Thinking about Christianity. I cannot say that I disagree with all the teachings of Jesus, especially as I am not a Jesus scholar. What I can say is that I, on the whole, find the religion/institution of Christianity, historically and presently, to be inherently hypocritical, inconsistent, closed- and narrow-minded, judgmental, contradictory, bigoted, hateful, intolerant, and often just plain absurd. I disagree with the imposition of a belief system or dogma, as well as required doctrinal practices, the rejection of which precludes one from “salvation,” which can only be given by a “higher,” other power, not achieved oneself.
I also disagree with the idea of “revelation,” for that assumes that which will be revealed. Now, the “revelation” of an illusion is just fine. But, when Christians talk about revelation, they are talking about revelation of “God,” no matter how they try to define it. The thing is, there is nothing to be revealed in the absence of illusion other than things as they actually are. The absence of illusion is not “God.” God-people always need to presuppose something. It is that which is presupposed which also needs questioning, for when it is, then the jig is up. The ego-self coming to some “revelation” is no authority for truth, or anything else, for that matter. Any positive revelation is but another illusion anyway.
I advocate questioning authority—historical, ideological, institutional, and cultural (and, yes, that of course includes “tradition”). That which cannot stand up to honest criticism and inquiry is without substance and merit; it is but an illusion, not real….
And thus, as it is commonly accepted that it is counter-productive to treat or mistake illusion as reality, we can propose that the way to enlightenment/”redemption” is to seek truth and reality by trying to see things as they really are. This is a process which, because of the distorting and coloring effects of ego, must begin with the self, and the way the self sees and experiences “other” as well as “self.” It is in this way that the road to redemption, or the path to enlightenment, is to be found within, for only when we understand ourselves as we really are can we hope to see the world as it really is, and vice versa. I cannot agree with a religion or ideology that is inherently contradictory to this idea.
I have realized that one of the themes I seem to revisit often is what is wrong with Christianity, and the ideas and morals of most, if not all, organized religions. I have always enjoyed challenging the morals and ethical systems of organized religions, especially Christianity, perhaps because it is so ubiquitous in Euro-American societies and cultures. In fact, I have always enjoyed challenging, questioning, and exposing hypocrisy, deception, dishonesty, insincerity, duplicity, greed, egotism, and lies. I have found, upon observation, that many of these traits and behaviors are ensconced in the practical realities of organized religions and thus in the societies and peoples they influence and mold.
Why people are the way they are, and do the things they do, has always interested me, and it is impossible to ignore religious influence, not only on individuals, but on the cultures and societies which help influence and affect, both directly and indirectly, all people, lay and religious. I realize that I cannot escape or ignore the fact that religion, in all its forms and functions, has, directly or indirectly, influenced everyone in my realm of perception, both historical and contemporary. This is why I do not dismiss mindful study of religion, for without understanding religion and the ways and whys of how people seek it out and absorb it into their lives and world views, I cannot hope to understand people and the human condition.
To me, religion and philosophy are intimately tied to history, anthropology, sociology, psychology, art, and science—for though all of these disciplines may seem to approach their subjects in different ways, they are all (ostensibly) seeking truth; that is, an understanding of how, and why, things are the way they are. Their boundaries often blur, and I find each necessary to the understanding of the others.
I have no interest in being taught what to think and believe. I am open to (considering) all religious and philosophical ideas, but I am not open to imposed and partisan belief, and the forced acceptance of ideas. That is something I, and all people, must decide for themselves—what they think and believe, not just accept what they are told blindly or with biased-questioning.
People should not believe things just because they are told to—this is one problem I have with Christianity and organized religion. I am not necessarily opposed to the teachings of Jesus, but, rather, to a lot of things that have been done in the name of Jesus and Christianity and by people who use religion and figures like Jesus to control and manipulate others.
I do not believe in blind faith. To me, blind faith is based and dependent upon assuming, something that I also do not believe in. I think that “faith” may be necessary in certain forms and circumstances, but I also believe in looking before you leap. Blind faith is a cop-out for people who cannot understand, nor articulate, why they believe what they believe. I have little respect or tolerance for such people.
