Thursday, September 2, 2010
House of the Holy
"This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. And if we know that he hears us - whatever we ask - we know that we have what we asked of him." (1 John 5:14-15)
From what I understand, a prayer is a personal praise or request, intended for an omnipotent being or other consciousness. Is it safe to make this broad assertion for the sake of this conversation, or is it necessary to breakdown the individual techniques, styles, and versions of the prayer concept? I mean, there are people that state prayer to be an internally aimed directive, or a socially-bonding inspiration (see: Jonathan Edwards). Whatever the case, I am going to understand it as a communication to a being or consciousness other than oneself, intended for the sake of personal therapy or miracle.
So, what makes a “successful” prayer? When players are holding hands, praying for a field goal that pushes wide-right, is success measured by a miss (see: Scott Norwood)? When someone prays for the well-being of a loved one with cancer, is success the annihilation of the ailment, or is it the process of a relatively quick and painless passing? At Easter dinner, when the family gives thanks for the food before them, no matter how bountiful, is the fact that there is an acknowledgement of appreciation a success?
Can prayer be measured by its success, or is it on a plain beyond measurement?
If the field goal goes right, did the Giants “out-pray” the Bills that day? If the loved one passes peacefully, did the family pray for his death and acceptance to Heaven? Or, did the family just pray for goodness to surround him while in this time of need, and the success is understood to be either remission of cancer, or the painless death?
When an Easter meal sits before you, is success that it is cooked to perfection? Or, are you praying that God acknowledges your acknowledgement and checks you off a list of do-gooders?
What does prayer DO?
Religious zealots will spin prayer into an ambiguously focused (yep, try to define that phrase) means of acting on faith. It will not be tangible; it will not be rigid. It will be what you make it. To suggest that it should be measured will be insensitive and overly analytical.
But, what it will have for this crowd is value beyond your comprehension. The concept of faith is based upon this premise. When you pray, you are doing God’s will, and when you do God’s will, you embody Christ and therefore are on the path towards atonement for man’s sins.
So, why do the players pray? Why do people pray for a loved one? Why do we say a prayer of thanks for the food before us? Is it ultimately for atonement, or is it out of a sincere desire to alter reality?
Herein is my beef.
Prayer is a real-time event and/or concept, and by conducting as such, you are making a real-time request that enters an unreal-time dimension. To clarify, you pray for Grandpa that his cancer goes into remission. It is as if you are sending a letter to a house of prayer in order to have it stamped, approved, and enacted. You use your thought or words to communicate with a manifestation beyond your comprehension. Your words surpass reality and enter eternity.
Or, if prayer is not intended this way, you must be simply praying for your own atonement given that prayer is not measured, but is simply a Christian act. That does not seem very Christ-like to me. Prayer seems innately unselfish, does it not?
If praying does not manifest itself as an effect as well as a cause, it is not successful. Those that dispute that, tell my why you pray. Tell me the intention of prayer…what does it DO?
One glaring reason as to why prayer is important to the pious is because it brings about community fervor. Communicating with God draws excitement! If the entire community convenes at church in order to gather strength and demonstrate the broad basis of faith, how can you be left out? It’s boring to pray at your bedside when you compare that to the raucous church celebrations that we know.
So, the claim here is that prayer has a value in the community, which I can certainly understand.
But, this speaks nothing of its truth-value. Prayer is a basic tenant in the Biblical teaching of Christianity, but it does so as the result of human log. The New Testament is composed of logs that were written years after Jesus’ existence, for the sake of spiritual education. If you are caught facing the corner of a room, mumbling to yourself, your easy exit is that you are praying. If you were to say that you were just speaking to yourself for therapeutic reasons, you could be regarded as mildly schizophrenic.
Further, if we cannot measure the success of a pray, how do we know if our “letter” reached its intended recipient? Does God speak back? If we get a warm-and-fuzzy, is that God’s response?
Think about that.
We have given prayer a free pass towards sanity for too long. We do not need to pray to be thankful for a meal. The cancer in Grandpa’s body is going to succeed or fail depending upon bodily and medicinal factors. Scott Norwood missed the field goal(s) because he pushed the ball right upon the snap.
