What I am about to commit to paper is the product of my own thoughts about religion, the answers about which remain elusive as they have throughout my life. I neither credit nor blame anyone for what you are about to read. I am not trying to convert anyone to my system of beliefs nor am I attempting to denigrate anyone else’s. For me, this represents a whole host of unanswered questions and conclusions. I do not pretend to have all the answers. They remain eternal questions, which I have been unable to prove or disprove to my complete satisfaction.
Of all the phenomena, that which I simply cannot get my head around is that of the universe. It totally baffles me. Try as I may to conceptualize otherwise, I just cannot comprehend that anything can exist with no beginning and no end. The best I can do is accept my own limitations at having been born into and lived exclusively in a universe that is linear in time. Therefore, my comfort zone is within the constraints of the existence of a Creator. There is nothing absolute about my conclusion. It simply reaffirms that nothing of this nature can be empirically proven nor can it be disproved. If it cannot be proven, empirically, that God exists, similarly, it cannot be proven, empirically, that God does not exist. In the final analysis, it boils down to a simple belief, providing a small dose of humility for those prone to absolutes at both ends of the religious spectrum.
The notion that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh overwhelms me, based on the sheer magnitude of that accomplishment. Geology does not square with that either, so I am more inclined to think the absolute truth of that assertion must be based on a celestial measure of time we have yet to comprehend or it simply is not true. Suffice to conclude that the creation of Mother Earth was a magnificent accomplishment, however it came about. That is, until the avarice of mankind set itself to the task of systematically destroying its perfection, which may well result in our collective and eventual doom.
I have chosen to believe in God. However, I have yet to encounter any evidence that I am right. On the other hand, religious scholars and authorities abound throughout history who professes, with absolute certainty, that theirs is the one true religion led by the one true God. That they cannot prove their assertions is summarily dismissed in the face of their own religious fervor. The veracity of their assertions is predicated on the existence of holy books, the contents of which can neither be proven nor disproved, but are, nevertheless, quoted in absolute terms. I do not buy into the notion that the holy books are necessarily the inspired word of God, but I do not discount the notion that His hand may have played a part in them. Each spans periods that preclude absolute accuracy and the integrity of one or more authors exposed to the same events, both of which cannot overrule the possibility of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Why does every form of institutionalized religion appear to rest on a set of written works that are absolute, supported by an anointed group accepted as possessing unquestioned knowledge and authority, supported by and through Divine inspiration and/or the written word? As more and more questions have been raised, over time, as to the absolute truth of those works, it seems to me that organized religions have tended to become more rigid by rejecting anything that might cause one to question the absolute certainty of their assertions. I do not necessarily question that there may well be a thread of truth running though any one or more of those belief systems. However, as knowledge becomes available it seems to me intellectual and moral honesty require religious leaders and scholars to keep an open mind that might shed more light and understanding on what we are to believe.
I am more inclined to believe that, as those religions have matured, rather than keeping an open mind about new knowledge, they have tended to cling ever more tenaciously to their official system of beliefs, ever more shrouded in mystery, secrecy, and absolute authority in order to affect greater control over their followers. That has resulted in a disinclination for us to question what we are led to believe, and to accept extremes in our system of beliefs that may cause us to become less rational and more emotional about any challenges that are presented to us about those beliefs. To the extent we are not accepting of contrary evidence and fail to question, we create and till fertile ground for extremes in what we believe and the ends to which we will go in enforcing those beliefs. Hence, we are left with a few “major” religions that allow for extremes that foster and accept violence on the one hand and total passivity on the other. As the schism has widened between the followers and religious authority, we have become increasingly dependent upon what those authorities profess to be the truth and their interpretation of the truth. That being the case, wherein lies the kernel of truth that is at the heart of a particular religion?
Why have the “believers” become passive in their acceptance of religious beliefs, abdicating their responsibility to question and to seek a deeper understanding of what they are to believe, and how they are supposed to conduct their lives within a particular system of beliefs? With the failure of the followers to actively participate in the teachings and affairs of their religion, greater license is given to the authority of religious leaders, whose commitment may or may not be as much to the needs of the followers as to the needs of the institution itself. As institutional authority becomes more absolute, it seems to me there is a natural inclination for greater misunderstanding between “what is” and “what should be.” To the extent that occurs, I suspect there is a tendency for the “flock” to become more passive and the “shepherd” to be ascribed greater authority. The notion of community and a shared responsibility for the institution becomes ever more tenuous. As members opt to leave the “flock, “the authority of the institution is further eroded and becomes less relevant.
When members become disenfranchised from the institution, in the absence of any real authority, that is when I see people either rejecting their religion out of hand, or they seek to progressively redefine their system of beliefs less in terms of the ideal of what we should be, and more in terms of rationalizing what we have become. That is the point at which I believe the moral authority of our religion begins to erode and the vitality of the institution itself begins to wane, leading to a downward spiral with a declining emphasis on the finer aspects of our spiritual nature, and greater license regarding the various aspects of the physical side of our human nature. What results, from my perspective, is a gradual acceptance of the baser aspects of whom and what we are and a growing inclination to descend into a state of progressively greater depravity. There is no longer a moral compass with which to guide us. We become more disenfranchised from one another and no longer subscribe to a commonly understood and accepted code of conduct that is requisite for a civilized community.
I believe God intends for us to seek greater understanding of His plan for us and our destiny, more through the avenues of knowledge and understanding, than through ignorance and fear. The former fosters acceptance, unity and a common purpose; the latter fosters separation, isolation, mistrust and violence.
Now, to issues of complexity and simplicity in our religious beliefs. A deeper understanding of the mysteries of religion is the eternal quest of religious scholars and philosophers. That they have been the source of enlightenment throughout the ages is not in question. However, I believe the essence of religion is a constantly evolving process of discovery and learning. That presupposes an active relationship between the clergy and the followers. To the extent that does not occur, I believe we are more prone to be duped by views that may better serve religious institutions and the clergy than they necessarily do the followers. To the extent that occurs and becomes accepted, those of us sitting in the congregation become more likely to accept simplistic answers to very complex issues. The shared responsibility for learning withers, leading to a relationship of greater authority on the one hand and greater passivity on the other. Prejudice and ignorance abound. Therein is what I perceive to be the essence of extremes that are likely to be found within the context of any religion.
I happen to believe, if it is the will of God that His word be known and understood throughout the world, then that expectation applies far more to the common man than it does to scholars and the educated elite. Simplicity seems fundamental to an understanding and acceptance of the inspired word. After all, Christ chose, as his Apostles, those from the ranks of the common man.
I cannot accept the notion that only those who subscribe to one of the three “religions of the book,” necessarily have exclusive claims to Divine favor, and those whose religious beliefs place them outside that circle are necessarily relegated to a lesser status in the eyes of God. What about all of the good and spiritual souls who were born into societies that had no knowledge of those religions? Are we to summarily conclude that they are pagans whose destiny does not include eternal salvation? Are we to accept that people such as Mahatma Gandhi, the Dali Lama, and all of the other great spiritual thinkers, leaders and believers have no place in eternity? When we all reach the end of our earthly journey, either (a) our very existence (in any form) ceases to exist; or (b) we are all in for one heck of a surprise at what we are likely to find!
Then there is the perennial conflict between the theories of evolution vs. that of creation. The theory of evolution seems pretty logical to me. However, there seems to be a barrier when it comes to discovering the missing link. We have been taught to believe that man was created in the image of God. If we accept that assertion, how are we to interpret the “Image of God?” Is the traditional image of God as a male authority figure predicated on the fact that, historically, societies have largely been patriarchal? If our physical form is not His, then what is it? It seems readily apparent that our anatomy and physiology is a form specific to survival on planet Earth. However, if God were everywhere, His form would have to be compatible with the vastness of time and space. Where we are mortal beings with a finite life span, then I believe God is a spiritual and philosophical being free of any such constraints. He would have no need for the same characteristics that are essential for our earthly survival. So, in what way do we exist in His image? I have concluded that the image we share with God lies within the spiritual and intellectual aspects of our makeup. Because God’s survival is not dependent upon anything akin to our physical makeup, then the image we share with Him must necessarily lie in the spiritual aspects of our nature. That calls into question the image of a mortal man as the traditional image of God. How are we to know?
