulfill the rest of the messianic prophecies. When he returns to earth, he will destroy all evil and establish eternal peace on earth through his Messianic religion. The majority of historical and mainline Christian theologies consider Jesus to be the Son of God and God the Son, a concept of the Messiah fundamentally different from the Jewish and Islamic concepts.
  4. See also Buddhism (Maitreya), Java (Satrio Piningit), Taoism (Li Hong), and Hinduism (Kalki)

Some may find it interesting that while only the concept of original sin necessitates salvation from sin itself, most world religions still teach of a messiah figure who comes and makes the world better in one way or another. Another point to consider is that every “Messiah” is coming for the benefit of those who believe in that particular religion/conception of God. There is no universal “Messiah” who comes for the benefit of everyone.

What do you think? Does humanity need a Messiah rather than a savior? Are the concepts of “Messiah” and “savior” more or less the same? Has the Messiah already come, or are we still waiting? If he has come, will he return…and when? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does Humanity Need a Savior?

Last week, we addressed the concept of “original sin”, so this week, we’ll be discussing “atonement” and the idea that humanity needs “salvation.” Atonement is “satisfaction or reparation for a wrong or injury; amends.” Atonement within Western Christian Theology generally “refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death by crucifixion of Jesus Christ which made possible the reconciliation between God and creation.” However, in Judaism and Islam, atonement is the process of causing a transgression to be forgiven or pardoned directly by God (rather than through Jesus Christ’s death) through true repentance, fasting, prayer, and good works. So what’s true? Does God have the prerogative and authority to simply forgive sin? Or is forgiveness only possible through the blood of Jesus Christ?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Within Christianity, there are several theories regarding how atonement might work, including:
    • Ransom Theory of Atonement – this theory teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin.
    • Satisfaction Theory of Atonement– a theory in Catholic theology that holds Jesus Christ redeemed humanity through making satisfaction (restitution) for man’s disobedience through his own supererogatory (the performance of more than what is asked for) obedience. This view acknowledges that God cannot freely forgive sins without any sort of punishment or satisfaction being exacted.
    • Moral Influence Theory of Atonement – an alternative to the satisfaction theory of atonement. Developed by Abelard, this theory focuses on changing man’s perception of God as not offended, harsh, and judgemental, but as loving. According to Abelard, “Jesus died as the demonstration of God’s love,” a demonstration that can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God
    • Penal Substitution Theory – teaches that Jesus suffered the penalty for mankind’s sins. Penal substitution derives from the idea that divine forgiveness must satisfy divine justice, that is, that God is not willing or able to simply forgive sin without first requiring satisfaction (restitution) for it. It states that God gave himself in the person of his Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer the death, punishment, and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for our sin.
    • Unlimited Atonement Theory – states that Jesus died as a propitiation for the benefit of mankind without exception. A doctrinal issue that divides Christians is the question of the extent of the atonement. This question typically goes as follows: “Did Christ bear the sins of the elect alone on the cross, or did his death expiate the sins of all human beings?” Those who take this view read scriptures such as John 3:16; 1 Timothy 2:6; 4:10; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:2 to say that the Bible teaches unlimited atonement.
  2. According to Islam, one can be forgiven of sins through genuine tawbah (repentance) which literally means “to return.”
    • Unlike the Catholic concept of atonement, tawbah does not entail formal, ecclesiastical confession to a religious leader. Like Protestantism, Islam allows followers to repent directly to God. In addition, while Christianity and Islam considers humans as prone to sin, Islam ultimately views them as responsible for their actions and refutes the Christian concept of original sin.
    • In Islam, Muslims are discouraged from confessing their sins and sharing the wrongdoings of others. 
    • Also, according to Islam, Blood sacrifice cannot add to Divine Grace nor replace the necessity of repentance. However, sacrifice is done to help the poor and to remember Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his son at God’s command (It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him…”— Qur’an, sura 22, ayat 37).
    • When a human has offended or disobeyed God, ḥuqūq Allāh, penitence, remorse, and resolution are necessary in order to show that one is sincere, and will not repeat the wrongdoing in the future.
    • Repentance for sin can be accomplished through acts such as, “fasting, giving charity, sacrificing an animal, and freeing a slave.” In addition, going on the hajj can serve as a form of repentance.
    • However, regardless of one’s outward deeds, God does not accept the forgiveness of those who are insincere in their repentance and only do so in order to avoid Jahannam (similar to the concept of Hell within Christianity).
  3. In Rabbinic Judaism, atonement is achieved through repentance, which can be followed by some combination of the following:
    • confession
    • restitution
    • the occurrence of Yom Kippur (the day itself, as distinct from the Temple service performed on it)
    • tribulations (unpleasant life experiences)
    • the experience of dying.
    • the carrying out of a sentence of lashes or execution imposed by an ordained court (not now in existence)
    • Temple service (not now in existence, e.g. bringing a sacrifice).
      • Note: Which of these additions are required varies according to the severity of the sin, whether it was done willfully, in error, or under duress, whether it was against God alone or also against a fellow person, and whether the Temple service and ordained law courts are in existence or not. Repentance is needed in all cases of willful sin, and restitution is always required in the case of sin against a fellow person, unless the wronged party waives it.

