Do You Practice Authentic Tolerance?

June 22, 2008 – 2:43 pm

This following article represents all that is repulsive and vile about religious dogma. These myopic dogmatists give religion a horrible image, and foster an ongoing campaign of hate throughout the world. Were it not for dogmatic beliefs, the world would be a healthier and safer place.

How does the author of this article define his brand of “Witnessing”? His states his goal is to:

  • “overturn your incorrect beliefs…”
  • “convince you that your beliefs are wrong…”
  • “and get you to believe what I want you to believe.”

If you can suffer his crazed lack of logic, at the end I comment on the supposed “contradictions” the author indicts. If the author would present debates about beliefs, I would not comment, since beliefs are not based in logic.

Let me establish on the front end that by the authors definitions, I am a “New Ager” (especially he defines those who are yoga and martial art teachers as such).

“How to Evangelize New-Agers” by Cky J. Carrigan, Ph.D.

Who are New-Agers?

“New-Agers are a diverse lot of spiritual seekers who are not genuine Christians. There may be as many as fifty million new-agers in America. You will find them in every part of your world, even in your congregations. You may work or worship with a new-ager, be a neighbor to one, or have one in your circle of friends or family. They often appear to be Christian from a distance because they are spiritual. After all, they talk about God, spirit, love, faith, hope, and healing. Many even talk about Jesus and the Bible. But, they do not ascribe the same meanings to these terms that genuine Christians do. In short, new-agers are spiritual people who embrace one or more key New Age teachings.”

What is the New Age Movement?

“The New Age Movement is an American and European form of ancient eastern religious beliefs (Hinduism and Buddhism), combined with divination, earth-based religions, self-help theory, alternative healing techniques, astrology, and other non-Christian religious practices. Therefore, the New Age Movement is not really new at all, though it is new to America.

The New Age Movement is a religious movement represented by a large number of autonomous groups and individuals that engages in religious activities from inside and outside existing traditional religious organizations. It is not an institutional religion like Christianity, Islam or Mormonism. There is no organization that encompasses it and no spokesman that speaks for it–yet. The New Age Movement is presently composed of an unorganized body of individuals united by several non-Christian beliefs.”

How Did the New Age Movement Get Is Start?

  • 1860 - In the middle and late eighteen hundreds, three religious movements arose that introduced some features of eastern religions to New York City and Boston–the cultural and academic centers of America. From these geographical bases, the New Thought Movement, Spiritualism, and the Theosophical Society spread to colleges and universities and small free-thinking subcultures throughout American populations centers.
  • 1960 - Eastern religious ideas smoldered for about one hundred years until they reached full flame during the counterculture movement of the nineteen sixties and seventies on college campuses. The Beatles validated eastern religious beliefs and popularized them. One Beatle, George Harrison, even became a Hindu and wrote a popular song devoted to the worship of Lord Krishna, a Hindu deity, entitled “My Sweet Lord.”
  • 1970 to Present - The first magazine devoted to the New Age Movement was published in 1972, but the growth of this movement peaked in the mid-eighties. Then, along came an African-American female daytime talk show host that revived the New Age Movement and catapulted it to the center-ring of the three-ringed-circus of popular culture. Oprah Winfrey is now the most influential preacher of New Age ideas and she wins converts every day in staggering numbers—many from Baptist churches.”

What Do New-Agers Believe?

