Still stumped about prayer so instead.. God and Religion

I am still pondering the complexities of prayer and finding my way to a truth that I can be comfortable with. But it is a twisted and complicated path which I can't seem to lay out in words at the moment. So instead I'd like to talk about something else that has been bothering me lately. Religion as a weapon against spirituality.

I have encountered many people on my quest who are angry with the church. Many of them rightly so. They feel lied to, manipulated, and angry. There are some valid points to be made about the history of the church and the abuses of power that have caused pain and suffering 'in the name of god'. But the church is not god.

It seems contradictory to me to acknowledge that an institution is corrupt and then use that knowledge as proof of the non-existence of the power they were seeking. We don't stop believing in democracy when greed and unchecked power lead us into war. We don't stop believing in love when a person full of selfishness breaks our heart. We don't stop believing in science when new information proves old theories incorrect. So why do we hold god responsible for the shortcomings of religion?

This is exemplified most clearly for me in the use of the bible for proof there is no god. If you believe the bible is a book created by man how can it prove anything about the existence of god? Using inconsistencies and questioning the time the bible was written can be used to prove that it isn't an inerrant document set down by god but it doesn't prove there is no god. Understanding the history of how the works were written, collected, selected, and excluded helps us understand the men (and no, I don't mean this in the universal mankind sense, women weren't allowed) who were part of it. But you can only use the history of the bible to point out its own flaws. You can't discredit a document, or more precisely a collection of documents, and then use that very discredited document(s) to prove your point.

People also love to talk about the pain and suffering inflicted on humanity by religion in the form of war, oppression and shame. Again, the evidence of these events is overwhelming but it only condemns the religion, not god. The same is true for the wanton wealth some religions use in the creation of holy places while people starve. A symptom of religion but still not god.

When I hear people using these examples to discredit or disprove god it confuses me. That's like blaming your body for lung cancer after years of smoking. Your body didn't cause your cancer and god didn't cause the ills of religion. I haven't found a particular religion that I find without fault or flaw but I don't need to. I don't confuse religion with god and therefore don't need to reconcile the two.

I haven't posted much lately because I feel stuck on this prayer question. A friend lent me several books on the topic of visualization, manifestation, and communicating with God. However, I still feel at a loss. Perhaps if I define my specific difficulties...

1) Why are some prayers answered and others not answered? If prayer really works then it shouldn't it work for everyone, every time?

2) If the answer to question # 1 has to do with belief or some other flaw in the asker then we have essentially blamed a person's hardships on them. This doesn't sit well with me.

3) If the answer to question #1 has to do with us not knowing what is best for us then why bother asking? Shouldn't we just let things unfold in their path and trust that it is all for the best?

4) Isn't it selfish to ask for anything more than strength and understanding? Why would selfish prayers be answered?

Prayer...

It seems with each answer comes a new question. I'm making peace with my beliefs about God, Jesus, and traditional holiday but now I'm struggling with prayer.

I told my aunt that my doctor was concerned about my thyroid and she said she'd put me on the prayer list at church. Friends on Facebook post problems and difficulties in their lives and ask for prayer. My husband was recently waiting for word on a new job he really wanted (which he got, yay!) and a part of me wanted to pray. Or send it out to the universe. Manifest it. Whatever, the word isn't as important as the practice.

I'm not sure what I believe about the power of asking or visualizing. I'm not sure what I believe about God or the Universe intervening on our behalf. I think it's time for more books!!

Sidenote from our usual topics...

I had an amazing day at the UU Fellowship today. Everyone got to share how they had become a UU and it was so moving to hear everyone's story. At one point one of the ladies referred to her husband as a miracle who'd saved her and he just couldn't hold back his tears. It was so special and I feel so lucky to have been a part of it.

I myself don't really identify as a UU per se. I have recently decided that I'm "living without labels" so I'm not ready to adopt this one. If I were to adopt a religion though UU would be it. Where else can the Christian, pagan, atheiest, agnostic, and questioning seeker come together and find a loving community. I am in awe of the openess.

When it was my turn to share I told a bit about my past, what made me question the religious models of my youth, and the fact that I believe some questions are unanswerable but I still think it's important to search for those answers.

Resurrection

The bodily resurrection of Christ is the central tenant of modern Christianity. Much like the miracle of the virgin birth, I believe in the possibility of such a miracle but am not convicted of it's historical factuality. More importantly I'm not convicted of it's necessity.

