I’m quite glad…

…to see I’m not the only one.

I especially agree with the part about new Christmas songs vs. traditional ones.

Merry Christmas,

- Reynvaan

平等結婚

Here’s a comment I made on someone’s blog about how non-biblical marriages (i.e., featuring homosexuals, cheaters, divorcées, etc.) are destroying the concept of family and are therefore a detriment to society.  Basically the OP was arguing that for a society to flourish, it must follow the Bible, especially in the area of marriage and family.  So I asked:

I’d like to set up an example to preface my question, if I may. Since Buddhism is a non-theistic religion, a Buddhist marriage has nothing to do with any god(s) at all; it’s all about the two people involved and their love and respect for one another. In that way it deviates from the modern Christian norm, just like same sex marriage. It’s not about glorifying Jesus or “growing in the Lord” or anything like that: only the simple fact that two people who love each other would like to formalize their relationship and be together forever.

My question is this: is a Buddhist marriage valid and moral, despite being non-Christian in nature? Despite the fact that it could be interpreted by outsiders as a totally selfish act? Why or why not?

The reply was:

Thanks for the questions, Reynvaan.

Whether Buddhist, Hindu, or anything else, I still believe God is God. That makes him Lord, whether anyone acknowledges him or not. So, I do believe marriage, as God institutes it, is valid.

I don’t think he really answered my question at all.  Is a Buddhist marriage, which is about nothing more than mutual love and respect, a true marriage?  How about a same-sex marriage, which is probably also centered on nothing more than the love of the two people involved?  I didn’t think of it until just now, but what about two atheists, or a “traditional” marriage between two people who decide not to have children (or who can’t have children at all)?  “(My) God is God, so marriage is marriage,” is kind of a non sequitur; it dodges the issue at hand, which is essentially, “do you oppose same-sex marriage on the basis of biblical tradition, or because you think gays are icky?”  I don’t mean to set up a straw man here, but I’m betting on that last one; if it were based solely on biblical precepts concerning marriage, then he should probably be championing the opposition to any kind of non-Christian/non-biblical marriage, instead of picking on one small group.

That’s why he dodged the question.  If he had said, “Yes, a Buddhist marriage is totally valid and moral and acceptable and equal,” he would be admitting that marriages with no biblical basis should be allowed.  But if he had said otherwise… well, I’m betting he didn’t want to open that can of worms.  I guess it’s not okay to speak out against the rights of a major religious group, but it’s fine to deny equality to people who only make up about 7% of the population (+/-).

Sometimes…  yeah.

*UPDATE!* I checked back tonight to see if anybody else had replied to my comment, and there was one response:

==is a Buddhist marriage valid and moral, despite being non-Christian in nature?==

The purpose of the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife — the Godly, marital unit referenced throughout the Word of God — is the production of Godly children [Malachi 2:15 AMP]. “Godly” refers to what is of God, and “what is of God” refers to the product of His Word. A buddhist is not Godly.

So there it is!  A Christian actually implied that Buddhist marriage is not “true” marriage, because it is not based in Christian tradition!  I wanted to post a response asking him if he would then oppose it and all other non-Christian, non-child-yielding marriages with equal resolve to the opposition of same-sex marriage.  Unfortunately, he and another commenter had turned the thread into a flame war, so the OP disabled comments.  本当に残念だよなぁ。Oh, and he also claimed that GLBT people make up just over 1% of the population, which means it must be a modern, totally voluntary invention of mankind.  Bollocks.

तत् त्वम् असि,
- Reynvaan

P.S.  About that series on the Bhagavad Gita I proposed a while back… yeah, maybe not so much.  I finished the Gita, but then I kind of got caught up in the Dhammapada and the Qur’an… and Final Fantasy… again.

Atheism survey

Well, I dunno if I’d call myself an all-out atheist, but i thought this survey would be interesting to take nonetheless. Enjoy!

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Atheism is nothing more or less than the lack of belief in a god or gods. It’s not a religion or philosophy. It’s a simple yes/no stance on an issue (in this case, it’s a no).

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

I was raised in a Christian home, though for my dad and brothers it was almost a non-issue. That is, until something came along that they saw as a threat to tradition or wholesomeness or some such. I was the only one who read his Bible daily and actively sought and tried to discern and discuss God in his life, without it having to be triggered by “those damn gays” or “the Feminazis”.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

subversive

Q4. What scientific endeavor really excites you?

