2009.May.29. 2:30AM
I don't have a problem with religion itself. I have a problem with INSTITUTIONALIZED religion (I also have a problem with other people when they don't make that distinction.) As far as I understand - and keep in mind this is my personal opinion - a person's religion is simply how that person understands the world, how that person lives, and how that person explains things that cannot be explained through conventional understanding. I believe that at the core of every religion there are the same basic truths. At the core of every religion there is the guidance one needs in order to be a decent human being, and those guiding factors are generally the same, with some differences depending on what a group of people deam most important (for example, taking care of the environment before oneself; becoming a humble, self-sacrificing person; becoming one that is no longer a "self" but part of everything and everyone; etc).
I don't have a particular religion myself. I was raised Christian, but I feel as though that particular religion no longer applies to me anymore. My friend Rochelle says this and I agree with her standpoint: I am spiritual, not religious. What does that mean? It means that I hold my own personal beliefs about what "God" is, about heaven and hell, about life and living and the right way to live, and although I do try to be a good person, I do not follow any specific set of rules or rituals or customs laid down by a certain religion.
When it comes to the existence of a god or gods, I believe that the existence of god(s) is irrelevant. It would not matter if God existed or not, because either way my life would not change. If God did exist, I think that (s)he would want me to figure life out for myself, and figure my own way out of problems rather than just giving me the answer. If God didn't exist, I'd still have to figure life out for myself. Either way, I have to find my own path in life. Entertaining the idea that there is a god, however, I don't imagine god to be some guy sitting up in the clouds. I don't even image god as some being that exists somewhere else. I think that if god were to exist, god would be every particle that makes up the universe. God would be the force, whatever it is, that binds particles together, that causes gravity, etc. In that light, God IS everything, and everything IS God, and there would be no contradiction because it is entirely possible. All the particles and pieces of the universe are one. Through cause and effect, the particles of the universe a moment before create the universe as it is now, and therefore god would be the constant and eternal creater of the universe.
In regards to the concept of heaven, hell, and afterlife-ness, I think that an afterlife involving either heaven or hell is just a nice motivational tool to get people involved in religion and get people who would otherwise not care about trying to be good people to aspire to get some sort of a reward (i.e. heaven) and avoid some sort of a punishment (i.e. Hell). For me, Heaven and Hell are experienced in everyday living, in there here and now. Our actions have consequences, and those consequences determine how we live our lifes and experience our lives. Some people are happy with their lives. Others feel that they already live in Hell. As far as the afterlife, I think it's pointless to argue over something that no one could possibly have any knowledge about (No one's died and come back to life, and if they were "declared dead" or their heart stopped for a few minutes and they were revived, could you really say that they were ACTUALLY dead? If they were, who's to say they actually went to the afterlife?). If there were such a thing though, I think that when people die, their life essence simply becomes a part of the life essence that exists in everything. Atman becomes Brahman, so to speak.
I do NOT see Jesus Christ as a god. After all, in the Bible, he refers to himself as the Son of MAN, not God, and if he does say that he's the son of god, it is also whie implying that we are all children of god. As far as I'm concerned, IF he did exist, he was probably just some guy with a lot of really good ideas. His existence, however, is not relevant. The stories in the bible are not meant to serve as a literal historical reference. The Bible is NOT a scientific textbook. That doesn't make it any less important (or any other religious texts from other religions, but for now I'll poke at the Bible because it's what I'm most familiar with). The stories involved are meant to illustrate a point. The CONCEPT of a Christ-figure is something that people should aspire to - people should aspire to be kind, forgiving, humble, self-sacrificing...willing to be kind even to the people one dislikes; willing to continue to be a good person towards people that hate that person. The IDEA of Christ a representation of what a good person would be. The fact that people believe he will come back and save us is irrelevant. IF it were to happen, it would happen long in the future; very long after we've already died. We are alive right NOW, and right now is the only thing that matters.
And Creationism over Evolution? Seriously? Is that seriously still an issue? Reason number 1 why I think the concept of creationism is rediculous: Let's say that the person who wrote Genesis actually did receive a vision of what the beginning of the earth was like. If the creation of the universe took billions of years, the guy OBVIOUSLY couldn't have experienced the vision in real-time, so he'd most likely would have gotten the condensed version. As well, even if what he did see was "the big bang itself", and organisms evolving from primordial ooze, given the lack of indepth knowledge of science and biology back then, he wouldn't have been able to intrepret and recall a scientific account of it the way we would understand it. If he saw organisms coming from primordial ooz, he'd probably interpret it as animals coming from the earth itself, and evolution as people being shaped from the earth into what we are today. Second Reason: saying that it all just happened; saying that God created the universe in a magical POOF! seems rather lame, and intensely limiting compared to a complex series of millions of events and chain reactions that led to the universe's beginning. What, you don't think God could have started the reaction of evolution? And why in the world are these ideas not compatible? And, if God created the universe, (s)he probably created the universe's laws too, and therefore, created SCIENCE itself. My question is: why is there still a dispute? Why have free thought if we're not supposed to actually use it for any good?
And just as a side note, you can't kill in the name of a religion that says it's a sin to kill people. There is no such thing as a war in the name of God if your god tells you to love your neighbour and not hurt other people.
I think it's wrong to accept the teachings of any religion without question. A person should always, always, ALWAYS think critically about EVERYTHING a person encounters. Having faith in something doesn't mean that you do whatever people tell you to and believe whatever people tell you to believe.