The Relationship 'Struggle'

There’s an issue in a relationship that can be a problem if not addressed carefully. We can choose the people we date, but we can’t choose the people we fall for. Sometimes there will be differences; in this scenario that difference is belief. How is someone to get past the difference so that it doesn't hinder the relationship?  In my case, I’m… a Spiritualist and my wife is Hindu. When a friend entered a similar situation, I found a way to put this into words so that it might help him. Be aware though, that any school of thought can replace my life or my example.

My wife and I have different beliefs, but it doesn't cause a problem. Here's how it works for me.

She talks to me about Hindu history and its gods. She involves me in the rituals and brings me with her to the temples. There are many temples out here, but even in ‘the States’ there is still at least one or two in any given city. And there is always something to do in them. While my ever changing beliefs may encompass hers at some point, they may also be in stark contrast. But it doesn't even matter.

There are two things to come away with.

1: Respect.

2: Her Passion.

The first is simple; if she's to respect your beliefs and hear them out, then you're to also respect her beliefs… no matter how crazy they may sound to you.

But the more important part is the passion. See, my wife's belief is something VERY close to her. And it's a TRUE belief. She's not Hindu because it's convenient… she's truly and fully Hindu. Her beliefs, performing the rituals, and visiting the temples are something that makes her Happy. To that end, she wants me to join in because it is a part of the Happiness that she wants to have me included with. Because I respect her beliefs and because she's not doing it out of convenience, but truly believes… AND because it makes her really happy, it makes me want to join in and participate. I'm included in a part of her life that makes her very happy, even if it is different from my own life in this regard. When the priest of the temple is talking or the family priest is performing a rite, it's not about what he's saying that matters. It is about that smile and devoutness on my wife's face. That's what matters.

While my life doesn’t fit the norm, a more common situation would be between an Atheist and a Christian. Imagine that you’re the Atheist and your S.O. is the Christian. If you go to your girl’s church with her, it isn’t about what the pastor is saying; it's about HER. It makes her happy, so you join in on this section of her life that makes her happy. By being there you'll make her even happier. Focus on the light of her smile, not what the pastor says. It's about her, not the speaker. So long as she doesn't try to convert you, everything is okay and everything is cool.

And then you can take it a step further. Learn about her beliefs. By going to church you can learn about it, first hand. Education doesn't require belief, nor does it require you to think it's true. Educate yourself not by what the crazies say on Facebook or at work, but by what the actual teacher of the school (of thought) has to say. Songs aren't an issue in Christian church, there are usually lyrics available. You just have to sing them and try to participate. When there are readings, listen to them. When the sermon starts, listen and hear how it is interpreted. Also, just because some people in a particular church may believe a story or bible reading a very specific way, I guarantee you not everyone does.

A good question to ask yourself is what DO you know about Christianity? Forget it all; learn it from here (the church your S.O. goes to). Besides there are different forms: Protestant, Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. Then Non-Denominational churches and there aren’t specifics as to how each one will operate or believe. Learn this one's specifics. And then past that you can learn about what it is your partner believes. She's not guaranteed to follow it exactly, but don't get hung up on these specifics. The only specifics that matter are that God makes her happy and YOU make her happy. The two together would simply be awesome to her. Your philosophy be damned. It makes her happy, so it's worth it.

Labeling Beliefs

     I hold a belief. I have spent time finding out what it is I think, what I feel, & what seems to make sense. I suppose you could say I've always held a belief, technically that’s true. I mean, as a child I believed that there was a world out there. As I grew, I learned about God and believed in him. Later on that there are spirits/souls out there without a suit of their own. As I became a teen I started to ask ‘why’ after some hard times occurred. From the very beginning, we all hold a belief. Even NOT believing is a belief in its own right. (Please note that I’ll write something up on that last part later. There is a bit of obscurity on that one. Wording is key, as is with anything.)

     Having a belief then, doesn't mean much. As with many things, it is the substance that has value. What do you believe? What then… are you? Oddly the belief itself often comes second to the categorization of it. The category is a bit ambiguous. What I might consider to work, others might not. A category has a rule on what makes it so, yet there is always grey area. A poster in my mailbox is still IN my mailbox even if half is hanging out. It fulfills the category even with something leftover.

     This is how I view religions… well “organized” religions. I don’t know if there is a difference between ‘Organized Religion’ & simply saying ‘Religion’. They’re used the same. “What’s your religion?” is just short for, “What organization of religion are you a part of?” That is something I wonder about. Why the need for classification and what does it mean if you lack the ‘required’ organization. I’m a Spiritualist if I *need* to be defined, but what of the Catholics, Muslims, Jewish, Hindus, or Non-denominational groups? And to take two of those a step further, what of Christians (Non-denominational & Catholics)?

     All of these groupings have a familiarity attached to them. Anyone that is a member has common attributes, or rather common beliefs. While there are common thoughts within a religion; it is another thing to say ALL thoughts are common among them. We all have differences in our beliefs due to our own perceptions. This makes the idea of a ‘One True Religion’ a hard concept. If all Christians have slightly different thoughts about all the nuances that makes someone Christian, then how can Christianity be 100% correct?... when it isn't agreed upon completely by its subscribers. It doesn't falsify any truths within mind you. Just as science has known facts… new knowledge can change those facts yet still hold the truths outside of the changed concept. The same holds true for Spiritual Knowledge.

