How do Christian and Pantheistic views of the afterlife differ? How are they similar?
They are similar in a sense that they both believe in existence beyond the fall of the physical body.
But they have a very different idea about what happens after death. Christianity believes that after death the spirit is brought in front of the Lord for judgment (based on the life we lived): then it is determined if one is doomed to hell or the purgatory, or is granted the entrance to heaven.
Pantheism entirely rejects the notion of hell and the concept of heaven is very different that of the Christian’s: it is viewed as ultimately joining or reuniting the Divine source or to reincarnate into a new physical form (a form which is granted based on one’s accomplishments of their purpose through life).
****************
Samantha:
Christian's believe that body dies , but the person lives on. When Chrisitains die, their spirits, or souls, go directly onto the presence of Jesus. Whereas, the pantheists believe that the soul (atman) continues to live on" but this is an impersonal soul, not anything like their personality that makes a person unique. Their uniqueness (which is an illusion) is what dies in life.
These two share somewhat of a similar view of the afterlife as well, although both agree that the soul lives on; Pantheists place no real value on the soul.
Samantha,
I think that you have grasped very well the notion of pantheism (the aspect that we are all made of the same divine source, which make us all the same; and that our uniqueness is defined by the ego and the mind; both of which die with the human body). They certainly believe in afterlife. Only in the concept of "what afterlife is" where they differ. Also a big difference is that pantheism rejects the existence of hell, purgatory or heaven in a Christian sense. Heaven to them is reuniting with the Divine Source. Punishment is reincarnation in another physical life form to go through life again until we finally fulfill our purpose and only then we can reunite with the Divine Source.Not all pantheistic views have the same notion on reincarnation and karma, however. In some cases reincarnation or rebirth is a form of cyclic existence (birth, life, death, rebirth and so on). In other cases rebirth is based on karmic inheritance. Again in some views reincarnation can occur in five or six realm of existence while in other views a human will only reincarnate as another human, while there are some that believes that humans rarely if ever reincarnate again as human immediately after a human existence. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Neopaganism, Theosophy, Taoism (not a religion, but a philosophy) all bear common concepts of pantheism, but they have very different fundamental beliefs which makes it difficult to discuss under one umbrella. But the difference in the concept about afterlife is obvious.
************************
Dawn:
If reincarnation is a form of punishment, where does it all end? How do they know when they have fulfilled their purpose? What evidence do they have that this is the true afterlife? I am still unable to get this worldview to make sense in my mind. Maybe it's because I'm a Christian and reject all secular views.
Dawn,
The ultimate purpose is to return to the Divine Source. That is where it ends. That would be like going to heaven.
I described it as a "punishment" only to illustrate that in pantheism (that rejects the concept of hell as a form of punishment) reincarnation is the consequence of one's actions. Life, with both its joys and aches, is another chance to do it all over again: to learn, to grow and to fulfill one's purpose. There are guidelines in each religion, similarly as in the Bible, as to how one should act, feel and live. Pantheism is a view. You will learn more about religions by studying them directly. Hinduism, Buddhism and other religions carry pantheism views, but each have distinguished fundamental rules.
It is quite okay that it doesn't make sense in your mind and it is quite likely due to your loyalty to the Christian view. I don't necessarily understand everything, but I also don't reject things I do not understand. I say: "hmmm... I don't understand it, but just because I don't understand it, it doesn't mean it is not so. Just because someone else is certain that it is true, it still doesn't mean it is so. And whether it is true or not, it doesn't mean I have to agree with it." Learning is about gathering information in order to have the ability to form a better, more accurate image of your truth. The more information you absorb, the better you will be able to sort through facts, make connections and even better: ask better questions.
So if things don't make sense in your mind now; it's okay. Don't stop here! Seek more information and ask more questions! Or just agree to disagree and offer love, forgiveness and prayers to those who don't share your faith.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Meditation, Pantheism, Christianity
Why is meditation an important part of Eastern Pantheist traditions? What role does it serve?
According to Cosgrove meditation in the Eastern Pantheist traditions serve only to “help the person screen out sensory input in order to lower one’s perception of self and reality”. He contrasts meditation with prayer saying that the purpose of meditation is to empty the mind, while the purpose of prayer is to fill the mind with God. As indicated by Cosgrove, meditation is important in pantheism to help dissolve problems and create a sense of unity with the Universe. (Cosgrove, 2006)
There is, however, a different perspective on what meditation is, what it serves and why it is important (to pantheists or to anyone for that fact).
