walrusjester, you bring out my verbosity. And so here's my story. I've told it before several times, so those of you who have heard me babble... well, skim the first paragraph and you'll know if you need to read more.
If I understand your analogy correctly, the forms of religion would be useful because they'd allow you to get back into the practice of that religion. But couldn't you have the religion without the forms in the first place? Then getting back into the practice wouldn't be so difficult for you. Or do I misunderstand?
Well, I had the understanding that you needed the comprehension of the reasons behind the practice to make a practice meaningful. But what I discovered is that for really complex stuff, the opposite approach works better--you dive into the practice, and then the comprehension follows
( ... )
But once you're into the religion, why would you *keep* following the forms? Aside from those forms which we could call "sacramental" because they're intrinsically necessary to the religion, why bother? It seems to me that the logical goal, even for an adherent of a specific tradition, would be to strip away all the non-sacramental practices over time in order to have as few barriers as possible between oneself and God.
Interestingly, I came at this subject from the perspective that a religion *with* forms turns into an exercise without impact on daily life. I'm tempted to chalk it up to the differences in our upbringing, but I might worry at that bone for a while anyway.
Your second problem raises a good point. I'm prone to intellectualizing religion. I think it's important, even required, to do exactly that - the unexamined dogma is not worth believing, if you will. That approach can exclude people, and I'll consider the ramifications of that.
Then again, deism doesn't exactly have a lot to exclude people from.
Comments 7
Reply
Reply
Reply
Interestingly, I came at this subject from the perspective that a religion *with* forms turns into an exercise without impact on daily life. I'm tempted to chalk it up to the differences in our upbringing, but I might worry at that bone for a while anyway.
Your second problem raises a good point. I'm prone to intellectualizing religion. I think it's important, even required, to do exactly that - the unexamined dogma is not worth believing, if you will. That approach can exclude people, and I'll consider the ramifications of that.
Then again, deism doesn't exactly have a lot to exclude people from.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment