The Nature of God Part III - Prooooooove It

Ok, how can anyone possibly prove it was God that created everything and not the Big Bang?
First off, none of us (as far as we know) were there when Big Beginning happened. Not like in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where they have a Restaurant at the End of the Universe. And if we were, we have no memory of it. We certainly had no recording devices (that survived at least). So honestly all we have is extrapolation, lots of different creation myths from lots of different religious traditions (a collection of oral traditions and records made by prophets, scribes, philosophers, and random people with writing implements that were able to preserve a story they say is true), and scientific theories we can either believe or not believe.

Now there are those people who believe ardently in their 5 senses that swear that all the religious traditions are bunk. They cite Science as the reason they are all bunk. They say "leading scientists proved this," and "leading scientists say that." The first problem with the whole "leading scientist" thing is that scientists are just human beings who have studied methods and theories that they believe will reveal facts. They are not even sure there is such a thing as truth. Just facts. They may have great mathematical minds, but in the end if their perception is only with mathematics, that is all they will see. Second problem with the whole "leading scientist" thing is that leading scientists are often proving previous leading scientists wrong. It is their favorite hobby, really. The third problem is that no one really PROVED anything. How could they? You can calculate, theorize, extrapolate, but in the end you are doing it from a room many many many many many many many many many many many many years removed from the event. And as with many unsolved mysteries, time changes everything.

One ardent scientist once said to me that theories are 99.9% proven true. I think that was just a random number put out to make himself feel better. I mean, I took this class in child development once where we talked about the effectiveness of certain birth control methods, including one that was 99% effective when used properly. Now, here's the thing. I also know a certain man who used condoms regularly and used them properly. And he sired about 6 kids while using this method of birth control (since he did not believe in abortion). You may argue "Maybe he didn't really know how to use them?" or "Why didn't he choose another method of birth control?" As a matter of fact, when the condoms just weren't doing the trick, he went and got a vasectomy... Twice. Both times they corrected themselves. Finally the lady involved ended it with a hysterectomy. Statistically, those birth control methods should have worked for the man. 99%, you know. To me this is proof that if God wants a kid born, it is going to be born. You can argue against it if you want. Fact is a lot of people just throw out statistical numbers without any real support. My stats here are hearsay. I won't pretend they aren't. But so is the one about all theories being 99.9% true. Theories are always under scrutiny.

So, what theories have been proven untrue by other scientists?
Here's a Wikipedia site about that.
One by the Discovery Channel.
One on YouTube.


From the Science Channel.
Another site
I apologize if some of the things on their lists are repeats.
Here is even an academic site that debates which theories ought to be retired. Insider POV.
I left out all the pro-biblical arguments... because it is already clear they object to many accepted. scientific theories.

Ok, that aside, what if a leading scientists found things that proved their precious theories wrong? Their careers would be at stake. Their reputations at risk. Their validity as scientists in danger. They are only human, after all. Not saints. And certainly not gods.

Now, I believe that a true scientist would accept they had made an error. A true scientist would truly examine EVERYTHING. Including himself. But (and pay attention) there are a lot of scientists that HATE criticism of their theories. Their theories are their 'children' so-to-speak. They won't even listen to other possibilities...especially the possibilities that they could be wrong.

And what about findings that are ignored or set aside as unexplainable?
I'll make a list:
The Bluefish Caves
Lots of the findings in South America.
Another site full of unsolved archaeology.
And another about out of place artifacts.
And another.
And one that may freak you out.

Now, you might say, "Why did you switch from astronomy to archaeology?"

Simple. Astronomy is about those things far off, and therefore easy to make up stuff about. You can't touch the sun, and we can only estimate at a distance its strength as we would all burn up and die if we physically tried to go there. But Archaeology has physical, tangible evidence that those 5-sense thinkers cannot refute is in fact real.

Now, what they think of the  evidence, I don't know. Some of them would like to believe that aliens made them... (which our dear scientist Stephen Hawking is terrified of, by the way). But personally I think human beings made it all and like with most History, the knowledge was forgotten, lost, or distorted by the 'winners' of wars who rewrote history to their liking (according to Winston Churchill, it is written by the victors). Let me put it this way...I mourn the loss of the Library of Alexandria. So much knowledge, so much history is gone. So many civilizations have been lost.

Here is the thing. The arrogance of humankind really bothers me. Each generation almost always goes around assuming it is better than the previous generation, more advanced. Science right now is the new world religion, touting that we are at the peak of evolution. But, uh, archaeology proves that nations rise and nations fall. There is tons of proof of that. And information, knowledge, and history is constantly being distorted and lost. Don't believe me? Ever hear of the Dark Ages? Ever hear of North Korea? (One of their propaganda videos). Cambodia? I could list more, but for the sake of time, I'm putting it up to you to look it up.