Even in writing this, I can feel walls of dispute erecting themselves: “It is beyond our know-how,” or, “What makes you an expert on the Bible?” Questions like this are counterproductive. They breed mysticism, and allow a different set of rules for the religious platform. Do you not think that religion has already taken advantage of its “all-powerful” reputation by making up rules and rituals that cannot be justified? Do you really think that a God or supreme-being needs you to pray in order to save your Grandpa, as if it is in a cloud with arms-crossed, waiting in gloat? And, quite possibly the most important question: Do you really think we should be making decisions that affect our real-time surroundings, based upon a means of communication likened to a mental disorder?
Thursday, May 27, 2010
"We must be our own before we can be another's."
I have heard about and considered the idea that "love" does not exist. Love is a chemical reaction. Love is an emotional crutch that we can liken to anything else that provides us with a security blanket. This basic tenant of the human experience (as well as that of many animals) is a fallacy.
I was reading about this idea last night, and at first it came across as crass and overly analytical. It doesn't matter if its a chemical reaction, or if it demonstrates a fault in confidence or character...its still a great feeling, and one that I can't imagine living without. However, if I bounce the initial thought of a loveless existence off my idea of our purpose in this life, which is strictly scientific and evolutionary, I would have to call myself a hypocrite for buying into the drunken euphoria that is our sense of love. Its no different than considering God's existence for the sake of feeling more orderly and purposeful in life. Unconsciously, this is a common occurrence. I can't expect anyone to consider that any of my philosophical ideas hold water if I bend some rules around my logic for the sake of seeming like a good, sensitive guy within the public mainframe. I would be just as guilty of manufacturing the truth-value of a new religion as those who do so with the Bible today. So, I continued reading.
As I read on about this idea, it started to open a new train of thought. What was being explained is that real love is not what it is taken for today. Its not the Romeo and Juliet poetry, nor is it the innate love we possess for a relative. Love is not an outward-motioned sentiment attributed to another creature or object. You don't supply love, and you can't make someone happy by loving them. Love is how you feel about yourself and your place in life. If you develop a reliable sense of love from within, your actions are unconsciously loving. If someone else makes you develop your own sense of self-worth and self-interest, you may develop an affinity for that person. You may seek out his or her acquaintance, and may miss him or her when absence. But, this longing and fellowship is not the essence of love.
If we reference the love between a couple, or the Romeo and Juliet sense of romanticism, how does this idea of love relate? Its not very complicated. If you have not developed an adequate sense of self-worth, you will develop a sense of love for your partner similar to that of a drug addict and his next fix. You need the chemical reaction, and you need the security. It may not even be that your partner's finest characteristics are tantalizing to you, but rather that your partner has vowed to honor you, be available to you, and adore you. But, that vow may be the result of various factors, including age, family pressure, lust, or community status.
This is what makes matrimony so tricky. The smartest and most sincere people can still get caught up in the whirlwind of romanticism. However, it does not mean that this person feels love in its root sense.
This is not to say that love cannot develop with your partner, and reach beyond romanticism. Your partner may have the talent and self-assurance to be an example for you, and guide you (even if unconsciously) towards a better, more loving view of yourself and your life. But, what I think what needs to be considered is if the match is such where these pieces fit. I see this philosophy as so basic in structure (love oneself, THEN, love others), but yet so difficult in action.
Take another example...your love for a parent or additional relative. Love is assumed, but I see this as a result of the developmental role in your life. Your mother nurtures you, and your father disciplines you...or vice-versa. They have assisted you in becoming who you are. If you like who you are, you assume a responsibility and undying gratitude for their years of service. You are a shadow being raised in their being, and you appreciate them for this. Is this the feeling of love? Its beyond the romanticism that we feel with a partner, so isn't this nearly a tangible and indisputable sentiment? Is it acceptable to consider that you may not "love" your parents?
The feeling you have is an appreciation and likeness for their efforts, but you feel love within yourself for it. The internalized sense is love. If you like who you are, they are credited with having created an energy within you that you will never be able to repay. Their duty was to harness the positive in your life, and allow you to proceed accordingly.
