If there is anything or anyone akin to a superpower than governs all creation, and us by consequence, I wonder how much rigidity It/He/She actually demands from us in order to make us eligible for conforming to our respective beliefs. A God that gets agitated by momentary non-conformity to bookish religion should get all the more agitated by our constant acts of selfishness and self-gratification. Yet some of us seem to mortally fear the former, while the latter is part and parcel of life and very easily pardonable. A clear conscience is understandably a product of our whims and choices, and not of any written mandate. Standing midway between faith and common sense necessary for existence in a pro-scientific easygoing world (much of which the selectively rigid population makes use of), I can only conclude that any true God will not hold grudges if we drifted once in a while to accommodate others' satisfaction that does no tangible physical harm. The same God seems to have no difficulty whatsoever in overlooking our internal detachments from what is considered strictly "by the book". Also, reiterating the necessity of common sense, I think the notion of what is in the book needs to constantly make way for new information and ideas. Frankly, a God that condemns occasional compromise to suit the needs of practical existence and happiness, and yet is indifferent to perversion day in and day out, is a very strange God indeed. It is not God so much, but the believer who makes It/Him/Her look that way. If there is indeed a governing power, all that it should want is organizational functioning of its creations and whatever is necessary for maintaining it. The walls of inflexibility have been erected around different ideas by people only for the sake of isolating themselves and not letting anybody else in, and putting the responsibility of such narrowness on the idea of God. Time and obscurity are, of course, on the side of such obsolete unadaptability, as we cannot conclusively go back to the source or validity of such mandates. Even if we did, the necessity of common sense kicks in, where surviving and being contented today is slightly more important than honouring outdated codes of conduct that attempt to isolate us. The hypocrisy lies in our choosing to break some of these codes to suit our 21st century needs and cling to the sorry remainder to come off as conformists. This hypocrisy is part of the common sense warranted by the modern rules of existence, no doubt, yet it can sometimes raise the rigid walls even higher and prevent the entry of happiness just for the sake of stale theory which beats the lifeblood out of practicality.
A man or woman who sticks to his or her chosen points of rigidness may be a better believer in theory, but one who lets the guard down once in a while to facilitate healthier intermingling and mutual respect is way happier during the few years he or she has, and the uber-cool God that governs the selfish world these days should have no problem in appreciating a bit of love that tampers with a few dog-eared pages. If the former kind chooses to be staunch believers still, they should act like total puritans and stick to their kind in all spheres instead of letting other people in up to a certain threshold and then rebuffing them in the name of rigid faith. The irony of it all is that the flexible 21st century dweller is granted satisfaction and contentment, which he passes around to the others, gaining their blessings as well, while the believer rots among the books that occupy his brain and nothing comes out of the situation, except some broken or offended hearts. These people are most welcome to believe that the superpower demands such suffering, and yet they continue defying other mandates. Why this rigidity ONLY when they can gratify someone else for a change? While people as similar as aliens from different planets get by happily with little acts of love and compromise, God probably flies above our heads laughing at the rigid fools not being able to see the possibility of contentment right at hand and pushing love farther and farther in Its/His/Her name. Some of us really punish ourselves and then blame it on the guiltless deity. It is simply being selfish to forcibly establish our faith and to divert attention from the more important rules we break, and refusing to reciprocate with harmless gestures of love and affection. We all know how much of love and mutual compromise we need in this violent world; rigid outdated faith will do us no good but broaden the barriers. And no God that governs the present world in Its/His/Her right mind will want to facilitate divisions at this perilous point. Or are we still following the old ideas, in which case God does not exist at all today? It is for some of us who are rigid in our trifling personal spaces that there are bigger problems of intolerance in the world. We often attach more importance to doctrine than to a peaceful existence. We may choose to guard this tendency of ours as entirely personal, yet the same ideology often inflates into acts of violence. Where is God in those cases? What God forbids love in the name of irrelevant words? And finally what man or woman refuse the forbidden pleasures that suit him or her? The answer is none. The least a responsible and educated 21st century resident can do is to separate practical existence from fruitless rigidity. The other option is of course to hold on to his or her selective puritanism and hasten the end of mankind along with the book he or she lives by and his or her idea of God.
All of this being said, the undiscovered laws of science are perhaps sitting somewhere close and laughing their heads off at the futility of this post, and how they are playing God at the moment, while the imbeciles down here are raising walls and writing stories and following rules they believe in. Belief is never the problem; faith fills the void of the unknown. It is when each faith attempts to block out the others and in turn throw away entire lives and prospects into darkness that personal belief-systems take an unfortunate turn. We may all believe in what we wish to, but to reject love and happiness by not giving and, in consequence, living a little for others is but having no faith in any God whatsoever.
A man or woman who sticks to his or her chosen points of rigidness may be a better believer in theory, but one who lets the guard down once in a while to facilitate healthier intermingling and mutual respect is way happier during the few years he or she has, and the uber-cool God that governs the selfish world these days should have no problem in appreciating a bit of love that tampers with a few dog-eared pages. If the former kind chooses to be staunch believers still, they should act like total puritans and stick to their kind in all spheres instead of letting other people in up to a certain threshold and then rebuffing them in the name of rigid faith. The irony of it all is that the flexible 21st century dweller is granted satisfaction and contentment, which he passes around to the others, gaining their blessings as well, while the believer rots among the books that occupy his brain and nothing comes out of the situation, except some broken or offended hearts. These people are most welcome to believe that the superpower demands such suffering, and yet they continue defying other mandates. Why this rigidity ONLY when they can gratify someone else for a change? While people as similar as aliens from different planets get by happily with little acts of love and compromise, God probably flies above our heads laughing at the rigid fools not being able to see the possibility of contentment right at hand and pushing love farther and farther in Its/His/Her name. Some of us really punish ourselves and then blame it on the guiltless deity. It is simply being selfish to forcibly establish our faith and to divert attention from the more important rules we break, and refusing to reciprocate with harmless gestures of love and affection. We all know how much of love and mutual compromise we need in this violent world; rigid outdated faith will do us no good but broaden the barriers. And no God that governs the present world in Its/His/Her right mind will want to facilitate divisions at this perilous point. Or are we still following the old ideas, in which case God does not exist at all today? It is for some of us who are rigid in our trifling personal spaces that there are bigger problems of intolerance in the world. We often attach more importance to doctrine than to a peaceful existence. We may choose to guard this tendency of ours as entirely personal, yet the same ideology often inflates into acts of violence. Where is God in those cases? What God forbids love in the name of irrelevant words? And finally what man or woman refuse the forbidden pleasures that suit him or her? The answer is none. The least a responsible and educated 21st century resident can do is to separate practical existence from fruitless rigidity. The other option is of course to hold on to his or her selective puritanism and hasten the end of mankind along with the book he or she lives by and his or her idea of God.
All of this being said, the undiscovered laws of science are perhaps sitting somewhere close and laughing their heads off at the futility of this post, and how they are playing God at the moment, while the imbeciles down here are raising walls and writing stories and following rules they believe in. Belief is never the problem; faith fills the void of the unknown. It is when each faith attempts to block out the others and in turn throw away entire lives and prospects into darkness that personal belief-systems take an unfortunate turn. We may all believe in what we wish to, but to reject love and happiness by not giving and, in consequence, living a little for others is but having no faith in any God whatsoever.
No comments:
Post a Comment