My Religion

I occasionally talk about other religions but never about my own. I actually don't really think that it qualifies as religion, per se. I am not "spiritual" particularly. I do not pray. I take the lord's name in vain often (my number one exclamatory phrase or swear is either Jesus or Christ but I don't know which one). I do not believe in organized religion. I do not believe in donating money to organized religion. I do not believe that the bible is anything more than an interesting historical fiction. Neither is the Al-Qur'an or the Book of Mormon. I have read all three of those books and they're all quite interesting but though they may contain some true historical facts I don't believe they are the absolute truth. These are all the things I don't believe in so before you decide I must be an atheist here is one more: I don't even really believe in atheism.

I am not "spiritual" because I'm not so sure that "spiritual" actually means anything. According to the free dictionary website it is "of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material". So it is relating to things which are intangible or immaterial. Things which are immaterial and intangible can only be defined by what they are not. I, being a material creature, cannot by my very nature be immaterial and thus, cannot be spiritual. I know that this is a literal definition but I can't exactly think of a non-literal interpretation that makes sense for those people who claim to be "spiritual" unless they are merely claiming to have souls or perhaps they are claiming that they themselves are gods? I'm not sure but it doesn't seem to do with religion either way (I suppose that could be the goal of their claim).

I do not pray. I understand that the function of prayer is mostly to make the person praying feel better. I use a different coping mechanism. I don't feel bad about taking the lord's name in vain because it's just a name. Even when I practiced religion (and yes, I did do that, for years) I wasn't quite sure of the point of not taking the lord's name in vain because after all god or jesus or christ are only things that we use to label him. Human things. How can human things define a being which is supposed to be transcendent? It does not make any sense. So why does it matter if a name that has no real meaning be said in a way that it is not intended to be by humans? I can't see that it does.

I don't believe in organized religions or donating to them because organized religion is inherently corruptible, there are several verses within the bible that suggest that Jesus and/or god are against organized religion, and most of the organized religions I see out there have not only major flaws regarding sticking to their own ideology (either the specific wording there-of or the spirit of the wording) but also have major problems conducting themselves within the acceptable rules of society. Some religions might do some good but as far as your mortal soul is concerned and your standing in society and how good a person you are I don't think that organized religion is the key to any of those things.

As for the bible and other holy books you may say that the things that I think about them are only my interpretation. And I ask you in return: what is your interpretation? Whatever it is it doesn't matter. Why? Because in all likelihood you read the bible in English or your native language and unless your native language is hebrew you are automatically reading someone else's interpretation of the bible. Any conclusion you come to is skewed by them. In fact, I have read multiple versions of the bible and there's a particular verse I would like to use to illustrate this point so if you object please skip to the next paragraph at the end of this sentence. The verse is Matthew 19:5-12. In the Good News version of the bible Matthew 19:5-6 reads: "And God said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and unite with his wife, and the two will become one. So they are no longer two, but one. No human being must separate, then, what God has joined together." His disciples then ask about divorce and Jesus explains why they cannot and then goes on to say in Matthew 19:11-12: "This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to those to whom God has given it. For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so." Basically this was explained to me, when I was a child, that all men should love and marry women except for those men who married themselves to the church or those who were made not to love women. Homosexuals, in other words. I grew up thinking that this was the intention of the bible. It wasn't until I was well into high school that I learned that in most bible versions Matthew 19:11-12 reads more like this (taken from the King James version): "But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." And I think that the difference between a man who does not love women because he loves men and a man who was born unable to sexually perform is wide enough to illustrate my point.

As for why I don't believe in atheism.... well. It has to do with what atheism breaks down into as far as it's classical roots go. Theos are things pertaining to God and religion. Isms are belief systems. And here is the part that I really have a problem with. A. A, you see, is a batardized version of ab (to make words nicer things to say, mostly) and ab means "away from". Which is, I guess, a belief system away from thoughts of god. Except, that doesn't actually mean they don't believe in god (as they all claim) it just means they keep their thoughts away from him. And they even fail at that, actually, because every time they say they're an atheist (or god comes up in conversation or everyday life) they are failing to follow their own beliefs. I can only conclude that no one is a successful atheist and if you want to be one perhaps you should find a different name for it.

All that and I still haven't said what I actually believe in. I sometimes like to tell people that I'm either agnostic or pantheistic- depending on how you look at it. I do, in fact, believe in a higher power but you could also argue that because I do not believe in a specific power (e.g. God) I can rightfully claim every religion. I know a bit about many religions. Aside from having read the aforementioned books I also know a great deal about Latin and Greek mythology from taking Latin in highschool. I know about Buddhism and Hinduism. I know about all the old Norse gods and some of the Native American gods as well as Mayan and Aztec beliefs. I know about animism and Wicca and I attended services at every different church (including Catholic, various Protestant churches, Seventh Day Adventist, and Mormon service) in the area where I used to live. I think that pretty much every religion has at least one beautiful aspect to it. The only religions I object to are ones that cause you to hurt yourself or others. I don't believe in the aspects of religions that break the law, as well.

Agnosticism or Pantheism really don't quite describe my beliefs perfectly, though. I like science and math, and I believe in evolution* and rigorous scientific inquiry. There is no way for us to prove at present that a god (any god, or even multiple gods) exist. Unlike other people who say that they don't believe in god because it cannot be proven and they only will if it is I'm actually, arguably, more rational. After all, there would not be a whole lot of scientific progress if they weren't a lot of crazy people in history that believed in things that they could not prove (or at least could not prove yet). And yet you enter a sort of a Schrodinger's** Religion scenario. Say that there can only be one true religion and the answer to what that is is inside a box that cannot be opened. Until you can open the box you have to assume that all possibilities are true.

So what do I believe? What do I really believe? I believe in possibilities. It is possible that the Catholics have it right or that the Romans were correct or that the Mayans were and retribution will come down from Quetzecoatl in 2012. It's possible that any religion or even all of them are right. It's equally possible that Earth is an alien science fair experiment created long ago. I don't know and I can't know so I can believe in everything. I don't practice a religion as such (by praying or attending church) but that doesn't mean I can't believe in them or convert to every single one I can think of in a single day if only in my own heart. So yes, there are a lot of things I don't believe in, but on the other hand there are a whole lot more that I do.


* If you argue that evolution is merely a theory I say to you: so is gravity and the next time you argue against the theory of evolution I hope the gods of irony set you floating into space.

** For those who do not know Schrodinger's Cat is a famous thought experiment. You have to imagine that there is a cat inside a box. The cat has been poisoned. The cat is either alive or dead but neither can be known until you open the box so in the interim you have to think that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

Omnivore's Dilemma (or "I like to be pretentious and read Bestsellers")

      I thought of a third title: "In which I try to convince you to agree with my taste in books." Which, by the way, I am not trying to do at all so it wouldn't be a terribly accurate title. The second option isn't very accurate, either. Cheryl just likes to say that I'm trying to be pretentious when I read bestsellers and such. In fact, I read this for two reasons and two reasons only. Neither of which involve pretention or the fact that this fits in with my usual genre. My usual genre, just for reference, is science fiction and fantasy.
      The first reason I read this was because my friend had read it for one of his classes at Stanford (and yes, I do mean that Stanford) and recommended it to me, saying that I would enjoy it. I can't remember what I said to him at the time, possibly something non-committal because I didn't really read non-fiction much at all. I don't even watch the news. That probably would have been the end of it in all liklihood but the title stuck with me. Omnivore's Dilemma. And then the second thing happened. I figured that if I was going to break the rules of the store at which I work and read at the counter when I'd finished my other work I should read something intellectual and it just so happened that that day we'd gotten in a new copy of the Omnivore's Dilemma. And that's why I read it.
      At least. That's why I started to read it. I continued to read it because I was hooked from the very first page. Just like a good fantasy novel that I picked up and couldn't put down this book grabbed me almost from the moment I opened it and though I've long since finished reading it still hasn't let me go.
      Why should you read it, though? You want to know the answer to that question. And I'll answer, like many of the teachers you probably found annoying in school, with a question. Why do you eat? Do you eat because you have to? Is food just a fuel for your body? Do you eat because you enjoy it? Do you hate eating but do it anyway? Do you eat to comfort yourself? Whatever reason you have for eating you still have to do it and since you have to you should at least think about what it is you're putting into your body and where it comes from.
      Omnivore's Dilemma follows the course of not one but four unique meals back to their various sources. The book explores the golden sea of corn lurking in so many processed foods under mysterious names like maltodextrin and in things you wouldn't imagine contained corn at all. Like your steak dinner that was most likely raised on a giant Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation eating a diet of corn. He also talks about all of that organic food you see in supermarkets and what about your diet you should actually change if you want to reduce your carbon footprint.
      I could talk on and on about the subjects that the book covers. I could tell you how it made me feel and how it opened my eyes. I don't really want to do that. I just want to get you across the two biggest hurdles preventing you from reading this book. It's long. It's non-fiction. It looks like it's going to be hard to read. It's also not even out in massmarket print yet so it's expensive. In the store it's going to run you about sixteen dollars for a (as my father would call it) "big paperback" or that I have learned they are called in the industry "trade sized paperback". You can get it for less than six dollars used online. And it is definitely worth it no matter how much (or little) you pay for it.
      I will agree that it is long and it is non-fiction. It does contain some large words but none any longer than the ones on the back of your cereal box or the chicken nuggets you have in your freezer. The author also writes as though he's talking to you. The style is very easy to read and all the long words are typically explained immediately. For a book about food it has a surprising amount of action and the subject matter is so interesting and near and dear to all of us that you wont want to stop reading.
      So why not read it? It's interesting. It's pretty easy to read. It's a subject you are probably endlessly fascinated by if it comes in culinary form. You'll learn something. And you can go to Amazon right now and spend six dollars to get it. I even provided you with a link above so you have no excuses.