You better think what I think!

Something strikes me as interesting in this diverse social world we live in. I found it in myself. Its a spirit of debate. It's an immense desire to be right; to be validated. Anyone who reads this blog has a very likely similar desire within them. It's why people don't let other people be. It's why a select group of extremist followers of Islam terrorize. It's why Christians convert and preach. It's why conflict occurs. It's the why behind alot of things in this world.

Let me clarify what "it" is, and what I mean. We all come in a process of maturation to need validation, to need a sense of security. We put solution of this in others. You can see often that when something anti-Christian comes out many Christians respond with haste, and usually throw in a bunch of arguments for God. The same is true for pro-religion vs. agnostic & atheism. Why?
Why do Atheist's throw in their two cents?
Why do Agnostics?
Why do the religious?

Few of these people engage in discussion to change their own minds. To develop their own beliefs. Most arguments are of passion and emotion. They come out as attacks. They call names. They criticize. Why try to change someone else's mind? Why does this matter?

A religious one might call it a desire to show others "the path." I would at first call this a lie before a truth. It's an insincere justification for tossing out what they think and believe. We all have this desire to have others think what we think, and do what we do for it to be validated. We need this to feel right. I will admit that it may be true that some people legitimately are looking out for other souls, but I would say it is usually an outcry or a feeling that saying what we believe to others and then defending it creates stability and validation in our "side" and in our beliefs.

I believe most people at a point in their maturity are insecure about what they know. They don't want to admit they are wrong to others...or themselves. They want to know that they have made the right choice and that they are right, and so if anything to the contrary comes up, they have to stomp it out. They have to respond with something that shows they "win." When they "win" they believe that this insures the integrity of what they think and believe. People base the validation and integrity of their beliefs in others. Now I will say that they in the previous sentences refers to most all of us.

This almost always arises in religious debates. There is always a fundamental set of arguments that results, and people begin vesting emotions into it. As soon as you start mixing emotion with your expression of ideas and thoughts with controversial discussions you tend to begin to be guilty of this. Every time you call someone a name, your attempting to write them off instead of considering the actual idea that they said. We protect our ideals and beliefs by deceiving ourselves. It's sort of like hiding or running when anything touches what we hold sacred, but in doing this one becomes a creature of ignorance and if is public about it, typically a creature of conflict and anger.

Too many think everyone has to think what they think, look at yourself it's very possible it's true with you too. It was with me. Only in recognizing it and dealing with these deceptions can you make any conscious choices in what you think in this area. When I say look at yourself, I mean really look at yourself. Think about your thoughts and emotions inside when religion comes up. Do you get happier or angry when someone say there is a God? What about when someone says there is no God? If yes to either of these then I think you are guilty of letting others create the validity for your beliefs from the insecurity (lack of integrity) of your beliefs that you have. This isn't saying you should believe a certain way. Simply that if you do this, then you should step back, and take a look at yourself and what you believe. I don't think you should need others to create the validity and integrity for what you think and believe. That should come from yourself.

You don't need others to think what you think or do what you do to think what you think and do what you do.

Dec 25, 2008

Reflection

I encountered a few things over the past week that caused me to reconsider my entire understanding of spirituality. They caused me to re-examine myself.

Beginning and Preface
In the beginning around age 7 or 8, life was simple but there was always something in the back of my mind. Something that was always echoing in my mind between thoughts. What is this? What does Me in this world mean? Am I needing a purpose?

So in sixth grade I encountered one of the most amazing teachers in my life. I had a fairly natural aptitude for computers and my teacher encouraged me in this pursuit. This gave me an "identity." Something that defined what I was, yet I would still look in the mirror and ask who I was at really was. My focus in computers at the time gave me something to do and think about until mid-high school. At age 14, I began asking myself the questions of life in more detail. Who am I? What is my purpose? Do I need a purpose? The who question bothered me greatly. I felt like a carbon copy of others. An empty shell.

