(This is in no way directed to anyone on these forums at all, this is purely related to a real life incident, wanted to say that)

Why do people feel the need to press their spirituality and how they practice the concept on others? Isn't the idea of spirituality to help people heal, but then people try to impose it?

I was talking to someone I know the other night- and they flat out told me what my idea of spirituality was "wrong".

It's sad to think that something I believe should help support people and help people heal is sometimes the cause of strife

[nowheretorun]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
It's sad to think that something I believe should help support people and help people heal is sometimes the cause of strife

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

whenever people do that to me Griffe i just try to 'be my own example' in hopes that those 'others' will see the true nature of what i believe in time.. some are really reluctant to do so tho... it saddens me as well... i can understand what you mean well...

[KathyM]

My idea of spirituality is my own personal connection with God. Helping others to heal and serving others in any way I can is my way of showing my gratitude to God. This is why I believe spirituality should not be in the talk, but in the walk when it comes to connecting with other people. It's less messy - fewer arguments.

[Rapunzel]

Ideally, everyone would be able to respect each other and accept when someone chooses a different path. But we all tend to think that what helps us so muich would also help someone else, and so we want to share what we have. And not everyone is a perfect listener when someone says that what we are offering is not what they are looking for. I tend to think that if I presented it just right, people would be able to see the value in it. But we need to know when to back off and just listen, not try to solve someone else's problem. Just like any other problem someone might present us with. Most of the time they don't need us to fix it for them, but we tend to want to try anyway.

[Defective]

I enjoy when other people talk about their beliefs. I guess im pretty weird but it interests me. Its kinda like someone telling you their take on a show about spirituality they saw on discovery channel or something. It probably helps i dont have any concrete beliefs so its kind of like window shopping

I think Rapunzel is correct. Whatever beliefs they have helped them so much that they just want to help. Like in meds, for me Lexapro was a nightmare that drove me to madness. For others it helps immensely and they give there testimonial about it. Who's right? We both are.

[Rhapsody]

IMO - I find that way to many people place Spirituality in a box or a book and they forget what our great Creator is really all about........ I find my High Power within my self and in nature as I walk thru the freedom of being in the forest.

[gardenergirl]

I think that would be like someone said your personality was "wrong". Which is absurd, because there is no right or wrong to being. Just being who we are. We are who we are. Our relationship with the Divine is what it is for each of us. There is no right or wrong.

gg

If I really genuinely believed that someone who didn't have MY concept of spirituality was going directly to hell when they died (as is explicitly endorsed by a number of religions) then doing everything in my power to make them come to adopt MY conception of spirituality would be an expression of caring. I'd be saving their immortal soul from an eternity of torment and terror, you see. And no matter how much they want me to stoppit in the present life, I would (on this view) know best.

And if someone is of such a view then there really isn't anything much that I can say to them (or that they can say to others with different though equally vehemently held views).

To think that spirituality is a private matter. Something that means different things to different individuals (and where each of those ways is equally valid). Is to run contrary to the majority of the worlds religions. Those religions maintain that there is ONE RIGHT WAY to salvation and that if you see things differently then YOU ARE WRONG AND WILL SUFFER FOR ETERNITY FOR YOUR SINS. Trouble is that there are so many of those religions to pick from and they are (on the official line of them) mutually exclusive.

There isn't really any such thing as an a-theoretical take on spirituality. To say that there is one and only one right way is just as controversial as to say that there are many different ways and all are equally valid.

I guess from my perspective... Tolerance should be promoted as much as possible - and the limits on what is possible rule out tolerating intolerant views.

But that is to value tolerance above all else...
Something that the (official version of) the worlds major religions would reject...

Because my take on spirituality is to see it as tolerance and caring and wonder and awe and peace etc for me spirituality comes apart rather (indeed, is less likely to be found) in religions where the official line in the religion is one of intolerance.

But that is according to my take. If you define spirituality as having a relationship with a particular creator god (as your religion defines him) then the thought is that being a part of that religion is the only way one can have a relationship with that particular creator god and hence being part of that religion is the only way that one really can be spiritual.

Hence... The confusion around how on earth atheists can have a conception of (and experience) spirituality.

