Indoctrination: The Fear

Being a good, law abiding citizen I have never been to prison. I don't think I'd ever like to go either. It seems like a dismal place that doesn't just take away one's freedom, but crushes their very soul literally obliterating all hopes and dreams. One word comes to mind when picturing the cold grey walls in a prison cell: institutionalized. And, when that eerie word creeps into my mind, a very moving film follows in my trail of thought. Shaw shank Redemption tells the story of a bank accountant falsely convicted of murdering his wife. It describes his time in prison, and of course, his heroic yet very rebel act in escaping from incarceration while taking the law into his own hands. It's a great movie in number of even greater ways. However, it isn't necessarily the protagonist that comes to mind when I recall the film. It's the librarian in the prison named Brooks Hatlen. The "old man" had been a member of the prison population for over 42 years when his parole finally came up and he was "set free". He bids farewell to the last group of friends he made during his strenuous stay there and heads out into world to find a job bagging groceries. Shortly after, Brooks hangs himself. On the surface it is the most confusing act one can take about after being granted their freedom back. However, if you dig a little deeper you can see that, after such a long time of confinement one develops a certain feeling of appreciation for their surroundings and grows comforted by the day to day schedule they are engrossed in. Sometimes it really is hard to change something when it literally becomes your life and everything about it.

Call me crazy, but there just might something in this admittedly extreme comparison between the dynamics of religion and prison life. Anyone will tell you that the way children are raised will greatly influence who they will become, what they will do and even how they will do it. This is one of the main facets of religion that I tend to strongly dislike; the indoctrination of young minds. I could even go as far as to say it's a form of brainwashing. I won’t slam on Christianity like I am usually inclined to do because every religion is guilty of this "sin". When you go about telling a child what to believe, you steal any and all forms of logic and objective reasoning from them. It goes without saying, but those are two key tools needed to get by in today's world.

I remember a few weeks ago watching the documentary series "30 days" by Morgan Spurlock. On that particular episode a women with atheistic convictions was sent to live with a Christian family in the hopes of breaking some barriers that exist in today's society by forcing the two groups to learn about one another. I won’t go into the details of the episode (although I strongly urge anyone interested in watching the episode) as only the beginning of it concerns this post. Before the women left her family to join her Christian hosts, the show filmed her having one last dinner with her family and also documented the last dinner the host family was having. Obviously, the Christian family said grace and played up to the camera while talking about Jesus and all that good stuff with their children. This didn't astound me as am cognizant of the indoctrination that occurs within religion. What amazed me was the so called "free thinking" atheist family was discussing the fact that there is no God to their 3 year old toddler! This blew me away in ways mere words will fail to describe. It sickened me. No child should have their parents' convictions forced down their throats at an age they cannot possibly comprehend such things as a God and the complexities of religion. A kid should be busy playing with Legos and being mischievous, not learning that there is no god or that if you don’t ascribe to calling him a particular name you will not be saved. There is something fundamentally wrong with this.

Best selling atheist author Richard Dawkins made a great point in his book "The God Delusion" when highlighting this phenomenon. He discussed the idea of labeling children with such terms as "Christian child" or "Muslim child". To me, it seems terribly mistaken to figuratively give each and every kid on Earth a name tag with their name, favorite color, whether they like Barney and, not neglecting the all important one, which god they supposedly adhere to! Think about it this way; minors, that is any person under the age of 18, aren't allowed to vote for the obvious reason that their minds aren't matured enough to comprehend such important matters as healthcare, taxes and going to war. But, what about most important issue of all: God! How can a minor be possibly able to decided what they believe about god if they can't decide whether Obama's healthcare reform was a good idea or not!? This troubles me greatly because I think there is strong evidence to indicate that it has harmed society greatly.

When someone mentions the word "hell", the first things that usually come to mind are a butt naked man with red skin and a goatee wielding a pitchfork surrounded by molten lava, fire and his demons, who all probably resemble him somewhat. To me, it's comical. For most people it is something obviously fashioned together by popular culture, such as television and the general media, and a couple religious verses here and there. But to children, it is the darkest of dark where the worst people of all go because they didn't listen to Jesus or Allah. I can't imagine what my current perception would be had I been coerced into contemplating the depths of hell an early age. The sad fact is that too many children today are forced to deal with that and comprehend that vile place created ever so beautifully by the master “story tellers” of religion. I believe it is terribly wrong and even "evil" to some extent to scare a child, willingly or otherwise, into a certain realm of belief. Apart from prematurely stealing the innocence I believe we should cherish and nurture for as long as society will allow, it distorts a person's reasoning in later life when they are forced to deal with the finer aspects of god and religion. Literally scaring a person into believing something will make them defend that particular conviction not because it necessarily makes sense to the logic God himself provided us, and most likely wants us to use, but because it is the one thing they have been "suffocated" by from as early as the time mommy told them about Satan and what he does to the "bad little boys and girls".