“As a general rule, new-agers believe the following six religious tenets:

  • Pantheism - God is everything and everything is God. God is not a personal being, but an impersonal force. Since God is everything and humans are something, then humans too are God.
  • Monism – Everything individual thing is really one thing. All apparent distinctions of individual things are merely an illusion. There is no difference between God and the world, for the world is God and God is the world (pantheism).
  • Reincarnation – Everyone will be reborn after death as a new baby and continue this cycle for an indefinite number of reincarnations. Future lives are improved by positive karma in this life and visa-versa. This means that everyone has existed in many past lives before the present one. This is a variation of the classical Hindu view which teaches that everything (animals, plants, minerals, and humans) is reincarnated after its death or destruction. Some new-agers hold the Hindu view.
  • Divinity of Humanity – Since everything is God or divine (pantheism), then humans are divine. The problem of humanity is that it has forgotten its divinity. Enlightenment is discovering one’s divinity and is achieved by astrology, yoga, transcendental meditation, past-life regression, soul travel, channeling spirit guides and other means.
  • Moral Relativism – Since there is no personal living God who sets ethical standards and models them (pantheism), human actions are neither good nor bad. Therefore, there is no universal code of ethics that everyone must follow uniformly. Every individual is the supreme judge of his own conduct.
  • Religious Pluralism – The essence of all religions is the same. No single religion can lay exclusive claim to all religious truth—especially Christianity. New-Agers resist telling anyone that they are wrong about religion since every religion is true at some point. They also take offense when anyone claims that another religion is false.”

What are the Signs of the New Age Movement in Popular Culture?

“Americans, including many Baptists, are falling for New Age ideas at an alarming rate. For example:

  • More than half of us believe in psychic healing, spiritual healing or mind healing.
  • About half of us believe in extrasensory perception (ESP).
  • Nearly four in ten believe in ghosts of the dead, while more than one in four believes that communicating with the dead is possible.
  • Twenty-five percent believe in reincarnation.
  • Fifteen million practice Hindu yoga, doubling in five years.
  • General audience films like Lion King, Pocahontas, Star Wars and Harry Potter that promote some New Age beliefs are blockbusters.
  • Eastern martial arts centers can be found in every community.
  • Transcendental Meditation (TM) is promoted in many workplaces and schools.
  • Psychic services are a multi-billion dollar industry.
  • Tarot cards are widely available at national chain book stores.
  • Eastern and occultic healing techniques are widely accepted.
  • Astrological predictions mar the pages of nearly every daily newspaper.
  • Chicken Soup for the Soul series and other new age books are national bestsellers.”

How Can You Witness to New-Agers?

“Listen to Their Story and Tell Yours – New-Agers generally prefer religious experience to religious dogma. For them, feelings usually trump reason. Because of this, it will be especially relevant to a new-ager if you share your own Christian religious experience, even though we know that religious feelings by themselves can not be trusted without the objective validation of the Bible. Tell them how you felt at your conversion, how you feel about being a Christian, how you feel about Jesus Christ, and how you feel about your own spiritual journey. This approach may be very uncomfortable for many of you, but you will find it an effective way to witness to people devoted to New Age teachings.

Prepare for Diversity - People associated with the New Age Movement are diverse, so you should never assume they believe every doctrine typically associated with New Age. New-Agers do not all believe all of the same teachings with the same intensity. Because of this, during the early stages of your encounter, you must be careful to find out exactly what your New Age friend believes. Then, tailor your conversation to overturn those particular incorrect beliefs. Otherwise, you might find yourself spending too much time and mental energy overturning some belief that your friend does not hold.

Create Crisis of Belief - New Age evangelism is a kind of interfaith evangelism dedicated to sharing Jesus with people who are already devoted to a religion that can not take them to heaven. New-Agers are not agnostic or apathetic about religion. On the contrary, they are devoted believers of a false religion. They usually have to be convinced that they are wrong about what they presently believe in order to be open to embracing what you want them to believe—Christianity.

New Age evangelism almost always requires what I call preparing the soil of the soul. Most new-agers are fairly secure in their beliefs and see traditional Christianity as a flawed religion consisting mainly of ancient morals and an ancient way of looking at the world. One way you can prepare the soil of the soul is to create a crisis of belief in New Age principles. You may create a crisis of belief by gently overturning the key features of their beliefs while pointing out the superior alternative of Christianity.

  • Challenging Pantheism and Monism: In order for the pantheism and monism of the New Age to be true, the material world would have to be an illusion. But, all the evidence available to us demonstrates that the material world as we know it really does exist. Additionally, if pantheism and monism of the New Age were true, then the vast majority of new-agers would be hypocrites, since they highly value and seek health, long life and material things—all illusions. Also, if God is a force, like gravity, and not a person, then why do many new-agers relate to God as if God is personal?
  • Challenging Reincarnation: The New Age explanation of reincarnation demands a steady-state of human population which is not the case. In 1900, the population of the world was one billion. In 2000, it was six billion. Ask your new-age friend to do the math and rethink his commitment to the new age concept of reincarnation.
  • Challenging Moral Relativism: Most new-agers live as though moral absolutes (rules) exist while confessing that they do not. For example, they lock their homes and cars and bristle if you cut them off in traffic. New-agers have plenty of rules they expect others to follow. Ask the new-ager to explain the contradiction here.
  • Challenging Religious Pluralism: Most people devoted to New Age principles profess religious pluralism when they are not really tolerant of any religion that is exclusive, especially Christianity. Therefore, they actually are religious exclusivists like Christianity, and not pluralists at all. Additionally, you may ask your New Age friend why he favors New Age principles over all other religious principles if all religions are valid.”

I feel a moral imperative to rebuke this veneer of logic with rationale debate. (especially considering I am one of those so-called “occultic” lost souls who practices both yoga and martial arts.)

On the author’s challenge of pantheism and monism:

The perception we have of the “material” world is illusion created by our lack of awareness casts. The belief that the material world is something different than divinity creates a man-made distinction between profane and sacred. The only profanity in the world is ignorance, and the illusion it creates.

When one individual claims that he has the exclusive path to the sacred and that all others are profane, ignorance rules supreme. Exclusive rights to the sacred (and self-righteousness that all others are profane) is the ultimate illusion one casts.

To value the blessed gift of aliveness is not hypocritical. We honor our physical life, our home and our brethren in the community of life as they are given to us by divinity. To care for our health, to seek abundance and to cherish them so that they do not end early is to honor divinity, and to take the health, abundance and long life we are given and use them to help others is the ultimate form of worship.

On the author’s challenge of reincarnation:

Human over-population displaces other life. Thousands go extinct while we continue to convert the Earth’s biomass into human mass. The author’s argument only regards human life. I don’t claim to understand reincarnation, or life after this life (though the author certainly does.) However, if the author wants to use quantifiable reasoning, then the Earth’s biomass is always constant, just being shifted from one form of life to another. The author’s argument here was illogical, and appears to just be a half-hearted attempt at indicting another belief system (reincarnation) as illogical, and yet the Christian belief system (the impermanent physical body housing of an invisible, permanent soul) is just as “illogical.” No reason to even debate such flippant irrationality.

On the author’s challenge of moral relativism:

I’m not a moral relativist nor am I an absolutist. My beliefs would be defined as a moral pluralist.

The author uses morals and ethics interchangeably; when ethics coming from the Greek root ethos refers to what it means to be a human qua human, and morals coming from the Latin root mores refers to what it means to be a human qua society. There are beliefs that are culturally contextual (such as rites of passage, etiquette, and laws), and then there are universal beliefs about what it means to be a human (such as prohibitions against murder, rape, forced castration, incest and slavery; considered “human rights violations.”) One can believe without contradiction that rape is universally wrong without deferring to a specific religious text.

On the author’s challenge of religious pluralism:

The author suggests that intolerance of religious exclusivity is hypocritical to those who espouse religious tolerance. This is a logical fallacy. One of who believes in religious plurality - or religious tolerance - is not required by that definition to be tolerant of intolerance. It is not a contradiction to believe that everyone has a right to their own beliefs except when those beliefs infringe upon the rights of others freedom to believe. For example, the following is not a contradiction:

  1. Christians deserve the right to believe that only the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth can give them access to heaven and prevent them from a life of eternal damnation.
  2. Christians do not have the right to murder, torture and enslave those who will not accept the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as the only “correct” religious perspective.

