Golden rule - universal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

^ fine. But there's nothing religious about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

B.S. Confucius said the same thing 600 years before Jesus was born, and had no contact with the religions of India or the middle east. It's 100% secular - follow you inner daemo

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

B.S. Confucius said the same thing 600 years before Jesus was born, and had no contact with the religions of India or the middle east. It's 100% secular - follow you inner daemo

daemon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

"shared by" perhaps, but not created by. It's not the exclusive province of religion; never was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

B.S. Confucius said the same thing 600 years before Jesus was born, and had no contact with the religions of India or the middle east. It's 100% secular - follow you inner daemo

Jesus took it a step further and said love your enemies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

B.S. Confucius said the same thing 600 years before Jesus was born, and had no contact with the religions of India or the middle east. It's 100% secular - follow you inner daemo

Jesus took it a step further and said love your enemies.

That’s not one step further. Treating all as you would like to be treated, includes everyone. That means your enemies too. Everyone is everyone.

Jesus had to clarify that for his followers who were not adhering to ‘golden rule’.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like religion because it teaches you moral truths and helps you self-examine yourself and the world morally on a regular basis. Very little else in society comes close to the intensity, depth, and regularity of this type of learning. I remember people I went to college with thinking the constitution was all they needed and they barely even knew that. Doubt they still feel this way now. Eventually, many people wake up to the fact that all religions serve the same purpose and it's basically just about providing passed-down written and oral morality lessons on where to spend your energy for good for yourself and others based on past human observation over time. As one of the statements above said, the rest is a commentary that may or may not be applicable in your situation and lifetime.

O0 - Yes I agree that the Jewish version of the Golden Rule hit on a salient aspect of it being central to leading a good life and advising people to really ponder it. Imagine if we all thought more deeply about how to live the Golden Rule in meaningful ways.

Regarding the value of religion - I agree that it can help one to think more deeply about everyday reality through different lens such as “why” rather than “how” Of course, religion can have the opposite effect for those trapped in cults or wed to rigid dogmas that are unresponsive to complex reality.

For me, an important part of religion is shared life experiences and honoring the Great Divine Mystery within a community of faith. Religion is derived from the Latin “religio” meaning (among other things), “bond of social relations uniting individuals.” Religion reminds me to forgive and seek forgiveness, to seek constant renewal of heart and mind, and to be faithful in small and large matters.

I appreciate your sentiments but disagree religion is the structure by which you deeply consider your morality. You can be spiritual and feel close to nature or respect the sanctity of life and that would be enough to guide your morality through your days. Organized religion is a sham. Unless you are spiritual you wouldn't be purely moral because organization requires you to think about the larger purpose of your group. In this way you have corruption from the Vatican forward throughout the Church. Organized religion is a paradox - I get how people want to bond together to celebrate their faith but true faith is spirituality that you find alone. This stuff just can't be one voice for all. All religions may speak the same but we all can't approach it together but conclude on our own how we want to live. That's the purity and value of spirituality - you find that level of grace at your own speed and as you live. You can't have someone else lay it out it just doesn't work cause you have to find your own truth.

My biggest issue with religion and the Catholics above all is that the seek to implore you to believe as they do. They don't offer you the faith of finding your own golden rule. It's really easy to say and it's really pretty to say but to truly love it is not easy. So the whole of organized religion is mostly a sham. You can be truly religious and belong to a Church but not everyone belonging to Church is truly spiritually. That's the problem with humanity - we want things to be easy and pretty but real life is not.

OP - I agree that organized religion has a lot to answer for, and am a passionate believer in the separation of church and state in order to protect the integrity of both .Religion is often misused for political and commercial gains. Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (taxes and political engagement) but to render into God that which is God’s (faith, worship and loving hearts)

I don’t think that we can actually do religion alone. Religion comes from the Latin “religio” meaning bond of social relations that unites individuals. That usually involves commonly held cosmologies but is tied together by shared community life and worship services. We can’t be spiritual living alone in remote caves where interpersonal challenges are not tested. Humans are social animals. Religious sacraments celebrating births, marriages and deaths can help us to mark and celebrate major life milestones in meaningful ways.