As said by the Meditation Society of America: “Meditation is a three step [concentration, meditation, contemplation] process that leads to a state of consciousness that brings serenity, clarity, and bliss.”
In that light, prayer is also a form of meditation where the subject of concentration is God. Using “om”, as an aid to tune out distractions and “empty” the mind, is only one of many techniques. Although meditation seems deceptively simple it takes practice and lots of discipline to gain control over the mind without the constantly intruding tantalizing, interesting thoughts.
When pantheists speak of “emptying the mind”, what they really mean is to empty out the garbage (uncontrolled, unwanted thoughts and feelings). The reason one needs to empty the mind first is to gain clarity or to be able to fill it with wanted thoughts and feelings.
The ultimate spiritual benefits of meditation has been clear hundreds of years ago, but now science has the ability to back that up with logical physiological evidence as well by the means of neuroscience: the study of the electrical brain activity and brain waves. (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2010)
“…regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.” (Aubrey, 2005)
“Neuroscientists have found that meditators shift their brain activity to different areas of the cortex—brain waves in the stress-prone right frontal cortex move to the calmer left frontal cortex. In other words, they were calmer and happier than before.” (Allen, 2003)
“A second study, published last year in Psychosomatic Medicine, taught a randomized group of 90 cancer patients mindful meditation (another type of practice). After seven weeks, those who had meditated reported that they were significantly less depressed, anxious, angry and confused than the control group, which hadn't practiced meditation. The meditators also had more energy and fewer heart and gastrointestinal problems than did the other group.” (Barbor, 2001)
The physical and psychological benefits of meditation are recognized and widely accepted in the West today. The spiritual benefits are still mostly misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Meditation itself will not solve humanity’s problems, as Cosgrove puts it in perspective. Pantheists do not believe that “diming” sensory inputs will make problems not real. The purpose of meditation is to put problems in a different perspective: to help differentiate between problems one can control by taking actions; and problems one needs to accept and move on. When one’s mind is full of fear, anger, worry, racing thoughts and things to do’s; it is like trying to see the key that lies in the bottom of a bowl of water while the water is being swiftly stirred. Meditation (and prayer), from a spiritual perspective, serves the purpose to temporarily “dim” such sensory inputs, to stop the stirring and allow the water in the bowl to stand still: then one is able to see the key at the bottom.
A Christian concentrates on God by saying prayers, empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with Christ, he/she waits and listens to God’s word to guide him/her.
A pantheist concentrates on the Universal Love by saying “om” or focusing on breathing or love or grace or by counting; empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with the Universe, he/she waits and looks for “keys” to guide him/her.
The concept itself is only different in the fundamental belief of the entity of a personal God that transcends the world. That difference itself acts as an immense distorting glass wall between the two worldviews causing misconceptions and discrimination, as it is so evidently observable in the works of Cosgrove.
References
Allen, C. (2003) The benefits of meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation
Aubrey, A. (2005) Science explores meditation’s effects on the Brain. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779
Barbor, C. (2001) The science of meditaion. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200105/the-science-meditation
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundation of Christian thought. Kregel Publications.
Meditation Society of America. (n.d.) What is meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.meditationsociety.com/what.html
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) (2010, March 31). Brain waves and meditation. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism
According to Cosgrove meditation in the Eastern Pantheist traditions serve only to “help the person screen out sensory input in order to lower one’s perception of self and reality”. He contrasts meditation with prayer saying that the purpose of meditation is to empty the mind, while the purpose of prayer is to fill the mind with God. As indicated by Cosgrove, meditation is important in pantheism to help dissolve problems and create a sense of unity with the Universe. (Cosgrove, 2006)
There is, however, a different perspective on what meditation is, what it serves and why it is important (to pantheists or to anyone for that fact).
As said by the Meditation Society of America: “Meditation is a three step [concentration, meditation, contemplation] process that leads to a state of consciousness that brings serenity, clarity, and bliss.”
In that light, prayer is also a form of meditation where the subject of concentration is God. Using “om”, as an aid to tune out distractions and “empty” the mind, is only one of many techniques. Although meditation seems deceptively simple it takes practice and lots of discipline to gain control over the mind without the constantly intruding tantalizing, interesting thoughts.
