Philosophy is a subject that I’ve developed a liking for. It seems that I’ve been practicing this field with my writing– as it developed from these writing topics of mine. My thoughts and writings echo with men who founded their own schools in the past– a natural resonance, one that I want to learn more of.
After all, while these words of mine lack weight– I am able to borrow weight from these predecessors of mine. At the same time, my thoughts are subject to critique by these same schools of thought. After all, I’m not eating from a single pie but several.
I am a man of contradictions, a claim that I made when I first wrote. Today, I still remain as a man of contradictions– so I cannot dedicate myself to a single school of thought, my thoughts are interdisciplinary. However, a notable absence in my writing is religion– a system of beliefs that ran parallel with these schools of thought.
While my religion is one that weighs heavy in my heart– there is still a distinction to be made in regards to my writing. It is a different set of standards that I must hold myself accountable for– one stricter than my writings. After all, I am the practitioner of my religion– meaning that it should only be applicable to me.
Apart from that, I simply lack knowledge of my religion. I can study it for an entire lifetime and my understanding of it would still be incomplete. The same goes for other religions– while I may not believe in them, my opinion does not change the fact that each of them is its own bounty of knowledge.
This can also be applied towards philosophy– as my understanding of it is even worse than that of my religion. I have practiced my religion my entire life; I only started to write months ago– so my knowledge of the philosophies of others is superficial at best. I am still formulating my own, so how could I begin to comprehend another outlook on life?
In regards to the practice of religion– I will narrate it with my own experiences.
Religion is one of humanity’s most comprehensive systems– touching upon every aspect of our lives. It has created its own communities, its own ethics and culture, beliefs and practices, a worldview, and a shared sense of identity. It is a lens of perspective– applied to every layer of your life.
When I speak of core tenets, I refer to the fundamental qualities of that religion– principles that remain interred in its religious text, applicable in today’s time. I recognize those tenets as the heart of religion– the rest is considered as its body. What good is a body if it has no beating heart?
I find that oftentimes, the heart and body are both integrated into a person’s practice– such integration is the norm, the exception being practice of a single part.
I have seen people who believed in the core tenets of their religion, but not partake in some of its customs and traditions. After all, they believe in the religion at its core– its fundamental principles aligning with their own. On the other hand, some have incorporated both customs and traditions– yet they are in a fundamental conflict with the beliefs of their religion.
At a superficial level, those who only possess the body of their religion appear more pious than those that only possess the heart of their religion. We forget that our eyes are blind to the human heart.
I find particular fault with those who lack the heart of their religion– as I have seen men who have abided by such tradition and culture, only to contradict their own religion in the most grievous manner. Those who only practice the body of their religion cannot claim themselves to be a follower of it– as those practices and traditions require faith, a faith that they lack.
I find that such people have replaced those core tenets with their personal beliefs, thus their body can be attributed to a rotting one– for the body and heart are mismatched, irreconcilable. A faithless heart cannot sustain a body fuelled by faith.
At the same time, there is fault to be found with those that only possess the heart of their religion. After all, religion is resistant to change– a trait that comforts us within a certain limit.
It is strict in this regard as the purpose behind this is to preserve its original form– if a change was to be accepted, then it would inevitably signify that religion can be changed by the hands of man– threatening the claims that it was established on.
When a person accepts a religion into their heart– they are subject to its jurisdiction with the unspoken rule being to practice it as it was practiced in the past. This world is superficial in nature– so the abandonment and altering of these established norms would invite suspicion and doubt from their compatriots. It matters not if your belief is more noble than theirs– a single wrong will nullify all of your rights in the eyes of man.
I have developed a nuanced take towards those who have the heart yet lack the body of their religion. After all, in today’s era– each religion has its own branches, our tolerance for this change corresponding with these new additions.
I find their faith– regardless of religion, an endearing trait as opposed to a hypocrite who abides by the customs and norms of my religion to a greater extent than I. Deceit will remain deceit— no tradition shall alter its meaning.
A person may be ignorant of their faith yet remain true to it– their personal beliefs being in alignment with their religion. This can be attributed to humanity– as we are ignorant of our religions yet we have already given our covenants.
The field of Religion is a rigorous field of knowledge– an exemplary torch of inheritance left behind by generations of Scholars. Men who lived and died by way of penship– to continuously study their religion.
This field of academia is one that mandates accurary– an accuracy that led its authors to collect chains of narrations, to create a new discipline to discern between truth and falsehood with this chain.
Men who traveled continents to complete their research– a dedication that exhausted their lives. A torch whose passionate nature remains centuries after their deaths– for these interpretations and understandings were tested against one another, to further determine its truth.
Yet even they claimed ignorance as a defence, so how could we assume ourselves to be knowledgeable when ours is a firefly compared to their star? Knowledge is an obligation for mankind– an innate desire that we fulfill both consciously and unknowingly. Religion is within this desire– thus it is an object of our desires, a duty that I am compelled to fulfill.
I recognize that the body of religion is as essential as its heart– for both parts are complimentary parts of a whole. I dare not say that heart alone is enough– as the body exists as an extension of the heart. It serves as a conduit and a shelter– yet I find the heart to be more redeemable than the body.
I am able to accept those with a missing body– up to a certain extent. For excessive changes will break this body entirely– forming an offshoot of the original. If such a feat would occur, I would divorce a person’s religious thoughts from their other thoughts– as they have inadvertently undermined their faith. While their virtues remain– its religious nature has been extinguished.
If the heart is missing, then a person’s faith is nothing but a shell. If the body is missing, then a person’s faith remains unanchored– more easily distorted and malleable. The body codifies a person’s heart, allowing for it to remain as it was– to resist degradation. Thus, the body is just as essential as the heart.
I believe these people who are selective in terms of their religion have forgotten– to believe is a commitment, a commitment that weighs heavy on the scales. I do not mind if a person disbelieves in the notion of religion– they have made their choice and have accepted its effects. The Agnostics are the same in this regard– refusing the choice entirely, accepting it. They deserve their due courtesy– a token of respect.
I find the existence of those who cling to religion refuse to honor it entirely as perplexing– to persist with their choice and renege it. I have seen others speak of religion– yet I find that their words do not match up to their behavior. It does not matter whether those words are uttered by a dog or a man– the worth of such words is not determined by its invoker, it derives worth from itself.
Ultimately, I can only understand from actions– so I leave this aspect of judgement to a higher being, as only God can discern in regards to a person’s entirety. My goal is simply to understand, interpret and question.
I deem myself unworthy of judging others as I lack the right and knowledge to do so. In the end, I can only judge myself– my intentions are best privy to me if not others. I am not a party of this covenant you have with God– thus you are answerable to him and yourself.
There is another subset of practitioners of religions– practitioners that the religion rejects, those rightfully condemned by the World. People who elevate a single phrase of a religion and discard its remainder– basing their entire faith around it. They have stripped the warmth of religion and have instead resorted to warming themselves with the split blood of another– justifying it with that very phrase.
If there is one constant with these practitioners– it is hatred, for each atrocity committed is a reminder of that hatred. They have weaponized religion entirely– striking a millennia’s precedent down in favour of these unfounded beliefs.
It is they that commit these sins yet we are the one condemned, for fault to be forced upon us. Religion is best practiced in moderation– not for it to be treated as a passing thought nor for it to be practiced beyond this established precedent.
I find that people are blind to their own religion, ready to accuse another religion in regards to their past whilst forgetting their religion’s history. Every religion has extremist elements with history testifying to the validity of my claim.
I recognize that there are those amongst us who believe that they are superior to others on the sole basis of religion– it would be best for such a thought to perish from their minds. Religion does not inherently grant you superiority over another. Religion is a path for a person to walk on, a path that refines them. It is this refinement of morals and self that determines a person’s superiority– the progress you have taken on this path.
Regardless of religion, a person’s moral superiority is determined by their morality and ethics. A framework that encompasses all of humanity– including Agnostics and Atheists, for this one is especially relevant for them. It is this secular framework that determines it in this life of ours.
Religion cannot be forced onto others– as our beliefs are a reflection of our will, an inalienable right. We may renounce our religion on our tongues, but it shall retreat into our heart– such faith is no different than lip service, as coerced belief is false. The element of coercion taints any expression of free will– sullying it entirely.
In the past, I have seen that some elevate their own religion by disparaging the religions of others– a foolish method of convincing people to join their religion. By engaging in such behavior, a person invites others to insult their own religion in return– offending themselves in the process. They forget that their own religion forbids them from such disparagement– essentially violating their own faith in an attempt to enroll others into it.
By insulting the faith of another– their religion’s standing becomes diminished. Oftentimes, it is those who feel that their religion is inadequate in some way that engage in this behaviour– seeking to comfort themselves by lowering others.
In regards to my writing, my ambition has become greater– I wish to develop my own philosophy. To create a system of thought that remains compatible with my religion– for this system is meant to be secular at its root, religion should not act as a barrier for this worldview of mine.
If there is one thing that I fear, it is misguiding others with my incomplete knowledge of my religion. I cannot bear the burden of such a sin– another reason as to why I refrain from writing about my religion. I will not name it in writing. I recognize that if it were to be named, others could misinterpret my words– limiting its scope to a single religion, providing me with a new source of trouble.
There is another matter that I wish to address in my writing before I conclude it. We are asked about the uniqueness of our personality traits in various manners. I would be remiss to not remember that we have no unique qualities. Truth be told, all of our traits can be seen in others– if our traits were truly unique, then I doubt that we as a species would be able to maintain our existence for long.
The question is one that is inherently wrong in the first place– it is a question that demands lies, not the truth. It assumes that these individual traits are what distinguishes us from each other– an understanding that is wrong on a fundamental level. It is our entire being that makes us unique– not a single component. It is this combination of personality traits that truly distinguishes us from another.
As these questions are associated with forms or procedures that have a significant impact on our lives– we are forced to list personality traits to satisfy this requirement. I am bemoaned by this conflict between the truth and lies, to utter falsehood and conceal my truth. From this realization, I have developed a particular dislike for this line of questioning.
Author’s note:
First and foremost, my writing is about religion in a general sense. It is not targeting any religion in particular. My intention is to develop and explore my thoughts in regards to religion, not to attack or criticize religion. When I say experience, I am referring to an entire lifetime– so I must ask that you do not presume that experience to be you.
The uniqueness of ourselves was an afterthought. When I was filling out an application in the past, I spent more time than what I would prefer about this question– it made me contemplate it in a serious manner, before I lied. Quite frankly, I’m still peeved at that question.
While I intend on writing more by adding another topic, it divulges enough from the first two to warrant its own piece.
Originally, I planned on naming this piece as “Religion”. Instead I settled for Lumen in order to obfuscate my writing. After all, religion is a buzzword that would garner significantly more attention. It’d be in my best interests to moderate this attention.
Forgot to mention, my understanding is a flawed one, as my focus on universality may have inadvertently oversimplified theological points for some religions. This understanding is one that is in development, an incomplete one. I will not be so bold to claim that I won’t die anytime soon, but I believe that this understanding will become further refined– to become more comprehensive by recognizing more nuances.
**