Miami Beach 411
Like what you see? Let's talk about how
we can help your vacation --> Contact Us
  • Homepage
  • Plan Your Trip
  • Travel Forum
  • News & Events
  • Maps
  • Transportation
  • Tours
  • Hotels
  • Travel Tips
  • Reader's Reviews
  • News Archives
  • Need help? Call us! - 1-305-754-2206

Spirituality South Beach Style: Local Options for the Nonreligious

July 22, 2007 By Doug in Miami: Local News  | 35 Comments

image
ABOVE: Sunset on Ocean Drive in South Beach.

South Beach has the do-it-yourself, transient thing down pat.  Like most things in life, that’s a two-edged sword.  On the positive side, it makes for a more honest existence: there is less of an urge to conform.  People here can more easily cast aside their social masks and be the unique creatures that they are, without having to worry about being the topic of conversation at the next Rotary Club meeting.  There is the style-conscious club scene to consider, but despite what the media would have you believe, that’s only one small part of life in South Beach—and in this world, physical beauty and style need no longer be vehicles to impress, but manifestations of an unseen ideal, serving, like the rest of the landscape, to stimulate the senses, and thus, the imagination.
 
On the flip side, living in a transient place can feel alienating.  Finding lasting, trustworthy friends can be hard—experiencing a sense of community, a tricky endeavor.  The hot date you had last Saturday is off to Brazil the following Tuesday, and when you want to have a lively conversation about existentialism, there’s nowhere to turn.

image

Finding a spiritual group is one solution that is often overlooked by many visitors and new residents alike in their desire to connect with people around them here.  South Beach is a sexual, hedonistic place, after all, and you’ll either live at odds with its serious commitment to pleasure, lead a double life, or develop a worldview that recognizes the importance of sensual delights, perhaps not as ends unto themselves, but as gateways to your bliss. 

Sensuality and spirituality have traditionally been at odds with one another in Western society, however, and in many places, finding an organization that embraces both can be quite a chore.

Additionally, traditional religious groups often tend to interject themselves as imposing middlemen in the individual’s relationship with the Divine spark within, offering a laundry list of dogmatic formulas and rites required for enlightenment or salvation, effectively downplaying the role of personal intuition as a means of attaining knowledge.  For those unwilling to accept such a passive perspective, religious groups of any sort can be a turn-off.

Fortunately, here in this cosmopolitan bikini land, there are a few viable options to consider.  These are a few of them:

SOUL

image

Never let it be said that there is no SOUL in Miami—you can find it every Sunday at 11 am in the South Miami Community Center at 5800 SW 66th Street! SOUL is an acronym for Spiritual Organization of Unconditional Love (http://www.soul-spirit.org), and there is plenty here to go around.  It’s an intimate, diverse group of 20-30 people who meet once a week for an informal service followed by a free potluck luncheon.  Though the service is basically in the New Thought tradition—the metaphysical philosophy you’ll find in Conversations with God, by Neale Donald Walsch, A Course in Miracles, “The Secret,” or Wayne Dyer’s books—there is no clergy here: the pulpit is available to everyone, and they’re open to hearing speakers with some controversial ideas.  Their vision statement is simple, yet powerful:

“We believe there is a Spiritual Energy, called God in most cultures, which is both the source and the essence of everything that exists in the universe.

We understand that this Spirit manifests Itself where, when, and how it will, and that unconditional love is always the essence and end of this Divine self-expression.

We declare every individual to be an expression of Spirit, precious and loveable in their own right, with a unique purpose and place in the universe. We are directed to nurture, respect, and love one another, and the entire universe in the same way God loves us.  We affirm that this church exists for the purpose of keeping open a place in the world for Spirit to manifest Itself as us, through us, and around us.”

image

Services usually include music, a guided meditation or affirmative prayer, an uplifting talk, and a social portion.

It feels more like a casual, friendly get-together than a church: there is no offering plate, no tiresome, relentless requests to contribute, only the “SOUL Bowl,” which is left in the corner for you to make a donation if you choose.  SOUL shares 10% of its weekly contributions with a worthy cause.  In their 11 year history, they’ve also been active with homeless outreaches and AIDS fundraisers. 

image
ABOVE: One of SOUL’s many homeless outreaches.

It has a great vibe—some inspirational speakers, and occasionally top-notch musical entertainment, though its greatest appeal is perhaps its simplicity.  Its members, though few, are an amazingly diverse assortment of ages and nationalities, and what’s best, an Atheist, a Christian, or a Wiccan could all attend the same service and walk away with something.

UNITY ON THE BAY

image

Also in the New Thought family, but with a very different feel, is Unity on the Bay, located at 411 NE 21st St in Miami.  Unity, founded in the late 19th century by Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, like other metaphysical movements, stresses that “thoughts are things,” and that our external reality is an outpicturing of the beliefs, feelings, and attitudes we hold about it. 

With its emphasis on positive thinking and belief in reincarnation, Unity can feel more liberating than other more traditional denominations.  Here, there is no “Original Sin”, only “Original Blessing”, and the New Testament, while considered by most members to be historically accurate, has additional value in an allegorical sense as a mystical primer on the realization of your inner divinity—the unfolding of the inner Christ.  The 12 disciples represent the various powers of man, the Biblical places they visit, states of consciousness.  Congregational styles vary widely from church to church, from a more meditative/contemplative approach to a more charismatic feel, as is the case here. 

image

Boasting a total weekly attendance of around 1200 for its 9 am, 11 am and Spanish services at 1:15 pm, this church is literally packed to the gills.  Its full-gospel atmosphere, infused in part by its massive choir’s hand-clapping urban tunes, feels almost Pentecostal at times, with more user-friendly terminology.  Indeed, on the Sunday I attended, Associate Minister Karen Epps spoke about the importance of respecting other belief systems as equally valid perspectives in their own right, different “oceans in consciousness”, and a gifted soloist, Karina Iglesias, belted out some really meaty rhythm and blues. 

image
Karina Iglesias

In addition to their Sunday services and Wednesday evening meditations at 7 pm, Unity on the Bay also offers several classes of varying lengths on different spiritual self-help topics; there are also retreats and events held at the Unity Village, MO headquarters, ranging in price from $299 and up (lodging and meals priced separately),  which admittedly gave me a little sticker shock as I looked over the program.  Nonetheless, one person’s budget-mindedness is another’s poverty consciousness, so I’ll try to keep an open mind.

