For this assignment, I was asked to talk about religion and violence. Is it fair to associate religion with violence? What is it about religion that brings up violence? Would the world be a better place without religion? Violence and religion seem to go hand in hand these days. You cannot talk about violence without bringing up some religious event that is undoubtedly the black sheep of religious events. For example, Christians and Muslims have the Crusades which happened because both groups wanted claim to their holy land. There is the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians over land they both claim is theirs. ( Religion and Violence: Social Processes in Comparative Perspective) The Hindu people of India and the Muslim people of Pakistan have even fought over religious control which started back in 2002. (Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India) It is conflicts like these that make humanity question the purpose for religion. Many wonder why it is that we divide ourselves into groups who ultimately seem to kill each other in the name of deities and historical figures who either no longer exist or may have never existed in the first place. Would the world be a better place without religion? Why do we even bother with religion? The answer lies within the realms of human interaction and human beliefs, not within the scripture of the religions themselves. To answer the question of why we associate religion will violence will answer our other questions. Since the dawn of time, people have divided themselves into groups. The weak versus the strong. The male versus the female. The smart verses the dumb. People even divide themselves into smaller, less important groups. People will associate themselves with people who like the same music or are pursuing the same major. People will associate themselves with others who live in the same city or like the sames type of food. All of these qualities are a part of a person’s personal identity. According to philosopher Eric T. Olson, “Personal identity’ usually refers to certain properties to which a person feels a special sense of attachment or ownership.” What guides us to our perspective groups is what we feel attached to or what we claim to be a part of that makes us who we are. (Olson) This is how humans create friends. This idea of identifying oneself with others has been prominent in all humans since childhood. (Why Does Society Divide Itself Into Smaller Categories of People Over Time?) So, for example, if you believe in or feel attached to Christian beliefs, you will be drawn to other people who are attached to Christians beliefs as well. Or, as a not too popular analogy, if you are not particularly fond of a peer or coworker, then you will likely be drawn to others who hold the same feelings towards that particular person as you do. No matter if religion exists or not, people will still find others who share common interests with them, causing division. The nature of religion is not to divide us, it is to give meaning to our lives. We have religion in our lives to give us morals and values, ultimately bringing communities of people together. We categorize ourselves based on what we believe in so that we may feel united in some way, shape, or form. This applies to any belief, whether it be religious or not. I might believe that the Earth is round, but that has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I associate myself with those who believe the Earth is a sphere rather than those who believe it is flat. There are thousands of other examples of division in our world. One of the biggests examples of division in human action is the division of church and state. One of the reasons why there is a separation of church and state in the United States is to try and eliminate problems of religious violence by providing not only freedom to practice various divisions of Christianity, but various religions as a whole. A Jew, a Christian, and a Muslim could all live on the same street and ideally practice their religions in peace. However, violence always prevails over peace. It prevails because people care about the identities of people they live with and whether or not they agree with their views. Then there is the fact that humans are naturally a violent species. (Armstrong) We have a natural fight or flight response and society demands we give a reason to that response. So what do we blame it on? We could blame it on religion, as we always do. We could also blame it on certain facts or hypothesis of action. We blame religion because it’s the easiest escape route. Yes, religion has been a cause of violence. It is fair and just to say that religion plays a factor. There are examples in scripture that do promote violence, but that is because a lot of the scripture was written by humans and humans are violent people. However, religion is never the only cause. One example of this is the terrorist group, ISIS. (Armstrong) They claim that their actions and motives are based on the Muslim belief in the Last Day of Judgement, and it is their job to lead the way into the Last Day of Judgement. However, it is more than just making the Last Day of Judgement happen. It also includes their political control and their desire for political change. (Wood) ISIS interprets Islam a certain way that many other Muslims disagree with. Karen Armstrong, author of Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence, points out that the politics of society and religion cannot be separated in Islamic countries like they can be in the United States, since the Qur’an asks the members of Islam to care for one another and live according to scripture in very specific ways. Some interpret this as causing violence towards non-believers, since they do not agree with their group. Or there are those who may interpret their scripture literally, leading to violent crimes in the name of God to provide sacrifices for their sins. Religion naturally divides people, but that’s all on the members and what they choose to believe in. It is they who decide what to make of the religious texts and scriptures. Religion has been a prominent factor in human life for ages. It is a part of our personal identity. It matters to people whether you are an atheist, Christian, Jew, Hindu, agnostic, etcetera. The list goes on. People are naturally drawn to others who believe the same thing they do. So a Christian is going to want to associate themselves with other Christians. A Buddhist will want to associate themselves with other Buddhists. If anything, an aspect of religion is to bring believers together. The religion is what the people make of it. They will act upon these feelings because of what they believe. If someone isn’t Christian, or isn’t Buddhist, or isn’t Jewish, some may see a natural bias against them because they do not believe in the same things. Humans are naturally violent, so of course religion will bring violence. Humanity would not be better nor worse without religion because if religion did not exist, humans would simply find another belief to argue on, spreading violence in the name of that belief. If anything, religion makes the world a better place because it gives groups of people sets of values that they can agree on, whether or not other groups agree with them as well. There is at least that little shard of happiness in knowing you’re not the only one who believes in God, Brahman, or whoever you may worship. In the world, religion and violence will continue to walk side by side, but it is important to take into account that humans have forced them into this relationship, forever dooming them for a negative reputation. Reference Page Beauchamp, Zack. “What Are Israel and Palestine? Why Are They Fighting?” Vox, 31 Mar. 2014, www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro. History.com Staff. “Crusades.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2010, www.history.com/topics/crusades. “May 24, 2002 ~ Hindu-Muslim Conflict in India.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 30 Sept. 2014, www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2002/05/24/may-24-2002-hindu-muslim-conflict-in-india/12044/. Olson, Eric T. “Personal Identity.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 9 July 2015, plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/. “Karen Armstrong: Don't Blame Religion For Terrorism.” Interfaith Voices, 20 July 2017, interfaithradio.org/Story_Details/Karen_Armstrong__Don__t_Blame_Religion_For_Terrorism. Wood, Graeme. “What ISIS Really Wants.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 14 Apr. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/. N “Why Does Society Divide Itself Into Smaller Categories of People Over Time? (In-Group and Out-Group Formation).” New Intrigue, 27 Mar. 2018, newintrigue.com/2015/04/13/why-does-society-divide-itself-into-smaller-categories-of-people-over-time-in-group-and-out-group-formation/.
0 Comments
During our unit on Buddhism, we were asked to keep this question in mind, "Can there be such a thing as an American Buddhist?" He asked us this question because in the United States, our entire society is based on personal possessions, status, and power. However, in Buddhism, all of these things cause suffering the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering. Buddhism is a tricky topic to talk about. Apparently there is this thing called “American Buddhism,” which is supposed to define about thirty million people in the United States. (Tanaka 1) Nicholas Liusuwan likes to define an American Buddhist as “an American who grows up in a non-Buddhist household and then finds Buddhism later in life.” Now that is fine. The United States is a country that is open to the idea of diverse religious choices since religion and government are not supposed to be connected. (Religion and Culture 3) However, the United States also holds a lot of characteristics that are not entirely mainstream to those of Buddhism. One could argue that there cannot be such a thing as an American Buddhist because of the morals and values held in the United States, but a Buddhist would argue that they cannot exist because all they are is an amalgamation of things and those things are an amalgamation of other things. I believe that there is such a thing as an American Buddhist, but not in the way that most people would think an American Buddhist would be.
If we go by Liusuwan’s definition of an American Buddhist, then of course American Buddhists exist. Liusuwan’s definition is black and white. However, the idea of an American Buddhist is more complex than that. Do they follow the same beliefs and practices as traditional Buddhists in Asia? Do they sacrifice their desire for material things to practice their religion? Do they shave their heads and wear robes as they do in Asia? The answers to these questions are a mix of yes and no. It depends on who you are talking to. Many American Buddhists mimic the practices and beliefs of the lay people of Buddhism. It is difficult to tell if they are Buddhist because they do not look like a monk or a nun. They interact with the world like any other person, because in the United States, that is how you have to survive. According to Kenneth K. Tanaka of Musashino University in Tokyo, “American Buddhists actively seek liberation in this present life and even in this very body. The teaching of impermanence (anitya) is not taken as the reason for not getting attached but as an encouragement to live fully in the moment, which is reflected in a popular saying quoted by Buddhists, ‘Yesterday is history and tomorrow is a mystery. However, this moment is a gift, which is why we call it the present!’” When I first read this I was completely baffled. The ultimate goal of Buddhism was to reach Nirvana, to end suffering. The lay people at least try to attain a better rebirth. Did this passage suggest that when we “live fully in the moment,” we should throw away the morals of Buddhism and relish on the material things because we may not have them for long? This passage screamed to me that it was nothing like Buddhism at all. So I pondered on it for a moment. When putting the passage in context with Buddhism, it actually makes complete sense. The fact that they look to leave this present life and body does not have to mean Nirvana, like the monks and nuns, rather it points towards the goal of the laymen and laywomen who search for a favorable rebirth rather than Nirvana. Yes, not becoming attached to material things or people is a teaching of Buddhism, directly related to the idea of the Four Noble Truths where the cause of dukkha, or suffering, is attachment and that in order to end dukkha one must end their desire for things such as objects and relationships, but it is possible to live your life to the fullest all while following the Eightfold Noble Path. The Eightfold Noble Path tells the Buddhist community how to live their lives to the fullest. Now the question is, is it possible for an American to follow the Eightfold Noble Path? Nicholas Liusuwan defines himself as a Buddhist American rather than an American Buddhist. He is an American who grew up in a Buddhist home, rather than an American who found Buddhism later in life. In his article, An Observation of a Buddhist American, he questions whether or not an American Buddhist can be dedicated to Buddhism. Liusuwan claims, “a lot of what’s behind this comes from Buddhism being ingrained in culture… Buddhism is practiced largely out of culture rather than a true understanding of the teachings.” This statement says that many American Buddhists cannot hold true to the first of the Eightfold Noble Path, which is the comprehension and acceptance of Buddhist teachings through experience, otherwise known as ‘Right View.’ They just do what they do because that is what Buddhists do. However, In the article, Dramatic Growth of American Buddhism: An Overview, author Kenneth K. Tanaka suggests that there is a large chunk of Buddhists who do follow the idea of Right View, but in their own way. There is a group of Buddhists known as ‘Nightstand Buddhists,’ who, rather than going out to temples or practicing Buddhism publicly, they practice Buddhism in the privacy of their own home, meditating and reading Buddhists texts on their own. This course of action eliminates outside influences who try and give ‘mainstream ideas to the religion,’ allowing the person to develop their comprehension on their own, making what they believe in genuine rather than mainstream. They do what they can to adapt to the world around them so they are not sucked into the temptations of their society. From what I understand, most of the time, an American Buddhist is just like the lay people who function in the world. They don’t necessarily practice Buddhism for Nirvana, rather to set themselves up for a better life the next time around. They practice the way they believe they should practice, though sometimes claims to Buddhism might be seen through an ignorant eye rather than an open one. In the society in which survival is based on currency, status, and power, it is possible to step back and try to prevent one’s suffering by detaching themselves from the things they desire. That does not mean they should not live life to the fullest, rather they should make their mark on the world before they die, taking on a new life that may or may not be beneficial to the ultimate goal of Nirvana. Reference Page Liusuwan, Nicholas. “Why Devout Buddhist Americans Are Rare.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 7 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/nicholas-liusuwan/an-observation-of-a-buddh_1_b_9667086.html. Tanaka, Kenneth K. “Dramatic Growth of American Buddhism: An Overview.” Dharma World Buddhist Magazine, Sept. 2011, rk-world.org/dharmaworld/dw_2011julyseptdramaticgrowth.aspx. For this assignment, we were asked to state our opinion on the ongoing fight between theorists and naturalists. How does religion and science interact with each other? Could they exist together without conflict? Looking back at history, people have always been searching for the answers to the impossible questions. Why do we exist? Who created this world? What happens when we die? These questions and this type of thinking brought upon the invention of religion. As time went on, people began asking new questions. How do the gods think? How did the gods create this world? How do we work? These questions brought on the development of science. Without religion, science would have nowhere to begin. Science was born because people wanted to understand their religion better. One of the first recorded groups in history to have used science and religion together was Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. They believed that “creation was mathematically perfect, and that logic and reasoning could discern the mind of the gods.” (Shuttleworth 1) In the Islamic culture, scientific advancements were made because they believed Allah wanted them to make these discoveries. It wasn’t until the 14th century that people began to draw a line between religion and science, thanks to Christian teachings which demanded that the Bible be interpreted literally, causing all other beliefs to be false. (Shuttleworth 2) Since then, there has been an ongoing war between religion and science, both trying to prove their worth. In this paper, I will take a closer look at this battle, as well as present my views on the subject about whether this battle is worth the time of scientists and theists alike.
