On Religion and Confusion

In the past, I considered myself a religious person. I prided myself in being someone who was pious. I made a mental list of my “sins”, to be religiously confessed later on. I felt really bad and guilty about my “sins”, which I thought was how it was supposed to be. I felt tortured by them, basically. I also prided myself on knowing what’s right and what’s wrong, what you’re supposed to do and what you’re not supposed to do. I felt proud of being earnest and quiet during mass, when my peers would only be fidgeting in their seats, sharing gossip, or giggling about God-knows-what. Reflection papers in class were wrought with “reflections” about God.

But as time passed and I grew older, things became less black and white. I realized things could be gray. And a great deal of things proved to be.

Now, I don’t consider myself religious at all. I consider myself God-ish though, if there is such a thing. I believe in God, I really do. I believe in an entity who is somehow omnipresent, and who has a hand in what happens to us. For example, I pray for things to happen. I also thank God for good things that happen. And when something works out after a bad stretch, I think that God maybe meant for it to happen.

However, I find it hard to believe in religion, which is, to me, just something that some people prescribe. It’s an oligarchy, almost. How can I believe in something that was written so many years ago, allegedly by people who had direct contact with God? Why should I follow doctrine, when to me it just seems like a bunch of rules that men in pointy hats decided upon? For example, why is it that you’ll go to hell if you don’t go to mass every Sunday? Or why is drinking so bad? Or sex? Or homosexuality? Some things are intuitive. You can figure it out on your own. For example, of course it’s bad to steal, or to kill or rape someone. But some “sins” just don’t make sense. Why is sexual behavior bad? Why is something that is natural, something that can bring a man and a woman closer, bad? It’s something that can express love and intimacy, and really, something that just comes naturally.

Why does religion have to condemn so many things? Somehow, I’d like to believe that people are good, as opposed to what my religion dictates– that people are evil, sinful, dirty, and just lacking, and that we have to be saved. Saved from what? Do they mean to tell us that kind people, people who live honestly, who spread joy and love to the world, have souls that are lacking, just because they don’t have knowledge of the “correct” concept of “God”? Does that mean that God only “saves” those who happen to have knowledge of him? I do not like what my religion prescribes, that it is the only one true religion, and that people who don’t abide my its rules, or agree with its vision of God, will burn in hell.

Most of all, I’d like to think that God is wiser and more understanding than they make him to be. I’d like to think that his law is more than a bunch of rules that you Must abide by, no questions asked. I’d like to think his understanding transcends these rules, these rules that seem to express such a narrow point of view. I’d like to believe in his goodness. Ultimately, that’s what I believe God is– goodness. A benevolent being, as opposed to this demanding, judgmental being they make him seem. To me, He is someone who created the earth, the good things in this world, and someone who meant for us to be Happy.

It doesn’t make sense, following a religion that tells you to hate yourself, and things seemingly inherent and natural. I don’t think I can agree with a religion that makes people feel so bad about themselves, feel so damn guilty all the time. I also don’t believe in the concept of saints. It all feels so contrived. All of it–it just seems like a bunch of people dictating on what to do, and what is right. Ultimately, it’s just an institution, a worldly institution. So maybe I’m not religious at all. This being said, I don’t think that I’m a bad person. More so, I’m not an atheist or an agnostic. I won’t stop going to mass, because to me, that is still a way by which I can show my faith to the God I believe in. However, I can conclude that I am not religious at all. But somehow this doesn’t make me feel bad at all. Outright demonstrations of “faith” have never appealed to me. People singing songs, jumping up and down in the name of the Lord were always things that didn’t agree with me. I preferred private conversations with God– quiet, and, ultimately, just private. When I look at the sea or mountains, or trees or flowers or leaves, I feel God, more than in the imposing buildings they call the church, meant to dictate people on how to communicate with God, and how to live their lives.

10 comments

  1. “To me, He is someone who created the earth, the good things in this world, and someone who meant for us to be Happy.”

    You are right on two counts there, but the last one has the wrong focus. Do you honestly think the “Creator” is subject to please the creation? Isn’t it the other way around?

    I was born Catholic and reached a pivotal point in my life when I decided I wanted to exercise my free will by questioning and wanting real answers to questions as to why I believe in God, not just because it was traditionally passed on to me, but to actually be able to explain it

    not through memorized dogma but because it truly resonated with me not merely on a superficial level, but on a spiritual level.

    1 Corinthians 2:14 states “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.”

    In Catholicism, it is assumed that a person gets indwelt with the Holy Spirit by way of infant baptism… The truth is, how can a child truly have exercised free will to choose to be in that faith? A choice has been made for them, they didn’t make it themselves, therefore, at some point in that child’s maturity, they will have to make the choice for themselves, only then can they claim they have exercised their free will. The person has to deliberately choose to believe in Jesus Christ before the Holy Spirit indwells a person. An infant does not have deliberate will.

    I left Catholicism because I found there to be contradictions of their dogma when lined up with Scriptures.

    I advise you to dig in and research for yourself on the contradictions. It is quite enriching.

    Lastly, I want to point out that if you believe you can somehow weigh out your good works with your bad and God will “have mercy” on you and allow you entrance into heaven, then clearly, you have no need for a savior. Jesus Christ died for all humanity because no amount of righteous acts any person, stained with original sin, would ever be enough to merit eternal life… Professing to believe in Jesus (God incarnate) and truly grasping what he did are two different things. I hope that you will find truth. All it took for me was simply put John 3:16 to the test.

  2. As long as it's non-theistic, I'm in! And as counter-culture-ish as the idea is, I've scoured the site and hadn't stumbled on anyone writing about cannabis, much less, of it's established medical effects, and, just to push it a little further, how much the sick and the dying can potentially benefit from it, albeit the legality involved. I've known of people first-hand (2nd degree truth) who've gorged on the stuff for years and claimed of its medicinal properties, in spite the risk of prosecution and incarceration. Come to think of it, the law itself even suggests, at least even indirectly, that it should, at the very least, be given a scientific try as instructed under REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8423.
    http://pormal.org/educate/philippine-drug-enforce

    HIGH time to start making a difference, about time to WEED out the truth from the fallacies, time to know the truth! And this is not to encourage nor condone any "illegal actions", but rather, incite a constructive discussion on the subject matter. Peace Out, One Love!

  3. @Anonymous:

    [From your link: "Suppose you took scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters containing every language on Earth and you heap them together, and then you took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there and the letters fell into a line which contained the words, 'to be or not to be that is the question,' that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule appearing on the Earth."]

    In order to make that analogy relevant you have to keep on scooping those letter blocks and flinging them out on the lawn for a billion years or so (that's about as long before life began to emerge on Earth since our planet was formed) and you do have to do that on every other planet in the entire universe that has conditions similar to Earth, and see if the phrase "to be or not to be that is the question" would not be formed in at least one planet within those billion years of scooping and flinging.

    [From your link: "…scientists hypothesize the prior existence of "simple" self replicating molecules that led up to the emergence of the DNA based bacterium; but this just pushes the question back a step. There is no conclusive evidence that such molecules ever did, or could, spontaneously self-assemble on the prebiotic earth."]

    Theists hypothesize the prior existence of a Creator who originated life on Earth; but this just pushes the question back a step. There is no conclusive evidence that such Creator ever did, or could, spontaneously self-assemble (or exist eternally) outside space-time.

    • you have to keep flinging those scrabble pieces for at least 13 billion years (the estimated age of the universe) for the analogy to play out, and you can have billions of people simultaneously participating in the scenario too, since every random strand of protein or amino acid in the universe is a possible candidate for spontaneously forming into an RNA strand.

      sure, there could have been an intelligent designer, but the dude must have been a real under-achiever to have taken so long. 7 days? try 13 billion years…

  4. There is no confusion ; it is crystal clear

    Introduction;

    Around the year 1600, or when science and scientists; proved clearly that there is no (gods) , that was a final judgment and a turning point in humans history to indicate that people had learned and must take care of themselves and never wait for mysterious power to solve their problems. Many countries were constructed based on that; Russia, France, Sweden, Finland..Etc. are good examples.

    The Deceive ; how did it start :
    In the twentieth century , however , some “entities” thought differently ; they “re- introduced” the idea of the (god) in evil or mysterious way this time ; using same science and engineering technology , those entities spied on everybody and knew every details about everybody , surprising people; nations fell victims for such entities , this partial abilities on spying gave them the power to control the minds of so many people all over the world . An advantage from this is blaming every evil accidents on the (God) so people can accept without questioning those events as (Act of Gods) while they are , in facts , (Acts of criminals) , also ; they can distribute wealth (as gifts from the gods) among crime syndicates and their net members without people questioning them .

    Now; logical and reasonable conclusion;

    all those who are (net members (and /or ) those people with knowledge ) but still have religions are either ; morons (partially brain damaged, idiots , stupid) , corrupts , criminals , or simply ; overpowered , it is very obvious and very clear that (modern spying equipments had been invented) and was useful to those nets pretending to be what people have imagined to be the perfect “caretakers” ; the (Gods)

    Decision;
    Atheists, scientific, free thinkers , human rights organizations and or any other similar organizations should take over and should be enforced , partially or completely, start to inform the public to these facts ; a)spying equipment had been invented and can know the details about each and every one but they can not read minds ,those equipments are used by nets operating secretly to threat, blackmail ,murder ,embezzle and control , instead of using these equipments ; for example ;to prevent crimes and harms they are used by these nets to commit crimes and harms ,these equipments are not yet made public , b) such equipments, however ;while very effective on spying on armies, those equipments are not effective at all in spying on civilians (causing only miserable unhappy over restricted over controlled way of living), this is because armies have specific plans and orders, they move in groups and very much predictable , while civilians are more individual in character ,independents and may change minds often ,so ;those spying agencies are forcing the civilians to behave like soldiers ,they force them to make groups , they force them to make organizations ,they restrict their movements to control them in a similar way that they control the armies .It is obvious that such process had been programmed and this is the reason why those nets require similar behaviors, activities and style of living from all members worldwide, wealth distribution, for example; is based on those programs. c) Members of these secret organizations are mostly; ignorant, those who do not want to think, those who can not think, corrupts, schools drops, ignorant peasants, people with no morals , thieves , gangsters ,etc. d) These organizations and agencies ,after years and years of working secretly in the world, those agencies have created new species of humans ; people who are twisted minded , brain damaged ,morons ,idiots, criminal minded, humans with no morals, such “species” should be taught and reminded again about common sense , sanity , logic , morals , and safety measures, measures such as causing accidents deliberately is a crime even if it was done intelligently .

  5. It takes a True Believer who will actually make the key priorities of their faith consistent, those with lesser faith are the ones who can gloss-over the inconsistencies and injustices and don't seek to learn more and ask more penetrating questions.

    Great post Pedestrian.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here