Each of the author’s attempts at masking irrationality in the guise of logic demonstrates the repulsive and vile self-righteousness which has not only driven millions away from Christianity, but also instabilized our very existence with religious war, intolerance and apathy.

 

Christianity, however, has no corner on the intolerance market. There are intolerant people in every belief system. It’s the nature of the human ego to trick us into thinking that our illusion is real, to believe that any man-made definition is accurate, and to believe that others must be “converted” into our illusion.

God help us, please, save us from ourselves.

Flow Thyself™,

  1. 13 Responses to “Do You Practice Authentic Tolerance?”

  2. An ironic bit of early Christian history:

    Before the religion was codified, reincarnation was very much a part of early Christianity. I believe that you can still find remnants of this in the Bible and it may be more prevalent in the Eastern versions of Christianity. You can make the argument that these early Christians were closer to Christ’s teachings than the later Christians (in particular, King James and his (in)famous version of the Bible)and thus knew of the true teachings of Christ, rather than what the founders of organized Christianity wished you to know.

    Glad to see you’re feeling better and blogging up, Scott.

    By Shaf on Jun 22, 2008

  3. Intolerance is ignorance and this individual is the epitome of such a creature.

    When I was young and just a “Christian” I would say “lets just pray for him”.

    Now that have evolved some (as is a process of eternity) spiritually I know he is exactly as he created himself to be.

    Instead of being in spiritual bliss, or in joy of spirity or bathing in the Peacefulnexx of the Christ love….

    he choses to be a Miserable Intolerant Ignorant with nothing better to do than critize others and drag others into his misery.

    Shame on him.

    By islndgrl on Jun 22, 2008

  4. :)

    By Joseph on Jun 23, 2008

  5. “These are not the most profane who denies the existences of gods but those who impute human characteristics to them.”

    This old Epicur was a wise man.

    By andreas on Jun 23, 2008

  6. Thanks for the conversation starter Scott. This sort of thing gets me really riled up, so this is gonna be rather long.

    One of the biggest scare tactics folks like this use is in the interpretation of pantheism/New Age/etc. as some kind of ego-maniacal religious cult in which humans believe they are gods. I can only speak for myself of course, but as someone the author would certainly consider a New Ager, I have never thought of myself as a god (except maybe in bed with my wife :)). This is just as much ego as religious exclusivity. I understand god to be a process. I am not god, nor are you. The process by which you and I exist, that is god. I (Philip Walter) am merely a projection, a manifestation of that process playing itself out in time and space. God is not, nor has ever been limited in time or space.

    Another point, as long as I’m rambling here, there are two main reasons humans refer to God as he or she. Either 1) We’re ego-maniacs, who assume God must be like us, since we’re the shit (this is the fundamentalist Christian way), or 2) We are speaking metaphorically since we really have no context within which to discuss the totality of God. In the last sense (the “New Age” sense) there is no contradiction (as the author argues in his first challenge) since we understand that speaking of God in personal terms is merely using metaphor to confer deeper meaning.

    As much as this guy’s attitude gets me all riled up, and as much as I know people like him are going to bring about the end of the earth, I must appreciate that his attitude is the product of being stuck in a particular stage of development that we all must go through, both culturally and personally. More accurately this a combination of two stages - blue and red, in terms of Spiral Dynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics). Red is the ego side of things. We all go through this as children, when we understand the world as revolving around us. Blue is the rule/role/absolutist side of things. This is where we learn to conform to social roles and play by certain rules (normally in adolescence). Both are essential in growing up to become responsible adults, but when you find pathology and arrested personal development between these two stages, you wind up with folks like the author of this article (and Dick Cheney and Dubya, for that matter)

    I understand and respect the place from which this worldview comes, becuase I too had to confront it in my life to get where I am today. That said, I disagree wholeheartedly with the picture the author paints of the world, and I feel people like him are detrimental to further human development. Perhaps this is a form of “authentic tolerance?”

    Finally, I want to think that these people are becoming less and less influential, that the developmental center of gravity of humanity is moving up the spiral from blue to orange to green and beyond, but then I remember who our president has been for the past 8 years. It’s hard not to be discouraged. However, I am filled with hope. Thanks to Scott and others like him we have places to converse about these things, and that can only help make the world a better place.

    Keep on talking!

    By Philip on Jun 23, 2008

  7. Scott:

    I do not want to make this a scripture post, but the Bible does quote Jesus as saying “I (Jesus) am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6).” This and MANY other phrases indicate that any serious Christian believes that the ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus. People who are not serious or knowledgeable about their Christian faith will make nebulous statements like “well if you love everyone and are good you will go to heaven.” Such beliefs are not sustained by scripture or doctrine. Therefore your complaint is really with Christianity and not just with this mans interpretation of it. I say this confidently because salvation through Jesus is a basic tenant of Christianity. Therefore, an informed Christian really has no other choice rather then to say that New Angers believe in a “false religion.” Within Christianity there are various groups who believe stronger than others that it is their responsibility to “witness” to others so that they can share in salvation.

    Now I do think the writer made some errors in logic when he discussed reincarnation. One who believes in such a doctrine could merely say that all these souls were alive as animals and insects, and they are only now climbing the karma ladder to personhood. He would have been better off leaving that alone.

    As a Roman Catholic I sincerely see the New Age movement as nothing more than a loose collection of ideas and beliefs where people are free to pick and choose what ever doctrine is convenient for their life style. If they are into sexual promiscuity they can go for if it feels good do it mentality without guilt. Chesterton wrote: “If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything.”

    I know that Christianity is a popular target but I can’t understand that there is not more condemnation of radical Moslems who drive planes into buildings, blow up busses of innocent school children, and treat their women as property. With all THAT going on why would you condemn someone who is merely expressing his opinion?

    Andreas: What does Vice president Cheney have to do with arrested personal development? It is very easy to do vague drive by attacks of someone, but you need cite examples of what they did that make you feel so negative.

    Good topic, I would like to see more of this in this blog. It gets everyone thinking.

    By Mark on Jun 28, 2008

  8. I think we might need to check definitions. The word “tolerance” traditionally has meant that we may disagree sharply on issues but we will not try to coerce others to our views–convince them, yes; coerce them, no. The opposite of tolerance, as pointed out by historian Mario Turchetti, is concord–that is, we all need to agree on some baseline set of beliefs to live together. Today, the term “tolerance” typically is used to mean that we all need to agree together that specific differences are not important, such as race, gender, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation. In this context, it specifically means that we need to agree that all roads lead up the same mountain, that whatever spiritual path you choose is equivalent, and we should not judge each other (meaning, we should not use any of our critical thinking skills to evaluate other people’s religious ideas). In other words, the word “tolerance” today is misused to point to a form of concord, the opposite of its historic meaning.

    Why do we get offended when people try to convince us that their religious beliefs are correct? Is that such a wrong thing to do? On this and related sites, there are numerous assertions of spiritual truth that I’m sure Scott would like us to adopt–in fact, he made such assertions in this website and said in essence that we should reject the evangelist’s ideas and interpretations and accept his own (with no particular support–see point 1 above). What is the difference between the two, except the insistance that we all agree that whatever works for you is fine–in other words, not “true” tolerance but concord? Are they both not simply making truth claims? If Scott can write for his audience what he believes and no one complains, why should anyone complain when this individual writes for his audience? Is it wrong for him to express his beliefs and present a case for them because those ideas are repugnant to this audience or because he made the case badly?

    I offer you the words of Voltaire, who at least gave lip service to true tolerance: “I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

    By Glenn on Jun 30, 2008

  9. Radical Muslims, radical Christians - whomever it is, they both commit a similar violence: the suppression of a human spirit from the divinity within.

