The God of Unwieldy Gigantic Things
Religious identity - what a minefield it has become! What has happened to the concept of religious tolerance in the 21st century? Why has the notion of "your god" vs "my god" ascended to such prominence lately?
I don't remember when the topic of religion was of such fervent discussion [no pun intended]. The excitement over religious differences and the political significance of them seem to have grasped people by the throat with a garrotte that is getting tighter by the moment.
I'd like to believe I practice a certain religious tolerance. Living in New York, which is by no means a religiously homogeneous society, it still is assumed that there are clear prohibitions to polite conversation on the topic of religion - unless you know the person very well.
I'd like to believe that most folks, save fundamentalists of any stripe, pretty much believe in religious tolerance. But sadly I've found that belief and practice are sometimes out of sync, as illustrated in the following.
Occasion #1 - I was at a friend's house for a casual drinks and dinner evening with her and a few of her other friends. Somehow the "God" issue was brought up and I stated that not only didn't I believe in the existence of God but that I didn't believe that Jesus was anyone other than an obscure Jewish prophet whose life had been magnified way beyond his actual existence and influence.
Well. Watch the fur fly. While I didn't denigrate the other's belief in the existence and benign watchfulness of either the deity or his son, I was automatically treated as if I'd just sprouted horns and suggested a dandy Black Mass be performed on the coffee table. None of the mainstream Christians present could find a way to intellectually process what they perceived as outright heresy. To think that they may have simply tolerated my beliefs (or lack of belief in their God) was apparently too much to ask.
Occasion #2 - I sat at the age of 18, across the desk of my nominal Religious Superior in Tediously Repressive Religion (TRR), and said out loud that I wanted nothing more than to be free of said TRR, the sooner the better. I added that I was emphatically uninterested in any crumbs TRR had to offer and wished to wipe the dust of its precepts from my feet.
I never told Religious Superior that in my opinion he was involved in a batshit crazy cult and would be better off thinking for himself. Oh I could have done so, perhaps, but at the time it seemed churlish in the light of the freedom I was seeking and the tolerance I expected from him.
Religious Superior replied in what I now know to be a textbook response of "don't do anything hastily, you may change your mind." I never set foot in one of their churches again, and 14 years after that encounter formally severed all my ties. Members of my immediate and beloved family are still involved with TRR; I don't denigrate their involvement but it's understood that I'm not interested in hearing about it. Surprisingly, perhaps, we all comply and find a way to get along as a family without castigating each other for our beliefs. Now quite frankly, if my family can manage this I'd like to think all the rest of us could.
My belief in the inherent random chaos so beautifully illustrated daily if not hourly by the Supremely Indifferent Universe could constitute a religion unto itself, were it not so very hard to pin down and dress satisfactorily on Sunday.
Perhaps it's not a matter so much of a God of Small Things as it is a God of Unwieldy Gigantic Things that occupies us so much, but in any case if I must place a bet I'll call you on random events and raise you on indifference.
11 Comments:
ilonas - possibility is one thing, probability is another. What I find I can truly count on is sheer randomness, wherein some people find God and some people just find, well, randomness.
Great blog - glad I chanced upon you!
I know it's not my age, but it wasn't long ago that a person's beliefs were personal and private. Too bad it isn't still that way.
Unfortunately, organized religion (very cult like) and present political ideology with the tedious yet determined assistance of news as entertainment, has turned all forms of religious belief into commercial central. Let's hear it for mass meditation on the almighty dollar while our political spin doctors handle a few snakes.
This is a comment for Stoic relating to his and Mrs. Stoic's 'communication' gap. Not exactly the same, but it perhaps offers a clue to assurance.
I have good friends who at first blush seem mismatched. She is a pentacostal and he is Jewish. Because of her beliefs, she has been very concerned that he will not be allowed into Heaven with her since 'Jesus' isn't his guy. She felt much better after he assured her that on arrival at the gates, he would simply have a few words with Jesus' dad.
Stoic, being in the same general category as you seem to be (i.e., spiritual but not of the variety to join a cult of any name unless it were pagan) I would suspect any comment at the gate would be direct and simple...more on the order of "Sur-pr-ise!"
Also, since 'something' assured that we had a brain and allowed for the option that we would use it, I would also suspect that those who made their choices with a brain and their own will would be welcome with no problem, regardless of what choice they made.
Then again, I would wonder if there is a gate at all. Very possibly it is simply a few steps to once more get on the wheel.
Trusty Stoic & Kaz carrying on in the comments - hooray!
Imagine my chagrin if the gate I finally came to is manned by the religion I so fervently desired to leave - I suppose the only word I would hear is...Oops!
I agree with Kaz - the next step is probably just the next steop.
Actually, I happen to love the reality that we are all made of stardust and it will be to stardust that we return when our fickle little individual atoms finally grow restless once again.
Perhaps our stardust will take a brief breather before once more adhering to other bits of the stars and creating some new entity...be it a new star, an evolving planet, a moon or simply another animal or person.
When we are each made from the stars to begin with, why should we be concerned when we are able to gaze at the wonders in the sky?
Kaz-
How eloquently you turn a phrase. I also like the concept of our coming from and returning to stardust.
I guess that's why I'm comfortable with the cold & callous indifference of the cosmos. I know it's not personal.
A thank you to Miliana, and another Kazian comment for Stoic. Granted, my views are often very peculiar compared to 'normal' people, but I see hope and fear as synonyms...rather colorless descriptions of the standard human condition. Both connote loss to me. Without fear, what would be the value of hope? Without hope, why be bothered to fear?
Hope is rarely present unless dissatisfaction is also present, nor is it present unless fear is predominant. So the next question has to be what is fear? To me, it is generally bleak anticipation. It is also the sire to hatred and the mother of bigotry. Both are present when rational thought is ignored, and both are diseased view points colored in a sickly yellow, rather like jaundice.
Hope and fear both make me think of Robert Oppenheimer's view of optimism and pessimism. The optimist thinks that we live in the best of worlds. The pessimist thinks that might be correct.
So many great points, so well put. It's been great to have a snoopsee around your site. I found you through Lindy K's site, and I'm glad I did. Top stuff.
Miliana, I know a person whose belief in God is wholly predicated on the probability factor: if he believes and heaven turns out not to be true - then he's wasted some time but not really lost anything. If true - he wins. If, however, he does not believe and heaven turns out to be true - he has lost big time. Conclusion: the odds game says he should believe. Of course, all that depends on the equal possibility of all likely outcomes, but I felt that pressing the point with this particular insurance-policy-ergo-aren't-I-smart believer was likely to be about as worth it as paying somebody to pierce your ears with a fork.
I fall somewhere between you all I think. I'm no Christian apologist but think Jesus was a great bloke whose general ideas and example are followed more by the atheists than the Christians of my aquaintance.
I am a Big Bangist as well as having some idea of a God - but not a personal God, which is why I don't take life's slings and arrows personally, either.
I see the beauty in the mathematics of the universe and the beauty in the chaos in the universe. I don't look at either as being contradictory to the idea of God - rather more as proof.
The term "spiritual" is nebulous and too evocative of excess incense burning for me, but subscribing to organized religion is anathema too.
I use the common sense and the brain God gave me and don't believe in any virgin birth nonsense etc. But I believe the original tenets of the great religions to be of value and I see both God and the devil in the details of life.
Sam-
Glad to have you as a part of my wee group of readers - your comments are welcome. I wrote a post about the "gambling" factor when it comes to religion (I'm a moron when it comes to adding links but check my archives under Dec 2 & Dec 7 respectively).
I suspect a great deal of my distaste towards religion is a result of having been force fed during my childhood & youth.
I find as I age I'm taking comfort in randomness...
Post a Comment
<< Home