     One of the biggest issues I have with organized religion is the idea of worship. Simply put, I refuse it. I refuse to worship someone(/thing) simply because they are superior to me in some way. If someone wants my respect they’re welcome to have it. But worship? I don’t deal well with people that expect or need to be looked up to. In my mind ALL are equal. All are on a level playing field: Gods, advanced races, ourselves, & dogs… past all of our physical selves, we’re equal. Nothing will get my submission simply because. To me, a god or driving energy should be something close, something personal. I would rather view a god as a best friend than something I’m unworthy to look upon. If you've ever made a friend out of a boss or parent, then this concept should be easy to understand.

     Although I’m not fond of labeling faiths, I’ll admit that it does aid in a basic understanding of another’s beliefs. With a label, one can easily state a lot of information in a word or phrase. Even as a self-described Spiritualist, there is still meaning. Positive meaning. What we could do without are labels that aren't so positive or simply are too vague. Pagan is one such word… told to the world that Non-Christians are Pagan. There are many Powerful & Personal beliefs that are swept under this term. How about instead of having a world where we find the ‘One True Religion’, we embrace all religions, learn all religions, and discover the greater truths that are nigh impossible to decipher on our own?

Where is the Black Cat?

     While anyone can go to Wikipedia to see why this analogy is wrong (*cough*), let’s delve into it just a little bit shall we? I saw this for the first time a few days ago and honestly I’m a little appalled by it. Philosophy is. Theology is. Science is. (I’m ignoring metaphysics.) Theology is more about the study of a religion. This does not preclude that the theologist believes in a god, or the god that they’re currently studying.

     So my first question would be: If belief isn't required to be a Theologist, but theology is like finding a cat in a dark room, then does this not work against the extremists that created this picture? The theologist found the cat, which could then therefore say that they found a god. I haven’t seen it used this way, but if you’re going to knock it, you should word it better. No one needs to study religion to believe in something greater. Just as no one needs to study science in order for a watch to tell time.

     A belief is simply that: a belief. I would have sooner expected this picture to say “religion”. It’s not entirely accurate as it does not encompass all believers, but it gets used generically enough that it still would be a better use than Theology. I've only seen this (example/picture) used to knock (down) believers, so I again think that this is what was intended. But where am I going exactly? There seems to be this “common” notion by atheist extremists that atheism and science go hand in hand. Furthermore, they will say that one cannot believe in god and science at the same time. Beliefs and Sciences are separate things. I can believe in something beyond this life and also believe in evolution. If you disagree with me, then we have an issue… because I do believe the earth is billions of years old, that homo-sapiens and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor humans as we see them today. I also accept that we can date the earth to the last Ice Age via Dendrochronology. So all this talk about Science being an atheist’s proof? I don’t buy it. Not everyone believes as Christians do and that “what’s out there” is specifically an omni-potent god. There are other ideas out there, other ideas that fully accept science. Fully. Completely. Atheism and Science. Theism and Science. Both work. Neither disproves the other.

     So my second question would be: Why do people think Science is specific to a belief style? Just because a religious zealot says “Science is a religion!” doesn't mean the rest of us agree with that notion. There’s no reason to take an extremist’s point of view and declare it upon everyone else. We’re not them. You’re not them. Don’t be them. And no, not seeing god isn't your scientific proof to be an atheist. Prove to the rest of us that the wind doesn't exist. You can’t see that. You say it affects you, that you can feel it. If you cannot give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you can’t witness things as others can… then you’re not doing science justly. Science accepts the fact that perhaps they’re doing it wrong, perhaps more knowledge is needed to see the next truth, and that one cannot go into an experiment with an expectation of the result. You can think you might know… that’s a hypothesis, but expecting to know and then stopping pursuit once you find “proof”? That’s not following the Method. Also, a “lack of proof” from theists (not that theists state they’re lacking any) isn't a justified answer. For one, it isn't a scientific approach. Secondly, what is a belief if you’re just taking what others say or don’t say? Not much, I’ll tell you that.

     So this leads me to my final question. This is the one I find interesting. Everyone is in a room looking for a cat. The scientist is using a flashlight, and I assume this means that they will find it. So here’s my (third and original) question: What is Science’s reaction when they spot the black cat… being held by Theology? After all, Theology did find the cat when Science was still looking.

Extra thoughts to think on:

1.  It states that the cat isn't there for Metaphysics and Theology. This is an unfair analogy because either the cat IS there for all, or is NOT there for all.  So we have options. 2 – No Cat, 3 - Cat
2. It depicts science as the smartest of the four choices, yet science also got duped into searching for a black cat in a dark room. Assuming the cat isn't there since again it only states when the cat isn't there, but never states that there IS actually a cat present.
3. There is a cat, but it simply is not in the room. So Philosophy, Metaphysics, and Science are looking in a room where there is no cat.  Yet Theology found the cat that isn't in the room. How? Well maybe the door is open, or maybe it’s on the other side of the window. We might live in a box, but the extra spice to life is being able to both Think and See outside of it.

A question while I'm out of town.

Once I was sitting in a room, lost in thought. Suddenly I felt like I was being watched... But more so because I saw the image of myself from above. (I was looking down at myself from a distance of about 10 feet.)

So my question is: Did I remote sense myself or did I have an out of body experience?

Also, I'd appreciate it if you guys would comment on my blog. That way I can see them years to come and so that your thoughts and ideas can fuel my own. :)

Much Appreciated.
~GakFace