    By Rob on Jul 1, 2008

  10. Shaf,

    I’d be interested to learn of your source and the evidence for that claim concerning reincarnation’s place in earliest Christianity… most if not all modern historical- critical scholars would laugh at that statement as an absurd speculation grounded in no hard evidence, myself included.

    I’ll look forward to your reply.

    By Wil on Jul 2, 2008

  11. Scott,

    What a way to start a conversation!

    While I agree with you on the repugnance of this author’s attitudes, the gumption of his approach to Christian evangelism, and the intellectual poverty of the portrait he paints, I would say that in many cases (not all, and not in yours) his description bears at least a family resemblance to the thought and practice of what he identifies as ‘New Age’ practitioners. What is sad to me in this article is that this guy knows more about New Age praxis and beliefs than the average fundie churchgoer, and that this is the xenophobic slant they will carry in their views and potential interactions as a result of reading it.

    I’m actually in the process of developing my own views on the subject & I’ll share them once they’re worth sharing.

    Thanks for sparking some fresh thought!

    By Wil on Jul 2, 2008

  12. “Radical Muslims, radical Christians - whomever it is, they both commit a similar violence: the suppression of a human spirit from the divinity within.”

    Are you equating the murderous acts of 9-11 and the countless bombings of innocents in busses etc. to ANYTHING a modern Christian does, says, or writes? I am TRULLY amazed that you do not see the difference. TRULLY TRULLY amazed!

    By Mark on Jul 2, 2008

  13. I think a lot of the “dogma” and “intolerance” of modern-day Christians comes out of fear and losing sight of true Christian teachings. I believe the Bible like many others, and no, Christians are not called to be tolerant, necessarily. However, we ARE called to “love your neighbor as yourself,” including neighbors of different beliefs.

    Unfortunately, a lot of people lose sight of that. As for the whole yoga/martial arts thing, that is just misinformation, fear, and a lack of taking initiative to investigate things for themselves. Yoga and Tai Chi have been proven to improve health. Simple fact. One does not have to subscribe to Buddhism or Taoism to benefit from things born out of those traditions, and for some reason a lot of Christians don’t realize that.

    I think most of these problems of reasonless hate or dogma could be solved by education. Personally as I said before, I believe the Bible, and everything in it as the truth. I may not accept another person’s belief, but I can still accept that person for who they are, including their personal beliefs. Christians are indeed called to witness, unfortunately this often leads to the shoving of Christianity down others’ throats. And, just as in real life, the harder you shove something down a throat, the more the person chokes and eventually vomits. It’s sad that this is often the perception of Christianity in the world, when a true Christian should present what he believes in a kind fashion, and if the other person is interested, they’ll ask more. If not, we must still love them for who they are and try to live what we believe. We have to remember that Jesus, the person our entire belief is based on, was not dogmatic. He loved everybody, even the unsaved. It was the dogmatic Pharisees and Sadducees which he disagreed with.

    I wish more Christians out there would strive to be like Jesus, not a modern-day Pharisee like the guy in the article. The world would be a much better place.

    P.S. to Mark, the key word in that quote which angered you is “radical.” Radical Christians are just as dangerous as radical Muslims, why do you think we had the Crusades and Inquisition? Besides, the Bible does not teach a blind mindless following and loss of individuality. Quite the opposite, we are taught to use what individual strengths and gifts we have to build others up. I don’t think Scott would EVER say that anything a modern day Christian does equates to those murderous acts. He is simply angered at the suppression of individuality and humanness which stems from blind faith and uneducated dogma.

    By Brad on Jul 9, 2008

  14. “Always remember, kneeling down is not the same as bending over.” Frank Zappa

    Thanks for pointing out and rebutting the argument of someone who would create God in their own image…

    Phil

    By Phil Hughes on Jul 13, 2008

Post a Comment