Spiritual Humanism

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Take the Dalai Lama, for instance. If anyone's a messiah, it's him. But do we listen? Not nearly enough.

That reminds of that fiteen-year-old boy, who is believed to be the (true) reincarnation of Buddha, Ram Bahadur Banjan. He has been locked in meditation allegedly without food or water since May 17, 2005.

Thousands of people go to see him.

[Opsa]

True, my Duje. Any messiah who wanted to make a difference (and I guess that's the point) would have to come up with a way to get to the politicians. So he/she might have to be a very persuasive, creative, wealthy,influential and incorruptible person. Can it be done?

...or maybe God would influence them another way. If the politicians have too much invested in fossil fuels to back  alternative energy sources, then maybe God would have to, say- have to create a few crises that would make fossil fuels less profitable in which to trade. Stuff like that.

[Sibling Chatty]

He burned candles on your CAR?

It would be a pain in the neck to be the second coming. Everyone would compare you with the first one. "That's not the way Jesus did it!" they'd all say as you hung on the cross. Then you'd have to yell "Piss off! I did it my way!" and they'd yell back "That's not the way Sinatra did it!" etc.

I wonder if we aren't too jaded for a messiah at this point in history?

I do know that we are WAY too jaded for a female Messiah driving a 1965 Barracuda fastback with a bondo'd hood...

If a Messiah came and even attempted to speak to the Leaders, the crucifixion would look like a leisurely week at a resort.

Speaking Truth to Power is dangerous. Speaking Divine Truth to Corrupt Power is quite deadly.

[DaveL]

Oh, I thought the messiahs were those dujes that did those 'Masters of Business' speaking tours. That would make Norman Schwarzkopf a holy man 

[goat starer]

True, my Duje. Any messiah who wanted to make a difference (and I guess that's the point) would have to come up with a way to get to the politicians. So he/she might have to be a very persuasive, creative, wealthy,influential and incorruptible person. Can it be done?

...or maybe God would influence them another way. If the politicians have too much invested in fossil fuels to back  alternative energy sources, then maybe God would have to, say- have to create a few crises that would make fossil fuels less profitable in which to trade. Stuff like that.

I am not sure that all that much has changed since biblical times in terms of vested interests and politicians. In the bible Jesus made little attempt to influence the politicians and power brokers. He created a popular movement working up from the thieves, fishermen, prostitutes etc. Later some influential people were converted (and to my mind that is where it all went wrong).

Many movements which sweep accross the world have nothing to do with the powerful and vested interests. Most real change seems to me to come from popular movements of proletarian masses (had to get that in ). Nowadays these seem to be more frequently cultural in nature (music, internet etc) but the recent drop the debt and stop the war movements were good examples (as was the reaction to the SE Asian Tsunami). If movements like these had a real 'leader', with the charisma and message to give them longevity who knows if a 'messiah' could not be created!

[beagle]

I'd be interested as to the Christian view as to why Jesus said the "Render unto Caesar..." stuff. Was he an imperialist? After all, the Christian view of the afterlife seems more hierarchical than democratic. Or was it a case of not wanting to be crucified before getting the manifesto out?

Don't share your optimism about the popular response to the South East Asian tsunami. Like many, many people I gave a fair amount to charity for that. But I also happened to work with someone who goes to parts of the region every 6 months or thereabouts. He found no government or charity money had got to the areas he visited. He swore never to go through a charity again, believing it better to hand cash to a random local , or to people with family there, on the grounds that at least that way it would get into the local economy. But then these days the charities are some of the big vested interests.

[Opsa]

That bums me out like nobody's business, Beagle.

Some of us here have been talking about giving to charities through the monastery. I guess the safest thing to do would be to select charities we can hand the money over to personally.

[Kiyoodle the Gambrinous]

Or register the Monastery as a charity organization, let people donate money/food/etc. to it and be able to give to the needy directly like that.

But I guess, that would be too complicated, with all the siblings spread all over the world.

[Sibling Chatty]

I'd be interested as to the Christian view as to why Jesus said the "Render unto Caesar..." stuff. Was he an imperialist? After all, the Christian view of the afterlife seems more hierarchical than democratic. Or was it a case of not wanting to be crucified before getting the manifesto out?

My take on that is that in context, the coins (tax money) had Caesar's face on them. That which Caesar created, he demanded back. So pay your taxes and obey the laws of the land, as there wasn't any call for the followers to be complete and total anarchists, only to live correctly, in harmony with others.

The larger overview was that as a community, believers could mutually support one another, providing a livelihood without creating taxable wealth. If you owe it to Caesar, you'll have to pay it, but if I trade you my produce for your grain, no money changes hands, so Caesar gets none.

