Due to an influx of people talking about how religion is the
bane of Christ and that loving God doesn’t require a religion; I felt it was
time to address this thinking. I guess
before I lay out the errors of this thought process I should at least summarize
the thought process.
Essentially people come to this conclusion from two
paths.
- In one path, people determine that Christ was against religion based on his opposition to the Pharisees and Jews in general. People assume that Jesus was trying to expose religion as restrictive and he therefore was attempting to set people free from the rules of religion.
- The second path comes more so from the ecumenical people that believe a pseudo agnostic view that there is a God (perhaps even the Christian God), but that he is ambiguous and cannot be known through any single religion. Obviously the two paths approach God from a different way, but they both draw that conclusion that religion is bad and God doesn't require religion (or even want it)!
Unfortunately, this lofty thought process of the ambiguous
God embraced through a personal relationship free of religion is utterly
stupid. The first and greatest weakness
is that the inevitable conclusion from such a view is a god who fits OUR
personal view. So rather than an
objective greatness, we have a subjective impotence. Why? Because WITHOUT clear definition of who
God is and what His character and nature are like then each person is the
arbiter of who God is. This is because
something that is true is OBJECTIVE. If
you believe a square is round, then you are WRONG! Your belief is wrong, because a square is
objective. It isn’t whatever you imagine
it to be. GOD IS OBJECTIVE! If God exists then God is by necessity,
OBJECTIVE! Why is DNA evidence so effective
or fingerprinting a tool that is still used today? Because they identify a
person on an objective level. Creating
an idea of who you think God is and what He is like is creating a SUBJECTIVE god. By disregarding the teachings of a religion,
you are essentially saying God isn't who they say He is but who YOU say He is –
and that is a purely subjective.
FOR THOSE WHO ATTEMPT
TO BE AGNOSTIC
Now the natural question would be, “But people know people
differently. One man might think one a
villain while the other think him a hero.
Isn't that subjective?” Now
granted, most people actually wouldn't think that and instead would run away
insulting you for being a “head-thinker.”
However, let's assume somebody actually did take half a second to think
and asked that question, what is the answer? Well, it comes two fold I
guess. Perception isn't reality, but
only a subjective interpretation of what is there. Grass is orange when perceived through my
eyes, because I am colorblind. So HOW we
perceive a person does not mean that is WHO the person really is. There must be a standard with which to
measure a person, but that standard CANNOT be subjective and relativistic
because then it cannot be a standard with which to measure EVERYBODY. If the measurement cannot be applied to all,
then it CANNOT be OBJECTIVELY applied to one!
Assuming no religion has got it right, means that we most likely don't
have it right as well. Therefore, the
standard with which the agnostic assumes to measure with is subjective if they
believe ONLY themselves to have it right (by saying that others are wrong),
because if the standard was objective then that would mean the agnostic was
almost certainly wrong in his belief as well and therefore there TRULY must be
a religion that got it right. Agnostics
are cowards in thinking because they don't accept the subjective nature of
their view and yet the only truth they want to accept is that all religions got
it wrong. The truth of agnosticism is
that it is not ecumenical at all, but an arrogant ignorance that places their
understanding that ALL GOT IT WRONG as the only the truth yet somehow reject
the implications of the self-defeating nature of the creed they proclaim.
The second part would be that if God is changing then God
cannot be trusted because He could change and could become weaker, less
powerful, less loving, evil, and the world would suffer the consequences of
those changes; therefore, God must be IMMUTABLE and therefore if something was
true of Him ever it is TRUE OF HIM STILL.
Meaning, if God was ever good, God is still good. Unlike a person who can change and making our
perception the person might change. God
MUST BE immutable and therefore He does not change, only our perception of
Him. So our subjective perception cannot
be the measure of God’s objective person-hood.
Let's examine the concept a little more. For instance, imagine God had no hand in
creating the universe and it was pure, unadulterated chance. Now as time goes on God changes and begins
creating ex nihilo. Well now things
would just start popping into existence within the existing universe and
science would be baffled. What if God
was evil? Would people be crying out why
do good things happen to some people?
With a simple role reversal it is easy to see our perceptions fail us
and that if God is anything He is immutable.
A changing god, whether or not we give him the attributes of the
Christian God, would (given an infinite amount of time) become the Christian
God. If it is possible for Him to become
the Christian God, then He would ALWAYS remain the Christian God, because the
Christian God is IMMUTABLE! Therefore,
if God IS changing, then given an infinite amount of time God WILL BECOME
UNCHANGING!
FOR THOSE AGAINST
RELIGION
This is important because it reinforces that which we learn
from RELIGION. Religion teaches us about
who God is. Based on WHO HE IS, we find
WHO WE ARE, objectively! Our objective
position is based on the objective God. Defining
our worth, position, status, righteousness, based on OUR own understanding or
perception is simply relativistic. If
however, we define our worth, position, status, and righteousness on an
OBJECTIVE reality then we find our TRUE and OBJECTIVE answer to who we are. Christianity as a RELIGION is important because
it seeks to find the objective standard with which to measure. Unfortunately, most people are appalled by
the results of such measuring and appeal to the relative measuring of their
subjective perceptions. When a person
says, “I don't know why God would condemn a good person to Hell.” they are
simply reflecting THEIR OWN PERCEPTION of what is good and also what a good god
would act like. Now the Christian church
comes in and measures that same person with an OBJECTIVE standard and people
cry out that the church is judgmental. Why? Because when the measure is our own, we
can shape it how we see fit and change how we see ourselves. When we measure objectively, there is no
lying and there is no shifting. We land
where we land and we cannot argue it.
The doctrines that develop through religion (the perceived
“rules” of religion) are the protection against irrelevance. It is by necessity that doctrines exist. If a person rejects certain doctrines from a
religion, they reject the authority of that religion. Religion without authority is impotent and
therefore falls into relativism.
Doctrines serve as barriers or fences to prevent relativism from taking
over. Every religion needs doctrines in
order to survive. Rejecting the “rules” of religion is nothing more than
embracing your own relativistic rules that make you the arbiter of truth. Those who are Catholic and reject the
church’s teaching on women priests, abortion, divorce, or homosexuality reject
Catholicism entirely. Because if you
don’t accept those doctrines you don't accept the authority of those
doctrines. Without that authority, you
practice relativism. Those protestants
who reject the Bible's teaching about homosexuality are in fact REJECTING the
Bible as a whole! If it doesn't have
authority on that issue, then YOU become the ultimate authority and therefore
the Bible is SECONDARY TO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING! This is why doctrines are important. This is why religion demands these
“rules.” Because the consequence for
rejecting them is a self-ordained, relative to you, subjective understanding of
the universe, God, and humanity, that bends to the whim of each individual.
It is a false belief to think the doctrines hinder religion
and therefore religion hinders our relationship with God. Doctrines are there to define that which is
OBJECTIVE and to lead us away from our subjective understanding, short sighted
perceptions, and relativistic understanding of God. Religion is the tool to lead us to the
OBJECTIVE REALITY, GOD.
