Feeding Spiritual Hunger

[RationalRodge]

I see no problems with your facts, just trying to understand your goal.

But maybe a good explanation of them might help grab the ears of people.

-----

But is this not the very function of a religion?

Could it be that Jesus was the savior, because by giving us the one truth he allowed mankind to return to their lives and have love for it?

I thought my goal was apparent in my original post: Trying to get folks who are ignoring their inner spirituality to recognize and cultivate it. This is just an idea, and I agree that practical details of how it might be presented are important. I am in the process developing a set of blogs to expand on the implications and techniques related to this idea. If you're interested, you can see what I've done so far by going to www.FeedSpiritualHunger.blogspot.com

Rodge

 

[doppelganger]

It seems to me that you're off in philosophical theory and I'm into reality (yes) as we experience it. And, yes, I'm communicating through words and symbols on the Internet. But, on a practical level, I think "I" and "self" are words that do communicate something, because language is based on experiences we have in common and a shared covenant about how to identify those experiences. It would be possible to have a long discussion about what a table actually is, but I can have a high degree of confidence that the word "table" communicates the essence of what I mean to another English-speaker.

But you aren't suggesting a conversation about "tables." You are suggesting a conversation about personal spirituality. That involves both the aspect of the "self" (what it means for something to be "personal") and "spirituality" (what it means for something to be "spiritual").

Here's what I'm suggesting you consider: the people you consider the non-"spiritual" skeptics are every bit as "personal" and "spiritual" as you are, but they use a different symbology (different words) to think about it and model it . . . a symbology that perhaps might reveal something new to you in your own symbology if you take the time to cross over to their perspective rather than focus your efforts on trying to get them to cross over to yours.

Does that make sense, Rodge?

Since I'm concerned about reaching folks who may not be eager to hear my message, I think an immediate connection is important.

Then I suggest listening and learning from them and going to where they are rather than trying to drag them to where you are.

Though I have to ask . . . why are you "concerned" about reaching people not eager to hear your message?

Or put another way, what do you propose your message will do for those not eager to hear it?

And wouldn't it be interesting if they had the same concerns about you?

 

[RationalRodge]

But you aren't suggesting a conversation about "tables." You are suggesting a conversation about personal spirituality. That involves both the aspect of the "self" (what it means for something to be "personal") and "spirituality" (what it means for something to be "spiritual").

Here's what I'm suggesting you consider: the people you consider the non-"spiritual" skeptics are every bit as "personal" and "spiritual" as you are, but they use a different symbology (different words) to think about it and model it . . . a symbology that perhaps might reveal something new to you in your own symbology if you take the time to cross over to their perspective rather than focus your efforts on trying to get them to cross over to yours.

Does that make sense, Rodge?



Then I suggest listening and learning from them and going to where they are rather than trying to drag them to where you are.

Though I have to ask . . . why are you "concerned" about reaching people not eager to hear your message?

Or put another way, what do you propose your message will do for those not eager to hear it?

And wouldn't it be interesting if they had the same concerns about you?

We've been back and forth on this so long that I'm losing track of what's been said, but I have a sense that we're starting to repeat ourselves. My thesis is that a large number of people have inner spirituality, that they devote little attention to it, that one reason is that they associate "spirituality" with God and/or religion, that they are indifferent or even hostile to the talk they hear about God and/or religion, and therefore they are a skeptical audience whenever anyone starts talking to them about "spirituality." Nevertheless, I am concerned and trying to reach out because I think their lives would be more fulfilled if they were awakened to their inner spirituality. This is not trying to force anything on anyone; it is just trying to persuade them to slow down and think about something they may not have thought about much. The whole approach is based on the hunch that they will recognize the truth in themselves, not that they will be badgered into believing what someone else says.

But, yes, that's just a theory of mine. I'm eager to test that theory in a way that's not just anecdotal. I want to present this message to the "spiritually undernourished" in the most effective possible way, then listen to and learn from their responses. It could turn out that my thesis is flawed at any number of points. But I think that will be proved or disproved only in a practical way, by doing market research, and not in a theoretical way, by arguing about speculative concepts.

Rodge Adams

 

[doppelganger]

I want to present this message to the "spiritually undernourished" in the most effective possible way, then listen to and learn from their responses.

