spent the day online today. how sad. fun, though. well, for the most part. there's nothing quite like being told that you are indubitably going to hell to start an argument off right.
one of the people from the brunching board, spicy j, has rather strong beliefs which basically say that no matter how much i try i'm just doomed. great thing to try and argue against, really.
i think the more someone whose views i am opposing believes in his/her arguments, the more i tend to want to resist them. this is dangerous for me, since the arguments will go on forever if neither side will cede any points. i think i also tend to get to a point where i might try to incense people like that without reason. or i do it without thinking.
i made a comment that i couldn't believe that every other religion was wrong, and that all the good people in them were condemned. after that, spicy said something about belief in jesus being the only way to heaven, which led me to be a bit brash. i told him that even if i did believe in christ, i wouldn't want to be a christian because i refuse to be a part of any group which condemns others and has no tolerance. he didn't say much to that, and i should prolly be thankful for that.
religion is something which is so touchy. all i want is the right to choose. for myself and for everyone. it seems like some people would rather we didn't have that.
if there's anything that one could call my personal crusade, it is my quest for freedom. freedom is something i think we all should be entitled to. to some extent christianity denies freedom.
christianity is an institution. not all of its trappings are bad, of course, but nonetheless institutions always have certain properties. one is that they strive to remain unchanged, another is that they fear heretics and they criticize those who are outside the institution. in the case of christianity, those outside the institution are just condemned point blank.
i can't fit into an institution correctly. i have no respect. not for these sorts of organizations. the respect i hold is reserved for people and ideals. i don't respect the idea of a teacher, i respect certain people who educate well. i don't respect the institution of christianity, but i respect certain ideals of the religion and numerous christians within the institution. the teachings of morality presented in the bible are worthwhile, but the organization which has sprung up around it... a whole group of people who specialize in telling you what is good for you. you couldn't possibly decide for yourself, you know.
the idea that this one point--belief in jesus christ--is the complete determinant in your afterlife... it makes no sense. i refuse to believe god is that unforgiving. i refuse to believe that not believing in christ is something which needs to be forgiven. what percentage of the world is going to hell on spicy's terms?
no. i reject that entirely. the dalai lama is not going to hell. with all the beauty and goodness in the world... and then to disclaim it all if it isn't christian? doesn't that sound awfully ethnocentric?
there are no eastern religions with this attitude. too many westerners are shallow and bigoted. we really could use some culture. i find it sad that people can hold these attitudes. closed minds and feelings of superiority over cultures they don't even understand. that they haven't made any effort to understand. this is why i so frequently find myself thinking i hate the US. or not hate, but i lack respect. we're all so ignorant. i'm so ignorant, and i end up looking edified comparatively. what a joke.
knowledge isn't all there is to the world, but not having it and judging anyhow is a major flaw in my eyes. judging at all is questionable. who can genuinely understand enough to be able to judge? what gives anyone that right? leave it to god. which is something that christianity, or certain christians, can't seem to manage. have more respect. god is almighty. you are not. you are fallible. don't try and convince me i am, too, because i already know it, and you don't seem to.
i get very touchy, so i guess i believe in my own ideals, to some extent, but who doesn't? at least i know better than to insist i'm right or to tell others they must be wrong. i can certainly think it, but i'm not about to try and discredit your whole belief system. in my opinion, if there is a god that i'd want to reach, then he would find it adequate for us all to try our best to reach him in our own way with whatever religion we are taught.
oh, and for the most part religion is something we are taught. conversions aren't that common, so condemning someone because of what they are taught from a young age seems rather extreme. beliefs are very easy to form when you are a child, and you aren't responsible for deciding yourself at that point. what if christianity is the way, and you die at the age of six a buddhist? does god condemn children? my education classes tell me that children can't even completely deal with truth until twelve or over. it's not valid to judge the religion of a pre-teen.
it all makes no sense to me if you say, "there is one way and everyone else is damned eternally." this from the same god who advocated forgiveness? (because if christ wasn't forgiveness, then i don't know what he was.) did god change his mind? oh, well forgiveness was good that once, but no longer? i just can't understand how others can find this to be logical. yes, they tell us we all have the choice to accept jesus... i believe that works, yes... in *theory*. what about those who have no opportunity to learn about christ? i can't reconcile the whole thing into a logical whole, and i've thought about it rather a lot.