When pantheists speak of “emptying the mind”, what they really mean is to empty out the garbage (uncontrolled, unwanted thoughts and feelings). The reason one needs to empty the mind first is to gain clarity or to be able to fill it with wanted thoughts and feelings.
The ultimate spiritual benefits of meditation has been clear hundreds of years ago, but now science has the ability to back that up with logical physiological evidence as well by the means of neuroscience: the study of the electrical brain activity and brain waves. (The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2010)
“…regular meditation actually alters the way the brain is wired, and that these changes could be at the heart of claims that meditation can improve health and well-being.” (Aubrey, 2005)
“Neuroscientists have found that meditators shift their brain activity to different areas of the cortex—brain waves in the stress-prone right frontal cortex move to the calmer left frontal cortex. In other words, they were calmer and happier than before.” (Allen, 2003)
“A second study, published last year in Psychosomatic Medicine, taught a randomized group of 90 cancer patients mindful meditation (another type of practice). After seven weeks, those who had meditated reported that they were significantly less depressed, anxious, angry and confused than the control group, which hadn't practiced meditation. The meditators also had more energy and fewer heart and gastrointestinal problems than did the other group.” (Barbor, 2001)
The physical and psychological benefits of meditation are recognized and widely accepted in the West today. The spiritual benefits are still mostly misunderstood or misinterpreted.
Meditation itself will not solve humanity’s problems, as Cosgrove puts it in perspective. Pantheists do not believe that “diming” sensory inputs will make problems not real. The purpose of meditation is to put problems in a different perspective: to help differentiate between problems one can control by taking actions; and problems one needs to accept and move on. When one’s mind is full of fear, anger, worry, racing thoughts and things to do’s; it is like trying to see the key that lies in the bottom of a bowl of water while the water is being swiftly stirred. Meditation (and prayer), from a spiritual perspective, serves the purpose to temporarily “dim” such sensory inputs, to stop the stirring and allow the water in the bowl to stand still: then one is able to see the key at the bottom.
A Christian concentrates on God by saying prayers, empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with Christ, he/she waits and listens to God’s word to guide him/her.
A pantheist concentrates on the Universal Love by saying “om” or focusing on breathing or love or grace or by counting; empties all other worries from the mind and as he/she becomes one with the Universe, he/she waits and looks for “keys” to guide him/her.
The concept itself is only different in the fundamental belief of the entity of a personal God that transcends the world. That difference itself acts as an immense distorting glass wall between the two worldviews causing misconceptions and discrimination, as it is so evidently observable in the works of Cosgrove.
References
Allen, C. (2003) The benefits of meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation
Aubrey, A. (2005) Science explores meditation’s effects on the Brain. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4770779
Barbor, C. (2001) The science of meditaion. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200105/the-science-meditation
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundation of Christian thought. Kregel Publications.
Meditation Society of America. (n.d.) What is meditation. Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://www.meditationsociety.com/what.html
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) (2010, March 31). Brain waves and meditation. ScienceDaily. Retrieved December 1, 2010, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/03/100319210631.htm
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007) Retrieved December 1, 2010 from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Secular Humanism vs. Christianity
Question:
Secular Humanists feel that, "The good is not what some abstract God dictates, but what contributes to the liberation, growth, and progress of human beings. Instead of being God-centered, we should be human-centered" (Veith, 1994. p. 71). What do you think about this statement?
Answer:
Looking at the question from strictly moral and ethical point of view:
Given, that two people living very similar lives and adhering to identical ethical and moral codes; but one of them is atheist, while the other is Christian: is there a difference between them on a moral standard?
If a man, who doesn’t believe in supernatural, lives his life consistently in the acts of love, charity, truthfulness, hard work, loyalty and integrity, while fulfilling his purpose to serve humanity and our planet: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
But what about a Christian, who is God-centered, but fails to fulfill the standards, set by the Bible: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
Secular Humanism does not necessarily reject the principles of the Christian ethics and morals. It simply wants to take religion out of it. Secular Humanist principles however, are based on individual, scientific and social knowledge and thus it may not have unambiguous rules set in place, such in the Bible. Meaning, that while killing, stealing, cheating etc. are not acceptable in neither worldview; rules about sexuality or relationships in general may differ greatly.
Things that “contribute to the liberation, growth and progress of the human beings” are good. I would add: as long as it does no harm to our fellow humans and to our non-human World. I still seem to think that we, humans, have the inclination to grow and progress at the cost of our very planet and I don’t see that very ethical or moral at all, whether you are God-centered or Human centered.