While most religions included animal sacrifices as a part of their religious practices, only western Christianity teaches that those animal sacrifices represent Jesus Christ’s substitutionary death to atone for the sins of humanity. Even within Judaism, the sacrificial system only provided atonement for sins that were committed unintentionally. Intentional sin could only be forgiven by God through “a broken and contrite spirit (Psalm 51:16,17).”

The focus here should perhaps be less about whether or not humanity needs a savior and more about why God would set things up that way, if that’s actually what God did. Remember, everything we believe is ultimately a reflection of who we say God is and what characteristics we attribute to God. Does God make the rules? Or have principles been set in place that God is required to abide by? If God does make the rules, why would/did God create a scenario in which forgiveness can only be given and received through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice? And what does that mean for those who lived and died before Jesus Christ’s death or for those who lived and died without ever coming into a knowledge of Christ? Why would/did God allow the existence of something God knew humanity would ultimately need to be saved from?

What do you think? Does humanity need a savior? Is atonement for sin necessary? Let us know what you think in the comments below!

Posted on

Does “Original Sin” Nullify Free Choice?

This week, we’ll be examining the nature of humanity and how that impacts whether we are free moral agents. “Sin” is “an offense against religious or moral law.” Every culture has its own interpretation of what it means to commit a sin. In the Christian tradition, the concept of “original sin” is based on the premise that “the tendency to sin [is] innate in all human beings, held to be inherited from Adam in consequence of the Fall.” This western Christian concept was first alluded to in the 2nd century by Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons. Other church fathers, such as Augustine (AD 354-430), also shaped and developed the doctrine. Theologians have characterized this condition in many ways, seeing it as ranging from something as insignificant as an inclination or tendency towards sin (referred to as a “sin nature without collective guilt”) to total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt. Moreover, as a further consequence of the first iniquity, humanity is hopelessly lost in a state of sin and is powerless on its own to obey the will of God. That said, does “original sin” nullify our ability to choose “right” from “wrong” without direct intervention/influence from God?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The concept of sinfulness being an inherent tendency in humanity is unique to western Christianity. For example, the Eastern Orthodox version of original sin is the view that sin originates with the Devil. They acknowledge that the introduction of ancestral sin into the human race affected the subsequent environment for humanity (see also traducianism). However, they never accepted Augustine’s notions of original sin and hereditary guilt.
  2. The doctrine of “inherited sin” is not found in most of mainstream Judaism. Although some in Orthodox Judaism place blame on Adam and Eve for overall corruption of the world, and though there were some others who believed that mortality was a punishment brought upon humanity on account of Adam’s sin, that is not the dominant view in most of Judaism today. Modern Judaism generally teaches that humans are born sin-free and untainted, and choose to sin later and bring suffering to themselves.
  3. The concept of inherited sin does not exist in Islam. Islam teaches that Adam and Eve sinned, but then sought forgiveness and thus were forgiven by God. Quotes from the Qur’an:
    • But Satan caused them to slip out of it and removed them from that [condition] in which they had been. And We said, “Go down, [all of you], as enemies to one another, and you will have upon the earth a place of settlement and provision for a time.” Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Accepting of repentance, the Merciful.— Surah al-Baqara:36–37
    • Thus did Adam disobey his Lord, so he went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and turned to him with forgiveness, and gave him guidance.— Surah Ṭā Hāʼ:121–122

