Any non-theists in the house?

[zephyr013]

I don't know. Just a question:

Can you practice nonviolence if you do not subscribe to at least some form of Theism?

because after I spent a summer in Camden, NJ, it just seemed to me like God was dead at the time... or rather, my definition of God was no longer relevant. So I described myself as an atheist for a year, and I have grown so much spiritually.

I now have a new definition of God, which works for me: I don't intend to pressure anyone into believing as I do. My definition isn't even necessarily effable. But it works.

anyone else?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by zephyr013

I don't know. Just a question:

Can you practice nonviolence if you do not subscribe to at least some form of Theism?

Of course. Though I grew up Pentecostal, I've become more aligned with Buddhism, and Buddhism, strictly speaking, doesn't believe in an external deity called "God'. Oh....but they do have many teachings about compassion. And, in part, that is where- conceptually speaking- nonviolence actually comes from (that and a strain of Hinduism). Gandhi was influenced by these two faiths.

So- Christianity doesn't own the market on nonviolence.

So- in answer to your question, does on have to believe in God to practice nonviolence?

The answer is no- one does not.

[zephyr013]

Right. But Buddhism is a type of theism... described as "pantheism"... or is it "panentheism"? The former means God is everywhere, right? and the latter means God is in everything?

And Hinduism is said to be polytheistic.

I guess my definition can be considered more panentheistic, if that is the real definition... and I guess we all do believe in a soul of some kind...


Maybe the question should be better asked if one has to believe in a traditional soul to practice soulforce...


should I start another thread?

[Alecto]

I believe in my own soul, but the closest thing to a deity I believe in is pretty much myself (on a different level, sure, and there's parts of myself I might not always have access to in this life, but it's still just an extension of me which is seperate from your extension of you). That said, I don't know that I believe in nonviolence the way most of the folks here do; I'm not convinced to the point of seeing it as a lifestyle, but rather a political method. (It's actually where MLK started, so I guess that's good enough for me for now ).

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by zephyr013

because after I spent a summer in Camden, NJ, it just seemed to me like God was dead at the time...

You see. I grew up in New Jersey. Found it a loathsome place.
So I found the above-quoted statement truly enjoyable.

Thanks for the laugh!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by zephyr013

Right. But Buddhism is a type of theism... described as "pantheism"... or is it "panentheism"? The former means God is everywhere, right? and the latter means God is in everything?/

No, it is definitely not!

If you want to get technical about it, Buddhist's posit that- upon investigation- there is no external deity. In fact, there is no 'I'. Sure. They- conceptually speaking- have levels of awareness and reality, but at the very top, they do not have a 'God'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_philosophy

Some have asserted that Buddhism as a whole is a practical philosophy rather than a religion. It is "practical" in that it has specific methods of application of various sets of philosophical principles. Proponents of such a view may argue that (a) Buddhism is non-theistic (i.e., it has no special use for the existence or non-existence of a god or gods (see non-theism)) or atheistic and (b) religions necessarily involve some form of theism. Others might contest either part of such an argument. Other arguments for Buddhism "as" philosophy may claim that Buddhism does not have doctrines in the same sense as other religions.

also....here's something to get your feet wet.

http://www.geocities.com/lonely_penquin/dependent.htm

What is the Law of Dependent Origination?

The Law of Dependent Origination is one of the important laws discovered by Sakyamuni Buddha (through enlightenment). It simply states that

It is produced; therefore the other is produced.
It is extinguished; therefore the other is extinguished.
It exists; therefore the other exists.
It does not exist; therefore the other does not exist.
It is an elaboration of the Principle of Cause and Effect, highlighting the concept of inter-dependency of existence, and also the duality/non-duality. It looks simple, but in fact, it is very deep and profound, especially when it is applied to our daily lives.

Basically, we can understand the Law of Dependent Origination in three ways:

related to the cause and effect
related to inter-dependency
related to profundity
Related to Cause and Effect

It is very simple, and is agreed upon and accepted by most people. Every effect has its cause. However, if we talk about cause and effect without considering the condition, we are a fatalist. Buddhism rejects it. An effect can only arise depending on condition(s). Cause is primary while condition is secondary. In other words, a wholesome deed at present can be a cause of a good retribution/effect in the future. However, a wholesome deed at present can also be a condition for preventing the bad retribution (evil effect due to the evil cause in the past), as a bad retribution usually comes in effect under adverse/unwholesome conditions. Even if it really comes, the effect is generally less severe, particularly if we sincerely repent of our evil deed in the past. Moreover, since cause cannot come in effect without condition(s), it is important to note that although one cannot change the cause and effect, one can change the conditions. This is why Buddhism emphasizes to change our fate by changing the condition(s).

