It Isn’t Me, It’s God…
Thou Shalt Have No Other Beliefs before Mine
Something noteworthy about religious tradition as it’s generally been passed on from generation to generation is the idea that one’s own is best. The right one. The true one. Even traditions that are similar and related to our own just don’t quite get it.
To those convinced in (humble) righteousness that the tradition to which they belong reigns supreme in God’s eyes, people who view multiple spiritual paths as authentic are terribly misguided. They are victims of today’s “secular humanism” and “relativism” and “post-modernism.” They are, in a syllable, beset by isms. Veritably lisping isms, these are namby-pambies who lack core beliefs, moral fiber, and the courage of their convictions.
Whatever blessings finally come to us, or some of us, thanks to those among us who really do have the right righteous outlook, in the long meantime it paradoxically produces a certain curse, so to speak, that it looks like all of us here on planet earth may have to put up with between now and judgment day: a whole lot of words and sometimes actions coming from all sides that are condescending, antagonistic, and otherwise mutually disrespectful. At worst, we find oppression or violence directed against those who are viewed as being of relatively little consequence to God.
People Don’t Pass Judgment; God Does
This outlook may be more common than we might expect among people who view themselves as religious. Although its extreme manifestations are exhibited by only a minority of believers, I wonder if “my religion is best” isn’t perhaps implicit to the outlook of many believers. I’m thinking in particular of believers whose beliefs include the belief that God passes ultimate judgment in favor of those who share their beliefs.
If one believes that one’s own beliefs are the truest, and that the ultimate in human worthiness consists in recognizing their veracity, then isn’t a professed tolerance of other perspectives only a matter of superficial politeness? I would think that even the most considerate and well meaning believer of the belief that his or her own beliefs are the best and holiest, and will prove true at the end of time, and may even spell the difference between eternal bliss and eternal damnation, would want very much to see other people come to see things their way – that is, God’s…
Something noteworthy about religious tradition as it’s generally been passed on from generation to generation is the idea that one’s own is best. The right one. The true one. Even traditions that are similar and related to our own just don’t quite get it.
To those convinced in (humble) righteousness that the tradition to which they belong reigns supreme in God’s eyes, people who view multiple spiritual paths as authentic are terribly misguided. They are victims of today’s “secular humanism” and “relativism” and “post-modernism.” They are, in a syllable, beset by isms. Veritably lisping isms, these are namby-pambies who lack core beliefs, moral fiber, and the courage of their convictions.
Whatever blessings finally come to us, or some of us, thanks to those among us who really do have the right righteous outlook, in the long meantime it paradoxically produces a certain curse, so to speak, that it looks like all of us here on planet earth may have to put up with between now and judgment day: a whole lot of words and sometimes actions coming from all sides that are condescending, antagonistic, and otherwise mutually disrespectful. At worst, we find oppression or violence directed against those who are viewed as being of relatively little consequence to God.
People Don’t Pass Judgment; God Does
This outlook may be more common than we might expect among people who view themselves as religious. Although its extreme manifestations are exhibited by only a minority of believers, I wonder if “my religion is best” isn’t perhaps implicit to the outlook of many believers. I’m thinking in particular of believers whose beliefs include the belief that God passes ultimate judgment in favor of those who share their beliefs.
If one believes that one’s own beliefs are the truest, and that the ultimate in human worthiness consists in recognizing their veracity, then isn’t a professed tolerance of other perspectives only a matter of superficial politeness? I would think that even the most considerate and well meaning believer of the belief that his or her own beliefs are the best and holiest, and will prove true at the end of time, and may even spell the difference between eternal bliss and eternal damnation, would want very much to see other people come to see things their way – that is, God’s…
Posted by Paul at 11:50 AM Permalink
27 Comments:
I was taught that although we (as a church) had certain beliefs (not really mainstream, some of them), that did not mean that our set of beliefs invalidated others. We were taught that every religion was there for a reason, and that belief in God was belief in God no matter how it panned out. It's ironic that this religion I was raised in is one of the least tolerated of all religions, and yet one of the least intolerant.
I've been away from the Church for years and have a permanent loss of faith, but as long as religions don't try to put anything on me, I try to respect those who believe in them.
Of course, that means I've got a serious chip on my shoulder about the Christianists in the US who attempt by the day to take away my personal freedoms and rights as a woman. If they just left me the heck alone I would be the nicest atheist you ever met! ;)
And, I think it's because as a younger person I was taught to be understanding of other people's beliefs, even if they hated mine and said I was in a cult.
I think about this a lot since I work for a religious denomination, a very conservative one that takes the Great Commission very seriously. On the one hand, it has this judgemental side (bewailing the liberal influence blah blah) and on the other hand there is this genuine belief that if you want to act like Christ you don't just shove pamphlets at people but you actually go out and help them rebuild their homes, help them get a meal, be the hands and feet of Christ, as they put it. In-your-face evangelism has been replaced with something a bit more insidious (although that carries a more sinister note than I intend) called relationship evangelism, in which your lived faith is supposed to exert a certain amount of interest and questions among those you befriend, offering the opportunity for you to share the Gospel, if that is desired.
In any case, as Donald Miller puts it, we each tend to think there's a movie and we're the star. That's where he starts, with this truth: "Other people exist."
BAD ALICE: Yes, there is that line in the New Testament about converting others. One thing that often strikes me about church positions that are based on scripture is that they take up particular verses to make central to their teachings and rituals.
For one thing, I suppose you have to do that just as a practical matter. If a church tried to give every verse equal weight - well, that's a lot of verses!
So I think it may end up that what verses we decide to emphasize says at least as much about ourselves as it does scripture. Examples: there are many verses and not just one or two against the accumulation of wealth. There are many verses against hypocricy. Many against public displays of piety, like the one about "when you pray go to your room and close the door..." Yet so many churches and church leaders today blithely skip over all that!
Do you think an implication of relationship proselytizing is that to be a better person it's necessary or important to be a Christian? It seems to me that people who have been most Christ-like are sometimes Christian, but sometimes not - for example, Gandhi or the Dali Lama. Or Buddha, who lived 500 years BC.
what makes us think god is someone sitting up there? all of us are the gods...first we all are the creators then it is left to us to turn god:)
i know i have put it in a pathetic way....but what i mean to say is with self realisation we can reach the supreme state,as for god being a living thing(in modern terms) i dont think so.....but the thing is that in some messiah the power manifests....it is like this there is a huge flame..... and there are a few more twigs near by a small spark from the flame touches the twigs and they start burning....the flame will be larger than other things...but it is a part of the huge flame...and it will perish or rather join with the big flame ...
I'll just add to the other comments -- and in some respect respond to them -- that I think that the Bible is given much too much importance when Americans talk about religion. Even those who don't include Christianity or the Bible in their beliefs often seem compelled to refer to the Bible, to quote from it and discuss it, to try to show that it agrees with them, and to present their own beliefs in a way which will appeal to Bible-believers. I thought that at a Spiritualst service I would escape hymns, but there they were, with altered words -- the same ones I'd mouthed at 15 when I was an involuntary member of a Baptist Church.
What makes this obeisance to the Bible snd Christianity particularly inappropriate is the fact that the Bible is so derivative, based so much on often distorted versions of previous religions and mythologies. To me a frequent reference to the Upanishads would be much more appropriate.
I suppose in the west a big part of why so many come to this belief is a long inherited tradition of monotheism. The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all narratives that presume the same one God.
Am I following correctly that you believe in a messiah that hasn't yet arrived who will ignite a process of universal enlightenment? If so, I'm wondering what this belief is based on. Also, I think this is basically how Buddhists understand the Buddha - although they don't use messiah language, speaking of him as a great teacher.
FLEMING, thanks for coming by.
I suppose the short answer for why Christians don't include the Upanishads or the sacred texts of other traditions in church services is they don't view them as the revealed word of God.
I hadn't thought of this until you mentioned it, but I can see this as speaking directly to the topic of this post. The fact that the world's major religious traditions don't give consideration to the central sacred texts of other traditions
could be read as an implicit assertion of "ours is the best - by far!"
I once read somewhere that the most difficult thing for a religious person to do is to experience the moving, beyond words, flood-the-senses, power of God speak to her and then accept that this amazing message may be ONLY for her. There is something so potent in the experience that it is human nature to want others to experience it as well. We expect others to have the same exact experience.
The Quakers generally teach that there are two steps in receiving a "personal revalation from God." (1) Determining if it is truly a message from God and (2) Discerning if the message is meant to share or if it is only for you.
Dang! Lost the flow, wait.
The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that men created god.
Now, lest you think me some form of ultra pagan, let me explain.
We make the CREATOR fit into what we want, what we expect, what we believe in.
Some have stood and said (or written) THIS is how it is, or THAT is how it is or whatever.
But, when doing so, they have collected their god into a neat lil bag that can be taken out and shaken at whomever they please, and with all the gusto of a "believer" state emphatically that their's is the one and true way.
That makes fer one small god, y'know?
Hopefully you see the distinction that I use in calling the name CREATOR instead of god, which has always been a stick in the eye to me.
Even the scriptures, which had been changed so many times before Jesus was even born a man, say that when asked, Mosesa was told, "I AM THAT I AM"
Ain't no name there. Despite what jehovah's witnesses say (and again, if using scripture, only a couple of being have been witnesses to the CREATOR; Jesus and the satan) the answer seems to be tha the GREAT I AM doesn't want us to devlope a religion to worship the CREATOR, but rather, wants us to help each other as best we can.
Yeah, sure enough, that's my line. And, in my defense I claim ignorance of the truth. If I stand tall with my lil view, then I also have become one of those who claim their's is the one and only.
Me? Heck, I'm just gonna keep plodding along, loving the creation (and the CREATOR) and helping folks as best I can.
Your reference to the "beyond words" or "ineffable" quality that religious experience can have raises the question of whether verbal professions of belief are necessarily the strongest, best, or most definitive indicator of whether a person is "religious" or "spiritual."
BONEMAN: Conveniently enough, your comment sort of flows from Soulpeace's comment and my response to her. You're also pointing to the beyond words/beyond our understanding aspect of religious experience.
I very much share your reaction to the way people sometimes talk about (or for) God - kind of like a puppet where they pull the string in the back, air their own views, and then go: "Hey now, that's not just my idea, opinion, or interpretation - that's God himself talking! And I have him sitting right here on my knee to prove it; sometimes I call him Danny O'Day..."
OK, well they don't actually say all of that... But am I on your general wavelength? I guess I shouldn't go political here, but my sense of George W. Bush's God, for example, is that he fits pretty nicely into the Decider's pocket.
I don't want to go into much detail and ruin this nice thread of thoughts, but read my last post if you would like to hear about my life falling apart....
Anyway, Paul, thanks so much for your blog and comments on mine
As a catholic convert, I am torn between thinking catholicism is wonderful and that I chose it because I thought it was the over-all "best" religion ... and thinking that it doesn't really matter what religion or lack thereof people have. My sister isn't a christian but she's my best friend and I respect her other beliefs.
i rather define a messiah as a human with wisdom,who thinks above others and sheds light..
SOULPEACE: Just left a comment to your post...
CRYSTAL: I heard that one too - kind of makes your stomache ache, doesn't it!?
But to me the attitude you describe is one where, if all believers had it, there wouldn't be all the "religious" antagonism, hostility, and confict in the world. It sounds like you're saying you see Catholicim as the best route for you personally while having no problem with the idea that other paths often work better for other persons.
VISHESH: This sounds like how Buddhists conceive of the Buddha's role... But it could certainly be argued that his teaching didn't manage to set the world on fire - although I'm guessing Buddhists would say "Give it more time..."
What I was saying earlier about relationship evangelism--it seems so underhanded. We offer ESL classes in churches because it's an opportunity to share the Gospel. There are groups that target Jews and "repackage" Christianity into a more palatable format: use only Hebrew names for the apostles, don't show crosses (Jeshua died on a tree, not a cross), keep the traditional Jewish prayers, holidays and music. Don't use the word "converted" but "completed". I'm not sure where I was going with that, except that it's weird.
To me, Christianity at its best focuses on what's front and center rather than picking apart scripture to find evidence to support personal opinion.
BAD ALICE: So they understand that others may find proselytizing objectionable but it doesn't go further than that and they concentrate on developing specialized - well, marketing strategies. I don't know what else to call that. Thanks for the inside look and concrete examples.
who told it hasn't set the world on fire?
see india and the asian countries..it is catching up..
and if you are wondering isn't india a hindu country...the truth is that buddhism and hinduism are one...it is considered that buddha was the avatara of lord vishnu......so there you have it...
However, do we all not see that faith is beyond your God or mine. Faith is the basic gift we give God and ourselves. What I mean to say is, everyday we all go through something, whatever level of discomfort, somewhere inside us we have faith that we will make it through. Call it what you will, but when something comes along we call on that higher power whether it be in us or above us.
I say pray as you will, love as much as you can, and understand without hesitation. Perhaps then God will not only be a figure we look to the heavens for, but also something we look to each other to find. Faith in humanity and faith in love... at least it is a beginning.
People have beliefs about both religion and politics. Some people have very strong beliefs and are certain these beliefs (political or religious in nature) are the correct ones to have.
I think it is better that a person be grounded in something, have some belief, some opinions even strong ones rather than be empty upstairs with nothing worth thinking about, nothing worth standing up for, nothing worth living for.
As long as we keep the marketplace of ideas free so that good discussions can occur and ideas can flow freely back and forth, I am not too concerned. But maybe I am missing your point here.
About marketing religion and the strategies that some people employ, I know of a church that used to hide twenty dollar bills in the hymnals in order to get newcomers to return. Now that is sneaky. But you know what, we use education marketing strategies with children to get them interested or get them to stay interested in learning.
Unfortunately the divinity school I attended, which was otherwise excellent, focused almost exclusively on western religions. What I know about eastern religions I've picked up on my own.
But unless I'm very badly mistaken on this, Buddhism and Hinduism are distinct religions. My impression is that Hinduism is much older and that Buddhism had a precise historical beginning in the life of the Buddha.
As far as the world being in a state of growing spiritual incandescence goes, to me it isn't at all clear that this is happening. While humanity has definitely shown technological process, it seems to me the picture is ambiguous regarding spiritual and moral progress.
On a species time-scale, we're brand new. Personally, I don't feel in a position to be able to say whether or not we're spiritually maturing. I sure hope so though, and I'm all for doing everything we can to help things along in that direction to the best of our ability.
INSIDE: You write "What I mean to say is, everyday we all go through something, whatever level of discomfort, somewhere inside us we have faith that we will make it through" and I think this is true.
SUSIEQ: It seems to me that whether a strong belief is a good thing depends on the truthfulness of the belief and the sort of strength by which it’s held. And you’re right, there are political parallels. Abraham Lincoln had strong convictions – and so did Adolf Hitler. A bad thing about Hitler’s strong convictions is how wrong they were. A good thing for the rest of the world is that he held them with the kind of strength that’s inflexible, non adaptive, and non resilient – an unwillingness, for example, to listen to his generals so that he micromanaged his military, contributing greatly to his downfall. If you’re unwilling to modify your beliefs in the face of reality, reality wins, sooner or later.
So I don’t see strong belief per se as a virtue. Now, on the other hand, say that someone is right about something and unwilling to change their mind even though they’re under a lot of pressure to do so – for example, civil rights advocates in the south say in the 1940s, and, was it Galileo who stood up against the church and insisted that the earth goes around the sun and not vice versa? Those to me would be admirable examples of strength of conviction.
As far as a free marketplace of ideas goes, I like it too – but it’s been seriously eroded in recent years. Something like 85% of books are published by five multimedia conglomerates. There are fewer and fewer newspapers with smaller and smaller staffs devoted to independent investigative reporting.
Books are picked up by trade publishers based on the preexisting prestige or “marketing platform” of authors. Sometimes that’s a good thing – professors and journalists, for example, tend to be good writers with something to say. But often it isn’t – and so you see, on the bookshelves, the glut of material written by or in the names of celebrities major and minor, from Madonna to former Miss Americas. The people now excluded from the marketplace of ideas are folks who simply write well, are knowledgeable in their fields, but have no marketing platform. Publishers once willing to occasionally take a chance on a book based simply on its quality are no longer willing to look at submissions from unknown authors. As Literary Market Place states: “If you are submitting a nonfiction book proposal without a marketing platform, you are wasting your time.”
Whether marketing is a good thing or a bad thing seems to me, like strong beliefs, to be something that depends on the specifics. When the major multimedia conglomerates are so fixated on increasing their profit margins year by year that marketing is all about that and not about bringing a really good book to the public’s attention from time to time simply because it’s quality work, I think that’s a bad thing for the marketplace of ideas. But in your example about children, marketing is clearly a good thing.
Relating more specifically to the post, it seems to me that marketing techniques deployed by a religious tradition whose agenda is to displace other religious traditions indicates a lack of genuine respect for those traditions.
DHARMSHAIVA: Notice that love is an experience and not a belief. So people generally don't need to spend a lot of effort convincing others that love is something actual or real - others have experienced it too. Love is advocated in every major world religion that I'm aware of. And it doesn't involve a sense of superiority. In fact, I'd say that if someone is concerned about their superiority, whatever they're feeling at that moment is something other than love.
The superiority thing can become a problem when people ascribe superiority to their belief system. If theirs is superior, well, that makes everybody else's inferior.
So when people ego-identify with the superiority of their religious beliefs, it sets the stage for potential conflict that can go on endlessly because none of these belief systems can be demonstrated to others as being the true one.
Post a Comment