So...do I really trust science?

I trust science like I trust a hammer. As long as I don't smash my finger with it, I'm fine with it. It is a tool. Not a thing to be valued more than my own sense.

Now you may be saying..."You didn't prove anything!!!!"

Uh, actually I was just showing that science is unreliable as a source of truth. Useful, yes, But unreliable.

Now, you want me to prove something than cannot be proven? Is that what you are asking?

I'll tell you what. Next blog I'll do something more familiar, I will compare belief and theories. You see, I have a theory. I call it the theory of the cake. It is how I explain why I think the Big Bang Theory is all nonsense. Mathematically.
Until next time.

Nature of God part I

I've decided that this is the topic that must be explored in several parts. Number one, because so many people disagree on the nature and existence of God to begin with. And two, because I also have a point of view which I believe to be valid and therefore must be defended.

Ok, so let's start at the beginning. Is there a God?

Many will debate that there isn't one. Their proof is rather simple, but I really don't think it is well thought out. Some atheists say there is no God because if there was one he would give proof. This is a bold assumption about the nature of God and for that matter, the nature of proof that he exists.

I had this one boss who used to say (and pardon my French, but this is how she said it), "It is dangerous to assume. It makes an ASS out of U and ME."

What does that mean? Well, assuming is a risky venture because no one knows everything and you are going to get a lot of things wrong.

Ok, so why did I say that the statement "if God were real he would prove it" is an assumption? First off, it assumes that if God exists then he would perform a certain action. That action being proving to others that he exists.

So I ask.... why would he? What is assumed about the nature of God that says he would go around proving His existence? Renee Descartes once tried to prove the existence of the Christian God through his Meditations on First Philosophy. If you don't know who Descartes is, he is the one who coined the phrase "I think therefore I am." I once took a philosophy course where we had to prove where his philosophy fell down in his Meditations. With every course in logic and philosophy you learn that along the way the thinker starts to make assumptions and that is where their philosophy falls apart. Descartes philosophy fell apart in several places, but the one that bothered me the most was his assumption that God was as immaterial as a definition of a triangle. God is not a triangle. A triangle is a mathematic concept which can be represented through imagery but is not anything close to a Supreme Being. Triangles have not created worlds... or human beings. Basically, he argued that God existed by definition.

Uh, problem... there are many gods in the pantheon of the world. Many different definitions. Choose one, any one. And let's examine the nature of that god. I'll pick Zeus. Philanderer, liar, even rapist. He zaps people with lightening, punishes people on whims, and even ate one of his wives who was pregnant with Athena at the time. Does he exist by definition?

Now one might argue "Yeah...I see what you are saying. But he was a myth."

For the record, a myth is merely something people once believed to be true - often sacred things. And scarier, some myths have been proven to be real - such as the Trojan War. Atheists believe that the Christian God is a myth. For the record.

My point is, if you are going to try to disprove there is a God you can't start with an assumption about the nature of a god... especially one you don't even think exists. I mean, some gods in some pantheons just mind their own business. You could be as insignificant as an ant is to a homeowner for most gods.

But what about proving there is a God? I think it is better to say that you would have to prove that your god is the real God, and that he (or she as some insist) really exists. You would have to set up your own test of proof as per the nature of each god, from the Trinitarian POV to the non-Trinitarian POV to the polytheistic POV of whichever faith you follow. Don't believe me? There are a lot of definitions of God out there.

But let's look at the atheist argument about the non-existence of God again. They are assuming the Christian God in this case. And further, they are assuming they understand the nature of the Christian God , who is a self-declared loving God... (as well as vengeful and jealous if you read the Old Testament). Many argue: if God existed there would not be so much suffering. If God existed he would show himself. If God existed he would not have let this (whichever) tragedy happen.

First off, let's list the assumptions about the nature of this God here.
1. God's job is to prevent suffering.
Really? Where does it say in the Christian scriptural cannon that God prevents all suffering from happening? Here is a fact: most religions spend their time explaining why there is suffering, as suffering is an unpleasant fact of life. Let me emphasize that last part. FACT OF LIFE. Be happy you feel pain. It is an alert system that prevents you from damaging your body beyond repair. And as for emotional pain, it teaches compassion... which may be God's plan all along. Further, usually the Christian God says it is our job to alleviate suffering, not so much his.

2. God has to prove himself to us.
Uh. No. If anyone has read any scriptural cannon of most faiths it has always been the believer who has to prove his/herself to God. Not the other way around. God does not have to prove anything. He is, by definition of being a god, the superior being. Period. People who demand a god to prove themselves are like little brats aching for Zeus lightening-bolt action time. Potential grease-spots on pavement. And as for the Christian God, be happy His nature is to ignore stupid challenges like these.