CERN’s Large Hadron Collider. Will it unlock untold new information about our universe, possibly furthering scientific development on a grand scale? Or will it destroy the world? Who knows? Who cares?! We might actually have an cartoon supervillain-scale doomsday device on our hands here! Now let’s all strap our enemies to the LHC and spend 20 minutes telling them every detail of our nefarious plot!

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

I would try to insert a bit more respect for religion and the religious in a few areas (including my own little corner of nogod’s land). Respecting people and their beliefs isn’t the same as condoning or approving of them, but I read so much atheist material online that totally blasts all religion, no matter what, sometimes in total ignorance; the mentality of “If it’s religion, it’s ridiculous” is disrespectful and unfair, just like “If it’s not Christianity/Islam/Hinduism, it’s evil”.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

“Are you absolutely sure this is what you want to do with your life? Do you truly believe in the religion, and do you really believe you are making this decision for the right reasons? Yes? Okay then, you have my blessing, as it were. Go forth and do good.”

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

“Christianity is the true faith, because the Bible, and therefore God, said so.” I usually reply with something like “Hinduism is the true faith because Krishna said so.” It doesn’t work though, because then they just say that only their Bible is God’s word, to which I have to reply that the Vedas or some such also make that claim, and the cycle never ends.  Oh well.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

Maybe that religion isn’t totally worthy of ridicule? Maybe that it’s possible that there exists some kind of “Supernatural” or “Divine” out there (or in us) somewhere. I’m not really part of the “atheist community” so I dunno.

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Well I haven’t really read anything from these guys, so I can’t choose. I already don’t believe in an involved or personal god, so instead of reading books trying to convince me of such, I like reading books that tell me what other people think on the subject (the Bible, Qur’an, Upanishads, Dhammapada, etc.).

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Ray Comfort. Christians following Christianity is fine, but this bastard wields the religion like a gays-and-atheists-and-science-smiting sword of wrath. He takes his swings, then hides behind his shield of sarcasm and biblical literalism. The man oozes hate and disrespect and subversion like an infected pustule, all the while smiling and trying to convince you that he is acting out of love.

Back to the Gita

After forays into the worlds of the Upanishads, the Dhammapada, Tao Te Ching, Analects of Confucius, and the Qur’an, I have decided to read the Bhagavad Gita again. It was a part of the curriculum for my Sacred Texts class last quarter, but to be entirely honest, I didn’t read it then because I have already read it several times. This means the last time I read it was when I was in Japan back in October, so I think I could do with a refresher-read. Plus, back then I was reading Stephen Mitchell’s translation, which was written to be more a poetic English rendition than Eknath Easwaran’s Classics of Indian Spirituality translation (which is what I’ll be reading this time).

I suppose before I go back to the Gita, I could write here about some of my impressions from the other texts I’ve read recently:

The Major Upanishads: I loved them. We started the class by reading the history of the Vedas, then actually reading a large portion of the Rig Veda, and to be honest, I find much of the Vedas (or at least the Rig) rather unappealing. So much emphasis is placed on rituals, sacrifice, laws, sins, ritual purity, et cetera; I can’t say I’m a very big fan of the legalistic side of religion. That’s where the Upanishads come in. They were written by mystics unsatisfied by the rigidity of Vedic legalism, who withdrew from society to seek personal religious experience for themselves. The essence of Vedanta (philosophy based on the Upanishads) is self-realization, both in the sense of realizing the true nature of the self and the universe, as well as learning and knowing and experiencing spirituality for oneself. The Upanishads place immeasurable worth in all humanity, do not condemn, and are wholly encouraging and uplifting.

The Dhammapada: Again, I loved it. The Dhammapada is a collection of sayings, parables, and teachings, mostly on ethics, attributed to the Buddha and arranged based on topic. Though it is mostly free of any mind-blowing spiritual revelations, it is also free of any convolution. Its core message is simple: “Do good and good will be the result. Do bad and bad will be the result. Selfish desire leads to suffering.” Last night I considered the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. Hinduism as a whole is a sweeping epic, full of magic, intrigue, and earth-shattering revelations. Buddhism on the other hand is like the clear ringing of a bell through the morning fog.

The Tao Te Ching: Here I would like to make the distinction between enjoying a text, and enjoying reading a text. I like the Tao Te Ching. I hated reading it. It is hopelessly convoluted and esoteric, but the underlying message of unity and the natural way of things is a good one.

