The following piece is something I cooked up the other day. It is incomplete, as I hope to delve into the list of words that I shall compile and reasons why they should not be used if one is to hope for effective communication regarding religion and a life including God.
As I develop my personal approach to religion and the study thereof, the inconsistency and inadequacy of words has become an increasingly obnoxious obstacle to expression and more importantly communication.
My respect and passion both for classic thought and culture and for the science of words leaves me with a very classical interpretation of words based primarily on their root forms and historical purposes (as I may know those to be). Thus, the word ‘exclusive’ to me indicates primarily a predisposition to exclusion.
That is to say that an exclusive entity is one that does not accept or recognize people, members, customers, etc. based on a certain set of criteria (i.e. certain churches neglecting people with tattoos or piercings).
However, the more common associations to this word might include special or glamorous qualities. These are positive connotations possibly stemming from such contemporary uses as modern marketing suggestions which, ironically, aim to convince regular people of their potential to be included in extravagant or elite lifestyles (such as an exclusive resort or restaurant which, although typically catering to a certain demographic based on clear criteria is not in actuality closed to people not meeting those criteria. A middle class individual can get into an "exclusive" resort or restaurant provided she is willing and able to pay the fee).
I have struggled extensively with such issues of semantic miscommunication of ideas. In my experiences, one might be in the midst of a fantastic conversation on the mysteries and even glories of God but by simply speaking the words “salvation”, “personal savior”, “church”, or “sin”, the connection and influence one may have built with a fellow seeker will instantaneously be lost. Such words, in a post-evangelical movement America are automatic circuit breakers in the electrical current that is God-seeking conversation.
And so, just as language itself evolves to better enable successive generations to communicate effectively, so too must our religious vocabulary evolve.
This process, similar to that natural process observed by Charles Darwin, is twofold.
First, most words (that is, all words not covered by the second part below) must adapt. Just as all species adapt to their ever-changing environment, so too must we redefine the meaning and uses of words as our society’s experience with these words alters the interpretations of ideas defined through them.
Second, words that are no longer useful or able to exist as they presently exist in their current environment must face extinction if unable to suitably adapt. I have, as a result, resolved to cease the use of such circuit-breaking words as are described above.
To be continued. . .
Love,
The newly-devolved Revolution
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Thursday, April 3, 2008
The Evolution of Religion. . .
Originally posted 01/23/08 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
The Bishops and high priests of the neo-darwinist-atheism circles are proclaiming that religion is a survival tool of cavemen and that as the human race continues to evolve, religion will no longer be necessary for survival. Therefore, it will soon be eliminated. This of course implies that they are bloody brilliant, indeed maybe even super-human, having already evolved past the homeo sapien species and into homeo dickheadian.But, I can't say they are altogether wrong in their critique of our most prevalent, organised religions. It seems to me (and many others) that the authors present in the bible and the quran dealt with a specific few issues. There is the weakness of man, nature of God, relationship of God to man, death, community, family, eternity and time and all of creation's subjection to it, and the dual nature of the world...good v. evil.Let me begin to address the latter by saying that I find it awfully convenient that "the evil one" appears almost out of nowhere in the New Testament of the bible. Where he (or his presumed likeness) does appear in the Old Testament, it is either under another name, form, or altogether sketchy circumstances (i.e. - in Job where God and the devil are almost good buddies - maybe even one, schizo entity...certainly not the devil of the N.T. at any rate)To me, from a historical standpoint, this points to a need among early Christians to adress the effects that an immediate and intimidating opponent (social, political, personal, professional, spiritual etc.) can have on every day life. Namely, the Romans. I'm out of my expertise (do i have an expertise?), but it seems to me that the development of the evil one as a separate and distinct entity, wholly opposed to God is a reflection of the common man's fear of the Republic. The Romans in the middle east would have been a great threat