3. God is here to end all tragedies.
Here is the thing, POV matters a lot in this case. Like a child who just lost his soccer game, or a favorite toy, it is tragic and sad - but not the end of the world. Further, it may be in fact good for the child to lose that one thing. You might say, "What?! Are you crazy? How can a tragedy be good? People died? An opportunity was lost!" or whatever. From our limited view of life and the events, it is tragic. But if God is eternal, and if his POV is over the vast expanse from eternity to eternity as most Christians do claim, then wouldn't you think that he can see how significant an event may be for a) your personal growth and b) letting go of things not important at all. We fixate on tragedies like kids fixate on cartoon characters sometimes. We forget that there is more to life than this life. It is called having an eternal perspective. It is hard for us in the here and now.

And for those who only believe that this is the only life they have got, yeah...it is scary.

The list can go on. But let's stop for now. Let it suffice that you cannot disprove that there is God by arguing that God would behave in a way you would want if he were real. That's like saying your mother only loves you when she is giving you want you want (on demand, by the way). Things are...whether you like the way they are or not.

Next time, I'll discuss more the nature of proof that God has that he exists...that is totally missed by those who don't want to believe in him.

My Rights, Existentialism, and Truth

"I have the right!"
This is what a lot of people say to justify doing things they want to do, damn the consequences.

So... I keep wondering how true that is. What rights do we really as human beings have? Why? And what declared rights are total B.S.? And why?
I think to establish rights we ought to eliminate all the constructs. A construct is "an idea or theory containing various conceptual elements considered to be subjective and is not based on empirical evidence" according to Google. Basically, they are subjective ideas and not real things. So what constructs do we have?

Culture, for one. Cultures vary all around the world. Culture dictates what you eat, how you sleep, what is polite to say, what you should wear, what is lucky or unlucky, and a whole slew of what is 'correct' and 'incorrect'. Some people believe that right and wrong are also dictates of culture. There may be behaviors considered repulsive to one society and ok in another. Some cultures not only condone polygamy, but it is ingrained in their society as correct behavior. Others are famous for eating dog (which is considered horrible to those cultures that love fido and fifi). Others condone cannibalism. It begs the question, is there any absolute truth, or is it all just a whim of culture?

According to existentialism, everything is subjective. That is to say, there is no real truth--only Point of View. That also means there is no right or wrong. Lots of people like this philosophy because it makes it easy to commit behaviors that most societies see as wrong - such as having prolific amounts of sex, cheating, lying, or thinking of 'me' first. But let's take this to the extreme. There are other behaviors that have people screaming in horror - such as rape, pedophilia, incest, and murder. If there truly is no right or wrong then these behaviors would be A-Okay.

So are there absolute truths? Is this why we scream in horror at the behaviors above? Do we really have unalienable rights that should not be violated by others? Or is this really a dog-eat-dog, every-human-for-his/herself kind of existence?

Let's first explore the consequences to the answers of the question: "Are there absolute truths?" If yes, then right and wrong has a foundation on which to stand. If no, then the existentialists have it right and we are all basically stuck with the life we have ended up in and are left to claw our way around life as best as we can. Personally, the appeal of the first is that there is hope for the human race. The appeal to the second is a rather selfish free-for-all kind of life, which doesn't really appeal to me at all.

So, to answer the question: Are there absolute truths? I look at math. I look at sports. I look at baking cakes. I look at life and how things work.

Here are the facts: I know that if I do certain things in a certain way I will get the end result I am aiming for. I'm rather methodical. I know certain methods when making something work better than other methods. But if everything really were subjective, then wouldn't a person think that how one does a thing would not matter at all?

You might argue, there are many ways to bake a cake. And I'd reply--which kind of cake? For example, I've made angel food cakes. They are different from Bundt cakes in content and preparation, even though they both have holes in the center. And if you want a good angel food cake you really have to follow the directions explicitly. If you don't you follow the instructions, you get bad cake. Also, if playing basketball, there is only one way to score points - getting the ball into the hoop. You don't get points for doing anything else, no matter how cool it may be. Likewise, with soccer, it does not matter how cool your footwork is - if you do not get the ball into the goal you do not win the game. Period. And no matter how much you may insist that 2 + 3 = 23 the real answer is 5. Want to test that? Try building a house with this kind of mathematics. It is total nonsense. Try doubling a cake recipe with this nonsense mathematics. Try building a fusion bomb with this nonsense mathematics... watch the world go *BOOM*.

