Thinking The main problem I have with religion in general and christianity specifically is the assumption that there is only one way to believe and the presumption that all ways but the one in question are wrong. I understand that having a story to believe in is an essential part of human existance, this is not where my concerns lie. My concerns lie in the single mindedness of the steretypical christian to convince everyone in the world that they are wrong to believe anything but the bible. If it was just a desire to allow others to hear your story, or tell them why your story is good, even better than theirs, it would be more acceptable to me, but to assert that you are right and they are wrong when no one could ever really determine the truth of either of those statements seems horrible arrogant and, well, wrong. Since all religions are based on stories, I fail to understand why each one can't be the truth in some other form. Why would an entity responsible for the creation of the world and even the universe be able to fit into our narrow definitions of God, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, fill in egyptian and hindu gods here, etc. etc. It seems much more resonable to me that we, as, mortals, humans, falible beings, whatever, would never be able to comprehend the vastness of this "ultimate truth" as it has been called. This can be carried further, down to the individual level. Each man has a slightly different view of his religion and God or gods as the case may be. His interpretation is unique from everyone else's just as each man on his street, is different from his neighbours. Is each of them wrong because they are not identical? How then, if each interpretation be right, can each religion be wrong? Is each one not a different interpretation of the natural phenomenon surrounding us? Maybe my confusion with world religions explains why I'm drawn to the Valdemar books. There, at least, is a land in which the most important law is "There is no one true way". That makes so much more sense to me. She explores the same idea outside of that country into the lands beyond where they not only believe in their chosen god, but that god actually exists and they have proof. Even there, they are confronted with another land whose chosen goddess is just as real. There is much discussion about one Light with many faces, with the implication being that both contries worship the same entity, but have given it different characteristics such as gender and symbolism through cultures developing over centuries. What's to say such a being would not appear as each follower imagined? This theme has been in my thoughts a lot recently. So much so that I was reading a book on Spatial Data Quality and these three sentences made some things clear in my mind: "Two scientists may not agree on where to place the boundaires, or how to assign the classes, even though they may be highly respected and experienced. Thus the concept of accuracy, which implies the existence of a truth that can be approached by better and moreprecise measurement, simply does not apply to many types of spatial data. Instead, truth must sometimes be regarded as a vague concept that is in principle unattainable." (Spatial Data Quality, 2002, Goodchild et al., pg xvi). I made the, what I thought was obvious, comparison between what they were talking about and God. If two experts can't even agree on where something is physically located, something they can see, then why would religion be any different? On the other hand, I wonder if I'm not making the same jugement? Deeming how they're doing it as wrong because it's not how I do it? I suppose the difference is only in that I'm not trying to convince anyone, and I don't think bad things will happen to them if they don't see it my way. But they should see it my way, dammit! Think of the bloodshed that could be ended. |