So, where does all this leave us? What binds us to or alienates us from God? What is pleasing to or engenders the wrath of God? Obviously, it is beyond my ability to provide exhaustive answers to either. However, I do subscribe to a few. I believe those aspects of our makeup specific to our physical survival and procreation is limited to our mortal existence and has no relationship to God. Further, I see those aspects as the seat of our greatest temptations and, consequently, our greatest excesses that can lead to our moral demise in the absence of any constraints. Then the spiritual aspects of our makeup would seem to comprise the finer aspects of our nature and are those qualities we share with God. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, there seems to be greater reverence for the physical than for the spiritual. That leads me to believe that from the physical come the more aggressive aspects of our nature, which, if taken to the extreme, results in violence. I do not believe it is in the nature of God to be violent.
There are some issues within various religions that remain unresolved questions with me, and their professed relationship to God. Following are but a few examples.
1. The rationale behind the rule of celibacy and the attendant consequences that have dealt such a serious blow to the moral authority of one of the world’s great religions.
2. Ministers of mega-churches and televangelists that rake in huge sums of money which appear to be more for the support of their lavish lifestyles than for the support of God’s work on earth. My suspicions are further aroused when the offspring of the “clergy” follow in the footsteps of their father. Is that more a matter of a religious calling or a conscious business decision to market religion in order to pursue a lucrative career path?
3. I do not believe God was ever in the real estate business. To use that as a pretext for disenfranchising an entire nation of people is a ruse perpetrated by a bunch of hard- line zealots in the name of religion. The Israelis have learned the lessons of history well, as evidenced by sixty years of brutality they continue to inflict on the Palestinians. They never waiver from their unspoken goal of a pure Jewish state. While they talk of their support for a peace process that will result in a two-state solution, they continue to establish Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. They continue to physically isolate them, break up their families and impede their ability to have a decent standard of living. Would any reasonable person expect them to behave like a bunch of sheep waiting to be led to their slaughter? If I were to be asked to come up with three symbols depicting the “special relationship” between Israel and the United States, I would (a) mention the name of the USS Liberty, (b) mention the name of Jonathan Pollard, and (3) draw a caricature of an elephant recoiling in stark terror from a mouse.
4. How religions that foster and support international terrorism can be anything but the complete antithesis of what God is and expects of us.
5. How religions that suppress women, minority groups, and those of different religious persuasions can profess to enjoy favored status with God.
6. Religions that condone the importation of cheap labor from third world countries that are among the poorest of the poor, and treats them like beasts of burden in both the way they are forced to live and the conditions under which they labor.
7. Religious splinter groups that live in isolation from society while they practice polygamy, pedophilia, etc. I see that more as institutionalized perversion than living a religious life.
8. Religions that rule by fear, ignorance and intimidation, rather than knowledge and enlightenment. All that can result from this mindset is submission to authority and a total abdication of any personal responsibility to pursue an independent understanding of what God is all about.
I deeply admire people who can quote from the holy books with ease and fluidity. I must confess that, a few times during my life, I made an honest attempt to read the Bible, but I was never successful. I found that effort to be either a sure cure for insomnia or I simply got lost in all the begetting. I now know that, in order to comprehend what is written in the holy books requires not only a great deal of discipline, but the assistance of good teachers, as well.
Basically, I regard myself to be a simple man. For me, true wisdom is to be found in simplicity. Given that, let me conclude with what I believe to be the essence of what God is all about.
1. I believe God embodies all of the finest attributes of our human nature, but billions of times greater than we can imagine. I believe the essence of His make up is essentially based on --
a. Unconditional love.
b. Unconditional acceptance.
c. Unconditional understanding.
d. Unconditional forgiveness.
God expects no less from us in our relationship to each other.
2. I believe that the Ten Commandments have served humanity well as the foundation for a virtuous life.
3. I believe the Beatitudes are one of the best repositories of principles by which to live that are to be found anywhere.
4. I believe, when faced with any problem, to the extent we follow our heart rather than our head, we increase the probability of coming up with the right solution.
5. And, finally, the old standby, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
To the extent I may have offended anyone by this treatise, I regret having done so. To the extent that I may have provoked some serious thought, reflection and soul-searching, then the time and effort spent on this rather modest work was well worth it.