Many believe that you can only be on one side of the war. Either you’re a Naturalist, one who believes that all things within the material universe are made of mass and energy, or a Theist, one who believes in a higher power that rules over the universe. (Religion and Science) However, there are thousands of people who believe in both. As a child growing up, I was taught science in school, along with every other child, but I was also taught about God and the Bible in Sunday School. I always accepted both to be true. I always saw it as a fact that God caused these scientific things to happen. God made it so gravity keeps us grounded on the Earth. God made it so hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms created water. It looked to me like there was no way these two categories could defy one another. As a child, I could not see how science could exist without God. Today I still believe that to be true. However, with our modern world, the fight between religion and science terrifies me. As said by Martyn Shuttleworth in his article, “Religion vs Science,” there are two extremes for each group. There are extreme naturalists who believe that humans evolved due to mutations and genetic drifts. There are also extreme theists who believe that every word of the Bible is the literal truth, that there is nothing to hide between the lines of scripture. These kinds of people are the ones who make the news, causing the science and religion debate to grow into the monster we all know of today. Honestly, I think this battle between science and religion is ridiculous. I believe that science and religion are not only capable of living together in harmony, but that socially, one cannot really survive without the other. First, let’s look at how the two subjects interact in our modern world. Religion has many reasons for existing. It continues to thrive today because people still believe in what it does for humans, psychologically and socially. Psychologically, it gives us a reason to live. Religion answers our deepest questions about life and why we live. Socially, religion allows us to share our beliefs with others and proudly talk or debate theories and beliefs. Religion becomes a part of who we are as a person. Now it would not be right to say that science does none of this. Science plays a similar role in our society, both psychologically and socially, but on a different scale. Science gives us the answers to our deepest desires about how the world works and how we function. Science has thousands of different fields, fighting tirelessly to take the monopoly on answering questions. Science satisfies our desire for knowledge, to see proof with our eyes. It also allows us to analyze our world and socialize with the people in it, discussing scientific theories and whether they work or not. Both religion and science have a natural talent for debates. A Jew and a Christian might debate on the role Jesus had in the Roman Empire at the time of his teachings, whereas two scientists might debate the possibility of time travel. However, as we can see in social media, their favorite pastime is to debate over the existence of one another. Theists will challenge scientists, and scientists will challenge theists. That is how the world sees them. Whenever someone mentions that they believe in a god or that they don’t believe in a god, someone is always there to shoot them down. Josh McDowell gives an example of science and religion clashing in his book, More Than a Carpenter; “Once on a flight to Boston I was talking with the passenger next to me about why I personally believe Christ is who he claimed to be. The pilot, making his public-relations rounds and greetings to the passengers, overheard part of our conversation. “You have a problem with your belief,” he said. “What is that?” I asked. “You can’t prove it scientifically,” he replied.” McDowell then goes on to explain that in our modern world, many people believe that if something cannot be proven scientifically, it must not be true. He acknowledges the fact that many things we know today are known thanks to scientific study, but he points out that is not the only way to know something is true. This one-sided way of thinking does not stand for naturalists alone. Theists can be thick-headed as well. They are so set on their beliefs because the Bible says it, so it must be true. Neither side will conform to listening to the other. This is also apparent in the article, Religion and Science. In this article the author gives a mock interview with a naturalist and a theist. Back and forth the theist will defend their beliefs while the the naturalist shoots them down. They are constantly at odds and do not see the similarities between them. Religion and science, I believe, fit together like a puzzle, but no one wants to put the puzzle together properly. Religion tells us the answers to our questions in the form of why, and science tells us the answers to our questions in the form of how. We believe we know why we exist on Earth thanks to whichever religion we may be a part of. By what we see, we believe we know how we can exist on Earth thanks to science. We believe that God created us to act and socialize with each other in a certain way, and science backs up those beliefs by studying human behavior. Religion is like a giant hypothesis for science. Humans want to understand more about what they believe in by testing their beliefs. Since there are so many religions in the world today, there are so many scientists out there trying to confirm all these different beliefs. Everyone gets tangled in a mess and no one really remembers what they are trying to prove. It all started as a way to confirm our beliefs, but now it has turned into a way to destroy our beliefs. I do believe science and religion live in harmony with one another, but the people who express these subjects need to learn how to live in harmony as well. Reference Page McDowell, Josh, and Sean McDowell. “4. What About Science?” More Than a Carpenter, Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1977, pp. 41–44. Shuttleworth, Martyn. “Religion vs Science.” Religion vs Science, explorable.com/print/religion-vs-science. This paper asks us to address the idea that, even though God is supposed to be all-loving and all-loving, evil still prevails in our world. In this paper, we are asked, if we do practice a Western Religion or believe that God exists (which I do), how do we reconcile with the idea that evil exists even though God is supposed to be a loving and knowledgeable being. As one who is a believer in God and in our savior Jesus Christ, this project was a lot to swallow. When reading the article, The Problem of Evil, it felt like I was being kicked and beaten. By the end, I was not sure if I knew why there was evil and sin in the world. I never really thought about it before. Of course, I never thought to question God, either. I mean, why would I? I was sure God had a reason for everything he did and why should I, a sinner, question his motives? After days of contemplation and search for comfort in this terrible rut, I finally came to a conclusion on how I perceive God’s motives and why exactly he allows sin and evil to lay waste to what is supposed to be a perfect world.
It is true that many arguments arise when it is said that God is an “omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being,” such as the fact that, if he is omnipotent, then he should be able to stop evil. If he is omniscient, then He should have known that sin would arise due to free will. Or if he is good, than why does he allow evil to exist where there are other ways to achieve goals that do not involve evil? (The Problem of Evil) These are all very good points, and in that, I have to say that the problem lies within the idea that God is omniscient. According to the Bible, this is not exactly true. In Genesis 18, it is made apparent that God does not know everything that is going on. According to the New International Version of the Bible, Genesis 18:20-22 reads, “Then the LORD said, ‘The outcry of against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous, that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me.’” In scripture, God basically says, “Let me go down and look to see if what they are doing is as bad as I’ve heard.” It is implied that God does not know what has happened in the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. So God is not as omniscient as we may have hoped. Which then leads me to my defense for the suffering humans go through and why God allows it. It starts with free will. I find it convincing that free will and sin are a few of the primary results of moral evil. According to Christian apologist Craig Parton, “Evil entered the human condition as a result of a completely free moral choice by the creature to do his own will in direct contradiction to the edict of God Almighty. The result was eternal separation from God, as well as suffering and death in this life,” in which he references Genesis Chapter 3, where Eve is tempted by the serpent to eat from the Tree of Good and Evil and she and Adam are cast out from the Garden of Eden. (A Primer on the Problem of Evil) It is convincing that sin and evil exist because of the wisdom humanity gained from the fruit Adam and Eve ate. Adam and Eve freely chose to eat the fruit and thus the knowledge of good and evil was given to them. In turn, many evils today are committed through free choice and they also violate moral codes that society has thanks to God and the religions that follow him. For example, some of the most famous moral codes we have come from the Torah, otherwise known as the Ten Commandments. Some of these include refraining from murder, stealing, adultery, and being rude to other people. Parton also says, “If there is no God, both good and evil are strictly relative concepts and by-products of cultural conditions and sociological-political-psychological factors. If God does not exist, there is no ‘problem of evil.’ What is, is and no more can be said.” All other evils, such as natural evils, result from this original sin, but I believe that all of these evils are for various reasons depending on the person. Every person is different in the world, so each sin and punishment will vary. If a hurricane hits, then there must be some purpose behind it for each person. Maybe for one person it is a punishment for their sin whereas for another person it is to challenge them and allow them to grow as a person. There are no two people who are the same, so how can thousands people be punished for the same thing if they all live different lives? Granted, we all came from Adam and Eve, so the evil they started lives on either way. However, as I stated in the beginning, who am I to question God? I am but a poor, sinful being and I believe that God knows what he’s doing when he’s aware of an issue or problem. My job is to tackle the evils I face and deal with them as I should. The human race has been cursed with the battle of good and evil since the day Eve bit into the fruit, so we may as well deal with it as we may. Reference Page “A Limited God?Genesis 18:20-33 and 22:1-12.” A Limited God? Genesis 18:20-33, 22:1-12, www.crivoice.org/gen18and22.htm. “BibleGateway.” Genesis 3 - - Bible Gateway, www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2B3. Schuldheisz, Sam. “A Primer on the Problem of Evil.” Steadfast Lutherans, 27 June 2012, steadfastlutherans.org/2012/06/a-primer-on-the-problem-of-evil/. Judaism 101: Aseret ha-Dibrot: The "Ten Commandments", www.jewfaq.org/10.htm. For this assignment, we were asked to address the difference between spirituality and religion. Are they the same? Are they different? How are they related? Humans like to defy anything mainstream. Every now and again younger generations will rebel and create their own customs to defy the customs created by their elders. Religion has been a custom humans have had for thousands upon thousands of years. However, just like every other custom, religion has been rebelled against again and again. In the 1960s the young generation even went as far as to coin the term ‘spiritual’ as a type of belief