Browsing at the Celestial
Salad Bar
To add this article to your site, click the "+MySite" button
I have a problem with most
discussions about religions mainly because of the way the topic is framed.
There are at least three hugely different ways of approaching the
subject, and if the participants aren't clear which one they are using, then no
amount of debate will ensure a mutual understanding.
The first approach is that
religion is a Metaphysical Salad Bar; a huge buffet of
different paths to self-fulfillment. They
take what they want, and leave the rest. People
of this school of thought get very upset about proselytizing or debating
religion. To them it is a way to
sleep at night, a way to live happily. Don't
push your morals on me, because what is right for me may not be right for you,
so stay on your side of the salad bar. Problem
is, they don't really believe it. If
you doubt me, then cut in front of them in line at the bank, and see what
happens. All of the sudden, they
believe in a universal code of fairness, not “you
have your truth and I have mine”.
The next time someone pulls
the "All
roads lead to enlightenment" line, ask them if Hitler's road
led to enlightenment; you will actually hear the scratch of the needle on the
record player as they gape at you, blinking. It’s especially funny because while they say everybody has
a right to believe what they want, they are perfectly willing to argue with
someone who disagrees with them. If
you believe that there is a reality to which religious belief is accountable,
then they will say “You can’t believe that!”
Oh yeah, they are perfectly serious.
The second approach is that religion is Man's attempt to work his way towards God. Salvation in this view is a long, arduous attempt at perfecting oneself. This view tends
to favor reincarnation and the utilization of 'spirit guides', ‘ascended masters’ or
|
|
'ancestral
totems', etc., to help us in our self-improvement.
In a way, if you ever reach it, it makes you God, or at least you 'blend'
with God. (I
guess you are ultimately worshipping yourself then)
But since we ultimately can’t be perfect,
per se, they change the rhetoric to ‘perfection
is a road, not a destination’.
So…we are traveling a road with no destination in mind?
How do we know where to go? “Look
within yourself” they say.
But, as Frank
Peretti has said, “If
you are searching for truth, don’t look within yourself; you’re the one who
is confused.”
My chief objection with this approach is that it tends to have
insufficient, inconsistent or contradictory definitions of God.
God tends to be an impersonal Force, a huge source of energy that has a
light and a dark side. Morality is
thus confusing; why adhere to one side when both are God?
There can truly be no 'good' and 'evil'
if both are Yin and Yang dimensions of the same Entity.
Balance is what they seek. (what
is that, anyway, moral luke warmness?)
And how does something impersonal create that which is personal?
Doesn't make sense to me.
If however, there does exist
in reality a spiritual entity to which we are accountable, and if that Entity
has made contact with us, desires relationship, and has something to say about
how things should be done, then that is an entirely different approach.
It’s checkable. In that
view, the Entity is the Source of Reality; a fixed point of reference by which
we can evaluate ourselves and the world around us.
There is a Right and a Wrong, and there are consequences when we tell
that Entity to mind his own business. This
is of course viewed as politically incorrect.
It’s
wrong to say that the other guy is wrong.
…Of course, since I
said it was wrong to do, then I guess I’m
wrong…or…maybe I’m right, as long as I don’t tell other people it’s wrong…
…Don’t think about that
for too long or your brain will short out.
One of the freedoms we have in the U.S.A. is the freedom to be wrong.
Hey, everyone has a right to believe whatever they want, but it doesn’t
make it reality. I can believe that
Drano is nutritious, but it doesn’t make it so, and I will die if I drink it.
I may not believe what you
believe, but I will protect your right to believe it.
In the meantime, I will try to persuade you of the truth of the matter,
as I see it. Hey, I may be wrong,
but let’s talk about it. It’s
an important topic, one that always seems to get bypassed, and then no one gets
around to finding out the truth and then it’s too late.
That is absurd. And
avoidable. We can be grown ups and
talk rationally without ending up in a fistfight.
Because if we don’t, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Darren Turney
01 October 2005