I converted to a religion where intellectual reason is highly valued and encouraged. Faith needs both reason and tradition to grow in rich soil (We see our religion as a three legged stool of faith, reason and tradition and all are equally important). The brain is a muscle to be exercised in order to execute free will in responsible ways. Bible stories have many layers of meanings and underlying deeper truths to be pondered in non literal ways that take into account ever changing social and historical contexts. Western Science and reason actually evolved over many centuries together with Christian religion.

I don’t see science and religion as being in conflict but subscribe to the brilliant theologian- Physicist Ian Barbour’s typology of dialogue model between science and religion. Many people wrongly subscribe to the conflict model between science and religion. I can see how many people arrive at that conclusion when religion is misused as a vehicle for promoting populist ignorance.

I agree, constant intellectual engagement is key to faith, not in conflict with it. I'm currently reading the gnostics for more insight into the times shortly after Jesus.

Three-legged stool--Episcopalian. Welcome, friend! You're doing a great job creating an engaging and informed thread.

🙏❤️😊


Ooh please share your insights into the Gnostic gospels …

Our church had a brutal history in early American history regarding providing theological cover for institutional slavery but I love that our church is willing to wrestle with past wrongs and to repent from grievous structural racism and be part of interconnected solutions. I’m not sure that we are communicating well
enough to make ourselves more relevant to younger more diverse demos - But the intention is there for thoughtful inclusion and hospitality …

⭐️

I've just been delving in since the New Year. So far I've read the Secret Gospel of John and listened to the Great Courses segments on it. There are other books, like Thomas and Judas, but I'm still working my way towards them.

So I'm far from being expert! My thoughts so far are that... it's a really, really complicated theology, hard to understand and remember. I like certain aspects, such as the equality between feminine and masculine powers. I like the way the Secret Gospel handles some issues like the temptation and fall, at least for the most part, but here again the story is quite complicated and I'm not sure it needs to be. I can't really get behind other features, such as all the detail about different powers and supernatural rulers.

Do you have a perspective on it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

B.S. Confucius said the same thing 600 years before Jesus was born, and had no contact with the religions of India or the middle east. It's 100% secular - follow you inner daemo

Jesus took it a step further and said love your enemies.

That’s not one step further. Treating all as you would like to be treated, includes everyone. That means your enemies too. Everyone is everyone.

Jesus had to clarify that for his followers who were not adhering to ‘golden rule’.

Loving your enemy does seem a step further in some cases. From OP's quotes, and maybe there's more going on and I'd be happy to be corrected.

Judaism
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.”
Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a

Taoism
“Regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbour's loss as your own loss.” Lao Tzu, T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-218

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

^ fine. But there's nothing religious about it.

My understanding is that The earliest versions of empathetic reciprocity were rooted in religious beliefs because they were developed far earlier than concepts of secular thought and western rationalism/ dual reality objectivism articulated during the Enlightenment.

The earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of "The Eloquent Peasant", which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do."[9][10] This proverb embodies the do ut des principle.[11] A Late Period (c. 664–323 BCE) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[12]

The modern term "Golden Rule", or "Golden law", began to be used widely in the early 17th century in Britain by Anglican theologians and preachers; the earliest known usage is that of Anglicans Charles Gibbon and Thomas Jackson in 1604.

Karen Armstrong’s (British scholar and author) books and compassion.com website have a lot more info in this subject. She started out as a devout Catholic nun and journeyed towards ethical monotheism drawing from different faiths. She has done extensive historical research around all religions sharing some version of the Golden Rule. She founded The Council of Conscience, a multi-faith, multi-national group of religious thinkers and leaders to create the Charter for Compassion. The Councilors sorted and reviewed the thousands of written submissions, considered the meaning of compassion, determined key ideas to include in the Charter and created a plan for how the Charter will live in the world.
https://charterforcompassion.org

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Do unto others" is a philosophy; There's nothing inherently "religious" about it. Just common sense most people could figure out on their own.

