Epiphany TWO

My earlier epiphany involved politics and religion.  I maintain my strong opinion on the matter of an unholy amalgam that has developed in our nation.  And thus far, though stats tell me it was read by a good many people, no vehement refutation or even strong criticism has resulted.  Perhaps many quietly agree with me, and perhaps many hated my view and simply won't dignify it with comment.  Either way, I stand by my statements about Republicans and Christians, in that post as well as some writing since then.

Today's E-TWO would have appeared here prior to that other epiphany if it had crystallized in my mind as it has more recently.  The axiom is more profound and of greater importance to mankind - and my flat statement of it will surely be more roundly despised because people hate to be reminded bluntly of things they already know deep inside.

The Golden Rule is at its core.  For many years, since the days in 1976 when I rejected the Worldwide Church of God along with all religious cult(s), the general life-standard for me has been the purest of guidelines: The Golden Rule.  Is it not yours?  Or if not, why not?!  If you are a part of any belief system on Earth, the tenet which is labeled more simply as The Golden Rule is ostensibly part of your cult - your church - your belief system.

Even the very self-righteous among believers, the holier-than-thou folks, know that the very idea that one could ever actually "love thy neighbor as thyself" is pure crap.  It's just not going to happen!  But the more palatable wording of the simple rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you is essentially accepted by all as what was really meant.

My big epiphany is simply this:  If any action does not measure up to the Golden Rule, it is fundamentally detrimental to human life.  After all, we are all humans and we all must share this life and this planet (for the time being, anyway).  How does all this sharing happen and how can we progress much farther as a species?  Will it be strictly by the rule of law?  By that endless string of laws created by fallible humans and enforced usually by even more fallible humans?  Not a single religious entity would accept this concept; it's why religion exists!  Humans distrust other humans, so they buy into a supreme being concept in the hope of eventually being rescued from those other humans.  Until such time as that rapture occurs, they will pass their laws, all geared to their own protection against each other, and the most devout believers always want those laws to be guided by God's Law.  May I overstate the obvious?  The Golden Rule is a standard plank in the platform of all those many divergent slants on what is called God's law!  Why not USE it?

In my return last year to the practice of real estate, I was required to take extensive exams on rules, etc.  No problem; we all need to be aware of how best to do the job.  But I was highly disturbed at the final set of requirements for me to begin my practice; I had to pass an exam on ethics.  Now this would not have been a major concern since my lifestyle is one of ethical behavior.  But the way it was handled in the real estate requirements irked me tremendously.  There are seventeen rules we were told we needed to grasp, learn and use in our sales of properties.  Rule #3 was "Practice the Golden Rule."  Then all the other big, supposedly important rules were spelled out.  I recoiled in real anger at this ludicrous list.  The other sixteen rules were totally extraneous; rule #3 should obviously be the only rule.  It's all that is needed.  But in typical litigious human fashion, many little legalistic insertions were placed in the instructions on how to be ethical in our dealings with others.  What a waste!  What an admission that we are not really capable as weak humans to do the right thing without picky laws and tiny points of potential conflict.  [Can you spell, Pharisees, everyone?]  The one rule, that GOLDEN one, is all anyone should ever need.

If a Christian actually believes what he reads in his accepted holy book, what does it mean to him that his purported Lord, the Son of God narrowed it all down to the simplest terms in saying just two laws really were required of anyone: to love God and to love neighbor?  The weakness of humans led them to continue making all kinds of ancillary laws to make sure others were following the instructions properly.  You are told how to love God and how to get around actually loving neighbor but to somehow live near him.

An old friend with whom I had lost contact for over forty years read my statement of being a Humanist and living by the Golden Rule as my only guide.  She wrote that it saddened her that I had "lost" my spiritual connection and pointed to a comfort in knowing there is love and forgiveness available to her when she fails in fully abiding by the truly fundamental Golden Rule.  She stated that through weakness, both Christians and Humanists fail in our efforts, a point I concede without argument.  The real rub, in my estimation, is that Christians pay only lip service to the concept in the first place.  We Humanists definitely fail at times in our dealings with others, but we accept the ultimate responsibility to make it right.  Christians can fall back on the old idea that God loves a sinner and can rest easy because they pray for forgiveness - but they don't necessarily feel the need to return to their wrong-doing to even try to make it right!  They would shudder to think of actually facing other humans who may have been hurt or offended and offering either apology or help or both.  It's far easier to relax in the waiting arms of a phantom being who (mystically) licks the offender's wounds and offers sanctuary.  Nice escape!
    
     [ I'm editing here a bit to say that I am obviously not branding all Christians as hypocrites who pay lip service and do nothing to attempt living peaceably among other humans.  I assert only that the cocoon of Christianity, indeed, any belief system, invites escapism.]

I do NOT love all my neighbors, but I also do not treat them in any way other than the way I want to be treated.  Simple as that!  Since I am no longer compelled by any religious cult to live in that way of making a show of loving God and doing good works, (or praying a lot and looking devout) etc., I can be a simple, decent human being.  The problem, as I see it, with all the various religious groups is that believers identify with this or that labeled belief and this mantle is enough for them.  "I'm a Catholic," I'm a Baptist," "I'm a Mormon," "I'm a whatever," and the cocoon of acceptability and godliness wrapped around that group automatically allows everyone to assume certain tenets are being followed.  The individual believer now has no real responsibility to mankind; he is safely coddled in the womb of his mother church.  Deeds?  Works?  Oh, those are such legalistic ideas!  Grace is all that is important.  [I understand the former WCG is now even carrying the term grace in its new name.  Probably out of guilt for no longer trying to do much of the all-important work that sustained us back in the days of Herbert Armstrong's heavy-handed form of religion.]

Do unto others...
Would I like to be shot?  No!  That's why I will never shoot anyone.  Do I want to be bashed in the face with a fist?  No!  That's why I will never hit anyone.  Do I want to be judged by others about my personal life?  No!  (Although that doesn't really hurt me much at all.)  But I do not judge others.  Do I want to be suspected of being gay, thereby suffering all the injustices heaped upon gay people?  No!  Therefore, knowing my accidental state of being heterosexual should not entitle me to better treatment than anyone who is gay, I repudiate the very idea that the state of gayness has anything to do with any one's rights.  Do I want to be picked on for my race?  No!  The fact that I am a pasty-white human does not mean I deserve to be treated any better than anyone of any skin tone on Earth.  We are, after all, on the same Earth!  Therefore I detest any form of racism and ill treatment of anyone whose skin is not like mine.

Some will doubtless read these words and call me a goody-goody, or something judged to be even worse, but that bothers me not at all.  Others will assume I am simply deluding myself and that I secretly (even unknown to myself) have my own set of judgments and hatreds.  Oh, I do have some of these, but I submit that I harbor fewer hidden putrefying human sins than do most self-righteous people who populate the many churches on their chosen sabbaths and holy days.  As to judging people, some will say that if I so hate the racism I witness around me, then I must hate the racists themselves.  Not so.  In the mode of hating the sin but loving the sinner (a very self-righteous claim many folks make but carefully maintain it within the concept of an ethereal set of tenets held by mother church), I customarily make it known to the raw racist that I see him for what he is and will not partake of his slurs and jokes.  Still I can be his neighbor and even friend.  And even if he is someone I would not likely seek out for his good company, I might be his best friend because he could become a better person due to my example of decent humanity.

Much more boils up from my depths, but perhaps I will save other thoughts to include in later posts along these lines. 

What still eludes me is why mankind finds it impossible to live by the Golden Rule entirely as the only real requirement for a safe and happy existence.  Most likely it all stems from early man's search for meaning and the need to find a shelter from the monumental fear of the unknown.  Once a concept took root and grew, a concept of some higher power in the heavens waiting to rescue faithful followers and remove them from this domain of frightening other humans, the belief in and the clutching to some hope for a future better place became easier than trying to solve human problems for today.  And the solving of so many human problems begins merely by accepting others as equals and showing simple respect.  By NOT choosing shooting over communicating, we could solve the vast majority of human ills.