“Spiritual Growth”

As most of you might be aware of, the news site, Grenada Connection, provides what they called the Religious Corner, a place where they present written thoughts they believe to be “inspiring” words to its readers and insights for them in how to deal with life’s difficulties. However, many of the opinions presented in this corner are, in my view, morally questionable, and one such advice or “spiritual guidance” entitle SPIRITUAL GROWTH is certainly one of them, and I will address problem I have with this counsel.

The author set the stage by asking the reader this question, “Are you wrestling with a personal problem...” Certainly, I think we all are, including the person asking this question. The author is also correct when he or she stated that when we overcome one particular problem, another one is waiting to take its place. However, I am not sure that having, as the author believes, problems are a bad thing. It is true that we all will like to be problem and conflict free, but the fact appears to be that this desire is not realistic. The reality is that we will always have problems and conflicts. However, the trouble is not the conflicts and the problems in themselves, but it is how we handle these problems and conflicts, and this is where I think this counsel has missed its mark. In other words, I believe the author is giving awful guidance in this instance.

Here is why. According to the author, we can only overcome our difficulty by the means of God’s grace because, as he or she claims, “Spiritual growth is a work in progress. And it doesn't come through human effort, self-condemnation, or the white-knuckling works of the flesh.” This Spiritual growth, according to the author, “comes as a result of spending time in prayer and having your mind renewed daily by His Word.”

First, I am assuming here that by “spiritual Growth” the author is speaking of overcoming our daily adversities, personal problems. Indeed, this is what the initial question seems to infer. If this is the case, then while the author is right in that one cannot “spiritually grow” (or overcome his or her problems) if one engages in self-condemnation, the author is certainly wrong in asserting that this growth cannot be achieve via human effort; it certainly takes the human being’s intervention to overcome adversities. Advising that we should just crawl into a closet, armed with a book, loaded with primitive views about the world, speaking to an unknown (mythic) deity is truly bad advice. In doing so, you are advising the individual to run away from his or her problems and not face reality. Agreeing with God does not automatically bring change to one’s conditions. The human being must first what to change and then take that step into make the change him or herself.

As I read this advice, I could not avoid remembering a story told to me by an elder, year ago. The story talks of a woman who had a huge bundle of cloths to clean. She was overwhelmed by the sheer quantity, but despite that, she managed to bring herself down to the river to clean the cloths. On her way to the river she was seen by another women who herself had clothes to be cleaned but was too lazy to act.

It was not long before the first lady returned from the river with her freshly cleaned cloths. That was fast, the second woman thought. Who helped you, she asked the first woman. God did, the first women answered and went on her way.

This answer inspired the second women to pack up her cloths and head down to the river, but upon arriving in the river, she placed her cloths down and started asking God (praying) for help, but after several hours, no help came. The cloths were in the same condition. Nothing happened. With disappointment, the second women gathered her cloths and went back home.

What is the moral of the story you ask. Well, some people put it this way, “God help those who help themselves.” However, what this story is really saying is that “the helping hand you are look for is at the end of your own arm.” It does not matter that the first woman believe she was helped by a supernatural force (God), the fact remains that she was the one who clean the cloths. It takes the human being to make the difference, and no amount of praying to a God, as the second woman in the story demonstrated, or the reading of the Bible can help us overcome our adversities and problems.
Thus, if at first you tried and fail, do not give up. Try again. This is the process of personal development; simple growing up in terms of understanding how to deal with and overcoming problems and difficulties in life, or, as the author calls it, "spiritual growth. One cannot grow if everything is perfect, and everything will not be perfect, as the human experience has taught us thus far, and, this development or "spiritual growth" cannot be achieved by running away from reality. In other words, "spiritual growth" cannot be achieved by relaying on supernatural help or allowing oneself to be stuck in a somewhat paranoiac state wherein your mind is fix daily on a God without looking at reality. Instead, to overcome our real problems and difficulties we must look to ourselves (Humanity) for the answers. In this sense, "spiritual growth" is when the human being is able to face his/her difficulties and via rationality and reason to figure out how to best deal with his/her problems and difficulties.

