Valid Vs. Invalid Paths

[BlueGiant]

So due to Sage's recent post, I got to thinking: What is the difference between a valid and an invalid spiritual/religious/philosophical path? Seems that those of us here have already found one that is decidedly wrong (Christianity). What do you use as your bullshit depth gauge? Are there things that denote a right way from a wrong way?

[Lycorth]

So due to Sage's recent post, I got to thinking: What is the difference between a valid and an invalid spiritual/religious/philosophical path? Seems that those of us here have already found one that is decidedly wrong (Christianity). What do you use as your bullshit depth gauge? Are there things that denote a right way from a wrong way?

 

I have a whole set of Browne & Sharpe Bullshit Depth Gauges - made in the USA

 

One of the things I look for is an attitude of dualism. Of course there are things that are objectively wrong (such as killing innocent people), but any religion or philosophy that tries to posit a black and white "us-versus-them" attitude about, for example, people who do not follow said religion or philosophy, is an automatic FAIL. Such attitudes only encourage unbalanced views and lead to personal and social oppression in order to force society to conform to the dualist view.

 

Another thing I look for is strictness. Advocating codes of moral behavior is all well and good, but how strictly is this done? Is it a path that advocates rational examination of ethical issues, or is it one that demands adherence to a set agenda, either on the grounds of "faith" or the grounds of "our ancestors did it this way" or "it's not a product of our race and/or economic class" and hence must be harmful therefore? Good, "safe" beliefs, IMO, encourage as much open-mindedness and rational inquiry as possible - minimum rigidity with maximum flexibility. Otherwise, such beliefs necessarily lend themselves to being oppressive, and that rarely ends up being good for any human society.

 

I also look to see how humanity is treated. Does it advocate an unbalanced view of human beings, such as that we're all shit and need God X's favor or that we're perfect little fluffy bunnies by virtue of our belief/race/ethnicity/class/etc? Any good belief system, I'd think, ought to necessarily take into account that, as the Havamal puts it, both good and evil are blended together in humanity. Failing to consider the middle ground here leads people into either elitism or self-hatred, both of which are great poison for any decent society, I'd think.

 

In line with looking out for strictness, I keep an eye peeled for how a belief encourages its adherents to view the belief itself. Paths such as Buddhism are fine examples of how a healthy belief should view itself - as a means to an end, not the ineffable end itself, and as such should always be critically examined and improved if need be. Dogmatic thinking just forces humans to do what is naturally repulsive to us - conform and obey like pack animals. That always ends up producing an ugly backlash where we degenerate into harmful behavior just to enjoy a little freedom from strict moral rules. Balance and moderation is always the key.

 

And of course I look and see if any tripe about eternal punishment for earthly offenses is preached, or that we're always being watched by nosy gods who will smite us or something for the first mistake, or otherwise promotes the view that some form of thought control exists in the universe beyond our own ability to discipline ourselves.

 

Those are some of the things I look out for - maybe I'll ramble on if I can recall some others

[Jun]

Varokhar has hit on some of the most important I think.

 

Besides those things that Varokhar has mentioned I would look at the practicality and pragmatism of a spiritual/religious/philosophical path. Some good questions to continually ask yourself when practicing a path are -

 

Is it practical?

 

Is it in accordance with science and nature? Dose it require one to give up one's acceptance of science? Does it introduce viewpoints which are decidely fictional or radical in comparison with scientific study?

 

Does it require unneccesary attention to itself or it's teachers? Does it require the adoption of an outlook on life that is decidedly (physically or mentally) harmful?

 

Does it stand up to the penetrative and analytical mind and does it encourage such? Does it encourage free thought?

[Luke Wolf]

Paths that are out for money set of my bullshit alarm very quickly. Such examples are; Scientology, passing an offering plate, Mormonism.

 

While challenging scientific viewpoints, hypothesis, and theories is healthy and leads to new advances, making radical claims that contradict 100% proven facts, such as claiming the earth is flat and/or created in a 7 24 hour period 6 to 10 thousand years ago, sets of the bs alarm.

 

A path that requires you to surrender a modern life or sell all of your possessions sets of an alarm, such as the Amish and Mennonite.

 

Any path that kills or uses violence to further itself, and/or justifies this needless violence.

 

A path that takes blatant advantage of people, and causes them to do things they normally would not do, such as drinking laced kool-aid (the audio files of that incident are terrifying.), a man that expects the women in the path to be sexually available at will, or something similar to the Davidians in Wako.

[LithaB]

Any belief system that involves "magical thinking." It doesn't have to be a religion, I can't stand listening to Suzi Orman when she's talking about how clearing your house of clutter will draw wealth and abundance into your life. Makes me want to scream!

 

If you want to draw wealth and abundance, or any other good thing, into your life, you must follow 4 basic steps:

 

1. Make a conscious decision.

2. Set a goal.

3. Make a realistic plan for acheiving your goal.

4. Work hard toward the goal until you either reach it or decide it's impossilbe (or just not worth it).

 

If you are too lazy or irresponsible to take this direct action, no crystals or novenas or tithing or homeopathic remedies or alignment of the stars or pyramid sales scheme or chain letter or ascended master will make any difference. Believe me, I've tried them all so I can say this with confidence.

 

And for pete's sake don't blame a demon if you can't pull yourself together! I've tried that too and it's just a waste of time.

[Rev R]

Along the lines of pragmatism, does this path force you to adopt a worldview that contradicts your experience?

 

Does this path differentiate between a "mundane" and a "spiritual" existence or does it meld into everyday life?

