Religion/Religous Literature thread

[Anonymous No.20564029]

>In 1984 representatives of all the major religions gathered at St Benedict’s Monastery in Snowmass, Colorado, to “meditate together in silence and share their personal spiritual journeys” and to deliberate on those elements of belief and practice which their traditions shared. Out of this gathering and subsequent meetings emerged a list of points of agreement. It is worth considering this list as an example of the kinds of convergences which can be discerned by adherents of different traditions working together in a spirit of cooperative fellowship and dialogue. It also throws some light on our present considerations. The Snowmass meeting proved less vaporous than many attempts at dialogue and produced the following list of elements common to all the major religions:

• The world religions bear witness to the experience of Ultimate Reality to which they give various names….
• Ultimate Reality cannot be limited by any name or concept.
• Ultimate Reality is the ground of infinite potentiality and actuality.
• Faith is opening, accepting and responding to Ultimate Reality…
• The potential for human wholeness--or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana--is present in every human person.
• Ultimate Reality may be experienced not only through religious practices but through nature, art, human relationships and service to others.
• As long as the human condition is experienced as separate from Ultimate Reality, it is subject to ignorance and illusion, weakness and suffering.
• Disciplined practice is essential to the spiritual life… Humility, gratitude and a sense of humour are indispensable in the spiritual life.

Are these points of agreement falsifiable in any way (with reference to your religion/religous literature).

[Anonymous No.20564034]

>>20564029
My diary desu

[Anonymous No.20564036]

>>20564029
>The potential for human wholeness--or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana--is present in every human person.
This is late faustian revisionism, the inferiors are born that way and can't become saints because their blood is tainted, but it is ok they too are inhabited by the Aware God

[Anonymous No.20564042]

>>20564036
> because their blood is tainted
this is late faustian revisionism

[Anonymous No.20564044]

>>20564029
>The potential for human wholeness--or in other frames of reference, enlightenment, salvation, transformation, blessedness, nirvana--is present in every human person.
The Quran says the contrary

[Anonymous No.20564046]

>>20564036
Yeah but what religous tradition are you representing? Apart from your own syncretistic fantasy, you can't walk down separate and parralel paths at once,
However you can in fact be a sort of "isolated miracle" and have the deepest of spiritual experiences outside of a formal religion.
Although, since you are talking about tainted blood - and therefore reducing spirit to the merely corporeal, I can't take you seriously.

[Anonymous No.20564048]

>>20564044
the Quran according to?

[Anonymous No.20564049]

>>20564044
Go ahead and outline your argument, your unsubstantiated opinion isn't worth much.

[Anonymous No.20564053]

>>20564049
probably something like John 14:6 which they interpret in the most literal way

[Anonymous No.20564055]

>>20564029
Also to add to the thread:
>One of the myriad problems surrounding many contemporary attitudes to “spirituality” is that the doctrine of an Ultimate Reality (by whatever name--the Absolute, God, Allah, Atman-Brahman, Nirvana/Sunyata, the Tao, WakanTanka) and the elaboration of a spiritual method attuned to our relationship therewith, are left out of the picture altogether! What we are offered instead is a notion of “spirituality” as some kind of subjective inner state, a kind of “warm fuzzy glow,” sometimes harnessed to formulations such as “the kingdom of Heaven is within you”--as if by these words Christ meant that the kingdom of Heaven is of a psychological order! This is all of a piece with the notion that “spirituality” is a private affair, and that the spiritual life can be fashioned out of the subjective resources of the individual in question. Some of the factors which, over several centuries, have conspired to create a climate in which such ideas could take root include the rebellion against all authority, the cult of the individual, the humanistic prejudice that “man is the measure of all things,” the triumph--even in the religious domain itself--of sentimentalism over intellectuality, the shibboleths of “egalitarianism” and “democracy,” and the emergence of a rampant psychologism which usurps functions which properly belong to religion.

>In recent times we have seen many attempts to assimilate spirituality into the domain of psychology, a move which fails to distinguish between the contingent plane of the psyche and the inviolate Self, or Spirit--this failure generating confusions of all kinds, on full display in “occultist,” “New Age” and purportedly “Eastern” movements which lay claim to some kind of spirituality but which scorn traditional religious forms and practices. The same confusion can easily be discerned in the works of many modernistic writers on religious subjects, even when their general disposition towards religion is sympathetic. It might also be observed in passing that it is also quite possible to be “religious” in some externalist sense--punctilious in the observation of ritual obligations and so on--yet remain quite “unspiritual”; this is the phenomenon of an empty religiosity wherein the true goals of the path have been forgotten, and all that remains is an empty husk. (Such folk might usefully remember Martin Buber’s remark that “it is far more comfortable to have to do with religion than to have to do with God.” ) However, even such an attenuated form of religious practice is preferable to a so-called “spirituality” which has been stripped of all sense of the Transcendent. There remains some chance that the practices which are performed only to the letter might yet re-ignite embers which seem to have died.

[Anonymous No.20564063]

>>20564053
He's arguing on behalf of the Quran not the bible