It is a philosophy that is shared by all major world religions and many non Western societies. It originated in religious thinking but certainly is equally relevant now to secular thought. I believe it is the closest thing we have to a transcendent moral code. It is highly subjective and yet universal at the same time.

B.S. Confucius said the same thing 600 years before Jesus was born, and had no contact with the religions of India or the middle east. It's 100% secular - follow you inner daemo

Jesus took it a step further and said love your enemies.

That’s not one step further. Treating all as you would like to be treated, includes everyone. That means your enemies too. Everyone is everyone.

Jesus had to clarify that for his followers who were not adhering to ‘golden rule’.

Loving your enemy does seem a step further in some cases. From OP's quotes, and maybe there's more going on and I'd be happy to be corrected.

Judaism
“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it.”
Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a

Taoism
“Regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain and your neighbour's loss as your own loss.” Lao Tzu, T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien, 213-218

And not in other cases such as Buddhism and Hinduism which predate Christianity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like religion because it teaches you moral truths and helps you self-examine yourself and the world morally on a regular basis. Very little else in society comes close to the intensity, depth, and regularity of this type of learning. I remember people I went to college with thinking the constitution was all they needed and they barely even knew that. Doubt they still feel this way now. Eventually, many people wake up to the fact that all religions serve the same purpose and it's basically just about providing passed-down written and oral morality lessons on where to spend your energy for good for yourself and others based on past human observation over time. As one of the statements above said, the rest is a commentary that may or may not be applicable in your situation and lifetime.

O0 - Yes I agree that the Jewish version of the Golden Rule hit on a salient aspect of it being central to leading a good life and advising people to really ponder it. Imagine if we all thought more deeply about how to live the Golden Rule in meaningful ways.

Regarding the value of religion - I agree that it can help one to think more deeply about everyday reality through different lens such as “why” rather than “how” Of course, religion can have the opposite effect for those trapped in cults or wed to rigid dogmas that are unresponsive to complex reality.

For me, an important part of religion is shared life experiences and honoring the Great Divine Mystery within a community of faith. Religion is derived from the Latin “religio” meaning (among other things), “bond of social relations uniting individuals.” Religion reminds me to forgive and seek forgiveness, to seek constant renewal of heart and mind, and to be faithful in small and large matters.

I appreciate your sentiments but disagree religion is the structure by which you deeply consider your morality. You can be spiritual and feel close to nature or respect the sanctity of life and that would be enough to guide your morality through your days. Organized religion is a sham. Unless you are spiritual you wouldn't be purely moral because organization requires you to think about the larger purpose of your group. In this way you have corruption from the Vatican forward throughout the Church. Organized religion is a paradox - I get how people want to bond together to celebrate their faith but true faith is spirituality that you find alone. This stuff just can't be one voice for all. All religions may speak the same but we all can't approach it together but conclude on our own how we want to live. That's the purity and value of spirituality - you find that level of grace at your own speed and as you live. You can't have someone else lay it out it just doesn't work cause you have to find your own truth.

My biggest issue with religion and the Catholics above all is that the seek to implore you to believe as they do. They don't offer you the faith of finding your own golden rule. It's really easy to say and it's really pretty to say but to truly love it is not easy. So the whole of organized religion is mostly a sham. You can be truly religious and belong to a Church but not everyone belonging to Church is truly spiritually. That's the problem with humanity - we want things to be easy and pretty but real life is not.

OP - I agree that organized religion has a lot to answer for, and am a passionate believer in the separation of church and state in order to protect the integrity of both .Religion is often misused for political and commercial gains. Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (taxes and political engagement) but to render into God that which is God’s (faith, worship and loving hearts)

I don’t think that we can actually do religion alone. Religion comes from the Latin “religio” meaning bond of social relations that unites individuals. That usually involves commonly held cosmologies but is tied together by shared community life and worship services. We can’t be spiritual living alone in remote caves where interpersonal challenges are not tested. Humans are social animals. Religious sacraments celebrating births, marriages and deaths can help us to mark and celebrate major life milestones in meaningful ways.

