Inter-Religious, Deep Down
… instead of an inter-religious ‘dialogue’ 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’s rubbing-each-other in order to elicit good feelings and putting a nice image to outside. Hidden agendas remain unchanged.
Sorry. No dialogue. Even less than true dialogue.
And what’s the use of that, in the end?
Would any volitional ‘God’ be pleased with that?
No.
God Himself, whether as material or metaphorical reality, asks for depth. This, to me, is completely evident.
So, what does Deep Dialogue need?
Evidently, it needs true depth of all partners.
Dear religious reader, this depth is an ongoing effort. It never stops.
And of course, I know what I’m talking about. I’m a human being, valuing depth very much.
True: I don’t need any specific religion for this. I repeat:
I do not need any specific religion to attain ‘depth’ which I feel to be very re-ligious.
This ‘depth’ is to me extremely valuable.
So, am I an atheist? Is any talking about ‘God’ completely irrelevant to me?
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.
Superficially, they agree.
Deep down? For instance:
< ‘I’ – ‘believe in’ – ‘God’. >
Three seemingly simple elements, at least as they are most frequently used. Yet all three are mind-bogglingly fuzzy.
What do they mean in depth? How can they be used in any communication or dialogue, for instance, between specific religions?
You might say this is just very subtle. Indeed: subtleness means that even small differences are very important. [see: ‘Subtlety’] Especially in a self-declared religious context in which conceptuality is deemed to be of primordial importance:
Is this true or is that true?
Is it such or such (conceptually)?
Such questions are scientific ones and should be answered as such.
They’re not deeply religious ones.
Religion = depth.
Other questions.
Un-answerable questions (conceptually).
Deep questions.
Poetry.
Depth: formless content. [see: ‘Depth is Formless Meaning’]
True inter-religious dialogue
… is an exercise in finding out that this formless content is, well, content.
It’s about feeling (kind of). It’s about religiosity. It’s, for instance, my being-religious.
It may be yours.
It’s Open.
Related Posts
Islamic Veil
This is an example of a broader issue. There is nothing intrinsically particular to Islam nor to the veil, besides being a kind-of-religion and a kind-of-piece of cloth. Open Religion I see a huge difference between nonconceptual re-ligion (‘Open Religion’) and any conceptual ‘god-view’ called religion where openness, depth… are barely understood. For more about Read the full article…
Words Like ‘Soul’ Are Not the Exclusive Right of Religion
Not of any specific religion, nor of ‘religion’ in general. It is therefore high time for a kind of ‘science of the deeper self’ that distinguishes itself from ‘religion’ in the sense that it is not based on a dogma or a story. You can compare it with astronomy that has emancipated from astrology +/- Read the full article…
Open Religion in Every Religion
Open Religion can be seen as a direction that can be taken from any conceptual religion. Alternatively, it can be seen as potentially present within the latter ― making Openness more easily accessible to many. I write of ‘religion’ here in a broad sense. For instance, Buddhism is another religion in which Open Religion can Read the full article…