For The Love of God

I was thinking of doing a piece called "For the Love of God" which has to do with piety = vanity = pride = sin. Our editor asked if I would leave my introduction like that, and so I have, as it appears before you. And on is the article, but I would like to assert that calling this an article I think is a word misappropriation; I don't get to make those rules, so call this what you will.

In its tenets, the ten commandments, Christianity really does appear to be a morally (another topic you can look forward to) sound faith without a sense of ego. Don't murder, remain faithful to your convictions, don't steal, don't lie, and the golden rule, the maxim of empathy, treats others as you'd wish to be treated, a set of words a father may tell his children, and unquestioningly they'll be heeded to some ability.

When you're young do you listen to your father for the sake of yourself, to remain in good standing or at the very least avoid punishment, or because you understand that others feel?

The motive one has to pursue any faith is for eternal salvation, self-preservation, for a reward for your loyalty to the intangible. In Christianity after you die, if you've done what the dogma has asked of you, you spend eternity in heaven. In Islam and Judaism it's basically the same thing, you go to be with God, to be somewhere better. In Buddhism it's nirvana. In Hinduism a better position in reincarnation. This is ego. This is where you decide your religion is the right religion because the after plan makes the most sense. This is where you decide you even need a system of beliefs in the first place, it doesn't take god for you to know to not steal or murder or do wrong, you know this because you know pain and you know the feeling of being the victim of a so-called sin and you know you don't like it. The golden rule is self-evident.

I have to say I apologize for using Mother Teresa in the following context, because she was a great woman: I was watching a religious debate and it wasn't very different most I've seen, most of the points have been argued over and over and points made were tritely argued and moot and unresolved. But what stuck out was a point one of the debaters made using Mother Teresa, he paraphrased another quote that went along the lines of the Mother Teresa saying the work she does, she wouldn't do for any amount of money in the world, for she does it for the love of God. And the other debater laughed and scoffed. Just as easily for the deeds and charity she's done, she could have said she's just happy to help make a positive impact on any one life, though with just that that's quite an understatement, but instead she professed piety. And for me this is what piety is; in a harsher, blunter way of saying it, it's playing teacher's pet or being the favorite child. In a psychological way of describing it this is the ultimate appeasement of the superego. In a summary, for the love of God, this is a step closer to your granted ultimate reward in paradise upon judgment, this is you thinking for yourself, piety is zealousness is vanity is pride is a deadly sin, this is only you trying to climb up in supernatural selection, to be in better standing with the giver of your great gift post-life, because there is something far greater than you can imagine where you can go after this suffering. The pursuit of heaven wouldn't have nearly as much appeal if you weren't suffering here.

But then go ahead and argue that there's reward outside of heaven just in the acts of kindness and sainthood. Then consider I don't need heaven or the love of God because that same reward is good enough for me.


-XO