It's a very new experience for me to question religion and try and figure out what it means to me. I've done so many google searches on various religions in order to get a little bit of an understanding of what is important to me. I don't feel 100% comfortable about speaking of other religions and their beliefs, just because I've only taken a very generalized look at everything. Not to mention that I still feel that forbidden/taboo feeling attached to speaking about it and questioning what I've been taught. Did I mention that I'm afraid of rejection? 'Cause I still am, although it has been getting better.
The concept of pacifism, I haven't really addressed with myself all that much. I like the idea of non-violence, but I do believe that people do have a right to defend themselves. Some religions that believe that all life is sacred (I do believe this in some regard, but not to the extent of others) and must wear a veil to prevent the harming of anything due to their speech or must sweep the ground in front of them, I think are taken too far. Though, to each its own. The killing of an individual is not necessarily something I believe in, whether the death is caused from direct or indirect actions. Yes, I do realize that elaboration is needed, but I'm not going to give it now. I haven't really developed a strong opinion on death penalties; keeping someone in prison for life when you know they'll never get out ever again is very costly. Oh, dear. I feel like a cold, heartless b***h right now for even comparing a human life to economics and money, but that is an argument that some people use.
I looked at various religions that dealt with the idea of reincarnation to try and get a better idea about it. My 'theory' (if you can even call it that) about 'host bodies' as merely a vehicle used to carry the soul around doesn't sit that well with me. First off, I don't at all feel like my soul has been through any other lifetimes and the thought of everyone using a 'recycled' soul over and over again just doesn't feel right. Then there are no (or very few) new souls and people wouldn't necessarily be individuals anymore. I don't believe in the idea that the soul would travel across species, I just can't believe that. Humans have a higher functioning power (at least that's what we like to think. It's just like the idea that dolphins are smart; so smart that they can train a human to stand at the edge of a pool and toss them fish) and we were built in God's image. Therefore, why would God move our unique souls through less sophisticated beings. Sadly, I have a feeling that when cockroaches take over the world I'll be the first one to go thanks to that comment. ;)
Anyway, one of the religions I took a quick look at was Sikhism and on Wikipedia (yes, I do realize that it isn't an accurate source) they had neat bullet points that explained some of their beliefs. One of them in particular, I found to be quite interesting: the idea of "blind spirituality" is prohibited. Maybe I don't view it the way they do, but I found it to be an interesting idea. I believe that blind spirituality is a danger. In my opinion, anything that is done blindly is a danger. Following certain rituals, prayers and so on without thinking of what you're saying or doing it without any meaning is just a display to others; to "prove" that you are spiritual. This goes back to my previous blog post, people are not perfect. We are flawed beings and by covering up our flaws to give the illusion of perfection, we prevent learning how to work around these flaws and are unable to help others in the same situation. Sikhism also prohibits any sacrifice (human or animal) or the eating of meat in a ritualistic manner, which I agree with as well.
Whew! My fingers are getting tired and there are still so many thoughts running through my head in regards to religion! :P Onwards I shall go!
If I choose to accept (and I am very close to doing so) the idea that all religions are merely branches on a tree and they are all connected to one holy being (displayed differently throughout them), I therefore must look at the various religious texts. I don't accept every idea that is present throughout the Bible, and I don't take the books of the Bible as the direct, authoritative word of God. I believe that people who were close to God wrote them, however, it was not God's hands that did so. They merely wrote down the histories and events, as well as their own interpretations and beliefs. We must interpret those ideas for ourselves and question what we read, as well as the circumstances surrounding the writing of the Bible's books. If a religious man today published a book about events in today's world and his theories under the umbrella of God, would we add that to the Bible? When did we stop adding books and why? If we did add the religious man's book, would we then blindly follow it as the true word of God? Is it possible for one of the books in the Bible to contain inaccurate information regarding history? If it is, is it then plausible to say that the books contain a slant on an issue?
Should we be allowed to possess property and other physical items or is the owning of such only fuelling greed and false ideas of superiority over those who don't own the same stuff? Should church be a rigid structure? I don't think so, I think church as everything should be fluid (in some regards) and move with society while maintaining moral standards. I don't believe that there should be a direct head of a church because as I've mentioned, humans are full of flaws and we have the potential to take advantage of a higher position. No one person should be given absolute power save for God.
Ok, I'm so done thinking for now. Gosh, my brain feels frizzled, but less chaotic than last night. Although I shouldn't rule out another breakdown, because as soon as I rest my head on my pillow, I'll get a plethora of thoughts and ideas. I might add another post with some of the ideas in my notebook (which is where I do most of my brainstorming) tonight, but we'll see how my wrists will hold up. ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment