why me wrote:I have this idea that we live in this postmodern age where each individual is 'free' to choose her or his path, as long as it causes no harm to the human species or to other species. However, such a free for all, cannot bring forms of togetherness but it can bring forms of separation.
People are seeking after inner peace, happiness, wisdom, philosophy, new ageism, wicca, the kabbala, the buddha etc. And yet, in this wonderful world of ours, the human species seems rather unhappy. Postmodernism makes claim that there is no universal truth and we see this idea throughout our societies to terrible effect.
In some strange way, we all need to connect to something that is wholesome and by connecting to this wholesomeness, we can find a sense of community. It does not matter to me if one is a wicca, a catholic, lds, protestant, buddhist, or for that matter anything else as long as it brings us all together in greater wholeness. But for some strange reason, regardless of our grand values that have been shared here on this thread, lets face it, it hasn't worked out there in our greater community where we may have more disconnection and not connection regardless of lofty aims. Why? Maybe it is because our lives have become more individualized now. For lofty aims to work, I believe that we need to think 'collective self' and the 'individual self'.
The gospel of Christ was firmly centered in the collective, focused around love god, love yourself, but also love your neighbor and one another and love your enemies. What more need there to be?.
Thanks, Why Me. In answer to your last question: Generally speaking, NOTHING! The challenge is to understand that was/is THE "Good News" left by the guy who advocated "LOVE!"
Unfortunately fundamentalist of every sect and denomination are negatively grounded to guilt, fear, prejudice, the Fall, blood sacrifice, wealth building and most else that Jesus spoke against!! Go figure??? But as someone so elequently said (wish it was me) things are improving, "...one funeral at a time." I will add, "and, by one birth at a time." Warm regards, Roger