So, it is fair to say that there are absolutes in the world that are not subjective but are in fact real. Does this mean everything is real? No. Not any more than 2+3=23. It means that there is truth and there is error. There are facts, and there is fiction. And yes, a lie cannot exist if there is no truth.

Now, since this is the case, since there are absolutes in the world (and I am not going to explore all of them - the blog is too small a venue), then we have to ask if some of those absolutes are unalienable rights. They are called Natural Rights by Wikipedia.

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America established their view of unalienable rights as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as penned by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. John Locke phrased it as "life, liberty and property." It is interesting to note that Jefferson had changed it. I'm guessing he had a different view on the subject.

This is what I think. Everyone has the right to life. I believe that once you are conceived, you have the right to progress in your growth until natural death takes you. To me, this means no one has the right to end another human being's life...unless you are defending your own right to live (that's self-defense, in case you were wondering).

Second, I think everyone has the right to make their own future. That is opportunity. It is connected with the first, but basically, I think no one should be hindered in educating his or herself, or in seeking fair work, and in choosing their path. The world we live in likes to put us into molds and shape us into their forms. But I think there are many who feel squashed by these and are aching to break out. Freedom to choose your own path to me is liberty.

Third, I think everyone has the right to space. That is, everyone should be allowed to control their own personal space. To me, having a sanctuary from the assaults of opinions, physical demands, and on my property (which I have worked hard for) ought to be protected. I think without the personal sanctuary of space people break.

I also think people have the right to an opinion, even if it disagrees with mine. And further, that I have the right to disagree with them as well. I think I'll call it right to be an individual. The right to think for myself.

All other rights, I've decided, are surplus.

Now, you may think..."Huh? What about right to property? You did bring that up."

Ok, I think people have the right to keep lawfully acquired and owned property. But no one has the right to take property from others and say they have a right to it because everyone has a right to property. That, my friends, is theft.

See people get confused when they think about rights when they are really thinking on the philosophy: "The world owes me a living" (film source) Source for the film.

No one owes you anything that you do not work for. No one is born deserving anything beyond the freedom to be and the freedom to act. But even those freedoms end when you violate someone else's freedom to be and to act. Your freedom to act is your freedom to choose what you do with your life.

Now,  you are probably thinking, what about people born rich and people born poor and starving? Shouldn't something be done? My answer is yes. Something should be done... as long as it does not mess with the freedom to be or the freedom to act. That is to say... force is not allowed. If you want to solve the extreme situation between the poor and the rich, to feed the homeless and to care for those who are suffering, I suggest three things:

If you have - give.
If you know - teach.
If you need help to accomplish more - ask for it from like-minded people.

I know. Maybe too simple. But the real cause for suffering really is selfishness on both sides. You cannot take what you did not earn. You cannot demand and force others to do as you want them to do. Instead, you lead the way. You share what you know, and call to those who may be sympathetic for help. And for those who don't help...well, they just haven't quite understood yet that life really isn't about rights and getting what you want anyway. It is about making the best out of whatever it is you have been given so everything around you is better because of your existence. It is about growing to your highest potential, to your best self. Like the angel food cake...there are instructions... if we look for them.

Paradigm

The word does not look like how it is spelled. I'm a little dyslexic, so whenever I read complex weird words, I sometimes mix up the letters and add sounds that aren't there. So I used to read the word paradigm like pad-a-grim and not pair-a-dime. It confused me like the word pachyderm. The word might as well be an elephant, you know. Big and awkward.

The funny thing about this word is I had never heard of it until my father insisted I read 7 Habits of Highly Successful People. I thought the book was a dry read, like Who Moved My Cheese. I know they are intended to be instructive, but the abstract concepts in both books are not the kinds of things one reads once. They must be taken in bites and studied over the course of time.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that I am sure everyone in the world has a mindset. A paradigm is, according to Wikipedia, "a distinct concept or thought pattern". The first time I heard the word used in a 'real life' conversation was while watching Sahara. Trailer. One of the characters (Al) mentions to the other (Dirk) that quite possibly he needs to change his decision making paradigm.

Now, one of the things I learned while living in other countries and studying foreign languages is that language is wrapped in culture. And not just culture, but a way of thinking. A paradigm. Some words are just not translatable. For example, there is this Mandarin word guan xi. The closest English word to it is slang--brownnosing. But it does not mean exactly that either. It describes an intrinsic social relationship in Chinese culture between people whom you desperately need relations with in order to survive.

Ok... so again, why bring this up?