 

How does the path handle differences of opinion and interpretation?

 

I don't think any one path does or will ever satisfy the requiremets of perfection. So really the only valid path is the one that works for you.

[The Sage Nabooru]

I think it's pretty easy to determine, most people have a horse sense about spiritual paths, even if they're not aware of it. There are different things and not all paths have all of them. Even still I'm not sure if I'm willing to describe something as "invalid" even though I inspired this topic!

 

Does it demand your total allegiance and intrusion into every aspect of your life? Is it obsessed with control and spreading out that control to others?

 

Is it under a single umbrella organization wherein the slightest dissent is not tolerated? Does this organization lie or cover up or distort or deny? Does it persecute those outside the organization? Is it centered around a single person who is permanently above you and beyond your scope? (For example, in Buddhism, it is said that the Buddha was not so extraordinary in the sense that any person can come to the same enlightenment he did, whereas the "invalid" would tell you that the founder is special and gifted in such a way that you could never possibly equal his or her greatness, and that you, the weaker, need to depend on them, the stronger.)

 

Is it staunchly evangelical in its conviction that no real happiness or salvation can be found outside of it? Does it tell you to silence others who have a different point of view, either by simply cutting them off from you forever or even killing them? Does it lash out when attacked in any way, condemning the attacker deeply and reacting violently? Does it advocate the persecution of "unbelievers"? Does it mark out certain people as dangerous because they disbelieve or criticize?

 

Do you have to lie to yourself about certain things to believe in it? Do you have to restrain yourself - or does someone else restrain you - from learning or reading or researching certain topics? Do you have to close your mind? Are you restricted from certain activities for seemingly no reason - it's just marked as "evil"?

 

Are you participating just because it's hip and in magazines? Do you claim to be very gifted and supreme in your knowledge and power in order to gain respect or attention from others? Do you insist on bringing it up in almost every conversation? Do you do so, so that the listener is going to be overawed by your spirituality and wisdom? Do you seek out legitimization from others in the form of praise, admiration, etc. for your prowess? Does it cease to become "personal" and become entirely "public"? (There is nothing bad about being open about your beliefs and practices; however, does your entire belief system revolve around getting attention and admiration from others? Would you drop it if you didn't feel it was making you look cool?) Do you consider the "outward" signs of it - jewelry, language, incense, etc. - to be the most important?

[Ahh!]

Here's an interesting question: what about good schools of bad religions? For example, I am a strong admirer of Sufism (mystical Islam) and even do some of it's practices yet I consider Islam to be a pretty dispicable religion overall. Where does that follow?

[Robbobrob]

Here's an interesting question: what about good schools of bad religions? For example, I am a strong admirer of Sufism (mystical Islam) and even do some of it's practices yet I consider Islam to be a pretty dispicable religion overall. Where does that follow?

 

The same as I like parts of Kabbalah, but never became a Jew. I find mystics are the most open because they report on actual experiences they have (be it created in the mind or not, it was real to them). Unfortunately, they tend to interpret it through the filter of the main religion they belong to.

 

But, to chose between a peaceful, pragmatic but mundane philosophy and a magical, spiritual but judgemental religion....I'll pick the former every time.

[SWIM]

 

 

A little off topic, just wanted to say I LOVE your signature! Being both a LOR fan and a TREK fan, it just struck me as too cool. lol

[L.B.]

I think several of you have nailed this thing (no pun intended). In my view, 'spirituality' is defined as ANY ideology, religious belief or even socio-political worldview that ultimately affects the personhood of an individual. In order for those ideas to be helpful, they must by necessity be:

 

Universal

Inclusive

Practical

Teachable

and promotive of harmony rather than division.

 

Xtianity is, prima facie, not able to provide humankind with the framework within which to attain those goals.

 

Something like Buddhism (of which i am a newbie neophyte practitioner) COULD. Not "WILL", I said, "COULD".

 

The obvious 'fruit' a person should look for is the power of uniting and building as opposed to efforts made towards dividing and destroying. Sufism, Kabbalah, Buddhism and many other spiritual paths offer people ways to take stock of themselves and either appropriate or discard the necessary attitudes and habits in their lives. Peace to you in your search.

[Islington]

I don't think any one path does or will ever satisfy the requiremets of perfection. So really the only valid path is the one that works for you.

 

And if you find your path and it dose not say "go and make others follow by force" its a valid path for me because it won't interfer with the believe of others in any agressiv way.

[The Sage Nabooru]

I think perhaps a good way to put one of the most, if not the most, important issues is this:

 

I go up to you and I say, "Look, nothing against you personally, it's just that I've read your religion's/path's texts, and I think they're absolute bullshit. Total crap. I'm not going to stop you from believing or practicing it, I just find it totally disagreeable, at least as I've seen it. It's not about you, it's just your particular religion I dislike. But since you're a nice person, I won't hold it against you. Just one of those quirks you have to accept about people and I still think you're an alright person."

 

If you just shrug, smile, and leave it at that, that's cool. Even if you say, "Well, I do kinda think you're mistaken, but whatever", that's fine too. If I'm up for religious discussion, let's do it; if I'm not, oh well. Cool heads prevail.

 

But, if your reaction is, "She's blasphemed the prophetic scriptures! I'm going to have to kill her!" or "Well, guess I can't associate with her anymore because of this", or "I'll call up headquarters and let them know that fair game is around for the shooting", or "Darn, I need to send Billy over to her place with some tracts and let Pastor Dave know she needs a prayer meeting FAST!", then I draw the line.