and source of great fear. If you think the neo-lib hippies are bad, imagine them with all the political, military, social, economic and spiritual influence that the Roman's imposed upon occupied territories.This theology continued into the middle ages where territorial rivalries grew ever stronger as power fluxed back and forth. The purpose of a doctrine of good v. evil was still necessary. It was therefore built upon by years and years of Catholic dogma drawn from the aforementioned sketchy references of the Old Testament (the morning star falling....how, in God's name, did this become the basis of an elaborate story such as that of the fall of Satan?????!!!!)Today, however, I question the necessity of a concept of a "kingdom of evil."With the dawn of a "global society", there are no immediate threats on our personal, spiritual lives. While there may still be risk and threats of violence out of many entities such as Iran, Afghanistan, Palistine or Al Quaida, they are not true threats in the sense that the Roman's were able to dictate and severely alter the ability of a common man to live freely.Without making this too awfully long, let me finish by saying that I think that this notion of good v. evil which is upheld by all major religions can serve no purpose today but to support the hatred and violence, name-calling (axis of evil anyone?) and brutal slayings of war that we see going on in the name of "good" over "evil"So, in the adaption of a religion to modern society, one ought to consider the origins of the ideas of good and evil. How satan came about. What he represents. . . in the context of the bible, in the dogma of the various churches and as a symbol of evil. What is embodied in the term evil as used in both the bible and modern religion. Is there a better way of taking care of the problem of being nice to people?It's time to stop thinking in the black and white terms of good v. evil. Final word: my pastor, last Sunday, used a verse (from Galations, I think) about a small amount of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread. In his sermon, this was used to urge us not to have secular friends. That's silly. But the verse has great meaning here. All of us have a little evil within us. . . we're human. We all have that amount of yeast that will affect the entire loaf. We're all evil (10's on a scale of 10 if this yeast story is to be applied)...we're all good (inasmuch as we're able to be). Stop categorizing each other. Like I said, it's this division (created and upheld by philosophies/theologies and doctrines) that enables the hatred and physical violence that we've all experienced and probably have taken part in.Love,The Revolution
The Bishops and high priests of the neo-darwinist-atheism circles are proclaiming that religion is a survival tool of cavemen and that as the human race continues to evolve, religion will no longer be necessary for survival. Therefore, it will soon be eliminated. This of course implies that they are bloody brilliant, indeed maybe even super-human, having already evolved past the homeo sapien species and into homeo dickheadian.But, I can't say they are altogether wrong in their critique of our most prevalent, organised religions. It seems to me (and many others) that the authors present in the bible and the quran dealt with a specific few issues. There is the weakness of man, nature of God, relationship of God to man, death, community, family, eternity and time and all of creation's subjection to it, and the dual nature of the world...good v. evil.Let me begin to address the latter by saying that I find it awfully convenient that "the evil one" appears almost out of nowhere in the New Testament of the bible. Where he (or his presumed likeness) does appear in the Old Testament, it is either under another name, form, or altogether sketchy circumstances (i.e. - in Job where God and the devil are almost good buddies - maybe even one, schizo entity...certainly not the devil of the N.T. at any rate)To me, from a historical standpoint, this points to a need among early Christians to adress the effects that an immediate and intimidating opponent (social, political, personal, professional, spiritual etc.) can have on every day life. Namely, the Romans. I'm out of my expertise (do i have an expertise?), but it seems to me that the development of the evil one as a separate and distinct entity, wholly opposed to God is a reflection of the common man's fear of the Republic. The Romans in the middle east would have been a great threat and source of great fear. If you think the neo-lib hippies are bad, imagine them with all the political, military, social, economic and spiritual influence that the Roman's imposed upon occupied territories.This theology continued into the middle ages where territorial rivalries grew ever stronger as power fluxed back and forth. The purpose of a doctrine of good v. evil was still necessary. It was therefore built upon by years and years of Catholic dogma drawn from the aforementioned sketchy references of the Old Testament (the morning star falling....how, in God's name, did this become the basis of an elaborate story such as that of the fall of Satan?????!!!!)Today, however, I question the necessity of a concept of a "kingdom of evil."With the dawn of a "global society", there are no immediate threats on our personal, spiritual lives. While there may still be risk and threats of violence out of many entities such as Iran, Afghanistan, Palistine or Al Quaida, they are not true threats in the sense that the Roman's were able to dictate and severely alter the ability of a common man to live freely.Without making this too awfully long, let me finish by saying that I think that this notion of good v. evil which is upheld by all major religions can serve no purpose today but to support the hatred and violence, name-calling (axis of evil anyone?) and brutal slayings of war that we see going on in the name of "good" over "evil"So, in the adaption of a religion to modern society, one ought to consider the origins of the ideas of good and evil. How satan came about. What he represents. . . in the context of the bible, in the dogma of the various churches and as a symbol of evil. What is embodied in the term evil as used in both the bible and modern religion. Is there a better way of taking care of the problem of being nice to people?It's time to stop thinking in the black and white terms of good v. evil. Final word: my pastor, last Sunday, used a verse (from Galations, I think) about a small amount of yeast affecting the entire loaf of bread. In his sermon, this was used to urge us not to have secular friends. That's silly. But the verse has great meaning here. All of us have a little evil within us. . . we're human. We all have that amount of yeast that will affect the entire loaf. We're all evil (10's on a scale of 10 if this yeast story is to be applied)...we're all good (inasmuch as we're able to be). Stop categorizing each other. Like I said, it's this division (created and upheld by philosophies/theologies and doctrines) that enables the hatred and physical violence that we've all experienced and probably have taken part in.Love,The Revolution
Caveman Religion
Originally posted 06/24/07 - http://www.myspace.com/iheartdennycraine
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one wait for another day. And by writing the following, I hope nobody is truly offended...It's not that I don't think science is great, because I do. I even side with Mr. Darwin and friends on the whole evolution thing (well about 70% of it anyway....not so much on the trans-speciation - I think I made up that word, I hope everyone knows that I refer to the gaps between species...i.e. chimps to human, lizard to dinosaur, etc. - but the adaptation and mutative genes thing is right on)Anyway, it kills me to see Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kandel and others rant about how primitive any religion is...continuing to call it a development of cavemen (which it was) but using such truth to imply that human advancement requires the dissolution of religion. This is ridiculous. I say this primarily because, as a student of religion, I see distinct patterns in the message that these great scientists are putting out there. Indeed, their message mirrors the structures and formulas that we have identified in human mythology. What they are doing in decrying religion is building up their own counter-religion that while stemming from science is itself a mythology and soon will be a religion complete with doctrine, tradition, scripture, liturgy and the whole nine yards...even faith in beliefs that cannot necessarily be proven as fact....
Sorry, but I couldn't let this one wait for another day. And by writing the following, I hope nobody is truly offended...It's not that I don't think science is great, because I do. I even side with Mr. Darwin and friends on the whole evolution thing (well about 70% of it anyway....not so much on the trans-speciation - I think I made up that word, I hope everyone knows that I refer to the gaps between species...i.e. chimps to human, lizard to dinosaur, etc. - but the adaptation and mutative genes thing is right on)Anyway, it kills me to see Mr. Dawkins, Mr. Harris, Mr. Kandel and others rant about how primitive any religion is...continuing to call it a development of cavemen (which it was) but using such truth to imply that human advancement requires the dissolution of religion. This is ridiculous. I say this primarily because, as a student of religion, I see distinct patterns in the message that these great scientists are putting out there. Indeed, their message mirrors the structures and formulas that we have identified in human mythology. What they are doing in decrying religion is building up their own counter-religion that while stemming from science is itself a mythology and soon will be a religion complete with doctrine, tradition, scripture, liturgy and the whole nine yards...even faith in beliefs that cannot necessarily be proven as fact....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
