The Faith of Not Believing.

There comes a point in scientific analysis where the causes and affects which have lead to an occurance or state become unclear. Whether we ignore the subtleties of friction and wind or cannot comprehend the quantum movements of quarks and such.

Yet, just the same the lack of evidence to demonstrate the existence of a god is used as a reason to not believe in him/her/them.

However, since we don’t actually know what’s going on in the physical world, it cannot be used as evidence that god is not operating in it. There’s no proof of origination to complete the chain of events, nor even a complete chain in its self, to demonstrate a lack of god.

At the end of the day, it requires just as much faith to say that god does not operate within those things we do not understand as it does to say he does.

A topic much discussed.

Now I’ve talked about this before, and if you’re reading this, you’ve probably read that too. But the relevance of my classes recently compels me to clarify. You see, in contemporary political thought we’ve read a couple essays and parts of books which demonstrate the way in which society may become auto-totalitarian; how in Soviet style countries during the cold war the green-grocer put up signs saying “Worker’s of the World Unite!” Yet, he was not the only one to do so. His neighbor did so, the office-worker did so, everyone did so, because in truth they were compelled to do so. In some part it was the government, but mostly, it was because one did that the other must. And in doing so they did not genuinely tell workers to unite, rather they expressed their submission, while saving face behind the security of ideology and in doing so created a perception, and a practical reality that a united opinion existed. While this is considered, even in our class, to be a fairly recent occurrence I’m not sure. I am however sure it is occurring today, not here, but in the Middle East. This is exactly the auto-totalitarianism which we are facing. While they may not put signs in their window pronouncing “Death to America” they put scarves on their face and submit to the power of the ideology. However, it is not mere ideology, as in the case of communism, it is simply an opinion, a belief that we would be better off, a belief that the government at hand is actually communist, rather than a state capitalism. With Islam the forces are much greater, the belief stronger, the punishments not only harsher, but prescribed by god himself, the imposition that the more strict. Where a velvet revolution was possible in Czechoslovakia, taking the signs down are not enough. The majority is too large, the minority to uneducated of the alternative. It is a sense of oppression which drives revolution, but in order to feel oppressed there must not only be an alternative, but you must genuinely know of it; you must on some level be able to experience it, or see it. This is what the US invasion of Iraq aims to correct.

We can’t invade every country that has oppressed people, but in this case the ideology was not simply opposed to ours, but actively trying to destroy, not our way of life, but us as individuals.

I can’t say for certain that this was George Bush’s goal. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t Colin Powell’s. I’m fairly sure it wasn’t the majority of the congress’s. In truth, I can’t say that it was the goal of anyone in particular, but it is the effect, and even if it is the most improbable of co-incidences, it’s one I’ll take.

What if God was one of us?

What if god was one of us?

I don’t just mean like a stranger on the bus, but simply as with Socrates, What if God was a man?

If god was a man, and all men are mortal… Then what if god was mortal? Would you still be religious if the book you read was the word of a mortal? Would you still take it as the truth even if you knew the writer was non it communion with a higher being? Would it still mean anything to you if it was all invented in the back of a bar two thousand years ago? If it was passed down and added to over hundreds of years?

I was just wondering, I know my answer. I’ve thought about it. But I have another, semi-related question, too.

Is it better to blindly believe a religion that’s right, or doubt one that’s not?

I’m running in circles with this so I’m gonna quit.

If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my father.

Jesus was the son of god. However so are all men; we are his children, and as humans we are inherently flawed. We were made in his image, we are almighty. For even he has said, “… now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.” Not even he, as he said, commands more power than man. And for good reason, we are flawed. But as Darwin theorized, flawes contribute to the natural evolution of the world. Not always is the right thing the best. God, knows what is right, he knows all, he is never wrong, and this is his flaw. For man, has stregnth in numbers, we are always right and always wrong. We know all yet are ignorant. Jesus, I believe was sent down to save man, to die for our sins. But we must remember that he to was human. It is the naturea of humanity and something not even god would will to change(he created it as such). So when Jesus died for our sins, he died for his sins too. He was not free of sin, rather free of evil. It was his life, as god intended, and as documented in the bible, that made clear that sin is not evil. Jesus was sent to save, to heal, to help. And he performed his duties on the sabbath. Was that sin,? assuridly. Evil? Of course not. Jesus said, “If you deny me before man, I will deny you before my father.” With no doubt, those are the words of a man. To have the will to seak retribution for wrongs is sin. God would forgive. God does forgive. And he already has.