The journey from there to here
A Rant
Published on January 28, 2005 By Gideon MacLeish In Religion

(Note: Before you get TOO upset, read the subtitle).

This is not addressed to anyone in particular. This is addressed to a trend that I find very disturbing.

The trend is to "custom fit" one's religion into a box of one's choosing. The theory seems to revolve around the idea that, by cutting and pasting ideas one likes and removing ideas one dislikes, one can come up with a religion that's a custom "fit"...without having to worry about concrete beliefs or anything stupid like that.

Not surprisingly, though, there is "nothing new under the sun", and this trend seems suspiciously like the trend in ancient Greek of making statues to EVERY God, to ensure noone gets left out.

The flaw in this is, either God is or He isn't. If He isn't, there's no problem with custom making a religion, but there's also no point in it. If He is, however, there are GRAVE implications (pun kinda intended) in this philosophy. If there are moral absolutes, and if there is truth, it stands to reason we should be in quest of that truth, not justifying our abandonment of it through a variety of "loopholes" we have built ourselves. God isn't likely to appreciate our feeble attempts to bargain our way into heaven through weak rationalizations and human thinking.

I KNOW that God is who He is. I will not debate that point, I will not even consider an alternative. I know because He has proven Himself over the years. I invite other readers to explore, to ask, and to consider, but to be very wary of the "fence sitting" of the cut and paste theologian and assure themselves of their standing before God.

There's a lot riding on it.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 28, 2005
At the same time, religion is going to evolve either A) Because experiences of God will allow a deeper understanding of Him or there isn't a God at all and religion molds itself to the time/place in which it exists.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a student the other day. Said student had been in trouble with me several times for making off-color jokes and being a disruption -- later, the student bemoaned the fact that he had to give a devotional that night at his chuch and was unprepared. He proceeded to pull out a Bible (all of this was in some free time) and start looking through it (which is fine, there's no law against Bibles in school) -- but what was interesting is that when several of his classmates said that they didn't believe in it, he started in proselytizing (which is a no-no in my room).

I asked the kid how he managed to reconcile his rather sanctimonius witnessing with the fact that I had called him down earlier for making highly disgusting sexual comments. He said he didn't see the problem. I said, "Well, the problem is, you profess a faith in this moral and value system and yet you ignore it or pervert it to suit your whims." It led to a rather interesting conversation about if the laws of the Bible and other moral/value systems were negotiable or not.

And for those of you who might come down on me for saying it, understand that I wasn't disparaging his faith or his religion, despite not being a Christian myself. That sort of thing is not something I would do to a student.

Good post.
on Jan 28, 2005


Good post, Gideon. I don't have much to add, but I agree.

~Sarah
on Jan 29, 2005
Gideon, good post and good points. I think it’s important to recognise that at least part of our interpretation of religion and God is necessarily subjective. We are all at different stages of growth and exploration in life, which means there will always be differences in opinion and different interpretations of religion. Our attempts to make this not so would be futile, and could cause much friction, (and, on a larger scale for humanity, could cause wars, as history has already demonstrated). I think the key lies in being at peace with our own particular interpretation and point of view, to respect others', and to keep an open mind.

If we can acknowledge the common ground that exists within religion, then this would be a good starting point. "God is love", for example. Assuming that God “is”, and that this is a Universal Truth, then as God endows the beloved with freedom of choice, and with opportunities for growth and exploration, (which is what love usually does), then we should expect there to be different views and interpretations, because at any one time there will be immature people with misguided points of view, along with enlightened people with 'correctly aligned’ points of view.

I believe that as Christians, it's our task to be as compassionate, understanding and forgiving as possible. After all, from an individual's point of view, their model of the world will indeed be "concrete", regardless. (This applies to you, to me, and to everyone.)

If God "is", then everything is ultimately okay anyway. “There is a season and a time for every purpose under Heaven", writes the philosopher in Ecclesiastes.
on Jan 29, 2005

Myrrander,

Actually, I find your response to be rather appropriate, as long as it is addressed properly (it sounds like it was). The fact that this student has "flagged" himself as a Christian may be your best weapon against future misdeeds.

As for proselytizing in the class, it SHOULD be a no-no, unless the class discussion for the day happens to be a topic that is somehow relevant; even then, their comments should be limited to the discussion at hand, and not range far off topic.

on Jan 29, 2005
The goal is, when those sorts of things happen, to integrate it into a class discussion -- I'm pretty loathe to tell a student to "shut up" when they are talking about something they feel is very serious (obviously, you have to go case-by-case with this).

It is my hope that my students KNOW what they believe and WHY -- my job isn't so much telling them WHAT to believe, but how to think about the things they're told to believe. Granted, when it comes to things like subject-verb agreement, that breaks down ( ) -- but every once in awhile, letting a tangent-type discussion like this flow can be good.

I guess the thing is, I didn't call the kid a "bad Christian," I just asked him to think about something that was dear to him (his faith) and how his general actions were either with that or against it. No real judgement, just a lot of questions. I guess they made Socrates drink hemlock for the same type of thing, but I'm certainly no Socrates!

Cheers.
on Jan 29, 2005
p.s. As far as proselytizing, if a student wishes to put forward an opinion in a discussion based on his/her religion, backing it up with religious thought, this is totally acceptable. Book facts are important for discussions, but so are experiences and faith. I draw the line at outright "witnessing," because I feel like a student can do that outside of class, but ideas based on religious teaching and thought are always welcome.
on Jan 29, 2005
First of all, what's the subtitle?

Second, I respectfully disagree with your premise; I think my worldview is different from yours.

Basically I believe that God manifests himself in different forms to different groups of people. Therefore, I believe God, Allah, Yaweh, Buddha, probably Jesus, and other gods are all the same entity. Throughout history, every civilization has had some kind of god or pantheon, and I don't think that's either evolution or an accident. I think it's God (and I use that word somewhat generically in that I don't specifically mean the Christian God) meeting people where they're at. I think he's more flexible than some of us, and that there are many paths that lead in the same direction.

And it would see that what you say is suggesting that there is only one right perception of God and one way to get there. My basis is the Bible, and you can tell from the many ways God dealt with people that there isn't just one way that is right. I could be misinterpreting your writing, but that's what it seemed that you were suggesting.

As for moral absolutes, I think there are few. Every culture defines its own morals. As long as people are doing things that don't harm their society, then I say let 'em. It's when individualism trumps society that I get concerned.

-A.
on Jan 30, 2005
Angloesque, I couldn't agree more. But the truth is, people need security, and they need something concrete to believe in. If God is the Ultimate Foundation of all, then we will naturally seek security and concreteness in God.

Religious fundamentalism, however, which is rooted in a "one perspective only is true" philosophy, can never truly find security. This is because there will always be different points of view that will disagree with it, and that will contradict it. Fundamentalism is therefore rooted in fear, because in theory, one of these other points of view might one day be proved "right". As fundies believe there is only one "true" point of view, this would render their perspective "false".

God is the Ultimate Foundation of all, and we are all infinitely secure. If we believe otherwise, then what kind of God do we believe in? Surely not an all-loving God. All religions embrace the same God, only from a different point of view and cultural context. The Holy Book which one adheres to depends on where we are born. That's my point of view, anyway

The Heavens will rejoice on the day humanity learns that all religions are right, and that it's all a question of interpretation. .
on Jan 31, 2005
(sorry to get dogmatic there. I think I'm a fundie myself, to be honest)
on Feb 01, 2005
The flaw in this is, either God is or He isn't.


Or he's a duality
on Feb 01, 2005
Andy? I KNOW you're a fundie.
on Feb 02, 2005
Andy? I KNOW you're a fundie.


Myrrander, yes I am. I feel more comfortable being a fundie.

Basically I believe that God manifests himself in different forms to different groups of people. Therefore, I believe God, Allah, Yaweh, Buddha, probably Jesus . . .


Especially Jesus.

Jesus showed that God suffers along with us, and that God intimately participates in the long and often tormented journey of life. “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” How many people can relate to that - whether it be when going through a divorce, or experiencing the death of a loved one, or when caught up in earthquakes, tornadoes, or tsunamis? God's reply is timeless: "Fear not, for I am with you."

Jesus demonstrated that we are redeemed by grace after Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit in Paradise. We are no longer separated from God. The resurrection proved this, even by a physical sense. In the meantime, in the words of Jesus, "The Kingdom of God does not come visibly. No one will say 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!'; because the Kingdom of God is within you.”

Praise the Lord!
on Feb 02, 2005
(The Qu'ran actually states that the Garden of Eden is Paradise-Heaven, and that Adam and Eve were created at the outset there (Surah 2.35-38). When Adam and Eve chose to eat the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were driven out of Padaise to do exactly that. If we can harmonise our religious revelations, and bring them together in union, we may finally glimpse the meaning of the full picture.) omg, please excuse me for this preaching stuff. It makes me look insecure.
on Feb 02, 2005
The Qu'ran actually states that the Garden of Eden is Paradise-Heaven


Thanks for differentiating. Muslims also believe man formed from a divine blood clot and not dust as the Christian Bible says. Which is closer to biology than the dirt-man idea. But both religions are poppycock, so no worries about the preaching, it just kina rolls off like water on a duck's back.
on Feb 02, 2005
Sorry Myrrander, I thought you were a religionist too, otherwise I wouldn't have gone off on one. (I'm new to this chat-room lark)

it just kina rolls off like water on a duck's back.


You're right, it's like milk and honey. You know what it's about babe.
2 Pages1 2