|
Editorial Updates
09/10/13 |
Comments
no comments |
|
Home Map
> Home Page > More About Diligo Vita > The making of This Philosopher. > Looking For Answers > Christianity And Religion<you are here> > What Is This Thing Called Love |
I'm not a Christian ... BUT!
I do not call myself a Christian for one very simple reason: organised religions become exclusive, divisive, controlling, contentious, and a internally political to the detriment of the belief its self. Although these critical qualities are not exclusive to Christianity or for that matter any belief structure, which all appear by nature of the beast to be contentious, some religion and definitely Christianity has raised these qualities to something of an art form down the years. Inevitably, by pinning a label to ones forehead one also takes on "the mud" of peoples negative perceptions in regard to that label, the connotations of which, for some people, might be so off putting as to be unhelpful: closing, by prejudice, peoples minds to new ideas.
BUT!
Not withstanding my reservations to the structure of organised religions and Christianity in particular I do believe in many of the particular tenets of the religion that I was brought up with Christianity. It is not, in anyway to say that I exclude the principals of other religions, but just that is where my familiarity lies.
For good reason, mostly as a reaction to over zealous evangelical influences, I rejected what I saw as the "myth and magic of Christianity. Religious leaders promised the moon: the happy-clappyness of being within the fold. When the promised "magic" didn't sort out my feelings of inadequacy, I was asked "Are you being good enough, do you have enough faith"? that only served to heighten my adolescent insecurity. I became some what obsessed in finding logical "things to believe in " as opposed to the insidious suggestion that my lack of faith was the reason the magic didn't work, So I look for a more rational view that a none theistic philosophy offered for my beliefs. Additionally the secular view, of religion saw it as just being a crutch for week, was a taunt that struck a chord.
A Funny Thing
I took what I saw as "the baby" from Christianity with me on my philosophical search and left the bath water of religiosity. Love and Forgiveness both of which I have expanded upon in my writing. And I did find my "things to believe in", that had sufficient rational to placate my intellect. But the funny thing was that much of the time I was finding echoes of Christianity in many of philosophical things I discovered. I'm sure a psychologist would have a field-day interpreting that connection but non-the-less with out picking up any of the religiosity, Christ was a man that lived and to my mind his insight, understanding and attitude were/are quite extraordinary and I make no apology for following any of them.
sisideas
BUT!
Not withstanding my reservations to the structure of organised religions and Christianity in particular I do believe in many of the particular tenets of the religion that I was brought up with Christianity. It is not, in anyway to say that I exclude the principals of other religions, but just that is where my familiarity lies.
For good reason, mostly as a reaction to over zealous evangelical influences, I rejected what I saw as the "myth and magic of Christianity. Religious leaders promised the moon: the happy-clappyness of being within the fold. When the promised "magic" didn't sort out my feelings of inadequacy, I was asked "Are you being good enough, do you have enough faith"? that only served to heighten my adolescent insecurity. I became some what obsessed in finding logical "things to believe in " as opposed to the insidious suggestion that my lack of faith was the reason the magic didn't work, So I look for a more rational view that a none theistic philosophy offered for my beliefs. Additionally the secular view, of religion saw it as just being a crutch for week, was a taunt that struck a chord.
A Funny Thing
I took what I saw as "the baby" from Christianity with me on my philosophical search and left the bath water of religiosity. Love and Forgiveness both of which I have expanded upon in my writing. And I did find my "things to believe in", that had sufficient rational to placate my intellect. But the funny thing was that much of the time I was finding echoes of Christianity in many of philosophical things I discovered. I'm sure a psychologist would have a field-day interpreting that connection but non-the-less with out picking up any of the religiosity, Christ was a man that lived and to my mind his insight, understanding and attitude were/are quite extraordinary and I make no apology for following any of them.
sisideas
A Perspective on Religion
Never Let The Truth Get In The Way Of a Good Schism
First I would like to make the obvious separation between what I will call “the inception of a faith” and that of the various organisation that lay claim to that “inception of faith”- the church or equivalent. Inevitably the organising of anything changes the nature of whatever it is one is organising and never more true when it comes to religions. Any organisation must have a set of rules and tenet that define it from any other, in doing so the organisation inevitably becomes an institution with all the hierarchical politicization that goes with it. Like a club, only with the added passion that is particular to religions where the conviction of one’s rightness in a debate is the very stuff of our soles. In such circumstances the predominance of over exercised egos and a plethora of material to argue over be it the substance of a particular tenet or some political juxtaposition within the hierarchy, makes for a well nurtured battle ground. Probably all of the organised religions of today are the result of many-a (sometimes bloody) schism of yesterday. Notwithstanding the undoubted positive influence of religion within our civilisation, I suspect that there would have been much “turning in the grave” from the “inceptor’s” of the original “the inception of a faith” as to the way their faith has been treated at the hand of organisations that proclaimed to have been adherents to the same. The “the inception of a faith” gets to play second fiddle to man's ego when set in an organised church.
Weaving the Construction
As far as I am aware all religions have as their basic premise a God or equivalent. The basis for the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith. From that basic premise (belief in god) all aspects of that religion are “constructed” from the nature ascribed to that deity. God is:
A Father figure.......For a loved son.....................reassurance acceptance.
A creator.............The responsible person......the person with the answers.
Omnipotent.................Above all others, the best person to be your friend.
Invincible .............Mighty, powerful..(Norse gods)........................... a hero.
Angry, to be placated........attain forgiveness.................................sacrifice.
And of course from a believer’s point of view the knowledge of the nature of God would have been derived from the deity it’s self.
From a non believer/antagonist one can describe “the constructed nature of God” as being a form of man's alter ego. A believer will make God to be what he wants God to be and of course this will reflect the nature of man needs: His need for reassurance, his looking for answerers, his need to have a friend with power and a means to reconcile his sense of guilt. All of which is a tacit acceptance of man,s own frailty and impotence in regard to his existence. So far so good but as soon as one defines that nature of a God in any form, there are implications beyond that of the immediate definition: God is omnipotent, there for know everything, therefore knows the future, therefore the future is ordained because it’s known. So question: dose man has free will? Similarly: God is love, God is all powerful, young children die of starvation ergo either love is not what we thought it is or God is not all powerful. Now, as a protagonist/non-believer I can accuse religions of having created either paradoxes or unacceptable incongruities with in the weave of their construct. I can do so because my intellect can see the illogical or Non sequitur corollary created by their ascribed nature of their Deity. However, as a believer of a religion, notwithstanding the apparent paradoxes, my Prima facie is in the belief of God and the necessity of maintaining the totality of the construct, one therefore ignores the non believer’s logic, and look to find answer from within the logic of the construct. To be decidedly uncharitable we can end up with what can be describe as a facile “cop outs” such as “we, as mortals cannot fathom all the mysteries of God” which from a believers point of view only adds to the perception of God’s elevated greatness. To my mind, to not use the God given gift of our intellect in favour of our imagination design, strikes me as perverse whether it’s in the defining of a deity or in not believing in evolution.
It is from the perspective of these two issues and similar that I have problem with religion. However whatever one thinks about Christianity or for that matter any religion, there is definitely, I believe from within the “inception of faith” a “baby” in amongst a lot of bath water.
First I would like to make the obvious separation between what I will call “the inception of a faith” and that of the various organisation that lay claim to that “inception of faith”- the church or equivalent. Inevitably the organising of anything changes the nature of whatever it is one is organising and never more true when it comes to religions. Any organisation must have a set of rules and tenet that define it from any other, in doing so the organisation inevitably becomes an institution with all the hierarchical politicization that goes with it. Like a club, only with the added passion that is particular to religions where the conviction of one’s rightness in a debate is the very stuff of our soles. In such circumstances the predominance of over exercised egos and a plethora of material to argue over be it the substance of a particular tenet or some political juxtaposition within the hierarchy, makes for a well nurtured battle ground. Probably all of the organised religions of today are the result of many-a (sometimes bloody) schism of yesterday. Notwithstanding the undoubted positive influence of religion within our civilisation, I suspect that there would have been much “turning in the grave” from the “inceptor’s” of the original “the inception of a faith” as to the way their faith has been treated at the hand of organisations that proclaimed to have been adherents to the same. The “the inception of a faith” gets to play second fiddle to man's ego when set in an organised church.
Weaving the Construction
As far as I am aware all religions have as their basic premise a God or equivalent. The basis for the existence of God is ultimately a matter of faith. From that basic premise (belief in god) all aspects of that religion are “constructed” from the nature ascribed to that deity. God is:
A Father figure.......For a loved son.....................reassurance acceptance.
A creator.............The responsible person......the person with the answers.
Omnipotent.................Above all others, the best person to be your friend.
Invincible .............Mighty, powerful..(Norse gods)........................... a hero.
Angry, to be placated........attain forgiveness.................................sacrifice.
And of course from a believer’s point of view the knowledge of the nature of God would have been derived from the deity it’s self.
From a non believer/antagonist one can describe “the constructed nature of God” as being a form of man's alter ego. A believer will make God to be what he wants God to be and of course this will reflect the nature of man needs: His need for reassurance, his looking for answerers, his need to have a friend with power and a means to reconcile his sense of guilt. All of which is a tacit acceptance of man,s own frailty and impotence in regard to his existence. So far so good but as soon as one defines that nature of a God in any form, there are implications beyond that of the immediate definition: God is omnipotent, there for know everything, therefore knows the future, therefore the future is ordained because it’s known. So question: dose man has free will? Similarly: God is love, God is all powerful, young children die of starvation ergo either love is not what we thought it is or God is not all powerful. Now, as a protagonist/non-believer I can accuse religions of having created either paradoxes or unacceptable incongruities with in the weave of their construct. I can do so because my intellect can see the illogical or Non sequitur corollary created by their ascribed nature of their Deity. However, as a believer of a religion, notwithstanding the apparent paradoxes, my Prima facie is in the belief of God and the necessity of maintaining the totality of the construct, one therefore ignores the non believer’s logic, and look to find answer from within the logic of the construct. To be decidedly uncharitable we can end up with what can be describe as a facile “cop outs” such as “we, as mortals cannot fathom all the mysteries of God” which from a believers point of view only adds to the perception of God’s elevated greatness. To my mind, to not use the God given gift of our intellect in favour of our imagination design, strikes me as perverse whether it’s in the defining of a deity or in not believing in evolution.
It is from the perspective of these two issues and similar that I have problem with religion. However whatever one thinks about Christianity or for that matter any religion, there is definitely, I believe from within the “inception of faith” a “baby” in amongst a lot of bath water.