Then there is another aspect to think about: many things secular humanists don’t necessarily reject, but don’t support either. Nature takes care of that. For example, homosexuality: Christianity considers it an “outgrowth of mankind’s sinful nature”. It is unacceptable morally. Period.
Morally, secular humanism doesn’t deny it… it doesn’t care. Why? Because nature takes care of that part. Secular Humanism is the cousin of Naturalism. One of their concepts is: only the strongest genes survive; only the strongest genes get to be passed on via reproduction. Well… with natural methods that will hardly happen amongst homosexual couples. (Surgical or other methods are not natural and that is the subject of a whole new moral/ethical discussion).
The Bible provides a very clear-cut set of rules defined by God: it leaves minimal room for misinterpretation and misuse. And because humans have a natural tendency to test their boundaries and fall into greed and lust, these guidelines are more effective in unifying humanity into one coherent moral/ethical direction. Secular Humanism in the question of morals and ethics is vague: it doesn’t provide effective guidance to those in doubt.
In conclusion, the statement itself in the beginning in the respect of morals and ethics is not necessarily bad or wrong, but rather incomplete and vague; leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical.
From a religious aspect it’s a different discussion…
Question:
You wrote a thorough post on your thoughts about secular humanism. You made a great point about secular humanism wanting to take religion out of the picture completely. They do not believe in absolute truth, sinful nature, and suffering. Your conclusion about the way secular humanists view morals, "leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical" is exactly right on target. I do however want you to think more about how Secular humanists view Christian morals and standards. Since secular humanist believe in the "is=ought" basis for ethics and relativism has sunk into the fabric of some of our culture too, this is counter to everything that the Bible speaks and teaches. So what is the answer to your question, "is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?" Thoughts?
Answer:
One is ought to be judged for one's acts; for only acts will reflect one's core beliefs, whether one is conscious of it or not.
By this I mean, that man could preach the word of God with all his heart, yet defy those words with his actions; while one, who consciously refuses to believe in the supernatural, acts upon the word of God driven by a subconscious or innate desire to serve and love.
By no means are people extreme one way or another, but ultimately actions are the end result of whatever worldview or belief system we harbor consciously or subconsciously.
The "is=ought" basis for ethics isn't necessarily counter to everything the Bible speaks and teaches.
"Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.
Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare." (Cherry & Matsumura, n.d.)
The two worldviews, although they share many of the same moral and ethical values, differ in their fundamental belief about supernatural in such extreme measure, that any argument about their supportive reasoning is already decided pointless in the minds of the opposing party.
I would like to share links with you from the website of the Council of Secular Humanism. I think it is only fair to read about how they define their worldview from their point of view. It is not to say that anyone needs to take sides. But after gathering information from both Christian view on humanism and humanism view on humanism, you'll have a better (a more fair) chance to draw your own conclusions as to how and where they fit into the big picture.
Links to look into:
Cherry & Matsumura. (n.d.) 10 Myths about secular humanism. Retrieved from http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=cherry1_18_1&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularhumanism.org%2Flib%2Flist.php%3Fpublication%3Dfi%26vol%3D18
Gunasekara, V. A. (n.d.) Core principles of humanism. Retrieved from http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bte168D9ShMC&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=secular+humanism+is%3Dought&source=bl&ots=xY8X8zlR81&sig=oS3Z8VZrUATTGku2r_aNP36yKW0&hl=en&ei=AyjoTLqlNMGqlAf60LzVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secular%20humanism%20is%3Dought&f=false
Secular Humanists feel that, "The good is not what some abstract God dictates, but what contributes to the liberation, growth, and progress of human beings. Instead of being God-centered, we should be human-centered" (Veith, 1994. p. 71). What do you think about this statement?
Answer:
Looking at the question from strictly moral and ethical point of view:
Given, that two people living very similar lives and adhering to identical ethical and moral codes; but one of them is atheist, while the other is Christian: is there a difference between them on a moral standard?
If a man, who doesn’t believe in supernatural, lives his life consistently in the acts of love, charity, truthfulness, hard work, loyalty and integrity, while fulfilling his purpose to serve humanity and our planet: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
But what about a Christian, who is God-centered, but fails to fulfill the standards, set by the Bible: is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?
Secular Humanism does not necessarily reject the principles of the Christian ethics and morals. It simply wants to take religion out of it. Secular Humanist principles however, are based on individual, scientific and social knowledge and thus it may not have unambiguous rules set in place, such in the Bible. Meaning, that while killing, stealing, cheating etc. are not acceptable in neither worldview; rules about sexuality or relationships in general may differ greatly.
Things that “contribute to the liberation, growth and progress of the human beings” are good. I would add: as long as it does no harm to our fellow humans and to our non-human World. I still seem to think that we, humans, have the inclination to grow and progress at the cost of our very planet and I don’t see that very ethical or moral at all, whether you are God-centered or Human centered.
Then there is another aspect to think about: many things secular humanists don’t necessarily reject, but don’t support either. Nature takes care of that. For example, homosexuality: Christianity considers it an “outgrowth of mankind’s sinful nature”. It is unacceptable morally. Period.
Morally, secular humanism doesn’t deny it… it doesn’t care. Why? Because nature takes care of that part. Secular Humanism is the cousin of Naturalism. One of their concepts is: only the strongest genes survive; only the strongest genes get to be passed on via reproduction. Well… with natural methods that will hardly happen amongst homosexual couples. (Surgical or other methods are not natural and that is the subject of a whole new moral/ethical discussion).
The Bible provides a very clear-cut set of rules defined by God: it leaves minimal room for misinterpretation and misuse. And because humans have a natural tendency to test their boundaries and fall into greed and lust, these guidelines are more effective in unifying humanity into one coherent moral/ethical direction. Secular Humanism in the question of morals and ethics is vague: it doesn’t provide effective guidance to those in doubt.
In conclusion, the statement itself in the beginning in the respect of morals and ethics is not necessarily bad or wrong, but rather incomplete and vague; leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical.
From a religious aspect it’s a different discussion…
Question:
You wrote a thorough post on your thoughts about secular humanism. You made a great point about secular humanism wanting to take religion out of the picture completely. They do not believe in absolute truth, sinful nature, and suffering. Your conclusion about the way secular humanists view morals, "leaving too much freedom for individual interpretation of what is moral or ethical" is exactly right on target. I do however want you to think more about how Secular humanists view Christian morals and standards. Since secular humanist believe in the "is=ought" basis for ethics and relativism has sunk into the fabric of some of our culture too, this is counter to everything that the Bible speaks and teaches. So what is the answer to your question, "is that man judged for his acts or for his beliefs?" Thoughts?
Answer:
One is ought to be judged for one's acts; for only acts will reflect one's core beliefs, whether one is conscious of it or not.
By this I mean, that man could preach the word of God with all his heart, yet defy those words with his actions; while one, who consciously refuses to believe in the supernatural, acts upon the word of God driven by a subconscious or innate desire to serve and love.
By no means are people extreme one way or another, but ultimately actions are the end result of whatever worldview or belief system we harbor consciously or subconsciously.
The "is=ought" basis for ethics isn't necessarily counter to everything the Bible speaks and teaches.
"Secular humanists believe morality and meaning come from humanity and the natural world, not from God or the supernatural. It is our human values that give us rights, responsibilities, and dignity. We believe that morality should aim to bring out the best in people, so that all people can have the best in life. And morality must be based on our knowledge of human nature and the real world.
Humanist and religious morality share many basic principles because in fact both are underpinned by the fundamental human moral sense summarized in the Golden Rule: treat others with the same consideration as you would have them treat you. Humanists recognize that the common moral decencies - for example, people should not lie, steal, or kill; and they should be honest, generous, and cooperative - really are conducive to human welfare." (Cherry & Matsumura, n.d.)
The two worldviews, although they share many of the same moral and ethical values, differ in their fundamental belief about supernatural in such extreme measure, that any argument about their supportive reasoning is already decided pointless in the minds of the opposing party.
I would like to share links with you from the website of the Council of Secular Humanism. I think it is only fair to read about how they define their worldview from their point of view. It is not to say that anyone needs to take sides. But after gathering information from both Christian view on humanism and humanism view on humanism, you'll have a better (a more fair) chance to draw your own conclusions as to how and where they fit into the big picture.
