An Easter Update: Thoughts on religion

Religion is our encoding of our tribal identity in ritual, liturgy, and dress allowing us to recognize friend from foe, particularly among strangers. A particular religion involves both the concept of perfection — or God — and the concepts of how best to meet the challenges we have identified as replicable in the human experience of existence, as well as what they mean and why they occur.

Note: I am most familiar with the Christian religion, and I have been reading in Buddhism off and on for most of my adult life. (But I am certainly no authority on Buddhism, and merely claiming personal -- rather than scholarly -- familiarity with the Protestant Baptist version of Christianity.)

The leading "thinkers" in human history have realized that there is a "standard instruction set" encoded in our biochemical processes that guide the organization of our perceptions and thoughts as well as the responses to them. Religious thinkers identify this "standard instruction set" as ordained/given by God.

For example, we have learned that we treat those we recognize as friends different than we treat those we recognize as foes, and that we automatically are wary of a stranger until we determine the stranger's status, and we know from experience that a tactic of an enemy is to get their foe to let their guard down by considering the enemy a benevolent party to the engagement ... a la the Trojan Horse.

What I find most appealing about theoretical Christianity is that it invites all human beings to explore friendship through a commitment to the concept of Jesus as perfection. And I find the concept of Jesus as perfection to be an ideal that offers the most hope for humanity to live in peace. The traditions of the Judaic-Christian religion heritage provide the admonition to progress from our "isness" to our "oughtness", ever mindful of the dynamic tension in the struggle. Although I must say, the evolving interpretation of Christianity by many politically dominant religious leaders has not proven to provide the best path toward peace, nor was King David of the Old Testament a particularly peaceful leader. (Note: I do not believe that a "God" exists in the meaning of "God" expressed in the Christian Bible.)

I accept the challenge of the struggle to become what I believe I ought to be. And that it is my commitment to my concept of human perfection, to my "God" ... which in itself is dynamic ... that identifies me as a "religious" person, and my "religion" is the path I have identified to follow in my commitment.

This all melds back into my understanding that my existence -- coming out of the evolution of human existence -- preceded my awareness of my existence, and that -- therefor -- my awareness is organized by my existence folding back upon itself ... so that I am capable of choice ... which is an essential characteristic of the an intelligent life-form. I can, in fact, choose to learn how to choose based on reason.

I would even suggest as worth examining, the idea that it is the concept of an ideal of human perfection in the form of God that initiates choice because as reality unfolds/evolves, whatever God was defined to be carries with it the limitations of past experience, never able to anticipate all that we will learn about ourselves and our world in the cosmos. The cosmos continues to surprise us. Even adding "omni" to our God's attributes does not drown out the call to our renewal of choice in the face of new experience, as Joshua challenged the Israelites in the Old Testament, "Choose you this day whom ye will serve." - Joshua 24:15, KJV Blue Letter Bible. 1996-2008. 24 Mar 2008. http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jos/Jos024.html#15

Confronted with the dialect of "isness" vs. "oughtness" -- individually within each of us -- we are thrust out on the unfathomable (we do not know were we go with any certainty) depths of the awareness of our individual existence to choose, and through our actions express our faith in a path ahead. Even choosing to do nothing is a choice.

For example, I can decide whether a stranger is a friend or foe or nothing of note ... and then what to do about it, or not. I can decide to learn how to make friends of foes, or not, and then decide to go about doing that, or not.

And because I can imagine a better world, I can choose to try to bring that better world into existence, or not.

I believe the most fundamental choice is whether I act to benefit myself irrespective of the effect on my community/tribe, or I act to benefit my community/tribe irrespective of the effect upon myself.

Christianity teaches that the first option, or greed, is the root of all evil, and that the second option, or the giving up of one's own life for others, is the greatest love we can have. And in framing our options it circumscribes our choices as Christians.

The vaunted MBA mantra that acting to benefit myself provides the greatest benefit to my community goes tilt upon any reflection beyond the statement on the surface.

Christianity also proposes that all humans God's children, are destined to become friends.

That addresses my Christianity, my existentialism, and my atheism. What is left is to consider my transcendentalism ... which to me is simply that my awareness transcends my concept of God ... because God is the product of my past awareness and present reality unfolds in the present into the future as a dynamic process of adaptation based on the past correctly anticipating possibility emerging in the present but never "knowing" exactly what is in store.