You aren't likely to get useful responses from people you consider "spiritually undernourished." That already says you aren't listening, I think.

 

[RationalRodge]

You aren't likely to get useful responses from people you consider "spiritually undernourished." That already says you aren't listening, I think.

Thanks for your opinion. I wish I knew the answer with as much certainty as you seem to have.

Rodge

 

[sojourner]

I'm not talking about addressing Christians; I'm talking about addressing those who are indifferent or hostile to estabished religion. I'm saying that offering traditional Christianity isn't going to work with many of those people, but offering personal spirituality (minus theology) just might. I'm saying that Christians don't refuse to offer white bread and balogna sanwiches to the hungry just because their own preference is for sliced beef and Swiss on croissants.

There is no spirituality without some kind of theology.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I agree that the very mention of 'God' or 'religion' is enough to put many people off from the subject of Truth and Spirituality.

It is the so-called 'religious believers' themselves that have caused this problem, because they have always been totally ignorant of the deep and real inner Mysteries of the Spirit, and thus talk a lot of nonsense which simply comes from blind beliefs and the twisted traditions and theologies of men.

One only has to take a look at the history of religions to realize how mistaken they have been over so much of their dogma, and how much pain, suffering, and evil they have caused (and are still causing) in this world.

Jesus never came to start another religion, He came to reveal the ONE ETERNAL TRUTH. Something which cannot be grasped by religion!

Peace & Love

Generalizations don't get us anywhere, and they only reveal bad scholarship. Very few things are either ALWAYS or TOTALLY (except God.)

The whole point of religion is to help us grasp eternal truth. Jesus worked within the bounds of religion, or he would not have prayed and taught in the Temple, nor would he have celebrated the Jewish holidays.

 

[sojourner]

My observation: A large number of folks in our society are spiritually undernourished. They spend little time or effort tending to their inner lives.

My theory: Many of these people ignore or reject spirituality because they associate it with God or religion, toward which they are either indifferent or hostile.

My judgement: Those of us who feel a concern for other people should be searching for ways to feed this spiritual hunger.

My prescription: One way to express our concern would be to help people recognize that they possess a miraculous gift of spirituality — a reality that they can confirm through their own experience, without reference to either God or religion.

How can we do this? I think we need only to point out three commonly-accepted ideas:

1) Considering that most of the universe is scattered atoms and inanimate objects, it is amazing and wonderful that you are able to experience the richness of human self-awareneess. It's an everyday miracle!

2) You did not cause yourself to be a human, rather than an ant or a dust cloud. It's a gift!

3) At the center of your self-awareness is free will, which may be influenced by outside forces but, by definition, is ultimately under your control. Spirituality is that part of your reality that exists in harmony with the physical world but is apart from the physical world, not pre-determined by physical law.

This miraculous gift of spirituality is validated by personal experience. You do not have to decide how it works or where it comes from in order to know that it is real. And, as with any special gift, you know that your life will be richer if you acknowledge and cultivate it.

Whether or not this approach fully expresses your own personal faith, it may offer an opportunity to feed the spiritual hunger of a significant part of the population who would not respond to traditional theology and established religion.

I'm eager to respond to your comments and questions about this idea.

Rodge Adams

I don't think you can offer spirituality without offering God (in some guise), since the spirit is God.

What makes you so sure that people don't tend to their "inner lives?"

Should we force-feed people? Should you collar them and drag them off the streets and force it down their throats? That's what the European Christians did with their colonized subjects. It didn't work. Jesus did not say, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If no one answers, I will chop it down with a fire-axe and come in anyway."

Maybe we're all doing the best we know how. Maybe we should stand ready to give people what they ask for, when they ask for it, instead of of forcing what we think they ought to have.

 

[doppelganger]

Thanks for your opinion. I wish I knew the answer with as much certainty as you seem to have.

. . . I'm not the one suggesting people are "spiritually undernourished" when I haven't even spoken to them yet . . . nor do I purport to have "spiritual food" to bring them happiness . . .

