Religion, Reason, Relavancy And Relationship (844 hits)
Category: RomanceRating: 1.44 on 15 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Jinky Williams (View user info) at 2005-09-02 10:58:51 EDT
I, like many others, dislike the word "religion", largely for the connotation it has with many people. I've always adhered to the understanding that a religion is a man-made construct developed with three main principles in mind:
1.) Finding purpose.
2.) Getting into (and staying within) the good graces of a given deity.
3.) Exercising power over others.
Different religions and different people following those religions have differing mixes of these ideals.
Now, because religions focus on their participants advancing toward a goal, they are, by necessity, works-based.
I personally believe I serve an all-knowing and all-wise God who is completely and eternally sufficient for me and can and will do all that is required for the benefit of those who love Him.
Now, why would such a God need my works? If He can do all that He wants to do, He could have surely made me a drone and made me happily desirous to do all the works He wants me to do.
Instead, consider this: He wants my heart. He wants to win my heart and desires for me to desire to follow Him on my own volition.
Much has been stated about the inability of religion to apply to our contemporary society. I agree with this sentiment. This is largely because of how the foundation for said religions were developed--as works-based beliefs. If you have a works-based belief, the writer of the book must explain any and all works, good and bad, for the past, present and future, if their religion is to remain relevant. "Thou shalt not listen to rock 'n' roll for more than 2 hours a day". "Thou shalt not consume more than one 2oz container of 80 proof alcohol a day, except during special occasions like graduation and wedding parties." "You are only allowed to kiss someone on the second date, and then only if their parents allow it and you've treated them to a nice dinner (at least $15/plate, plus drinks) and desert and taken them to a movie (for cost efficiency, it can be a matinee)".
Ridiculous.
For a works-based religion to remain relavant, it must be continually updated to add and change rules and laws that pop up as a result of new things that happen on the horizion. And there can be no grey areas. No vague principles. Nothing left to subjectivity. You can't say "don't listen to bad music" because, unless the deity explains what "bad music" is, how are the followers supposed to adhere to that command? You surely cannot allow them to decide what "bad" is, because you'll have as many definitions of "bad" as you do people who have a definition. Any and all rules and regulations must must must *must* must be explained in the strictest and most minute of details to avoid loopholes and to provide a solid foundation for those followers who want to follow them to the letter. This is assuming, of course, that the deity wants the best for those who follow them. If that deity is a cruel, spiteful or mischievous one, bored out of his skull and out for entertainment... that sucks.
However, for a faith based on a God that wants our heart, things totally change. Works become only a means to an end. God has already come down to us, has already extended His grace, salvation and love countless times. Christianity is about God coming down to man because of His intense and jealous love for us. It's about Him being so much in love with us that He was willing to sacrifice His Son so that we could enter into His presence. (And, btw, His Son agreed to the deal for the same reasons). For a God that loves us that much, who wants nothing more than to see us flourish and live the life that He *knows* will best benefit us, works are so much *not* the focus. Works, apart from faith, is dead. Just as fasting without direction from God is starvation, sacrifice without direction from God is likewise fruitless and a waste of time and resources.
God does not want our works, nor does He need our works. He wants our hearts. He desperately pursues us, and desperately desires to be pursued. He does not shout when He can whisper. He wants relationship, intimate and unbarred. No secrets. He wants us to be able to tell Him anything. And He wants to be completely ours, and He wants us to be completely His.
Many of you have loved someone, and have desired to do what is ultimately best for them. I've been there. But because of lack of knowledge, discipline, or I just plain didn't feel like it, I failed in that goal. Sometimes I didn't even care that I had failed. That's where God is different: He *desires* what is best for us, He *knows* what is best for us, and He *will do* what is best for us.
The Bible is relavant today. It is relavant because it is a guide for our hearts. It is an operating manual for humanity. It shows our ins and outs, it shows what is good and bad and *why* it is good and bad. There are illustrations displaying precisely *why* He asks us to do certain things. Yes, there are laws about sacrificing cows and separating the fat from the liver and the other organs and setting it aside and making sure you have an ephah of grain for a fellowship offering, etc etc... this is obviously not something you see much today. No one that I know even knows what an ephah is or has a fattened calf, much less know how to separate the fat from the liver. But there are principles to be mined from such passages.
