RS Classic: The Face of God

And, finally, the one that talks about what Aron was asking several posts before. Yes, I'm an odd one, as is my concept of God. Read at your own risk.

So, I’ve discussed Heaven or Hell , or my belief in either.

It seems the next logical thing to discuss is my belief in “God”. Since I’m not shy, I shall. However, I remind you that, just because I discuss my own beliefs does not mean I reject or sneer at other beliefs. These are just mine.

In my mind, what God is is not as important as what He isn’t. I believe in a deity that is tolerant, understanding, forgiving, who loves all humans equally, a God who is not disturbed except by people hurting each other unnecessarily. And that’s it.

I don’t know (or care) if God is a he or she or if there are series of them, a conglomerate, even an entity that created “us” (or shaped the natural forces of creation - either way) and left us to our own devices. I don’t know if he’s associated with any of the famous prophets that have lived and initiated religions: Buddha, Mohamed, Jesus Christ, Abraham, but I would not be surprised if they all touched on some of the truth. How much, well…

What I seriously don’t think God is is petty, tyrannical, egocentric, vindictive, intolerant. I don’t think he (she/they) care what belief system someone has (or if) nor do they condone horrific behavior in someone who professes to a particular religion. I don’t think he answers every prayer. I don’t think, actually, that he interferes with us, at least not anymore, like a parent that has done what he could to prepare his children and then left them to fend for themselves. If he does get involved, it is only once in a while, when it serves the greater good.

I can’t imagine any reasonable deity that would allow “righteous” people to hurt/kill others but would turn his (her/their) back on people that do good but don’t follow a particular religion or have a characteristic that isn't "acceptable."

That doesn’t mean that I tell anyone what to believe. Many have tried to convince me to that I’m wrong, that I risk “hell” if I don’t change the way I view things. Too bad. I would go to hell rather than give a petty tyrant God the satisfaction of my worship.

Good thing for me, I don’t believe it’s going to be an issue.

Read more...

RS Classic: Apparently I'm Waxing Philosophical

Since I started talking all this in the here and now, I thought I'd recycle some of my thinking along these lines from before, including what I think of the viewpoint of Christian thinking. As you can see, my opinions haven't changed much.

Something I rarely do is post an email forward. It’s almost impossible to trace them down and give credit and this is not an exception. But, I have a reason for putting up this up, and I’ll explain afterwards.

A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that the dog walking beside him had been dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them.

After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.
When he was standing before it he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold. He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.

When he was close enough, he called out, ‘Excuse me, where are we?’
‘This is Heaven, sir,’ the man answered.
‘Wow! Would you happen to have some water?’ the man asked.
‘Of course, sir. Come right in, and I’ll have some ice water brought right up.’
The man gestured, and the gate began to open.
‘Can my friend,’ gesturing toward his dog, ‘come in, too?’ the traveler asked.
‘I’m sorry, sir, but we don’t accept pets.’
The man thought a moment and then turned back toward the road and continued the way he had been going with his dog.
After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence.
As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book..
‘Excuse me!’ he called to the man. ‘Do you have any water?’
‘Yeah, sure, there’s a pump over there, come on in.’
‘How about my friend here?’ the traveler gestured to the dog.
‘There should be a bowl by the pump.’
They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it.
The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, then he gave some to the dog.
When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.
‘What do you call this place?’ the traveler asked.
‘This is Heaven,’ he answered.

‘Well, that’s confusing,’ the traveler said. ‘The man down the road said that was Heaven, too.’
‘Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That’s hell.’
‘Doesn’t it make you mad for them to use your name like that?’
‘No, we’re just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind.’

Now, why did I do that? I have to be honest, I don’t believe in Heaven or Hell. Seriously.

But, it got me to thinking and that’s the kind of thing I like to spread around. Let us postulate, for entertainment value, that Heaven and Hell did exist. I personally think this sort of set up is perfect. Not just because many animals have souls (duh!), but because this could be the perfect way to differentiate between someone worthy to go to Heaven or Hell.

Think about it.

You walk up to the “Pearly Gates” and meet St. Peter (as far as you know). If, after the description of Heaven (streets of gold, no worries or stress ever, wonderful and perfect in every way, etc) you still wanted to go in (and I find that hard to believe, but we’ll say that sounds good to ya). So, St. Peter starts going to through a screening list. You a Muslim? You a Pagan? You a homosexual? You ever have an abortion? Would you have supported your teenage daughter if she wanted one? Etc. etc. You say no (presumably) to it all, and Peter says, “Well, I can see you’re a righteous person. Come on in.”

Would you go in? Before asking “What if I’d said yes to any of that?” If you’d gone in, no questions asked, I think you’d deserve the Hell you got (and, by the way, the boredom of that just as it described would be Hell to me, too).

Why in hell would heaven be exclusionary? And, if it was, is it where you’d want to be? I think this is one of the aspects of organized religions, particularly the Middle Eastern originating ones (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) that I have the hardest time understanding.

What kind of butthead thinks that sounds like Heaven?

It's kind of between the lines, but I was shooting for the notion that most of us (if not all of us) know someone who wouldn't make the cut as fundamentalists see it. What kind of person waltzes into Heaven blissful with the understanding that these people they know will live in everlasting torment? Aside from what I think that says about "God," I think it says something about the people who believe there is a long list of exclusionary criteria for Heaven. I have to admit, most of the Christians I know don't really think that way or so I truly believe.

Read more...

Taking the Plunge: The Big B

Alright, no more teasing.

I'm going to talk about one of the quintessential "sacred" documents out there that many people put complete and implicit faith in. Let me preface what I'm saying with a few caveats. First, this is how I see it. If I make sweeping remarks, it's because that's what I think. I'm not apologizing for it, just saying I know the difference between my opinion and fact, and this is the latter. In case you were wondering.

Also, I'm using the Bible as an example, but I suspect this would apply to any text that claims to be divinely inspired - but this is the one I know the most about. So, it's nothing personal.

Thirdly, and I'll be exploring this in one of the forthcoming posts, I don't see why it matters what the source of something is. If it speaks to you, if it makes you think and gives you inspiration, you are welcome to all the happiness and guidance it gives you - just do us the courtesy of not confusing your devotion to a scripture as an obligation in the rest of us to give it the same credence. By all means, choose the path that speaks to you - and give us the opportunity to do the same.

Now, on to the topic. The Bible, as I mentioned, is often quoted as unassailable truth, the exact word of God. That's a lovely notion, of course, but, unless you read ancient Greek, there's no way you can be reading the exact word of God even if he spoke directly to those who authored it. In fact, I think it's unlikely that the Greek texts that most forms of the Bible are based on reflect the original language God spoke to anyone, you know, since most of the Bible authors were supposedly not Greek. I'm sure my pal, Roy, can provide some excellent insight on this topic.

But, let's suppose. Let's suppose we lived back in ancient times, in whatever time the Bible was written (though I very much think neither Testament is a product of a single period of time) and that the author was listening directly to the word of God. The question is, how would that make what the recipients write down the thoughts of God?

See, I can't speak for everyone, but, in my experience, saying exactly what I mean, with all its nuances and undertones, all its shades and distinctions, is virtually impossible. And, even when I think I've made a fair approximation of what I intended, my experience on what my listener absorbs is, well, usually hell and gone from what I thought I said. And this is just simple stuff. If I want to describe, say, quantum physics to say, elementary school kids, it becomes even harder. Why?

Two reasons. The first is that there are limitations to any language. All of them have limitations - just try describing a sunset to someone who was born blind. And this leads nicely to the second reason: a listener can only grasp a notion from his frame of reference. If I describe a sunset to someone who has lost his sight, he may be able to envision what I describe. But to someone who has never seen colors, he might instead end up envisioning a bouquet of flowers or the music of a symphony - something his mind has a frame of reference for.

I suspect describing the mysteries of the universe to primitive man (or, in fact, modern man) makes describing quantum physics to schoolchildren seem easy.

But people not only are limited by their ability to comprehend what they hear, they are a product of the world they live in. If, for instance, in one's world, women are passed about like property, daughters are bartered for prestige or wealth, one is likely to assume that any stories related would inhabit the same world order. One is generally prone to carry forward one's own prejudices, one's own limitations, into what one passes along, not necessarily intentionally. It is part of one's own frame of reference.

But there's another aspect that I think is worth noting. People who write down what they believe is the word of God tend to have a vested interest in getting others to believe it. I mean, if they didn't, why bother to write it down? If one was happy and comfortable alone in one's beliefs, why tell anyone? I suspect it is not it's not a coincidence that most scriptures include a passage or two that notes that ONLY this path leads to Heaven (or whatever facsimile they promote). For me personally, I bear it in mind when I read something like this. I don't blame them - I'm sure they believed that their beliefs would "save" others but I think it's fair to note religion has often been a path to wealth and power. If I find a passage that seems to stress conversion instead of merit, I get skeptical.

Tomorrow, the Constitution as another example.

Read more...