If we cultivate the wholesome causes, we have good retribution. Thus, we should have a strong belief and deep understanding of the law and act in accordance with it, in order to have a better living with happiness and blessings.

Related to Inter-dependency

Literally, interdependency means one cannot exist without the other. Its existence depends on the other. In other words, "it" and "the other" are co-existent, for instance, up and down, right and wrong, good and evil, bright and dark, you and I, etc. There is no independent existence. It deduces the non-existence of an independent "I." By definition, the existence of an independent "I" is (1) independent, (2) permanent and (3) self-sovereign. Buddhism does not reject a convenient designation named "I," but rejects the belief in a real, independent and permanent entity. Buddhism also rejects the belief of the Creator of Universe (God) as there is no exception to the law.

Can you see that, in light of the teachings of 'interdependency', that these same teachings would manifest in what we call nonviolence?

Personally, I don't think one has to 'believe' in much of anything to be invloved in Soulforce. And I'm not trying to be glib here. I think the important thing is what one does. Belief, while important, is secondary.

Are we kind to another person because we 'believe' we must be kind? Or are we kind because we understand via experience and self-awareness that it 'works'? I would opt for the latter.

Self-observation tells one that being kind and loving has consequences worth repeating.

[nmwolfboy]

Originally Posted by Zerbie

:laug hing::rofl :

You see. I grew up in New Jersey. Found it a loathsome place.
So I found the above-quoted statement truly enjoyable.

Thanks for the laugh!

Good, so it's not just me! When i read this:

Originally Posted by zephyr013

because after I spent a summer in Camden, NJ, it just seemed to me like God was dead at the time... or rather, my definition of God was no longer relevant.

My immediate thought was "Well, it IS Camden, NJ," and i chuckled. Then again, my memories of the area are over twenty years old. Change is possible...even in Jersey.

[BenL]

Originally Posted by zephyr013

I don't know. Just a question:

Can you practice nonviolence if you do not subscribe to at least some form of Theism?

because after I spent a summer in Camden, NJ, it just seemed to me like God was dead at the time... or rather, my definition of God was no longer relevant. So I described myself as an atheist for a year, and I have grown so much spiritually.

I now have a new definition of God, which works for me: I don't intend to pressure anyone into believing as I do. My definition isn't even necessarily effable. But it works.

anyone else?

Zeph,

My understanding (not definition) of God has evolved over my lifetime. I still invest God with a person-ness, so I guess I'm a theist. But that person-quality says as much if not more about my way of understanding than it does about God's way of being. I express my religion as a Christian via the Episcopal Church, but my relationship with the divine transcends that modality. You, Daniel and I are probably much closer in our participation in the divine force than any of us understands. So, what works for you is right for you. It's when we humans box God into our own definitions that we create an idol of our own making.

Welcome to the Soulforce forums.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by BenL

You, Daniel and I are probably much closer in our participation in the divine force than any of us understands. So, what works for you is right for you. It's when we humans box God into our own definitions that we create an idol of our own making.

Perhaps and even great thought!

I like very much your sentiment: what joins us is far more important than makes us different.

And I'll go for participating in the divine.....on whatever form any day, than mental allegiance to an idead....

Of course, as a Buddhist, the quandry is, how can we box God if he doesn't exist?

That said- the language of faith is something worth keeping and engaging in. I use the word God a lot, but that doesn't mean I think there is an object out there with that name.

Ii mean- who the heck knows!

[paul]

Can you practice nonviolence if you do not subscribe to at least some form of Theism?

Practicing nonviolence has more to do with individual choice than it does with theism, I think. Many peoples concept of God includes violence. The Bible, for instance, is full of examples of violence that "God" purportedly set in motion. Many atheists as the question "can you practice nonviolence if you do subscribe to Theism?" To me, depends on the individual.

[zephyr013]

Originally Posted by nmwolfboy

Good, so it's not just me! When i read this:



My immediate thought was "Well, it IS Camden, NJ," and i chuckled. Then again, my memories of the area are over twenty years old. Change is possible...even in Jersey.

Originally Posted by Zerbie

:r ofl:

You see. I grew up in New Jersey. Found it a loathsome place.
So I found the above-quoted statement truly enjoyable.

Thanks for the laugh!

I may be weird, but I love New Jersey. Probably my favorite state in the union, and I think I would like to live there someday...

I was in Camden for the summer working with Urban Promise
http://www.urbanpromiseusa.org

Also, this was on postsecret this week:



http://postsecret.blogspot.com/

Not that you're making fun. It is not my intention to reprimand anyone. When I read it, it reminded me of my love for the shore.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by zephyr013

Any non-theists in the house?

^Search: Key Word(s): Atheism^

~~~

This last year I've been pursuing this very question:

Can you practice nonviolence if you do not subscribe to at least some form of Theism?

I'm so happy to have this forum, and the good people who've been attracted to it - so as to hash it all out with, emotionally safely. I've learned A LOT.

I was impressed with your use of the term non-theist. Much more polite and accurate than the often stigmatized "evil atheist."

Me, prejudiced? Oh don't be silly, some of my best friends are evil atheists...

Anyway, there's a lot of good discussions and comments and information in the threads on the search page listed above.

~~~

Originally Posted by BenL

My understanding (not definition) of God has evolved over my lifetime. I still invest God with a person-ness, so I guess I'm a theist. But that person-quality says as much if not more about my way of understanding than it does about God's way of being. I express my religion as a Christian via the Episcopal Church, but my relationship with the divine transcends that modality. You, Daniel and I are probably much closer in our participation in the divine force than any of us understands. So, what works for you is right for you. It's when we humans box God into our own definitions that we create an idol of our own making.

Now that's just Mightily Delicious.

(and this is to you too now zephyr)
I love the part about transcending the modality of the church. I believe that's true of very very many people, but for people on the outside of the church perhaps, or especially for someone on the outside of organized religion all together, it comes across as belief in the system itself. And I make those snap judgements myself. But on the flipside, it can also be easy to see someone who is nontheist, as having an element of nonmotive to do what is right. I think that's how the religious supremacist types often see it. They can't imagine why anyone would choose to do the right thing, without fear of hell, and/or promise of heaven, but also with the certainty of eternal extinction upon death.

Maybe it's organized religion that's keeping them in check. They really DO need to be told not to kill, steal, and rape, etc.

If we annihilated all organized religion, it would be like Iraq without Saddam Hussein -- perpetual, yet haphazard liberal occupation, with sects and pockets of every supremacist ideology imaginable, trying to take control of the rest.

~~~

Originally Posted by Daniel

Of course, as a Buddhist, the quandry is, how can we box God if he doesn't exist?

Cinchy, just box it into the category of non-boxable.

But wouldn't the concept of 'non-boxable' also be a box of sorts?
-Yes..no..oh I don't know..stop pestering me!

And ya know Daniel, that's actually true from the way I see it. Working on what you said before:

Originally Posted by Daniel

If you want to get technical about it, Buddhist's posit that- upon investigation- there is no external deity. In fact, there is no 'I'. Sure. They- conceptually speaking- have levels of awareness and reality, but at the very top, they do not have a 'God'.

Would it be fair to say they do not have a top - conceptually speaking?

That's how I view God, even God has a God, and so on, and so on...and we are a part of that chain...

The concept of God itself defeats the purpose of the concept.

~~~

And Mr. Breath of fresh air as always says...

Originally Posted by paul

Practicing nonviolence has more to do with individual choice than it does with theism, I think. Many peoples concept of God includes violence. The Bible, for instance, is full of examples of violence that "God" purportedly set in motion. Many atheists as the question "can you practice nonviolence if you do subscribe to Theism?" To me, depends on the individual.

That's such a good way of putting it. There are theists, certain of an afterlife, who seek to do evil. And there are nontheists who are certain that consciousness is extinguished upon death, yet are determined to do what is right no matter what.

[paul]

Patrick!!

Was wondering when you were going to weigh in on this thread . Oh, btw, I concur that Ben's take was "mighty delicious." There are so many thinkers around this joint.

There are theists, certain of an afterlife, who seek to do evil. And there are nontheists who are certain that consciousness is extinguished upon death, yet are determined to do what is right no matter what.

Yep, a real sticky wicket for those who believe "...there is none righteous, no not one...."

My understanding (not definition) of God has evolved over my lifetime.

