From: pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Organization: The Duck Pond public unix: +1 408 249 9630, log in as 'guest'.
	<fWJTPBe@quack.sac.ca.us> <gmiller-171292154602@gmiller.worldbank.org>
Date: 19 Dec 1992 06:39:29 UTC

In article <gmiller-171292154602@gmiller.worldbank.org> 
gmiller@worldbank.org (Gene C. Miller) writes:
>In article <fWJTPBe@quack.sac.ca.us>, 
pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) wrote:
>> In article <1992Dec17.030104.1767@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>> dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> >pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) calls me on an important question:
>> >>So, in your opinion, why do people join religious movements  today?
>> >I think they join for two reasons: one is that most of us know
>> >we are alive, and that we have to die; it is important to be able
>> >to make meaning in our lives, in order to provide the fullest
>> >life we are capable of, not only for ourselves, but for those
>> >we care about and those who care about us. 
>> >People join a community of faith in order to not make that
>> >journey alone; to learn from other's lessons, to gain new
>> >perspectives: to be part of something larger than themselves.
>> >A community of faith, unlike say USENET, requires people to
>> >go out of their way to physically meet, to confront, to accept
>> >each other with all that that implies, in order to be fully
>> >human, in order not to live in a vacuum.
>Let me say at the outset that, I found the whole of Dano's response
>thoughtful and thought-provoking. I would have used the word "non-rational"
>rather than "irrational" but that is a most piddling quibble. 

Agreed - on the thought-provoking part.

>> I find this very interesting. What you are describing is culture or
>> family or tribe, is it not? Are the majority of people so disconnected
>> from each other today that religion is required to bring them together?
>> Are the only group rituals of significance today religious? Is this
>> something that atheists are missing?
>I don't think that religion is "required" to bring people together. It
>seems to do it well, though. The effects of the decline of ritual behavior
>(even secular rites of passage) is largely unknown territory.  Perhaps what
>Robert Bly writes about in Iron John could be viewed as a meditation on the
>subject.

Yes, I think so. Though I'm not a real big fan of Bly; don't get me
wrong, he's OK but doesn't really do all that much for me; nonetheless this
would appear to be barking right up his tree. Since I partake of my own
secular and sacred rituals on a daily basis on my own and with others, I
can't really speak for those who can only achieve this at a church or
church function. Of course, I was also initiated into manhood by my
father, perhaps that has made a difference.

>>And, speaking of journeys we make
>> alone, of course each of us dies alone, it is the one heroic act we all
>> get to partake in, alone. Is it fear of this one solitary journey that
>> encourages people to join religious groups, under the illusion that the
>> whole group will pass through as a group and not as
>> individuals?
>  Christianity doesn't hold the notion that the whole group will pass
>through as a group. Recall the old song "You've got to walk that lonesome
>valley, you've got to walk it by yourself, nobody else can walk it for
>you..." It seems to capture the Christian view that each person must face
>God alone.

Yes, but part of what is going on is a group ritual that says we all
believe that we have the same fate at death, we all know the same "truth"
of the afterlife, therefore it is more likely to be true, the "truth" is
more powerful when it comes from a group than just one individual or
even oneself. I think this is the "larger than oneself" that Dano is talking
about. Of course, I would think the wise would know that there is great
danger here. Greater power does not equal greater truth, at least by my
reconing.

>>Is a religious group a substitute family, where instead of
>> a domineering father who forces the family together despite personality
>> differences, one has a domineering God image instead, performing the
>> same role? And, does a religious group make one "fully human and not
>> living in a vacuum," or is it only an illusion? Why is this sounding like
>> Bradshaw's dysfunctional family?
>  One of the fascinating characteristics of Christianity is the extent to
>which people find it psychologically (whatever that means) satisfying. The
>Bible tells some cracking good tales that address deep-seated hungers and
>fears in people. By way of illustration, consider some of the stories in
>the way that Bruno Bettelheim looked at fairy tales in "The Uses of
>Enchantment."  As an example, the story of Cain and Abel may be read as the
>story of the conflict between an agrarian and a nomadic herding society; it
>may also be read as a parable of sibling rivalry with the message that
>there are heavy dues to be paid just on a purely human level if you should,
>in a moment of anger, actually kill your brother. This psychological
>perspicacity, to my mind, keeps the Bible popular in a way that some other
>old literatures aren't.

It certainly is one of the world's great myths.

>  Thus, God may be depicted within each group according to group needs. The
>domineering God forcing the family together is, from what I've seen, more
>often than not an expression of the personality of the leaders of a group
>who are using Christianity as an outlet for their will to power. I've met
>others who call themselves Christians who seemed astonishingly free of any
>overt will to power. Not often, though.

Meaning? God is a metaphor, right? One does with it as one sees fit. We
each have our own conception of God, yes even atheists, yet strangely
many assume that their beliefs are the same, made stronger by the
greater power of the group. Then again - maybe they are, just not in the
way the "one true way-ers" would think.

>Re: Bradshaw: at some point, some folks manage to come to terms with
>their childhood and upbringing. Call it a statute of limitations on
>parental crimes. Bradshaw (and others for that matter) have little to offer
>them. But these folk may continue nevertheless to find Christianity
>rewarding. I would guess that some of the correspondents here on the net
>would be willing to vouch personally for this...Gene

I don't think it's so much parental crimes, although for some it is. But
we all have to come to terms with our childhood and upbringing, one way
or the other, now or later. Undoubtably for some, Christianity serves
this purpose or becomes a substitute. Bradshaw rants and raves about the
stern upbringing once a traditional part of Anglo-Germanic culture, the
this is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you and don't spare the rod
type thinking. I have to wonder about connections to Protestantism.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:24181 alt.atheism:23962 alt.slack:3530 talk.bizarre:42323 alt.religion.kibology:5469