Balance and Religion

[orgaelin]

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.

[orgaelin]

Oops... I meant for that to go in the other balance thread! Sorry

Since I've done that, I'll expand this a bit too... what I said at the end of the previous post made me think to ask a question of y'all...

I was listening to Damien Rice talk about his musical philosophy and he was saying how what he does is what he likes, and if some other people like it then that's good, and if some don't then that's fine too, because there's room enough for all kinds of music and those who like it will like it and that's all that matters...

And I was wondering about that in connection with 'truth' instead of music. To what extent is truth a variable concept that can be one way for some people and another way for others? I mean, my balance ideas sit well with Technosoul and Merlinsbyte, which I knew it would and which is why I said "to those who are receptive to it", but with others they may not only not sit right, but perhaps not even make any sense whatsoever!

So let's say there are only 50 people, and 25 of them agree with me but 25 disagree completely. How is truth to be defined? Am I right or they? Or is truth relative - "what is true is what is true for you"?

[Technosoul]

Well, I think this particular post which happened in a rather random (unintended manner) is a good topic in its own right. And can be treated independantly of your other post about balance as perfectionism.

The purpose of nature is the struggle to always return, as close as possible, to the center of balance.
And that is because the momentums of cause and effects can generate evolutionary or progressive ventures away from the center which we might call "the home base". That is why Jesus used for his example of heaven the idea of the wayward son returning home - in nature and the science of observation, of the natural - we see that as a return to the norm which is the center that can maintain a sense of balance. In the sense that the perfection in balance represents security and thusly "longer survival rates".

Example is that many birds and fish will return to its breeding grounds - home base - to birth the next generation off-spring - like a turtle returning to the same beach where it hatched. After going on a circular adventure in the oceans.

The ocean would represent "open minded-ness" and the beach would represent "common sense" centering. A bird starts off in a tree that is well rooted in the earth - then takes wing to explore the open minded 'sky' which has no real foundation and is subject to random wind currents that can alternate from being fairly still to hurricane magnitudes of force. However the bird must always remember how to get back to its well rooted tree of common sense in case things get too windy or if darkness falls upon its exploration of philosophy, religious concepts, and/or drug induced alternative demensions of consciousness. Whatever the trip might be. Our "common sence" will keep us in balance thought-wise because we can always return to our rooted tree within our self if we find that the skyways of religious thought are getting too "strange" or "stormy". Now I can woof my wings of imagination and can fly around to visit many environments of religious thought as well as other alternatives for religious thinking - I can get really far out nowadays in my flight pattern, but only because I have the security of knowing how to get back to my center tree of common sense (or a tree close enough to being well grounded as the first tree). Now some ideas might bug some people and so they never leave thier tree, like a chicken that never flew the coope, but for the brid tribe that I belong too, all bugs are good for consumption. Yummy. And so I often leave my tree in search of some strange looking "bug" idea to munch on, food for thought. Then I come back home and build a nest out of all the twigs I have collected during my journey. (concept constructionism).

What has that got to do with religious balance? It has to do with having two wings that are balanced so you can fly without falling out of the nest on your head. Having two eyes on each side of your head, so you will not bump into something when turning around (blind spots). And knowing how to grasp onto a tree branch if the sky is too windy. The sky can alternate from sunny to rainy, from windy to being still, from blueness to deep dark purple. Subject to change with little notice. The religions of the world can also seem very different but realitistically it is all the same sky.

Well, that is my bird brain idea for today. Not sure how well if fits into this topic about balance - but if you do not have good balance on the tree you better hope you got wings and know how to use them.

So we are at that in-between stage between serpent and saint, between ape and angel. That is the human state of being. We cannot return to being apes or serpents and cannot evolve yet into the extreme of being saints or angels - we do not find perfection in becoming or returning - outside the garden of nature and outside of heaven. In nowhwere land making plans for no one (Lennon).

We are the hub between those two extremes of reality - half natural and half spiritual. What to do?
Be your self, accept the role of being a true-human instead of something supernatural or too animalistic. The larger wheel depends upon the center staying centered.

Technosoul.

[orgaelin]

Tech... wow!

You poured your heart into that one didn't you?! And to good effect - amusing and thought provoking! Will have more to say tomorrow, right now I am SOooo tired!