Over one summer, I believe at age 16 I had a discussion with a friend of mine. We somehow ended up talked about personal identity. I discovered many of her questions and conclusions were similar to mine. We managed to help each other unlock the first pieces of the "puzzle." We decided that choices define who we are,as well as a couple other things. This answer was satisfactory enough to lay the main "who am I" question to rest for a while. This discussion changed my life and started my spiritual journey.

At the age of 17 I began to seek. I searched for an answer as to weather there really was a God, and if there was what it meant. I looked for God for a long time. My other blog posts cover the decision specifically so I will omit the middle-story here, but I decided that I would choose to believe in God. After I decided to believe in God, I looked at religions. I am rebellious when it comes to religion. I don't like what it creates - the walls that it builds. Still I searched. I looked at many up to now. I have decided to follow no specific religious doctrine, but to follow what I can accept and believe in my heart. This is where I concluded a relationship with God (atleast in my P.O.V.) was best developed personally between God and myself - not through someone else.

I struggled for a long time after accepting God. I finally decided to choose to accept Jesus, and ask for forgiveness for the wrongs I have committed. I felt confident in my choices of faith and belief in God and Jesus. I looked further. I read teachings of many religions. Hinduism and Buddhism resonated well with me. for me they offered a very direct logical view on life. The teachings were clear and were more tolerant, than some others in the attitudes of portrayal.

As you can see from a previous post, I decided that as for my primary belief on what takes one into Gods home, it is tolerance. I found tolerance to make sense. I found it to fit with the world, and it echoed what I wanted to hear.

My Blindness and Ignorance
I secretly had great pleasure in choosing tolerance as a tool of judgment in my belief. I have this hatred of structured religion. More so than the others - of traditional Christianity. It infuriated me, when followers of Christ were lashing out against others in the world for believing other things (Oprah in particular - her belief that there are many paths to God and people lashing out at her for having this belief). People act out in such anger and hatred in God's and Jesus' name. They seemed to be intolerant of anything that wasn't what they saw. My hatred and anger of these people was no better. I was committing against my own belief. I saw these religious "zealots" as different people because of their actions based on their beliefs. I was disgusted by them. I was blind. I should not judge them on their beliefs even if their beliefs seem to infringe on others. I shouldn't judge them, because what they believe shouldn't matter in weather I love them or hate them. This time and reflection has revealed to me.

Refraction - A Different Picture
Recently I have started to be concerned more and more with the "other side." What if God isn't who I think he is? What if when judgment comes I am wrong? What if I make the biggest mistake of eternity in my choices of beliefs?
I don't want to go-to hell. I started looking into theology. The 7 deadly sins is one of the things that arose to me (Catholic based - Envy, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Pride, Wrath.) These sins are hell bound things from a Catholic perspective. I had apathy towards them, before my recent considerations of what a mis-perspective of God could mean.

I have a problem. What do I accept? What do I reject? How do I decide what is truth and what is misinformation and what is outright lies? I can't allow my heart to place my soul in the hands of someone else. I can't assert that what someone tells me is right because they say they are an authority in it. I cannot assert that because it is in a book it is divine and true. These are things that I believe with all that I know and all my heart right now.
So how do I decide?
This is where an enlightenment occurred.
I shouldn't be considering where information, beliefs, or ideas come from. I should be considering the information itself. I should seek to filter not sources of beliefs and information, but the information itself. Applying this to the Catholic Seven Deadly Sins, I don't want those things in my life. They are not what I desire. So weather or not my soul's placement is based on them, I choose to do all that I can to avoid committing them.

My desire is to live a life of goodness, happiness, and love. I want to have joy. I want to take every present moment and lose myself in it's beauty. I want these things. These things that many religions say followers must follow to go-to heaven. I don't want them because of the "spiritual authorities." I don't want them, because it is catholic, Mormon, satanic, or protestant. I want them because they are aspects of what I believe is an ingredient for a good man. Things that will help me make the world better, and actually live. They are things that temper my mind. That train me to make choices and do what it takes to secure my destination.

