The balance of religion has various different aspects. The most obvious extremes are that one could either completely subscribe to the beliefs of a religion (i.e. become an active member) or be completely against them.
What is the balance of that? It is that one should be open to the ideas, ready to hear or not hear them, rather than hold a preconceived opinion contrary to them. That is not to suggest that one should always remain external to all religions. This is why there are different areas of balance relating to this subject.
For example, one might have a strong need to belong to an established belief-set, as many actively religious people do. That has an effect on the balance of whether or not you should be impartial, because your need to belong swing things in favour of joining a single religion, and that’s fine – it’s still balanced.
But this is why balance is sometimes complicated to understand. All manner of things affect the balance within a system, not just the two opposing extremes. Look at, for example, the most incredible balance-system we know – the global eco-system. It is a wonderful example of balance, because while there are creatures dying, being eaten, starving, gaining an advantage over another species, being wiped out by predators, etc., the whole system nevertheless continues to function, remains in balance, and life goes on.
With myself, I have a need to belong, but also a need to not be bound by someone else’s dictated ideas, thus I am religiously objective. I am, or have been at one time or another, open to all ideas. Obviously some I have ruled out, like Christianity, but I balance this against the fact that there are others ideas I have not ruled out.
One of the most important questions is about the strength of one’s beliefs. Fundamentalists are extremely imbalanced, because to hold a set of ideas over their own lives and the lives of others is total imbalance. No belief can ever be more important than even one human life, and no-one should ever die for their beliefs.
But again, I don’t want you to think I am saying that you should hold to your beliefs only very loosely. The opposites are A) Not believing, and B) Believing to the point that everything else is wrong and secondary to your beliefs which can never be wrong. The balance is simply believing with an open mind; being aware that at any time a team of archaeologists might dig up something which totally contradicts your religion, that you might be wrong, and you must be prepared for that.
And this is why I have based my ideas on bits and pieces that I have taken from every religion I have studied. My ‘religion’ is like a tower with many supports, such that if any one aspect of it should be seen to be wrong, the rest of the tower can still stand, and my faith won’t come crashing to the ground.
If one were Christian and archaeologists found the body of Jesus, the central foundation upon which the entire religion is based, the ressurection, would be gone, for example. (And no, I don't want to debate that!)
I hope this hasn't come across sounding boastful. It is not my intention to claim the superiority of my beliefs, because nothing would so clearly demonstrate my total inferiority! There is no right or wrong (as in true/false, not good/bad), merely what is right for each person at their present stage in their development.
~ Org.