The mystery of it all remains.
Cowboy Bob
January 10, 2009
Of all the phenomena, that which I simply cannot get my head around is that of the universe. It totally baffles me. Try as I may to conceptualize otherwise, I just cannot comprehend that anything can exist with no beginning and no end. The best I can do is accept my own limitations at having been born into and lived exclusively in a universe that is linear in time. Therefore, my comfort zone is within the constraints of the existence of a Creator. There is nothing absolute about my conclusion. It simply reaffirms that nothing of this nature can be empirically proven nor can it be disproved. If it cannot be proven, empirically, that God exists, similarly, it cannot be proven, empirically, that God does not exist. In the final analysis, it boils down to a simple belief, providing a small dose of humility for those prone to absolutes at both ends of the religious spectrum.
The notion that God created the earth in six days and rested on the seventh overwhelms me, based on the sheer magnitude of that accomplishment. Geology does not square with that either, so I am more inclined to think the absolute truth of that assertion must be based on a celestial measure of time we have yet to comprehend or it simply is not true. Suffice to conclude that the creation of Mother Earth was a magnificent accomplishment, however it came about. That is, until the avarice of mankind set itself to the task of systematically destroying its perfection, which may well result in our collective and eventual doom.
I have chosen to believe in God. However, I have yet to encounter any evidence that I am right. On the other hand, religious scholars and authorities abound throughout history who professes, with absolute certainty, that theirs is the one true religion led by the one true God. That they cannot prove their assertions is summarily dismissed in the face of their own religious fervor. The veracity of their assertions is predicated on the existence of holy books, the contents of which can neither be proven nor disproved, but are, nevertheless, quoted in absolute terms. I do not buy into the notion that the holy books are necessarily the inspired word of God, but I do not discount the notion that His hand may have played a part in them. Each spans periods that preclude absolute accuracy and the integrity of one or more authors exposed to the same events, both of which cannot overrule the possibility of inaccuracies and inconsistencies.
Why does every form of institutionalized religion appear to rest on a set of written works that are absolute, supported by an anointed group accepted as possessing unquestioned knowledge and authority, supported by and through Divine inspiration and/or the written word? As more and more questions have been raised, over time, as to the absolute truth of those works, it seems to me that organized religions have tended to become more rigid by rejecting anything that might cause one to question the absolute certainty of their assertions. I do not necessarily question that there may well be a thread of truth running though any one or more of those belief systems. However, as knowledge becomes available it seems to me intellectual and moral honesty require religious leaders and scholars to keep an open mind that might shed more light and understanding on what we are to believe.
I am more inclined to believe that, as those religions have matured, rather than keeping an open mind about new knowledge, they have tended to cling ever more tenaciously to their official system of beliefs, ever more shrouded in mystery, secrecy, and absolute authority in order to affect greater control over their followers. That has resulted in a disinclination for us to question what we are led to believe, and to accept extremes in our system of beliefs that may cause us to become less rational and more emotional about any challenges that are presented to us about those beliefs. To the extent we are not accepting of contrary evidence and fail to question, we create and till fertile ground for extremes in what we believe and the ends to which we will go in enforcing those beliefs. Hence, we are left with a few “major” religions that allow for extremes that foster and accept violence on the one hand and total passivity on the other. As the schism has widened between the followers and religious authority, we have become increasingly dependent upon what those authorities profess to be the truth and their interpretation of the truth. That being the case, wherein lies the kernel of truth that is at the heart of a particular religion?
Why have the “believers” become passive in their acceptance of religious beliefs, abdicating their responsibility to question and to seek a deeper understanding of what they are to believe, and how they are supposed to conduct their lives within a particular system of beliefs? With the failure of the followers to actively participate in the teachings and affairs of their religion, greater license is given to the authority of religious leaders, whose commitment may or may not be as much to the needs of the followers as to the needs of the institution itself. As institutional authority becomes more absolute, it seems to me there is a natural inclination for greater misunderstanding between “what is” and “what should be.” To the extent that occurs, I suspect there is a tendency for the “flock” to become more passive and the “shepherd” to be ascribed greater authority. The notion of community and a shared responsibility for the institution becomes ever more tenuous. As members opt to leave the “flock, “the authority of the institution is further eroded and becomes less relevant.
When members become disenfranchised from the institution, in the absence of any real authority, that is when I see people either rejecting their religion out of hand, or they seek to progressively redefine their system of beliefs less in terms of the ideal of what we should be, and more in terms of rationalizing what we have become. That is the point at which I believe the moral authority of our religion begins to erode and the vitality of the institution itself begins to wane, leading to a downward spiral with a declining emphasis on the finer aspects of our spiritual nature, and greater license regarding the various aspects of the physical side of our human nature. What results, from my perspective, is a gradual acceptance of the baser aspects of whom and what we are and a growing inclination to descend into a state of progressively greater depravity. There is no longer a moral compass with which to guide us. We become more disenfranchised from one another and no longer subscribe to a commonly understood and accepted code of conduct that is requisite for a civilized community.
I believe God intends for us to seek greater understanding of His plan for us and our destiny, more through the avenues of knowledge and understanding, than through ignorance and fear. The former fosters acceptance, unity and a common purpose; the latter fosters separation, isolation, mistrust and violence.
Now, to issues of complexity and simplicity in our religious beliefs. A deeper understanding of the mysteries of religion is the eternal quest of religious scholars and philosophers. That they have been the source of enlightenment throughout the ages is not in question. However, I believe the essence of religion is a constantly evolving process of discovery and learning. That presupposes an active relationship between the clergy and the followers. To the extent that does not occur, I believe we are more prone to be duped by views that may better serve religious institutions and the clergy than they necessarily do the followers. To the extent that occurs and becomes accepted, those of us sitting in the congregation become more likely to accept simplistic answers to very complex issues. The shared responsibility for learning withers, leading to a relationship of greater authority on the one hand and greater passivity on the other. Prejudice and ignorance abound. Therein is what I perceive to be the essence of extremes that are likely to be found within the context of any religion.
I happen to believe, if it is the will of God that His word be known and understood throughout the world, then that expectation applies far more to the common man than it does to scholars and the educated elite. Simplicity seems fundamental to an understanding and acceptance of the inspired word. After all, Christ chose, as his Apostles, those from the ranks of the common man.
I cannot accept the notion that only those who subscribe to one of the three “religions of the book,” necessarily have exclusive claims to Divine favor, and those whose religious beliefs place them outside that circle are necessarily relegated to a lesser status in the eyes of God. What about all of the good and spiritual souls who were born into societies that had no knowledge of those religions? Are we to summarily conclude that they are pagans whose destiny does not include eternal salvation? Are we to accept that people such as Mahatma Gandhi, the Dali Lama, and all of the other great spiritual thinkers, leaders and believers have no place in eternity? When we all reach the end of our earthly journey, either (a) our very existence (in any form) ceases to exist; or (b) we are all in for one heck of a surprise at what we are likely to find!
Then there is the perennial conflict between the theories of evolution vs. that of creation. The theory of evolution seems pretty logical to me. However, there seems to be a barrier when it comes to discovering the missing link. We have been taught to believe that man was created in the image of God. If we accept that assertion, how are we to interpret the “Image of God?” Is the traditional image of God as a male authority figure predicated on the fact that, historically, societies have largely been patriarchal? If our physical form is not His, then what is it? It seems readily apparent that our anatomy and physiology is a form specific to survival on planet Earth. However, if God were everywhere, His form would have to be compatible with the vastness of time and space. Where we are mortal beings with a finite life span, then I believe God is a spiritual and philosophical being free of any such constraints. He would have no need for the same characteristics that are essential for our earthly survival. So, in what way do we exist in His image? I have concluded that the image we share with God lies within the spiritual and intellectual aspects of our makeup. Because God’s survival is not dependent upon anything akin to our physical makeup, then the image we share with Him must necessarily lie in the spiritual aspects of our nature. That calls into question the image of a mortal man as the traditional image of God. How are we to know?
So, where does all this leave us? What binds us to or alienates us from God? What is pleasing to or engenders the wrath of God? Obviously, it is beyond my ability to provide exhaustive answers to either. However, I do subscribe to a few. I believe those aspects of our makeup specific to our physical survival and procreation is limited to our mortal existence and has no relationship to God. Further, I see those aspects as the seat of our greatest temptations and, consequently, our greatest excesses that can lead to our moral demise in the absence of any constraints. Then the spiritual aspects of our makeup would seem to comprise the finer aspects of our nature and are those qualities we share with God. Unfortunately, at this point in our history, there seems to be greater reverence for the physical than for the spiritual. That leads me to believe that from the physical come the more aggressive aspects of our nature, which, if taken to the extreme, results in violence. I do not believe it is in the nature of God to be violent.
There are some issues within various religions that remain unresolved questions with me, and their professed relationship to God. Following are but a few examples.
1. The rationale behind the rule of celibacy and the attendant consequences that have dealt such a serious blow to the moral authority of one of the world’s great religions.
2. Ministers of mega-churches and televangelists that rake in huge sums of money which appear to be more for the support of their lavish lifestyles than for the support of God’s work on earth. My suspicions are further aroused when the offspring of the “clergy” follow in the footsteps of their father. Is that more a matter of a religious calling or a conscious business decision to market religion in order to pursue a lucrative career path?
3. I do not believe God was ever in the real estate business. To use that as a pretext for disenfranchising an entire nation of people is a ruse perpetrated by a bunch of hard- line zealots in the name of religion. The Israelis have learned the lessons of history well, as evidenced by sixty years of brutality they continue to inflict on the Palestinians. They never waiver from their unspoken goal of a pure Jewish state. While they talk of their support for a peace process that will result in a two-state solution, they continue to establish Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories. They continue to physically isolate them, break up their families and impede their ability to have a decent standard of living. Would any reasonable person expect them to behave like a bunch of sheep waiting to be led to their slaughter? If I were to be asked to come up with three symbols depicting the “special relationship” between Israel and the United States, I would (a) mention the name of the USS Liberty, (b) mention the name of Jonathan Pollard, and (3) draw a caricature of an elephant recoiling in stark terror from a mouse.
4. How religions that foster and support international terrorism can be anything but the complete antithesis of what God is and expects of us.
5. How religions that suppress women, minority groups, and those of different religious persuasions can profess to enjoy favored status with God.
6. Religions that condone the importation of cheap labor from third world countries that are among the poorest of the poor, and treats them like beasts of burden in both the way they are forced to live and the conditions under which they labor.
7. Religious splinter groups that live in isolation from society while they practice polygamy, pedophilia, etc. I see that more as institutionalized perversion than living a religious life.
8. Religions that rule by fear, ignorance and intimidation, rather than knowledge and enlightenment. All that can result from this mindset is submission to authority and a total abdication of any personal responsibility to pursue an independent understanding of what God is all about.
I deeply admire people who can quote from the holy books with ease and fluidity. I must confess that, a few times during my life, I made an honest attempt to read the Bible, but I was never successful. I found that effort to be either a sure cure for insomnia or I simply got lost in all the begetting. I now know that, in order to comprehend what is written in the holy books requires not only a great deal of discipline, but the assistance of good teachers, as well.
Basically, I regard myself to be a simple man. For me, true wisdom is to be found in simplicity. Given that, let me conclude with what I believe to be the essence of what God is all about.
1. I believe God embodies all of the finest attributes of our human nature, but billions of times greater than we can imagine. I believe the essence of His make up is essentially based on --
a. Unconditional love.
b. Unconditional acceptance.
c. Unconditional understanding.
d. Unconditional forgiveness.
God expects no less from us in our relationship to each other.
2. I believe that the Ten Commandments have served humanity well as the foundation for a virtuous life.
3. I believe the Beatitudes are one of the best repositories of principles by which to live that are to be found anywhere.
4. I believe, when faced with any problem, to the extent we follow our heart rather than our head, we increase the probability of coming up with the right solution.
5. And, finally, the old standby, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
To the extent I may have offended anyone by this treatise, I regret having done so. To the extent that I may have provoked some serious thought, reflection and soul-searching, then the time and effort spent on this rather modest work was well worth it.
The mystery of it all remains.
Cowboy Bob
January 10, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment