Considering past inspirations and insights brought about by my Bible Honors class at my new school, I think it altogether cruel to withhold and prudent to share these insights, disorganized as I may consider them (though you may not find them to be disorganized at all). These insights are in regards to religion, its forms and patterns, and Christianity's place among them (if not, as I would argue, above them).
I should go on to say that I think that the intent of every religion is basically good, even if said intent inspires action that is flat out rotten. I would argue that the intent is the same for every single religion, and if some doctrine or other does not share this intent, then it can hardly be considered a "religion".
So what is this intent? It is the intent of every religion to define two fundamental Truths:
1) The problem. Every religion agrees that there is a fundamental problem true to all the world, or the universe, or humanity, or none of these, or all of these. What the problem is is another matter, but every religion will tell you (or ought to, as I would argue) that there is "something that went wrong", or "something that is wrong", etc.
2) The solution. It's at this point that we get a little more narrowing-down of what is "religion" and what is, say, mere skepticism. Religion must have a solution to the problem that it defines, else it is hardly a "religion". What the solution is is what religions disagree on, but they all seem to agree that there is a solution.
I think that this intent is good, even if it results in the development of a doctrine that "misses the mark", so to speak. The day we decide that there is no solution to the fundamental problem of humanity, or worse, that there was no problem in the first place is the day that we might as well slit our wrists and be done with it.
I truly believe that. Isn't it obvious why? Anyone who says, "The world can be improved," is simultaneously admitting their knowledge that there is a problem, that the world does seem to fall short of something. From there, we can either sit like sluggards and allow the problem to have its way or we can get up off of our lazy bums and do something about it, even if there is little to nothing that we can do. Can you, in all honesty, say, "The world cannot be improved"?
So the intent of religion can be recognized as good, while the way in which this intent is carried out may or may not be good also. So... do we leave it at that? Or do we try and find the truth? Or do we suppose that some religions are wrong in their answers and some are right? Or some are more right and some are more wrong, but none are absolutely right? Or do we suppose, as many do, that one religion out of the masses is right and all others are wrong, or just short of right? I think we ought to find the truth, and that one religion is absolutely true.
Now, when I say that I think one religion is absolutely true, I mean it in a somewhat liberal way. It is very possible that certain doctrines considered part of that one religion are actually wrong. But the creed, the center of that one religion, the Truth to which it points, these are the things that are absolutely right. In addition, should such doctrines, if they are "wrong", even be considered part of that "right" religion? It may only be a matter of appearance; anyone can call any doctrine they want Muslim, but whether or not the doctrine is actually Muslim is another story.
Below follows a clue to that one religion, a clue I discovered in Bible Honors the other day (now, do not suppose that the clue is biased. As surely as the sky is blue, it is not). We talked about three religions and their identification of "problem" and "solution". Note that I do not pretend to know everything about the religions mentioned, and that there may be denominations that differ on the beliefs mentioned. I am not saying that if you call yourself a Buddhist you must share the same view that is attributed to Buddhism in the below paragraphs. On the other hand, this information was given me by a professor at Biola with a Ph.D. in Apologetics/Worldview, so the information here is hardly without merit.
Humanism says, "Religion is the problem, and the solution is simply to annihilate it." (Humanism sounds an awful lot like a religion of its own, doesn't it? Sorry to be insulting, Humanists)
Buddhism says, "Desire is the problem, and the solution is simply to annihilate it."
New Ages says, "The problem is that we forgot that we are God, and the solution is simply to remember."
Being the kind of person that thrives on seeking and discovering connection and abstraction, I quickly recognized a pattern among the three, seemingly different religions. They all say this, "We are the problem, we are the solution." That is, something we ("we" referring to humanity on the whole) did, or do, or have done, or are, is the problem. And we are to do something to reverse it. The ball is completely in our court.
This bring to mind an important question: "Is this logical?" Think about it: how can the problem also be the solution? Does this work in mathematics or other crafts of the like? It never has and never will! The problem is never the same as the solution. Should we suppose, for religion's sake, that there is an exception?
Consider disease. Did it take us very long to cure smallpox after discovering it? What of cholera? Other diseases of the like? In these instances, "We are not the problem, we are the solution." Now, of course we were not literally the solution. That is credited to science. But surely you do not think that diseases would cure themselves without human effort? So at the core of things we were the solution.
I cannot think of any other examples off the top of my head, but my point is this. Whenever a problem was within man's power to solve, we solved it; and in a pretty timely fashion compared to all of known history. But now these three religions are supposing that this problem has been within our power to solve all this time; that since the beginning of recorded history (for many religions the beginning of time itself), there has been this problem, and we have been able to solve this problem for some 6000 years at least.
The example religions will say that we haven't solved the problem yet! And yet normal, everyday problems that are within our reach to solve are solved with relative ease and efficiency.
We could look even further into this. Consider this: all religions have yet to agree on a fundamental problem or solution. They still differ, some quite bitterly, on these matters. How can it be that this problem is within our power to solve when in 6000 years of recorded history we have yet to agree on what the problem even is, let alone the solution?!
Would you agree with me when I conclude that these religions "miss the mark"?
So what now? Is there some other religion out there that isn't like this? As a matter of fact there is. My very own, of course. Christianity has quite a different view of things. Christianity says, "Sin was the problem, but that has already been solved for us. All that's left is to take the medicine that has been brilliantly devised for us."
In other words, Christianity says this, "We are the problem, we are not the solution."
Isn't this a good deal more logical? If we are the problem, should we not look to that which is beyond our power to solve us? Consider the analogy about disease. In that, science was the problem. Did it solve itself? No. Did it require something beyond its power to be solved? Well yes, I would consider man beyond science. And that need not be a spiritual consideration. Even the Atheist would acknowledge man's ability to understand and manipulate science.
So if a problem on one level is solved on the level above it, then it seems Christianity's conclusion is in accordance with truth in terms of "problem/solution" doctrine.
Now, before I go on, I should clarify some things about what I just said about Christianity; how it says, "Sin was the problem." That is not entirely true. For instance, after Jesus died, people still sinned. Even people who accept His call still sin. And sinning is still something that ruins the world and people. It is still ruinous and shouldn't be done.
So Christianity doesn't necessarily say that sin is defeated, rather, that sin's defeat is imminent. Its weakness is exposed, and we have been granted more power over it through Christ than we could ever hope to have achieved alone. Like I said before, the second half of Christianity's statement, "All that's left is to take the medicine." Devising the medicine and consuming it are two different things.
Now, some of you may complain to me, calling me cynical, saying this, "How can you say that humanity is depraved and incapable of any good?!" You probably say this to me with the world's "saints" fresh on your mind. You know of whom I speak. Those famous people who "give to charity" and just "seem so nice" and so on and so forth. Please don't misread me; I am not "out to get" these people. I don't know them. I am forbidden to judge them by the very doctrine that I am trying do defend here in this post.
On the other hand, I do still believe that humanity is depraved and that, when it comes right down to it, we don't stand a chance against sin. "But what of those that seem so nice?" you may further insist. I have devised an excellent way of understanding the matter.
Who is more righteous, the one who lifts 50 pounds or 100 pounds? Suppose that "pounds" are "good deeds". Who is more righteous? And do not simply say "50 pounds" because you suspect (rightfully so) that I will flip what I said on its head. Given only what I said, surely the one who lifts 100 pounds is more righteous!
Now consider this: who is more righteous, the one who lifts 100 but is capable of 1000, or the one who is barely able to lift 40 and lifts 50? Surely the second is more righteous!
So I see this in humanity. Anyone who seems good on the outside is indeed doing quite a bit of good, but they are certain to be capable of more good, but are held back by their own sin. Consider first a child born and raised in a non-Christian yet emotionally and morally healthy home. Consider next a child with an abusive father and drug-addicted mother. I am certain that it takes just as much sin to move the first to lie as it takes to move the second to murder.
All we see is the outward appearance. What we don't realize is how much arrogance it may take to move someone to do a sin that seems small. If someone were told and taught and trained not to lie all his life, how defiant it would be for him to tell even a white lie! You see what I mean?
On what authority do I say all of this? Do I have any evidence? What I love about making sweeping statements about humanity is that I always have at least some evidence on the matter; namely, myself.
Any man who thinks he is stubborn, I tell you the truth, I am twice as stubborn as he. But even with that remarkable self-will and obstinacy, I was unable to resist sin. I successfully resisted many sins, yes, but not quite all. And against those few "weaknesses", so to speak, I stood not a chance. Every time I was tempted, I would follow through with the sin probably 95% of the time; and that is by far my lowest estimate!
So, stubborn as I was, I didn't stand a chance against sin.
Now, if I were to tell you what sins these were, you would likely laugh in my face either because you considered the sins quite trivial or you didn't even consider those actions sin at all. And indeed, I tried to use that as an excuse. But it did not work. I knew it was an excuse. Deep down, those sins didn't feel any smaller than they may have looked to others. Indeed, accepting that and concluding that these sins were just as big was a liberating thought. I wanted to believe that they were bad, at the center of my being, because they felt bad, and they impacted me badly.
Think about it in terms of the weight lifting analogy. I grew and continue to grow up in a strictly Christian home. There was no evil in the world that I did not know about. Indeed, those sins that I was vulnerable to, I knew that they were evil also. And still I did those things? How fallen, how utterly depraved I must be to do those things!
So, even with my upbringing, I sinned. And those sins were just as bad as any other sin. That is how I can believe that mankind is depraved.
And so concludes "A word on religion"
No comments:
Post a Comment