My wife was surprised when I said I'd love to go see my daughter sing in the church choir she was recruited into while attending a practice with one of her friends. I was on the road when I learned of this, and my wife's email was something like, "I know how you feel about it, but I'm going to church if she sings."
I told her I was going too and I feel great about it. So I thought I'd clear up what I think are some misconceptions about my recently congealed thoughts on faith.
Churches do good things.
Fellowship alone is enough reason to perpetuate their existence. In fact, in spite of what I suspect a lot of people actually believe, fellowship drives church membership anyway. That's a good thing. It reminds us that there's more to life than just us... we're part of a bigger system and our thoughts, concerns, needs, sometimes pale to the groups'. Whether being part of the group just broadens our perspective of our own concerns or whether it actually leads us to a more enlightened view of the bigger world, it's a good thing. It offers a lot of ways to improve our lot... different ways for different folks. It's really a good thing.
Philanthropy is a natural result of this fellowship. And the cool thing about this natural result is that the power of the group is such that it oftens exceeds the power of even the most altruistic individual. Strength in numbers comes both in the form of more hands to fill sandbags before the river crests as well as in the brainstorm-like creativity of feeding off of one another to creatively solve problems that one might not come up with alone. What's not to like about that? In fact, when it comes to service, philanthropy and fellowship often go hand in hand. I don't need to explain the role churches have played in doing good work in this respect. I'm all for it.
Prayer too is a good thing for humans. I'll put in my plug here for the Trinity United Church of Christ... the one in my hometown, not the one in Chicago! It was there that I "learned how to pray." I learned that prayer is really about introspection. It requires one to assess needs - ours and those of others in our world, to be thankful for what we have, and to think about what we can do to make the world a better place. What's not to like? The unexamined life is not worth living and prayer is a great tool for such examination.
It provides the focus that only thorough, serious introspection allows. How many people wander aimlessly through life, just paying their bills, passing their time, regardless of their actual talents and abilities, simply because they don't take the time to do an inventory... they don't pause for introspection... they never consider who they are, where they are, or what they might be capable of. Prayer really does address this, and folks who do it regularly, I have to believe, make much more progress toward self-actualization than those who don't. If only they sought such examination on their own rather than because they think they owe it to someone or something else.
So prayer, fellowship, and philanthropy are all good things, right? I have no argument with them and, at least in our society, they're all most readily associated with church. Churches do a lot of good things. There, I said it.
BUT... you knew that was coming, right?
It's my belief that each of these activities is inherently good. Service, Fellowship, introspection all have intrinsic value. Doing them is good for the sake of good, not because you expect the favor to be returned, not because you believe in kharma, not becuase you seek the approval of some ultimate authority, and not in exchange for everlasting life. In fact, performing these acts under the canopy of a church builds in the notion of reward... the notion of ulterior motive. Doing these things because your church expects you to, and promises you some reward cheapens the acts. I'm not suggesting there are no purely altruistic churchgoers, but by definition, faith offers a reward thus tarninshing the pure altruism associated with the actions.
Even if you could convince me that these acts, when performed by a church, are done without the thought of the church's promised reward - which you can't - there also exists the idea of the acts being accompanied by a price. The price of accepting the kindnesses of the church is also accepting the church's rules. No one will doubt the works of Mother Theresa in helping the poor throughout the world. Her personal sacrifice is without question and her actions speak loudly in support of her motivation - God's reward. Not only does this mean that her motivation was not truly altruistic (by definition), but she also adhered to policy that harmed as many people as it helped in order to be faithful to her religion. When condom distribution could have saved the lives of millions, she combined the message against it with her acts thus convincing her subjects that condoms were morally wrong, thus playing a small, but real role in spreading disease and death. Likewise, her church's beliefs regarding the subjugation of women were perpetuated by her actions, associated with her good deeds, and accepted by her subjects. Mother Theresa's lifetime of great service was inextricably combined with a lifetime of spreading ill-conceived "morals" which have perpetuated some of the most inhumane conditions that still exist throughout the world. This is only because her good work couldn't be separated from the message her church sought to spread. Her good works were a package deal... they came with a price.