 

[ayani]

This miraculous gift of spirituality is validated by personal experience. You do not have to decide how it works or where it comes from in order to know that it is real. And, as with any special gift, you know that your life will be richer if you acknowledge and cultivate it.

i really like this, especially. and i like your ideas a lot, Rog. i think one of the most beautiful gifts we can give to someone is to listen to them attentively, and with compassion, and humor. that's a great spiritual gift in itself.

 

[Random]

Ahem, spiritually undernourished here! Please God, let RationalRodge sort me out and give me that spirit-food...me hungry. :flirt:

 

[lunamoth]

Man, tough room.

I know we're all a bit rubbed raw by the recent posters coming in to save us, but I think I might be hearing something just a bit different from Rodge. His posts and ideas might be a bit unpolished (sorry Rodge) and his enthusiasm too much for those of us tired of the fire and brimstone, but I think perhaps what might be going on is that Rodge has just started to taste the idea that truth comes in more than one package, and one size does not fit all. He also seems tuned in to the idea that religion has turned many people off, and hurt others, but maybe does not want to see the world getting all bitter and cynical over that reality. That's a first step many of us take in our journey. I might be wrong, I did not visit his blog, maybe I've missed something, but I think this is different. It could be that we could listen to Rodge and help him polish his ideas. I know that a number of these posts have been aimed at just that (but in all fairness, it took me over two years of reading Dopp's posts to start to understand what he is saying--I am a bit slow on the uptake.)

I think eveyone has a spirituality, if spirituality is how we order our loves and priorities in life. And I also think that some of us think about this more than others. It's not up to us, it's not invited or warranted for us to barge into other's lives and tell them how to nurture their inner lives, their spirituality. And, even if it was telling them (as you all have pointed out) would not work. Heck, anyone with kids knows that they are not going to listen to what you say, but follow what you do.

But I hear you Rodge, at least a bit I think. You've discovered that we all do have this spirituality, and that many people long for something and don't really think about the idea that it might be their spiritual life that is what needs attention. You're excited about this idea, this freedom of thought you've found, and you want to share it. I think we do have a 'God-shaped hole,' and we try to fill it with lots of things, but not everything satisfies. This can lead to dissatisfactions with life, cynicism, addictions, ennui. I'm not saying everyone needs God or my spirituality or my religion (you all know me better than that, right?). But I think we can help each other. Just (usually) not by telling them.

 

[RationalRodge]

I don't think you can offer spirituality without offering God (in some guise), since the spirit is God.

What makes you so sure that people don't tend to their "inner lives?"

Should we force-feed people? Should you collar them and drag them off the streets and force it down their throats? That's what the European Christians did with their colonized subjects. It didn't work. Jesus did not say, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If no one answers, I will chop it down with a fire-axe and come in anyway."

Maybe we're all doing the best we know how. Maybe we should stand ready to give people what they ask for, when they ask for it, instead of of forcing what we think they ought to have.

I don't know whether or not the spirit is God. I guess it depends upon definitions. What assumptions are you making when you declare it to be a fact that spirit is God?

I'm not "so sure" that many people don't tend to their inner lives, but if they do, it must be doing it in isolation. Do you think it is incorrect to say that many people (in the U.S.) and most people (in Europe) are not regular participants in spirit-based organizations and activities?

Where do you get the idea that I propose "force feeling" people? For samples of how I might approach people, you can check www.rationalrodge-shortpitch.blogspot.com and www.rationalrodge-longpitch.blogspot.com

As I indicated in my original posting, I don't think waiting for people to ask is working very well, but I'm thinking about invitation, not coercion.

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

i really like this, especially. and i like your ideas a lot, Rog. i think one of the most beautiful gifts we can give to someone is to listen to them attentively, and with compassion, and humor. that's a great spiritual gift in itself.

Thank you.

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

Ahem, spiritually undernourished here! Please God, let RationalRodge sort me out and give me that spirit-food...me hungry. :flirt:

I'm sorry, but perhaps I'm too bruised by some of these exchanges to be able to tell if you're serious or not. I'd like to know more about how you react to the ideas I've laid out.

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

Man, tough room.

