God’s in His heaven, All’s right with the world
I feel like a bit of an ass for neglecting my journal these past few weeks, although the message board was offline for quite some time, so I cannot take all of the blame. Half of this entry was written almost two months ago, so the "not too long ago" translates into "it happened a little while back." Anyways...
When you take a political science course involving religion, you quickly realize just how much politics and people are affected by religion. Just recently, I found this sentence from a paper distributed in class to be particularly scary: "While there's nothing wrong with a President trying to make the world a better place, when the man in the Oval Office feels divinely inspired to reshape the world through violent means, that's a scare prospect." I admit that the paper itself is very biased (I do not know who wrote it), but it does provide another look at this "War on Terror." I am tending to agree with some of the aspects that it mentions, but other parts are unfounded. The title of the paper is "Bush's Messiah Complex."
Everyday, it feels as if more and more people are using religion to back their reasonings, and I find that without religion, these people do not have anything to back their reasonings whether they are good or bad. People use religion as an excuse to go to war and to not go to war, they use religion as an excuse as to why we must change certain parts of society, and on and on forever. Something I find particularly funny regarding Christian-based religions: the commandment stating "Thou shalt not kill." The funny part is that many people claim to kill other people in the name of "God," and yet, they violate their own code of ethics that they believe in without a thought. I am sure that if there is a God, he is quietly shaking his head and thinking, "Four simple words, and they somehow do not understand the meaning..."
In all honesty, I am a humanist. In my world, there is no god or gods, but rather, I believe in humanity simply because it is all around us and it is impossible to deny its existence. I believe in doing the greatest good possible, and I do not need silly reasons like "Because God said so" or "Because it is the Christian way." People feel that they need reasons to do good deeds; I do not need a reason to do a good deed.
Not that long ago, a woman in one of my recitations got her books knocked out of her hands and they were scattered all over the ground. The "kind" elderly "gentleman" who had knocked her books all over the place walked away as if it had not even occurred, even though I saw him with a look of surprise on his face when he saw what he had done and had walked away at a slow pace despite what he had done. I helped the woman while everyone else in my recitation walked on by, acting as if we did not exist and were trying to pick up her notes in the middle of the Cathedral's first floor hallway. I did not help her out because I wanted to get into "Heaven" or whatever; I did it because it was a good thing to do. In all honesty, the girl was cute, but I do not think that was a factor at all. I was not looking for a blow job or a girlfriend or even a "Thank you" (Actually, she did thank me when we got all of her notes together). It was a good thing to do, and I did just that. I am willing to bet that someone would have helped us if I had told the crowd that they were going to Hell if they did not help us, and even then, most of the people would have continued ignoring me or given me a "What has that guy been smoking" look.
Apathy will be the downfall of society.
Most people cannot do things out of raw emotion, or as sometimes is the case, they do the wrong things out of raw emotion. If a husband comes into his family's household and finds another man there near his wife, his first instinct may be to kill the other man. Nevermind the fact that the other man may just be a plumber and was enjoying some iced tea offered to him by the wife after fixing the family's upstair toilet because the husband believes that the other man may have fucked his wife, so it is okay to grab the nearest sharp object and proceed to commit murder out of rage (Raw emotion). That is an improper way to act on raw emotion. A poor man is sitting on the sidewalk, begging for change from bystanders and people walking on by. Another man comes out of a nearby McDonalds with a few Big Macs, fries, and a cold Sprite with a bit too much ice. The man with the Big Macs feels pity for the poor man's situation, so he hands him a Big Mac and throws in some fries as well. That is a proper way to act on emotions. Yes, the man with the Big Macs could have given the poor man some spare change that he got from the cashier at McDonalds, but if he wanted his intentions (His change) to be used to go buy food and not a bottle of vodka, then that was the best thing he could have done. Either that or take the poor man into McDonalds and told him to pick out a meal and he (The man with the Big Macs) would buy his meal.