This question is important to consider because the concept of original sin implies that humans are incapable of making genuinely “good” choices without God being the direct source of that choice. But to be clear, the issue is less about whether humans are inherently “good” or inherently “bad” and more about whether we actually have the ability to choose one way or the other. If the bad things we do are ultimately the result of our “sinful natures” and the good things we do are the result of God’s influence rather than our own decisionmaking/will power, does freedom of choice even exist? Both the Qur’an and the Bible seem to suggest that it does. The Qur’an says this with regard to individual responsibility:

That no burdened person (with sins) shall bear the burden (sins) of another. And that man can have nothing but what he does (of good and bad). And that his deeds will be seen, Then he will be recompensed with a full and the best [fair] recompense

Surah an-Najm:38–41

Further, consider this portion of an extraordinary sermon delivered by Moses before his death as the Israelites prepared to enter the promised land:

“…when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off.  It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.”

Deuteronomy 30:10-14

What do you think? Does “original sin” nullify free choice? Is humanity inherently good, inherently evil, both, or neither? Do we have any control over the good and the bad things that we do? Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on

Fear and Faith

Most world religions teach some form of an afterlife. Further, the idea of “bad” behavior being punished, both in this life and in the “life” to come, is often used to discourage people from doing what is considered to be “bad”. For example, 58% of adults in the United States believe in hell (according to the Pew Research Center). The word “hell” usually describes “a place regarded in various religions as a spiritual realm of evil and suffering, often traditionally depicted as a place of perpetual fire beneath the earth where the wicked are punished after death.” If the wicked are punished, it stands to reason that people would want to avoid being wicked, right? So this week, we will look at the relationship between fear and faith. Is fear a useful tool that God uses to get us to obey?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Fear is “an unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.”
  2. A deterrent is “a thing that discourages or is intended to discourage someone from doing something.”
  3. In the context of the criminal justice system, “deterrence — the crime prevention effects of the threat of punishment — is a theory of choice in which individuals balance the benefits and costs of crime.”
  4. The National Institute of Justice summarizes some of the research on deterrence:
    • The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
    • Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime. Prisons are good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street, but prison sentences (particularly long sentences) are unlikely to deter future crime. Prisons actually may have the opposite effect: Inmates learn more effective crime strategies from each other, and time spent in prison may desensitize many to the threat of future imprisonment.
    • Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished. The police deter crime when they do things that strengthen a criminal’s perception of the certainty of being caught. Strategies that use the police as “sentinels,” such as hot spots policing, are particularly effective.
    • Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
  5. Most world religions teach that reaching “heaven” (or paradise, nirvana, etc.) and avoiding “hell” is at least somewhat dependent upon doing and/or being “good”.

In an experiment involving 61 ethnically and religiously diverse undergraduate students at the University of British Columbia, the participants were asked to use mental math to solve 20 addition problems. Before the test, a monitor explained that there was a glitch in the computer program being used to administer the test and that the participants needed to press the space bar key immediately after each question appeared in order to avoid seeing the answer. Cheating behavior was measured according to whether participants followed these instructions. Once the test was completed, the participants were asked to fill out a “View of God Scale,” which gauged their conceptions of God as “positive” (i.e. forgiving, loving, gentle, etc.) or “negative” (i.e. vengeful, harsh, angry, punishing, etc.). Next, the participants were asked to complete a suspicion probe, the Hoge (1972)
scale of intrinsic religiosity, a Views of God scale, and a set of demographic questions.

The results published in 2011 in The International Journal for Psychology of Religion indicated that the students’ differences in religious beliefs had no bearing on whether the students cheated or not, but the participants who applied more punitive attributes to God cheated less than those who attributed positive traits of character to God.

Fear can be a powerful deterrent, but perhaps we should be less focused on whether fear itself is a bad thing and more focused on who and/or what we are afraid of. For example, should the good things we do be motivated by a fear of going to hell? Or should the good things we do be motivated by a “fear of” (it may be better worded as “concern for”) how the negative things we do impact us, the people we love, and the world around us?