UMAA TANTRA

image

If your spiritual tastes run more Easterly in nature, but the thought of self-denial leaves you dry, you may enjoy the offerings of Umaa Tantra (Sanskrit for “primordial wisdom energy expansion and liberation”), a local yoga school which teaches that physical exercise and sexuality, as well as all other activities within the realm of human experience, performed in a special way, can act as a means of enhancing spiritual awareness. 

image

Instructors Tao Semko and Santiago Dobles offer an array of classes, including qi gong (chee gong), traditional Chinese breathing and movement exercises with physical and spiritual applications,  Pencak Silat, an Indonesian method of practical self-defense and personal self-development, and various physical yogas and meditations based on Hindu Tantra.  Other occasional items on their menu include The Kundalini Awakening Process Workshops ($207-$277/weekend), a system, which according to the website, “utilizes scientific principles and techniques needed to arouse the Kundalini, the body’s own powerful rejuvenating energy,” and Avishkara, “the Tantric act of becoming.” 

image

The Kundalini Awakening Process Workshops, Tao explains, have no religious symbolism or overtones, for those looking for a secular/scientific approach to meditation and spirituality.  Regular classes cost $20 a piece or $100/month unlimited (including Sunday classes as well), whereas workshop prices vary. Santiago teaches martial arts and qi gong in Pinecrest on Mondays and Wednesdays at 8 pm, while Tao leads a qi gong class on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 7:30 pm at the 85th Street beach in Miami Beach.  There is also a distance learning program called the Tantric Inner Circle, which entitles “Gold” members to classes at no charge.  In addition to their classes and workshops, Semko and Dobles also market a sizeable quantity of DVDs and e-books with intriguing titles like, “Secrets the Gurus Will Never Show You” and “Secrets of Esoteric Anatomy.”  They also offer telephone support for breathing, meditation, tantric yoga, and qi gong.  For first-timers, Tao suggests calling them (305-720-3028), emailing (.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) [Tao], and .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) [Santiago]), or simply showing up at one of their evening classes.

UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF MIAMI

image

It was once said that if a Unitarian had the choice of going to heaven or a discussion about heaven, he would go to the discussion.  Probably more fact than fiction, Unitarian-Universalism, an outgrowth of 19th century transcendentalism and Quaker-style Christianity, places a special emphasis on the inherent dignity of the individual, the values of social justice and the independent search for truth.  The congregational flavor can vary from a high church Episcopalian atmosphere in some cities to a grassroots town hall meeting approach in others.  The Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, located at 7701 SW 76th St. in Miami, leans toward the latter. 

image

First established in Miami in 1938, the church moved into its present location in December 1962.  If human rights and an eclectic, impartial study of the various world religions is your thing, UU Miami certainly delivers.  With activities including Shamanism workshops, yoga classes, and a Humanism group, it is a celebration of world culture.  It also has its own poetry group, an art committee, and a labyrinth, an ancient symbol representing a spiritual journey to your own center and back out into the world, which members walk each Sunday morning at 9:15 am. 

image

A “Spiritual Reality” group meets after the labyrinth walk at 9:30 am.  While it may lack the cohesive spiritual objectives of the New Thought groups, it finds its sense of purpose instead through meaningful social dialogue, leaving the other details up to the individual to unravel.  Pagans, polyamorous couples, environmental activists and militant feminists all have a voice there, as well as those with more conservative inclinations.

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO AHH

image

There are institutions here to satisfy every taste, though for some, South Beach is perhaps best-suited as its own church.

The beach, some say, is an epicenter of psycho-spiritual energy.  When transformed by the evening moonlight, it becomes a mystical playground in which pleasures both tangible and intangible intertwine, and a world of fantasy takes form. 

image

The gentle breathing of the glowing nighttime tide and the squally night breezes whisper a gentle rhythm through the air, conspiring with the afro-Cuban melodies and trance anthems of the nearby clubs, beckoning all who experience it to a deeper level of consciousness in this unbridled celebration of life.  Some have compared this magical process to ancient pagan sexual rites, envisioning the discos as temples, the dancers as invokers of the fertility gods and goddesses.  Certainly, Yemaya, as Santeria queen of fertility and ruler of the seas, serves as a powerful archetype here.  It is pleasure, not for its own sake, but as a catalyst for the awakening of the individual to higher level of being,  to deeper levels of perception and creativity.  It is evident in the architecture, the fashion, the joie de vivre —all expressions of passion, the most intense act of gratitude.

image
(Pierre et Gilles)

Related Categories: Miami: Local News,

Douglas Eames is a freelance writer, homespun philosopher and budget bon vivant who divides his time between Southern California and South Beach.

See more articles by Doug.

See more articles by Doug

Was This Post Helpful? Please Share It With Others!

You Deserve More Than an Ordinary Vacation.
Travel with Miami Beach 411 Today!
  • Over 10 years of excellent service guiding tours. Awarded a TripAdvisor Certificate of Excellence.
  • Large fleet of new motor coaches, tour buses, and luxury vans. Technology you won't find anywhere.
  • Highly skilled, professional drivers and guides. From people who love what they do.
The Miami Beach 411 Travel Store is Open 24/7.
Search for Tours & Transportation

35 Comments on

"Spirituality South Beach Style: Local Options for the Nonreligious"

Pamela says:

Great article. I am going to pass it on. smile

Posted on 07/22/2007 at 4:56 PM

Doug says:

Thanks, Pamela! Glad you enjoyed it!

Posted on 07/22/2007 at 8:04 PM

Frank says:

Great article! Having spent some time with both the Unitarians and the metaphysical groups like Unity and Religious Science (Science of Mind) by Ernest Holmes, the main difference I see is that the Unitarians like to heal the world from the inside out (like political activism, committees and social awareness), while the metaphysical organizations do their work from the outside in (like meditation, creative visualization, and affirmations).  I like a combination of the two. The metaphysical, New Thought groups taught about the “Law of Attraction” long before Rhonda Byrne and Bob Proctor started marketing it as “The Secret.”

Frank,
Miami

Posted on 07/26/2007 at 4:17 AM

Tom Edwards says:

Dear Doug,
It is indeed a great article and much appreciated by us at the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, as we are always looking to reach out to other religious liberals, although I think you could make even a Unitarian blush with the thought of an open invitation to polyamorous couples and perhaps bristle at the thought of anything militant , or relating in almost any way to the military, even feminism, except maybe Chopin’s “Military Polonaise.” We are a peaceful people. But you are quite right, we do our best to make room for all without judgement, and our emphasis is certainly along the lines of Social Justice. I hope next time you come to visit you will introduce yourself so we can thank you personally. We would also like you to be aware of our “Peace Resolution” which the congregation passed unanimously in opposition to the war and continued occupation of Iraq.
Also we have a wonderful Religious Education Curriculum for children and great classes for adults as well; classes such as “Building Your Own Theology,” “Parents as Resident Theologians,” Portrait Painting,” “Quilting,” “Reverse Mortgages,” “Scrap Booking,” “Hamlet,” “Guitar by Ear,” and “Sailing.”
Thank you again for the plug for our welcoming congregation.
Peace.

Tom
Miami Beach

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 8:34 PM

Doug says:

Thanks, Tom.  I realize UU congregations can vary greatly from location to location, and what’s kosher in one spot might be taboo in another.  I’ve met a little of every social inclination at UU congregations, polyamorous couples and feminists included, and simply wanted to convey that sense of openness there.

Posted on 07/31/2007 at 9:41 PM

jennifer says:

Doug,
    I am moving to south beach this summer after I graduate dental hygiene school. I came across a couple of your articles, I think that you are an extremely talented writer,and you would be an interesting person to talk to. I really like the article about relocating to Miami. You have a very unique way of capturing the attention of the reader….awesome writer!

                  Jennifer

Posted on 09/17/2007 at 8:50 PM

Doug says:

Hi Jennifer,

Thanks so much for the kind words, and I’m glad I was helpful.  I hope you enjoy your new life in South Beach!

Posted on 09/17/2007 at 9:21 PM

Marc says:

Doug, I’m getting married in about six weeks now and we’re having a theme where each table is named after a cruise ship port, one of them being Miami. I’ve scoured the net and that picture of Ocean Drive is the most perfect I’ve ever seen. Do you happen to have a larger version of it?

Thanks for any assistance you can provide,

Marc

Posted on 03/07/2008 at 11:28 PM

Doug says:

Hi Marc, glad you liked the pic!  Unfortunately, my computer crashed last November, and I lost all the pics that were on it, including that one.  Sorry I can’t help you! But if you do a Google Image search for “South Beach” and maybe add words like “neon” or “skyline”, you should find some really great shots!  Best of luck with your wedding!

Posted on 03/08/2008 at 8:22 PM

Michael says:

My sister has lived in South Beach for the past year and found it difficult to connect with fleeting friends on a deeper level.  I think its great there is a place and opportunity to experience that and seek truth.  It seems that this is a very welcoming group I appreciate that, but I always had a hard time swallowing that truth might be ‘relative’.  I thought the very essence of ‘truth’ is without contradiction.  How can conflicting beliefs be considered as truth?  For example, Jesus claims to be “the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to the Father, but by me.”  Does your organization reject Christianity due to its exclusive nature which is quite contrary to your doctrine?  Appreciate you taking the time to help.

Mike Dugo PA-S, MMS
Nova Southeastern University
Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 12:18 AM

Doug says:

Hi Mike, thanks for writing.  Firstly, this is an article about different groups that would be of interest to people seeking a non-mainstream spiritual experience—I don’t have an organization.  However, to answer your other question, I would say that those groups aren’t suggesting so much that truth is relative, rather that our perception of it is.  And, finite beings that we humans are, everything we experience, true though it may be, comes through the gateway of our perception.  Therefore, it’s important not to idolize that perception, and to humbly seek life’s answers based on how we feel divinely led from within.  Jesus also said that “He could of his own self do nothing”, so to some, it isn’t the “man” Jesus that is the way, it is the Christ presence dwelling inside him that was speaking—that “light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.”  These groups, in their own ways, are seeking to connect with that Christ presence in each of us.  If you see that presence as being exclusively in Jesus, you should go to a church that teaches that! This is for people that see it in a different way.  Hope that helps.

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 6:10 AM

Michael Dugo says:

Thanks Doug for your response.  Yes, I do believe that our perception of truth can be distorted.  That is a good point.  We should be careful concerning our conclusions we draw from religion/scripture, however we must apply the same logic to ‘divine experience’.  To suggest that a funny feeling in your stomach is “God” can also be misleading.  The mind/body devoid of God is capable of producing the same “experience”.  However, despite being finite, I do believe objective truth is discernible.  For example, Mathematics is exclusive and objective transcending ones perception.  This point makes it very clear that there is one correct answer.  We may perceive it differently, yes, but this does not mean that all of our perceptions are correct.  No one would ever think to conduct a classroom allowing multiple answers to a single math problem, neither should any group seeking God.  If truth is objective as you believe, to accept multiple perceptions negates objectivity, thus rendering truth ultimately relative.

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 12:15 PM

Doug says:

Hi Michael, I don’t believe the solution is to be “correct”, at least not in the sense of the student being taken to task by the stern disciplinarian and held accountable for getting it right.

I look at spiritual knowledge as an experiential, rather than an intellectual truth.  It’s like sunbathing.  We lie in the sun and it transforms us; one may believe that the earth revolves around the sun, the sun around the earth, or that it was placed in the sky by a big cosmic turtle, but the sun warms us just the same.

