Wednesday, January 18, 2012
He assumes all religion are "brands." Is argument comes formt he failure of organized religion to produce results and to actually produce evil in some instances. He has a point. If we are to claim to be God's people we must wear His "brand" which is a life altered and good. A lot, a whole lot even, of religious institutional brands are tainted.
Should there be one common message every religious believer needs to hear, perhaps it could be something like this:
"If Christ cannot be glimpsed in the followers of Christianity, they should admit their religion is a mistake and stop faking it; Muslim's should not advocate Islam until Muslim against Muslim carnage ends and Salaam Aleikum becomes a reality in true submission to God's will; If Hindus want to prove their religion is the Sanatan Dharm, why not break free from Samsara by revolting en masse against India's caste system? That will eliminate a far more insidious form of apartheid than South Africa's, because the caste system persists in the guise of religion."
Nonetheless I attach great importance to genuine faith in God. The Bible records several instances where the faith of outsiders is commended and rewarded. Confused by my stand, here, in No 2 Religion, Yes 2 Faith, people sometimes ask me what it means to have a simple, personal faith in God.
But to claim an individual relationship with God without authority or accountability is where most of the really deep nastiness comes from. It is when people have set themselves adrift from the institutions that they have gone so terribly awry.
I think the answer to Mr. Raj's issues is not to cut oneself adrift, but rather to set oneself to helping your particular institution reclaim its true brand.