I believe that the creation of the earth took place through the process of evolution for a purpose. The divine which I call God set things into motion billions of years ago with a method that provided us with perfect abilities for the plan of humanity. My personal philosophy is that He knew we needed death to appreciate life. He gave us higher order thinkng, insticts and even an inner voice to guide us. He gave us the ability to see and use these tools if we truly look for and try to understand them. So my burning question has been- if I believe He made the laws of the universe for the specific purpose of teaching us then why would He need to defy His own laws to teach us?

I decided that my truth had to let go of a literal interpration of the resurrection. I needed to look for deeper meaning from this story because I just simply can't accept that God would find it necessary to defy his own laws. But, just as I had to do with Christmas, I had to find a way to reconcile my new understanding with my feelings about my previous understanding. Does this mean that I no longer celebrate Easter as a religous holiday? I don't think so.

In The Last Week Borg and Crossman once again make the case for interpreting the gospel story of Easter as parable. The death of Jesus dying and rising again is symbolic of our own experience of laying to rest our old perceptions and having a new life in truth and enlightenment. This idea of being born again has been distorted by fundamentalist to mean something that is unique to a Christian accepting Christ as personal savior. But Jesus never said he wanted to be our personal savior. He was living an enlightened life and was offering us truth in place of misperception so we could do the same.

There is also an element of defiance in the resurrection story- a way of letting the Romans know that they may have won the day but that the Jewish people would prevail. Even in death.

That is my new truth about Easter.

Take up your cross and follow me...

For modern Christians the idea of taking up one's cross is synonymous with Christ's passion and a willingness to suffer in the name of God. But is this what the phrase meant in the context of Jesus' culture? According to Berg and Crossman, no.

Crucifixion was a punishment reserved by Romans for enemies of the state. "Only the empire crucified, and then only for one crime: denial of imperial authority." (The Last Week, p 29)So, if this is the case then Jesus wasn't calling people to suffer in his name as this verse is so often interpreted. He was calling people to stand up against their Roman oppressors and acknowledge that true authority belonged to God alone.

Again, the context changes so much of the meaning of the gospels. It seemed divine that Jesus would know he would be crucified before it happened; but was it divine insight or simply a realistic prediction to the outcome of his plans? If in fact the entrance into Jerusalem was a planned demonstration and Jesus knew of the Roman practice of crucifying political dissenters then he had to know the risk he was taking.

This also changes what it means to be a Christian, or follower of Christ. I had long believed that Jesus did not involve himself in political matters and instead chose to do things in spite of the political climate- as is evidenced in his statement to render unto Caesar. However now I'm seeing another possibility of what his goals were and why he died. I must admit that I'm drawn to this new possibility. But, more answers generally bring more questions so, I'm still seeking.

Jesus as peaceful protester...

I am slowly but surely reading The Last Week. It's interesting and enlightening but I'm forcing myself to slow down, take it all in so I'm still early in the week. The authors pose the theory that when Jesus entered Jerusalem on palm Sunday that he did so as a form of protest. His humble entrance on a meager donkey as opposed the grand and pompous entrance Pilate was making on the other side of the city. Pilate's entrance showcased his power, glory and wealth. Jesus' entrance showcased his humility and the kingdom of God.

They support this theory with the verses in the ninth chapter of Mark when Jesus instructs his disciples to go get the foal (donkey) that is tied up inside the city. This points not to divine insight of where the foal would be but instead to a planned demonstration. The authors don't make the direct comparison but I kept having visions of Gandhi while reading. A peaceful man who understood that love and compassion are the answer not war and hate. A man who knows that embracing peace isn't the same thing as giving up. Much like the people of India had toiled under British oppression the Jewish people had lived under the oppression of Rome for centuries and it was time to put an end to that.

I like this idea of Jesus in this role and I feel myself coming to a greater understanding of Jesus the man. Part of me is ready to accept this view; after all in this new role he is still a man I admire greatly and whose teachings I gladly study and follow. But I feel his place as savior slipping. I find myself simultaneously believing he was special but not all that special. Special because he was enlightened but not so much because he's not the only to ever do so. So, why choose him as guru over any other enlightened person out there.

I think the simple answer is because I do. We all have to find the guru to guide us whom we feel most connected with and I do feel that connection. However I don't know yet if this is a knee-jerk reaction to change that I should let go of or if it's my instincts telling me not to let go. I need time to sort that one out. So, I'm still seeking.