I remember hearing on a television documentary series that religion was, in all literal senses, the "enemy of logic and rationality". I also distinctly recall thinking that was a very bold and rather extreme statement for one to propose. Then I began debating some of the issues that seemed to stick out for me about religion in hopes of finding some sort of answer or explanation. Needless to say, for most of these issues, there was none. All I encountered was a bombardment of different interpretations by different denominations and, my personal favorite, the argument of context. I was astounded to find that so many people had to resort to such measures to defend what they believed. Surly, I pondered; there must be something more concrete and factual than this? There wasn't, or has not been yet. This was when I finally understood what that apparently extreme statement was trying to convey; once you indoctrinate a person into one, fixed set of beliefs, they won’t ever defend what they intuitively grasp by nature, but rather what they have been "trained" to adhere to. For example, a Muslim or a Christian will openly claim that they are prepared to defend anything in the Koran or Bible, even if they have not heard what it is yet, just because it is in their holy book. Normal reasoning and common sense must bow down before that particular person's "word of god". This goes back to the point I have tried to bring fourth in the blog as often as possible: in a world where everyone knows they possess the ultimate truth and all other possibilities are utterly mistaken, we will arrive at every possible outcome except "truth", all the while parading our arrogance to the world no matter how powerful the contradictory evidence may be.

Now, I would be foolish to claim that every religious person is this way. It's a matter of fact that there do exist, however small in number, a certain amount of open minded people who adhere to some sort of religion or other but do not make any claim to ultimate truth and inerrancy in their textual doctrine, but simply believe. This, I have no problem with. This is a display of grace and willingness to cooperate with other human beings and scientific evidence in arriving as close to "truth" as the big Guy in the sky will allow. I have no problem with calling God "Jesus" or "Allah" or "Buddha", but when one goes as far as invalidating everyone else's beliefs and claiming they know it all, that is when the world is faced with a problem. I don't see anything wrong with the idea that all the religions in the world are attempting to describe the same God, our creator. After all, don't they all claim he is "indescribable"!?

If all religions are as confidant in their truthfulness as they would proclaim, then why can't we spare the children of Earth the pain of indoctrination? I mean, if a religious family really does believe they have the ultimate truth, why not let their new born find it on their own? This is where the problem lies. All these people of faith seem to have everything but that. They don’t trust that a normal, rational and logical adult will arrive to the conclusions they have without "a little helping hand". Now, I’m sure many believers will cite "the great number of people who have converted to their way of thinking in adult life". To this I refer them to the equally great number that has converted away. All that proves is the message I brought forth in an earlier blog which said that we all need a father figure or protector in our lives and are willing to believe any number of theories or absurdities to gain that comfort. Indoctrination, as I have come to discover from talking and debating with religious people, is a tool used by religion to "boost membership" and keep everyone believing that faith has to be blind.

Jump then Fall

It was the third time in one month. After two very public and callous break ups, Steven had gone for lucky number three. Her tears flowed across her face as she stood there like a ghost in utter disbelief. She had made the same mistake every other poor girl looking for love had made when crossing paths with my buddy Steve. He didn't know how to handle the bawling girl that stood before him heartbroken (one would think with so much practice that a certain skill level would be developed in such situations, but no) so he gave her one last hug and walked away merrily towards the school gate. By now, word had spread of Steven's promiscuity and capricious nature but, to my never ceasing amazement, the girl's still ran to him and quivered with awe. He really was that good; smooth talking, confident and sexy. But what no one else saw in my buddy was his own shattered heart. He wasn't evil in his constant replacement of female companions but simply scared. Steve always said he'd never give himself to a woman just to be screwed over and toyed with. I guess it was never an option for him to be on the receiving end of the "It's not you, it's me" speech. I honestly can't remember if I tried to give him advice on this but sincerely hope that he has changed. Everyone seems to want to fall in love, but no one wants to jump. Knowing God, to me, is an awful lot like falling in love. You're either all in, willing to lose it all, or you're like my buddy Steven; dwelling in limbo never getting to know whether the risk was worth the reward.

