The [Buddhist] Scripture is no more nor less than the finger pointing to the moon of [Divine Truth]. When we recognize the moon and enjoy its benign beauty, the finger is of no use. As the finger has no brightness whatever, the Scripture has no holiness whatever. The Scripture is religious currency representing spiritual wealth… [It] is a mere substitute. What it stands for is of paramount importance. Those who spend most of their lives in the study of the Scriptures, arguing and explaining with hair-splitting reasonings, and attain no higher plane in spirituality, are religious flies good for nothing but their buzzing about the nonsensical technicalities. –Kaiten Nukariya
“Arguing and explaining” Holy Scripture “with hair-splitting reasonings” that stifle spirituality rather than nurture it is a challenge shared by many who claim a religion.
Religion is like scaffolding. Throughout history, people from all faiths in every corner of the world have climbed it for only two reasons: to get closer to the Divine or to control those still on the ground.
The trouble with religious doctrine – especially the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran – is that each claims to be the one and only way. To me this isn’t feasible, because though portions of each were surely written by those who climbed to get closer to God, others undoubtedly came from those who climbed to control. Though we’re given discernment to help us decide which is which, many have become complacent and are content believing anything religious leaders tell them, effectively absolving themselves of personal responsibility for spiritual health. The only ”leaders” who seek and accept this responsibility are those who climbed to control.
To call any Holy Scripture “the inerrant word of God” is to deny human imperfection while at the same time giving these “leaders” the justification to direct religion and its followers as they see fit. Because their agendas are often self-serving (be they political, economic, to propogate personal bias, and/or to bolster their egos) these individuals are ill-equipped to bring anyone closer to God.
If you spend your days preaching and debating the small details of Holy Scripture to justify ”hating the sin” or something similar, you haven’t climbed to reach God - you’ve climbed to control.
Enjoyed your blog.
Perhaps you can write something on the following:
If Satan/the Devil were to disappear from the religious mind set, what might be left? Can Christianity and Islam survive without the Original Scapegoat? How did Satan, the servant of God in the story of Job, become the Evil One in the Book of Revelation? And finally, could there be free will without an negative choice?
Looking forward to your responses.
Thanks.
What’s interesting about the Torah’s claim that it’s the only way is that there’s some evidence in the first five books that things didn’t start out that way. The wording of some passages (including the “Thou shalt have no other gods” commandment in Exodus 20) suggests that the ancient Israelites were actually henotheistic rather than monotheistic in their beliefs. Total monotheism is not evidenced until much later in Israelite history.
Sorry for the tangent, but I thought it’s worth noting.
revrichard,
I’m not equipped to authoritatively answer your questions – they’re huge in magnitude and implication – but I can offer a few theories.
Without Satan, Christianity and Islam would cease to exist as they’re known today – they would crumble and fall. I completely agree with what I think you’re saying in this comment – that at its foundation, the Christian faith defines itself only in opposition to Satan. If Satan is removed, where does that leave the religion? How then does it define itself and justify its doctrine?
And if free will could exist without negative consequence, the Church would lose the power it has derived from using Satan to define its teachings (that is, using fear to control the masses). Those of us who claim personal responsibility and use discernment already know that free will, as it harms none, does indeed exist without negative consequence.
Up until reading your comments, I never fully appreciated the truth of this. You’ve rocked my world today – and maybe a few other’s…
Jarred,
Don’t ever apologize for your “tangents.” They always teach me something.
Hello,
Satan has nothing to do with hell. He didn’t create it. He doesn’t hang out there torturing people. God created hell to punish people who break His law, because He is perfectly just. Satan will be tortured in hell for eternity, because he rebelled against God.
Thanks,
Bill
Bill,
I’m not following you. Where have I or others stated above that Satan created hell?
Also, your statement “God created hell to punish people who break his law” illustrates my point about doctrine being used to control through fear rather than empower and enlighten. I don’t want anything to do with a god that beats his followers into submission and keeps them there by threatening “torture for all eternity.” My conscience tells me this is not the true nature of the Divine. If your conscience tells you otherwise, more power to you.
Eternal punishment is not justice; it is revenge. It speaks of the minds of men and man-made gods.
Thomas Aquinas once wrote that (paraphrased) one of the joys of heaven is to be able to peer over the edge of the Abyss and watch the damned writhing in agony. Fun, eh??
If there is indeed a Power Source, it 1) is not the god of the Torah; 2) it is not the dying god of the Gospels; 3) it is not the revenge-seeking “one like unto the Son of Man” of the Book of Revelation.
Ockham’s Razor says in essence, let the simplest explanation be true until proven otherwise. When it comes to the Power Source, the simplest explanation is in the observation of the creation. It speaks eloquently of laws and movements that can ultimately be understood, yea, it speaks of a creature that can understand. It is both provable and falsifiable. It is quite simple.
The religions on the other hand must share the burden of proof that what they say has any bearing on anything. It has never, and can never, be done. Religion is inherently unprovable. It must be taken on faith. And since it is so, let us practice the most important religious principle, the principle of charity. It is the one principle that the Western religions have had the most trouble with. When practiced with commitment, the need to prove disappears. And so does the need to chastise those who believe differently.
One can only hope. . .
Hello Jerome!
I just wanted to say that your explanation of the purpose of holy texts is excellent… and to mention that my post that goes live tomorrow is about this very issue. It’s quite a coincidence that we both wrote about the same subject within about twenty four hours of each other! Still, I think yours is the better written of the two.
Namaste.
John,
I’m flattered. I’m sure you’re being too modest though – I have a ways to go before my writing is as clear and refined as yours.
I’m excited about your new site – I’ll update the url on my blogroll as soon as it’s live.
Yeah, synchronicity is neat. That’s happened to us before, but you beat me to the punch the last time – I think it was either one of your posts on Unitarian Universalism or Wicca.
See you soon…