Between You And God Only

 

The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein made several pithy statements I admire.  One of them is: "Make sure that your religion is a matter between you and God only."

That's as it should be, I think.  I'm not an atheist.  I don't find the fact that someone believes in God in itself distressing, offensive or incredible.  I don't accept any of the arguments which have been made over the years claimed to prove God's existence.  Neither do I rush to contest them.

But I wish, oh how I wish, that those who are religious would would make their religion a matter between them and God only.  

I don't mean to say that believers should not worship together.  It's not something that appeals to me, however. Reverence for the divine is something I can express without the presence or assistance of others.  I don't think the God I revere demands that worship be a group affair, or that it's required. I find the thought that God needs or wants anything from us incredible. Similarly, I think it demeaning to us and God to believe that God will grant our wishes if we ask for them in an appropriate manner.  Nor can I accept a God who demands that adults have sex only in certain ways. To paraphrase an author whose name I can't recall, such a God seems to me to be too small.

What I find disturbing is when believers try to foist their beliefs on others.  They have a long history doing so, of course, if they are the kind of believers who believe that their beliefs are the only true beliefs and their God the only true God, and all others should believe as they believe.

In doing so, they've caused a vast number of people to be killed in various ways, or savagely oppressed, or forcibly converted, for thousands of years.  Intolerance is a necessary feature of such religions.  One is fortunate if the members of such religions content themselves with merely trying to persuade nonbelievers and, if they fail to do so, think them damned for all eternity.

It would seem a simple thing to make your religion a matter between yourself and God only, but it's clear that too many believers are inclined to proclaim their faith publicly even if they refrain from demanding that others do so as well.  Do they think this will impress God?  Do they hope to impress us with their piety?  Do they think this religious exhibitionism persuades anyone, or is it for their own satisfaction?

About the Antichrist

 

The Antichrist is an interesting figure.  It or he is referred in the New Testament of the Bible, but not in the Old Testament.  This shouldn't be surprising as there is no Christ in the Old Testament, though over the years those books of the Bible have been searched for references to Jesus which were duly found, but were less than clear and required inventive explanation.  The same may be said of the Antichrist.

The Antichrist is also mentioned by Paul of Tarsus and several of the Church Fathers, who found it necessary  or useful to describe it or him in more detail than appears in the Bible.  I don't know if the Antichrist is referred to in the many gospels which were excluded from the Bible, some of which refer to Jesus using his divine powers to kill those who annoy him and decribe him as quite different from the Jesus we know through those authors known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

As only makes sense, the Antichrist denies Christ, and works to induce others to do so as well.  It's unclear whether the Antichrist is to be a single individual or if there's to be more than one.  Many have been called the Antichrist over the centuries.  Nero was one of those named. So we're various Popes or the very office of the Papacy (by Protestants).  Mohammed was called the Antichrist, and so were some heretics like Arian.

Some have claimed the Antichrist is among those false prophets and wonder-workers we were warned of in Scripture. There were quite a few of those wandering around the Mediterranean while Jesus is claimed to have lived, like Simon Magus and Appollonius of Tyana. Appollonius' story is similar to that of Jesus in many respects--each performed the same kind of miracles, for example, like raising the dead.

The Antichrist is described as having various characteristics, some of which have a certain, or in some cases uncertain, basis in Scripture.  Others have been added over time.  Among other things the Antichrist is charismatic, a deceiver, considers himself divine, is worshipped as a god, controls the economy, and rules the world from Jerusalem of all places.  Various figures have been thought to to qualify over the centuries given this description; some are considered the Antichrist even now (I need not name them). But after a relatively short period of time the Antichrist is destroyed by Jesus.

Among the problems I have with the Antichrist is the fact that his death and defeat is inevitable according to all sources.  It may be that the Antichrist's followers would be stupid or ignorant enough to disregard the many prophecies of their leader's ruin, but presumably, the Antichrist would be aware of these sources, and know his fate.  Who or what would want to be the Antichrist given the destruction which awaits?

Difficulties arise when we believe that accounts which were intended to address contemporary or imminent events apply thousands of years later. So the end times, preceding the Second Coming of Jesus, which he himself said would take place in the lifetimes of his disciples according to the Gospel of Matthew, are still awaited by the credulous, although believers predicted they would take place many times already and have been disappointed as many times in the past.

So it should be no great surprise that we're so gullible, so easily misled, so completely bovine when those who wish to take advantage of us do so in these New Dark Ages.  We've been dupes for millenia.  

"Have You Seen the Bigger Piggies..."

 

In another, happier, time I was given the Beatles' White Album (as it's popularly called) for Christmas.  The lyric that's the title to this post is of course taken from George Harrison's song Piggies which appears on that album.

The song spoke to class distinctions of the time.  Perhaps its focus was on the peculiarities of the British class system.  In any case, it criticized the haves of society and their disregard for the have-nots.

There was a time when the British upper class was notorious for its disdain for and mistreatment of the the poverty stricken lower classes condemned to live among but far, far below them.  This time was most famously described in the works of Charles Dickens.

But I wonder whether the lyrics of Piggies better reflect the times we live in now, here.  America has arguably become even more of a plutoctacy than England was in the 19th century.  Billionaires and their minions effectively rule the nation and, like the Bigger Piggies of the song, are intent on stirring up the dirt in which others live, even to the point of classing them as enemies of the nation and seeking to use the military against them.

There's something offensively smug about the Piggies of our time.  They snort and snigger at the problems of others. 

Riches may corrupt separately from and in addition to power.  The very rich are used to buying people as well as things, and so take them both for granted. Things are important to today's Piggies solely to the extent they give them pleasure or otherwise serve their interests, and they view people as essentially the same as things.  The Piggies don't care about people or what they do unless they irritate them. The Piggies of the song eat bacon.  The Piggies of our time consume us. They think themselves entitled to do so, living Piggy lives.

Not Being Able to Govern Events

 

Montaigne offers wisdom, and an example, on how to live in this dreary age: "Not being able to govern events, I govern myself."

It might be true that we can govern events only rarely and to a limited extent in most times, and that we should in lieu of events govern ourselves always. But I think that events, now, have grown beyond anyone's control and the need to govern ourselves is urgent.

It's difficult to believe that anything or anyone can be tiresome, remarkably embarrassing and dangerous at one and the same time, but those who should be governing events have managed to be just that. Some drone on in a shambling, rambling, sometimes incoherent fashion about what they believe to be their own greatness and and malign those they dislike; some strike poses and prance about a stage in the manner of a television evangelist while they expound on death, destruction, fitness and grooming; some threaten to deploy troops against their fellow Americans in select cities.

There's something ugly about the state of our Glorious Union. It's become misshapen, repulsive, in the hands of pillagers. 

What can be done while things fall apart and the center cannot hold?  Montaigne's response is that of a Stoic.  Don't allow yourself to despair over things beyond your control.  Do the best you can with what is in your control.  It's possible to be reasonable and virtuous although others are neither.

There may be worse to come.  If that's to be, Hemingway was right that grace under pressure is admirable.