I converted to a religion where intellectual reason is highly valued and encouraged. Faith needs both reason and tradition to grow in rich soil (We see our religion as a three legged stool of faith, reason and tradition and all are equally important). The brain is a muscle to be exercised in order to execute free will in responsible ways. Bible stories have many layers of meanings and underlying deeper truths to be pondered in non literal ways that take into account ever changing social and historical contexts. Western Science and reason actually evolved over many centuries together with Christian religion.

I don’t see science and religion as being in conflict but subscribe to the brilliant theologian- Physicist Ian Barbour’s typology of dialogue model between science and religion. Many people wrongly subscribe to the conflict model between science and religion. I can see how many people arrive at that conclusion when religion is misused as a vehicle for promoting populist ignorance.

I agree, constant intellectual engagement is key to faith, not in conflict with it. I'm currently reading the gnostics for more insight into the times shortly after Jesus.

Three-legged stool--Episcopalian. Welcome, friend! You're doing a great job creating an engaging and informed thread.

🙏❤️😊


Ooh please share your insights into the Gnostic gospels …

Our church had a brutal history in early American history regarding providing theological cover for institutional slavery but I love that our church is willing to wrestle with past wrongs and to repent from grievous structural racism and be part of interconnected solutions. I’m not sure that we are communicating well
enough to make ourselves more relevant to younger more diverse demos - But the intention is there for thoughtful inclusion and hospitality …

⭐️

I've just been delving in since the New Year. So far I've read the Secret Gospel of John and listened to the Great Courses segments on it. There are other books, like Thomas and Judas, but I'm still working my way towards them.

So I'm far from being expert! My thoughts so far are that... it's a really, really complicated theology, hard to understand and remember. I like certain aspects, such as the equality between feminine and masculine powers. I like the way the Secret Gospel handles some issues like the temptation and fall, at least for the most part, but here again the story is quite complicated and I'm not sure it needs to be. I can't really get behind other features, such as all the detail about different powers and supernatural rulers.

Do you have a perspective on it?

I am also No expert and have mainly read Elaine Pagels but want to read more direct sources - especially Thomas. The allegations that the gospels were revised to cast him as weak in faith and doubting while he in fact was of strong faith but with divergent beliefs on Christ’s messages is interesting (e.g. his gospel contrasts with John’s 10 I am statements especially on divine light. I also like the feminine and aspect of the Gnostic gospels.

I am grateful our church allows for honest exploration of Bible in open ways so no crisis of faith is required to consider different possibilities/ angles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like religion because it teaches you moral truths and helps you self-examine yourself and the world morally on a regular basis. Very little else in society comes close to the intensity, depth, and regularity of this type of learning. I remember people I went to college with thinking the constitution was all they needed and they barely even knew that. Doubt they still feel this way now. Eventually, many people wake up to the fact that all religions serve the same purpose and it's basically just about providing passed-down written and oral morality lessons on where to spend your energy for good for yourself and others based on past human observation over time. As one of the statements above said, the rest is a commentary that may or may not be applicable in your situation and lifetime.

O0 - Yes I agree that the Jewish version of the Golden Rule hit on a salient aspect of it being central to leading a good life and advising people to really ponder it. Imagine if we all thought more deeply about how to live the Golden Rule in meaningful ways.

Regarding the value of religion - I agree that it can help one to think more deeply about everyday reality through different lens such as “why” rather than “how” Of course, religion can have the opposite effect for those trapped in cults or wed to rigid dogmas that are unresponsive to complex reality.

For me, an important part of religion is shared life experiences and honoring the Great Divine Mystery within a community of faith. Religion is derived from the Latin “religio” meaning (among other things), “bond of social relations uniting individuals.” Religion reminds me to forgive and seek forgiveness, to seek constant renewal of heart and mind, and to be faithful in small and large matters.