Further, is a fear of going to hell really an effective deterrent? Is the fear of what may or may not happen when we die or some other time in the future enough motivation to do good now? Is the threat of more immediate consequences even effective? Children disobey their parents all the time, knowing that they could be (and oftentimes are) caught and punished. Discipline works up to a point, but ultimately, each of us has to decide for ourselves what kinds of people we want to be and the kinds of choices we want to make.

What do you think? How does fear interplay with your faith? Do you think fear is an effective deterrent? If so, why? If not, what motivates you to be the best person you can be? Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on

Behavior Modification: Good or Bad:?

We all need to know where our beliefs stem from and why, but knowing what you think about something doesn’t mean much if you don’t spend time considering how what you think impacts what you do. Most, if not all, world religions/ideologies encourage us to be “good” people, but what does being “good” look like? Is being “good” based more on what we do (behavior) or on who we are (character)?

Here’s what we know:

  1. The word character refers to “the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual.” The word behavior refers to “the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.”
  2. Behavior modification is defined as “the alteration of behavioral patterns through the use of such learning techniques as biofeedback and positive or negative reinforcement.”
  3. Behavior modification utilizes the idea that good behavior should lead to positive consequences and bad behavior should lead to negative consequences.
  4. The four main techniques used to encourage behavior modification are:
    1. Positive Punishment – adding a consequence that will deter a person from repeating the behavior. Ex.: Giving a child an extra chore as a consequence for lying when asked if he cleaned his room.
    2. Negative Punishment – involves removing something from a person. Examples include taking away privileges or removing positive attention.
    3. Positive Reinforcement – giving a person something that reinforces good behavior. Discipline that relies mostly on positive reinforcement is usually very effective. Examples of positive reinforcement include praise or a reward system.
    4. Negative Reinforcement – a person is motivated to change her behavior because it will take away something unpleasant. Negative reinforcement can be less effective than positive reinforcement. Ex. a child who stops a behavior because her parent yells at her is trying to get rid of the negative reinforcer (the yelling). 

Most people would probably agree that positive behaviors are good things to encourage and be supportive of. Most people support things like donating to charity, being polite to everyone, giving a hug or a kind word to someone who is feeling down, etc. And individual communities and society as a whole provide both positive and negative reinforcement for all manner of things. That said, the question may be less about character development instead of behavior modification and more about how we go about finding a balance between the two.

Finding balance may seem pretty straightforward, but things can get tricky. Why? Because while there are positive and negative behaviors that most of us can agree on, there are some behaviors that most people can’t agree on. Some people believe certain things are okay, and other people believe those things are not okay. Further, some people disagree with certain behaviors to the extent that they believe that it’s society’s responsibility or their community’s responsibility to make sure no one engages in those behaviors. So how do we find that balance?

The important thing to remember is that love is the rule, so everything we believe AND everything we do should stem from the principle of unconditional love. In this context, love should perhaps lead us to ask ourselves questions, such as:

  1. What behaviors do I consider to be “good”, and why? Does my belief stem from my own understanding and conviction? Does my belief stem from someone else’s understanding/conviction and my concern for what they will think of me or do to me?
  2. How do I prioritize the behaviors I consider to be “good” (i.e. the positive behaviors that are the most important and have the most impact on the world around you may take priority over the positive behaviors that are less important because they have less impact)?
  3. When I do something I believe is good, what’s my motivation/intention? Do I do good because I want to be rewarded/viewed positively by other people? Do I do good because I’m afraid of receiving punishment/negative feedback from other people? Do I do good because I am convicted in my heart that I should?
  4. What type of punishment/reinforcement am I most responsive to? When I want to improve myself, what kind of feedback inspires me the most? Who, if anyone, do I feel safe and confident receiving feedback from? What makes me feel safe and confident in this person(s)?