The Bible, ever ready to tend to all situations with an abundance of wisdom and advice, seems to have addressed this same concept. Granted, it doesn't mention anything about teenage love and raging hormones, but Jesus portrays this idea very well. Revelation 3: 15-16 says, "I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other. So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold- I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Now, what would a good Bible verse be without an equally beautiful and artistically voiced threat; such as the one of spitting the fence-sitters out of Jesus' mouth? But, I digress. This passage, to me, is a very powerful one. It commands us, and rightfully so in my opinion, to be polarized about our faith and relationship with God. The "hot" being the Bible abiding Christians who do all that is instructed of them and the "cold" being the heathens. What I find pleasant is that Jesus seems to frown upon the Christians dwelling on the fence with their faith more than he does me, an ice cold critic. There might be hope yet! This verse is very important in that it clearly highlights, directly quoting Jesus Christ himself, that people who compromise but an inch of their faith are, figuratively speaking, doomed. Jesus asked us all to jump, with the reward not being teenage love, but eternity in heaven. But, I sometimes wonder how many Christians today are doing what is demanded of them by their deity?

From my observations today, there aren't many Christians who are as “hot” as they should be. What's ironic is that the ones that are abiding by the doctrine that they hope will send them to heaven, are viewed as extremists and radicals. I personally believe that it is very true to conclude that faith, of the burning hot nature that we are speaking of, has waned after many years of fluctuation since its early conception, most notably in the late 19th century. One needs not look further than Galileo and his meddling with the church to see this phenomenon. Christians back in those days were far more "radical" than the ones today, and the church knew that seemingly unwavering faith would have to be compromised with the findings of scientists such as Galileo. The lukewarm tendency to believe in God was inevitable with the accelerated understanding of our universe that science has provided. To me, it's not necessarily a bad thing that religion has finally begun to retreat ground in the face of science but, as I have mentioned before, this is not what any particular set of beliefs commands of its followers. It must be noted, however, that this depolarization is not solely caused by scientific breakthroughs but also by the development of equal rights and modernization of human equality.

The main contributor to the lukewarm faith epidemic is the picking and choosing of scripture to abide by or ignore. Many things bother me about picking and choosing what to believe. For one, the age of our beloved mother Earth. I'm sure you've heard of the theory that a day in the book of genesis could have been a thousand or even a million years. This particular idea, to me, is simply conceding in the face of modern science which has proved the Earth is most certainly not merely 6000 years old. I recently read an article by a Christian apologist who foolishly tried to claim that continental drift, which occurred over millions of years, inch by inch, fitted in perfectly with the Biblical portrayal of the world. He claimed that the continents “could have moved at a much faster rate" back in the day, thereby still staying true to the young earth ideology. How preposterous of a self claimed scientist to ignore the power of heat friction that would have surely caused Armageddon had the continents moved at such a rate. But, I digress.

Another aspect of the Christian faith that apologists have blindly tried to weave together with modern day science is our beautiful predecessors, the dinosaurs. Countless articles have been written about a few "mistranslated words" in their vain attempts to reconcile the proof that dinosaurs existed with the Biblical account of world history. What gets me is that they completely ignore the evidence that proves these larger than life creatures roamed the planet many eons before we were ever blessed by God to dwell in it. The most over used rebuttal of this is that carbon dating "cannot be trusted". Well, if one can claim to have an original depiction of the Bible because of many corroborative copies, then it is equally fair to conclude that that vast amount of skeletal remains that have been carbon dated are also just as accurate. Evolution, particularly micro evolution, is my personal favorite in the list of culprits that cause lukewarm faith within religion. Despite there being absolutely no mentioning of it in the Bible, God's inerrant and apparently perfect word, Christian scientists still take a few steps back in the face of scientific evidence. Again, I most certainly do not have a problem with the Christian community succumbing to the acceleration of science, but it really does go against what their god asks of them in their faith in him.

The last two points I will make are of a social nature. Women being ordained, which is obviously something the Bible would never utter, is the first. We have picked and chosen what to believe in light of our ever growing equality. Once more, this isn’t a bad thing in my eyes. The second is the abolishment of slavery in the modern world in light of, well, common sense. I am very aware that I have been rather sketchy with the list of things that I believe can be attributed to a person of lukewarm faith, so I apologize for not going into more detail on matters such as the age of the Earth or Dinosaurs. Rest assured that such matters will be dissected with further precision in future posts.

