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
Every Religion Is Open
Many existing religions are incompatible with each other. To me, these incompatibilities are – one way or another – as many signs of superficiality. Underlying this is Openness, as in: ‘Open direction to God.’ [see also: “Religion IS Openness”] Dare I speak of God? Dare you? God is a ‘concept’ that means something different to Read the full article…
One Sacredness for All
People from any religion can feel that sacredness transpires through their religion. Can they also feel sacredness transpire through other religions? Can you? Sacredness versus reductionism For the reductionist, the only ontologically real entities are particles in motion, to which any other complexity in the universe can be reduced and explained. Sacredness is the faith Read the full article…
True Religion
Religions often view each other as ‘false.’ In this sense, every religion is deemed false by someone within the religious sphere. But can we fundamentally talk about ‘false religion’? Religious feelings are never false. That’s an essential point. One can fake religious feelings, but then there are no genuine feelings to be false. True religious Read the full article…