I know we're all a bit rubbed raw by the recent posters coming in to save us, but I think I might be hearing something just a bit different from Rodge. His posts and ideas might be a bit unpolished (sorry Rodge) and his enthusiasm too much for those of us tired of the fire and brimstone, but I think perhaps what might be going on is that Rodge has just started to taste the idea that truth comes in more than one package, and one size does not fit all. He also seems tuned in to the idea that religion has turned many people off, and hurt others, but maybe does not want to see the world getting all bitter and cynical over that reality. That's a first step many of us take in our journey. I might be wrong, I did not visit his blog, maybe I've missed something, but I think this is different. It could be that we could listen to Rodge and help him polish his ideas. I know that a number of these posts have been aimed at just that (but in all fairness, it took me over two years of reading Dopp's posts to start to understand what he is saying--I am a bit slow on the uptake.)

I think eveyone has a spirituality, if spirituality is how we order our loves and priorities in life. And I also think that some of us think about this more than others. It's not up to us, it's not invited or warranted for us to barge into other's lives and tell them how to nurture their inner lives, their spirituality. And, even if it was telling them (as you all have pointed out) would not work. Heck, anyone with kids knows that they are not going to listen to what you say, but follow what you do.

But I hear you Rodge, at least a bit I think. You've discovered that we all do have this spirituality, and that many people long for something and don't really think about the idea that it might be their spiritual life that is what needs attention. You're excited about this idea, this freedom of thought you've found, and you want to share it. I think we do have a 'God-shaped hole,' and we try to fill it with lots of things, but not everything satisfies. This can lead to dissatisfactions with life, cynicism, addictions, ennui. I'm not saying everyone needs God or my spirituality or my religion (you all know me better than that, right?). But I think we can help each other. Just (usually) not by telling them.

Thank you for your thoughtful, sensitive response. There seems to be a quite a bit of misunderstanding about how my message might be presented. See my response to sojourner, who raised similar questions. And, keep the polishing coming!

Rodge

 

[A. Ben-Shema]

Generalizations don't get us anywhere, and they only reveal bad scholarship. Very few things are either ALWAYS or TOTALLY (except God.)

The whole point of religion is to help us grasp eternal truth. Jesus worked within the bounds of religion, or he would not have prayed and taught in the Temple, nor would he have celebrated the Jewish holidays.

Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by religion. In my opinion, all religions are basically man made hierarchical organizations which attach themselves to the memory of some great Master / Prophet in order to gain power, wealth, and respect by merely imitating the truth. In short, they are merely 'Temples of Satan'.

I do not agree that Jesus worked within the bounds of religion. He was a Spiritual Master - an Initiator. The Jewish religion of his day was corrupt and Spiritually blind (as all religions always have been). He mostly taught in the countryside, not in the Temple or synagogues. When he did go to a synagogue it would obviously be to try and teach the congregation the errors of their false religion.

He threw the money changers out of the Temple, and was criticized for not respecting the orthodox Sabbath regulations, and other such things.

No, Jesus definitely did not work within the bounds of the religion of his time! He worked within the bounds of Truth, and only Truth!

Peace & Love

 

[rojse]

I would like to believe that it is possible to gain spiritual norishment outside of religion. For example, I might find spiritual norishment in debate, in the exploration of new ideas and concepts, or achieving something that I thought I would not or could not do.

 

[doppelganger]

Rodge, I having a little trouble understanding what it is you seek to accomplish here perhaps. You don't want to answer questions explaining what your "message" is about - like what do you mean by "spiritual" and "personal" and "inner life" but yet you claim you want help "polishing" your presentation. If you don't want to interact with people about your message, I'm not seeing how your going to accomplish any "polishing." If you just want to see if people compliment you on your idea, you'll certainly get some of that, but that's not the impression you gave me. I assumed from the first post that you wanted me to ask questions so we could interact about this "message" of yours.

Other than the vague idea that people ought to be "more spiritual" in your opinion, you don't seem to want to discuss what it is that you propose to feed them or what "spiritual" or the "inner life" even means to you because you seem to be resolved not to answer questions about your message.

What would you do if I told you the following? "I have a message that will help you. Rodge, you know what your problem is? You're philosophically disabled. You need to focus more on developing and refining your epistemology and inner phenomenology."

 

[RationalRodge]

I'll make one last attempt to answer your questions, but, to me, the problem doesn't seem to be that I'm unwilling to explain my proposed message, but that you're unwilling to discuss what I propose. You don't engage what I say by criticizing the content or stating your own views. Instead, you incorrectly characterize what I'm saying and pose questions of dubious relevance.

You don't want to answer questions explaining what your "message" is about - like what do you mean by "spiritual" and "personal" and "inner life" ... Other than the vague idea that people ought to be "more spiritual" in your opinion, you don't seem to want to discuss what it is that you propose to feed them or what "spiritual" or the "inner life" even means to you because you seem to be resolved not to answer questions about your message.

I thought I addressed many of those issues in my very first post:

"One way to express our concern would be to help people recognize that they possess a miraculous gift of spirituality — a reality that they can confirm through their own experience, without reference to either God or religion.

"How can we do this? I think we need only to point out three commonly-accepted ideas:

"1) Considering that most of the universe is scattered atoms and inanimate objects, it is amazing and wonderful that you are able to experience the richness of human self-awareneess. It's an everyday miracle!

"2) You did not cause yourself to be a human, rather than an ant or a dust cloud. It's a gift!

"3) At the center of your self-awareness is free will, which may be influenced by outside forces but, by definition, is ultimately under your control. Spirituality is that part of your reality that exists in harmony with the physical world but is apart from the physical world, not pre-determined by physical law.

"Whether or not this approach fully expresses your own personal faith, it may offer an opportunity to feed the spiritual hunger of a significant part of the population who would not respond to traditional theology and established religion."

In your second response, you asked three questions: What is your "self"? What is "existence"? And how do you know you have "free will"?

I tried to answer those questions, saying that i "do think that 'self' and 'existence' are obvious to most folks on an experiential level." Then I addressed how I know that I have free will:

"It's obvious that there are those who don't think they have free will, that they are acting out God's plan or physical instructions baked into the universe at the moment of the Big Bang. But I think most people either believe they have free will, or live as if they do. Among those who believe in free will, there are those who believe that their free will can overcome physical laws, that it is supernatural. Again, I don't think that's most folks. But I think that there is a large group of people who would agree with these statements: 'I know my choices are limited, and I know my choices are affected by urges and inclinations, but every day I face — and make — true choices, choices that are sometimes what I might expect, but sometimes unexpected choices that go against my inclinations. I receive stimulus and material reality from the physical world, and I act in the physical world within the constraints of physical law, but between input and output there is a process that exists in harmony with the physical world, but results in decisions that are not dictated by the physical world. This is my free will at work.' "

Your response was not to engage in discussion, but to try to shift the focus to communications theory and the meaning of verbal symbols. And you repeated your question about how I know I have free will, despite my explicit answer. I think if you truly wanted to engage in discussion, you would have talked about why you know that I don't have free will, or at least suggested your own contrary definition of free will.

What would you do if I told you the following? "I have a message that will help you. Rodge, you know what your problem is? You're philosophically disabled. You need to focus more on developing and refining your epistemology and inner phenomenology."

If you asked such a question, I would have agreed that it is quite likely that I'm philosophically disabled. And I would reply, "I know that epistemology and inner phenomenology could be interesting intellectual exercises, but why should I invest my limited time in such a pursuit when I'm busy with more immediate concerns?" (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.) That answer, I think, I would be similar to the one I'd get from the spiritually undernourished, and I think my task would be to give an immediate, credible answer. In the terms of an earlier anecdote about leading a horse to water, this is trying to make them thirsty for spirituality, not trying to make them drink any particular brand.

Despite the tensions of some of the exchanges here, this has been a useful exercise for me, and I hope the lessons I've learned have helped me in the process of creating a new blog: www.FeedSpiritualHunger.blogspot.com. If anyone is still curious about what I mean by "self" and "spirituality" and "free will," there are links there to other blogs I've developed on those topics (or, for direct access: www.rationalrodge-self.blogspot.com, www.rationalrodge-spirituality.blogspot.com, and www.rationalrodge-freewill.blogspot.com.) There are also links to proposed presentations of my idea as they might appear in commercials, or at an introductory group meeting (www.rationalrodge-shortpitch.blogspot.com and www.rationalrodge-longpitch.blogspot.com).