I feel as though, in light of the recent recession of faith since its conception, that it is fair to assume that one day religion it will inevitably be completely eradicated. With the acceleration of science, and human logic in the social sphere, religious dogma and myths are bound to eventually die out. Who knows, maybe one day we won’t give homosexuals a hard time because a book told us to, or make unscientific claims on something as scientific as the evolution of our race or the age of the world we occupy. I am confident this day will come, but won’t be waiting for it as eagerly as I am waiting for Jesus' second coming! But, that's a whole other topic which I look forward to commenting on soon.

Before concluding, I would like to express my admiration of the groups of people like the ones at www.answeresingenesis.com. Despite using apologetics in wrestling with science and a minimal amount of actual research, I appreciate the hardnosed defense of their faith without conceding anything to science. Of course, this is foolish in the sense that they are essentially bringing a knife to a gun fight when going up against science with apologetics, but nonetheless, their faith is one to be in awe of. If any of what the Bible says about heaven and getting in there is true, then they're surely invited to the party! The basic message I am trying to convey here is that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. It's just not how the world works. I plead with all those that call themselves Christian to analyze the passage highlighted in this blog (Revelation 3: 15-16) and evaluate their own "faith". To fall in love, you must jump. To hopefully fall into heaven, you must jump farther than your mind may let you. In this case, don't defend your religion by conceding points and picking and choosing scripture, but take a stand. You're either hot, and do everything that your faith requires, however outdated or preposterous it is, or you're cold, and give in to the modernization of scientific and social concepts while conceding that the book you preach from may be outdated. Jesus said he doesn't want lukewarm.

The Everlasting Word of God

It's always been in my nature to argue. Not in the sense that I would go out and disagree with anything and everything just to get the thrill of a good "heated debate", but I love defending my position. This little trait is ever apparent when the topic of God arises in social situations. I love it. Nothing satisfies me more than hearing someone else's opinion about this most important of topics, sharing my own and providing reasons for my convictions. It pains me to say, but there is also a kind of satisfaction in being proven wrong at times. It's like I missed something, or just plain ignored it, and then, in the heat of the battle, it was re iterated back to me in a way I could see my own misinformed opinion. I will never admit it to my foe at the time (no one likes looking stupid, eh), but when they bring something up for which I was mistaken, I get a sort of thrill. It's like I'm one step closer to possibly knowing what this whole mess is about. So, this passion for debate has ignited many conversations with friends about God and theology. Most of them being about the god of the Bible, I recall endless hours spent quoting scripture and weaving my way through fact, fiction and, my personal favorite, interpretation. One very interesting phenomenon I noticed while talking with Christians about their theology is how often they excuse some of the claims of their Holy book with the Argument of Context.

To put it simply, the Argument of Context claims that a particular notion is exempt from rational judgment and scrutiny because of the time it was written. The obvious place to start looking for ludicrous claims in the Bible is our beloved Old Testament. I must confess, it really makes for a good read at times because it includes a lot of the essentials needed to compile a gripping plot and amusing story. Containing violence, deceit, incredible bravery, victory against impossible odds, romance, debauchery, forgiveness, fiery judgment and weeklong parties, it's quite surely Earth's bestselling book ever. To begin on a quite shocking note, the Old Testament has some warped views on rape, saying that a women who is violated must marry her attacker and, in some cases, even be stoned to death with him because she didn't have the presence of mind to call for help (see Deuteronomy 22: 23-24 and 28-29). Even though I'm sure some radical people out there still hold some of these views today, the greater portion of humanity can agree they are somewhat "far-fetched". Especially when considering the punishment of death for homosexuals and non-believers (see Leviticus 20: 13 and 2 Chronicles 15: 12-13). The god of the Old Testament also has assassins on his pay-roll. Yes, the angels of death are of great importance to our father (see Exodus 23: 23). To end this rather bitter paragraph on a somewhat funnier note, I need not refer further than Deuteronomy 23: 1, where a man whose testicles are crushed or cut off cannot enter the Assembly of God. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere right!?

Any Christian would refute that the Old Testament is particularly that; old. I would be ignorant in saying that I did not recognize Jesus as "revolutionizing" this law. The bible presents him as challenging the teachers of the law during his time on Earth and even, in some cases, intensifying the law. Only one thing troubles me slightly. If we look up Matthew 5: 17-20, Jesus seems to be a firm upholder of the Law of Moses. He even says that "until Heaven and Earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished". So, according to this quotation, we should still kill homosexuals and heathens while also condemning a woman to marry a man who rapes her. Nevertheless, this little contradiction does nothing more than highlight some of the inconsistencies in the text of the Bible. For the rest of this essay, I will humbly assume that Jesus does practice what he preaches in that he loves everyone and doesn't have any particular desire to demolish the so called "wicked". It is interesting to note though, if we assume that Jesus did come to revolutionize the old law, that "God's word" is anything but eternal. It had to be changed to work for a new age on Earth. How long before we need to amend our already revised Holy books to fit in with our image of the world and how we think it should be governed by our creator. Before you know it, we will be quoting from the Newer and Newest Testaments, too!

While the New Testament is far less radical, it does contain some verses that may raise a few eye brows in the 21st century. The first I will cite is one previously used on this blog, and refers to Paul's chauvinistic treatment of women (see 1 Timothy 2: 11-12). The context of argument will undoubtedly refute that times were different back then; women didn't have the rights they do now. Fair enough. But if we make that claim, then our Bible is severely outdated and is in need of revision, much like the kind of revision Jesus gave the Old Testament. Another not-so-crazy yet obsolete verse in the Bible is when Jesus teaches that if a man is to even look at a woman with lust in his eyes he has committed adultery with her in his heart, and therefore is subject to the appropriate punishment. I won’t be audacious enough to speak for the entire male population here, but I simply doubt there is a man alive today that has not and does not continue to commit that dyer sin. It simply seems out of touch with today's culture. The final passage I would like to bring under the magnifying glass is the chapter in 2 Corinthians warning good, law abiding Christians to not be "yoked" with non believers. The first two sentences in the passage claim that all non believers are wicked people who dwell in darkness. A stark comparison to the believer forever embellished in light and righteousness. Only religion could come up with such derisive ideas. Aren't we all designed to appreciate and value our diversity? Did Jesus not teach us to love one another unconditionally and without a price tag? This last passage, found in 2 Corinthians 6: 14-18, pains me more than any other in the New Testament. It preaches ignorance and the idea that we should not learn about our fellow humans and appreciate our differences but instead, advises Christians to stick to the pack so as to not waste time discovering the dark unbeliever who will surely have nothing in common with a child of the Bible. This seems to be yet another ploy by religion to keep its followers in line and from discovering the wonders of interaction with people of different convictions. It seems our world is not just being torn and divided by wars fought in the name of different gods, but also by the prevention of love amidst two varying individuals. How very sad.

To summarize, the argument of context is one essential to a Christian in defending their faith. How else would you explain separatism, murder and rape? It is inevitable that such problems would arise when constructing an eternal book of worship about God, especially when written by humans. I realize I have extensively criticized the Bible in this post and concede that I don't believe it is entirely filled with such ludicrous, outdated and obsolete claims. I'm very sure, what with all religions being so similar to one another, that quite possibly all other forms of belief consist of such passages unknown in today's modern world. The message I am trying to convey is that if we have to take so much of this Holy book in context now, how much longer will it be before it is utterly out of tune with reality and outdated? Although a Christian, Muslim or Jew might need context to justify their beliefs, God does not. If any of these books were his word, they would be truly everlasting.....

Our Father

With tears streaking down our faces, my brother and I ponderously walked through the front door of our home in London. My Mom ran to hold us and investigate what had caused this most dramatic of entrances. Not deferring from the usual, Dad was calmly watching the news, not really taking much notice as we began to describe the screaming gang of older boys who had picked a fight with us. Naturally, my mother was saddened to hear this but above all, grateful that we were OK. This reaction did not surprise either of us in the least. Dad's reaction, however, did. He immediately rose from his slumber state of meditation and said he was going to the park to fix this. I pleaded with him to stay home as the three of us where scared of what might transpire between the gruesome gang of loitering teens and my Father. Stubborn as ever, he told me to stop crying and take care of my mom and brother as he left the house. Half an hour later he returned; calm and cool as ever taking his throne and continuing his afternoon perusal of the daily news. When we asked what had happened he didn't tell us any details but assured us we would no longer face problems while playing at the park. I am a peaceful character at heart, but how could a kid not feel satisfied at his Dad kicking the butts of some bullies? With a fair amount of certainty I can confirm for both my brother and I that we had never felt more protected, safe and comforted than on that day.

We come into the world as very dependent beings, in constant need to be loved and nurtured. It is my personal belief that this necessity sticks with us forever as human beings while we go about looking for safe and secure situations to dwell in. The person we see after the stork drops us off is our mother; caring and loving enough not be turned away by the piles of poop she will inevitably wipe away. The second being we come to know is the man of the house. We look to our fathers for support and a type of love that is very different than that of our mothers. Whether you're a guy or a girl, you will always look to your dad to take care of things and, more importantly, to look out for you and be your crutch in a world where injuries are aplenty. Those of us unfortunate enough not to have our fathers around will instinctively look for an ample substitute. In some cases, a single mom takes on the arduous task of completing the duties of a father. In others, a child will look to older friends as role models or ideals of what a man should be. And this is the most important thing a father does for his little girl or boy. He shows his daughter how a woman is to be treated by the opposite sex; with respect, equality and, above all, love. On the flip side, it is also his duty to show his son how to treat a woman and be "a real man". In extreme cases, our need for a father figure drives us to gangs. The family feel of a "band of brothers" attempts to fill the gaping hole of a missing father. Sadly, it fails. Judging by human history and religion in particular, we have taken our search for a Daddy and, somehow, found God.....

Many religious people I know have answered that having God has gotten them through the tough times in life and, in some cases, even saved them. The notion I presented in the previous post about us possibly creating God in our image is bolstered by this glaring fact that we have taken the attributes normally used to describe our fathers and, after adding a good dose of Omni, decided that God is also that way. Our naturally human need to be comforted and consoled, coupled together with our impatience and need for answers, has led us to find the nearest thesaurus and begin professing to the world about how God is.

What I've found rather ironic while reading about different religion and their ideas of God's nature is that they all glorify him in saying that he is "indescribable" or "too big for a human to comprehend", yet have all arrived to the conclusion that God is the proud owner of a penis (and well endowed, I imagine)! One thing that bothers me greatly is why humans have decided God has to be male. I mean, why can't "he" be a female? We all come out of one, so it logically follows that the first human would as well. Or, screw that, why does God, the creator of everything we can see or touch, have to be a man or a women? It makes no sense to me at all. The only conclusion I have been able to arrive to is that our male dominated and chauvinistic society decided to create God in their image. Just look at when all three of the world religion today were born; Islam has been around since the year 600 ad, Christianity since the a couple decades after the death of Christ and Judaism since, well, a really, really long time ago. Think about how only recently women have been granted equality, on paper anyway, and how it must have been nearly two millennia ago! I mean, women had nearly zero rights. After scrutinizing the Old Testament you can find a wealth of passages that display the inferiority of women in the bible. The New Testament is less notorious about this and the most diabolical breach of women’s rights I could find was Paul telling the females to "please just shut up" (see 1 Timothy 2: 11-12). I don't mean to pick on the Bible here as the rights of women are terribly toyed with by all three of these religions. This, to me, also goes along with how we created God in our image, and heavily relied upon the culture and tradition at the time of "conception". Sadly, with these religions being heavily outdated, women as second class citizens were just part of such traditions. How unfortunate.

It may seem trivial, but the idea of God as a father is a very important one. I believe it highlights the fact that the need to be loved and comforted drove us to create such patriarchal and bigoted ideas of our creator without being humble enough to accept that maybe "he" is really indescribable. As for the rest of this lovely blog, I will (and this pains me greatly to say) conform to what society has unanimously decided in that God will be referred to as he. In no way, however, do I actually believe God is an old man with a white bread who hails in the skies and doesn’t really like women. I certainly do, and I believe I was created in his image so he must love the ladies. It is sad to retort but, in a world where fathers are fast disappearing, God has had to “take the high road” and serve as an ample substitute. I really don't think our one creator would be happy with having to act in place of the flawed humans he created. He's just too awesome for that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gNYVia2rg

Creator or Created?