Analects of Confucius: I did not enjoy the Analects. Basically, the Analects are to Confucius what the Dhammapada is to the Buddha. Throw in ritualism for the sake of ritualism, tradition for the sake of tradition, and heaps of esotericism, and you’ve got the Analects. The prime focus of the Analects, as with Confucianism in general, is propriety. That is, acting always in accordance with social norms, and upholding the social order. This was by far my least favorite of the texts I have read recently.

The Qur’an: This wasn’t part of my Sacred Texts curriculum, but I’ve wanted to read the Qur’an for a long time. I’ve only read Surahs 1 and 2, and I’m a bit more than halfway through Surah 3. When I started reading, I was in the mindset of desperately wanting to discover that the Qur’an is simply misunderstood in Western society, and that it actually contains relevant and revolutionary spiritual insights. Unfortunately that hasn’t really happened as much as I would like. True, in regards to non-Muslims, I haven’t found any verses calling for anything but tolerance and peace. The only exception is self-defense; Muslims are called to never be the aggressors, but self-defense is fine. However, in regards to relevant, revolutionary, original spiritual insights, revelations, and what have you, I am left wanting. The Qur’an really does feel like a sequel to the New Testament, much in the same way most people view the Matrix sequels (not me, though; I like them): there are new and familiar characters, and all of the same concepts are there, re-stated and reinforced, except in a few cases when things get reimagined and retconned. Basically, it’s more of the same, but a bit dryer. But like I said, I’ve really only just started reading it, so who knows, maybe Surah 34 will totally blow my mind.

So that’s what I’ve been reading lately. Now I’m going to log off and finish reading the introduction to Easwaran’s translation of the Gita. I’m considering making this the first in a series of posts discussing the Gita, either chapter by chapter, or in blocks of 3 or 4 chapters each. We’ll see what happens. If anyone reading this has a suggestion, feel free to speak up, even if only to tell me to stitch up and GTFO ur intarwebz.

नमस्ते,
Reynvaan

久しぶりだな

The title of this post (hisashiburi da na) is Japanese for “It’s been a while.” I was sure I’d already posted with this title, but I guess not. Anyway, no posts since February, eh? Well, I would blame laziness, but since everything I do is governed by my laziness, such an accusation is unnecessary.

I was just reading the blog of the nefarious Ray Comfort (use Google if you want to find it – I refuse to link to it from here), and came across a comment under one of his posts. The post was about Comfort’s belief that everyone who dies outside of Christianity goes immediately to hell, no questions asked. People began haranguing Comfort for this belief (God is punishing Hitler, Anne Frank, Gandhi, etc., for the same reason?), and as always, his supporters appeared and defended him, giving Comfort an easy excuse for not actually addressing the question directed at him. One commenter says:

People get it confused a lot..in the long run it is the denial of a free gift that ends in hell..but first is that fact that man is wicked. It is because we are wicked and depraved of truthful righteousness that we are deservant [sic] of hell. I find it odd how you deny the existance [sic] of an all knowing being by claiming to be just that.

Firstly, I haven’t edited at all; I have no idea what those “..” in the first line are supposed to represent, but I just wanted to make it clear that I didn’t try to add ellipsis after editing the quotation. Anyway, the meat of this comment, for me, is the bit about the free gift and the inherent sinfulness of mankind. Thinking about this comment, I begin to see the commenter’s worldview as a kind of twisted game being played by the Christian god. He makes an entire race of beings who are destined for hell, then offers them a way out. Those who take it are spared, but anyone who doesn’t accept the gift is punished. Eternally. In fire. For not accepting a gift.

Imagine if your mom slapped you across the face for not wearing a sweater she sent you, even though she knows you live in Florida. You have no use for the sweater, you didn’t ask for it. Plus, it’s your mother. She’s supposed to love you and be kind to you, but now she’s punishing you for not accepting her free gift. Crazy, right? Now imagine if your mom had gotten pregnant, raised you, and encouraged you to move to Florida, all specifically so she could send you that sweater and then punish you. Utterly insane, no? It may not be the most perfect analogy, but it certainly outlines that guy’s view of God… or at least what I get from his comment.