In essence, what the essay in question did for me was help me accept that love is not a gift that can be given. Its not an connection between two people. Its an unconscious feeling of value that can be attributed to the development and cycling of emotions. You can learn about love from others, but you cannot receive love from others. This does not de-value the love between people (partners or family), but it removes the tendency to rely on others to give it to you. If you take value in who you are, and move forward accordingly, your relationships become easier to understand and foster. If love is taken as a gift that is exchanged, it becomes susceptible to human tragedies and fauts
Its an interesting concept. I hope it does not come across as de-valuing love, because that is not my point. My point is that its not a toy. I still say 'i love you' when the feelings are strong. I still fall into the paradise of romanticism. But, maybe we should conceptualize love as an essence that is not to be handled and mishandled. Maybe it can be thought of as the natural perpetuation of goodness. There are no people, places, or things connected to this.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
The Long Arm of the Law
I was thinking about the concept of intent recently, and how it relates to crime and punishment. My knowledge on law-making and the justice system as a whole is quite limited, so I speak from a cloudy vantage point.
How important is intent within the justice system? Can it be a damning factor in and of itself when in a court of law? Can it be an augmenting factor when paired with circumstantial evidence? Because intent is not tangible, and the law tends towards tangible proof, what does intent contribute to a case?
Intent carries a heavy weight with me. An action is preceded by intent, otherwise intent does not exist as a precursor to action because its the result of impulse or instinct. On one side, you have an action that is carried-out based on fear, anger, or sheer surprise. In our justice system, it matters not. The action was carried out, and its mindlessness does not deny its repercussions. Intent, however, is mindful. It demonstrates an awareness of your surroundings and the repercussions of your actions. This carries with it a burden. Its not a mistake when an action is intended.
If we agree that intent is deliberate by definition, then we must consider a crime with intent to be the product of a menace to society. If someone desires to kill, and carries out his intent, he demonstrates that he intends to harm, and will do so again if a similar sentiment arises. Intent leads to action, the combination of the two is exponentially damning.
Can we agree to that? Someone intended to kill and did so...its not just murder, its murder with intent.
This leads me to the concept that I am struggling with...without intent, how should the crime be judged? In the case of a murder, its difficult to determine. With intent, the murder is cold in nature, and the verdict is easy. But, what about the drunk driver that kills a sober driver on his way home from the bar? Initially, you may say that the action was still that someone was killed, and it makes no difference that there was not intent because a life has been lost. Understood...and that is how our justice system works in the vast majority of these cases.
Now, what if that drunk driver was a 40-year old married mother of 3 that had a BAC of .08 because her children were out of town staying with Grandma? What if the drunk driver was a first-time offender? What if the sober driver took an illegal turn, or simply a questionable turn, and initiated the action? What if the other driver was not in fact sober, but had a BAC of .04?
I feel that intent must come into play with a heavy hand. Don't play holier than thou with this scenario...we have all driven home "drunk" in our day. Are you a menace to society? Are you a cold-blooded killer? I realize that something tragic and unfortunate has happened, and a family may be losing a major part of their life with the loss of the killed party. But, does that justify ruining another life, or another family? If the intent to kill is not present, where do we draw the line for incarceration?
You can think about in a few ways...if the drunk driver* was hammered beyond belief, and has a history of this action, it may behoove the courts to consider her a menace to society. Intent is implied (and thus the problem of tangibility) because its become apparent that this individual refuses to respect the laws of responsibility and accountability.
But, if history shows that this person has not been a menace, and the intent was to remain within the law's definition of "beyond the limit," then the court MUST look at things with a microscope. Its not good enough to claim that the law is the law, and she was drunk so she goes to jail. According to that logic, you will throw her in prison in the same cell as a convicted murderer who shot someone point-blank, because they both committed the same crime. This is not acceptable. The law is not perfect, nor is it fool-proof. Its a basis, and we must use it as springboard into logical thinking. We cannot deny our ability to use cognition. We cannot point to a static book of laws and convict accordingly. If that is the table at which you sit, you are irresponsible. It is not acceptable to incarcerate for the sake of legitimizing another life's value. I realize that someone very special to another family has died here. But, our justice system should not adopt the "eye for an eye" mentality by ruining another life...especially when intent is not present. If the guilty party has intent, and is considered a menace, we have a case to convict in order to avoid future disasters. However, if intent is not present, its our duty to unravel the onion and get to the core of the crime.
* The term that has latched itself to someone who drives home with a BAC of .08 (or even .06 at police discretion), is faulty. It implies a mis-represented character. The intent of the term was to make the labeled individual feel so dirty and despicable that he or she would not drive again after drinking. Given that roughly 70% of Americans drink (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/people-of-class-drink-alcohol/), its judgemental and likely hypocritical to put on such a facade of classlessness.
How important is intent within the justice system? Can it be a damning factor in and of itself when in a court of law? Can it be an augmenting factor when paired with circumstantial evidence? Because intent is not tangible, and the law tends towards tangible proof, what does intent contribute to a case?
Intent carries a heavy weight with me. An action is preceded by intent, otherwise intent does not exist as a precursor to action because its the result of impulse or instinct. On one side, you have an action that is carried-out based on fear, anger, or sheer surprise. In our justice system, it matters not. The action was carried out, and its mindlessness does not deny its repercussions. Intent, however, is mindful. It demonstrates an awareness of your surroundings and the repercussions of your actions. This carries with it a burden. Its not a mistake when an action is intended.
If we agree that intent is deliberate by definition, then we must consider a crime with intent to be the product of a menace to society. If someone desires to kill, and carries out his intent, he demonstrates that he intends to harm, and will do so again if a similar sentiment arises. Intent leads to action, the combination of the two is exponentially damning.
Can we agree to that? Someone intended to kill and did so...its not just murder, its murder with intent.
This leads me to the concept that I am struggling with...without intent, how should the crime be judged? In the case of a murder, its difficult to determine. With intent, the murder is cold in nature, and the verdict is easy. But, what about the drunk driver that kills a sober driver on his way home from the bar? Initially, you may say that the action was still that someone was killed, and it makes no difference that there was not intent because a life has been lost. Understood...and that is how our justice system works in the vast majority of these cases.
Now, what if that drunk driver was a 40-year old married mother of 3 that had a BAC of .08 because her children were out of town staying with Grandma? What if the drunk driver was a first-time offender? What if the sober driver took an illegal turn, or simply a questionable turn, and initiated the action? What if the other driver was not in fact sober, but had a BAC of .04?
I feel that intent must come into play with a heavy hand. Don't play holier than thou with this scenario...we have all driven home "drunk" in our day. Are you a menace to society? Are you a cold-blooded killer? I realize that something tragic and unfortunate has happened, and a family may be losing a major part of their life with the loss of the killed party. But, does that justify ruining another life, or another family? If the intent to kill is not present, where do we draw the line for incarceration?
You can think about in a few ways...if the drunk driver* was hammered beyond belief, and has a history of this action, it may behoove the courts to consider her a menace to society. Intent is implied (and thus the problem of tangibility) because its become apparent that this individual refuses to respect the laws of responsibility and accountability.
But, if history shows that this person has not been a menace, and the intent was to remain within the law's definition of "beyond the limit," then the court MUST look at things with a microscope. Its not good enough to claim that the law is the law, and she was drunk so she goes to jail. According to that logic, you will throw her in prison in the same cell as a convicted murderer who shot someone point-blank, because they both committed the same crime. This is not acceptable. The law is not perfect, nor is it fool-proof. Its a basis, and we must use it as springboard into logical thinking. We cannot deny our ability to use cognition. We cannot point to a static book of laws and convict accordingly. If that is the table at which you sit, you are irresponsible. It is not acceptable to incarcerate for the sake of legitimizing another life's value. I realize that someone very special to another family has died here. But, our justice system should not adopt the "eye for an eye" mentality by ruining another life...especially when intent is not present. If the guilty party has intent, and is considered a menace, we have a case to convict in order to avoid future disasters. However, if intent is not present, its our duty to unravel the onion and get to the core of the crime.
* The term that has latched itself to someone who drives home with a BAC of .08 (or even .06 at police discretion), is faulty. It implies a mis-represented character. The intent of the term was to make the labeled individual feel so dirty and despicable that he or she would not drive again after drinking. Given that roughly 70% of Americans drink (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/05/people-of-class-drink-alcohol/), its judgemental and likely hypocritical to put on such a facade of classlessness.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
The Christian Nation and Altruism
When viewed on a cursory level, the symmetry between Christian values and Republican policy is undeniable. I say this without a shudder despite its encompassing claim, because its calling a spade a spade. When you associate fervently with the Republican party, you are accepting the concept that you will be lumped with the Christian following, even when Christianity does not describe your faith. Politics is constructed on this framework. Groups title themselves in order to gain momentum and strength on generally agreeable theories of government. Individual concepts may be discussed in house, but when presenting to the masses, party lines will generally remain steadfast. As I see it, it should not be a point of contention for non-Christian Republicans, but rather an acknowledgement that demonstrates your intuitive understanding of our religious and political infrastructures.
Going further, the Republican Party is readily perceived as the "patriotic" party when compared to its Democratic and Independent teammates (we are all on Team USA, right?). Proudly sporting the red, white, and blue, nearing the point of entitlement. Perceiving international security as an offensive rather than a defensive, because we know best. Seeing inclusivity as a matter of earning rather than right. Fill in with your own opinions...
...how about: hypocritically alienating all that are not them. The relationship between Republican doctrine and Christian value is peculiar. The Christian philosophy as it relates to Jesus stakes claim in an altruistic lifestyle. It prods all followers to be proactive in their faith, but also be pragmatic in their actions: be Jesus-like. I do not see the Republican/Christian status quo making advances towards inclusivity and connectivity. Again, VERY broadly, I see it quite the contrary. Pro-lifers blame without context. Republican health care speakers desire human prioritization rather than human preservation. Fiscal conservatives emphasize the Patton offensive in the military rather than diplomatic harmonization.
What is Christian about Republican reality? The Party may be Christian, but what about the reality? Privatization reigns supreme in Republican philosophy. Put up the walls and lock the door. The government is good for defense, but should not assist in caring for those in need. They are outside the wall, and its not a concern what happens to them.
If this is a Christian tenant, its no wonder I lost vigor for the faith...its rooted in hypocrisy. Its far from humanistic (keep in mind, its not that these people are bad in nature, just naive in culture), and it breeds a contempt for the less fortunate. This country is FULL of less fortunate. The founding principals of this country were based on the entrepreneurial spirit; the Manifest Destiny. Some people in this country don't thrive in that environment. Some people were born in a world that does not allow them to decipher their strengths. I am a proponent of overcoming all negativity that is presented to me. The reason I adopt this philosophy is because of the building blocks that have strengthened me. Not everyone has those building blocks, and thus its infinitely more difficult to overcome even relatively simple tasks.
I don't want to be Republican if it embodies Christianity. I want to adapt. I want to be circumstantial. I don't want to be static and doctrinal. Look, learn, evaluate, and act...that is doctrinal as I want to get.
The inverse of Republican Christianity is Democratic Agnosticism. There are many holes in this philosophy, as well. However, if we are trending, I would rather trend towards seeking and learning rather than fitting all circumstances into my worldview. I would rather raise too many questions if the other option is to ask too few. I would rather measure twice and cut once, because it insures the pieces fit, rather than forcing a long board in a short bracket.
Going further, the Republican Party is readily perceived as the "patriotic" party when compared to its Democratic and Independent teammates (we are all on Team USA, right?). Proudly sporting the red, white, and blue, nearing the point of entitlement. Perceiving international security as an offensive rather than a defensive, because we know best. Seeing inclusivity as a matter of earning rather than right. Fill in with your own opinions...
...how about: hypocritically alienating all that are not them. The relationship between Republican doctrine and Christian value is peculiar. The Christian philosophy as it relates to Jesus stakes claim in an altruistic lifestyle. It prods all followers to be proactive in their faith, but also be pragmatic in their actions: be Jesus-like. I do not see the Republican/Christian status quo making advances towards inclusivity and connectivity. Again, VERY broadly, I see it quite the contrary. Pro-lifers blame without context. Republican health care speakers desire human prioritization rather than human preservation. Fiscal conservatives emphasize the Patton offensive in the military rather than diplomatic harmonization.
What is Christian about Republican reality? The Party may be Christian, but what about the reality? Privatization reigns supreme in Republican philosophy. Put up the walls and lock the door. The government is good for defense, but should not assist in caring for those in need. They are outside the wall, and its not a concern what happens to them.
If this is a Christian tenant, its no wonder I lost vigor for the faith...its rooted in hypocrisy. Its far from humanistic (keep in mind, its not that these people are bad in nature, just naive in culture), and it breeds a contempt for the less fortunate. This country is FULL of less fortunate. The founding principals of this country were based on the entrepreneurial spirit; the Manifest Destiny. Some people in this country don't thrive in that environment. Some people were born in a world that does not allow them to decipher their strengths. I am a proponent of overcoming all negativity that is presented to me. The reason I adopt this philosophy is because of the building blocks that have strengthened me. Not everyone has those building blocks, and thus its infinitely more difficult to overcome even relatively simple tasks.
I don't want to be Republican if it embodies Christianity. I want to adapt. I want to be circumstantial. I don't want to be static and doctrinal. Look, learn, evaluate, and act...that is doctrinal as I want to get.
The inverse of Republican Christianity is Democratic Agnosticism. There are many holes in this philosophy, as well. However, if we are trending, I would rather trend towards seeking and learning rather than fitting all circumstances into my worldview. I would rather raise too many questions if the other option is to ask too few. I would rather measure twice and cut once, because it insures the pieces fit, rather than forcing a long board in a short bracket.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
The Tip-Toe Effect
How do we open the line of conversation about faith and logic in religious thought?
When the subject of religious thought is brought up (as uncommon and unpopular as it may be), its like fingernails on the chalkboard for me to hear: "Well, my opinion is that I have faith. You are entitled to your opinion." Why is this acceptable? You are entitled to your own opinion, because its in your head and nobody can control what thoughts come into your head. But, when the subject is brought into the world of dialog, your opinion becomes reality. Its your brain-child; your opinion takes on life! I do not find it acceptable to make a claim about the purpose of life without the ability to justify your reasoning.
Further, I do not find it acceptable for society to take a sensitive stance on debate/conversation on this subject. It has become the status quo to allow for an arching truth claim, and protect it under the umbrella of opinion. We all realize that there is no way to prove a position on the subject of religion at this point in the game. It would be delusional to suggest such. What not all of us realize, however, is that your level of confidence in your worldview is plain to all when we witness your desire or ability to charge your case. Beyond the topic of religion, I can't think of a claim that does not require evidence. One's comfort in supporting a claim is based on this idea. It can be regarded as insanity to claim something without reason.
Why, then, is it the trend to be supportive of another's opinions if they are not backed with reason? I'm not talking about the bumper sticker that reads "COEXIST" with the symbolic inlay. This is not meant to spark a roadside debate with the driver of the dawning vehicle. In this case, its simply meant to offer religious tolerance as an alternative to religious intolerance; the debate remains, peacefully. When opening the topic of the purpose of life, why is it not standard to state your belief (innately understood as an opinion) and provide evidence for it.
The argument has been presented that our purpose on earth is too "elite" for our understanding, and thus it is acceptable to have faith, and it will all become clear to us upon entering the realm that we are yet to experience. I'm willing to bet that this same ineffability was applied to many concepts that we have today rationalized. For example, imagine if there was not the dedication to the art of flying. Is it right to say that 200-300 years ago, flying was beyond our concept of reality? Was it fantasy? Yet today, it has become a complex and ever-adapting world necessity.
This is not to say that flying and eternal purpose can be deducted along the same path. But, it is to say that we have witnessed the embrace of one formally incomprehensible concept, and yet refuse to make an attempt at the rational sense of another. I refer back to a previous blog of mine that compares the American justice system and religious thought. One is founded on logic and reason, and the other on faith
and mysticism.
Focusing again, this alternate realm of existence (Heaven, etc) is held in the highest regard because it is the Emerald City to our yellow-brick road. Well, to open up the line of conversation between faith and logic, we need rationalize our yellow-brick road. We need to stop thinking of the Emerald City as an unimaginable reality, and start translating it into our pragmatic existence. If you are going to "walk with Christ" to the gates of Heaven, I want to see your footsteps. I don't want to hear that you conceptualize your footsteps with faith and hope. You owe us a breakdown of your daily steps if you are willing to claim allegiance to his path. You owe us a peek at the reality of your claim. Spread the word with reason, not with fluffy claims. If your path is not tangible, if you cannot show me your footsteps, if you cannot put your faith into reality, you are no more justified than someone who sits in their room and "prays" about music, and once a week goes to a band shell or bar to "worship" music by playing it aloud. Life is tangible whether you like it or not, and its not acceptable to pull the reality of life into your cloud of irrationality.
When the subject of religious thought is brought up (as uncommon and unpopular as it may be), its like fingernails on the chalkboard for me to hear: "Well, my opinion is that I have faith. You are entitled to your opinion." Why is this acceptable? You are entitled to your own opinion, because its in your head and nobody can control what thoughts come into your head. But, when the subject is brought into the world of dialog, your opinion becomes reality. Its your brain-child; your opinion takes on life! I do not find it acceptable to make a claim about the purpose of life without the ability to justify your reasoning.
Further, I do not find it acceptable for society to take a sensitive stance on debate/conversation on this subject. It has become the status quo to allow for an arching truth claim, and protect it under the umbrella of opinion. We all realize that there is no way to prove a position on the subject of religion at this point in the game. It would be delusional to suggest such. What not all of us realize, however, is that your level of confidence in your worldview is plain to all when we witness your desire or ability to charge your case. Beyond the topic of religion, I can't think of a claim that does not require evidence. One's comfort in supporting a claim is based on this idea. It can be regarded as insanity to claim something without reason.
Why, then, is it the trend to be supportive of another's opinions if they are not backed with reason? I'm not talking about the bumper sticker that reads "COEXIST" with the symbolic inlay. This is not meant to spark a roadside debate with the driver of the dawning vehicle. In this case, its simply meant to offer religious tolerance as an alternative to religious intolerance; the debate remains, peacefully. When opening the topic of the purpose of life, why is it not standard to state your belief (innately understood as an opinion) and provide evidence for it.
The argument has been presented that our purpose on earth is too "elite" for our understanding, and thus it is acceptable to have faith, and it will all become clear to us upon entering the realm that we are yet to experience. I'm willing to bet that this same ineffability was applied to many concepts that we have today rationalized. For example, imagine if there was not the dedication to the art of flying. Is it right to say that 200-300 years ago, flying was beyond our concept of reality? Was it fantasy? Yet today, it has become a complex and ever-adapting world necessity.
This is not to say that flying and eternal purpose can be deducted along the same path. But, it is to say that we have witnessed the embrace of one formally incomprehensible concept, and yet refuse to make an attempt at the rational sense of another. I refer back to a previous blog of mine that compares the American justice system and religious thought. One is founded on logic and reason, and the other on faith
and mysticism.Focusing again, this alternate realm of existence (Heaven, etc) is held in the highest regard because it is the Emerald City to our yellow-brick road. Well, to open up the line of conversation between faith and logic, we need rationalize our yellow-brick road. We need to stop thinking of the Emerald City as an unimaginable reality, and start translating it into our pragmatic existence. If you are going to "walk with Christ" to the gates of Heaven, I want to see your footsteps. I don't want to hear that you conceptualize your footsteps with faith and hope. You owe us a breakdown of your daily steps if you are willing to claim allegiance to his path. You owe us a peek at the reality of your claim. Spread the word with reason, not with fluffy claims. If your path is not tangible, if you cannot show me your footsteps, if you cannot put your faith into reality, you are no more justified than someone who sits in their room and "prays" about music, and once a week goes to a band shell or bar to "worship" music by playing it aloud. Life is tangible whether you like it or not, and its not acceptable to pull the reality of life into your cloud of irrationality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)