That particular instruction seemed to be more in line with other instructions on living in the world. The other part, render unto God that which is God's--that's another whole 'thing' to think about.

[goat starer]

Don't share your optimism about the popular response to the South East Asian tsunami.

my optimism was not about the USE of the money but about the movement of people on the other side of the world from the event who raised it. My optimism is about the capacity of people to show communal interests with people they have never met and to share a communal ethical view across social, economic, national etc divides. The same could be said about the anti war movement - it achieved nothing tangible - but in the context of the discussion about the potential for a messiah to be recognised and embraced these movements appear to me to show that people could produce another movement of this sort around a 'messiah'.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

I'd be interested as to the Christian view as to why Jesus said the "Render unto Caesar..." stuff. Was he an imperialist? After all, the Christian view of the afterlife seems more hierarchical than democratic. Or was it a case of not wanting to be crucified before getting the manifesto out?

My take on that is that in context, the coins (tax money) had Caesar's face on them. That which Caesar created, he demanded back. So pay your taxes and obey the laws of the land, as there wasn't any call for the followers to be complete and total anarchists, only to live correctly, in harmony with others.

Hmm... I took something else out of it. I viewed it as re-iterating (more accurately, pre-interating?  Is that even a word? ) what the Epistles say about going along with the world: "slaves, obey your worldly masters" and so forth - the idea being that rather than rise up against an unjust system, "true believers" should endure, trust in God to put things right, and look forward to their reward in Heaven.
In that context, the phrase would be interpreted as "obey secular authorities, but keep your allegiance to God."

I have heard an alternate interpretation, though; that the quote had two messages:
- one that the Romans would hear: "obey Caesar" (as described above)
- one that the Jewish audience would hear: "completely disregard Caesar" (since they would have believed that "that which is God's" would include everything, leaving nothing for Caesar)

This would mean that the message is one meant to sow the seeds of rebellion, but in such a way that Jesus would not be arrested for treason.

[Outis the Unready]

I once had a pastor in Florida convinced I was the antichrist.

The spiritual humanists, by the way, seem like UEWwies (my religion) that don't have any religious convictions and just do their rituals "because."

Ick. No religion is worth following "because." The only religions that are worth following are those that your direct experiences lead you to.

Which is why I was an atheist before I had such experiences.

I don't dig halfways. Don't practice anything just because.
You can practice stuff because of reasons that aren't shared by others (for example, I practice eating brussel sprouts because my experience is that they are delicious, and I am not threatened by those who do not share my experiences nor do I think they will ever necessarily experience brussel sprouts as delicious in the future) but for no real reason? ick.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I don't dig halfways. Don't practice anything just because.

You and Robert Heinlein.  He once said "Life is short--take big bites.  Moderation is for monks."

But, I'm not so sure that I agree with your "don't practice because" statement.

Sometimes, the ritual IS the reason.  It can be a "close-aning", a bringing together of those participating.  The actual ritual often does not matter--they can be silly things to an outsider.  But, to the participants, it can have deep significance BECAUSE it is a ritual, and because of who is there.

If the ritual in question is a solitary one, it usually has different connotations.  But, again, sometimes the ritual IS the reason.  The 'meaning' or worth behind it is not always overtly understood by the practicer.  However, it can have significance, or bring calming, or peace, or feelings of well-being.  Sometimes, it can help a body organize a too-busy brain. 

Other times, a ritual is a sort of "memory enhancer" in that the person doing it will remember a person, place or event, and doing the ritual "just because" is in reality a way to firm up the memories.  Even if the practicer does not realize that at the time, and if you asked, would likely respond with "just because".

Finally, some rituals are used to build up the mind, or the body or both-- but I suppose that would be covered by your conditional statements? Yes, I believe it would.

[The Meromorph]

I am reminded of a quote from Donald Kingsbury.
"Traditions are often solutions to a problem that we have forgotten we had. When we abandon the traditional practice, the problem often returns..."

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Mmm... for some reason the 'just because' reason sounds too much like the crowd control reason for organised religion. It well might be that if the mob is convinced that there is no god there will be chaos but is it really that difficult to teach basic common sense and enforce it (you know, like civil laws...)?

One thing I've heard is that the (supposedly) *mindless* repetition of a prayer (like a rosary) isn't so much important because of the words themselves but because it is a way to set your brain in a meditation-like state, IOW, it is a meditation tool, which is useful even without understanding it. It still bothers me that such understanding isn't thought but only the mindless repetition; it makes me feel that it is a sort of *chaste* solution in which the *benevolent* rulers *take care* of the ruled. Other side effect is that repetition begets reinforcing, in this case of the beliefs themselves.

All of it makes me very uncomfortable, there may be valid reasons for it but I still don't like it much.