Likewise, the spiritual experience also transcends intellectual subjectivity.  Different people may have their own theories about its nature; they may have created stories, myths and metaphors about how and why it does what it does.  Some may focus on different aspects of it than others.  These stories may have varying and often incompatible details, but their value is to encourage us to have an experience of our own which transforms us.  And no one else can quantify our experience, because it is between us and that which we feel within, and when we go within, we’re bypassing that subjective gateway of the senses, and dealing with the language of the feelings, experientially.

Our inability to objectively apprehend truth does not in my opinion make it relative or less valid.  Reality, to me, is that which exists independently of our ability to perceive it.  Can I prove it intellectually? No.  But can I experience it, and be transformed by the experience, and observe similar transformations in others who’ve also had the experience, though their myths be different? I would say, most definitely!

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 1:19 PM

Doug says:

Concerning the “objectivity” of mathematics:  would it be possible to have a dream in which you were at a lectern, revealing the most complex formulas of the universe to an audience amazed by your every word? Would it also be possible that in this dream, you had a recollection of having studied these theorums for years and that you could produce volumes of data to support your beliefs? Would it not also be possible to awaken from this dream, only to find that the entire thing was a figment of your imagination? I know it’s possible for me.  I often have dreams that I can fly, and can even teach people in my dreams how to scientifically catch the air currents in just the right way so that they can fly, too.  But it isn’t real.  At least not in this state of consciousness.

They say reality is just a collective hunch.  But I would add that even in the word “collective” is a bit presumptuous.  We say that our facts are theories which have stood the test of time, yet all we really have is the present moment.

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 1:55 PM

Michael Dugo says:

The sun in your analogy represents one dimension of revelation namely that God exists.  So yes, absolutely, we search for God internally and are transformed by our experience with him.  I absolutely believe this and I do not argue with you on that point.  I’m just questioning whether that is the end of the story or if there is additional revelation as various religions suggest.  Is there an objective truth as outlined in scripture that can lead us to a more personal relationship with God?

“Our inability to objectively apprehend truth does not in my opinion make it relative or less valid.”

According to this statement you made it seems as though you don’t believe there is additional revelation.  In that case I should probably talk to someone else.  We are discussing an issue with two very different underlying assumptions.  I believe God exists, but also revealed himself to man, providing objective answers to my questions about the cause, nature and purpose of our universe.  My math analogy is only relevant to one who believes there is more to the story and is searching for those answers, searching for truth.

But without additional revelation or “intellectual truth” as you call it we are left in the dark, attempting to differentiate natural emotion from supernatural experience never obtaining an objective, unpolluted answer to the question of mankind’s purpose.  You would only be able to provide a subjective personal purpose for yourself.  I’m searching for the big picture.  I appreciate you taking the time to write.  It has been helpful.

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 3:29 PM

Doug says:

I respect your desire to look at this things with the depth that you have.

Basically, my point is that all perception, other than perhaps self-awareness, is essentially subjective, subject to misperception, and must therefore be taken with a grain of salt.  Not just the details of the physical world, but even having faith in the existence of the physical world itself.  As the Apostle Paul very astutely observed:

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.”

This resonates with my own feelings on the matter.  At this level of consciousness, all is subjective; however, there is a greater state of wakefulness beyond this plane in which we can objectively experience reality.  The journey within is the beginning of that process.  For now, I accept things as being the way they are, though there is no ultimate way to prove this, because it suits my purposes.

I see the revelation of truth in a synthesis of three sources:

1. Personal life experience. (I touch fire, I get burnt….don’t touch fire…)
2. Other people’s truth. (This can come from the Bible, the Baghavad Gita, an old Gilligan’s rerun, or a drunk’s ramblings in a bar)
3. Intuition. (truths perceived from within through the creative imagination)

By themselves, none of these is infallible; otherwise, they would become idols, ends unto themselves…however, using all three together, a common thread emerges, an interplay of cause and effect, intuition, and the dialogue of those around us.  We observe a certain perennial philosophy emerging, a single story retold in many different ways, in which there is a time of union with the Source of all, after which has come a separation, followed by a desire to reconcile, which is made possible by a metaphorical death, burial, and resurrection.

The reconciliation is not possible through logic; it is ultimately a calling from the Divine, using the 3 agencies above, a stirring from within and observable on the outside.  As Paul also wrote, “The natural man receiveth not the things of God; neither can he know them, for they are foolishness unto him.”

So, yes, I do believe in revelations, just not infallible ones, because in this case, getting the facts right isn’t the objective; it’s about having the experience…and waking up—or at least learning to enjoy the dream.

Posted on 12/17/2008 at 5:25 PM

Doug says:

Looking at the math analogy again, you’d written:

“No one would ever think to conduct a classroom allowing multiple answers to a single math problem, neither should any group seeking God.”

I wanted to add that I agree with that, and I’m not suggesting that there is more than one answer.  I’m suggesting that there is more than one way of arriving at the answer, and when we assert that our way of arriving at the answer is the only way, we cut ourselves off from an infinite array of possibilities.

For example, to use the math analogy, we can think of the connection with the indwelling Christ Presence as the answer to our quest…Although many assume that Christ (lit. anointing) is simply Jesus’ last name, I’m using it in the context of its identity as Logos, the light of God, that expressive aspect of God in creation that lives in each of us.  Let’s call it the number 9.

You can get to 9 by adding 3 + 6 or 8 + 1 or 7 + 2; 3 x 3 or 4 + 5.  You could even make things really complicated and do something like (2 x 2)2 + 1.  If 9 were to say you can’t get to 10 except through me, it would be speaking the truth, and it isn’t negating the various ways of arriving there by saying this.  Likewise, I believe many stories and myths (equations) lead to the same answer (connection with the light of God…the Logos…), and when we get hung up on one formula to the exclusion of the others, we’re glorifying the formula rather than the answer, the means rather than the end, which is in essence, idolatry.