“We all are worshiping the same God”

How many times have you been in a conversation about religion and you heard the phrase “we are all worshiping the same God”. I guess plenty of times. This phrase is pervasive in religious conversation. On the face of it, this phrase appears to be pointing to the idea that because we worship the same God, we should love each other more.
Indeed, I agree that we should be more loving to each other, but those who use and believe that this phrase speaks truth, is living in dream land. They are in a state of wishful thinking, or, on the other hand, they are using this phrase as a way to minimize the differences between their religion and the religion of others that underscores elements that propagates violence.
In the wake of the Qur’aan burning theatrics that happened in Florida, a sick act overseen by Florida pastor, Paul J. Richards, it seems that this idea is far from truth. Pastor Richard placed the Qura’aan (the Muslim “Holy” book) on trial and judged that the Qur’aan was "guilty", and, as a result, concludes that for punishment, it must be burn. This despicable act no doubt shines light on what Christians really thinks about other people’s religions. I often ask those who use this phrase, are you willing to convert to another religion, and I have never ever received a yes answer. Why is that? It seems bizarre that if this claim is true, converting to another religion should be no problem. But, there is a problem, and many try to explain the problem away, and it is because they really don’t believe that are worshiping the same God as other people.
The idea of worshiping the “same God”, for the Christian, for example, is their personal God whom everyone else should turn to and worship. It is not the other way around. The same is true for adherents to other faiths. As a result, there is no way that pastor Paul J. Richards could have had a  “fair” trial (whatever that means) of the Qur’aan since in the eyes of pastor Paul J. Richards and most Christians, if not all, the Qur’aan is not a book from God. In other words, it is not a book sent by the Christian God. Thus, it was already found "guilty". So, Pastor Richards is speaking nonsense when he siad that, “If the jury had reached a different conclusion, he would have issued an apology for his accusations that the Qur’aan promotes violence”. Pastor Richards knows he do not really mean that. That was never an concidered option. The Qur’aan was already damned.
I certainly don’t advocate the burning of “Holy” books. I think it is very offensive and insensitive. However, Pastor Paul J. Richards is right when he said that the Qur’aan promotes violence, but he should not singled out the Qur’aan, the Christian “Holy” Bible upholds and promotes as much evil and violence too. In fact, these two Abrahamic religions have caused and continue to cause much bloodshed on the planet. I have found them both to be guilty of untold acts of violence! I have no apology!
The fact is this; all you religious people are not worshiping the same God, period. The Muslim Allah, for instance, who commands Muslims, in the Qur’aan, that they should "take not Jews and Christians for your friends…"(Surah 5:51), cannot be the same God the Christians follow. He cannot be the same God that tells the Christians to go convert those who are not Christians, then turn around and tell the Muslims that Christians are infidels, unbelievers; don’t keep them for friends. Do you see what just happened? God just setup these people to kill each other. So much for God’s love!
Indeed, if the Muslim God and the Christians God are the same, then here in lies one more reason why God deserves no praise and no worship, even if he existed. In fact, if he does, he should be tried for crimes against nature and humanity.
It is undeniable that both the Qur’aan and the Bible uphold killing people of other faiths. It sanctions the killing of unbelievers, infidels; anyone who doesn’t and will not believe in their specific brands of faith. Christians are infidels to Muslims and, so to are Muslims infidels to Christians, and the rest of the world are infidels to them both. In this light, the phrase, “we all are worshiping the same God” means nothing, but a way of ignoring the truth that religious dogmas are bad for our health. It is a way to convince oneself that his or hers religion is true by not juxtaposing it with reality. It is certainly an attempt to avoid dealing with the reality that he or she might be wrong after all is said and done.  

                       

Who is responsible for human sufferings?