Then there’s the bit about non-Christians (or maybe non-theists) claiming to know everything. Apparently one may only not believe in something if he or she knows empirically that it does not exist; if he or she has proven the negative. However, one may believe without any empirical evidence whatsoever. In fact, according to the rest of the comment, anecdotal evidence and hearsay (i.e., the Bible and tales of religious experience) are more than sufficient for belief. For non-belief, however, only pure hard facts can suffice. Well, I must say, I have never come across incontrovertible evidence against unicorns, Gandalf, or Ulquiorra Schiffer, but I do not believe in them. However, I have seen The Last Unicorn, read The Lord of the Rings, and I am a fan of the manga Bleach, so maybe I should believe. Who wants to join me in founding the First Church of Unigandulquiorrism (Orthodox)? Our tenets are beautiful rainbows, throwing down the Balrog and smiting his ruin upon the mountainside, and being totally awesome.

A fallacious appeal to ridicule? Perhaps. Another post made by me in the wee hours after no sleep? Absolutely.

May you be blessed by the High Lord Unicros, guided by the Grey Wanderer, and protected by the glorious Resurección de la Cuatro Espada del Palacio ‘Las Noches’ del Hueco Mundo (that’s right, we’re going all-out polytheism),
- Reynvaan

P.S. I recently went to a doctor about some pain I’ve been having in my chest (not heart-related, don’t worry), and found out I have some kind of acid-reflux problem. I’m seeing a nutritionist on the 9th. So yeah… now you know that. Pray for me! ;D

マイペース – SunSet Swish

これは俺が今聞く歌の歌詞。 言付けは本当に俺に話してるんだと感じる。俺は「マイペース」で進めればいいのか?　いいんだと思うけど、その前に俺が「マイペース」を見つけるべきだろうな。とにかく、歌詞がこれだよ：

一つ！　数えて　進めばいい
二つ！　数えて　休めばいい
三つ！　数えて　考えりゃいい
マイペースで　進めればいい

時が流れ　取り残され
焦る気持ちを　忘れる勿れ
無謀な挑戦　所詮無駄と　言われて
諦める事勿れ
オフェンス！　苦しい時にこそ
声を出して行こう
オフェンス！
自分が目指してる方へ　向かえ
そびえ立った　大きな壁に
恐れることはない
答えのない　この人生を
迷う事無く　Keep My Pace
一つ！　数えて　進めばいい
二つ！　数えて　休めばいい
三つ！　数えて　考えりゃいい
マイペースで　進めればいい

学ぶ事の本当の理由
分からず失う　僕らの自由
臆病者と呼ばれても
一歩ゆずれる　それが勇気
オフェンス！
まわりなど　気にせず
声を出して行こう
オフェンス！
肩の力を抜いて　さあ　向かおう
空に描いた　未来図には
今は届かなくても
いつの日にか　両手をのばし
掴みに行こう　Keep My Pace

オフェンス！　できるだけ
大きな声を　出してみよう
オフェンス！
自分が目指してる方へ　向かえ
そびえ立った　大きな壁に
恐れることはない
叶わないと　逃げていても
代わりはいない
響き渡る　始まりの鐘
今　立ち上がる時
答えのない　この人生を
迷う事無く　Keep My Pace

一つ！　数えて　進めばいい
二つ！　数えて　休めばいい
三つ！　数えて　考えりゃいい
マイペースで　進めればいい

よかったな?　先ず、この歌は「ブリーチ」と言うアニメ のエンディングテーマだったと思う人たちに：　そうだ。 俺はこの歌を「ブリーチ」に始まりに聞いたんだ。けど、ともかく、いい歌じゃねぇか？　な、いつものように、間違いを許してください。もう日本語の授業をとってないのに、俺はまだ日本語の晩強家。だからよく間違いをするんだよ。だが俺がんばるぞ。じゃまた!

Orthodoxy versus orthopraxis.

Now, by “orthopraxis” I am not referring to religious ritual actions, but just plain old actions. Most Christians probably know this better as “Faith vs. Works”. Is it more important to have it right in your head, or to actually do what is right? As a Christian I would have said hands down, it’s faith all the way. But now I’m not so sure about that. Why should one person find salvation just because he believes in something? What about the man who believes otherwise, but is generally a better person? Should he really be condemned just for not believing something?