Finally, consider how much more effective these good works might actually be if there were a way to spread them without having to associate them with mythical gods and strange, inexplicable, irrational rules. Differing interpretations of the Bible lead to divisions among different faiths. When introduced to instrinsically good acts through one of those faiths, one accepts the divisions and the rules, often to the point of not performing works one would formerly have believed were intrinsically good. If instead of using faith to convince people that altruism were inherently good, we could simply allow our individually chosen version of altruism to bring us together - without the baggage of ill-conceived "morals" or mythical creatures, how much more good work might we do? Granted, there would still be disagreements regarding which altrusitic acts were most useful, but we could toss the "my God is better than your God" crap right off the table and get to the real discussions, and solutions much more quickly. If science were allowed to proceed without the yoke of religious restrictions, how many diseases might we have cured? If protecting muslims throughout the world didn't dominate US foriegn policy over the last 20 years, how much more sense might our response to 911 might have made? If opposing sects of Islam wouldn't martyr themselves in order to eliminate the others, how much more stable might the middle east be?
We don't need the baggage of religion to forward the value of introspection, philanthropic service, and fellowship. The value of these things is inalienable and as such, independent of any religiously derived restrictions. The sooner we all admit that, the more effective we can become in those pursuits. Take prayer for instance. (I purposely left this out of the above treatment of prayer in order to say it now) If you didn't learn how to do it formally, like I did, you might think that uttering the words is enough... then you sit back and wait for God to make it so. Ironically enough, my church taught me that that's not how it works. My church taught me that waiting around for God to make the changes we can effect only makes the wait longer. Okay, the teacher didn't use those exact words, but I learned my action was a vital part. Faith, in general, however comes with the notion that our role is minimal and we can sit back and just leave it to God. It's worse than that in some cases... the Apocalypse not only urges us to just sit back and be powerless, it tells us we're all powerless to the impending DOOM! How can that possibly serve the purpose of mankind? What progress will that bring in our lives? How is it even remotely moral to follow that advice?
We don't need the baggage of faith to know that that which reduces human suffering is good aka moral. That which does not, is bad, aka immoral. That which actually causes human suffering, well, do we really need a church to judge that?
Churches do some good things. As humans, we could do better by dropping the baggage, removing the causes of violent division, and moving on. I'm not proposing outlawing churches, or a new version of the crusades or anything like that. I'm just making it my mission to lay out the process that led me to this conclusion. If I can save a few of those around me from wasting their lives, and getting closer to realizing their potential contribution to humakind, then I'll feel pretty good about it. In the meantime, I might attend a church function or two, if I believe the greater good can be served by doing so. I don't consider it joining the enemy, just the price of doing business. All I'm asking is that we do what we all know we can to reduce that price and make doing the right thing more affordable for everyone.
Luth,
Out
9 comments:
"...we could simply allow our individually chosen version of altruism to bring us together - without the baggage of ill-conceived "morals"..."
You seem to equate altruism with goodness. What is the basis of altrusim? Where does our sense of doing good come from?
More importantly, what is "good"? What makes an action good as opposed to bad? Is not the concept of doing good a type of morality? Jesus said we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart and also our neighbor. Who is our neighbor?
Absent a moral code that defines goodness and badness, would we not be a mere animal with no sense of right and wrong?
Morality has to have a basis for its existence otherwise how would we know what's expected? Do you really want to live in an amoral world?
Relative to your observation in the other thread, no I don't base the validity of Christianity on growth or acceptance. But, I do see that as an indicator and as an example of what happens when man tries to squelch it. If God is truly the being as described in the Bible, then there is no way you will succeed in destroying religion, at least God-based religion.
I'm not trying to destroy religion. I'm just calling it what I believe it is and inviting others to try to see it from my perspective. I truly believe we'd all be better off. If I didn't believe it, I wouldn't bother.
I thought I covered the moral code (one's sense of doing good) pretty clearly in that post (and others before it). It's as simple as this: That which reduces human suffering is good/moral. That which does not is bad/immoral.
How much more of a code do you need?
Of course that leaves lots of room for interpretation... individual suffering vs. mass suffering, your version of good vs. mine and so on. But wouldn't it be easier to try to reach consensus on those issues if we limited the discussion to rational discussion THOSE issues. How does your interpretation of someone else's version of one obscure line in a book make that discussion any more valid, useful or effective? It doesn't.
Even if that book started with God's word (and I'll buy that when you buy the Koran as God's word) it is far from those original words these days. But the real point regardless of form is that it doesn't help solve the issue. It doesn't provide a moral code. You can justify ANY behavior by quoting the Bible.
Look at it like this. Income tax is a fairly simple idea. To make it fair, Congress created a tax code over the years that's grown to literally a million pages.
My moral code (above) is income tax. The Bible is the modern tax code.
So wouldn't we be better off sticking to the facts of the case rather than trying to apply some interpretation of a book no one can agree about to the case? All I'm sayin' is... if we can't agree about the Book, then let's leave the book out of the argument. Upon reaching this conclusion, I almost weep at the world's problems we might have solved since the dawn of the age of reason had we been able to leave religious baggage at the door of the bargaining table. Let's continue down that path to reason by using only reason in our arguments. When I say give me the merits of what you believe is good, give me merits, not, "cuz God says so." Cuz you know I'm coming back with: "Yeah, and God says I can stone my kids when they talk back to me and my wife too, when she won't put out." (It's true! How does that help solve the argument?!)
You can drop "altruism" from the discussion if it presents problems for you. I chose it because its definition is fairly clear and not reliant upon faith for interpretation. It suggests the inherent value of helping others; Not in exchange for eternal salvation or the approval of God... just for the sake of doing it. Would a world ruled by that really be so bad?
I concede your point about religion's growth due to its prohibition in China entirely and without qualification. There's no better marketing tool than rebellion. Look what happened to the alcohol industry during prohibition. And as long as something is well marketed we'll buy it regardless of its inferiority (Mac vs. PC, beta vs. vhs, Harley vs. Yamaha) or regardless of the violence or evil it brings with it (religion, the Bush administration)
I love you man!
Someday, I want to buy a Harley. I suppose you'd prefer a Yamaha.
I think the question in your 3rd paragraph above is answered in the beginning of your 4th paragraph. A fair and just moral code must be grounded in some absolute. The problem, as you've stated is which so-called absolute to accept.
Undoubtedly, the moral codes from many different sources, including the Koran, have a basis in the concept of a God. And though I don't accept that the God of the Koran is the same God recognized by Jews and Christians, most likely the writer of the Koran used God's Word as a basis. The difference is in the critical details. But, this is not a discusion on comparative religions.
Yes, you have propounded your understanding of the basis of morality, but I just can't buy it. As I stated above, a just system must be rooted in some sort of absolute. Current postmodernist thinking rejects the idea of absolutes or even the existence of truth. It can be whatever you want it to be. That can lead to chaos and unhibited behavior excused under the guise that it meets one's understanding of truth, or concept of goodness.
I also question if anyone is truly altruistic or they really always have an ulterior motive of some sort. But, all we are doing is spouting opinions, because it can be neither proven right or wrong. But, a postmodernist would say it doesn't matter because there is no right or wrong. Just doing it can make it right regardless of the motives. But, my understanding of biblically based morality is that doing a good work to help your neighbor merely for the hope of some reward, is not what God expects. God tells us to love our neighbor. Period. Do you expect your kids to get good grades in school merely to attain some kind of reward from you? Or do you expect your kids to work hard and succeed for some deeper reason? If I help you merely for the purpose of gaining a reward someday, then I am no different than a kid who studies because dad promises him a monetary award for each A he receives. Wrong motive in both situations.
Interesting, I often use the failure of Prohibition as an example of how legislating morality can be a dismal failure. See, there is some common ground.
1. "That which minimizes human suffering" is my absolute. It's more absolute than anything in the Bible. If anything about the Bible or Chrisitanity were truly absolute, we wouldn't be having this discussion. I'd just be on your side... or you'd be on mine. If any religion were absolute, organized religion wouldn't be the universe's leading cause of conflict and violence.
2. I equate the term "post modern" with terms like "politically correct" or "compassionate conservative." They have no meaning, but rather are someone's shorthand for some fleeting concept they don't want to take the time to convey. I'll assume when you use the term in this case, you're referring to "situational ethics." And to that I must point out that, per the accepted definition of situational ethics, there are few better examples of situational ethics than the various world's religions (including the variety of Christian religions). Not only do they vary outside the framework of time, from each other, but over the span of time, religions vary from themselves from one period to the next. Again, very little absolute about them.
3. If you don't believe your fellow man is capable of altruism, then you have no faith. No Faith.
Sorry Ray, had to cut that one short. Tonight was the 5th and 6th grade band and choir spring concert. Even Horsepoup waits for that.
So where was I? Oh, yeah, NO FAITH!
It appears to me, as I read your comment, that you and I are chasing each other around a circular track. You say you want absolutes and I say they don't exist. You say you get them from God and I say God doesn't exist. But we're both chasing after some sort of code to go by when it comes to how people should treat each other. I say we humans have to figure it out in a language we all speak. You say we must all speak your language, but we both want to find that truth.