Religion is a mindset. It isn't just a set of beliefs. It is how a person thinks. This is why people use the word Conversion when they talk about a person changing religions. It requires change. And not a simple change like you change socks. It is like chemical conversion. Or, as one leader in my church put it, like a cucumber becoming a pickle. I know, funky analogy, but hear it out. For a pickle to be preserved so it does not rot it has to undergo saturation in a solution of vinegar, certain spices, and salt for a duration of time (here's a real recipe, I'm over-simplifying for time purposes). Cucumbers will rot without this process. Likewise, if one truly becomes converted to a religion, it is not the same as simply declaring you like this new faith now. A true convert of any faith saturates themselves in the doctrines, practices, and mindset of the religion. There is a change of behavior.  By the way, this is why I don't believe in death-bed repentance. To me, true conversion is more than just saying you have accepted something. It involves a change of character along with a change of lifestyle.

This is my paradigm.

Here's one more thing to think about. I once heard someone say, "A person convinced against his will is still of the same mind." I don't recall who said it, but it is paraphrased from something Dale Carnegie said in his book How to Win Friends and Influence People--a great read by the way, and not as cheesy as the title sounds (he was the Stephen R. Covey of his time era).

Anyway, a person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still... yeah, I think that is closer to what he had said....anyway, think about it. No one really wins an argument. What you get at the end are two angry people still of the same mind. So this blog is not to argue for anything. It is, however, to show my paradigm. Which is why I won't respond to comments.

Something else I learned growing up is that people tend to bring to an event (or conversation or reading or movie...what-have-you) a mindset. So often what a person gets out of a conversation or a movie or an event is really what they brought to it. I work with this guy who is pretty narrow-minded about a lot of things. He hates all foreigners, gays, democrats, Muslims, Jews, and a number of actors who have in one way or another offended him. He gripes a lot. He isn't conservative in the religious sense, though. His mannerisms and practices in his personal life are rather loose. He thinks porn is an ok thing, and he swears nearly every ten words. Set all this aside, and he is a nice guy. He's helpful. He is thoughtful when it comes to others. And he works hard. But if I were to share with him any of my feelings on the subject of religion, or how I like people of other countries he'd shut down the conversation. My experience just does not fit in his mindset.

Here's another example. There's this movie reviewer who almost always gives bad reviews to films I love. Also, the films he tends to rate high are the films I never want to see. It took me a bit to realize that this reviewer was rating on his taste rather than quality or viewer enjoyment. In fact, I found it helpful to check out films he gave bad reviews to because I knew it was likely I'd love them. So, in a way, after understanding his paradigm, I could negotiate around it to find what it was that I wanted.

Ok, a third example. A lot of people who see themselves as open-minded tend to be actually really closed-minded when it comes to religion and 'traditional' modesty. There is this knee-jerk response of revulsion, in fact. The truth is, when anyone quickly rejects something without listening to all the reasons for that particular idea/belief/behavior it is a sign of a set view on 'how things ought to be'. I think whenever we simply decide "things must be this way" without listening (really listening) to the other point of view or being open to the possibility of being wrong or at least mildly mistaken, we are not open-minded at all. We are set in a paradigm.

So, paradigm. Be aware that you all have one.

Pet Sins

Whenever people think of sins, the think of the Seven Deadly Sins such as pride, wrath, gluttony, lust, envy, etc... But the word sin in the Bible was translated from the word hamartia that originally meant 'missing the mark'--such as in archery. This meant that anything that was not taking us to where we ought to go was in fact a sin. Imagine basketball. The only way to score a point is to get the basketball through the hoop. No points if you don't make it in. So basically, there is only one way to gain points and win, and plenty to miss or lose. I think this is why the path towards God in the Bible was always defined as the 'strait (note the spelling) and narrow' way. This implies that there are many ways to sin, and only a select few ways towards God.

Of course a lot of people hate this idea. No one likes being told what to do--or in this case, what you can't do. Yet again, if you take things from God's POV (like a parent trying to raise a child right so they end up being decent, productive, and civil human beings), this 'strait and narrow' path makes a whole lot of sense. A parent says, "Don't put your hand on the hot stove." "Don't put that fork in the wall socket." To a 2-year-old, they have no clue what the consequences will be if they disobey. Only that they were told 'no' and they are mad about it. A parent may say, "Don't eat all that candy." or "It is bedtime." Again, a kid will get mad because the candy is sweet and currently they aren't tired. But the parent knows the child will get sick and the child really needs to get rest or the kid will be cranky the next day. Or if the parent says, "Share your toys" and "Don't hit" and "You can't just take that, you have to pay for it", often all the child is hearing is you can't have your way. But the parent is trying to teach that child that the world is not just about him or her...but everyone equally respected. Like children, human beings often have a hard time thinking beyond themselves. Our POV is limited to what we know about the universe. God may give a seemingly arbitrary commandment that we might hate--but it may in fact be beneficial to our future to keep it. I think of that Princess Bride quote "Life is pain. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something."

Let's do one more. A parent might say, "I know reading is hard, but it is important that you keep at it." Or, "Yes, I know it is boring, but you promised to do it. And you must keep your promises."
Often the things God asks of us are inconvenient, and even painful. But that does not mean they are not good for us.

OK. So what does this have to do with Pet Sins?
Well, for starters, I don't know one perfect person alive on planet earth--including, if not especially me. We all have pet sins. Kind of like kids who pick their noses and eat it. It's gross, not good for us, but obviously something keeps tempting them to do it (one kid told me the snot tasted sweet and salty. Ugh). Now, I am a big believer in free will. The devil cannot make you do anything you don't choose to do yourself... at least initially. Addiction starts out by you choosing to give your free will away to a temporary pleasure. Luckily, there are ways to reclaim that free will again through addiction recovery programs and (yes) God.

So, what pet sins do some of us indulge in? I'll do me as an example. If I were guilty of any of the seven deadly sins, I'd say occasionally I am gluttonous. I eat stuff I ought not, just for the taste. I eat more than I ought on those occasions. I know I struggle with pride. I know I can be extremely judgmental at times. And I know I can be selfish. But I think I am most guilty of wrath (this is why I remember those three better than the others, by the way). Like Mark Twain, once I've lost my temper, you can't find it with a dog. Or, in the case of the Incredible Hulk, "Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry."

Funnily enough, Twain also said one ought to admit to your sins, so you can commit more of them.
He makes me laugh...

Anyway, these aren't really pet sins, though. Pet sins are sins we keep because we don't want them to be considered sins. These are the sins we excuse as being "merely human nature" or, "That's the way I am" or "they are not as bad as such-an-such a thing". We might even say "You have to die of something" to explain an extremely dangerous habit when clearly we could live to 114 and not die of anything except being tired and old. Pet sins are those sins we enjoy and don't quite want to give up. But in the back of our heads we do have this nagging voice that says they really aren't good for us. Like eating our boogers. Our pet sins also embarrass us. They are the things we might not want to openly admit to doing. In many ways, our pet sins are more dangerous than the Seven Deadly Sins, because these are the hardest to give up.

What boogers are you eating?

More About Religion

I mentioned in the last blog how there were three types of religious followers that annoyed me. But I had left off those three that really annoy most of the world.
So, let's get to those three.

The Hypocrite, the Self-righteous Do-gooder, and the Everyone-Else-Will-Burn-in-Hell-But-Me.

Instead of getting specific right now, as all three are related to each other, let's address the main problem. These three (especially when found in Christians) are those religious folk who don't understand their own religion. Most religions at the core (and I am not counting the ancient Mayan ones or the religion of the people who worshipped Baal who believed in human sacrifice) are peaceful. Most religious groups are about being kind to others.

So it really bugs me when people who claim to be Christian do unkind (if not downright malicious) things because I had always understood the word Christian to mean a person who chooses to follow the teachings and example of Jesus the Christ (which is another word for Messiah for those who don't know).

See, I am pretty sure Jesus Christ said as recorded in Matthew 5:44, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" (That site, by the way, has several translations... but none of the verses are as thorough as the King James Version except the Aramaic Bible in English... which bugs me because the KJV is quite specific about what it actually means to love your enemy and the others are so vague.) So I wonder if those so-called followers of Christ actually read or studied what he did or said.

Here's the thing.
Christianity, historically, began all right. The peaceful Christians were constantly turning the other cheek...which the Romans found annoying so they threw them to the lions. But apparently that did not last. The original 12 apostles of Christ ended up dying pretty violent deaths. People were making up lots of different sects. And soon original Christianity got so overwhelmed with catechisms, and debates,  and doctrine and practices changed that it shifted into a huge organization with lots of priests with a huge influence on government. And that, of course, led to holy wars and the Spanish Inquisition (This is why atheists blame religion for the world's troubles, by the way).

Well, obviously a lot of people who actually read what Jesus Christ had been all about (those who could read, because back then most people were illiterate) got fed up with all that garbage and started the Protestant Reformation. This led to a heap load more Christian sects. And this led to a lot of people bickering over who was right. And then the bible was translated into English (which a lot of people died for).

(OK. Take a deep breath.)

But at Christianity's core, it is still all about being kind and not selfish. Not one of those groups are human sacrifice cults (as far as I know at least). And as far as I know, not one of the actually preaches that Jesus said it was ok to hate your neighbor. However, a lot of traditions got heaped over that and the true message has been lost for several of its followers who get all hair-splitting over doctrine.