Links to look into:
Cherry & Matsumura. (n.d.) 10 Myths about secular humanism. Retrieved from http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=cherry1_18_1&back=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.secularhumanism.org%2Flib%2Flist.php%3Fpublication%3Dfi%26vol%3D18
Gunasekara, V. A. (n.d.) Core principles of humanism. Retrieved from http://www.uq.net.au/slsoc/manussa/coreprin.htm
Cosgrove, M. (2006) Foundations of Christian Thought.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bte168D9ShMC&pg=PT52&lpg=PT52&dq=secular+humanism+is%3Dought&source=bl&ots=xY8X8zlR81&sig=oS3Z8VZrUATTGku2r_aNP36yKW0&hl=en&ei=AyjoTLqlNMGqlAf60LzVCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secular%20humanism%20is%3Dought&f=false
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Escape from Freedom
"Whenever we seek to avoid the responsibility for our own behavior, we do so by attempting to give that responsibility to some other individual or organization or entity. But this means we then give away our power to that entity, be it "fate" or "society" or the government or the corporation or our boss. It is for this reason that Erich Fromm so aptly titled his study of Nazism and authoritarianism Escape from Freedom. In attempting to avoid the pain of responsibility, millions and even billions daily attempt to escape from freedom."
by M. Scott Peck, M.D. in The Road Less Traveled
Freedom is a great responsibility; choosing freedom means taking responsibility for our choices and their consequences. In other words: you are not the result of your circumstances, rather of your choices. You always have the choice to pass on the responsibility for your crappy life to society, to economy, to your spouse, to your boss... Because accepting responsibility would mean having to deal with the pain of hard work, mistakes and sacrifise.
So you have two choices:
1. Blame others: you can live passively in a comfortable crappy life, believing that you are powerless and allowing circumstances to command your possibilities (yeah, you don't have to deal with the weight of responsibilities).
2. Be in charge: you can live actively, taking risks and constantly challange yourself to move past your comfort zone: but never settle for less than your freedom to live your life the way you desire it.
So next time you complain about something in your life; step back and reflect for a moment. You always have a choice. Perhaps the reason to stay where you are is more valuable to you, than the price you'd need to pay to be where you want to be. Perhaps you didn't even see the alternative option...
But whether you take the time to see it or not; just know that it's there.
by Anita M. Gardonyi
by M. Scott Peck, M.D. in The Road Less Traveled
Freedom is a great responsibility; choosing freedom means taking responsibility for our choices and their consequences. In other words: you are not the result of your circumstances, rather of your choices. You always have the choice to pass on the responsibility for your crappy life to society, to economy, to your spouse, to your boss... Because accepting responsibility would mean having to deal with the pain of hard work, mistakes and sacrifise.
So you have two choices:
1. Blame others: you can live passively in a comfortable crappy life, believing that you are powerless and allowing circumstances to command your possibilities (yeah, you don't have to deal with the weight of responsibilities).
2. Be in charge: you can live actively, taking risks and constantly challange yourself to move past your comfort zone: but never settle for less than your freedom to live your life the way you desire it.
So next time you complain about something in your life; step back and reflect for a moment. You always have a choice. Perhaps the reason to stay where you are is more valuable to you, than the price you'd need to pay to be where you want to be. Perhaps you didn't even see the alternative option...
But whether you take the time to see it or not; just know that it's there.
by Anita M. Gardonyi
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
What should "commitment" look like?
Why do men run from it? What comes in your mind first when you think of the word: “commitment” in a relationship?
I can tell you right now that the answer will be night and day depending on whether you are a man or a woman. I am even willing to bet that the descriptions of the same word will be drastically different if not totally opposite. I’d like to add, that I am not talking about marriage here: I am implying to relationships of all levels from meeting, dating, serious relationships and even marriage.
Merriam-Webster’s definition:
1. a: an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2) : an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee
b: mittimus (a warrant of commitment to prison)
2. a: an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date
b: something pledged
c: the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled
Let me tell you a few synonyms to the word “commitment”: obligation, duty responsibility, binder, liability…
Wow! No wonder that just the mentioning of the word compels guys to run for their lives!
Ladies, I do realize that it is not how we see this (and that the dictionary was obviously published by men). But let’s look at the common perception of how women describe commitment.
Her description will be something like this:
1. You can’t hang out with your friends any more.
2. You can’t look at other women any more.
3. You can’t sit around all Sunday watching TV.
4. You can’t blow your money on new rims or stereo equipment for your car.
5. You have to pretend you like my new dress.
6. You have to pretend my new dress doesn’t make my butt look big.
7. You have to pretend you noticed my new dress.
8. You have to pretend you are not pretending.
9. You have to put up with me bossing you around.
10. ….