Let me approach this from a different angle. I came to my new conclusions about God after realizing (among many, many other things about my beliefs) that what I was brought up to call "faith in God" turns out to be just faith in my fellow man. I used to think this was a bad thing (due to my religious upbringing) but the more I thought about it, the more I had to sort out the logical, meaningful-to-this-life reality vs. the dreamy, hoping for a next life story. I had to decide between making a difference in this world, or abandoning those who don't follow every word of the Bible here in order to get myself to the next world.
Let's say Jesus's teachings (about how we treat each other - drop the God part for now) were 100% accurate. If we agree on that, then abandoning those who don't buy the God part and ignore some of his rules, contradicts much of what Jesus taught. On the other hand, if we drop the God part, still use Jesus as an example, we have some pretty good ideas about how we should treat each other. But let's say some of us interpret the lessons from some of those ideas differently. (as many religions tend to, hence the lack of an absolute from religion) If we are ever to come to any kind of agreement in that respect, then we must be able to argue rationally... employing not only reasonable argument format, but also introducing evidence that everyone in the discussion can observe. No one in the argument can observe God or His work. No one has. No one will until they're dead, and then they're done talking to us.
Each time we introduce God into the argument as evidence, we create yet one more distraction that steers us away from reaching an agreement on how we should treat each other. The farther away from how we should treat each other we get, the farther away from Jesus's teachings we get.
I've heared many religious people say, "you get out of people what you put into them... put faith in them, and you'll get it back." I believed them from a Christian perspective when I called myself one, and I believe them now, but from a slightly different perspective.
I have a lot of faith. Always did. And I think that if I share it with others, it will spread. Sure, I assume I'll get it back (so you could call that an ulterior motive) but I know from experience that the times when I've experienced the most convergence... the most creative, spiritual, uplifting, positive shared experience with other humans, were those times when the individual contributions seemed like FAR less than the final outcome. (we all got back MUCH more than we put in so there's no formula by which to calculate ulterior motive) I felt like I'd only taken energy away from the group and was still amazed by what we'd created, what problems we'd solved, what work we'd done. Then I'd hear from the others that they felt that way too... almost like none of us contributed a fair share even though we'd all worked dilligently, none of the work seemed comparable to the outcome. It wasn't that we hadn't contributed, it was just that the results were so much greater than a sum of the parts.
I'm sure you've felt this before... either as a musician, or if you're lucky, at work, maybe at home.. but you must know what I'm describing. Anyhoo, in those situations, some folks interpret it as divine intervention. Heck, I used to. But when I look back at all the situtions where that's happened, the people and their contributions were what made it happen. Identifiable efforts specific to the goal, the time, the place. No mystery involved. No supernatural occurence necessary.
You can tell me we were inspired by God all you want, or that they were using God-given talents. You may even be right. But I saw the people in that room (virtual or real) do what they did. Had we waited for some divine inspiration to move us forward, we'd still be waiting and I couldn't share with you what I feel was the "grace" of these moments, because I wouldn't have experienced it. Even if it were divine intervention, it took the focus of those people on the task at hand to make it happen at that moment... that's what I saw with my own eyes. So even if God made it happen, talking about it, hoping for that, would only distract those people from the kind of focus I saw them use.
Now I want to remove the quotes from that word, grace. Because I do believe it was grace that we created in those situations, but what made it happen, was the faith we put in each other... that my ideas for the story we were writing weren't too dumb to suggest, or that Jimmy wasn't a good enough drummer to switch from rock to jazz, or that Sara wasn't experienced enough in HR to solve the current succession crisis... but we trusted in the power of the group and the solution came out of everyone's efforts.
It came about because of the faith we put in each other and in the dynamics of the group. Each of us brought our own ideas, perspectives, experiences, abilities, dark sides and bright sides and only when we got out of our own way, did we create something bigger and better than ourselves.
I now see THAT as faith and THAT as what makes miracles happen. Everything else in this world can be thoroughly explained by biology, physics and chemistry, but THAT is what humans are capable of if they have a little faith... in each other.
I really do think if you don't believe humans are capable of that, without the guidance of mythical creatures, then it is you, my friend, who have no faith.
Will I get burned, on occasion for putting such faith in my fellow man and hoping for such miraculous outcomes? Sure. So did Jesus. (I'm certainly not comparing my contributions to this world to his, but he DID get burned... crucified, actually) But if I can't put my faith there... in THIS world, then I'll never be a part of a solution to the problems that face us in THIS world. And as they say, if you're not part of the solution...