And if you see someone exhibiting behaviors that you believe are negative:

  1. Is this behavior causing immediate and/or irreparable physical, mental, and/or emotional harm to this person, me, or someone else? Note: If the answer is yes, you may need to consider getting a family member and/or law enforcement involved.
  2. Does this person believe their behavior is negative?
  3. What is my relationship with this person? How well do I know this person? How well does this person know me? Have they explicitly invited me to give them feedback?
  4. What is my motive/intent in giving feedback? Are my intentions pure, unselfish, and genuine? Am I being honest with myself about my intentions?
  5. How does my feedback stand to benefit this person? Is there any way my feedback could potentially do more harm than good?
  6. What kind of punishment/reinforcement is this person most responsive to? Am I communicating my feedback effectively? Am I communicating my feedback in a way that reflects my understanding of the person I am sharing it with?

We don’t have the power to make people change or to force them to agree with us on what constitutes “good” or “bad”, but we do have the power to live our own lives consistently with what we believe and to support and encourage others in their pursuit to do the same. Loving means being present, being engaged, avoiding making assumptions, and putting our own egos and agendas aside in order to do what’s best for each other. We probably won’t always agree on everything, but being there for each other and working together towards being the best people we can be isn’t a bad start.

What do you think? Is behavior modification good or bad? What motivates you to change things about yourself: fear or conviction or both? Has anyone ever tried to change you? If so, how did that make you feel? What does being a “good” person or doing “good” mean to you? Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on

Is There Only One “Right” Way to Live?

This is probably one of the most important questions we will consider. This question may seem pretty straightforward, but it’s extremely important for us to avoid drawing a quick conclusion. Why? Because whatever answer you land on will be the basis for how you view and relate to people who live and believe differently from you.

Here’s what we know:

  1.  “Absolute truth” is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context. Those parameters include things like time, culture, religion, nationality, etc. The word absolute in the term suggests that absolute truth must have or be: a quality of truth that cannot be exceeded; complete truth; unvarying and permanent truth. Absolute truths cannot have exceptions and must be valid for everyone at all times, no matter what.
  2. If there is only one “right” way to live, the phrase only one suggests that way of living is absolute, meaning it must always be valid for everyone at all times, no matter what.
  3. Some (not all) religions/denominations of religions teach that their ideology is the only way to be saved and/or the only way of life that is acceptable to God. For example, Catholicism teaches that “outside the Church there is no salvation,” first stated by Pope Innocent III in 1215. Another example is Islam, which teaches that “[t[ruly the religion with Allah is Islam” (3:19) “[a]nd whoever seeks a religion other than Islam it will never be accepted of him…” (3:85).
  4. Philosophers have debated what is known as moral relativism, i.e. that “moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.” The Ancient Greeks first challenged accepted assumptions regarding morality in the 5th century B.C.E., and that challenge saw a resurgence in the late 1500s A.D. with the writings of Montaigne. In his book “On Custom”, Montaigne advances as a general thesis that “each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own practice; for indeed it seems we have no other test of truth and reason than the example and pattern of the opinions and customs of the country we live in” (Montaigne, p. 152).

That said, you may be wondering, “Does objective truth exist? And, if it does, how do I figure out what that ‘truth’ is?” There is no simple answer to those questions. In the Bible, John 14:6 states that Jesus said he was “the way and the truth and the life.” Taking that at face value for a second, if Jesus is truth AND Jesus is God or Godlike, could we draw the conclusion that the overarching message of that statement is that truth = God and/or God = truth? Mahatma Gandhi seemed to think so. He wrote, “My prayerful search gave me the revealing maxim Truth is God, instead of the usual one God is Truth. That maxim enables me to see God face to face as it were. I feel Him pervade every fibre of my being.” Harijan, 9-8-’42.

Gandhi’s perspective is interesting because it points back to one of our earlier discussions. Do you remember when we asked you who do you say God is? If “truth” and God go hand in hand, perhaps what we think about truth goes back to what we believe about God and who we say God is. Moral relativists generally don’t believe in God and thus, don’t believe in an objective standard or truth being set by God. On the other hand, truth absolutists believe in their conception of God 100%, thus they believe in what they consider to be God’s absolute truth 100% (as we saw above, this can be said for both Catholic and Islamic theology). However, if you believe in an infinite God, there’s also an argument to be made for truth also being infinite, which actually works with both truth absolutism and moral relativism because an infinite truth accounts for what we know (known absolutes), what we know we don’t know (unknown absolutes), and what we don’t know we don’t know (relativism).

As you have probably realized, we often find ourselves caught between two extremes. In this context, one extreme being that there is only one “correct” way to live and believe, and the other extreme being that there are no moral absolutes at all (which is also an absolute!). It can get pretty confusing, but the important thing to remember is that the only person you can ultimately control is…you. No matter what anyone else believes or how they believe people should live their lives, the best way for you to live and believe your truth is to just do it. Know what you believe, know why you believe it, and then do the best you can to live a life that is consistent with what you feel convicted of in your heart. You never know who’s watching, and showing how the life you live works for you is often more effective than just talking about it could ever be.

What do you think? Is there only one “right” way to live life? Is truth absolute or relative? Are there principles/lifestyle choices that you believe anyone can benefit from? Let us know in the comments below!

Posted on

Spirituality Vs. Religion

Now that you’ve established your thoughts regarding religion and its place in the world, it’s time to think about the “Spirituality vs. Religion” debate and what that means for you. We’re sure that you’ve heard people say, “I’m spiritual, but not religious.” Nowadays, an increasing number of people use that phrase as a way of challenging the idea that organized religion is the only or the most valuable way to further spiritual growth. Historically, the words religious and spiritual have been used interchangeably to describe all the various aspects of the concept of religion. Recently, however, spirituality more often refers to the interior life of the individual, emphasizing a personal relationship with God or a higher being and personal exploration/growth/conviction, while religion generally refers to organizational or communal culture and doctrinal beliefs. So which is better? Or does it matter?

Here’s what we know:

  1. Spirituality is “the quality of being concerned with the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.” “Religion” usually refers to “a particular system of faith and worship,” but it can also be broadly defined as “[t]he belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”
  2. According to a study conducted by Pew Research Center in 2012, the number of Americans who do not identify with any religion increased from 15% in 2007 to 20% in 2012, and that number has continued to grow. One-fifth of the U.S. public and a third of adults under the age of 30 were reportedly unaffiliated with any religion but identify as being spiritual in some way. Of those religiously unaffiliated Americans, 37% classified themselves as spiritual but not religious, while 68% said they did believe in God, and 58% feel a deep connection to the Earth.
  3. Linda A. Mercadante categorizes people who identify as “spiritual but not religious” into five distinct categories (Mercandante, Linda A. (2014), Belief without borders: inside the minds of the spiritual but not religious, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 35-67):
    1. “Dissenters” are the people who, for the most part, make a conscious effort to veer away from institutional religion. “Protesting dissenters” are those who have been ‘turned off’ by religious affiliation because of adverse personal experiences with it. “Drifted Dissenters” refers to those who, for a multitude of reasons, fell out of touch with organized religion and chose never to go back. “Conscientious objector dissenters” refers to those who are overtly skeptical of religious institutions and are of the view that religion is neither a useful nor necessary part of an individual’s spirituality.
    2. “Casuals” are the people who see religious and/or spiritual practices as primarily functional. Spirituality is not an organizing principle in their lives. Rather they believe it should be used on an as-needed basis for bettering their health, relieving stress, and for emotional support. The spirituality of “Casuals” is thus best understood as a “therapeutic” spirituality that centers on the individual’s personal wellbeing.
    3. “Explorers” are the people who seem to have what Mercandante refers to as a “spiritual wanderlust”. They find their constant search for novel spiritual practices to be a byproduct of their “unsatisfied curiosity”, their desire for journey and change, as well as feelings of disappointment. Explorers are best understood as “spiritual tourists” who take comfort in the destination-less journey of their spirituality and have no intention of ultimately committing to a spiritual home.
    4. “Seekers” are those people who are looking for a spiritual home but contemplate recovering earlier religious identities. They embrace the “spiritual but not religious” label and are eager to find a completely new religious identity or alternative spiritual group that they can ultimately commit to.
    5. “Immigrants” are those people who have found themselves in a novel spiritual realm and are trying to adjust themselves to this newfound identity and its community. “Immigrants” can be best understood as those who are “trying on” a radically new spiritual environment but have yet to feel completely settled there. It is important to note that for them, although they are hoping to become fully integrated in their newfound spiritual identities, the process of acclimation is difficult and often disconcerting.