Ladies, you know it’s true. You don’t say it, but most women feel this way. We feel the need to control every aspect of our man’s life, as if they are no longer capable of or effective doing so on their own: stripping them of their freedom to be who they are: their very identity (which we fell in love with in the first place, by the way - hopefully).
Well, here is my input on the definition of commitment (not all inclusive). The concept both men and women should embrace and reinforce to create a new and attractive image of the word “commitment” (and maybe become the foundation of a new dictionary written by both men and women).
Commitment
1. Teamwork, integrity, respect and honesty (notice I didn’t say codependency, neediness and control).
2. Devoted to get to know each other and each other’s needs.
3. Acceptance: the freedom to remain and express who you are and what you like to do; and know that I respect your needs and won’t hinder you in any way.
4. Promise to be driven to meet each other’s needs to make each other happy: not because I have to, but because it makes me happy.
5. Dedicated to ensure success, fulfillment and happiness within the relationship for everyone involved (yes that includes self as well).
6. Mutual loyalty and devotion to a person or relationship
7. Promise to help each other and to work through difficult times
8. Realize that we are sharing life with each other (NOT consuming each other’s life)
9. Yes, you can still hang out with your friends :)
Well, these are my thoughts on “commitment” between 2:30am and 4:42am… I am sure there is a lot more to say about it (perhaps even things that make more sense in the daylight)… You are welcome to share them with me!
I can tell you right now that the answer will be night and day depending on whether you are a man or a woman. I am even willing to bet that the descriptions of the same word will be drastically different if not totally opposite. I’d like to add, that I am not talking about marriage here: I am implying to relationships of all levels from meeting, dating, serious relationships and even marriage.
Merriam-Webster’s definition:
1. a: an act of committing to a charge or trust: as (1) : a consignment to a penal or mental institution (2) : an act of referring a matter to a legislative committee
b: mittimus (a warrant of commitment to prison)
2. a: an agreement or pledge to do something in the future; especially : an engagement to assume a financial obligation at a future date
b: something pledged
c: the state or an instance of being obligated or emotionally impelled
Let me tell you a few synonyms to the word “commitment”: obligation, duty responsibility, binder, liability…
Wow! No wonder that just the mentioning of the word compels guys to run for their lives!
Ladies, I do realize that it is not how we see this (and that the dictionary was obviously published by men). But let’s look at the common perception of how women describe commitment.
Her description will be something like this:
1. You can’t hang out with your friends any more.
2. You can’t look at other women any more.
3. You can’t sit around all Sunday watching TV.
4. You can’t blow your money on new rims or stereo equipment for your car.
5. You have to pretend you like my new dress.
6. You have to pretend my new dress doesn’t make my butt look big.
7. You have to pretend you noticed my new dress.
8. You have to pretend you are not pretending.
9. You have to put up with me bossing you around.
10. ….
Ladies, you know it’s true. You don’t say it, but most women feel this way. We feel the need to control every aspect of our man’s life, as if they are no longer capable of or effective doing so on their own: stripping them of their freedom to be who they are: their very identity (which we fell in love with in the first place, by the way - hopefully).
Well, here is my input on the definition of commitment (not all inclusive). The concept both men and women should embrace and reinforce to create a new and attractive image of the word “commitment” (and maybe become the foundation of a new dictionary written by both men and women).
Commitment
1. Teamwork, integrity, respect and honesty (notice I didn’t say codependency, neediness and control).
2. Devoted to get to know each other and each other’s needs.
3. Acceptance: the freedom to remain and express who you are and what you like to do; and know that I respect your needs and won’t hinder you in any way.
4. Promise to be driven to meet each other’s needs to make each other happy: not because I have to, but because it makes me happy.
5. Dedicated to ensure success, fulfillment and happiness within the relationship for everyone involved (yes that includes self as well).
6. Mutual loyalty and devotion to a person or relationship
7. Promise to help each other and to work through difficult times
8. Realize that we are sharing life with each other (NOT consuming each other’s life)
9. Yes, you can still hang out with your friends :)
Well, these are my thoughts on “commitment” between 2:30am and 4:42am… I am sure there is a lot more to say about it (perhaps even things that make more sense in the daylight)… You are welcome to share them with me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)