{"id":2039,"date":"2018-08-23T02:41:38","date_gmt":"2018-08-23T02:41:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=2039"},"modified":"2018-09-23T07:07:36","modified_gmt":"2018-09-23T07:07:36","slug":"inter-religious-deep-down","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/open-religion\/inter-religious-deep-down","title":{"rendered":"Inter-Religious, Deep Down"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u2026 instead of an inter-religious \u2018dialogue\u2019 that conglomerates only at the surface, while depth is safely kept out of the picture.<\/h3>\n

Because that is of course no dialogue in the first place.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It\u2019s rubbing-each-other in order to elicit good feelings and putting a nice image to outside. Hidden agendas remain unchanged.<\/p>\n

Sorry. No dialogue. Even less than true dialogue.<\/p>\n

And what\u2019s the use of that, in the end?<\/p>\n

Would any volitional \u2018God\u2019 be pleased with that<\/em>?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No.<\/p>\n

God Himself, whether as material or metaphorical reality, asks for depth. This, to me, is completely evident.<\/p>\n

So, what does Deep Dialogue need?<\/p>\n

Evidently, it needs true depth of all partners.<\/p>\n

Dear religious reader, this depth is an ongoing effort. It never stops.<\/p>\n

And of course, I know what I\u2019m talking about. I\u2019m a human being, valuing depth very much.<\/p>\n

True: I don\u2019t need any specific religion for this. I repeat:<\/p>\n

I do not need any specific religion to attain \u2018depth\u2019 which I feel to be very re-ligious.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This \u2018depth\u2019 is to me extremely valuable.<\/p>\n

So, am I an atheist? Is any talking about \u2018God\u2019 completely irrelevant to me?<\/p>\n

In any case, I think that religious terms are used too superficially by many. Additionally, while thinking to talk about the same things (concepts), each is in fact using them quite differently.<\/p>\n

Superficially, they agree.<\/p>\n

Deep down? For instance:<\/p>\n

< \u2018I\u2019 \u2013 \u2018believe in\u2019 \u2013 \u2018God\u2019. ><\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Three seemingly simple elements, at least as they are most frequently used. Yet all three are mind-bogglingly fuzzy.<\/p>\n

What do they mean in depth? How can they be used in any communication or dialogue, for instance, between specific religions?<\/p>\n

You might say this is just very subtle. Indeed: subtleness means that even small differences are very important. [see: \u2018Subtlety<\/a>\u2019] Especially in a self-declared religious context in which conceptuality is deemed to be of primordial importance:<\/p>\n

Is this true or is that true?<\/p>\n

Is it such or such (conceptually)?<\/p>\n

Such questions are scientific ones and should be answered as such.<\/p>\n

They\u2019re not deeply religious ones.<\/p>\n

Religion = depth.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Other questions.<\/p>\n

Un-answerable questions (conceptually).<\/p>\n

Deep questions.<\/p>\n

Poetry.<\/p>\n

Depth: formless content. [see: \u2018Depth is Formless Meaning<\/a>\u2019]<\/p>\n

True inter-religious dialogue<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u2026 is an exercise in finding out that this formless content is, well, content.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s about feeling<\/em> (kind of). It\u2019s about religiosity<\/em>. It\u2019s, for instance, my being-religious.<\/p>\n

It may be yours.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s Open.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2026 instead of an inter-religious \u2018dialogue\u2019 that conglomerates only at the surface, while depth is safely kept out of the picture. Because that is of course no dialogue in the first place. It\u2019s rubbing-each-other in order to elicit good feelings and putting a nice image to outside. Hidden agendas remain unchanged. Sorry. No dialogue. Even Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2040,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/306.jpg?fit=960%2C576&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-wT","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2039"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2039"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2039\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2064,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2039\/revisions\/2064"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2040"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2039"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2039"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2039"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}