i have come up with a brief summary of my system of belief. i am very proud of it, because if is concise but, to me, says a lot.
here it is.

I am a spiritual atheist.

I don't believe in a supernatural deity or

any for of God, but rather that

the Universe itself is so essentially unfathomable

as to become a mystical entity

of its own.

bored angels

in all honesty, heaven sounds like a drag. eternal life in a land of perfection, where nothing goes wrong and there is nothing to remind you why life is good. perfection, being the norm, would become mediocrity! there would be no surprises, no progress. and worst of all, nothing better to aspire to. it would be like being a millionaire with no possibility of running out of money. you can always have whatever you want, so you get no thrill in a purchase. you are immediately gratified in your desires, and you have everything you need, so there is no anticipation of pleasure. there is no benefit in having more money, as you have an unending supply, so there is nothing to work for. your life is directionless and insipid, though everyone who sees you thinks you must be the happiest person on earth. Without the possibility for improvement and anticipation of something better, their can be no joy in the moment. without knowing what it is to be sad, an angel could never recognize their own bliss.

homosexuality. it was a sin in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah because it was the embodiment of pure lust. in that city, there was no love, there was no reproduction, it was simply selfish pleasure however they could get it. however, these sins of the flesh were equally heinous between men and women. the sin lay, not in who the sex was with, but in its loveless and lascivious nature. however, from the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (along with some other quotes, i know, but largely this) people have deduced that all homosexual relations are sinful. I would argue, however, that homosexuality is not a sin so much as meaningless sex is a sin. if sex is not just pleasure, but the embodiment of it's better term, making love, than whether between a man and a woman or two of the same gender, it is not sin. and about the argument that homosexual sex is pointless as it doesn't create a child, I would like to argue that most heterosexual sex it's for the purpose of making a baby, but rather to enhance the bond between you and your partner and the express the love you feel for them. this is true also for homosexual couples, and is just as important. also, while they cannot physically create a baby, many homosexual couples adopt children, so the bond which love making helps to nurture is just as important as with straight couples.

i know several people who say that having the feelings of homosexuality is not a sin, but acting on them is. I say that feeling love is never a sin, and sex is only sinful if it is done without love, and then it is sinful no matter who you do it with.

This is an angry post. I'm sorry if I offend anybody.

to put off happiness in this world in favor of a promise of happiness in the next. This idea terrifies me. To have so much faith in achieving the destination that you're willing to sacrifice the journey seems to me ridiculous. I'm not talking about general morality and "being a good person", I'm talking about painful, life altering sacrifices made for the sake of getting to heaven. Not following goals, pursuing dreams, or accepting love because "it is against the service of God". Who is to say whether or not God would approve? the bible writers? they aren't god, they don't know what He/She would think. Passion and love are virtues, and a life half lived is a life wasted. I cant think that any kind God would want its creations to live in fear, plotting and planning all their life, not on how to best improve their world by being the best they can be, but on how to get into heaven.

I loved Red, and I really wish I could have been there for the discussion. I liked its take on morality, and on who judges right and wrong. Particularly the scene in which Valentine was going to tell the neighbor wife that her husband was having a homosexual affair. At first she seems to be in the right, it is good to tell a wife her husband is having an affair, it is the moral decision. Then she gets to the house, and morals are turned upside down. Telling the truth would not be a charitable service to the family, but a selfish act to make herself feel better. Valentine enters believing the generally accepted morals that truth is good and deceit bad, but she leaves seeing that the world is a much more complicated place than that. The family survives on self deceit, as clearly the daughter knows about her father's affair. They choose to live life ignoring its imperfections, so to undermine that structure would be wrong.
I also like the ex judge who spends his retirement questioning whether he deserved the authority to judge. He was put in a position to determine right and wrong, but he realized that his decision is no less biased than that of anyone else, that no judgement is free of fault. The judge may condemn in hatred and the model , one of the most beautiful women in France, is lonely and in an abusive relationship. No situation is straight forward, no person is as they seem, and there can be no single truth.

the hands of God, or just a cloud?

Looking at the Pollock paintings in class made me think about the human drive to find meaningful images in non-representational or non meaningful objects. On the surface it is a silly thing to do, a figment of the imagination taking a panel of paint squiggles and turning them into a scene with human forms and a story. Our discussion in class, however, reminded me of an article I read in the Kohler bathroom about seeing images in clouds or faces in potato chips. The image above is a photograph of clouds that many people believe to be the hands of God reaching down to earth. The article stated that it was evolutionarily stable to recognize faces and objects everywhere, even in unlikely places. For example, if you think you see something that could be a face in the leaves of a dense forest, it is best to run. If you were wrong, you're none the worse. If you were right, you're not dead. Thus the gene for recognizing or imagining faces and images grows in the gene pool. Nowadays that has spread to not just recognizing potential dangers, but seeing things everywhere. The seed for abstract recognition was planted, and as we evolved it expanded.

modesty: sin or virtue?