So from my perspective you are less likely to find spirituality in established religion than you are to find it outside established religion.
And from their perspective you are less likely to find spirituality in atheists than you are to find it in established religions.

And there isn't much of a middle ground really that I can see (except that some individuals have a more 'higher power' conception of spirituality and don't identify with a particular established religion and that some individuals who are members of a particular established religion basically reject some of the dogmas of their established religion and have a ... more 'higher power' conception of spirituality).

[spiritual_emergency]

<blockquote>
alex: I guess from my perspective... Tolerance should be promoted as much as possible - and the limits on what is possible rule out tolerating intolerant views.

But that is to value tolerance above all else...
Something that the (official version of) the worlds major religions would reject...

Yes, and no. My primary criticism of religion would be that it is a human construction and because of this, it's going to be flawed because humans are flawed -- not perfect. However, I couldn't agree that all religions preach intolerance, but rather, that there are always going to be some humans within that religious structure who will preach intolerance. This goes for aetheists as well, who -- as someone else noted (salukigirl, maybe) -- can be every bit as dogmatic, in-your-face, and self-righteous as the most die-hard fundamentalist.

Part of the problem is that one crowd is noisier than the other for there are many people who self-identify with a particular religious strain who quietly go along, living their lives to the best of their abilities within the constraints of their faith, without making a fuss. To draw a parallel... no one ever hears much about the non-violent "schizophrenics". When's the last time you saw a headline that said... "Schizophrenic stays in room, listens to music and draws pictures"? No, it's always "Schizophrenic shooter rampages school!" (If it's later discovered that the shooter wasn't schizophrenic, you won't hear much about that either.) As a result, there is a distorted impression that schizophrenia has a direct link with violent behavior.

Likewise, there may be a distortion that all religions preach intolerance while the elements of tolerance are overlooked simply because they're not as splashy.

[KathyM]

Alexandra

My mother lived in her own world of torment and terror because everywhere she turned people judged her, until she became suicidal. In the 1960s, doctors told us to ignore her "attention-seeking" behavior. They told her to drink wine to "calm her nerves." She became a suicidal drunk.

Our church kicked all of us out because mom had become a handful. They accused her of following "evil spirits" and said if she placed all her faith in God, he would solve her problems.

She tried, but nothing seemed to work for her - so she blamed ME (my birth) for all her problems. I was treated harshly because she believed I was the cause all the evil in her world. She was finally diagnosed in 1981. The "evil spirits" turned out to be hereditary amyloidosis - a chronic, progressive and terminal illness.

Mom didn't need harsh judgment and warnings about going to hell. She needed compassion and acknowledgement of her pain without all the judgment. She didn't need to be told all her relatives were in hell because they weren't "saved."

I spent my entire life trying to get her to hold onto life, but people of faith kept pushing "heaven" on her. Her world was already hell, so she continued to attempt suicide - it was worth the risk for her. It only made her life (and mine) that much harder.

Is my mother in heaven or hell?

When my best friend was at the end of her life, I was sitting in the hospital cafeteria and started to cry. A co-worker approached and asked if my friend had been saved. When I told her my friend was a "good Catholic," she shook her head and said "I'm sorry, your friend is going to hell." Her comment turned my pain/sadness over losing my friend into rage at my co-workers intrusion. I only wanted a little quiet time to grieve for my best friend's impending death from cancer.

Is my best friend in heaven or hell?

This is why I believe claiming to know the truth about the afterlife can be dangerous when you push it on others. This is why claiming to know how all people should live and behave in order to get into heaven can be dangerous. In my case, and in the case of many others I know, it had the opposite effect.

Do you think my mother and I received the spiritual support we deserved?

I guess it depends what you mean by 'spiritual support'. I do think that it sounds like you both were treated quite badly, though, I'm sorry.

I guess I agree with spiritual_emergency in that some atheists can be just as intolerant in their views as some religious folk can be in theirs. Dawkins book 'The God Delusion' springs to mind, here, I think that it is a shame that he uses unnecessary rhetoric that is likely to put people off more than anything else. I know a number of atheists who think Dawkins tends to give atheism a bad name. But then similarly, I know a number of religious folk who similarly lament that (they think) some church doctines give theism a bad name.