I appreciate your sentiments but disagree religion is the structure by which you deeply consider your morality. You can be spiritual and feel close to nature or respect the sanctity of life and that would be enough to guide your morality through your days. Organized religion is a sham. Unless you are spiritual you wouldn't be purely moral because organization requires you to think about the larger purpose of your group. In this way you have corruption from the Vatican forward throughout the Church. Organized religion is a paradox - I get how people want to bond together to celebrate their faith but true faith is spirituality that you find alone. This stuff just can't be one voice for all. All religions may speak the same but we all can't approach it together but conclude on our own how we want to live. That's the purity and value of spirituality - you find that level of grace at your own speed and as you live. You can't have someone else lay it out it just doesn't work cause you have to find your own truth.

My biggest issue with religion and the Catholics above all is that the seek to implore you to believe as they do. They don't offer you the faith of finding your own golden rule. It's really easy to say and it's really pretty to say but to truly love it is not easy. So the whole of organized religion is mostly a sham. You can be truly religious and belong to a Church but not everyone belonging to Church is truly spiritually. That's the problem with humanity - we want things to be easy and pretty but real life is not.

OP - I agree that organized religion has a lot to answer for, and am a passionate believer in the separation of church and state in order to protect the integrity of both .Religion is often misused for political and commercial gains. Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (taxes and political engagement) but to render into God that which is God’s (faith, worship and loving hearts)

I don’t think that we can actually do religion alone. Religion comes from the Latin “religio” meaning bond of social relations that unites individuals. That usually involves commonly held cosmologies but is tied together by shared community life and worship services. We can’t be spiritual living alone in remote caves where interpersonal challenges are not tested. Humans are social animals. Religious sacraments celebrating births, marriages and deaths can help us to mark and celebrate major life milestones in meaningful ways.

I converted to a religion where intellectual reason is highly valued and encouraged. Faith needs both reason and tradition to grow in rich soil (We see our religion as a three legged stool of faith, reason and tradition and all are equally important). The brain is a muscle to be exercised in order to execute free will in responsible ways. Bible stories have many layers of meanings and underlying deeper truths to be pondered in non literal ways that take into account ever changing social and historical contexts. Western Science and reason actually evolved over many centuries together with Christian religion.

I don’t see science and religion as being in conflict but subscribe to the brilliant theologian- Physicist Ian Barbour’s typology of dialogue model between science and religion. Many people wrongly subscribe to the conflict model between science and religion. I can see how many people arrive at that conclusion when religion is misused as a vehicle for promoting populist ignorance.

I agree, constant intellectual engagement is key to faith, not in conflict with it. I'm currently reading the gnostics for more insight into the times shortly after Jesus.

Three-legged stool--Episcopalian. Welcome, friend! You're doing a great job creating an engaging and informed thread.

🙏❤️😊


Ooh please share your insights into the Gnostic gospels …

Our church had a brutal history in early American history regarding providing theological cover for institutional slavery but I love that our church is willing to wrestle with past wrongs and to repent from grievous structural racism and be part of interconnected solutions. I’m not sure that we are communicating well
enough to make ourselves more relevant to younger more diverse demos - But the intention is there for thoughtful inclusion and hospitality …

⭐️

I've just been delving in since the New Year. So far I've read the Secret Gospel of John and listened to the Great Courses segments on it. There are other books, like Thomas and Judas, but I'm still working my way towards them.

So I'm far from being expert! My thoughts so far are that... it's a really, really complicated theology, hard to understand and remember. I like certain aspects, such as the equality between feminine and masculine powers. I like the way the Secret Gospel handles some issues like the temptation and fall, at least for the most part, but here again the story is quite complicated and I'm not sure it needs to be. I can't really get behind other features, such as all the detail about different powers and supernatural rulers.

Do you have a perspective on it?

I am also No expert and have mainly read Elaine Pagels but want to read more direct sources - especially Thomas. The allegations that the gospels were revised to cast him as weak in faith and doubting while he in fact was of strong faith but with divergent beliefs on Christ’s messages is interesting (e.g. his gospel contrasts with John’s 10 I am statements especially on divine light. I also like the feminine and aspect of the Gnostic gospels.

I am grateful our church allows for honest exploration of Bible in open ways so no crisis of faith is required to consider different possibilities/ angles.