So, with that history out of the way, I still believed that anyone who truly claimed to be a Christian was devoted to following Jesus Christ's example. And to call someone not a Christian because they have doctrinal difference over whether or not the Son of God had long or short hair, wore sandals or went barefoot--or in some cases, believed in the Nicene Creed rather than an earlier Christian comprehension of God--was just ridiculous.

Ok, now down to specifics.

The Hypocrite, the Self-righteous Do-gooder, and the Everyone-Else-Will-Burn-in-Hell-But-Me.

Lets start with the Hypocrite. The word itself is from the Greek, which means actor. These are those people who want to put on a show, but when alone do whatever pleases them, no matter how bad it is. What kills me about a hypocritical Christian is that anyone who has read the Bible knows Jesus Christ spoke against hypocrites...ALL THE TIME. The phrase Hypocritical Christian always felt like an oxymoron to me. You can't be a real follower of Christ and be a hypocrite at the same time. They void each other out.  However, C.S. Lewis disagrees with me. In his book "Mere Christianity" he said that being a Christian was more like being a gentleman...but he explains it like this:

"The word "gentleman" originally meant something recognizable; one who had a coat of arms and some landed property. When you called someone 'a gentleman' you were not paying him a compliment, but merely stating a fact. If you said he was not 'a gentleman' you were not insulting him, but giving information. There was no contradiction in saying that John was a liar and a gentleman..."
"Now if once we allow people to start spiritualizing and refining, or as they might say 'deepening', the sense of the word "Christian," it too will speedily become a useless word. In the first place, Christians themselves will never be able to apply it to anyone...We must therefore stick to the original, obvious meaning. The name "Christians" was first given at Antioch (Acts 11:26) to 'the disciples', to those who accepted the teaching of the apostles. There is no question of its being restricted to those who profited by that teaching as much as they should have. There is no question of its being extended to those who in some refined, spiritual, inward fashion were 'far closer to the spirit of Christ' than the less satisfactory of the disciples. The point is not a theological or moral one. It is only a question of using words so that we can all understand what is being said. When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian." source

So, Hypocrites are bad Christians in this case.

Next up... the Self-righteous Do-gooder.
These are the in-your-face, I'm-so-good-I-want-you-to-see-it kind of people that annoy most other believers. The thing they forget is that Christ always talked about doing good in secret. He's the one who preached not to 'do your alms before men.' (in this case men means human-kind. Back then people were less silly about language than we are now. Don't get me started). He's also the one who said not to, basically, toot our own horn. Doing good is fine, but showing off and saying "I am so good" is counter to what Jesus Christ was about. In fact, he often snuck off because fame was not his thing, no matter what that play Jesus Christ Superstar, tries to make him out as.

Ok, lastly, the Everyone-Else-Will-Burn-in-Hell-But-Me, person. Honestly, this is the person who misses the point entirely. I mean, this is entirely counter to the 'love your neighbor', 'love your enemy', 'in my Father's house there are many mansions', kind of thinking Jesus Christ taught. I mean, he sought out those people who were sinners and spoke with them, encouraging them to change. He is the one who healed the sick, both physically and spiritually. He is also the one who said to forgive 'seventy times seven'. And to be frank, I don't think he expected his followers to count up that high when forgiving people. It is like someone saying 'bazillion times' today. Compassion is the trait that this kind of person lacks. And to be frank it reminds me of the verse that is really too long to recite, but must be mentioned. But it is Mathew 25:40 where it sums up..."And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." the entire context is here. Basically, we can't B.S. our way into heaven.

So, what does this all mean?

Uh... be sincere and earnest in whatever you do. And for pity's sake, be kind.

There is this old Jewish tradition of hospitality to strangers, but to be honest I think it is good for anyone around us. The best reference is in Hebrews 13:2 "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

Just saying...

Religion in General

Growing up, I always had respect for people to stuck to their beliefs, even if they disagreed with mine. I had this atheist friend who was really nice, lived his life, and treated others well. And there was this Lutheran girl whom I talked with a lot about religion. Mostly we just shared what we believed, neither seeking to convert the other.
That said, I have always been annoyed with people who don't know their own religion or are flakey practitioners of their faiths. I can give those who are unsure of what they believe the benefit of the doubt, but those who just don't really care bother me. To me, they seem a bit too self-absorbed. The thing is, if I am going to declare a set of beliefs, I am going to make sure I really believe in them, that they are what I can comprehend as the truth. And if it is the truth as I can best gather, then I will do my best to follow the tenants of my faith.

But not everyone is like me. Not everybody even cares about religion.
Now I am not saying I am perfect. Far from it. But at least I am sincere about what I believe. And I try to do what I believe I should. But here are a few examples of what I consider not so worthy reasons/motivations for religious belief.