then also, spicy brought up how the israelites were the chosen people. (i'm generally surprised and impressed when people like that have anything more than a nodding acquaintance with the old testament, actually.) so considering the israelites were jewish... i can't see it. we were once the chosen people, but now we're just all condemned? no. god did not turn his back on all of the jewish people, all of the muslims after the appearance of christ... i can't even see god automatically dismissing atheists. i still believe that good done in the name of evil is good, and evil done in the name of good is evil. it shouldn't matter what you call yourself (or what others label you--institution!) it should matter who you are.
god is all seeing, and can determine exactly what sort of people we are. why discount all that for one belief? good word am i ranting. i think i'm getting it out here because i couldn't really argue it against spicy. he doesn't accept other viewpoints at all. he doesn't seem to even consider. any guesses on what i think of that?
i just find it sad. people who are so sure of their superiority... they miss so much. in order to see, one must have open eyes. in order to hear, one must have open ears. in order to think, one must have an open mind. i think it's a proverb, but i don't remember the exact words.
if there's anything i feel to be important, it's an open mind. i've been accused of lacking it, but i don't think that's the case. i just have strong beliefs. i do consider what is presented to me, but generally i've done enough thinking about most things that there's a reason that i believe what i do in the first place. this means i don't change opinions all that often, but not because i'm not considering other options.
also, i have changed my mind quite a bit in my brief time here so far. mom is the one who most often accuses me of being closed minded. in reality, i think she is the one who has a closed mind. i tend to be pig headed with mom, because she exasperates me. she also bullies me into things and uses no logic, and considering my viewpoints are so diametrically opposed to hers in the first place, is it any wonder she thinks i'm being unreasonable?
i think my first instinct is to reject other ideas if they are quite different from my current values, but i would suppose that would be fairly common. after the initial reaction i go back and consider everything, and i think that's all anyone could ask for. i honestly think that i'm a decent person, and my values are respectable. if someone can choose to discount me point blank because i was raised jewish, then i suspect that their values are inferior to mine. acceptance of others is important. major message of unitarian universalism. acceptance is advocated by taoism, too. tolerance of what is around you. we aren't meant to change our environment much, we are supposed to change ourselves to handle difficulties. it's also part of twelve step groups, when they talk about accepting what you cannot change and having wisdom to know what those things are.
it is irrational to assume you can change other people or the world to suit you. it is a waste of energy; pointless struggling against the way. when did i become spiritual? huh. i suppose when i found a religion that made sense to me. what we can do to improve the world is pretty much personal. you can accept personal responsibility, but really you can't take on the ills of others. it's not so much within our power. there are some exceptional people, but mostly we have enough difficulties bearing our own crosses.
live an admirable life. care for others. do the best you can in your life. try not to cause harm. don't go too much beyond that. it is admirable to think that you can change the world, but it's not terribly realistic. those who most need change are those who are least likely to accept change.
it's not to say that charity is undesirable, but to be aware of limits. if i donate, then that is a good work that i have done. i can't much influence others to do the same if they weren't of such a mindset in the first place. my donation may be of value, but it is irrational to expect it to have a widespread effect. the human race as a whole seems unfortunately set in its ways. too bad we are so destructive. am i being pessimistic? am i just being lazy? no, i don't think it's laziness, because personal responsibility is a large project in and of itself.
i grant that it is possible for mass change to be effected, and i don't suppose i really advocate a lack of effort, but i expect little from it. i think it's more profitable to try and change what is in your immediate environment.
this was largely what i wanted out of teaching. the idea of a profession where you can make a difference in so many lives... that sort of concept is truly worthwhile, and no teachers should really enter into the field without truly considering what effect they want to have on their pupils. there is room for a lot of good in the world, but it all starts from yourself.
maybe what i want to say is that changing the world is a fine goal after you have achieved your personal change. i don't know. i just wish other people would think more, be more tolerant, and be more loving.
we all are imperfect. christ was supposed to make up for this, but it seems to me that not even he was perfect, even from what the christians tell of him. what does that say? it says that there is no one out there who has the right to condemn. let he who is without sin cast the first stone. just shut up and look to yourself for change, rather than attacking me. handle your life and don't be so sure that what you see as an improvement will necessarily be one for me.
i guess that's why i don't advocate global change for the most part. in the case of things like charity, yes, i can't see that as being disagreeable, but i could be wrong there, too. in any case, i don't feel i should try to change the world to suit my ideals because i believe i'm wrong. and so are all of you. if you weren't wrong, you'd be god.
by and large i think my grand message to the world is mind your own damned business. heh. great. well, i suppose that pathetic attempt at levity signals the time for me to go to bed. :) this thing is particularly long, anyhow. i knew there was a logic behind this. :) goodnight.
posted by Unknown at 2:27 AM