There is one small conflict or problem, but at the time it does not weigh heavily upon me. There are some things that I may choose apathy towards or reject. These are things of religious ceremony. Things like confessions, penitence, or sacrament for the Catholics or things like marriage for eternity required to be in a Morman temple, things like going to Sunday school everyday or paying tithe. These things I can't evaluate. There isn't a clear "this is something I want because it is an aspect of who I choose to be." It is more of a "formality."

Alot of these ideas, I would have outright rejected a couple years ago. I resented things because of who said them or where they came from. Things that meant nothing to me a year ago, I suddenly find amazing beauty and quality in. Things that seemed obvious before have upon a second look revealed some of the greatest secrets of life. This spiritual puzzle has an amazing beauty to it, even if it turns out nothing beyond this world exists.

I understand some of why some people may act the way they do in the name of religion. When you believe so strongly that in order not to goto hell certain things must be abided by and someone comes and tells your friends and family something different. It's significant. To you they are misguiding your loved ones. They are sending them to a place of pain and suffering. For most people it seems to be an insecurity, however - "Everything different has to be squelched because if my view is the only one on the table it's an easy choice on what it is right." There is a great conflict for those that have loved ones and firmly believe something different, that what a loved one does. At least don't hate each other because of the difference in belief, remember why you care about others - I don't think it should be because of what they believe.

Dec 10, 2008

Why God Might Not "Prove" Himself (under the perspective that he exists)

This is a religiously biased post under the presupposition that God exists. So it is food for thought under that view, and is only objective under that condition, and not the condition that he exists.

Perhaps God does not reveal himself directly, because of what doing so would result in. Imagine what would happen to the world if God stepped into a clearly physical form and started dancing around. This changes so much. I think the general idea is if we can still be a good tolerant people, regardless of belief, ideas, knowledge or thought as things are. God prancing around, might produce a result where we would all start being "good." However, for some of this it would only be an act, a lie, we would hide our feelings, everything we feel and did if it wasn't in conformance with what we perceive as "good." Lets face it though "good" is a perception. It is only as good as the code is built around. I don't think God would want us faking so much of ourselves. We do it enough as it is. He wants to see that we develop a good nature not because of him, but because it is a path we choose regardless of his influence - he wants us to have a choice by our own conclusions - proving his existence directly pretty much tilts the table in such a way that all the chips fall into one hole. It is true, many people are "good" and do some things, under the context that is because of and for God, I don't know whether to call this insincere to their nature or not, but I think they may just be fanatical a little bit and misplacing credit. They are good people because they like being good people. They believe in God because they choose too. Under this view he wants us to have a free choice, where anything that might not be his path is a possible reasonable option for us to choose.

Nov 3, 2008

Run for health? No that is not my reason.

This post is a personal journal entry for myself, but you might find it interesting.

I have never really run for any reason other than the occasional spurt to get healthy. Tonight I ran. I ran for a different reason. I ran to get out. To escape.

There is this constant noise of things that develop into my mind. It is a chaos. It is an oscillation amongst finances, school (homework), ability to attain focus, spirituality, schedules, my life goal and God. It creates a fog. These things cloud my mind. They cause me to lose focus and to stress. From an attempt to simply comprehend and contemplate all these problems I become blinded to any possible progress to any ends. Focus and concentration is the solution this is one thing I can see. However, doing this is so difficult. There is such a powerful tornado of thoughts. Meditation works, but only for so long.

So tonight I ran. I ran until I was tired. Then I ran some more. I ran to feel. I ran, because I have become numb. I ran to feel something, even if it is the pain of my muscles as they secumb to fatigue. The night is so peaceful. The more I ran the more I yielded to my present experience. My thoughts cleared as my senses grew stronger. My sweat doing its best to cool me, heat increasing, muscles growing more tired, and the repeating footsteps of my feet as they echoed on the concrete. I experienced the world as it was for that short time. After the run, I find it much easier to direct my thoughts. This all occurred around 2:00 am in the morning - the run lasted about an hour (constant running). The campus is so quiet. The sky is of stars. It is a run of solitude. A run which is invaluable, and I believe I will continue in the future. A run which leaves me very receptive and very much un-blinded.