The answer, of course, is no. The idea that a benevolent God would genuinely want to bring us back to him, but would only open his arms to those who espouse belief in him is ridiculous. To say to the people who spend their whole lives in Buddhist/Hindu/Sufi/Baha’i monasteries that they will be spending eternity in torment, all because they don’t believe Jesus was God incarnate, would be cruel. Never mind the fact that Mahatma Gandhi and Siddhartha Gautama lived lives devoted to the spread peace, honesty, compassion, and knowledge! They didn’t believe correctly, so they deserve hell. Pardon my dated and ridiculous word choice, but that is pure poppycock.

I know the Christian response already: Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Only God can save humans from sin, so we have to accept the only lifeline he throws us; trying to work out your own salvation is impossible, and a sinful act of pride. But lately, I have come to understand one of my biggest problems with Christianity: no matter how you look at it, Christianity makes humans insignificant. I already sort of touched on this in a much earlier post. I can’t even begin to count the times I’ve heard Christians give God the credit for their own actions. Getting 100% correct on a test, winning on Wheel of Fortune, finding a stainless steel trashcan with a little pedal that opens up the lid. “God put the test answers in my head,” “God told me the puzzle word was ‘ketchup’,” “God granted me that garbage can I’d been looking for for months.” Christianity more or less teaches that we are nothing but pawns in a world totally controlled by God, that he gives us every thought and emotion (unless they are sinful), and that all of our actions were really him working through us (unless we do bad things). In this worldview we are no more real than my characters in World of Warcraft, who don’t stand, sit, eat, or move without me clicking the mouse or hitting a key. I can and do create, delete, and manipulate them at will, simply because I can and it keeps me entertained.

Anyway, Hinduism teaches (and Buddhism agrees) that we are responsible for everything we do, good or bad. The result of all action is karma. Good or right actions result in good things, and bad or wrong actions yield bad results. Verse 314 of the Dhammapada says, “Refrain from evil deeds, which cause suffering later. Perform good deeds, which can cause no suffering.” This makes much more sense to me than “I believe this, therefore it is so.”

السلام عليكم
- Reynvaan

P.S. Before anybody asks about it or comments in Arabic, I can only read about 5 Arabic letters. I copied and pasted (السلام عليكم) from Wikipedia. I am trying to learn the alphabet, though, so I can start learning the language.

Depressing, yet paradoxically uplifting.

In advance: the article I link to CONTAINS SOME WRITTEN MATERIAL THAT IS NOT WORK-SAFE, as well as links to several pages that nobody should probably ever look at, be they at work or not.

I never thought I’d find something like this at cracked.com, whose usual fare consists of crude sexual humor and lambasting post-1980s pop culture. I was pleasantly surprised, to say the least. For a while after beginning to read, you may feel something like the beginnings of existential despair, but by the end you may (as I did) close the tab with a more positive outlook on life than when you first clicked the link.

The main theme of the article is that the development of modern telephones, television, text messaging, and the internet has crippled us as a society and a species, and that we therefore have only ourselves to blame for the vast swaths of depression, social shallowness, and emotional selfishness the have blanketed the developed world in the past twenty or thirty years. Sounds like an fun read, I know, but remember Office Space? Yeah, the end is like that. Just read it.

- Reynvaan

P.S. It is my goal, starting now, to stop reading blogs and articles that I know will just make me angry due to their political or religious stances and/or biases. I commented on some such blogs today, and in both cases I got at least a portion of my ass handed back to me in the replies from the bloggers, so I am determined to let myself learn this lesson.

申し訳在りません、皆様。

So I realize that many of my blog posts seem angry, inflammatory, and sometimes downright mean toward certain groups (*cough*evangelicalchristians*cough*). I would like to apologize to anyone I have offended, out of the minuscule number of people who ever come read this blog. Even though nobody has commented to tell me how rude I am being, there is little doubt in my mind that more than a few people would take offense at some of the things I’ve written here. I’ll admit that yes, sometimes I intentionally post flame bait, but I don’t really mean to attack anyone; think of it more like intentionally bothering that younger brother or sister who is always an inch away from fury… only with a few more “fucks” and “damns” and “your God is a sadist…s” than usual.

Truth be told, I think it’s a natural part of apostasy to lash out at one’s former faith. How many anti-Islam books do we see written by former Muslims, and anti-Christianity books from former Christians? It probably also stems in part from the fact that since my apostasy began, I’ve rarely if ever been faced by Christians who try to reconvert me, or tell me that I’m hellbound and beyond saving. It’s not a very enlightened attitude, but I sometimes imagine myself in such situations, emerging victorious from telling off hordes of stereotypically belligerent fundamentalists by using their own dogma against them. *sigh*… A man can dream, can’t he? But realistically, I could/would never do that. I would probably just point out some Biblical and ecclesiastical contradictions and make a crack about YHWH being a deadbeat-dad or something, then retreat to WordPress to bitch about it here. Did I say “a ‘man’ can dream?” I meant “simpering mound of cowardice.”

