Category: Old age of my youth – 2012

FRIDAY, 6 APRIL 2012

What do I believe in? Let me try to explain:

– I do not believe a photographic representation of an urban landscape can be sketched with a blunt pencil. Similarly, I do not believe people can expect to know the absolute, all-encompassing truth without having access to all relevant information, and without breaking through the limitations of the sounds in which we communicate.

– I believe that many people have a deeply emotional need for a strong cosmic figure with whom a close connection can be maintained, and who can be relied on for help in times of need. This need can be seen in the mythology of primitive communities, and it manifests, amongst many other examples, in the institutionalised religion of the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches.

– I do not believe the historical Jesus ever cherished any ambitions to start a new religion. Most serious research confirms that he regarded himself as a member of the Jewish faith community.

– I believe that what we know today as the Christian religion is to a significant extent the work of a talented, intelligent, and competent first-century community leader and organiser called Saul of Tarsus – better known as Paul the Apostle. To claim that he was inspired by God is, in my opinion, to uncritically accept a traditional version of a story because it legitimises the religious ideology that you accept as an explanation of life on earth, without which you may not be sure your life has any meaning.

– I believe that the Christian religion, as we know it today, has gone through an interesting development – from its roots as a Jewish sect, to comfort-and-hope movement popular among the lower classes of the Roman world, to a more sophisticated religion with the incorporation of more advanced Greek concepts to make it more palatable among the wealthier and better-educated classes of the later Roman world. I find it furthermore interesting that many people who profess to be members of the Christian religious community are not only ignorant of this history, they even proclaim that it does not matter.

– I accept verifiable and credible historical information that points to several groups during the first few centuries after Christ that had different views of the person Jesus of Nazareth, of his nature, and of his relationship with the other figures in the Trinity. I further accept as historically accurate that for the sake of political benefits the emperor of the Roman Empire in the early fourth century invited the leaders of diverse Christian communities to assemble in one place in order to decide what the correct dogma would be about Christ, and what not; also to decide which religious texts should be given official recognition as guidelines of the Christian religion, and which not. To claim that the emperor and bishops present at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 were inspired by God is, as I have already mentioned, to uncritically accept a traditional version of a story because it legitimises the religious ideology which you accept as an explanation of life on earth, without which you may not be convinced your life has any meaning.

– I believe that the Gospel of Love contained in the Christian tradition is a radical and potentially transforming guideline of personal morality. I believe that the world would be a better place if the Gospel of Love were taken seriously by more people – confessing members of the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Churches, or not. I further believe that – with some exceptions – the Gospel of Love was pushed aside at an early stage of the development of the religion and replaced with an institutionalised movement with an accompanying worldview that bears little resemblance to the original teachings of Jesus Christ.

Lastly, I believe I have the right to express my view of Jesus Christ, the “Christian” religion as well as “Christian” dogma, and to spread this opinion as widely as possible. I believe that it is my right as a citizen of this world, as a friend, brother, son and relative of people who regard themselves as Christians, and as someone who grew up with the Christian religion, and up to his early adult years regarded himself as a confessing member of the Christian faith community. I further believe it is my responsibility to point out to people that I am of the opinion that they are being deceived. I do so, not because I believe anyone will go to hell if they do not see the light, but because I see it as a massive waste of human potential. Finally, I see this deception, this false theology, as a daily renunciation of the spirit of Christ.

______________________

FRIDAY, 6 APRIL 2012

Even though many members of the community of believers don’t seem to have the faintest idea about this, the Christian religion is in the grip of heretics. These believers recite word for word everything the heretics teach them Sunday after Sunday, sermon after sermon. More than that, many so-called Christians are doing their utmost to proclaim the heretic deviation of Christian doctrine as widely as their ability enables them. The greatest deviation of the Christian message is, in my opinion, the emphasis on believing correctly at the expense of the Gospel of Love.

Preachers like to focus on love for God in their lectures, but “love for God”, in this disappointing heresy, is understood as correct faith, to “acknowledge” God. Lost in all these lectures on how to believe correctly is the mention of a radical, transformational love for your fellow human being.

In the heresy that is so widespread nowadays, “love” furthermore means believing in a complex mythology of guilt – of “sin” that a mythical couple had committed at the beginning of time, and that had immersed all of their descendants in debt, without them having had any part of it. “Love” also means believing in the rules regarding the management of this debt – which includes the brutal treatment that Jesus had to endure at the hands of the Roman authorities in order to “pay” for this debt.

The path to salvation according to this Christian dogma should confuse even the most seasoned church-goer. According to modern Christian dogma, Jesus died on the cross to free humanity from its sin debt. There is a useful analogy to explain this part of Christian doctrine. Say you have accrued millions of dollars of debt. You’re obviously in quite a predicament. What happens next is truly miraculous. Someone who loves you sells his house, his car, his possessions, all his shares, to accumulate enough cash to cover your debt. Because he loves you. Then he physically goes into some office to hand over the money. You are notified by post that your debt has been paid. Great! You swear from now on you’re going to live a better life. No more debt! You’re free! But wait a second … someone didn’t read the fine print. For your debt to be paid, you must internalise and sincerely accept a complex set of beliefs. Question one thing, and the debt will be reset – you will still have to endure the punishment. Wonder about another thing, and the same thing happens: The debt payment is cancelled – except of course that the person who loved you so much that he sold everything to settle your debt, who practically gave up his own life, won’t get anything back. That part of his personal history is over. The pain has been suffered; the torture already endured.

Let’s return to mainstream Christian theology. Because all humans are born in sin, our souls belong to Satan, which means regardless of the good choices we make or the good lives we try to lead, we must by right all end up in a pool of everlasting fire. Fortunately for us humans, there is a technical loophole: If God sacrifices his son in the place of sinful humanity, the price is paid, the debt settled, and humanity is freed from the chains to which we were bound from before we were born. God then sends his son to Earth, where he is tortured and executed by the political authorities of the day. On another level of existence, though, this death means that human sin debt has been paid. It’s over. The job is done. But then, brothers and sisters, members of the congregation and the broader community, comes the farce, the terrible blood-curdling heresy: It is not enough! The debt has been paid, but only in theory! You, sinful person, must first internalise and confess to believing a panoply of dogma and doctrine; otherwise, Jesus’ torture would have been in vain! Otherwise he would have died for nothing!

What is it that you have to believe – and seeing that the eternal comfort of your soul depends on it, preferably also fully understand, according to this heretic takeover of the Christian message?

– You have to believe that God has a son, but that God is also the son.

– You have to believe that God is one, and has always been one, but is also the father of a son.

– You have to believe that God is spirit, but that he was also 100% flesh during his time on earth.

– You have to believe that God is a man – he is after all not called “Mother”.

– You have to believe that God had to obey the rules to which he and Satan had agreed, instead of just vanquishing Satan.

– You have to believe that although Jesus proclaimed on the cross that the salvation plan had been fulfilled (“It is finished!” he cried out according to scripture), the plan is, in fact, not fulfilled. Humanity will continue for thousands of years with their sinful lives, and then there will be a final battle. Then all who did not believe correctly will go to hell.

Bad news if you thought these things were all you had to believe in to escape the torture of everlasting hellfire. After all the “big” items on the list, we get to all the other things that are thrown in, in which you also have to believe 100%, or else.

– You have to believe that the scientific explanation of the natural development of life forms, known as evolution, is a collection of blatant lies.

– You have to believe that the cosmos with all the stars and planets and other heavenly bodies were “created”, with the understanding that this means there was nothing, and within a few days the entire universe, as we know it today, had come into existence.

– You have to believe that the collection of literary material known as the Bible was divinely dictated to about forty people (different versions of the same events were apparently also dictated as such to the “writers”).

– You have to believe that people have absolute free will, which means everyone can be judged by the same standards for their actions. Genetic composition, socio-economic background, personal trauma and mental illness are not relevant, and should not make a difference in the final judgement.

More directives:

– You may not question how Jesus can be born of a virgin and yet also appear in the blood line of his mother’s spouse (a descendant of King David).

– You may not question the claim that Jesus went up on a cloud toward what is supposed to be the locality of the dimension to which people go after physical death.

– According to the Apostolic Creed, people must confess that Jesus is sitting at the right hand of God the Father. (Literally? Should people believe it literally? And if this does not have to be literally believed, what other items of faith do not have to be taken literally?)

– You have to believe that human beings have a separate non-physical quality called a “soul” that goes to another dimension after death to either receive reward for believing correctly during the physical period of your existence, or to endure punishment for you not believing correctly. (Odd as it may sound, there is disagreement on this matter, seeing that there are people who believe the physical body also appears after physical death.)

* * *

Christian theology teaches us that God loved humanity so much that he had his own son tortured and executed to save humanity. A few things could be said about this, but it does serve as testimony to the importance of love in the foundation of the Christian religion. No surprise here: People are expressly ordered to love one another. “What is the greatest commandment?” an expert in religious law asked Jesus. Jesus answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” And in case people failed to completely comprehend the meaning, Jesus gave a few handy examples: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me. […] Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

Unfortunately, even if you did these things, even if you gave the hungry person something to eat and to the one who was thirsty something to drink, even if you housed a stranger, gave clothes to a man in rags, nursed the sick, visited someone in prison, but you believe none of the above doctrines, you would still burn in the hell of your master, Satan.

Love is the greatest commandment? Apparently only in theory. According to thousands of heretical leaders in charge of institutions of the Christian religion, the greatest commandment is something else: Believe correctly, or go to hell.

* * *

Like many other people, I believe the world is in a worse condition than it should be. People ought to treat one another better. We should all take better care of the environment. I do not believe we need religion to be better people. I believe an atheist can be as good a neighbour as a church-goer any day, and in many cases a better neighbour. But I also believe the Gospel of Love as proclaimed by Jesus is a radical approach to life. This approach has the potential to transform individuals, transform communities, and at the end of the day enable people to not be such disappointments as we sometimes are.

To love God by loving your neighbour. To love your neighbour by giving him something to eat when he is hungry, to give her something to drink when she is thirsty, to house him if he needs housing, give her something to wear when her clothes are falling apart, care for her when she is ill, and to visit him in prison if it comes to that.

Is this not what it’s all about? Am I missing the point? Or is the world dragged closer and closer to hell by church leaders who insist that everything is really about believing in the right way?

Many church-goers and other members of the religious community may question the validity of my criticism of what they are supposed to believe. “Were you there?” they might ask. “Do you know Jesus was not born of a virgin? Are you sure he did not come back to life three days after he had died on the cross? Are you sure he did not walk around, appearing to people for weeks after his death and resurrection? Are you sure he didn’t go up to heaven on a cloud?”

My answer to this is simple: I was not there, so for all I know, everything did happen exactly like the Biblical texts indicate, regardless of my confidence in what science says about these matters. The insistence on believing in each and every one of these doctrines, and all the related doctrines that make up Christian dogma (such as the six-day creation myth), show the unmistakable fingerprints of human beings, though – a characteristic tendency to produce fantastically complex ideologies, and then to require that everyone who wants to participate in their group first believe in their ideology. The image that comes to mind is that of a kitchen where the rubbish bag has been torn apart and the rubbish scattered all over the kitchen floor. You have a strong suspicion whose work it is. The dog is lying in the corner, trying its best to look innocent. If it could talk, it would try to convince you that the kitchen has always looked like this; that he had absolutely nothing to do with it. “Of course,” you would mumble, and start cleaning up the mess.

My own beliefs may be an unusual blend of Christian theology and humanism and common sense, but I am not blind. I see a massive waste of human potential. I see a flagrant denial of a radical message which, I agree, may be asking too much of most people.

Eventually these three remain: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is most certainly not correct faith.

______________________

MONDAY, 12 MARCH 2012

I’ve been thinking for quite some time that I have to draw everything I’ve written to a conclusion, to provide an answer to the question: Now what?

One idea that might be worked in: I believe there are three broad possibilities for how you can live your life.

Option one: You live for yourself, for your own benefit and happiness, and for your own well-being.

Option two: You withdraw. You spend as much time as possible on your own. Perhaps you do so because you prefer your own company, or just to keep your life simple. Perhaps you do it as part of a spiritual experiment, what some people call “searching for God” or “being close to God”. And perhaps you opt for this lifestyle for a few months or even a few years to sort things out for yourself.

Option three: You live for someone else, or for something you believe in. You choose to temporarily suspend your own happiness and well-being and the fulfilment of your own dreams and ambitions, or you choose to permanently sacrifice these things in order to assist another person or other people in their struggle, or to labour for the growth of an institution, or to promote a cause you believe in.

Sometimes one of these lifestyles dominates a person’s life to such a degree that it’s not difficult to see under what “option” the person sorts. There are also people who combine aspects of all three manners of living. Some people believe it is wrong to live only for themselves, so they give Number Three strong consideration. Even though most people like to be part of something bigger than themselves and truly enjoy other people’s company, they sometimes yearn for Number Two – especially when “everything” becomes “too much”. And even when someone sacrifices the best part of every day for their children or for friends and family, they will sometimes do something just for themselves – even if someone else may have to carry a heavier load for a short time as a result.

______________________

TUESDAY, 6 MARCH 2012

Reading through my July 2004 notes about the SELF reminds me that the concept of the “person” is difficult to capture.

Physically, a person is a collection of cells (more than ten trillion of them), which in turn consists of protein and nucleic acids and other biomolecules, which in turn consist of smaller parts called atoms, which consist of subatomic particles. Most of the cells that make up a human being, which form hair and skin, and nails and blood and a skeleton, are replaced at varying speeds – from every few days to every few years. Physically, a meaningful percentage of you is not really older than a few years. You are to a large extent not the same collection of cells you were ten years ago!

If you think the physical nature of humans is hard to capture, the psychic nature of humans will make you want to hold onto something even more. How exactly does memory work? How do you know who you are? How does personality take shape, and how does it change? How do you make choices? How do you decide on your preferences and your dislikes? Why do you like certain things or certain people or places, and hate other things or places, and avoid certain people like the plague? How much do you actually decide, and how much do you discover? To what extent is so-called free will an illusion?

WEDNESDAY, 7 MARCH 2012

Possibilities for the source of the SELF:

Possibility one: Within a few moments after the child is born a “wind” blows through the room. The new-born’s consciousness of self is, as it were, activated shortly after that. In this case, it would make sense to ask, “Who or what caused it?” It would also make sense that one would want to seek answers, or at least clues, about the purpose and meaning of your existence from this consciousness activator (or Consciousness Activator).

Possibility two: It is a slow process that occurs in small increments: initially nothing, or almost nothing; later one could say “somewhere between March and June” the child developed an awareness of himself. It might explain why new-born babies cause such a ruckus. If they knew the words, they would probably scream: “What the hell?! … was part of something one moment … and the next moment … What is going on here? What am I?!” In this case, there is no dramatic moment in which consciousness is activated, so there is nobody or nothing to try to contact for answers.

______________________

SATURDAY, 25 FEBRUARY 2012

It’s late afternoon, and I am heading home on the subway. In the window opposite me, I see the reflection of a young woman, two seats away from me. I notice that she has a giant pink roller stuck to her forehead, held in place by a lock of hair curled around it.

One possibility, it shoots through my mind, is that she’s a fashion slave. A year ago, walking around with a gigantic pink roller stuck to your forehead was considered ridiculous by most of society, including fashion junkies. Then, out of the blue, an authority figure in the fashion world pitched up at a fashion show with one stuck to her forehead, and since then every disciple of the authority figure worth his or her salt has been slavishly following the trend.

If that is the case, if the young woman is indeed a slave to everything that is fashionable, my opinion of her cannot rise above zero because she is clearly not someone who thinks for herself.

(I also wonder who determines what is ridiculous and what is not. I squeeze a piece of cloth over my bare scalp every day and call it a cap. Is that not ridiculous?)

The second possibility, I imagine, is that she is the one who has started the fashion trend – or is in the process of doing so. This means she does not look at the arbitrary, ridiculous things other people do and then follow them to a tee because the person is seen as a figure of authority.

If so, my view of her would rise significantly. She would then clearly be manifesting that she is someone who thinks for herself and who makes her own decisions, and then appears in public in a way she believes in and that she finds good – even if others see it as ridiculous, for now.

As we are nearing Formosa station, I take one last look in the direction of my potentially interesting fellow passenger. I see the hair roller is gone. Apparently, it merely served a practical purpose.

Half a minute later, she moves closer to the door, and I get my first decent look at her – just for a moment, because when the doors open, she pushes slightly past another passenger. Within seconds, she has disappeared into the stream of people, with her fringe now cheekily arching away from her forehead.

Note to myself: Making assumptions about people before you know the whole story may not be terribly smart, but at least it’s better than staring at your own reflection in the subway train’s window.

______________________