Religion... and religion...

I've often posted about the nature of religion and spirituality. It seems to be a very subjective topic with everyone ready to jump in with their ideas.

We all have our notions of these terms based on our experiences and inherent paradigms, but to make any sense out of it all so that we can communicate successfully and actually be on the same page, we need to find common ground.

The most popular comment is something to the effect of "I'm spiritual but not religious!".

But my point of contention is the definition of  "religion" and "spiritual".

Unrelated pic - just because

Now I'm not saying I have the ultimate definitions, but I've dug around extensively at the root meanings, the cultural interpretations and psychological inferences (sounds impressive!) and come to what I consider a good baseline for the terminology.

Spirituality is the innate part of every human, that longs for purpose, meaning and eternity.
It's the part of us that looks at the stars and the seas and forests and is left speechless in awe.
It's our yearning for meaning to this short, temporal existence. It fires our hearts with imagination and helps us understand love and life. It doesn't have any set form or dogma, it's simply a part of our existence.

When we talk about being spiritual, what are we actually saying? Most of us would agree on the above statements, give or take. But we also add our own belief systems into the mix, creating a confusing definition that others easily misinterpret.

Religion however, is the application of theories supported by subjective experiences, doctrines (formalised theologies and beliefs systems) and rituals that help us make sense of our innate spirituality. (Wikipedea: Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".[1] However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion)

Using this definition, we can see that all the major "religions" clearly fit the definitions. But millions of people explore "alternative", "new age" or what they call pure spirituality without realising that they are also embracing religion.

I recently engaged in a tense discussion with a friend about things like chakras, reiki, and similar forms of "spiritual" practices. Although our biggest problem was to do with definitions, it did cause me to stop and think about the whole issue again.

Whatever methods we use to interpret and apply our innate sense of spirituality is basically a religion! We may embrace various forms of "new age" teachings or traditional teachings from indigenous or ancient cultures - a whole range of practices we consider as spiritual but not religious. But in fat, the moment we apply some form of methodology, interpretation and application of a spiritual concept, we have adopted a religion.

This in itself is fine! We have to, so that we can apply the principles in a constructive way. It's not "bad" to practice religion in any form because it's the only way we can live by our beliefs.

But here's where the rubber hits the road...

• Do you think your religious applications of spiritual concepts are "the truth"? 
• Do you proclaim you have the real deal and other people need to be enlightened to the reality of your beliefs? 
• What are the "fruits" of your beliefs (that you apply as a religion to your life)?
• Have you refined your beliefs into a form of religion that has become dogma? (a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true)

So many people claim they have rejected religion to discover "true" spirituality, free of the dogma and oppression of religious fundamentalism. but they are unaware that they have simply shifted from one form of religion to another - that they have accepted another dogma with just as much passion as they claim to have rejected. 

What we fail to see is that any form of religion and dogma is entirely subjective - there is no empirical evidence for any spiritual beliefs or the applications of those beliefs through a religious structure.

Whatever we embrace is, by it's very nature, subjective and cannot be defined by dogma. Whatever we believe, we have two primary considerations - do we regard it as dogma, and what is the fruit of that belief?

If our "religious"  belief and expression is in any way exclusive, creates an "us and them" mentality, denies unconditional love to all humanity, then we have failed at the most fundamental level. We must examine our beliefs and be prepared to let go of all our assumptions.

It's OK to be wrong.

It's OK to lose unshakeable beliefs.

It's OK to have an existential crisis.

It's OK to simply "be".

Live loved - because that is all that matters!

Praying in disasters.

We all do it! Even if it's not to THE God (whichever one that me be), but we all cry out to something outside of ourselves when things get desperate. Unless you are a die-hard atheist I guess.

We want god to rescue us, change the situation, do something to change what seems inevitable.

Time and time again, in the face of a disaster, people are called to prayer. Government officials, churches, relief organisations... all will end up saying things like "all we can do is pray". Churches hold big prayer meetings, and the government might even announce a national day of prayer.

We never seem to learn from history how ridiculous this actually is! God never turns up to save the day - ever!


Some people may be spared, and call it a miracle and praise god for being so blessed, and yet countless others may be killed or devastated. There is no rhyme or reason to it. It's completely random. And yet we persist in thanking god for those who do make it through. We feel sorry for those who don't make it and pray for god's mercy and grace for them and their families but fail to recognise how absurd the entire belief really is.

Those who do allow themselves to question it all work hard to invent doctrines about why god allows such things. But ultimately it always ends up that "his ways are mysterious" or "higher than ours" etc. I was recently watching a thread where this very issue was brought up, and not one of the numerous comments actually addressed the issue. They skirted around it with the whole idea of who are we to question god, as well as the usual platitudes that god works with these things to refine us, to give us wisdom and strength.

Now there certainly is some truth to the fact that if we come through disasters and hardship it is possible to learn to see the world in a much more philosophical way and develop a deep strength of character etc. It's possible. For many though, it's the opposite, and they find themselves broken and wounded, with deep scars. Either way, god is not involved - it's a response formed by the strength or frailty of our own mental health.