Anyway, I have been reading the Major Upanishads for class (presentation on the Chandogya and Taittiriya due Wednesday), and last week while reading the Brihadaranyaka, I suddenly felt this connection with everything. All of my issues were momentarily gone and I thought (among other things), ’so what if I’m not a Christian anymore? So what if some Christians are elitist pricks at times? So what if I’m an elitist prick at times? It’s all the same to God in the end.’ The reverie was over almost immediately, and everything “real” came flooding back into my life. Was that kenshō or laja samadhi? Probably not.

Anyway, sorry for being a jerk sometimes.

Namaste,
- Reynvaan

P.S. The title of this post is formal Japanese for “I’m sorry, everyone” (Moushiwake arimasen, mina-sama).

Ashta jaharam.

Like I mentioned in my last post, I have lately been feeling a reconnection with Christianity, specifically with the character of Jesus. This is all well and good, because Jesus was a great guy, and I think he had some really good ideas and a firm base in God. But in the past few days, I have made a terrifying realization: the idea of returning to the blind faith of Christianity has become appealing to me. Well, no, that’s not exactly right. I do not want to go back to that world. Ever. Still, the idea of belonging to a religion in which I don’t have to think for myself seems so much easier than what I am doing right now. No more moral dilemmas or questions of theology or philosophy, because all the answers are conveniently found in this one book! No more floundering for answers when asked what I believe, because the Church tells me what I believe. So simple. So easy.

And therein lies the problem. I have always been a pretty lazy guy, which explains why I am 20 years old and still living at my dad’s house. I don’t know how I have managed to learn the languages I’ve learned, I find it miraculous that I was able to go teach English in Japan, and coming this far from my old religious beliefs has certainly been a long and arduous journey. But now I am getting tired. I have tried to find God in books and Wikipedia articles and classes at school, but I’ve never really put into practice anything I’ve learned; if anything, it has just made me more cynical. The only religion I have ever fully embraced is pop-Christianity, and it terrifies me to think that I might ever regress to that. There is a fear deep inside me that if I ever fully transition away from my old ways, I will somehow lose not only a part of myself, but also some kind of divine favor. Am I afraid that by moving away from mainstream American Christianity, I will also be moving away from God? And if so, doesn’t that mean that I’m not ready to move away?

I hate so much about what I see in the Christian church, specifically the mainstream conservative evangelical Protestant church here in the United States. I hate the hypocrisy, the exclusivism, the ignorance, the elitism, and the way they are always playing the victim. But most of all, I hate the hate. I can’t stand the way Christians claim to follow Jesus’s teachings of love and peace, yet they can’t seem to actually put them into practice. They hate Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, gays, and everyone else who doesn’t fit in with their narrow, restricted notion of who and what God loves. I hate the ethnocentrism. Every picture I see depicting Jesus has blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin. I also hate that even Jesus taught a literal eternal hell prepared for Satan, the demons, and “unbelievers”. I hate that so many Christians are so ignorant about their own religion! Many of them have never heard of an ecumenical council, they think Jesus preached that he was God incarnate, and most have no knowledge of any of the myriad books that didn’t make the cut when the books of the Bible were officially decided.

So if I hate so much about the church, why, WHY do I suddenly feel like returning to it? Maybe it’s because I feel like I don’t have a distinct religious “place” anymore. I can find God anywhere, so why do I feel like I should be sitting obediently in a church on Sundays? Maybe I just need to finally put all I’ve learned about God and religion into practice. Maybe I should embrace what I love about Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Judaism, and yes, Christianity, and not worry about giving it all a name or a justification. Maybe I need to get rid of my worries about what people will say and think of my beliefs. But most of all, I think I just need to stop talking about it too much, stop thinking about it too much, and just do it.

Ad maiorem Dei gloriam, sat sri akaal, namaste, as-salaamu alaykum, shalom aleichem, and peace,
- Reynvaan

p.s. A note on the title of this post. “Ashta jaharam” is the only extant phrase in a language created by me. It means something like “holy path” and was made intentionally to sound Sanskrit-ish.