Spirituality and religion are both difficult to box into just one perspective or way of thinking. It seems that many people struggle to nail down and define exactly what they believe, even those who belong to organized religious structures. There are many people who label themselves something, but when they really have to think about it, they find themselves explaining the aspects of that belief system or ideology that they don’t necessarily agree with. There are also people who don’t label themselves or subscribe to anything at all, and subsequently “get lost in the sauce,” i.e. they don’t have any sort of foundation to ground themselves in.

No matter what you call yourself, the important thing to remember is who you are, the kind of person you want to be, what you stand for, and why. If your religion or your spirituality or lack thereof aren’t making you a better person and inspiring you to have a positive impact on the world around you, that’s what you should consider re-evaluating. Having a community to hold you accountable can be beneficial, but if you aren’t motivated to hold yourself to a certain standard regardless of who you think may be watching, how effective can you say that community is? And who says it has to be one or the other? If the goal is personal growth and accountability, the way you pursue that may be less important than the pursuit itself.

What do you think? Is spirituality or religion preferable to the other, or are they really the same thing? If you consider yourself to be “religious,” what does that mean to you and why? If you consider yourself to be “spiritual,” what does that mean to you and why?

Further Reading:
Are there dangers in being “spiritual but not religious”? by John Blake

Criticisms of Spirituality without Religion:
Viewpoint: The Limitations of Being ‘Spiritual but Not Religious’ by Rabbi David Wolpe
Spiritual But Not Religious – Not so Fast! by James Martin
Spiritual but Not Religious: The vital interplay between submission and freedom by Amy Hollywood

Criticism of Organized Religion:
Criticism of Religion Wiki (links to a variety of sources on a wide range of criticisms regarding several different religions)
Problems of Organized Religion by Paul Brunton
A Historical Outline of Modern Religious Criticism in Western Civilization by R.G. Price

Posted on

What Role Does Religion Have in the World?

We’ve reached the point where we discuss a topic that most people have opinions on but they either don’t like to talk about or can’t talk about without arguing: Religion! Right now, more than 75% of the world’s population is a part of some religious community. The word “religion” is perhaps derived from the Latin word “religare”, meaning “bind together”. Historically, one positive aspect of religion has been its ability to unite people in common beliefs and practices for a shared common goal. However, that unity has also been known to become warped, with religion being used to justify doing harm rather than good. So what does that mean for us? Is religion good, bad, irrelevant, or obsolete?

Here’s what we know:

1. No one really knows where “religion” originated. According to anthropologists John Monaghan and Peter Just, “Many of the great world religions appear to have begun as revitalization movements of some sort, as the vision of a charismatic prophet fires the imaginations of people seeking a more comprehensive answer to their problems than they feel is provided by everyday beliefs (Monaghan, John; Just, Peter (2000). Social & Cultural Anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 126).”

2. Religious development has taken different forms in different cultures. Some religions emphasize practice, while others emphasize beliefs or doctrines. Some religions prioritize people having their own personal (subjective) religious experiences, while others consider the activities of the religious community as a whole to be the most important thing. Some religions claim to be universal, believing their laws must be (or eventually will be) followed by everyone, while others are designed to only be practiced by a select group (Monaghan, John; Just, Peter (2000). Social & Cultural Anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 124).

3. Anthropologists John Monoghan and Peter Just also state that “it seems apparent that one thing religion or belief helps us do is deal with problems of human life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable. One important way in which religious beliefs accomplish this is by providing a set of ideas about how and why the world is put together that allows people to accommodate anxieties and deal with misfortune (Monaghan, John; Just, Peter (2000). Social & Cultural Anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 124).”

Very few human communities have existed without some sort of religious belief system being incorporated into their culture. Although many people would deny that they are religious, with an estimated 4,200 different religions currently in practice worldwide, others would argue that religion is as intrinsic to human beings as is breathing.

What do you think? Do we need religion? If so, why? If not, why? Is there a way to incorporate the good things religion has to offer into our lives without taking on the bad? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!