Religious Labels and such...
23 Mar '07 19:031 editKierkegaard said something like, “As soon as you try to label me, you diminish me.”
Someone on here recently asked—once again—who were the Christians in this forum. Well, even the self-defined Christians can’t agree about who the “true Christians” (TM) are.
Someone tells me they are a Christian. What then do I know about them? Very little. I don’t know if they’re honest or dishonest, or dangerous. I don’t even know, without further questioning, what they are saying about themselves when they claim that label. If someone narrows it down and says, “I’m a Catholic,” all I really know is that they find their religious expression somehow within the broad parameters of that religion.
The same for other religious labels as well.
An old friend, that I had not seen in some years, recently died. The other day I read through the obituary and a newspaper article about this person. I thought, “Do these facts and labels sum up who this person was?” In fact, did I even really know the person as who they were when they died—or did I just know the memories that I had of an earlier person?
Some people become so attached to yesterday’s memory of who someone was (or who they thought they were) that they become quite upset if the other person changes, or grows.
Martin Buber said that we can have two different kinds of relationships with people: I-Thou or I-It, and sometimes perhaps a little of both; each is perhaps valid in its own way and according to circumstances. If you relate to my labels only, that is an It. An I-Thou relationship takes time and trust and risk—and the willingness to follow the changes in the other person, to allow them the human process of becoming. Mostly we can’t do that one here.
Sometimes people take on the identity of a label for themselves, and then try desperately to live within its confines, no matter what. That kind of consistency is no longer my particular hobgoblin.
Whatever I say in terms of religious self-description—such as being a non-dualist—should be taken as nothing more than my understanding of things at the present time. As for any more particular labels, I don’t care for them. Label me whatever—I will not diminish myself by either accepting or rejecting it. I’ll just say what I think about whatever. I am not yet reduced to a list of obituary facts.
How well do you wear your labels?
Someone on here recently asked—once again—who were the Christians in this forum. Well, even the self-defined Christians can’t agree about who the “true Christians” (TM) are.
Someone tells me they are a Christian. What then do I know about them? Very little. I don’t know if they’re honest or dishonest, or dangerous. I don’t even know, without further questioning, what they are saying about themselves when they claim that label. If someone narrows it down and says, “I’m a Catholic,” all I really know is that they find their religious expression somehow within the broad parameters of that religion.
The same for other religious labels as well.
An old friend, that I had not seen in some years, recently died. The other day I read through the obituary and a newspaper article about this person. I thought, “Do these facts and labels sum up who this person was?” In fact, did I even really know the person as who they were when they died—or did I just know the memories that I had of an earlier person?
Some people become so attached to yesterday’s memory of who someone was (or who they thought they were) that they become quite upset if the other person changes, or grows.
Martin Buber said that we can have two different kinds of relationships with people: I-Thou or I-It, and sometimes perhaps a little of both; each is perhaps valid in its own way and according to circumstances. If you relate to my labels only, that is an It. An I-Thou relationship takes time and trust and risk—and the willingness to follow the changes in the other person, to allow them the human process of becoming. Mostly we can’t do that one here.
Sometimes people take on the identity of a label for themselves, and then try desperately to live within its confines, no matter what. That kind of consistency is no longer my particular hobgoblin.
Whatever I say in terms of religious self-description—such as being a non-dualist—should be taken as nothing more than my understanding of things at the present time. As for any more particular labels, I don’t care for them. Label me whatever—I will not diminish myself by either accepting or rejecting it. I’ll just say what I think about whatever. I am not yet reduced to a list of obituary facts.
How well do you wear your labels?
Back to Top