A lot of people follow a religious tradition as, well, a tradition. They do it because they always did it. Their fathers did it. Their forefathers did it, and they intend for their children to do it. But people like this, to me, seemed a little dim in the head. That is, they are comfortable with their traditions, but they don't bother to ask WHY. Many such people when asked why they believe what they believe, they just reply that they just do. They even throw out the word Faith, as if it explains all. But the real reason they keep to their faith can be summed up by Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof. "I don't know." But at least it shows them what God expects them to do. A lot of people are comfortable with this kind of religious devotion. But this is also the kind of religious path people like Al Capone have. The dude was technically Catholic...but I wouldn't have considered him a practitioner as I would Mother Theresa.

The thing about religion followed as a tradition, is that often times the followers really don't believe. They might even have conflicting feelings with the doctrines of their faith, but they are more worried about being ostracized by their community than about whether or not the doctrine is right or wrong. That is one of the issues of faith. You can believe you are an alien from another planet all you want, or that you have super powers, or that your Hogwarts letter will arrive any day now--but unless it is true, that faith is worth nothing. Besides, to me, Faith doesn't just mean believing in something that isn't physically provable. For me, Faith is more of an action word. Like a child leaping into her father's arms, trusting her father will catch her. It connotes a personal relationship with God--and therefore a kind of knowledge of him beyond rumors, old records, and hearsay. It also involves risk. I mean, if the child's father were awful, he could just let her fall. So it involves an understanding of the nature of God. After all, if the Christian God were anything like Zeus, I'd expect to be zapped by lightening bolts rather than caught when I leapt.

Which comes to the second type of religious follower that bugs me. The bratty child. What I mean is, some people tend to treat their relationship with religion or God as if God is a servant, or a short order cook. And if God does not deliver what they want, they will no longer believe. It puts in mind Veruca Salt from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. (Though I like her portrayal in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. [Another one]) It goes along with the whole idea that if God really loved us, our lives would not have any kind of pain or suffering. To be frank, this is really childish thinking. This presumes that the center of the universe is yours truly and if you hold your breath long enough, you'll get what you want.

When I think of God (the Christian God, mind you, and not one of the billion other types out there that people believe in), I think of him as a good father. If fact, he has claimed the title Heavenly Father, which means he takes it seriously. And a good father (in comparison to the father who would not catch his child if she leaps) does his best to raise his child right. But that means allowing a child to go without things at times--to teach that child that things are not what is most important, to be grateful, and to take care of what they have. It also means allowing the child to walk on their own rather than carry them all the time--thus allowing them to build up their own muscles to be able to do things on their own... to grow up. A good father also allows a child to make their own mistakes, and deal with loss on their own...so they won't be emotional cripples, but capable of becoming adults. No parent who ever loved their child did everything for them. A good parent teaches skills, gives their kids undesirable tasks like work, cleaning after themselves, and going to school. A good parent expects their children also to follow their example and tries hard to set a good example for their child. In fact, if one really wanted to understand the motives of God, look at a good father and what motivates him. This is why when people talk about God, they say God is Love. Because there is a lot of crap kids put their parents through, and kids often don't appreciate their parents until they are parents themselves.

In other words, cut God some slack. You are just a kid in comparison to him. Your POV is just way too limited. God just might be saying, "Heavens! Stop trying to put that fork in the wall socket, will you!"

The third type of religious person that bothers is me is the flip-flopper. This is the religious believer that wants to be 'popular' and therefore follows the trendiest religions because they don't want to be seen as uncool or prejudiced. But really, let's face it, choosing a religion is choosing sides. It is choosing the ground you stand on. The thing that bugs me about this kind of believer is that their concerns aren't about what God (or whatever deity you believe in, in this case) thinks, it is about what your friends and colleagues think. This is the kind of person who is afraid of conflict, which (admittedly), most peaceful people are. But this fear rules this so-called believer. If the second kind of believer is the bratty child, this one is the insecure teen. And to be frank, no one really wants to stay as in insecure teen forever.

Now, I know there are plenty of other kinds of annoying religious followers out there. This is why a some atheists blame all the trouble in the world on religion. This is ridiculous, of course, because the real problem with the world is human selfishness. And that is in everyone. Human selfishness is what makes any organization (be it governments, religion, family, entertainment, or business0 corrupt, nasty, and downright horrible. Besides, even atheists have their ideologies and defend them dogmatically, so they shouldn't point fingers. See Money Worship part 1 for an example. 

Anyway, we'll talk about the Hypocrite, the Self-righteous Do-gooder, and the Everyone-Else-Will-Burn-in-Hell-But-Me, later. Besides, I think we can all see a little of these three in ourselves from time to time. No one is perfect after all.