Who is responsible for human suffering was the question in the center of a recent conversation I had with some Grenadian Christians, and, as usual, it was hard to get these Christian to see the larger point of the story because of their preconceive notion which states that Adam and Eve [more so eve] are responsible. Nevertheless, I will show that their preconceive notion is wrong while demonstrating who is really responsible.
First, let me make clear that I am beginning on a false assertion. The assertion that the Bible stores of creation is true. It is not. But for this explanation let’s suppose that it is. If one employs a critical rational view to the biblical narrative of the Adam and Eve story one will notice a very different story emerge, a story far different to what the Christianity teaches its followers to believe. It appears that Adam and Eve were not created and then just choose to disobey a command given by God. No! What emerges from the story is that Adam and Eve appears to have been created to fail. Why do I make such claims? Simple! God, if he is who the claim he is, if he know all things – even your thoughts, means that he knew that they will fail. Yes, Adam and Eve were set up. God set them up to fail so that he can institute his diabolical scheme – sufferings – on the human population and then swoop down as their savior in the end.
Looking at the story one is compel to ask, was there not another way that God could have go about writing the story of humanity? Why allowed it to be played out the way it has. The answer has to be yes, there are other ways. After all we are speaking of God here and there is nothing God cannot do, right. So why weren’t other options used? The answer is quite simple, God did not wanted to.
According to the Bible, God decided to create man. Why? Was he bored? Wasn’t he satisfied with himself? Although the Bible itself does not give any particular reason/s why God created humans, there are many reasons given by theologians and the most popular version seem to that God created human for his own pleasure, or to fellowship with him (1Corinthians 1:9). However, this pleasure or friendship is an after effect. Something you have to seek after God implemented his sadistic plan of watching humans suffer. To be a friend with him you have to come and ask.
Since that it is obvious that God knew what he was doing, as earlier stated. What was he trying to accomplish. Some say the he was “testing” Adam and Eve? But, the question is, testing them for what. What was the purpose? Didn’t he know all things? Not to worry we are assured, God had a plan. Well, this All-knowing, All-wise, All-pervading, All-powerful God, must have had the perfect plan to accomplish his goal. But, what really was God’s plan?  
“Always,” said John Ross Schroeder, in ‘World News & Prophecy,’ “God is working toward a grand goal—the climax of His purpose on earth. The book of Ephesians gives us an awe-inspiring insight into His objective. The subject of the first chapter is the divine activities and purposes of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (verse 3, Revised English Bible). The apostle Paul explained: "In Christ our release is secured and our sins forgiven through the shedding of his blood.”
God’s plan, the author is saying, is to save humanity from sin and bring an end to evil. That, however, is the end game. How did humanity come by this sin, in the first place, and was it intended to plague humanity with sin. According to the story, man (Adam and Eve) was given a command by God, not to eat a certain fruit but disobeyed their creator’ command (Geneses 2:16). As a result, they were punishment with sin, resulting with human suffering, and According to Christians like Dave Hunt ‘It had to be,’ (as he/she posted in HyperHistory.net on July 2005), and that is so because “God has given to all mankind the power of choice” Which Adam and Eve certainly had.
So, it was having the “power to choose,” what gave Adam and Eve the power to violate God’s command. But, who gave Adam and Eve that power? God did, and one will assumes that God intended for them to use it. If not, why give it to them. As a result, that blame, I believe, appears to be faulty place. Adam and Eve never asked for the freedom to choose; it was God in his infinite wisdom bestowed it upon them. So, did God know or did he not know that by giving Adam and Eve such power will lead to them disobeying him. He must have known. He wanted them to sin.
Furthermore, giving such freedom to choose appears to be the right thing done by God. Certainly, the idea of creating one who follows everything you say seems insensitive. However, not with God, because following all that God command is exactly what God intended to accomplish after his game with human ends. After he come to save humanity and those that use their ‘power of choice’ and choose other things sent to hell for doing so, those who remains will be a assembly of people who will be puppet-like, following all God’s command as they was doing before. In fact, according to believers, you have no right to choose what God do not want you to do. The end result is punishment, Hell, how about that for the ‘power to choose’, or ‘freewill’.
Indeed, it seems as if God purposely gave Adam and Eve the so-called freedom to choose knowing that they will sin; in turn, setting the stage for his ultimate plan. However, on the other hand, as Dave Hunt asked, “Could God have made a world inhabited by beings with the power to choose good or evil, to love or to hate, in which no one would ever have made the wrong choice and no one would have been hateful or vindictive, but unfailingly loving and kind?” The answer he gave to his own question is “obviously not, if they were truly free to choose for self instead of for Him and others.”
I totally agree Dave Hunt. That is the exact point I am making. God intended it to be that way. He was concern about this plan, not about human beings, and you were created so that his plan can take effect. Millions of live have been and continues to be lost, suffering, starvation and much more have plague human beings just because someone decided to use their freedom to choose. Certainly, God could have stopped the incident by not putting the tree in the garden since the tree was of no use to Adam and Eve. In fact, God, since he knew what was going to happened in advance, could have change the thoughts of Eve, but he chooses not to. His plan was more important.
Dave Hunt went on to ask, “Could He (God) have created a universe in which beings who are less than Himself would never make a choice that was less than God-like or in which beings who could do what they wanted to do would never rebel against Him?” Dave Hunt answer here is “No. That would be impossible. Beings who were less than God (as are all created beings) could not live up to God’s perfection -- and to sin, for those made in God’s image (Gen 1:27), is to come “short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23).”
Here, however, I totally disagree with David Hunt. Why? Because God, according to believers, can do all things, and this, if he wanted, could have been done. It is unquestionable that the other options I mention are more moral. Millions of innocent life would have been saved. Instead, God chooses not to choose the more moral rout simple because it would have gone against his intended plan, coming to the rescue in the end. Of course, Mr. Dave Hunt is right, man would not able to live up to God’s perfection, whatever that is, if the freedom to choose is restricted by the same God that gave it to humanity in the first place. Indeed, it appears that God purposely use “freedom to choose” to set the stage whereby he was able to inflect a punishment of pain and suffering on humanity, and according to God, there is more murders to come before the game is all over. So, who is responsible for human sufferings, God is.  

So say Shango

This is Dangerous Stuff

The idea of a being that disobeys normal rules laid down by a god has always been a part of religion. This breaking of the rules was not done by the being himself or herself but tries to get human being to do that by tricking them. This goal was seen as a way to achieve a positive change in the lives of human being.
However, as time passed, this aspect of religion has been given a makeover as monotheism took over polytheism. No longer does this being was seen as a trickster (not unlike the Yoruba trickster god Eshu/Elegba, the Greek's Hermes and the Roman's Mercury), someone whose job was to test or tempt human being to see if they will take the opposite road. In the Bible, as my wife informed me, there are glimpses of this; it shows up in the Bible in the Job story. It was a way to help you grow into a better human being, to see if you deserve the greatness God bestowed upon you, as appose to acting as one who is apposite to God, a villain that God wants us to stay away from and if you didn’t God will take you to a pit of eternal torture if you don’t remain on the straight and narrow. Christianity as a monotheistic religion teaches that this being whom they change into their Satan, the Devil, ha diabalos (in Greek) – the mud slinger, is not a trickster working as God’s servant, but instead, this bad character, is now turned into God’s archenemy who, as does God, can posses human being. This is dangerous because we are now being setup. What do I mean? Well, now we are put in apposition where those who do not want to believe as they can describe as the devil’s representative; God’s enemy and, by extension, their enemy.
Indeed, this belief has been a major problem for humanity, and still today many religious continue to believe religious dogmas like this. It is belief like this that let Grenadian Christians come up with statement that portrays nonbelievers, and even people that expresses another faith, as “beast”. “If you are not a Christian then you must be a beast”, they will inform you. But, do they believe that another human being is actually beast? I doubt it. But some do take the idea that one is against them and their God if you disagree with their view very serious; sometimes to the point of being very nasty. All they need to push them over the edge is a fringe pastors spilling hateful language every Saturday and Sunday. And there are many, normally instructing their Christian followers to rebuke the devil and his host whom, I know, they will like to haul over the hot coals to the furnace but can’t. So instead default this diabolic thought to their God to carryout for them. Indeed, their time for revenge, a time they strongly anticipate; thinking they will have the last laugh. This idea, however, is not unlike what Hitler did to the Jews. Now imagine it going on forever. Insane, indeed! So much for Christian unconditional love!
Some religious people, however, act sooner. They don’t wait for the end times. Many of them take it upon themselves to clean the world of God’s enemy; those who will not convert to their corner, and although these insane religious people are often describe, by the more religiously moderate, as extremist or people on the fringe, it is precisely teaching like the one mention above that is often responsible for pushing these people over the edge.
I say let's put back both God and the Devil where they belong, on the shelves mark all myths goes here. Indeed, this Satan taught in Christian theology appears very different from what the Bible present. The Bible writers appear to been scotch-taping together much older myths into one story. Satan appears to be created from Ahriman, the Zoroastrian ‘Lord of Darkness’ and creator of vermin (creeping things) not unlike the biblical devil who also created venomous creatures (Luke 10:18). These similarities and many others are the tell-tail-signs of the use of much older sources as the foundation for these biblical stories.
So, let's use the trials in our lives as incidents that can help us grow to be better human beings. There is no God or Devil responsible for creating them. Let’s stop the demagogy. Stop using these Gods and devils stuff so that you can bully others into your corner by turning them into enemy and then treating them of eternal torment if they refuse your proposal. There is no question that we are allowing others to use myths to control and create enmity among us. They are the real diabalos, the devils. Don’t buy into their story, it’s all myths.  