I have Elaine Pagel's book on gnosticism too. I realized I need to read the books themselves, plus a little orientation from the Great Courses class, before I tackle her book. I could be totally wrong about that though....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like religion because it teaches you moral truths and helps you self-examine yourself and the world morally on a regular basis. Very little else in society comes close to the intensity, depth, and regularity of this type of learning. I remember people I went to college with thinking the constitution was all they needed and they barely even knew that. Doubt they still feel this way now. Eventually, many people wake up to the fact that all religions serve the same purpose and it's basically just about providing passed-down written and oral morality lessons on where to spend your energy for good for yourself and others based on past human observation over time. As one of the statements above said, the rest is a commentary that may or may not be applicable in your situation and lifetime.

O0 - Yes I agree that the Jewish version of the Golden Rule hit on a salient aspect of it being central to leading a good life and advising people to really ponder it. Imagine if we all thought more deeply about how to live the Golden Rule in meaningful ways.

Regarding the value of religion - I agree that it can help one to think more deeply about everyday reality through different lens such as “why” rather than “how” Of course, religion can have the opposite effect for those trapped in cults or wed to rigid dogmas that are unresponsive to complex reality.

For me, an important part of religion is shared life experiences and honoring the Great Divine Mystery within a community of faith. Religion is derived from the Latin “religio” meaning (among other things), “bond of social relations uniting individuals.” Religion reminds me to forgive and seek forgiveness, to seek constant renewal of heart and mind, and to be faithful in small and large matters.

I appreciate your sentiments but disagree religion is the structure by which you deeply consider your morality. You can be spiritual and feel close to nature or respect the sanctity of life and that would be enough to guide your morality through your days. Organized religion is a sham. Unless you are spiritual you wouldn't be purely moral because organization requires you to think about the larger purpose of your group. In this way you have corruption from the Vatican forward throughout the Church. Organized religion is a paradox - I get how people want to bond together to celebrate their faith but true faith is spirituality that you find alone. This stuff just can't be one voice for all. All religions may speak the same but we all can't approach it together but conclude on our own how we want to live. That's the purity and value of spirituality - you find that level of grace at your own speed and as you live. You can't have someone else lay it out it just doesn't work cause you have to find your own truth.

My biggest issue with religion and the Catholics above all is that the seek to implore you to believe as they do. They don't offer you the faith of finding your own golden rule. It's really easy to say and it's really pretty to say but to truly love it is not easy. So the whole of organized religion is mostly a sham. You can be truly religious and belong to a Church but not everyone belonging to Church is truly spiritually. That's the problem with humanity - we want things to be easy and pretty but real life is not.

OP - I agree that organized religion has a lot to answer for, and am a passionate believer in the separation of church and state in order to protect the integrity of both .Religion is often misused for political and commercial gains. Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (taxes and political engagement) but to render into God that which is God’s (faith, worship and loving hearts)

I don’t think that we can actually do religion alone. Religion comes from the Latin “religio” meaning bond of social relations that unites individuals. That usually involves commonly held cosmologies but is tied together by shared community life and worship services. We can’t be spiritual living alone in remote caves where interpersonal challenges are not tested. Humans are social animals. Religious sacraments celebrating births, marriages and deaths can help us to mark and celebrate major life milestones in meaningful ways.

I converted to a religion where intellectual reason is highly valued and encouraged. Faith needs both reason and tradition to grow in rich soil (We see our religion as a three legged stool of faith, reason and tradition and all are equally important). The brain is a muscle to be exercised in order to execute free will in responsible ways. Bible stories have many layers of meanings and underlying deeper truths to be pondered in non literal ways that take into account ever changing social and historical contexts. Western Science and reason actually evolved over many centuries together with Christian religion.

I don’t see science and religion as being in conflict but subscribe to the brilliant theologian- Physicist Ian Barbour’s typology of dialogue model between science and religion. Many people wrongly subscribe to the conflict model between science and religion. I can see how many people arrive at that conclusion when religion is misused as a vehicle for promoting populist ignorance.

