Levels of Spirituality and Understanding Between Faiths?

There is a definite correlation here. It's very similar to Kolhberg's theory of Human development, which states that we evolve thru various moral stages, and can only advance when a higher moral stage is modeled for us by others, and we accept the higher level of awareness and responsibility each stage entails.

So it's all about levels of awareness of reality.

Kohlberg's stages reflect a growing awareness not of God, but of human potential and human responsibility. From totally self-centered ego awareness to social awareness of others to the awareness of universal truths that transcend individual ego and lead to selfless acts.

You see you CAN remove God from the equation, and still have a path to moral evolution for everyone. We can all become selfless and act like Christ without having to accept the dogma associated with established religions.

We must evolve to deal with the ethical and moral implications of the world we have created. Our social and moral evolution has lagged way behind our technological prowess, and we are now reaping the legacy of our self-centered greedy capitalist society.

I'm moving this thread to the main religion forum, since it transcends any single religion.

 

Exactly. True spirituality transcends religion. It is direct experience of the TRUTH, without books, dogma, or church.

One of my biggest bones to pick with organized religion is how most claim to be the ONLY way. It's quite clear to me that not only are there many paths to enlightenment, but any that claims to be the ONLY way, must be LYING. Proof is in all the enlightened individuals from other religions, and from those who profess NO RELIGION!

I think for there EVER to be understanding between faiths, there must not be just tolerance of other faiths, but an understanding that there ISN'T just ONE PATH to God but many. But of course admitting that, would require some enlightenment on the part of the leaders of the faith, which rarely happens anymore.

To admit that another religion is JUST AS VALID as yours seems to NEVER happen except for a few like Vendanta and Bahai faiths.

It also bothers me that there is so little self-criticism in these religions. You'd think after thousands of years of dogma, they'd reassess the BULLSHIT they've been teaching and face reality (the world isn't flat, the earth isn't the center of the universe, the universe's age isn't 6,000 years, evolution is real, etc.)

Now it's interesting that the Church DID acknowledge the first two items in the list were wrong (how long ago was that?). But it still has to acknowledge evolution, cosmic physics, geology, etc. It seems the Christian church is a couple of hundred years behind science, and is so antiquated as to seem quaint to non-Christians anymore. In fact it's so backwards, it's ridiculous to believe some of the teachings in this day and age.

And getting back to self-criticism, this is where Christians need to REDEFINE themselves, and their religion in a 21st century context if we are to avoid making our species extinct.

Many of their beliefs have caused immense harm to our planet. Christians don't feel responsible, because if you're waiting for the Apocalypse, who cares if you fuck up the earth, when heaven awaits you!

Likewise they can murder non-Christians in far away places because they're not believers (and vice versa regarding Muslims). Same fucked up logic prevails.

As long as your way is the ONLY way, it don't matter what happens to non-believers. This way of thinking will soon bring about our species doom.

 

And I'd say that joining most Christian religions DOES cause a "holier than thou" syndrome.

 

Ken Wilbur differs from what little I've read of the others in that he aproaches the spiritual question from four different realms; the interior individual (intentional), the exterior individual (behavioral), the cultural, and the social.
All four realms are locked together and develop in relation to each other. So internalized religion has its place in certain social, cultural situations. To try to remove religion from those situations would only make matters worse. All four realms evolve and all four realms must pass through and transend the lower stages without damaging those stages.

So, as humans develop they pass through physical, mental, and spiritual developmental phases, but these phases exist in relation to the social and cultural realms.

In regards to religion, all of the major religions are gateway religions (my term) in their most popular form. They are set-up to attract those individuals who are at a certain ego level and who need to have that concept of a seperate ego supported.
Now, all of the major religions also have the capacity to propel the individual past the egotic level into the deeply spiritual level which may seemingly transend the basic teachings of that religion.
The problem arises when the deeply spiritual side of the religion is cast aside or neglected in favor of its fundament form.

You cannot expect every person to understand the deeply spiritual realms at the same time as all individuals are at different developmental levels. Just as we must crawl before we can walk, we must pass through the realm of religion; if you try to make a baby walk before it can crawl, injury will result.

 

Good points. I like the concept of a Gateway Religion. Does that mean that those religions get people addicted to them, and when that's not enough they opt for the hardcore, fundamentalist religions to get that HEAVY fundie fix?

The problem according to Kohlberg is that most ppl fixate at a certain level, and can't progress. They get too caught up in the social & cultural benefits of being at that level. For instance if they follow scripture word-by-word, like a fundie, they are rewarded by those at that level so much that they have no incentive to evolve further.

Sure there's an onward path, but it's all too easy to fixate, esp. when opening their minds to a more evolved state means giving up a lot of the "truths" they've accepted to be absolute, when in reality they were just relative to their own level of evolution.

It takes a MORAL DILEMMA that involves the individual in a moral crisis where their set response no longer resolves the dilemma satisfactorily to kickstart further moral evolution.

And that evolution will ONLY occur if the individual is presented with a more evolved response from a morally evolved person that DOES solve the moral dilemma.

A great example right now is the war in Iraq. It presents Americans with an excellent moral dilemma, ie:

Since we started this war, do we owe it to the Iraqis to do everything possible to bring peace again, regardless of the cost in American blood and treasure?

The various responses Americans have to this indicates their moral evolution, regardless of their religion. And the average responses from various religious groups will reflect their religions moral teachings, and how effective they are at instilling a universal morality in their followers.

That should make someone an interesting thesis....

 

In general, religions have different levels and splinder groups. The masses support the religion through monetary, and other means, and receive compensation in the form of spiritual security in a frightening world. They are presented with what they can understand. But, if the religion is truely spiritual there are avenues for the individual to advance due to the support of the many. This doesn't mean that all religions don't have people who will see the dogma as truth. Some religions, at times, are overwhelmed by these folks.

Agreed. Wilbur has outlined at least 7 stages (tied into Spiral Dynamics) each with its own rewards and pitfalls.

I believe Wilbur would place this pitfall at the blue/orange level. It gets worse at the next, green relative, level. Which is where the U.S. is now.

This sounds like a whole new thread (The Iraq occupation). But briefly, I think Wilbur would place moral dilemmas in one level only. Or at least conceed as Robert Pirsig does, that there are different levels of morals and the occupation presents one type of moral dilemma.