Good parents do not arbitrarily lay down rules because they feel like it or want a power trip, nor do they do it to cut off their children from enjoying life. They lay down guidelines and rules for the good of their children--so that they can benefit from the parents' instruction. Of what possible use is a law without a reason? That's God's take, anyway. Laws only exist to serve us, to show us the way. They are guard rails on the road of life. They can be also used as a light to show what is unhealthy.
God knows us intimately because He designed us intimately. We were woven together. He considered every aspect, physical and mental, where we were placed and what part of time we were placed. He wrote the book on us. He definitely knows what's best for us.
Our love and fidelity is the one thing God cannot prefabricate, because He wants it only by our own volition. It must be our choice. Of what use is a profession of love if one feels compelled to do it? If I told my (hypothetical) wife "I love you because I must.", or if I programmed an android wife that would only emulate love, it would be ultimately and completely unfulfilling. There is no choice in the matter. The choice must come out on its own.
Contemplate the belief of Christianity from this angle as you go about your business today. There is a God that wants nothing more than to have you live the life that you were *designed* to lead. There is a God who wants nothing more than to have a close and dear friendship with you. And there is a God that loves you, and expressed that love with the biggest of sacrifices.
User Reviews
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2005-09-11 09:54:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
This bore-a-thon has 330 more hits than I ever thought it would get.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2005-09-11 01:36:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No offence taken in the slightest regarding the rating. Thanks for your consideration, though.
"You've asked what being "religious" means to me. In my opinion, if a person's beliefs are based on an organised faith, be it Christianity, or any other major religion, to me, that person is "religious", and from your post, it appears fairly clear what your chosen faith is."
--Fair enough.
"You've explained that the goal of this post wasn't to preach. I accept that now that you've said so, but I hope you can accept that when you write a piece like this one, people will have differing opinions, and to be honest, having not seen any of your previous work, I was left wondering as to your motives for writing it."
--I am in complete agreeance that people will have differing opinions, especially with subject matter like this, and even among people who state that they espouse the same belief (Christianity, in this case). People come from all backgrounds with incredibly differnent experiences and conclusions based on their understanding--with each conclusion being perfectly valid because they've had different experiences.
I would sooner discuss a subject with someone who's understanding may be the polar opposite of mine but has thought their way through why they believe what they do than with one who agrees what I do simply because they were raised thusly and ate what they were fed.
My primary motive for writing this was to provide the reader with an alternative understanding of Christianity apart from the understanding that mainsteam media espouses. I wanted to really focus on the heart of Christianity: The heart. I also wanted to express the ideal that "religion" can be discussed intelligently, without being inflammatory or abraisive. Did I succeed? That is in the eye of the beholder.
Thinking back, I suppose anyone who writes does so with the intention to express an opinion or understanding. This is true in both fiction and non fiction, but especially in non-fiction writing. So, while I wasn't trying to push my views on anyone, I was, by my writing, attempting to express my views.
A good question, indeed.
"After reading your post, "Take what you'd like, leave what you will"- I believe that's exactly what I did first time around. I hope you understand what I originally wrote in reply was merely a comment on a provoking post based on a controversial topic. It was certainly not a shot directed at you personally, or your beliefs."
--Completely understood. No offense taken. You have expressed yourself as a level-headed and intelligent human being, and for that I am thankful.
Looking forward to future correspondance should the occasion arise.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-09-05 05:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Firstly, I'm glad you haven't taken offence to the rating I've given the post JW. In hindsight, it probably didn't deserve a 0; you get your point across, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with your point of view.
You've asked what being "religious" means to me. In my opinion, if a person's beliefs are based on an organised faith, be it Christianity, or any other major religion, to me, that person is "religious", and from your post, it appears fairly clear what your chosen faith is.
You've explained that the goal of this post wasn't to preach. I accept that now that you've said so, but I hope you can accept that when you write a piece like this one, people will have differing opinions, and to be honest, having not seen any of your previous work, I was left wondering as to your motives for writing it.
Oh, you've also asked why I believe this to be "close minded", but it seems you've addressed this point in your reply to my comment.
"Likewise is it with the subject of which I have written about in this post. It's not that I am closed-minded (unless I am in regards to the keyboard)--it's that I am firmly convinced of my position. But I am always willing to learn. One thing I am *not* trying to do is to push my views on anyone. What has been stated is the thoughts and words of only one man, and nothing should be outright taken as canon. Take what you'd like, leave what you will."
I now understand the reason why you wrote the post, and it wasn't for the reasons I first assumed. You state that you are convinced of your position but are willing to learn, which is obviously not a "close-minded" view, and I take that comment back now that I've seen your reply.
After reading your post, "Take what you'd like, leave what you will"- I believe that's exactly what I did first time around. I hope you understand what I originally wrote in reply was merely a comment on a provoking post based on a controversial topic. It was certainly not a shot directed at you personally, or your beliefs.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2005-09-04 00:31:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"Perhaps it's because I'm not religious, but I just couldn't get into this."
--I am curious as to what exactly "religious" means to you. I wouldn't consider myself a religious person.
"To be honest it sounded like it could have come direct from the mouth of a minister at a dinner party. It came off preachy and close minded, as if there is no creed other than Christianity."
--To preach was the farthest thing from my mind and most assuredly not a goal. I have no need or desire to spout fire and brimstone--generally those who don't want to hear it won't listen, and those who would listen already know. Regardless, that's now how I operate.
I'm also curious about how you mean "close-minded". I mean, sure. Take gravity. I've observed ample proof to undeniably confirm in my mind that gravity is a viable and true theory. Call me closed-minded if you will, but I won't likely be making any changes to my understanding and belief of that which is called the theory of gravity. I've seen and experienced too much to think otherwise. I also know this keyboard exists because it is right in front of me. It is black with white keytext with "Dell" on the top. I am using it to type this message out. You cannot convince me otherwise, that it doesn't exist or that it exists apart from the description I have given. Generally, one would not say I am closed-minded; rather it is to be expected that I adopt a stance as I do regarding the keyboard. It is something that I am completely convinced of given the evidence I have in my posession and my experiences in the past and present. You, however, do not have access to such evidence of my keyboard that I do. It could be white with black keytext and have "Gateway" at the top. Or I could be dictating this and there may be no input. You could deny the very existence of this keyboard, but the fact remains that it exists outside your proposed reality. However, in spite of all this, I am still willing to accept that a chance exists, that I am being deceived or have come to an incorrect conclusion based on said evidence and what I see right in front of me is not truly reality.
Likewise is it with the subject of which I have written about in this post. It's not that I am closed-minded (unless I am in regards to the keyboard)--it's that I am firmly convinced of my position. But I am always willing to learn.
One thing I am *not* trying to do is to push my views on anyone. What has been stated is the thoughts and words of only one man, and nothing should be outright taken as canon. Take what you'd like, leave what you will.
"That said, I much preferred reading this to another hurricane/New Orleans post. "
--Glad to hear. Thank you for the comment.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by munkeypants (user info) at 2005-09-03 22:13:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Whether I believe in it or not it sends a good message.
Submitted by hoojAmAphut (user info) at 2005-09-02 15:45:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I quite liked your views on the subject, and I must say you're very well spoken which is always a plus when dealing with a subject of this nature
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2005-09-02 13:02:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I personally believe that God is a metaphor for that which is unknowable, rather than an actual existing deity. Your thoughts, however, are well-put.
Submitted by spamtrap50 (user info) at 2005-09-02 12:52:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Brand new Angry Kansan!
Submitted by Judoka (user info) at 2005-09-02 12:44:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Good to read your writing again. It was thought provoking as always.
Submitted by starshine (user info) at 2005-09-02 11:48:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well done.
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-09-02 11:36:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Perhaps it's because I'm not religious, but I just couldn't get into this.
To be honest it sounded like it could have come direct from the mouth of a minister at a dinner party. It came off preachy and close minded, as if there is no creed other than Christianity.
That said, I much preferred reading this to another hurricane/New Orleans post.
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-09-02 11:13:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Can't refute that.
Submitted by JinkyWilliams (user info) at 2005-09-02 11:08:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't feel I am assuming that anyone believes anything. However, the existance of an entity is not determinate on the amount of people that believe in it. If God is there, He's there, regardless of understandings. He exists outside anyone's reality.
Good to be posting again, and good to see you as my first reply, GLALL. You're a good guy and always fun to read.
Stay orange.
--JW
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-09-02 11:06:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
God made the heavens, the Earth and all that dwell upon both. God is and always will be. Who are we to guess at his divine motives? That'd be like some semi-literate 'tard criticising talented writers work, like I do.
hmmm...
Carry on.
Submitted by GodLovesALittleLovin (user info) at 2005-09-02 11:03:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I liked this, but you assume that everyone here believes in god. BLAOREIHF. That's just like saying rainbow cola is the best and most understanding cola ever. Is there even a rainbow cola? No one knows. Good to see you posting again JW.