Adam and eve were punished for developing a sense of shame and modesty. Covering their naked bodies was a sign of their disobedience to God, their "fall". Why is it then that nowadays the stereotypical "preachy Christian" is an image of a woman covered in clothing, from her large flowered hat to her stockinged, high heeled shoes, scolding america's youth for their immodesty. 'where is your shame!' she might say. Where indeed? And if shame is so abhorent to God as to make him kick out adam and eve, why is it so desireable today? I know that, nowadays, nudity wouldn't be the same as it was for adam and eve. we are aware of our nudity, they weren't. I just find it ironic that things went from nudity being the "ultimate good" to fully covered from head to toe being the "ultimate good".

just a thought.

Meditation

I have yet to talk about the meditation. I would like to describe what I felt in the meditation, and the process with which I personally approached it. It is a process with which I am rather familiar. My brother taught me to meditate years ago and I've sporadically practiced it since then. Every time is different for me, but I have specific ground rules which help me stay in the game. I can’t think about my plans for the day, I can’t think about mundane things. I can’t "make the gestures of profound thought", which is a frequent danger for me. I am a very dramatic girl, so the temptation is to skip the first part, in which I calm down and clear my head, and skip right to the "deep thoughts" part. This results in tawdry and cliché "revelations" that reveal nothing of my real thoughts and can ruin an entire meditation. My particular attempt at meditation in class was unusually successful. As usual, I started out focusing on my body. I stretched, I practiced deep breathing, and I attempted to relax every muscle in my body. This made me hyper aware of my actions. I focused on the feel of air moving in my lungs and diaphragm, I moved my joints around, and I relaxed facial muscles that I hadn't even realized I had. Then I looked at my skin. The patterns of it, its texture, its color. I knew that my fingertips had a pattern, but I looked at the whole hand. I have a swirl on the upper pad of my left hand, but a loop on the right. The entire thing looked like the surface of a lake, with currents and waves. Skin brought me to a whole new level of self awareness, and pushed me into a scientific mindset and then a religious one. Because I had allowed myself so much focus, I released myself to "ridiculous thoughts". I stopped controlling my mind and just let it wander without censure or regulation. I even allowed myself to think about God as a reality. I took down my assumption that didn't exist, and thought as if I thought it did.
Here is what I thought in a rambling and nonsensical fashion. Feel no need to read this; I just don’t want to forget it.

Why do people believe in a soul? People don’t think of themselves as their bodies. We are our thoughts, our beliefs, and our actions. We are something different from our bodies, because, even after we are gone, our bodies are still here. If our bodies can stay when we're gone, we must be something different. But then why does god look like a man, why does he have a body? God never leaves his body- he is ONLY thought and intention, so why does he need the shell that humans have to house their real selves? If god is purely what we are inside, then god must be pure soul- he is soul embodied. If god is a soul, then how does he make souls? Souls must then, be an extension of him. God is pure energy, bodies are pure matter. The soul within the body- the thing that makes us human- is an extension of god's soul within each individual.

It was a good meditation and I came up with new ideas and a new idea of how to look at god which meshes well with my life force view of deism.

Atheism at last

Thank heavens we finally talked about atheism! In a class about religion, many people take it for granted that atheism need not be discussed. After all, many see it as religion's antithesis- the absence of God must mean an absence of religion. And don’t all atheists proudly and adamantly declare themselves religion free? There are so many misconceptions about atheism, that it is often completely excluded from the realm of belief. I'm hoping with this blog, not necessarily to explore what atheism is, because that is different for everyone, but to solidify what I believe it is not.
Atheism is not something you believe because you are afraid of to believe in God or because you don’t have the faith to believe in a God. Atheism is not a fall back or an act of cowardice. Atheism, like every religion, requires strength of conviction, faith and inner reflection. It isn't easy to believe we're alone in this universe, that there is no loving entity watching out for us all. It isn't easy, when faced with troublesome times, to have to rely on your own strength and the love of friends and family. And it isn't easy having to believe that some things happen without a purpose and without an explanation- that sometimes things just happen for absolutely no reason. None of that is easy. But as an atheist I face those difficulties because my beliefs require them. Every religion comes with its corresponding trials and tribulations, but people pull through them because they are dedicated to their beliefs, and find the fulfillment that provides to overcome the discomfort they may feel.
Also, the idea that atheists don’t believe in a god because they want to escape moral judgment is, to me, completely false. If I wanted to be immoral, I could do it just as easily as a Christian as I could an atheist, because whichever belief I subscribe to, I will have the same sense of guilt knowing I'm doing wrong. Atheists are just as moral as anyone else, but we have to monitor ourselves. Our motivation to behave morally must come from an inner desire to behave, not a fear of punishment from God. For example, in many small shops on College Ave, there are signs saying "these dressing rooms are monitored by God" or something along those line. Clearly, they are reminding people to behave morally by invoking the guilt associated with disobeying the bible. The same approach is used in court (so help me God) etc. As an atheist, I don’t have this omnipresent reminder to behave, with role models, stories, punishments and reward all laid out for me. I have to rely on my own strength of will.
It is not true that atheists have no metaphysical beliefs or that they only believe in proven scientific facts. While I don’t see the world as created by or controlled by a god, my entire creation story and my ideas on how the world continues to function is based on blind faith. Almost none of the theories I support are or ever can be proven, and most of them are just as awe-inspiring, beautiful and utterly impossible to ever fully comprehend as is an idea of a god. For example, the idea of other dimensions or string theory. Both are possible and could help explain the world as we see it, but they are so wonderfully complex that I can sit for hours just trying to wrap my mind around them and finish with no more certainty of their truth, but feeling as if the world is a more beautiful place and that I am more fulfilled for attempting to understand it. For me, thinking about the universe and the very fact that I will never fully understand it is like meditation, prayer and study all in one.
Atheism is not an escape from belief, but an alternative one. I find my religious satisfaction in observing and contemplating the world I see around me and the world I can imagine instead of a world of God. I suppose you could say that the world is my God, and my morals and metaphysical needs are fulfilled by exploring it.

I am writing about a Wicca website for my website review, and learning more about this religion has made me think about some new things. Wicca is arguably one of the oldest, or one of the newest religions. It is a rejuvenation of ancient, pre-Christian pagan beliefs, but it only appeared as "Wicca" in 1954. Today, Wicca is largely regarded as a "weird" religion; people mistake their practices for devil worshipping, and are confused or afraid of their "magick", spells and potions. Yet, in spite of the hardships in believing, Wicca has many faithful followers. It seems that all new religions go through this aggressive period. People look at the beliefs, so incredibly different from their own, and say "how could anyone believe that? It's nonsensical, it's impossible, it's just plain wrong." And some of the new religions do look a little ridiculous. Scientology, for example, ardently believe that aliens stuck to our bodies are the cause of many of our problems. However, in a time when, in Rome, religion consisted of many powerful Gods, each watching over a specific aspect of your life- how strange and cult like it must have seemed to suddenly have a group of people dedicating their lives to a man with no religious experience- a carpenter, nothing more! who is saying that none of the Roman Gods exist, there is only one God, and that he happens to be that Gods son? I would never believe it! All religion is nonsensical, because it requires a leap of faith. There has to be something amazing about it, or nothing will separate it from the hum drum of daily life. the only difference between Christianity and Wicca are what leaps of faith they make. talking to a big guy in the sky, hoping he'll help you out is just as "weird" as appealing to the spirit of the earth by using plant spirits to make helpful potions. And on Scientology...I don't know, maybe in a thousand years Ron Hubbard will be the new Jesus, and Isaac Hayes (the voice of Chef in South Park) will be one of his disciples.

Secular Vs Religion- who calls the shots

In class we discussed whether religion shapes, conforms to or has a symbiotic relationship with societal change. We all seemed to take one position and argue that, if one were true, the others must be false. This to me is a misguided assumption. Religion is not one single thing, but a title given to a wide variety of beliefs, rules and assumptions. Some aspects of religion are fluid and changeable over time, while others are more foundational and solid. Religion and secular culture exist, not only with parts of the other. In these clashes between the two "teams", you could consider each to be divided into thousand of little "battalions", each one comprised of one ritual or belief or norm. If a strong, solid religious belief comes into conflict with a fluid, unsteady secular one (such as the evil religious symbolism of devils horns clashing with an up and coming trend of wearing them to dinner parties) then the religious battalion will win. However, when strong secular beliefs class with shaky religious references, then secular culture will win (the 1920's desire for female liberation overriding the biblical requirements of modesty in dress and behavior). Yes, occasionally religion causes enormous, spectacular changes in secular culture and thus completely reshapes a new society (the founding of America) but then secular drives and beliefs do that too (Lutheranism). It is impossible to overriding say that "religion shapes secular culture" or "religion conforms to secular changes", because they are constantly changing each other.

Fitting the glove to the hand, or the hand to the glove

Do religious texts reflect the world, or shape it? How much does writing make the morals so.The bible has created scores of rules and taboos that, before its creation, society lived without. For example, the condemnation of homosexuality. Homosexuals had been socially acceptable in many of the countries that, after Christianity, condemned it- such as Rome. Was this a product of public needs and sentiments, or was it the sentiments of the small group of bible writers who then riled the rest of the people? How many of our "intrinsic moral instincts" would exist without religious systems guiding our thought?
I grew up without the immediate presence of any religious text, but have recently had the privilege of discussing my world views with a devout Christian woman. The conversation showed me how essentially a religious text can change the way you see the world. It changes the way you develop ideas about what's "normal" or "acceptable", and with or without a book, it can be very difficult to make judgement calls. My friend sees the world through a lens that deeply includes the contents of the bible, but it is very hard to come to terms with the fact that, sometimes, she disagrees with it. I see her going through an internal struggle, trying to both follow the contents of his bible and remain true to herself. Unlike my friend, I have no book laying my guidelines before me. This can make it difficult to be confident in my moral choices, however, it saves me the tribulation of trying to bring my own beliefs to terms with a book that I'm supposed to follow faithfully. I wonder how many people in the world twist and reshape their own beliefs to fit their faith, repressing ideals or resisting acceptance because the writers of the bible, two thousand years ago, tell them that something is wrong.