Likewise, when we ascribe inerrancy to any created thing, whether it’s religious scripture, a human, the intellect, the senses or whatever, we’re giving it a station that belongs only to God, which is likewise an act of idolatry.

This is not to say that every approach is valid; those equations which include fear and idolatry will skew the answer.

Thanks for bringing up this topic, Mike.  I’ve enjoyed the conversation.  It reminds me of some great times I’ve had talking with my Dad, whose own perspective is very similar to your own.

Posted on 12/18/2008 at 9:26 AM

Michael Dugo says:

In our discussion I see we have come to disagree on a single issue.  It is really quite simple, which is why our analogies may support our position but not convey the intended message to one another.

You believe there are many paths to a single truth.
I believe there is a single path to a single truth.

I acknowledge the fact that my belief is no more valid than yours.  We are both finite beings, holding to a position of faith, in that neither case can be proven.  Keep in mind, I have not promoted any religion and I do not argue religion.  We are stepping above and beyond; into what I believe is a more foundational, philosophical concept.

I assume that the essence of our disagreement presupposes your rejection to my position.  But I no longer assume anything.  The issue has been continually reframed I would like to bring it back with a very simple, “yes or no” question.

Do you reject my belief there is a single path to a single truth?

Posted on 12/19/2008 at 12:31 AM

Doug says:

Yes, I believe that everything in the universe points to that one truth in one way or another; it is interwoven into the fabric of cause and effect itself.  Even the stones cry out.

Posted on 12/19/2008 at 4:42 AM

Michael Dugo says:

Let me address, your “yes” to my question, not to rudely disregard the rest, but simplicity will serve us well. 

We are finite beings as you have already noted, therefore neither of us are infallible.  According to this logic our beliefs and positions are subject to the possibility error.  In our disagreement it is possible that I am wrong or that you are wrong.  But, it cannot be said that both positions are correct by the intrinsic objectivity of each position.  You do not disagree or are intolerant to “me” personally but rather respectfully reject my position.

Would it not be a contradiction for a group of individuals who claim ‘there are many paths to a single truth’ to accept the teachings of another group that states ‘there is a single path to a single truth’?

One on one, you and many others reject my position.  But, when a large group of supporters of this position, namely Christians ask you if you reject their position, you say no.  This is illogical.  So to reconcile tolerance with this obvious foundational disagreement it is then essential for your position to discredit the religion that holds to such an exclusive belief.  If successful, you can without error in logic accept Christianity as one of many paths to a single truth.  Now what is beyond me is how you present to me a couple scriptures objecting to Christianity’s exclusive nature, implying that the Christian church for thousands of years have been misinterpreting their own bible.  If we are finite human beings, what makes you think in a single lifetime you have the wisdom and knowledge to discern the correct biblical interpretation?

I have found Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5 to be accurate depictions of the pervasive message of the bible regarding our journey to truth.  Again, regardless of whether Christianity is a valid, single path to truth or not, what is largely accepted is that it leaves no room for other viable options.  It is a true stumbling block for our society because of its political incorrectness.  But it is important to remember that truth is not dependent on our belief in it.  Whether we believe it to be true or not, the truth is.  As is with sincerity, we can be sincerely wrong.  And finally, just because something is exclusive does not make it inherently incorrect.

Posted on 12/19/2008 at 10:34 PM

Doug says:

Hello again, Michael.  You are pre-supposing a few things as givens that…aren’t.  First, I don’t believe that both our perspectives can be correct, nor do I believe that all Christians feel there is only one path to the truth.  However, since I believe people with mistaken beliefs can still be experientially transformed by the Divine, I don’t judge your or anyone else’s spiritual condition.

I suspect these assumptions are at the essence of what you perceive as illogical.  I do not see the Bible as an infallible guide to religious truth.  I do not see a belief in Biblical inerrancy as a given, or a necessary part of being Christian.  I see the Bible as a record of various people’s religious experiences and sometimes flawed attempts to understand the Divine.  There are certain cultural biases, like Paul’s endorsement of slavery, that do not appear to be divinely inspired.  There are other places, however, where he writes that there is one God above us all, through us all, and in us all, that are in harmony with my personal convictions.

Martin Luther, who most Protestants consider Christian, was once asked if he believed the Bible was the word of God, and he answered that he believed that the Bible was “the manger in which the word of God was laid.”  In other words, if you look at it, you can see great beauty and wisdom, but you will also see the biases and limitations of the people who wrote it.  While some Christian groups believe the Bible is inerrant and to be interpreted literally, there are many who do not.  Secondly, even if it were inerrant, I don’t believe that the Bible teaches that it is the only way to truth. 

It does teach that Jesus is the only way to salvation, however, as you pointed out in the scriptures you supplied.  But you have to ask yourself what aspect of Jesus is it that brings about salvation?  The man from Nazareth or the Christ spirit that revealed itself through him? Is it the invocation of his literal name, or does that name involve the experiential process he described? When Nicodemus asked him what he had to do to enter the kingdom of God, Jesus said simply, “You must be born again of the water and the spirit.”

To me, Christianity is about awakening experientially to the spiritual reality we are inside, what Paul calls the spiritual man.  When we “put on Christ”, we shift our identity from the one we perceive through the physical senses to the spiritual being we are within. 

Today’s Christianity reveres the man Jesus over the Christ presence that revealed itself through Him. 

But Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good, save one, that is God!”

In other words, he is differentiating himself from God and isn’t seeking to be worshipped or considered the focal point.  He also said that the “Son can do nothing of himself.”  “My Father is greater than I am.”  It was the light—the Christ spirit that spoke through him—who his followers recognized in the person of Jesus—that is God and with God…that light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world.  That is the one “name”, the one “mediary” whereby we must be saved; certainly Peter knew of no others.  But was Jesus the only one to do this? In Hebrews 7, Jesus is described as being one of an order of other mediaries, wayshowers: the priesthood of Melchizedek.  How can you have a priesthood with only one priest?