I agree, constant intellectual engagement is key to faith, not in conflict with it. I'm currently reading the gnostics for more insight into the times shortly after Jesus.

Three-legged stool--Episcopalian. Welcome, friend! You're doing a great job creating an engaging and informed thread.

🙏❤️😊


Ooh please share your insights into the Gnostic gospels …

Our church had a brutal history in early American history regarding providing theological cover for institutional slavery but I love that our church is willing to wrestle with past wrongs and to repent from grievous structural racism and be part of interconnected solutions. I’m not sure that we are communicating well
enough to make ourselves more relevant to younger more diverse demos - But the intention is there for thoughtful inclusion and hospitality …

⭐️

I've just been delving in since the New Year. So far I've read the Secret Gospel of John and listened to the Great Courses segments on it. There are other books, like Thomas and Judas, but I'm still working my way towards them.

So I'm far from being expert! My thoughts so far are that... it's a really, really complicated theology, hard to understand and remember. I like certain aspects, such as the equality between feminine and masculine powers. I like the way the Secret Gospel handles some issues like the temptation and fall, at least for the most part, but here again the story is quite complicated and I'm not sure it needs to be. I can't really get behind other features, such as all the detail about different powers and supernatural rulers.

Do you have a perspective on it?

I am also No expert and have mainly read Elaine Pagels but want to read more direct sources - especially Thomas. The allegations that the gospels were revised to cast him as weak in faith and doubting while he in fact was of strong faith but with divergent beliefs on Christ’s messages is interesting (e.g. his gospel contrasts with John’s 10 I am statements especially on divine light. I also like the feminine and aspect of the Gnostic gospels.

I am grateful our church allows for honest exploration of Bible in open ways so no crisis of faith is required to consider different possibilities/ angles.

I have Elaine Pagel's book on gnosticism too. I realized I need to read the books themselves, plus a little orientation from the Great Courses class, before I tackle her book. I could be totally wrong about that though....

Sounds wise - original sources are usually best.

Some of the Great Courses are excellent.

Please let us know what resonated from the Gnostic gospels when you are ready.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like religion because it teaches you moral truths and helps you self-examine yourself and the world morally on a regular basis. Very little else in society comes close to the intensity, depth, and regularity of this type of learning. I remember people I went to college with thinking the constitution was all they needed and they barely even knew that. Doubt they still feel this way now. Eventually, many people wake up to the fact that all religions serve the same purpose and it's basically just about providing passed-down written and oral morality lessons on where to spend your energy for good for yourself and others based on past human observation over time. As one of the statements above said, the rest is a commentary that may or may not be applicable in your situation and lifetime.

O0 - Yes I agree that the Jewish version of the Golden Rule hit on a salient aspect of it being central to leading a good life and advising people to really ponder it. Imagine if we all thought more deeply about how to live the Golden Rule in meaningful ways.

Regarding the value of religion - I agree that it can help one to think more deeply about everyday reality through different lens such as “why” rather than “how” Of course, religion can have the opposite effect for those trapped in cults or wed to rigid dogmas that are unresponsive to complex reality.

For me, an important part of religion is shared life experiences and honoring the Great Divine Mystery within a community of faith. Religion is derived from the Latin “religio” meaning (among other things), “bond of social relations uniting individuals.” Religion reminds me to forgive and seek forgiveness, to seek constant renewal of heart and mind, and to be faithful in small and large matters.

I appreciate your sentiments but disagree religion is the structure by which you deeply consider your morality. You can be spiritual and feel close to nature or respect the sanctity of life and that would be enough to guide your morality through your days. Organized religion is a sham. Unless you are spiritual you wouldn't be purely moral because organization requires you to think about the larger purpose of your group. In this way you have corruption from the Vatican forward throughout the Church. Organized religion is a paradox - I get how people want to bond together to celebrate their faith but true faith is spirituality that you find alone. This stuff just can't be one voice for all. All religions may speak the same but we all can't approach it together but conclude on our own how we want to live. That's the purity and value of spirituality - you find that level of grace at your own speed and as you live. You can't have someone else lay it out it just doesn't work cause you have to find your own truth.