I guess... People are thinking of the 'bio-psycho-social model'. Its been jazzed up with a fourth aspect: 'spiritual' by some theorists. So getting better is about altering biology and psychology and teaching people to integrate into society (you don't hear much about altering society so that it is more suited to individuals needs). And spirituality... I wonder what this is supposed to be... But then I similarly worry about the soul and about how it is different from the mind (if survival after death amounts to pyschological continuity of memory and conscious experience and so on and so forth). Dunno...

[KathyM]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
And spirituality... I wonder what this is supposed to be...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

For me, it's.........wherever you are, "love your neighbor"

[spiritual_emergency]

<blockquote>
alex: I guess I agree with spiritual_emergency in that some atheists can be just as intolerant in their views as some religious folk can be in theirs.

The word would be "some". "Some" reformed smokers can be every bit as bad -- they think they can get you to stop by telling you all kinds of horror stories but more often than not, the only thing they do is push you away. It might be different if each time they saw you they told you how much they enjoyed not smoking anymore. Provided it was done with an attitude of sharing that arose out of their genuine and sincere enjoyment, that kind of attitude might start to rub off. At the very least, you wouldn't want to pretend you're not home if they knock on the door.

The crucial point is, no one else can come up with our particular answers because they don't have our particular questions. That's not to say that we can't learn from others but there aren't many people past the age of two who want to be forcefully spoon-fed -- yet we all enjoy sharing a good meal with fine company.

[Rapunzel]

I think you are onto something there. It isn't religion, atheism, quitting smoking, or whatever someone is passionate about that is bad or offensive. It's people who are so passionate about something that they aren't able to step back and allow for others who want to make their own choices. It doesn't mean that what they offer doesn't have merit, it's just that nobody wants anything forced on them. We need to be able to make our own choices. Agency and choice, by the way, are concepts supported by religion. Maybe it depends on the religion, but they are crucial to mine.

Though it may be useful to distinguish between the 'party line' of religious doctrine (the official church doctrine / dogma) and the church members particular beliefs that may or may not diverge from the party line.

The majority (though not all) of the worlds major religions have a party line whereby that religions conception of spirituality is the ONE TRUE conception of spirituality as was given to people by way of DIRECT REVELATION FROM GOD.

While individual members of a particular religion might diverge from the party line I think that it is important to note that that is indeed the main party line of the majority of the worlds major religions.

The idea that a particular religion has access to the ONE TRUE conception of spirituality directly conflicts with the idea that there are MANY EQUALLY VALID conceptions of spirituality.

Either there is one true conception (which is an intolerant view) or there are many equally valid conceptions (which is a tolerant view). Both views can't be true, however. Indeed... One way to understand the later view is as a denial of the former....

> Why do people feel the need to press their spirituality and how they practice the concept on others? Isn't the idea of spirituality to help people heal, but then people try to impose it?

And so (by way of clarifying the relationship between my last post and the initial query of the thread) my answer is:

Because people conflate the dogmas of their religion with spirituality and hence conflate their religions dogma that the ONLY WAY to God is via the teaching of their religion with the idea that the ONLY LEGITIMATE conception of spirituality is the one that is endorsed by their religion.

And... There are many different religions with many different conceptions of God and hence many different conceptions of the (one true) spirituality.

[Rapunzel]

Alex, this is extremely dichotomous thinking. It is possible to believe that there is absolute truth, without insisting that one is personally in possession of all of it.

It is possible to believe that there is ultimately only one way to arrive at a particular destination, but still that people have a choice about taking that route, about what destination they want to arrive at, and about side-trips that they take along the way.

It is possible to believe that what one believes is true, and still that others have much of value that one can learn.

Sure. I agree that there can be objective facts that people can be ignorant of. To the best of my knowledge nobody knows whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or whether it is false (where knowledge consists in offering a proof), but there is of course an objective fact and it is either true or it is false and it can't be neither or both.