Did Jesus intend for the Bible to be the guide that would lead us into all truth? No.  He taught that that was the work of the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit, which will draw each of us as it will.  I believe it speaks to us all from within, if we listen.  The trouble is, people have placed the Bible on a pedestal and used that as the basis by which to discern all truth.  And to me, that is idolatrous.  The canon of the Bible was decided in large part by the Emperor Constantine, a man who was far from perfect.

To me, the Spirit of Truth will speak to us how and as it will; we do not choose it.  It chooses us, and there is nothing we can do, lest it draws us.  And this Spirit of Truth can speak to us in the realm of the secular or the ecclesiastical, from both inside and out.  Who are we to place limits on where and how it can reveal itself to us?

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 12:32 AM

Doug says:

I wanted to address this separately.  You wrote:

“Now what is beyond me is how you present to me a couple scriptures objecting to Christianity’s exclusive nature, implying that the Christian church for thousands of years have been misinterpreting their own bible.  If we are finite human beings, what makes you think in a single lifetime you have the wisdom and knowledge to discern the correct biblical interpretation?”

I would submit to you that in the two thousand years of Christianity, there have been about as many interpretations of it as there have been Christians.

I claim no special wisdom, but at the same time know that I have access to an unlimited store of it within me that comes to me through my creative imagination.  I balance the insights that come from there with those I find on the outside, in personal life experience and the experiences of others.  When I do so, I notice some amazing synchronicity opening up in my life.

The thing is, if you’re always interpreting truth based on your own perception no matter which avenue you take.  If you recognize the Bible as being the inerrant word of God, that’s your perception.  If you feel that the Catholic Church has the authority to tell you what the meaning of a certain passage is, that’s also your perception.  If you believe that the most common interpretation of scripture is the most valid, this, too, is your perception.  If you interpret a scripture in a different way, this is also perception.  Therefore, there can be no objective experience outside our own head.  That’s why I go inside to look at truth.  When I’ve done that, I find a host of answers that I didn’t use my brain to logically formulate.  When I see the same concepts coming up in the Bible or elsewhere, I go, “aha!”

And since all human perception is subject to error, including the belief that institutions outside ourselves know better than we do, the need to be “correct” is ultimately a futile task, as Paul recognized when he said we see through a glass darkly.  Therefore, I believe that inner peace is more important than being right, and this begins by the discovery of the kingdom of God within you.

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 9:37 AM

Michael Dugo says:

Well I think you do see my point, in that, your belief cannot accept a position that states the contrary.  As for your interpretation of the Bible, it comes with a strong bias.  If Christianity IS exclusive it negates your own belief because as we both agree, it can be one or the other but not both.  You interpret the bible to protect your own position.

I completely disagree with your interpretation.  But, that really doesn’t matter at this point.  Again you reframed the discussion.  I am strictly speaking about the interpretation of “how many paths”.  It is one quetsion, with two independent possibilities.  And regarding this single issue the majority of Christians and scholars for thousands of years have most definitely concluded that it is ONE path.  The fact that they came to this conclusion is not to be debated.  What you can debate is whether that conclusion is correct or not.  It really is quite audacious of you to disagree.  Keep in mind this is NOT a spiritual matter, it is simply a study of literature to extract its intended meaning.  This is not an esoteric spiritual matter that requires experience in order to obtain the truth regarding the intended message.  It is much more simple than that. And because of its simplicity and clarity there isn’t much controversy other than those who read into scripture in a way to protect a contrary belief that is already held.  It is important that you see that you hold a minority view regarding the issue of Christian exclusivism, NOT that a majority view in and of itself makes a position correct.  When logic and reason (“intellect”, not ONLY spirit) are applied in drawing such conclusions we naturally see patterns ermerge (majority and minority), thus providing substantiated evidence towards the validity of one position.  If anything, as a minority regarding the scriptures of the Bible, it would be wise to question your conclusions of it and perhaps take a second more objective approach in studying it in its entirety.

We are not to throw out our intellect and accept all that we experience, I don’t know how many times I have to say that our experience is not infallible.  I take a hit of acid and I see a pink elephant, that doesn’t mean the pink elephant objectively exists. 

You digress again when you discuss the reliability of the Bible.  Different topic for another time.  I won’t even address this.

Regarding Martin Luther, please refer me to the documentation that states he believes there is an aleternate path to God aside from Jesus and his death and ressurrection.

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 1:43 PM

Doug says:

I don’t really think I have digressed at all.  You’re postulating that Christendom asserts that there is only one way to one truth.  I quoted Martin Luther to show that there is no universal consensus of opinion among Christians that this truth is presented unerringly in the Bible, as you have suggested.  The quote from Paul about seeing through a glass darkly is not an argument against exclusivism, it’s an argument against objectivity.  If Paul, whose writings are accepted as canon by the contemporary orthodoxy, claims to see obscurely, only in part, then it becomes clear that it is not the function of the Bible to be the one path to one truth, rather a record of inspired people’s subjective observations of spiritual events.

The Bible itself makes no such claim of being the unique means of revelation; truth is truth, wherever it comes from. It teaches that God reveals himself in various ways:

-his glory in and through the creation (see Romans 1);
-his natural law through cause, effect and conscience;
- via dreams and visions;
- Scripture
- through Jesus
- the Holy Spirit (after Jesus’ ascension)

So even orthodox Christianity recognizes the truth comes from different paths.

So, if I’m digressing by discussing the reliability of the Bible as an infallible guidebook, what exactly is the one path you are using to the one truth, if not the Bible? If you feel you are being given the truth through having an experience with Christ, then our positions are actually not so far apart.  If you feel it’s both, then you’ve got two paths to one truth already!

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 2:59 PM

Michael Dugo says:

Im not sure you’re understanding me.  You believe the bible is not infallible, that’s fine.  You believe this quote by Luther, “the manger in which the word of God was laid.” is an example of a Christian who also denies its inerrancy.  That’s fine too.  This is not what I am discussing.

I am concerned with what the Bible teaches regarding a single issue, regardless of its infallibility or lack there of.

To suggest that the Bible’s take on this issue is compatible with other religious teachings and spiritual belief, is without question, a minority view.  To consider the majority view would be to put your current belief at risk of breaching all logic and reason.  Your conclusion regarding this issue is of no surprise to me.  To objectively study this you would need to first accept that you might be wrong.  After we all are infallible.  But to many, this idea of “a single path to a single truth” does not sit well with them.  Instead of accepting this possibility it is much easier to reject it, and then formulate ones beliefs upon a foundational assumption (that which does sit well) but may in fact be incorrect.

Your not backing up with me here, you’re still arguing your belief.  I’m not arguing a belief.  I’m discussing the way in which we draw conclusions regarding beliefs and the consequences/implications of doing so with bias.

Christianity may be exclusive in its “path”, but what does sit well with me is that it is inviting to all.

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 4:24 PM

Doug says:

Hi Michael, you’re right, then.  I’m not understanding you.  But to reiterate my answer to your original question, in my mind, and in that many others, Christianity wasn’t originally meant to be exclusive; its original purpose in my own opinion was to encourage people to seek the kingdom of God by going within, and that in doing so, they would be transformed through the renewing of their minds.  Over time, corruption and internal agendas have a way of changing the original message.  I understand the verses alleging exclusivism in the scriptures you quoted differently than you do, and have explained my interpretation of them to the best of my ability.  If you wish to consider my interpretation less valid, self-serving or even heretical, that’s fine, but I’m entitled to see it the way I do.

Posted on 12/20/2008 at 5:38 PM

Michael Dugo says:

In most discussions I’ve had in the past I’ve found that 99% of the time neither side abandons their belief.  That is fine.  More important to me is that we can learn from one another.  In speaking with you I have learned, why you believe the way you do.  I now understand the basis of our disagreement.  I do however have a hard time believing that you have set aside your personal bias and objectively read the New Testament in its entirety prior to coming to your conclusion.  But that is neither her nor there. 

I’ve truly enjoyed our conversation, its a nice change of pace.  Studying medicine usually consumes my life.  I take it you’re living in Miami, enjoy the sun.  We are getting blasted with snow in CT!  It’s cool though, I’ll be back to Lauderdale in no time!  Happy holidays.

Posted on 12/21/2008 at 6:14 PM

Doug says:

Hi Mike, unfortunately, “setting aside your personal bias” more often than not involves relinquishing your personal perspective and interpreting things the way the establishment tells you to, as a means of social conditioning.  This occurs not only in Christianity, but in all world religions, because independent investigation is considered a threat to the hierarchy.  Ultimately, though, it becomes necessary to integrate the truths that others tell you with the ones your own life experience gives you, and to find a harmony of thought, word, and deed, even if it means disagreeing with the status quo.  This journey may take us in different directions, but the fact that we find ourselves on a pleasant path needn’t mean that it’s self-serving.  Cause and effect have a way of correcting us when we get out of sync.

While Judaism required following a complicated set of laws, Christianity revolutionized this worldview by replacing the legalistic motif with the idea of personal spiritual transformation.  I feel that the perspective gained from the journey within, far from esoteric, simply adds a new dimension to understanding scripture.  It’s hard to explain the concept of “aromatic” to a person who doesn’t use the sense of smell, but once you’ve experienced smell, it helps you relate to poems about roses more easily.  Likewise, spirituality, to me, is an experiential language of feeling, and, in my opinion, it’s a dimension that has become somewhat lost because people have become mired in tradition and the “letter of the law” over personal experience.

I actually live in DeLand, Florida now, about four and a half hours north of Miami, and the weather here is picture perfect! Waterboy was filmed here…

Before we say goodbye, would you mind sharing your age and the denomination you most closely identify with? You don’t have to tell me, but it would be insightful.

Posted on 12/21/2008 at 6:56 PM

Michael Dugo says:

I am 23 years old.  I attend a non denominational church.  I have in the past attended both pentecostal and baptist churches.  As Christians from every denomination and culture we identify ourselves as members of the “body of Christ”.  Emphasis is placed on the personal relationship with God through His son Jesus.  His death and resurrection serve as the propitiation for sin that ultimately seperates Man from God.

After hearing the gospel of Jesus and reading the Bible for myself I declared my faith when I was 19 yo.

Would you mind telling me a little bit about yourself?

Posted on 12/21/2008 at 7:52 PM

Doug says:

Sure, I’m 44, from the New Orleans area, originally, and have lived in all four corners of the US.  My parents divorced when I was four.  My father, originally a Roman Catholic, joined the United Pentecostal Church when I was about 11, and a lot of my initial exposure to Christianity came through that.  Unfortunately, the UPC doesn’t recognize those who haven’t had Jesus name baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost (as evidenced by speaking in tongues) as being included in the body of Christ.  My mother, on the other hand, was a Unitarian Universalist, and I found myself having to resolve religious questions at a much earlier age than most.  In my teen years, I spent some time in the Baha’i Faith, but ultimately became disenchanted with that as well.  Today, I have no formal church membership, but have attended services in various New Thought, Unitarian, and even Catholic churches.

I agree with you that we inherit our natural “sinful” condition through our human (Adamic) nature, and that through identification with the story of Jesus, we undergo our own metaphorical death (metanoia), burial (baptism) and resurrection (rebirth), which enables us to regain at-one-ment with God.  We differ in that I don’t believe that it requires literal blood being shed, or a literal baptism to happen in order for this process to occur.  To me, this is a symbolic representation based on the tradition of Jewish temple sacrifice.  I’ve found that this same concept of sacrificial atonement has existed in religions since the time of the ancient Sumerians, and other primitive religions who used to perform animal sacrifices for the atonement of their sins.  When I connect the dots between the stories of Dyonisus, Osiris, Mithra, and others, I see the process as a symbolic representation of an inner transformation.  Joseph Campbell and his “The Power of Myth” was a pivotal book for me, as was “The Jesus Mysteries”, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy; however, it was my own inner journey at the age of 20 that taught me most of the perspectives I have today.