I refuse to claim that I know how everything works. Someone pointed out to me the fact that if there is a design to the universe, there must be a designer. They conclude that, since there must be a designer, there must be a "god" of some sort. While I understand fully what they are saying and implying, it seems a bit reckless and irresponsible to go out and slap on a reasoning to something that cannot be properly explained. Sure, the universe has some method to its madness, but slapping a reason that has zero proof onto the existence or occurence of something is called misinformation. The Greeks and Romans did such things back in their day; they saw lightning or some other natural occurence, and since they could not explain why it was occuring, they made up a god for that particular occurence. I see both of these forms of logic as being very similar, and none of them accomplishing anything except filling peoples' minds (Which usually puts them at ease) with information that has a very low probability of being correct.
A few months back, I was debating with a Christian (I am not sure which sect he was apart of) about religion, and I remember him asking me, "If Jesus came down to Earth again and everyone was to bow before him, would you follow him?" I forget what my colorful response was exactly, but it could be summed up with "Hell no." The Christian then said that it would be blasphemous for me to not follow Jesus, to which I responded something like, "I would rather be free in Hell than chained in Heaven." I still feel this way. And I still feel that religion is an opiate (This comment usually offends many people), but all of this would stem from people's actual definition of what "religion" is. Dictionary.com defines religion as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," however, there is another definition that is not implied most of the time which is "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." These two definitions have similarities, but are divided between the whether they use spiritual/supernatural reasons or not.
I bet Robert Browning would never have thought that his last two lines would end up being used as a key part in a famous anime. Either way, if there is a "God," he can stay in his "Heaven" and whack off for all I care, so long as he does not interfere with the rest of the world (Although many people would say that "God" touches everyone). If there is no "God," good; it is time that people got on with their lives instead of having a hangup like "God."
I think that Mageth's The Greatest Story accurately sums up Christianity for the most part.
Perfection, by Robert Browning (1812-1889)Not too long ago at Anime Academy, someone in the Lounge said "'God is in his Heaven all is right with the world', it means that God watching over the world from Heaven brings peace and calm." When it comes to religion, I always feel the need to backhand it at every chance that I can get, and this was no exception. I do not think that the person who posted that statement thought that the phrase is open to interpretation, and my response was swift to "correct" their comment.
The year’s at the spring
And day’s at the morn
Morning’s at seven;
The hillside’s dew-pearled;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven
All’s right with the world.
When you take a political science course involving religion, you quickly realize just how much politics and people are affected by religion. Just recently, I found this sentence from a paper distributed in class to be particularly scary: "While there's nothing wrong with a President trying to make the world a better place, when the man in the Oval Office feels divinely inspired to reshape the world through violent means, that's a scare prospect." I admit that the paper itself is very biased (I do not know who wrote it), but it does provide another look at this "War on Terror." I am tending to agree with some of the aspects that it mentions, but other parts are unfounded. The title of the paper is "Bush's Messiah Complex."
Everyday, it feels as if more and more people are using religion to back their reasonings, and I find that without religion, these people do not have anything to back their reasonings whether they are good or bad. People use religion as an excuse to go to war and to not go to war, they use religion as an excuse as to why we must change certain parts of society, and on and on forever. Something I find particularly funny regarding Christian-based religions: the commandment stating "Thou shalt not kill." The funny part is that many people claim to kill other people in the name of "God," and yet, they violate their own code of ethics that they believe in without a thought. I am sure that if there is a God, he is quietly shaking his head and thinking, "Four simple words, and they somehow do not understand the meaning..."
In all honesty, I am a humanist. In my world, there is no god or gods, but rather, I believe in humanity simply because it is all around us and it is impossible to deny its existence. I believe in doing the greatest good possible, and I do not need silly reasons like "Because God said so" or "Because it is the Christian way." People feel that they need reasons to do good deeds; I do not need a reason to do a good deed.
Not that long ago, a woman in one of my recitations got her books knocked out of her hands and they were scattered all over the ground. The "kind" elderly "gentleman" who had knocked her books all over the place walked away as if it had not even occurred, even though I saw him with a look of surprise on his face when he saw what he had done and had walked away at a slow pace despite what he had done. I helped the woman while everyone else in my recitation walked on by, acting as if we did not exist and were trying to pick up her notes in the middle of the Cathedral's first floor hallway. I did not help her out because I wanted to get into "Heaven" or whatever; I did it because it was a good thing to do. In all honesty, the girl was cute, but I do not think that was a factor at all. I was not looking for a blow job or a girlfriend or even a "Thank you" (Actually, she did thank me when we got all of her notes together). It was a good thing to do, and I did just that. I am willing to bet that someone would have helped us if I had told the crowd that they were going to Hell if they did not help us, and even then, most of the people would have continued ignoring me or given me a "What has that guy been smoking" look.
Apathy will be the downfall of society.
Most people cannot do things out of raw emotion, or as sometimes is the case, they do the wrong things out of raw emotion. If a husband comes into his family's household and finds another man there near his wife, his first instinct may be to kill the other man. Nevermind the fact that the other man may just be a plumber and was enjoying some iced tea offered to him by the wife after fixing the family's upstair toilet because the husband believes that the other man may have fucked his wife, so it is okay to grab the nearest sharp object and proceed to commit murder out of rage (Raw emotion). That is an improper way to act on raw emotion. A poor man is sitting on the sidewalk, begging for change from bystanders and people walking on by. Another man comes out of a nearby McDonalds with a few Big Macs, fries, and a cold Sprite with a bit too much ice. The man with the Big Macs feels pity for the poor man's situation, so he hands him a Big Mac and throws in some fries as well. That is a proper way to act on emotions. Yes, the man with the Big Macs could have given the poor man some spare change that he got from the cashier at McDonalds, but if he wanted his intentions (His change) to be used to go buy food and not a bottle of vodka, then that was the best thing he could have done. Either that or take the poor man into McDonalds and told him to pick out a meal and he (The man with the Big Macs) would buy his meal.
I refuse to claim that I know how everything works. Someone pointed out to me the fact that if there is a design to the universe, there must be a designer. They conclude that, since there must be a designer, there must be a "god" of some sort. While I understand fully what they are saying and implying, it seems a bit reckless and irresponsible to go out and slap on a reasoning to something that cannot be properly explained. Sure, the universe has some method to its madness, but slapping a reason that has zero proof onto the existence or occurence of something is called misinformation. The Greeks and Romans did such things back in their day; they saw lightning or some other natural occurence, and since they could not explain why it was occuring, they made up a god for that particular occurence. I see both of these forms of logic as being very similar, and none of them accomplishing anything except filling peoples' minds (Which usually puts them at ease) with information that has a very low probability of being correct.
A few months back, I was debating with a Christian (I am not sure which sect he was apart of) about religion, and I remember him asking me, "If Jesus came down to Earth again and everyone was to bow before him, would you follow him?" I forget what my colorful response was exactly, but it could be summed up with "Hell no." The Christian then said that it would be blasphemous for me to not follow Jesus, to which I responded something like, "I would rather be free in Hell than chained in Heaven." I still feel this way. And I still feel that religion is an opiate (This comment usually offends many people), but all of this would stem from people's actual definition of what "religion" is. Dictionary.com defines religion as "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe," however, there is another definition that is not implied most of the time which is "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." These two definitions have similarities, but are divided between the whether they use spiritual/supernatural reasons or not.
I bet Robert Browning would never have thought that his last two lines would end up being used as a key part in a famous anime. Either way, if there is a "God," he can stay in his "Heaven" and whack off for all I care, so long as he does not interfere with the rest of the world (Although many people would say that "God" touches everyone). If there is no "God," good; it is time that people got on with their lives instead of having a hangup like "God."
I think that Mageth's The Greatest Story accurately sums up Christianity for the most part.
posted by Eric Joseph at 5:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home