system so they could break free from the strict rules and organized religion. However, this did not stop all people from being religious (Cline, 2017). If anything, this intrigued people to find the similarities and differences between being religious and being spiritual. Many like to define religion as something along the lines of a fixed set of rules regarding a certain deity or belief system. Others argue that spirituality is nothing like that. People typically like to define spirituality as something of a self-reflection upon oneself and the acknowledgement of there being a supernatural source that helps with reflection. If you have ever been to a religious gathering, you will know that religion does that as well. Many religions focus on self-reflection and believe that a supernatural power, usually a god, is helping them with their reflection. So the question is, how is spirituality any different than religion? In this paper I will explain how spirituality and religion relate to one another.
We all have heard the saying that, “a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square.” A square is a type of rectangle that has four equal sides and fits within a certain definition, but a rectangle of any other dimension cannot be a square because only a square has four equal sides. The same goes for religion and spirituality. Religion is spiritual, but spirituality is not religious (Cline, 2017). This means that religion is based on spirituality and is a very spiritual process, but spirituality does not follow the same definition as religion. Religion is a square. There are certain rules that members must abide by, certain texts that they should read, and certain things they must believe. One of those beliefs being that of a ‘spirit.’ This spirit symbolizes breath and life, which many religions take to heart in their scripture and teachings (Boyd, 2012). Spirituality seems to be at the heart of religion. Spirituality is a rectangle. It is flexible, functional, and dynamic (Religion and Spirituality). The variety in which you can be spiritual is far greater than the variety in which you can be religious. It’s like the length of the sides to a rectangle. All four sides can be of any length and it will still be a rectangle. Even if the sides are equal, it can be a rectangle. Just like if you are religious, you can still be spiritual. When someone defines themselves as spiritual, they may not necessarily go to a religious service, pray, or engage in public displays of worship (Religion and Spirituality). They will worship their deity or supernatural force the way they want to, or the way they think it should be. They follow their own rules, not the rules of a community. They decide what the measurements of their rectangle should be, and this means they might not have four equal sides. One can start with religion and their four equal sides, but when they cross the line to being spiritual instead of religious, they can stretch their sides, adding and removing rules and beliefs here and there. Spirituality is at the core of this religion verses spirituality debate. In the end, you may be a part of a religion, but that religion did not get its four equal sides from nowhere. They started off with their own version of spirituality and modified themselves till they reached their own, perfect square. So in the grand scheme of things, religion and spirituality are not that much different, they just have different sides. In the end, when you analyze the bare necessities of religion and spirituality, they are not that different. The main difference between the two is how you go about measuring them and how far they’re willing to stretch their beliefs. Religions like to stay in their equal-sized boxes whereas spirituality likes to explore all of the other size options. They both address the same questions, but how they answer their questions is based on the length and width of their beliefs. Their beliefs determine their shape. Their beliefs determine their purpose. Their beliefs determine who they are. Our societies are built on these shapes and beliefs, just like how our society lives off of the shapes of rectangles and squares that are seen in houses, technology, and nature. They serve the same purpose, just in various different ways. Reference Page Boyd, Tim. “A Problem with Spirituality.” A Problem with Spirituality - Theosophical Society in America, www.theosophical.org/teachings/spiritual-practice/42-publications/quest-magazine/2462-a-problem-with-spirituality?tmpl=component&print=1. Cline, Austin. “Religion vs Spirituality - What's the Difference?” ThoughtCo, www.thoughtco.com/religion-vs-spirituality-whats-the-difference-250713. |
Please Note:These papers are considered "reflection papers," so there is a lot of information in these papers that are opinion based. Some of these papers were difficult for me to write because of my beliefs and religion. ArchivesCategories |