Posted on 12/21/2008 at 8:46 PM

Michael Dugo says:

I guess I just have just a couple things left to say.

Although not ideal, we have the right to reject religious doctrine without having read its scripture in its entirety.  But, you must know that we would be so utterly foolish to think we could correct the Christian, the Muslim, or the Buddhist regarding a doctrine derived from their holy text.  Before teaching me what the Bible says regarding the “path/s to God” please study the New Testament in its entirety.  It’s not personal, understand I would never attend a church whose preacher did not read the Bible in its entirety.

Secondly, you acknowledge we are sinners.  What do you believe is the just punishment for that sin, if any at all?

Regarding Christian parallels here are some links I would encourage you to check out.

Video on Christian mythological parallel
http://www.youtube.com/user/ATOMICGLUE

Zeitgeist
http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml

Posted on 12/22/2008 at 4:22 PM

Doug says:

I’ve actually read the entire New Testament, Mike.  I just have a different way of interpreting it than you do.

Concerning sin and punishment: the word most commonly translated in the New Testament as “sin” is the Greek word, Hamartia.  it means to “miss the mark”, like you would in archery.  Therefore, it’s an inability to meet a standard, rather than a willful transgression.

According to New Testament doctrine, we inherit an engrained inability to “hit the mark” as the result of Adam and Eve’s sin and expulsion from paradise and the flawed nature we inherited by virtue of being born human.  This is essentially the same fable as Pandora’s Box.  Whether you see this as a parable or a literal event, the result is the same: we can’t please God because we have a natural tendency which prevents us from doing so (The natural man receiveth not the things of God; neither can he know them—I Cor 2:14).  Whereas in Judaism, there were punishments for breaking a Law that was impossible to uphold, in Christianity, we are saved through grace, not of our own works, lest anyone should boast.

Since, due to our “fallen” human nature, we are unable to escape our own self-interest in the choices we make and are unable to discern spiritual truth of our own effort (the Calvinists called this the doctrine of “total depravity”), to punish us for something we are unable to do would be unjust.  It would be like punishing a blind girl for not being able to read a book.  According to the Bible, even repentance isn’t something we do on our own.  It is a gift from God (Acts 5:31, Acts 11:18, II Tim 2:25).

Paul teaches that when we put on the new man, the old man dies and our sins (past, present and future) with him; it isn’t us that lives on, he writes, but Christ in us. 

I personally believe that all this serves to illustrate that trying to be virtuous isn’t going to earn you any extra favor.  It’s about waking up, not earning brownie points for good deeds.  Redemption comes through rebirth, not by abstaining from evil. 

I don’t believe we are punished for our sins, but by them.  If we choose to be selfish or greedy or whatever other byproducts that come from a dualistic mindset, we will experience the disappointments that go along with that.  If, on the other hand, we choose the way of love and understanding, it brings its own reward.

Posted on 12/22/2008 at 5:33 PM

Doug says:

I watched your video about the dangers of Oprah and her belief that all paths lead to truth.  First, let me say that I’m not a member of the church of Oprah.

Not only do I not believe that all paths lead to the truth, I don’t believe that any paths lead to the truth.  Even the one you call Christianity.  Because whatever Christianity you can conceive of as being Christianity is not the real Christianity, rather your interpretation of what it is, based on other people’s interpretations of what it is.

Because even the best assumptions we might make about what following that path entails is mistaken, given the limited perspective of our human mind.  Even our best assumptions, however nobly intended, are innately flawed.  It’s like building a tower of Babel.

Therefore, I don’t believe that it’s us that find God by following the “right” path, I believe it’s God who finds us, even if we’re on the wrong one.  I don’t believe Spirit suddenly supplies us with all the answers to life, but simply gives us more perspective by awakening us to a higher level of being.  It’s a language of feeling, and you can’t get to it by logic anymore than you can build a tower to heaven.

It can speak to us in the roar of the waves at the beach, in a sentimental movie, or even in a noisy disco.  It can come to us in the image of a lost loved one, in a church, a great sexual experience, or during a romp in the park with your dog.  It is all of these things, but no single one of these things.  It chooses its moment and its way.

While I have studied the Bible, I don’t believe I have to have the whole thing memorized to know which parts speak to me and which parts don’t.  But I can’t believe something just because I feel I’m supposed to.  I have to believe it because it speaks to me.  I don’t believe something because I read it somewhere, or because the majority of the world believes it; I believe in something because it relates to my personal experience of it.

This is a highly personal journey, and neither of us can dictate how Spirit will speak to either of us.

This article isn’t about a special church, and I’m not selling a particular dogma.  It’s about various organizations of interest to those who feel uncomfortable in a traditional church.  So, if none of these experiences speaks to you, it’s up to you to relish the ones that do…simple as that!

Posted on 12/23/2008 at 6:39 AM

Angela McGowan says:

Hi Doug
what a lively debate you have going on with Michael.  Great article, too bad the topic of religion brings out the ugly side of people sometimes.  Its either there way or no way, no respect for others.  Anyway, I saw that you spend some time in central florida. Do you know of any organizations such as these in the orlando area? possibly casselberry?

Posted on 03/14/2009 at 6:16 AM

Doug says:

Hi Angela, glad you liked the article! While I felt Michael was perfectly polite, I do agree that people can be very defensive about religion—or even the lack of it—because our whole sense of identity is built so much around it. 

I live in Volusia County, and Cassadaga is always an interesting experience here; Mary Rose Gray is an excellent intuitive development teacher, offering classes for just $10/session, and Diane Davis, a really savvy camp medium, leads some enlightening workshops.  There is also a Unity Church in Orlando, as well as several Unitarian Universalist congregations in the area.  meetup.com also lists several private groups with non-traditional spiritual beliefs.  You should be able to find what’s right for you!

Posted on 03/14/2009 at 6:41 AM

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Discuss the surrounding area in our hugely popular Miami forum.
Today's Miami Specials
Like what you see? Let's talk about
how we can help your vacation
--> Contact Us