So say Shango

Really, they are not in search of the truth

Are you in search of the truth? That is the question that I normally asked when I am in a dialogue with believers, and although one will most often conclude, after conversing with believers, the he or she is not interesting in truth, they, will try, however, to convince you that they are indeed seeking the truth. What I find to be true, however, is that many believers have no knowledge on what truth is. They don’t realize that what we call truth is divided into category – subjective truth and objective truth – and, as a result, conflict them both.

What is mean by subjective and objective truth? How do they contribute to this confused notion of truth hold by believers? First, let’s define the word truth. According to Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary – Revised Edition, Truth means

1. Accordance with knowledge, fact, or actuality
2. The real state of affairs: fact
3. Actuality: reality
4. A statement that is or is accepted as being true
5. The state of being truthful: honesty

If you look at the many definition of truth, the two types of truth is demonstrated. First, there is the real state of affairs; the reality of things. Then, there is the acceptance of a statement as true, religious belief, for example.

The first category falls into objective truth, and according to Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary – Revised Edition, objective means:

1. Of or pertaining to a material object rather than a mental concept.
2. Having actual existence
3. Not influenced by emotion or personal opinion

Objective truth is not just, what you “believe” to be true, which is what religious people do. It is what can be verified by providing empirical evidence. It is verifiable especially through the senses, and it makes logical sense. For example, we know, by observation, and it does not matter which part of the world you are, that the sun appears to rise and set every morning and ever evening. The appearance of sunrise and sunset is an objective truth verify by the senses. Moreover, it is also a known objective fact that the sunrise and sunset is a phenomena base upon the rotation of earth on its axis, and is not literally happening. The sun does not literally move across the sky.

On the other hand, there is subjective truth, and according to Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary – Revised Edition, subjective means:

1.      Of or existing within an individual’s mind rather than outside: personal

2.      Of, pertaining to, or being a subject

This type of truth is whatever you accept as such. It is in the mind of the individual and religious belief falls within this category. An individual’s religious belief holes true to that individual only. For example, Jesus’ story of being crucified and rising from the tomb is a subjective truth. True only to him or her who believe it; true only within believers’ mind. Why? Because it a story that have no prior evidence; it cannot be verify. It’s just that, a story.

Next time you are in a discussion with a believer, and he or she claims to be looking for the truth, ask them what truth. Let them make clear their motives, and you will soon find out  that they are not after any real (objective) truth. Instead, they are trying to verify something they were taught and had accepted. They are not interested in objective truth. To most what they already have accipted is the truth, and that is why their answer is always NO, when asked, ‘are you willing to change your mind if you are proven to be wrong’. They are just trying to conform their prior belief, and, most of the time, when it comes to religious belief, proving them wrong normally makes their belief in the wrong thing even stronger.