Religion, or the fighting it has spurred, is part of the problem, not the solution. It gets in the way of ever agreeing on absolutes; it doesn't provide them. It divides humans rather than bringing them together to reach their full potential.
Reaching my human potential is all the motive I need. Trying to do the right thing because it's right is all the absolute there is. When we don't agree on what the right thing is, we must approach it, find a solution, argue it out. When arguing, we can try to do so fairly, respecting each other, or we can introduce false logic, or throw logic out the window entirely, but the latter certainly isn't very respectful to our fellow man. I don't think it's what Jesus would do. Introducing "facts" to the argument that can't be proven is the definition of illogical. That's an absolute.
Very interesting, Luth. And you said much I can agree with, too. I'll comment as much as possible, but it has been a busy week at work, so I have only so much time.
You talk about not expecting as much back as you give, that actually is very biblical. I think you and I have other fundamental differences we really haven't dwelt on, but surprisingly there are some things we do agree on.
First, I completely understand when you throw back at me which set of so-called religious truths are valid. Let me give you a story that illustrates that.
A few days ago a niece sent me a clipping from the Columbus newspaper about our alma mater. She, my wife and I and our son all graduated from Cedarville College, now University, out near the Dayton area. Which reminds me, April 3rd was the anniversary of the tornado that hit Xenia and Cedarville back in 1974. Devastating. I remember it clearly. Anyway, the clipping told of a controversy at the school - which if you aren't familiar with it, it is a Baptist school of arts and sciences. They have traditionally been in the fundamentalist camp but have gravitated slightly more centrally to a more evangelical position. End of last summer they fired two professors over theological differences, these guys were hyper-fundamentalists from what I gather and they militantly opposed others who wanted to take a more conciliatory approach to other parts of Christianity. I decided to go to the source, a guy from my hometown who went to college there with me years ago is the lead in the Bible department at Cedarville. I called him and asked what is going on. He made interesting observation which made me think of you and this conversation. He said even within the fundamentalist ranks there is not agreement. He appears to be of the position that there should be dialog with others of similar faith which drew the ire of the uber-fundamentalist isolationists. So, how can I argue with you reasonably when even within my own circles there are major disagreements. You will say that it just proves your points.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Let's talk labels. I used the term Postmodernist, partly because it is easier to use that rather than write out in long hand exactly what I'm saying, but if it is fuzzy, then my point can be lost. Labels like that can be good as long as they are jointly understood. But, you know that.
Postmodernism includes the concept of situation ethics, but I think it goes beyond that 1960s pop psychology. Situational ethics was merely an excuse for people to do whatever they wanted without feeling any associated guilt. Postmodernism questions the whole concept of truth and absolutes. Reading what you have to say, I don't really believe that you have thrown out the concept of truth or absolutes, we really just disagree on the foundation or basis of truth. For you, helping your fellow human being is a truth or an absolute. It is rooted in your being, a part of your soul. I would like to think from all you've said you at least try to be consist in in how you apply that philosophy. A Postmodernist would apply it only if it benefited him. "What's in it for me?" As in situation ethics, circumstances can change behavior. The Situational Ethicist I would see being more tuned into reward/punishment as motivators or demotivators for actions. I'm not sure I would accuse you of that. Postmodernism questions all our preconceived ideas of reality.
Faith. We both have faith, it is just centered in different things. OK, here is what I was driving at. Many modernists and postmodernists say man is merely an animal. We are just another species. We don't have a soul anymore than a dog does. When we die, that's it, it's all over. Does a grizzly bear have any altruistic bent? HOw about a lion? A tiger? A killer whale? I have faith that if you and I were in the woods and we met a grizzly bear that as long as I outran you I'd live to tell about it.... not sure you would, though. I don't have faith to walk into a lion's den at the local zoo. I'm not going swimming with a pod of wild killer whales or sharks. Nope, don't have that kind of faith. I do have faith that if I my car was broken down along Rt. 71 in Ohio and some guy named Luth came along he just might stop and offer assistance... and not even expect a reward for it or try to steal my credit cards. I have faith that our elected officials will work to make life better for us. I have faith that the police will be honest. I have faith that my "neighbor" will be trustworthy and will not try to harm me. My faith is placed on people who I assume share similar values to mine. We may not believe alike, but we in many ways are much alike under the skin.
