The life blood of any religious institution is its aggregation of followers. These followers equate to the power, wealth, and most importantly relevancy of an organized religion. Religions in pursuit of these followers typically deploy a marketing strategy to reach the uncommitted followers, but since western religion traditionally reserves study and interpretation of the scripture to their ordained clergy, attracting followers with a really strong spiritual seeking message isn’t very effective. The message needs to be that just right combination of easy to do and personally compelling that only makes sense when viewed from a marketing perspective.
Take the Christian salvation belief for example. How did the teacher who said “And unto him that smites you on the one cheek offer also the other; and he that takes away your cloak forbid not to take your coat also.” become the terrible tyrant who will condemn you to a lake of fire for all eternity for the seemingly insignificant slight of not formally aligning yourself with one of the several espoused versions of his spiritual message?
It really never says that outright in the Bible. It all begins with the seemingly benign quote “Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.” This harsher salvation principle is developed by inference from this saying in combination with other things in the Bible outside the context of this particular one, but this harsher salvation principle is what many if not all Christians believe. By what logic did it become the cornerstone of the Christian belief?
“No one reaches the Father but through me” has been embellished into ‘believe in me or suffer horribly for all eternity in the afterlife’. This embellished message has no real spiritual value, but it does have great marketing potential because it is very easy (i.e. all you do is believe and support the belief support institution) and what could be more compelling than the gut wrenching threat of burning for all eternity in the lake of fire. In short, it is very effective in getting followers and keeping them in the fold.
The message really isn’t even very well thought out. Certainly, the prospect of burning for all eternity in a lake of fire is a frightening prospect for anyone with a body, but probably does not present much of a threat to the spirit after the body dies. This weakness has never been a real problem for this message because so far no one has ever come back from this torment to report on how bad it really is and likely never will.
Additionally, it seems inconceivable that a loving god could do such a terrible, cruel thing. Condemning anyone to a terrible torture for all the remainder of eternity is certainly terrible, but it is unthinkable that the warning of these dire consequences so cryptically stated in the Bible that it has to be interpreted from numerous disjointed verses. The least a loving god could do is spell it out in one place and move it up to the front of the Bible in bold print.
It is not uncommon to hear Christians justify their faith by saying ‘what if they are right?’ This statement is a clear indication of the effectiveness of this salvation message as a marketing strategy. The message is clearly more the contrivance of mortal men who want to get and control followers and not the intent of the Divine. This salvation message seems incredibly inconsistent with other Bible quotes that have been carefully overlooked in the collection of quotes used to support the justification for this salvation story such as:
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”
I am not alone in this question about the fairness of this salvation principle. Universal Reconciliation is a doctrine that all lost souls will eventually be reconciled by god’s divine love. In this controversial doctrine, those who created this doctrine generously allow some truth to the ‘believe in me or suffer horribly for all eternity in the afterlife’ notion, but they expect that love directed Divine intervention will eventually forgive all these lost souls and welcome them into heaven.
I cannot be that generous. I think the notion is ridiculous and was intentionally contrived by mortal men with the specific intent to garner and control followers through fear and intimidation.
After the fear has sold this salvation concept, followers are locked into the concept by being told to believe it without question. They are instructed to not even consider any other possibility because Satan will use all manner of persuasion to dissuade them to ensure they go to the eternal lake of fire. These arguments appeal directly to the common human inclinations of fear and spiritual laziness.
Some consider accepting Jesus as their savior sufficient to earn this salvation, but others take this further and insist that salvation requires a belief in a complete, literal interpretation of all the Bible. Some actually take it further to include their own personal interpretation of the Bible. In some extreme cases (e.g. Jim Jones and David Koresh), these interpretations included sexual and financial manipulation by the leaders of the congregation.
My position on passive belief has already been made clear. It is not productive and leads only to stagnation and entrapment by illusions. It is also contrary to another of Jesus’ sayings:
“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.”
This quote implies that believing alone is not the key to your salvation and that action is required to obtain that salvation. You have to seek what you want to find and that means asking questions and adjusting beliefs as needed to accommodate new levels of understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment