Am I faithless?

Now important questions for me are, “Where is God? Is God “up there”? Only in a House of God – Church, Temple or Mosque? Or is God (as I strongly suspect) everywhere?”

If God is everywhere why do I need a priest (in my case – I was baptized into the Anglican church), or Rabbi or Imam, to tell me what to do and how to behave? Most of these people would have received “instruction” about the dogma and the form of their belief system from their specific scriptures or Holy Books. This is religion.

But religion, in my understanding, is not the same as knowledge of God. Certainly not the same as spirituality, which, I have always presumed is the aim of worshipping God.

It may be taken as a given that I have a belief in a Higher Power, or source of Life. Call this God, or by whatever name you may choose. It doesn’t really matter. I really don’t think that God would care.

But have I “Faith”? According to Hebrews 11.1 (King James English Bible):-

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”.  

I may hope for things, or events to happen or not happen, but does God “look” at me or “listen” to me and agree or disagree? Really?

As the poet William Ernest Henley wrote:

            “I am the master of my fate;

             I am captain of my soul”.

The bit I just fail to understand is this.  Why do we humans, why do we need to reduce God the level of being human? Why call God a “Him”? Why a male? Then, of course being a male and “human” we imbue “Him” with human traits and the need to propitiate “Him”; try to cajole “Him”; ask “Him” for favours; bribe “Him” with sacrifices, often burnt so that the smoke will rise to “His” nostrils (and presumably please “Him”). If God is everywhere why would he need this - how would this please him? Anyway, how would anyone know?

God, in my understanding is Love. Pure love. Now this does not fit with the public image of greed and lust for power and control prevalent in various, most probably all  religious orders, uncovered by various investigations in many countries. Lust – in its most virulent form – sexual lust for minor children; control, through physical and emotional abuse – is now known to be perpetrated by some preachers of “faith” in all religions.

And this is done in the name of God?

It has been truly said that, “no soul was ever saved by hate. No truth was ever proved by violence. No redemption was ever brought by a holy war. No religion ever won the administration of the world by its capacity to inflict suffering on it enemies (re: Rabbi Jonathan Sacks).”

If Jews, Muslims and Christians worship the same God; if these “believers” read from Holy Books that espouse the same principles of Love, Justice and Tolerance; if these “believers” each invoke God’s aid against the other; if these “believers” cannot resolve their differences without the most extreme violence, then religion (any religion) cannot form the basis for a sustainable social order.

To be truly humanitarian it is essential for any person or group to involve themselves in that most difficult of imaginative exercises – role reversal. Put yourself  (or your group) in the place of the person (or group) that you despise, denigrate or simply do not understand.

It is a human failing, I believe, when people (particularly politicians and religious orders) are threatened with internal discord, to focus on, even invent, some external threat. This is the history of the “scapegoat”. Projecting all your failings onto someone else – and then blame them for your troubles. Killing the scapegoat is then seen, in the eyes of those involved, as justified. It is a form of “sacrifice” and deflects attention away from any internal violence that may destroy the group or people concerned. For centuries the Jews have suffered under this “scapegoat” label. Blame the Jews for everything – the most horrendous example occurred in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. But Jews are not the only scapegoats. Currently, in the eyes of some, anyone who is not a “true believer” is “not worthy in the eyes of God”. Apparently. 

According to the history of the three religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – all people are children of Abraham. By whose understanding then does God want his followers to kill for His sake; to engage in “Holy” war for His sake; to engage in human “sacrifice” for His sake; to hate and terrorise “unbelievers” for His sake? Such activity is an obscene distortion of everything that I, for one, was ever taught. 

It is the requirement of all, or so I believe, to overcome any “evil” tendencies within us and learn that love is the greatest power of all. This, in my understanding, is the only “message” that is worth listening to. That and the Golden Rule – “only do to others what you would like done to you”. There are no viable alternatives.

But if I know this – that I am not perfect and that I have a negative (or bad) side to my character as well as a good side, why do I need a priest, or imam or rabbi reading from a “Holy” book to tell me? Anyway how would this person know what troubles I’ve experienced or what my shortcomings are, or how to redress them? 

It seems to me that the priests, rabbis or imams should confront their own shortcomings. To quote from the Bible (it has its uses!):  “First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye”(Matthew 7:5). 

So am I faithless?

The difference between Ethics and Religion

I know I have written about this before but it is a very good question and today an ever more important one. They are, however, two quite different things. To me the very basis of ethics is the “golden rule”:– Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

All religions (repeat all religions) have this written somewhere in their “Book” or “Books”. But to me the words – written and book – are the problem with religions. The “words” were written by human beings and are interpreted by human beings, no matter how Holy, or Divine, or educated, or devout they may be, it will still be their writing and their interpretation of what they heard or saw. And people, all people, religious or otherwise will interpret what they see and hear through the filter of their life experiences. It cannot be otherwise. Remember that not one (not one), not Buddha, Jesus or Mohammad, ever wrote anything down. There is some dispute as to whether or not they were even literate. Everything that we know about them and their teachings was written by their followers – sometimes many years later.

People have opinions based on their life experience, education and current circumstances. This, most certainly, colours what they do and say – also what they write.

And there is a difference between Religion and Spirituality. Religions, in my understanding are supposed to give guidance to followers, to understand how to get closer to God (or Allah, or Yahweh, or the Great Artificer, or whatever name you give to the Almighty). In other-words how to become a better person and (possibly) more spiritual. If this were not so, why follow any religion?

There are over 7 billion people on earth at present. There are, I believe 72 Jewish sects or interpretations or schools of teaching; there are 3 sects in Islam with, as far as I can determine, 73 different basic interpretations or schools of teaching; there is dispute about how many Christian denominations, sects or schools of teaching there are – a quite astonishing figure of about 20 000 (twenty thousand) has been quoted; there are 5 basic divisions in Buddhism with many difference interpretations or schools of teaching; Hinduism – the oldest surviving religion in the world, has hundreds of different interpretations of the various teachings (I am unable to determine how many).

But (with the exception of Buddhism) they all claim to worship God - a Supreme Being (presumably the same one).

There are so many religions and interpretations because we are all different, with different expectations and views on life. We are not clones. People will always try to find some form of worship that is close to their way of thinking, something that satisfies them and brings them comfort and peace.

Another problem is that religions (all religions) give power to the leaders or teachers. A classic example is the Catholic Church, which is a vastly wealthy organization, and the Pope (an elected leader) wields immense power in many areas.

Power always brings corruption and abuse of power (as Sir John Dalberg-Acton, 8th Baronet, famously wrote, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”). And with human beings, fickle as they are, this always has been and always will be, even with checks and balances. Corruption is not ethical. People in power will always try and use it for their own benefit or to make them seem “better” in their own estimation.

There is, and always has been, abuse (sexual and physical) of women and children in all religions – Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism. Priestly abuse and paedophilia are oxymorons. They should not go together, but they often do, unfortunately.

This is why, in my understanding, there is a difference between Ethics and Religion even though all religions have written somewhere:- Only do to others what you would like them to do to you.

And again, that question of spirituality. This I cannot answer. But I know that religiosity is not the same as spirituality. Never was.

If anyone is interested I was born into a not very devout family – Church of England.