What is the source of that faith? You say it is in the inherent goodness of man. I say it is based on the influence of a divine being that does play a role in our lives. That is more than just some collection of molecules or gaseous material located somewhere out there. I say that your faith in man is rooted in your spiritual upbringing whether you want to admit to it now or not. Absent a divine influence and all rationality is out the door. Now you can say I have no faith, and you would have a point, but my opinion is based on observation of how other living beings operate who do not have a divine influence - bears, lions, sharks, etc. My faith is strong enough to recognize that there is something more powerful than I or you and has a strong enough influence which allows us to maintain a sense of rationality and thus civility.
Forget the theological differences between Christianity and any other religion. One thing Christianity and Islam shares in common is a divergent set of beliefs based on their respective scriptural texts. What is God really trying to achieve in the Bible? It is a history book, but it is also a set of rules for us to live by and if we follow those rules we will achieve a society as you describe above, one where we treat each other respectfully and decently. The Koran also is a set of rules and if one follows those rules, they can be a decent human being. If one follows the beliefs of Buddhism they also can be a decent, caring human being.
OK, here's another way you and I are alike. You accuse me of wanting everyone to believe just as I do. OK, I guess in some ways I can't argue with that. If you were completely wrong we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. But, that is where we are alike because you want everyone to believe just as you do, or maybe more accurately hold to the same disbelief in a higher power. A normal human tendency.
Seriously Luth, I do appreciate this discussion and I don't really expect you to hit your forehead and suddenly agree with everything I'm saying. And you probably realize you're not going to change my way of thinking. But, I see it as valuable because we are exchanging ideas and if nothing else, we make each other really think about what our positions are and why. It is healthy to discuss.
Of course I'd like people to think like I do, but a more accurate description of our differences would be more along the lines of "you believe and I don't." The way you describe it, you and I simply have "different beliefs." That comes from the deeply rooted idea that there must be a creator. That perpsective is a chain anchoring you in a place where I no longer reside. Describing my "faith" from that perspective is inaccurate because I have no "faith" in that regard. I don't have a need for it. I used the term above to explain a particular situation - and to demonstrate that humans can be inherently good vs. good for God - but I have no need for the capital F kind that fits your description. Chemistry, physics and biology solve just about all of the mysteries of our universe.
I understand exactly how strong that chain is that's holding you there, Ray. Of course man wants to be the most important critter in the universe. Most even want to think we're more important than the other men around us. (The arrogance of the Faithful always tickles me!)
I perfectly understand wanting to believe that this creator of yours, who made the planet and all its inhabitants, really only cares about men. That's perfectly human. Actually there are similar traits in all animals, but we're the only animals who exploit it to create this whole god myth in order to aggrandize the animals who look like us.
To me, that's pretty arrogant (and very un-Jesus-like.) You can call my thoughts on that "postmodern" if you like, but it doesn't change the biology. We are animals. If there's a God, we (along with the toads) were all created by Him, hence we're all "divinely influenced." But I don't think that's the case at all. I think cell division and adaptibility (evolution) explain our differences pretty well. So-called "lesser" animals provide evidence of the varying degrees of what we arrogant humans call our "conscience" and "rational thought," but we very undeniably ARE all animals. While animals all function at varying levels of this "conscience" we share a pretty common beginning that's pretty well explained though physical evidence to be our very un-divine beginnings. No god necessary.
I wish I could explain this better. It'a very liberating discovery - to be free of that burden of believing we're so much more important than we are is quite uplifting.
I hesitate to call myself an atheist because that seems to be a term that fits in with other terms that describe some sort of "Faith." Most folks who do have "Faith" (that's the capital F) associate atheism with some sort of devil worship, evil, or pure selfishness, but what I've found is that dropping this silly notion that man is the top dog on the planet actually eliminates the need for self-importance almost upon receipt of the goods!
I've read the accounts of Jesus. I'm pretty sure this is what he was onto! You said you suspect that my feelings are rooted in my UCC upbringing. I can assure you that while that education introduced me to philosophy, its influence is limited to what not to do. Now that I'm free of the foolishness, it's much easier to see that man, (slightly more developed animal that we are) really has the potential to be a positive contributor on this earth... just as soon as he gets over himself.
Of course if religion is so bad, maybe we should do as China does, outlaw it and jail dissidents who dare speak out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402982.html
CORRECTION: I really hate it when people say "I LITERALLY almost died," when they clearly mean they FIGURATIVELY almost died. So it is with much shame that I call attention to my discussion of the Federal Tax Code above and claim that it is "literally over a million pages." I meant to say "literally over a million words" which I'm fairly sure about, but here's a cool site that explains, but doesn't excuse, my confusion:
http://www.trygve.com/taxcode.html
Post a Comment