Oct 20, 2008

From a Reply to Nihilism - A Renewed Theory On Life

This was an email reply to someone I recently met. I felt it conveyed some new things very well, so I decided to post it here for preponderance.

This post I do not mean to preach. Change views or convert. It is as much for myself as it is for you. Please read objectively. I worried I came across a little preachy in the beginning - just keep reading though) I jumped gears a couple times so do your best to follow.

Zhac, your view of this is a realistic one. I have not encountered Nihilism before. It makes sense to strictly act on what we know. It does not leave room for faith because it does not need faith to solve the world's problems, faith is irrelevant here. I think I have followed that line of thinking many times. I have often wondered if an agnostic view is ideal (I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I am assuming you are not concluding either way as to the existence of something more than the physical world.) You are right, we don't acknowledge ourselves as much as should be as something special or rare.

It bothers me when people thank God for providing the food on the table almost robotically every meal. What is special of this food that warrants a special ear of God to hear? Why thank him for something man did the work to harvest and grow? This almost seems insincere, you did something for yourself don't misplace credit, but at the same time too much concern for yourself is almost destructive. God made the rules, and he may live within everything, but I think people go to far and drift into fanaticism sometimes - and attribute way to much to him. People have there own damn minds, they make their own choices. Bad things happen not because God allows them to, but because people make bad things happen. This is not to say I think thanking God for something is wrong. I just believe followers of God need to put more thought into what they are actually saying to him and what they are actually appreciative for - speaking to him passionately and honestly. I have a lot of different thoughts and views.

I will admit I do choose to believe in God, and in Jesus. I choose to do this, because I do have a choice. God may or may not exist. A world without him, without something more greatly scares me though. This is where a very intelligent person would tell me I am creating my desire for God our of fear out of a need for a greater protection, this is where someone would tell me I am acting out of a fundamental human weakness - using God as a construct to explain what I deny. This is not of direct logic or reason. These statements may be true, but if I take the supposition of the consequence of the opposite - No greater power existing. Life becomes almost worthless. This is where your Nihilism becomes interesting, because while it allows for either outcome (God or no God), it theorizes a life without meaning. What you and I believe matters not, however. We are all just speculating. What matters is in the actions that result.

You are right in saying 100% certainty is a dangerous thing. This is true for less traditional things as well. Very little in this world is 100% certainty, most of it is very high probability theory. For example we cannot know with 100% certainty that the world around us "exists" as a physical entity. We could all be in a simulation for the senses....this is ridiculous from experience, for we have no reason to conclude this nor could we really know if we were. This creates a uncertainty in these principles, that we often treat as certain. So from that perspective what do we really know? This isn't really an argument for God rather an argument of realism. We can't know for certain much of anything. There are some principles that may be arguably certain (2+2=4, I see that apple), but these are self manifested truths of certainty (They are certain because we make them so.)

My point is that debating the arguments of the ages is entertaining, but really is almost irrelevant - because its all speculation. I believe eventually one could conclude that walking the walk is where things really matter. This is the fulfillment of the results of theory (the talk.) The really interesting thing is the "walk" can be equivalent with many different views, and the walk has real world effects and consequences. It is what it is.

Theory might change how one goes about the action and create conflictions, but this is where tolerance really shines. You can't have any great change without a lot of tolerance. Action has shade of Grey. Sometimes it works a little, sometimes a lot. Actions are not right or wrong all the time, they just work better or worse than other actions. The point I am trying to drive is that we can have different beliefs, but similar goals. We can conclude the same actions. This is where if there is a God, I believe he would understand. We can only do our best with what we experience and what we know, I believe in my perspective of God that he would be understanding of this. This makes theory irrelevant, but action very relevant.

Assuming God Exists:
My perspective of God is that he is understanding, all seeing, and merciful. He loves his children as a father loves his family. He cares greatly about them. My perspective is that in this view, God would understand believing differently from your brothers. He would understand children disagreeing on weather a log is brown or black. He would understand disagreements on life. The thing a father does not like to see is hate, fighting, and divide. Those who create it may have to be sent away for the peace of the family.
This is where I might conclude that God cares not what I see, what I believe, or what I think you should believe. What he cares about is that we can still communicate and care about each other through these differences. What he cares about is that we don't destroy each other out of the jealousy of being right or wrong. What he cares about is tolerance.What he cares about is what is in you heart, and what actions you take based on your heart.

Thus it is no longer about weather God exists or does not exist. It is how we act, and how well we "play" together. This is a valid path for many religions, beliefs, philosophies, and ideas. Simply good actions. Actions that unify, and not divide. Actions with foresight and understanding. Actions with tolerance. Actions that improve the world. That feed the hungry. That remove the hate. That remove the genocide. That give the abused\ill\ignored\poor children the life they should have.~ Actions that change the world.

I believe regardless of religion or faith, following the actions in this way, are of benefit. If God is watching I am sure they are heaven bound actions as well :)

These thoughts are not really very heavily developed. I spoke them and thought them as I typed. So I aplogize if what I have said is conveyed wrong or incorrectly. Please ask or propose a clarification if something is not clear. (my disclaimer)

Oct 15, 2008

My Journey with Religion & Where it ended.

I was raised in a Mormon family. My grandparents were strongly "religious" from the standpoint that they went to church every Sunday and attended many meetings and gatherings outside of the Sunday mass. In my teen years I went to a few Baptist mass' as well. The older I grew the more repulsed I was about religion. To be honest I am still repulsed by many institutions of religions. A -lot of people do not know why they believe what they do. They don't stand on any ground with what they believe. A common religious folk song talks of the foolish man building his house upon the sand and the wise man building his house upon the rock. This is a symbolic lyric. Blind faith is I am sorry to say ignorance. Faith is a thing I do believe in, but I need a reason to have the faith. Otherwise it is equivocal to placing my beliefs in almost anything. Just because I grew up in a religion is not a reason to believe it. My beliefs must stand up to criticism, and I must not be afraid to be the one doing the criticizing. I struggled for years with what was right to believe when it comes to life after death. The problem is that growing up in a religion doesn't make it right. A fellow human saying "this is the right way...." doesn't make him right. There is just over twenty major religions in the world. Christianity is one of the few that is mutually exclusive, and is also one of the newest (You goto hell if you don't believe it.) Every religion has its devout followers willing to die for their beliefs. Every religion has books and works from long ago in history. So how can I know what is right? I pained over this for a long time. My heart just told me to do my best and carry things as far as I could being as objective in my research and evaluation of religions as possible. I prayed, I agonized and thought about it for long periods of time. Introspection into myself actually carried me the closest to God, rather than an external source. The fact is the world is a complex place and if you have to make a mutually exclusive decision in your choice of religion your odds of the right one are low. I was then given a book from a friend at the college who I had some religious discussion with. "The Case for Christ" was a like a wave washing away all my unanswered questions about Christianity's "inconsistencies" and authenticity. The book initially showed me that the bible had authentic origins and also pointed out some very key things like the medical descriptions of Jesus death and that Christianity unlike the second largest religion Muslim had 12 sources verifying the story, with no motive and risk of persecution. There was much much more and I won't go into detail but it basically laid my questions about the inconsistencies of the religion to rest. However, this was short lived. After reading the book, I immediately checked criticisms and reviews of the book. Apologetics were very supportive of it. Scholarly criticisms unfortunately tore the case the book built apart. After reading the cross examination - the book actually pushed me away from God; for I had all my questions at rest, but now there were more fundamental problems. I was forced to contemplate that there may be no God. I pained trying to come up with something to believe in one way over another. The book did make a good point about Islam's Origins being on one founder (Muhammad), which makes it possible to founded on some questionable origins. Christianity did have independent 12 stories going for it, however arguably these can be consolidated down depending on who you listen to on who wrote the accounts with information from whom (The accounts were not written at the time of Jesus but many years later, and possibly with influences from on another making multiple sources one source.) Christianity is the largest religion. It does have alot going for it. It is also one of the few with exclusion (non-believers are treated worse). I still wasn't sure what to believe. I just didn't know. The answer actually came coincidently one day from a great philosopher by the name of Immanuel Kant.

"Kant asserted that, because of the limitations of argumentation in the absence of irrefutable evidence, no one could really know whether there is a God and an afterlife or not, and, conversely, that no one could really know that there is no God and no afterlife. For the sake of society and morality, Kant asserted, people are reasonably justified in believing in them, even though they could never know for sure whether they are real or not. He explained:

All the preparations of reason, therefore, in what may be called pure philosophy, are in reality directed to those three problems only [God, the soul, and freedom]. However, these three elements in themselves still hold independent, proportional, objective weight individually. Moreover, in a collective relational context; namely, to know what ought to be done: if the will is free, if there is a God, and if there is a future world. As this concerns our actions with reference to the highest aims of life, we see that the ultimate intention of nature in her wise provision was really, in the constitution of our reason, directed to moral interests only.[15]

The sense of an enlightened approach and the critical method required that "If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real."[16] The presupposition of God, soul, and freedom was then a practical concern, for "Morality, by itself, constitutes a system, but happiness does not, unless it is distributed in exact proportion to morality. This, however, is possible in an intelligible world only under a wise author and ruler. Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams… ."[17]

Pasted from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant>

The key part lies in:
"If one cannot prove that a thing is, he may try to prove that it is not. And if he succeeds in doing neither (as often occurs), he may still ask whether it is in his interest to accept one or the other of the alternatives hypothetically, from the theoretical or the practical point of view. Hence the question no longer is as to whether perpetual peace is a real thing or not a real thing, or as to whether we may not be deceiving ourselves when we adopt the former alternative, but we must act on the supposition of its being real."["

I can't prove that Jesus is, and I can't prove that he is not what Christianity claims. So i have not succeeded in proving one way or another. It is definitely in my interest to accept him. With Christianity being one of the only major religions that is mutually exclusive to a large extent. It is in my interest to accept it over the others. I am giving credibility to the fact of Christianity being the largest religion, in my conclusion. I was worried about this being insincere belief. However, a little introspection revealed to me that I really can choose what I want to believe. For the information I have this was the best I can do. I choose to believe in Jesus. I also have reasonable ground to stand on, to believe this and I believe my core reasons for belief stands to criticism. Alot of people would cite religious experiences, feelings, or aid in times of need as reasons for belief. This is better than completely blind faith but it is also flawed. A-lot of religious followers of every religion share the same experiences, so you can apply those reasons to any following if that happens to be the thing you would have been following at the time.

I don't believe going to church every Sunday secures you a spot with God. I also get a little sad when I see followers of Christ pushing others away with their religious zealotry and pride. I have my reasons for belief and the rest is on faith.

I don' t want to preach. I don't care if you join a religion or not. I don't like religious zealots and I would not like to become one. This post is not to convince you. Though I hope it does aid you in your journey to whatever end you do decide to choose. I think a lot of followers today are blinded by themselves, and i think they need to go back to the foundations of their beliefs and evaluate what exists if anything and make sure it stands to their own criticisms, and make sure they actually believe the teachings they have attended as part of the beliefs they follow.
Please leave comment with suggested corrections if there is any error in my statement(s.) This is something I hold on a high priority when it comes to ensuring integrity, and is also the first time I've posted this. Peace.

Aug 6, 2008