Not A Desirable Quality

Is having faith in, or blindly believing in religious doctrine, or in a God, a desirable quality. In other words, is it virtuous? Believers think it is. First, however, let’s look at what the word virtue mean. There are four senses in which the word virtue is used.

• The quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong
• Any admirable quality or attribute
• Morality with respect to sexual relations
• A particular moral excellence

The sense that is most important to us here is the second, an admirable quality or attribute. However, let’s take a look back at the first sense, and, for argument sake, let’s assume that to believe in a God, in religious doctrine and teachings is avoiding the wrong thing and doing the right. Most Christians, for example, will certainly say this is the right thing to do, for the Psalmist David said that “Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." They are corrupt, and their actions are evil; not one of them does good!” (Psalm 14:1, NLT). Who what’s to be in that bracket? Not you, right!

But is what David said really true? I am not addressing whether it is true that to be a nonbeliever means one is automatically corrupt and evil. This, of course, is ridiculously absurd. Being an evil and corrupt person is beyond belief, culture and creed. Corrupt, evil people can be found wherever one looks. What I am addressing, however, is whether religious belief as far as believing without question is an admirable quality or attribute. Many or most believers, knowingly or not, believe it is.

If we go back to the Psalmist’s statement, we see he is saying to disbelieve must be from the heart. Why did he make such a statement? Because, and, as most theologians interprets this quote, the evidence for God is so pervasive, meaning that it is “all around us”, thus, it is incomprehensibly impossible to think someone can possible not see God’s presence. Therefore, the nonbelievers must have motivated themselves to disbelief.  This again, of course, is a nonsensical position. The nonbeliever did not choose to be a nonbeliever; he or she, except people that do not accept Christian doctrine because they are from another culture, comes to their unbelief because of careful examination of the believers’ claims. Can this be said of most or all of believers? Did believers examine facts or claims before their assent to believe or fate? Of course not! Faith, after all, is an attitude of trust, a commitment to accept without investigating. Faith and belief come from the authority of revelation, the holy book and certainly from those who interoperate it for you. In fact, if not for the  indoctrinations during childhood, most believers assent to their faith and belief is mostly base on fair; fair of condemnation to a ‘pit of fire’, in particular, and they in turn argue that none should question God, or, in other words, none should question the priest, pastors, etc. on the merits of their claims. For doing so is to blaspheme God, to ‘miss the mark’ (that’s the meaning of sin).

Not questioning the teachings and dogmas has been a part of Christian theology for ages and is still promoted today. Questioning has always been equated with the “Devil”; one is accused of being possessed by the “Devil” whenever engaged in questioning the faithful and those who claim to be called by or in direct contact with God. In fact, even if one asks a question and, as a result of inquiry, becomes a believer, he or she is still seen as being less virtuous because his or her assent to belief or faith should not be based on finding evidence or examining the facts. This is seen as being forced to accept. You did not voluntarily believe. To believers, this is not very admirable. Here you come to your belief based on evidence and rationality, and that should not be. You should just accept what you’ve been told or read in the sacred text (Bible, Qur’aan, Torah, etc). This view was put forth by people like Thomas Aquinas, for example. Aquinas argue that reveled doctrine, which he called science, is genuine science – even if it is not base on natural experience or reason – because it come from the ultimate source, God. Of course one must have already accepted God to hold such view. Indeed, believers, as Thomas Aquinas, elevate faith above reason. And, as a result, view Christian belief or Christian faith, for example, as admirable and morally superior because it is based in neither evidence nor reason but on the love of God. This is, they say, the virtuous thing to do. No kidding?!

On the contrary, as I conclude, let me say this, and anyone with half a brain will certainly concur, I believe, the opposite make better sense. To question, to investigate, to use reason, to be rational are all desirable qualities. Where as to accept anything as truth without scrutinizing its credibility and finding evidence for or against it, is not a desirable quality for anyone or anything. It is certainly unintelligent of anyone to accept without questioning, just because some individual dressed up in, what appears to be female clothing (long dresses), funny decorated hats (priests), etc., tells you they are “in-tune” with or “chosen” by some unseen deity in the sky. To do this is not a virtue; it’s firstclass stupidity.