I see fundies shrieking at Ben's use of the word "evolved," (they don't like the word "evolution" ya know). But I love the humility of this statement, makes me almost want to convert. "Definition" is so final, so absolute. "Understanding" has a fluidity to it that seems a more logical description of a "living God" than does a static "definition."

I latch onto "evolved" though because I cannot read books like the Bible without seeing evolution. I think idea that the practice of non-violence requires "God" is untenable for the fundamentalist. From the fundamentalist view, the God of the Tenach was clearly violent...ordering genocide for example. Few Christians would be able to advocate such violence today. So who changed? The God who purportedly says "I change not," or the people who identify who God is at any given time? So, who ends up being "God?"

I find it really interesting that the God of the Tenach was often identified as such after an act of violence, so that people would "...know there is a God in Israel...."

I think peoples idea of "God" has evolved generally, though there are still some Neanderthals around advocating a return to stoning, or at least anticipating the day when "God" causes an earthquake or terrorist attack.

Can a nontheist practice non violence? You bet. I am convinced there are even theists that can practice non violence. I don't think it depends on "God."

[Emproph]

What I was trying to get to was that since having broached the subject of atheism here at Soulforce, and thus having been made aware of my own prejudices about it -- the use of atheism vs non-theism for example -- I take care to measure the weight of that understanding within any potential audience these days.

Not just to be polite, or politically correct, but because I understand WHY I'm doing so.

I really had no idea how many people in the world don’t see the potential reality of the God concept at all -- And how offensive just saying exactly something like that can be.
--

The demarcation point that I have been able to determine seems to be the point where physical matter ends (a-theist), and spiritual matter begins (theist).

I say Everything is God. So for me, even physical matter is made of spiritual matter. As all energy is "spiritual," in the sense of dynamic. But by calling it all spiritual, I'm ascribing a consciousness to it as well.

Ask the quantum mathematicians. They’ve pretty much already proven non-physical energy haven’t they?

What about that whole light thing we keep hearing about?

Light = particle (physical), and a ~~wave~~ (spiritual).

That’s the way I see matter…as connected to everything else. The rest of God.

Hardly a point of contention when it comes to wanting to just live and let live.

So again, the whole thing between theism and non-theism seems to come down to the known physical, and the unknown non-physical - usually known as death.

It would almost seem that we, figuratively speaking, are not only arguing over the fear of death, but also over the level of the fear of death.

Ultimately then, doesn’t it just come down to the fear of eternal extinction or the fear of eternal torment?

It would seem that the non-theistic approach might be prudent given those options.

And then you have to consider the character of some “anything goes” “moral relativist” dun dun dun… “Atheist!” -- Who then uses that belief in "nothing at all," to commit themselves to living their life according to the Golden Rule.

As far as I see it, that’s the ultimate. Perhaps, the ultimate faith? Even if so not acknowledged as "theistic."

I don’t know. It’s beyond my grasp. But from what I’ve learned, I believe such a depth of fortitude exists.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by paul

Can a nontheist practice non violence? You bet. I am convinced there are even theists that can practice non violence.

[paul]

I really had no idea how many people in the world don’t see the potential reality of the God concept at all -- And how offensive just saying exactly something like that can be.
--

The demarcation point that I have been able to determine seems to be the point where physical matter ends (a-theist), and spiritual matter begins (theist).

I think this is the meeting ground between the theist and nontheist. Does physical matter end or does it just change form? To the person without the microscope we are obviously just flesh and blood. To the person without an electron microscope, we are cells. To the person without the atomic accelerator we are...okay, you get the point. We keep discovering "physical matter" in smaller sizes..."I see dead quarks?" No? Is a quark by another name a spirit? If matter doesn't go away, just gets altered in form, and if life is energy (movement) and movement doesn't stop, just changes form...then is there really such a thing as "death" or is it just life as we know it that changes? "...in God we live and move and have our being...?"

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by paul

I think this is the meeting ground between the theist and nontheist. Does physical matter end or does it just change form? To the person without the microscope we are obviously just flesh and blood. To the person without an electron microscope, we are cells. To the person without the atomic accelerator we are...okay, you get the point.

We keep discovering "physical matter" in smaller sizes..."I see dead quarks?" [< ok now that's one of the funniest things I've ever read before in my life] No? Is a quark by another name a spirit? If matter doesn't go away, just gets altered in form, and if life is energy (movement) and movement doesn't stop, just changes form...

then is there really such a thing as "death" or is it just life as we know it that changes? "...in God we live and move and have our being...?"

So true, yet I hear the transition part can be a bitch - coming or going..
-Robert Monroe calls it Time Space Illusion. Here we all are in TSI.
--
Consciousness begets consciousness, and it's not unreasonable to imagine that consciousness itself, could be an energy that also can neither be created nor destroyed.

But as you put it, as to how life-energy just changes form, perhaps if we all, societally, had that connection with nature and understood how all death lead to new life, on a regular basis, like the Indians, we would intrinsically recognize that our consciousness would not expire, but just transform, and add back to the whole from whence it came.

[NathanATX]

John Shelby Spong writes a lot about "the death of theism." Theism, as a way of understanding and relating to God, is dying... or it is appealing to dramatically fewer people as time goes on. Traditional churches across the world are dying out. The advances of science, education, and technology have diminished our human need to explain away sickness, disease, and other difficulty. This need driven concept of a God up in the sky who will intervene if we pray/worship the right way is disappearing.

Is God disappearing?

Is non-theistic christianity a possibility?

What would christianity look like if we believed:

• In "Original Blessing" vs. "Original Sin"
• Jesus wasn't any more divine than you or I.
• God didn't require a bloody human sacrifice to forgive sins He knew we'd commit.
• That Jesus' sole purpose was to help people rethink and recreate their understanding of God... to move people from a theistic "separate" identification of God to an intimate awareness of God without limits, separations, etc.

Yes, we can be non-theists and still be committed to nonviolence. It may even be easier(?) for us. However, most of the spiritual violence directed at LGBT people is coming from people who have a very theistic understanding of God. We have to be able to speak to them in a way that they can truly hear.

People who say they are committed to being like Jesus will be hard pressed to ignore the comparison between His behavior and theirs. This is the common ground non-theists have with theists.

-thoughts?
Nate

[paul]

People who say they are committed to being like Jesus will be hard pressed to ignore the comparison between His behavior and theirs. This is the common ground non-theists have with theists.

-thoughts?
Nate

Howdy Nate ,

Where it gets complicated is in what and how people inform their beliefs. "People who say they are committed to being like Jesus," in the absence of a Jesus to actually tell them when they are not being like him, gets subject to interpretation. And there's the rub. Those who claim to follow Jesus are really following their ideas of Jesus, based on (ultimately) their interpretation of what the bible says.

The bible is what informs peoples commitment to follow Jesus. I have conversed with 'Christians' who justify calling me a "faggot" because Jesus called some Pharisees "whited sepulchers." Some justify physical methods citing Jesus' turning over the money changers tables and striking out with a whip fasioned of cords. That's why my take is, as stated above, that everything comes down to the individual. Now, I agree with you that people who act this way are indeed "hard pressed" when it comes to justifying their attitudes and the behavior that results. But they are only hard pressed in my book, they are apparently comfortable doing so and can find many to affirm them (they call it "church").

I would probably qualify as a "non-theist" in many peoples estimation, especially a fundamental Christians. Yet, ironically, I look to follow the directive attributed to Jesus that the number one rule for living is "love." I think by your logic, this would indeed be "common ground" between me and the theist. And it is with some, to the point that Pastor U-dog insists that I'm simply a closet Christian. He is continually trying to out me . But to the types of Christians we are here referencing, Pastor U-dog wouldn't qualify as a follower of Jesus.

Both groups seem to realize the great divide between them and often settle on the 'hope' of a future judgement day when Jesus will purportedly settle the dispute over who is a sheep and who is a wolf. Apparently, not all who say "Lord, Lord" will qualify. Stay tuned.

As a non-theist (at least as regards common Christianity), my common ground with the theist is their humanity. What I see is people, using their very human capacities to try and figure life out. That some unequiviocally attribute their notions to "God" mostly strikes me as "taking the Lords name in vain."

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by nmwolfboy

Good, so it's not just me! When i read this:



My immediate thought was "Well, it IS Camden, NJ," and i chuckled. Then again, my memories of the area are over twenty years old. Change is possible...even in Jersey.

This is a bit off thread, and truthfully I've never been in Camden that I can recall. But I know 28 people who were jailed in Camden during the VN war and the good people of Camden refused to find them guilty!!!!! So my hat goes off to the people of Camden. If you ever get a chance to see the PBS movie the Camden 28, be sure to see it, it will inspire you.

kara