But I guess I was talking about how some people believe that their religious dogma reveals the truth about God because they believe that their religious dogma was revealed to human beings by way of direct revelation from God. Not ALL people, but SOME people. And if a person believes that then intolerance of other conceptions of God does seem to follow. And if a person believes that their religions conception of God defines what spirituality is (that it is communion with a being such defined) then intolerance of other conceptions of spirituality does seem to follow.

Note that those are hypothetical claims. IF a person believes THEN such and such follows. If the part after the IF and before the THEN doesn't obtain then the part after the THEN need not obtain either. But if the part after the IF and before the THEN does obtain then the part after the THEN would seem to logically follow.

If the part after the IF and before the THEN obtains then I'm not sure how much it really is tolerant to say that 'other people have the choice of not following the one true God and thus finding themself directly in hell'. Even if one doesn't explicitly SAY it, even if one merely IMPLIES it it would still seem (to me) to be an intolerant view.

It would of course be possible to be convinced (have absolute faith) in Goldbach's conjecture being true. And one could believe that while still maintaining that others have much of value that one can learn when it comes to poetry, for example, or computer programming. But the implication would seem to be that they don't have much of value in the realm of mathematics. And the implication might well be that they don't have much of value in the realm of the nature of God or the nature of spirituality.

I guess I'm thinking (keeping this on topic) that this might be part of why there is so much controversy over the nature (and interrelationship) between spirituality and religion.

[Razzleberry]

This is exactly what pushed me away from the religion I was born & raised in - the thought that this way is the one true way and EVERYTHING else out there is WRONG. I don't agree with that notion. I hate that some people think it is okay to tell others that their beliefs are "wrong" or less perfect than that of their own.

Everyone should be able to believe what they want to believe without someone else trampling on it.

[nowheretorun]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Razzleberry said:
This is exactly what pushed me away from the religion I was born & raised in - the thought that this way is the one true way and EVERYTHING else out there is WRONG. I don't agree with that notion. I hate that some people think it is okay to tell others that their beliefs are "wrong" or less perfect than that of their own.

Everyone should be able to believe what they want to believe without someone else trampling on it.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

with ya on that one!

[Lenny]

In my experience, once arrogance (ego/fear) gets attached to any idea,,,it's full potential cannot be realized.

It is the acceptance of possibility,,the imagining of so, that opens all doors,,even those that have yet to be created.

Lenny

Yeah. I guess I think that the majority of people who take themselves to be religious don't really endorse some of the fundamental tenents of their religion. But... They don't think that it matters. You can focus on the differences between religions (the controversy) or... You can focus on the similarities, of course.

Someone or other said that what seemed common to all religions was the notion of treating others as you would want to be treated yourself. This notion is broader, however. It is also something that seems common to all of the major ethical theories. So... There seems to be commonality right there...

I guess I just worry a little about how much the institution of formal religions (with their party lines) helps or hinders co-operation and mutual respect and the like. But I similarly worry a little about how much (what is coming to be) an institution of atheism (with for example, Dawkins rhetoric as the party line) helps or hinders co-operation and mutual respect and the like.

I went to a talk the other day where a person was doing textual deconstruction (or whatever) on ethical discourse. How we go about trying to persuade other people to do things we think is the morally right thing to do (the example was giving to overseas aid). She analyzed how those who were trying to persuade people to do good things (that was accepted as uncontroversial) often go about it in a way that only serves to make people defensive. And ultimately... It is counter-productive to getting them to do what we wanted them to do.

But I guess this is still to value cooperation above religious dogma...

[KathyM]

Overseas aid (food, supplies) is helpful. Unfortunately, traveling overseas and providing aid while wearing the "corporate logo" can often be perceived as disingenuous. Similar to companies offering free stuff and rebates in order to buy expensive products. If the product is provided to you for free, you go away feeling like the company cares about your needs. When you discover there's a catch or you have to jump through hoops to get your rebate, you go away feeling used and abused.

What right do we have to use God's power as our own in order to control other nations?

[nowheretorun]

i think we should definately ask for Gods' help with this.... to have the good contributions that good people provide to actually be selflessly provided and no corporate scamming involved...

edited to correct spelling

Um... To be clearer by overseas aid I meant giving food and water to the starving people. If people are equally entitled to our moral concern then surely we should do something?????