In Response Kolb's Corner (5/2/2010)

First of all, I understand your blog post, and I agree with the main idea of it; yes, people generally want more of something they like after they first get it. I agree that this is a part of human nature in a general sense, and that we see many examples of this in society. With that said, I completely disagree that this need for more is just a part of human nature, and that there is nothing that a human can do about it. Money is a great example of the need for more that you bring up. The majority of people want to have money, and once they get a certain amount, they usually have the need for more. You are correct when you outline the fact that the need for money and other related things will never satisfy a person, but I think that you make the mistake of believing that all we can do is accept the idea that nothing will ever fulfill us, and therefore we mine as well attempt to get more money.

I think I am right when I say that there are things in life that can actually fulfill us; things that will give us the feeling that no amount of money or fame could ever come close to achieving. This idea relates to the Hindu idea of the human condition. Hindu’s believe that humans have a strong desire for cravings, such as money, which will never fully be satisfied. Even though your blog post agrees with this basic idea, I think that other Hindu ideas could be beneficial for you. Using Hindu principles, it seems to me that you are making a mistake by believing that your ego is your true identity. The idea that you are addicted to money is the perfect example of this. I think that the desire for money is fine because money is great, but thinking that money is going to fill your need for happiness or some other need is very problematic.

Continuing with Hindu ideas, it seems that you and anyone else who believes that money will fulfill them would be suffering from the “Identity Problem”. Money only will fulfill people’s egos, or their false identities. According to the Hindu ideas of human nature, we all have a real self, which is at a deeper than our conscious self. While I do not agree with everything that Hindu’s believe, I agree with the idea that we have a false idea of who we are, and I feel that this applies to the need for more. I think that all of the problems in peoples lives relates to the idea that people tend to make the mistake of believing that they are their ego. I think that we can combat this problem by living in the present moment whenever we can. Leading back to my earlier statement that there are things that can actually fulfill us, I would say that the only things that actually can fulfill us are things that do not relate to our ego.

Making a difference in someone else’s life is a great example of something that can fulfill a person. This type of activity brings someone in touch with their deeper self because it brings them in touch with the world around them; what I mean by this is that an activity like this causes a person to realize that everything around them, including themselves, is a part of God. Even though I use the word God, I think that you could call this deeper sense of unity any other word; it does not have to be called God. With that said, the important thing to realize is that after performing this type of service, the person will be in touch with their true identity, as long as they did not perform the activity to help their ego.

As I said in class the other day, I think that as long as people attempt to live in the present moment, and silence their ego, then I think it is okay to want money. Wanting money only becomes problematic when a person starts to believe that wanting money is truly part of who we are. The constant need for money and other similar things is not part of the real identities off humans. I think that the real identity of humans is a deeper state that some call enlightenment. Even though few will ever reach enlightenment, I think that is important for people to understand the benefits of realizing that their ego is not their true identity. As long as person has a balance between wanting things like money, and having the understanding of a deeper self, then I think everything will work out great for them.

Do you think it is problematic that the desire for money is so great in today’s world?

In Response to Misty and Alex’s Response to My Original Post

http://bacton.blogspot.com/2010/05/benefits-of-believing-in-something.html
http://alismadia.blogspot.com/2010/05/response-to-bryans-post.html
http://themindlessadventures.blogspot.com/2010/05/greater-beings.html

As far as Alex’s response, I think that it is great, and I agree with most of the points that he makes. I agree that people generally make too big of a deal about believing in a certain God or a specific higher power. As long as someone is benefiting from believing in something greater, I do not think it really matters which God or higher power that the person believes in. This idea leads into his conclusion, which is my favorite part of his response. I think that Alex completely understood the purpose of my article, because he brings up the point that everyone should believe in something greater because it empowers him or her. Alex goes on to say that, whatever that person believes should make sense to them personally; I take this to mean the point I made earlier, that it does not matter what someone believes, as long as it works for them. In regards to Alex’s direct answer to my question, I thought it was great that he made the point that people often forget what it means to believe in something greater, and I noticed this theme in our class discussions on this topic.

It seems to me that the main issue in regards to this subject is that people get too distracted by religious principles that they do not understand my ideas about the benefits of believing in something greater. When I am talking about believing in God or something greater, I am not talking about following all of the strict principles that some religions have; people make the mistake by getting the belief in God confused with the many rules that religions teach. This goes back to my point that people need to find whatever beliefs work for them, and it is my opinion that having a belief in a higher power can be extremely beneficial. I do not think many people really ever give the belief in God a chance because they are too distracted from strict religious principles. People need to separate the belief in something greater from general religious doctrines.