We all live life looking for stability. Even adrenaline junkies who move from place to place and seem anything but stable are in constant pursuit of that. In reaching this safe haven of surety we go about our daily lives looking to make enough money to get by, surround ourselves with people we perceive love us and, above all, have the answers to absolutely everything. This need-to-know complexity is a driving force that determines our passions, life works and who we are. God, like with most other things, tops this list. We just need to know this guy! Egyptians went to a polytheistic approach when contending that over 2000 different gods existed and became apparent to us in the form of animals. Yes, dogs were a lot more than a "man's best friend" back then; they were gods. The Greeks also had a many gods but were clear that Zeus, the "crème de la crème" of their belief system, was above all and hailed in mount Olympus. The Vikings followed up this trend by saying that there were many gods who concerned themselves with different aspects of life, such as war, travel and home. Thor, the god of thunder, is the most popular today and is even depicted in children's cartoons. Yes, our need for answers has driven us in many varying directions concerning God. This raises the question though: How could they all be right and what do they really tell about human nature and, dare I say, God's nature?

The first possibility that comes to mind is God, whoever he or they are, created us in such a way that we would naturally look to him and seek him out. The Bible rather audaciously claims that if we seek we shall find Him. By Him of course I mean the Christian depiction of God. If we peruse this concept without too much consideration it makes perfect sense and fits in well with what God would do. He would undoubtedly want for us to find and love him and, even though he could make us do it, prefers it to be our own choice. So, creating us with a need-to-know concept of life is perfectly reasonable and just makes sense. Unfortunately, a deeper scrutiny of our history depicts a very different story. We live in a world where ideas about God, his origin and characteristics nearly outnumber the number of people even created to inhabit His creation! Of course, this is a mild exaggeration but the point I'm trying to make is that if the one true God did decided to go about winning our hearts, planting this idea in our minds doesn't seem to have worked. In fact, it seems to have been destined to fail. It's created a world torn and divided with wars fought and lives taken in the name of God. I really don't see the "big guy in the sky" electing this route.

I'm current in the process of reading a book by Christian author Donald Miller called "Searching for God knows what". In one of the earlier chapters in the book he cites the workings of Abraham Maslow and, in particular, his compilation of the "Hierarchy of needs". This idea is that we are all looking to reach self-actualization by getting everything we need from life step by step. It is in the form of a pyramid with the more basic things such as sleep, food and water at the bottom and the complexities of life such as friendship, self esteem and morality at the top. Maslow stated that a need for a higher being, someone who looks out for us and protects us, is one of the crucial steps humans have sub-consciously devised to reach self actualization.

The second possibility to explain where this trait of human nature originated lies with Abraham Maslow's theory. We need to be loved. From a very early age we look to be nurtured and taken care of and, even though the precious years of adolescence provide a certain rebellious nature that leads us to break free from this and look for independence, I believe it sticks with us throughout life. So when we're older and can't really rely on mommy and daddy to get us through the daily struggles of the world, we looked to the white bearded man who loves us all equally. No, not Santa. God. When a lack of answers presented itself, particularly in the times of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians when science was merely a speck of dust in comparison to today's advancement, we decided to go ahead and describe what we would like God to be. This, to me, is the far more plausible possibility. It describes why there have been, and still are, so many different ideas of our creator. So many religions dominate our spheres of life today that, if you're on the outside looking in, it's hard to decide which makes sense and easy to conclude that they are all just a reflection of tradition and culture founded in a particular time and place by mere humans who created God how they saw fit.

Another very interesting thing I've discovered while inspecting the different world religions that are apparent today is, although they are exceedingly different in some ways, in others they are terribly consistent. For one, their Gods are all loving in ways we cannot comprehend. They are all powerful, of course, and could whoop any other god's butt if they wanted. I know it goes without saying, but their certain way of believing is right while every other is wrong and an act of evil that will be punished with eternal damnation in hell, yet another thing they have in common. Yes, it is ironic that a God with an abundance of love would condemn his creation with an eternal punishment for eternal sins but, I digress. The last and possibly most interesting point is that most, if not all, depict God as a father figure. What better comparison could there be. I mean, and pardon my possible blasphemous nature here, but couldn't a child describe his father with literally all the things we attribute to God? Maybe.....

To me, it's a very real possibility that we by-passed any form of true searching while looking for God and went straight to what we wanted him to be like. It's definitely far easier and satisfies all of our worldly needs to be loved and taken care of. Who knows, maybe Adam created God in his image and not the other way around.

Argumentum ad Populum

I remember spending a greater part of my childhood wanting to conform. This sub-conscious trait that is embedded in all of us somehow shone through with a particular ferocity in me. Maybe it was because I was an Albanian immigrant from Kosovo attending a predominately white English primary school? Now, I don't want to create a false impression of complete unacceptance by my peers and social class in London, but the voice that uttered the words convincing me I was odd, or a misfit, always spoke to me.

We would go clothes shopping with whatever money we had saved and I would always be the one skimming through the stores looking for apparel that somewhat resembled that of the majority at school. My parents, the ever loving pair that only wanted the best for me, naturally granted my wishes. They knew, of course, the maze I was in but figured it's something everyone goes through at some point or other. It probably is. *fingers crossed*

Where I'm going with this is that, as humans, we build self-esteem and create those feelings of worth by comparing ourselves to others. Even in the most confidant, out-going of individuals, all it takes is a careful look and the trait becomes apparent. We will do anything to climb the social ladder and come ever closer to a goal of ultimate self-love, something that is unfortunately unreachable. We will always want more.

This notion controls the masses like sheep being tended to by a Shepard, or cattle being directed by a farmer. It is ever more obvious in politics, social behaviors and, my personal favorite, religion. "Argumentum ad Populum" is an argument that concludes a certain proposition to be true because many or all believe it to be so. It contends that "if many believe so, it IS so".

If you recall my previous post, this was a very strong reason for my research binge over the past year. I would think to myself, "There must be SOMETHING in this whole thing if some 30% of the world believes in it." I simply couldn't shake the feeling that they had some piece of information I didn't, some formula I had missed out on in school during my years of attempting to fit in or some secret truth I would only discover if I looked hard enough. So, I looked.....

Upon looking I found, as well as a vast expanse of facts and figures, that just because all my friends where wearing the new and trendy soccer shoes on a rainy day, maybe this wasn't the best idea. Maybe a billion people were wrong about something, lets say their idea of God, and only a handful were right. Maybe.

Now, this is NO way led me to believe what I believe. It served no other purpose in my spiritual journey than freeing me from the shackles of social acceptance and conformity. It served as a liberating force detaching me from something that plagued my mind into following my peers much like sardines do theirs.

To indirectly quote Bill Maher, "Eat shit people! 20 million flies do it. Why not!?"

Isn't it Enough!?

I always spent my younger years detached from religion and the idea of "a creator". This wasn't because my parents tried to influence me or protect me; it just never really had any importance in our family home. Jehovah's witnesses would come knocking on our door in London and we'd politely turn them away and say we weren't interested. And that's what I never really understood. Why!? Isn't it enough that YOU already have "the ultimate truth"? Why would you waste time going around pestering people with your ideas of this and that.....

I never really got that till this past year when I decided to begin my semi-spiritual journey. I say that because I approached the matter with much trepidation and a fear of the unknown. This was all very new to me and I confess I was afraid of "missing out" at many times. I still am.

So I started reading. A lot. I guess my main reason for kick starting this endeavor was the abundance of Christian friends and missionaries I had forged relationships with over the past year or two in my high school. I wanted to better understand them and their faith. It is also worth mentioning that I was intrigued by religion, and the Bible in particular, because SO many people considered it Holy and God's word. I mean, if a greater percentage of Earth's population believes something to be true, then surely it has to be? Right?

This period of scrutinizing scripture and popular opinion continued for a few months and slowly I began to create my own perception of what was going on. I finally began talking to people about what I believed. I found compelled to share MY version of "the ultimate truth" with friends and family. Needless to say, with all the theist friends I have, this caused a lot of "heated debates". But it's ironic, I thought those Jehovah's witnesses were crazy and out of place, but I had turned into one of them. I wanted people to hear MY interpretation of things. So, to answer the title, it was not, and never will be, enough for me to know or believe. We all have a voice (or fingers for those of us who are into blogging :D ) and it would be a damn shame if we didn't use it. Diversity is something that has made the human race like no other. To me, thats probably the only good thing religion has done for humans (thats not including all the wars that have been fought in the name of God and all the lives that have been taken because we felt our creator commanded us of this, but, I digress).

To summarize, "In The Image Of" is simply a collection of essay's on topics that I have (and still am) contemplated over this past year. I felt it was time to organize my thoughts and hopefully reach a broader range of audience. For any of you who are wondering what I actually believe; I'm not telling! I'm sure you will be able to decipher my convictions while reading my pieces.

One more thing: I reserve the right to be mistaken. I also reserve the right to make a fool of myself by not believing in something or believing in something else. I will never be closed to a one dimensional realm of belief, much like religion tries to make us do, but will be open to everything. Who knows, in a few months I might be blogging about how foolish I was the past two years and accept Christ as my Saviour. Or Allah. Maybe even Buddha.....