If you find comfort in your faith, then that's awesome. If it brings you life and makes you a loving, caring, compassionate person, then great. But lets drop the notions that this god is somehow involved in the whole dynamic of disasters - either large catastrophes or small daily disasters.

What really matter is how we respond in the face of any disaster. If we can find some internal peace and strength, with enough left over to extend compassion to those around us, then we have responded with integrity and love.

Stop wasting time praying. Stop looking for reasons. Stop blaming society or gays or whatever.

The strength you need is in you already. If anything, develop mindfulness and meditation skills, because they will bring a genuine peace and stability to our minds and a clarity to react with love and grace.

"Real" Christians?

I've been getting a bit of backlash lately. Not from the usual quarters, but from concerned friends. They are worried that I'm too angry about Christianity and religion and point out that I'm painting all Christians with the same brush - that I'm offending those who I shouldn't be offending and that really, I should just get on with loving people, not judging, and living my new found life to it's fullest.

I'm told that I'm still angry at what the church did to me, and that isn't what christianity is about, and I should back off and pursue the love that I preach and leave others to live their own journeys.

I totally understand this. I really do!! And to be honest, I often contemplate just walking away from all this stuff (even Silent Gays) and getting on with living a nice life.

These days, I'm not particularly angry over what has happened to myself  (apart from the odd trigger of course), but I am angry over the damage I  still see every day from Christianity in all it's forms.

One of the many issues that needs clarification is "real Christianity".

My main concern, obviously, is with fundamentalism. But even this is a broad term with many variations and complexities.

Most of us would assume I mean the bible belt red-neck version, that encompasses biblical literalism and strict dogma built around the Old Testament version of god - the type that believes rational thought has no place and the bible takes precedence over science and psychology etc.

But there is also the type of traditionalism that is embraced by the broader church, that still has strict dogmas based on things like the Nicene Creed and other dogmatic statements of faith that very clearly define what you must believe to be "saved".

Then there are the more liberal doctrines that allow for far more gnostic and esoteric interpretations, right through to those who just follow the example of Jesus as practically as they can and don't even concern themselves with all the other stuff.

So the waters become very muddied when we all respond with our various paradigms based on our experiences, our upbringing, culture etc. Everyone thinks they understand "real" Christianity - that their beliefs are right/best/loving/biblical/just/compassionate or whatever.

Because of all this, we are faced with "what is real Christianity?". So when I dissect and expose so many doctrines and expression of belief, am I calling any particular belief system that is loosely based on Jesus into question? Or all of them?

Can you see the problem here? Where do we draw the line between what is "true Christian doctrine" and what isn't? I realise that everyone will immediately try to justify their biblical interpretations and the traditions of the church and 2000 years of church history etc., but the fact remains that the bible, and Christian doctrines are a mess of ambiguity and contradiction. And the crunch really comes down to when is a Christian not a Christian and, even more important, what are the "fruits" of those beliefs that define your own brand of Christianity.

My "mission" then, is to help bring some clarity to what we believe and why we believe it. The sooner we all realise that every form of religion is totally subjective, with no empirical evidence for any of it, the sooner we can get on with really making this world a better place - of discovering what real love is and actually living it.

You can believe in anything you want, but do so in the knowledge that you are simply adopting something that just feels good to you and empowers you (hopefully) to bring love, compassion and peace to this world.

God (or doctrine) "allows" evil

I saw this article and simply had to respond, mainly because it's indicative of a deeper issue than the one being addressed. Just have a quick read before continuing...

Read this first before continuing

Why do we wrestle with this problem so much? The article puts forward a pretty good theological explanation that may or may not be strictly "biblical", but it puts a nice soft band-aid on it so we don't notice the problem so much.

When we are confronted with the never ending contradictions in the bible and god's character we have to sort it out somehow. This is the purpose of creating theologies and doctrines. Without them we are left to make whatever we can of the collection of disparate writings of the bible (the canon of documents created by the Roman church around 350 years after the fact).

Doctrines are nothing more than man made ideas about how to make it all work.

So this article looks at one of the most asked questions mankind has ever put forward, and because a christian is asking the question they have to look at scripture for an answer. This is where the doctrine machine kicks in. The author has worked hard to reconcile things and takes into account a lot of newer doctrines that have been created recently as people start thinking a little more rationally and logically, daring to question taboo issues.

But as I said, this particular article isn't the main point.

We just keep making up more doctrines to keep this faith alive. We have to! As we realise that something we thought was reasonable a while back is actually nonsensical and possibly downright evil, we have to look at the bible again and create different ways of reading and interpreting it so that we can breath a sigh of relief and carry on again - with a new revelation. And that new revelation builds a whole new set of "movements", all just as judgemental as the last, all claiming to have THE truth (or the latest version specially revealed to them).

The simple reality...

We don't need the bible, or Jesus (sure, there's good stuff there if you can extract it from the crap). We don't need to be "saved". We don't need the latest revelation.

We are enough - as we are. Everything we need is already in us. WE are the source of love. Our inherent sense of empathy, compassion and morality is greater than the god we have created. Time to ditch the book, the doctrines and challenge the paradigms of religious thought.

Live loved 💖