I am glad Misty responded to Alex’s post because she provides an example of some general ideas about the belief in something greater that I disagree with. I do not know why other people believe in God or something greater, but I do know that I believe in God for completely different reasons from what Misty identifies; with that said, I respect Misty’s opinion, and I think she makes some great points. As I said in my first post, I believe that there are many benefits in believing in God or something greater because the belief empowers you; I think that my belief in God helps me get through the struggles in life. However, it absolutely does not distract from my process of daily living. Misty argues that people believe in something greater because they hope that it will protect them from unfortunate events. I am sure that some people do this, but this is not the point of believing in God; as I said earlier, believing in God or something greater empowers you and helps you get through the struggles of life. People should never believe in something greater in order actually reduce the number of unfortunate events.

I agree with Misty that people can do good without believing in God or something greater, but that argument does not change the point of my original blog post. I am not saying that you are a better person if you believe in God or something greater; I am saying that there are many benefits that are created from this type of belief. Sure, you will do just fine if you do not believe in God, but that is not my point; my point is that the belief in something greater can be extremely powerful in regards to making positive changes in people’s lives. I think it is perfectly fine if someone if does not want to believe in God or something greater, but there is absolutely no reason why someone should think that people believe in God because they do not want to take responsibility of their life. Believing in God or something greater is not about trying to create an excuse for life problems; it is meant to give people the faith that everything is going to be okay, even when things do not look good. The goal of my original post was to help people realize the many positives that can be made of believing in something greater; it was not to say that people have to believe in God or something greater to be a good person.

I think people with Misty’s point of view are right about the problematic nature of religion; I too feel that it is not right for people to follow a religion because they believe it will make them moral, or because it will help them go to heaven. Religions create problems because they often encourage people to follow strict moral guidelines and use fear to get people to follow them. Even though I understand that religions can be problematic, my original post is not about religion, it is about the simple idea of believing in God or something greater. I think that it is great that people with Misty’s point of view do not need God to make positive change, but I never claimed that this was what the belief in something greater should be used for. The point of my original blog post was to say that the belief in God or something greater can help give a person a greater strength than they already had. I was not trying to say that people should depend on their belief to make positive change in their life; their belief should just help them. In addition, it is important that people do not associate the belief in something greater with strict religious doctrines, because that type of association makes the belief in something greater seem problematic, even though it can be extremely beneficial.

Do you think the belief in something greater would work out better for people if they made their belief more personal (change their belief in their own personal way)?

In Response to Courtney Martin (5/2/2010)

Q: “what about people who do not believe everything of a religion, people who only choose to agree with parts of a religion? Do they have faith in that religion?”

I think that your question is a good one because I know many people, including myself, who believe in only parts of a religion. I do not think that a person would have faith in their entire religion if they did not believe in every part of the religion; the person would not have faith in that exact religion, but they would have faith in their own version of that religion. With that said, I do not think I fully agree with the idea of having faith in a certain religion. If someone asked me if I had faith in my religion, I would probably say that I had faith in God, and not necessarily my religion. The religion is a part of me, but I do not really have faith in the religion itself; sometimes I feel like people become so controlled by religious principles that they forget about what their religion is based around: the existence of God. Even though I do not fully agree with the idea of having faith in a religion, I would probably say that I do have faith in my religion, but my true faith is in God.

I was brought up as a Christian, and I have not lost my faith in that religion. With that said, I do not fully agree with all of the values that Christianity represents. Specifically, I do not agree with the very strict nature that some Christians have in regards to other Christians not following every specific rule; I feel like Christians use the idea of heaven and hell to force people to follow every type of specific rule. The point I am trying to make is that I believe in my own version of Christianity; if I were to say that I have faith in my religion, I would be saying that I have faith in my own version of Christianity. This leads to idea of whether a person is still supporting a certain religion if they do not agree with every idea of that religion. If I do not agree with every part of Christianity, then I am wondering if I can still call myself Christian.

I think the question of whether I can be a labeled a Christian is an important one, and I have my own idea of what the answer is. I think that this type of question would have to be answered on a case-by-case basis; this means that there is no solid answer of whether someone should be considered a Christian or something else. To find the answer, I would have to look at what parts of the religion that a person does not agree with. For example, I do not think that people who do not believe in God should call themselves Christian. With that said, I guess they could say that they are supporting their own version of Christianity; this is a very difficult question, and we briefly discussed this in class earlier in the semester.

Again, as far as your question specifically, I think that people generally have faith in God, more so then they do in their religion. In addition, I think that people who only agree with parts of a religion have faith in their own version of that religion and not that specific religion. Most importantly, I think your question leads to the significant question of whether a person is right to say that they believe in a certain religion if they do not agree with every part of that religion.

Can someone still call themselves Christian (or some other religious label) if they do not believe in every part of the religion? Explain.