My biggest issue with religion and the Catholics above all is that the seek to implore you to believe as they do. They don't offer you the faith of finding your own golden rule. It's really easy to say and it's really pretty to say but to truly love it is not easy. So the whole of organized religion is mostly a sham. You can be truly religious and belong to a Church but not everyone belonging to Church is truly spiritually. That's the problem with humanity - we want things to be easy and pretty but real life is not.

OP - I agree that organized religion has a lot to answer for, and am a passionate believer in the separation of church and state in order to protect the integrity of both .Religion is often misused for political and commercial gains. Jesus himself said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s (taxes and political engagement) but to render into God that which is God’s (faith, worship and loving hearts)

I don’t think that we can actually do religion alone. Religion comes from the Latin “religio” meaning bond of social relations that unites individuals. That usually involves commonly held cosmologies but is tied together by shared community life and worship services. We can’t be spiritual living alone in remote caves where interpersonal challenges are not tested. Humans are social animals. Religious sacraments celebrating births, marriages and deaths can help us to mark and celebrate major life milestones in meaningful ways.

I converted to a religion where intellectual reason is highly valued and encouraged. Faith needs both reason and tradition to grow in rich soil (We see our religion as a three legged stool of faith, reason and tradition and all are equally important). The brain is a muscle to be exercised in order to execute free will in responsible ways. Bible stories have many layers of meanings and underlying deeper truths to be pondered in non literal ways that take into account ever changing social and historical contexts. Western Science and reason actually evolved over many centuries together with Christian religion.

I don’t see science and religion as being in conflict but subscribe to the brilliant theologian- Physicist Ian Barbour’s typology of dialogue model between science and religion. Many people wrongly subscribe to the conflict model between science and religion. I can see how many people arrive at that conclusion when religion is misused as a vehicle for promoting populist ignorance.

I agree, constant intellectual engagement is key to faith, not in conflict with it. I'm currently reading the gnostics for more insight into the times shortly after Jesus.

Three-legged stool--Episcopalian. Welcome, friend! You're doing a great job creating an engaging and informed thread.

🙏❤️😊


Ooh please share your insights into the Gnostic gospels …

Our church had a brutal history in early American history regarding providing theological cover for institutional slavery but I love that our church is willing to wrestle with past wrongs and to repent from grievous structural racism and be part of interconnected solutions. I’m not sure that we are communicating well
enough to make ourselves more relevant to younger more diverse demos - But the intention is there for thoughtful inclusion and hospitality …

⭐️

I've just been delving in since the New Year. So far I've read the Secret Gospel of John and listened to the Great Courses segments on it. There are other books, like Thomas and Judas, but I'm still working my way towards them.

So I'm far from being expert! My thoughts so far are that... it's a really, really complicated theology, hard to understand and remember. I like certain aspects, such as the equality between feminine and masculine powers. I like the way the Secret Gospel handles some issues like the temptation and fall, at least for the most part, but here again the story is quite complicated and I'm not sure it needs to be. I can't really get behind other features, such as all the detail about different powers and supernatural rulers.

Do you have a perspective on it?

I am also No expert and have mainly read Elaine Pagels but want to read more direct sources - especially Thomas. The allegations that the gospels were revised to cast him as weak in faith and doubting while he in fact was of strong faith but with divergent beliefs on Christ’s messages is interesting (e.g. his gospel contrasts with John’s 10 I am statements especially on divine light. I also like the feminine and aspect of the Gnostic gospels.

I am grateful our church allows for honest exploration of Bible in open ways so no crisis of faith is required to consider different possibilities/ angles.

I have Elaine Pagel's book on gnosticism too. I realized I need to read the books themselves, plus a little orientation from the Great Courses class, before I tackle her book. I could be totally wrong about that though....

Sounds wise - original sources are usually best.

Some of the Great Courses are excellent.

Please let us know what resonated from the Gnostic gospels when you are ready.

It's David Braake's Great Courses class, fwiw. It may be a month or two before I'm ready!