Showing posts with label judgment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgment. Show all posts

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Skepticism or Cynicism?

I got a mailer form The Skeptical Inquirer recently, wanting me to subscribe to their magazine. To be honest, I was thinking at first, that I would do it, but as I read their material, they talked me out of it.
There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism is when one is introduced to a new idea or a new concept, and one says, “I don’t think I believe that, but let me investigate it and see if it is true.” Cynicism is when one runs across something new, and immediately begins listing reasons why it can’t be true. Skepticism is very healthy; cynicism is not. Skeptics sometimes find themselves convinced by things that they would not have expected; cynics often paint themselves into a philosophical corner trying to explain away very real things that they don’t want to believe.
I have applauded efforts of skeptics in the past that have investigated, and debunked ridiculous ideas that appeared to have credence at first. As I read the material from the Skeptical Inquirer, though, it seemed to me that many of their selling points were cynical in nature, rather than skeptical. One statement that I found particularly distressing, they mention an article that they published showing the vested interest that science has in making sure that they get things right, as opposed to religion which, according to them, has no such interest.
I suppose a case could be made for the idea that, since the score for the final exam doesn’t come during this lifetime for religion, religious leaders don’t have to worry so much about making sure that they put out the right material. It seems to me, though, that religious leaders are going to be judged in much the same way that the rest of us are, so, yes, they do have a vested interest in getting things right, if anything, they have more interest because they have more responsibility. At the same time, though, since they haven’t completed the course, either, they may be unintentionally be putting out bad information. It is even possible, that, although they teach the accepted values of their religion, they don’t actually believe that, and subscribe to the philosophy of, “The one who dies with the most toys wins.” As opposed to the more common sense philosophy of, “He who dies with the most toys still dies, and then has to give account.” The thing to keep in mind though, is that this life doesn’t even compare with the life to come. Most of us will live to be less than 100. A few will live to be 120. Compared to eternity, that’s not even a grain of sand compared to all of the beaches in the world. We have an absolute vested interest in being right.
The bottom line is that each of us is responsible for ourselves. We can try to help others around us, with the understanding that there will be others who will try to bring them down, or we can selfishly worry about our own soul’s salvation (which is self-defeating).
A friend of mine, many years ago, gave me this analogy: Suppose that you want to go on safari, and you want to be prepared, so before you go, you read a book on lions. In this book, it says that if you look a lion straight in the eyes, then it hypnotizes the lion, so that he (or she) cannot attack you. So you keep that in mind as you go on Safari, hoping that you won’t ever need that information. As it happens though, the day comes when you find yourself face to face with a lion, and you look him straight in the eyes, and then realize that this lion hasn’t read that book.
We have the book written by the Lion. He has given us instruction and direction, and has made it pretty clear what we should do. When we get to judgment, God is not going to accept the excuse that, “My pastor said…” or “The televangelist said…” His Word is available to all of us. One would hope that pastors and TV preachers would help us to understand God’s Word, but it is your immortal soul that hangs in the balance. Check your pastor, and the leaders at your church. If it doesn’t match up, then make your way out.

Thursday, January 10, 2008

It's Funny

It is funny that everybody wants to go to Heaven, but nobody wants to die. On the other hand, if one is too willing to die, then one's death might be considered suicide, and you don't get to Heaven by killing oneself. Although some believers in Islam would disagree on that. Personally, I think it's funny (funny odd, more than funny ha-ha) that they think that if they kill themselves 'for the cause' then they get 72 virgins in Heaven (is that actually in the Koran somewhere? I doubt it, but I don't know). So if a woman keeps herself pure for Allah, she gets to spend eternity sharing a suicide bomber with 71 other women who kept themselves pure--that's her reward?
Mark Twain once pointed out that everybody believes that we are going to be playing harps in Heaven, but most of us don't take harp lessons here on earth. Of course, he suggested that we are all going to end up in Heaven not knowing how to play the standard-issue harp, but plucking away at it anyway, for the glory of God. I don't remember anything in the Bible about playing the harp in Heaven, but I do know that the Bible says that in Heaven we will know much more than we do here on earth (1 Corinthians 13:12). Just between us, I don't think we're going to be playing harps in Heaven, but, if we do, we'll know exactly how to play them.
It's funny that we tend to think of St. Peter as the gatekeeper for Heaven. Where did that come from? I know Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom, but I really don't think that means that Peter is going to spend eternity at the gate, comparing names to a list, letting people in, or turning them away. Matthew 25 certainly doesn't describe judgment that way. Isn't there a difference between a gatekeeper and a keymaster, anyway?
I also think it's funny that so many people got so upset over 'The DaVinci Code.' If some of the concepts in that book (or movie) caused you to question your faith, then maybe your faith needed to be questioned, but, it was a work of fiction. Even if there really is a group of people that believes that they are protecting the last descendant of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (and there is not), that doesn't prove by any stretch of the imagination that there actually ever was a descendant of Jesus and Mary... (Just a side note, Dan Brown asserts in the beginning of his book that the Priory of Sion is a real organization. It was--maybe it still is, but I believe it has been dissolved. However, the Priory never claimed to have any knowledge of the descendants of Jesus. Their stated purpose was to protect the descendants of the former kings of France.) Keep in mind that, book or movie, "The DaVinci Code" is a work of fiction. Of course, it is a work of fiction that works best in the mind of the reader if certain ideas are presented as being factual. Remember 'The Blair Witch Project?' The movie did very well as long as people believed that it actually was spliced together from film recovered after three film students disappeared in the woods, researching the Blair Witch. Once word got out the film was completely fictional, most people lost interest.