Inter-Religious, Deep Down

August 23, 2018 Open Religion No Comments

… 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.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Science x Religion = Disaster?

Combining the pragmatic possibilities of present-day science with the imagined truths of traditional religion is a combustible mixture ― a recipe for disaster. Humanity has gained super-human technological power. Yet, currently, we see science often focusing on externalities and religion being trapped in ancient dogmas that are mutually contradictory. We urgently need to get beyond Read the full article…

Interreligious – Deep – Dialogue

Interreligious dialogue holds profound potential, yet all too often it stalls at superficial levels. Such Interreligious Superficial Dialogue (ISD) seeks comfort over transformation, leaving deeper engagement untouched. By contrast, Interreligious Deep Dialogue (IDD) reaches into the shared spiritual core of humanity. IDD invites participants to transcend ego, embrace vulnerability, and embark on a collective journey Read the full article…

Why Open Religion is Global

OK ― Not yet global in its present reach. The global aspect lies in its openness to everyone: believers and non-believers, anywhere in the world. Please read: What is Open Religion? How can non-believers adhere to Open Religion? You don’t have to believe in any conceptual construct ― no god, saint, angel, heaven, or hell. Read the full article…

Translate »