Re: The Pope Confronts Islam
There is little doubt that the majority of Man’s troubles relate to religion in one form or another. The tragedy is that Man can change this were it not for his own ego, stupidity and pride.
Religions emerged from their various contexts to suit Man’s needs at those times. They were formed in response to not only socio/environmental stimuli, but also Man’s need for an understanding of his environment. His ability to explain profound, largely natural, phenomena eluded him: his only recourse was to a supernatural being: a “God that had all the answers”, but one that was out of the reach of being known by Man and therefore could not be refuted.
Understandably, each religion claimed its rightness over all other beliefs and religions. Some interpretations within some religions even went so far as to call for the death of all people who did not adopt their view of the world and of their God. This continues to this day.
Soon Man learned that the people who controlled access to their God gained enormous power over the people who followed that God. Some religions manipulated the supposed message and intent of their God in order to retain this power. They could do this because followers of that religion were too trusting, intimidated, had no better explanation, unable to question or were afraid to question or challenge.
Others felt that the greater the number of adherents to that brand of religion, the greater the power of the religion and therefore the greater the power of the people who controlled the gateways to it.
In each case, the religion was a product of Man, his limited understanding, and the context within which that religion was born.
If one reflects on the essence of religions, one finds kernels of truth which if adhered to, would enhance Man’s growth, harmony and wellness. Most religions proscribe sane and appropriate ways for Man to interact with his fellow Man. In the contexts in which those religions formed, those proscriptions may have served its adherents well. The intercession of Man to manipulate these proscriptions for his own material and political ends, have not served Man well and in many cases have distorted the essence of goodness to be found in each religion.
In each religion there are Men of goodwill to their fellow Man, Nature and the environment; and there are people of ill-will or of self interest who do not serve Man’s best interest. It is not the religion that fails; it is the people within it who fail to heed the goodness of the religious context in whose name they speak.
In each religion there are aspects, interpretations and guidelines that serve its adherents well and those that do not. Each religion offers its own definition of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Some of these definitions of rightness and wrongness are shared across many or most religions and others are peculiar to a specific religion. Each in their context is given meaning by their context.
We are all of our own context – a context that may be defined by a religion or one defined outside of religion. If we all took our bearings only from our context’s definition of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, we might become confused by the conflicting interpretations of rightness and wrongness offered by different contexts.
In the Universe of Man there is no absolute ‘right’ and ‘wrong’: only that which serves him and that which does not - only that which enhances the growth of his essence and that which impedes it.
Despite all of this, religion is merely a context. The context is not ‘good’ or ‘bad, or ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ – it just is. Our challenge is to make decisions from within our own contexts that will enhance our essence – both individually and collectively. The context gives our choice a character that enables it to dimension our essence. No more, no less.