Friday, April 20, 2012

The Mind of God Part 5: Organized Nations

 The Mind of God Part 5: Organized Nations

Organizations exist all over and have forever. That's no surprise to anyone. Organized Religion has existed all over and forever as well, but for some strange reason it's viewed and treated differently than an average organization like, say, Invisible Children or any number of volunteer organizations. Corporations are even considered organizations, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, and Fannie Mae just to name the fortune 500 top 5.

Hopefully, you catch my drift. Organizations are like organisms to a certain degree, like organs. The root, "organ" of all these words really means, "that with which one works." All of these things, organs, organisms, and organizations really mean, on a root level, the same thing. They work to perform functions and to generate outcomes. Pretty plain and simple.

But when you hear the words "organized religion" it's usually uttered with a sneer or a nasty sort of tone, or with disdain. In fact, I don't know of anyone who belongs to an organized religion who actually refers to it as such. I think they'd be more inclined to believe that they do not, and that they rather belong to a Universal truth more so than to an organization. If you said, "What Religion are you?" And someone said, "Christian", and you followed with, "That's a pretty big organized Religion." I doubt that their following comment would be, "Yes. Yes it is."

A lot of people resent organized Religion because it carries with it the knowledge that those who do the organizing are usually men. Not just humans, but more often than not the males of our species. Organized Religion showcases how men take something relatively broad, that could mean any number of things, or means a very specific set of things, and turn it into something that is used to control large masses of people. They're given the dogma to live by, the rules and regulations, the requirements and sacrifices that must be made in order to please whatever God it is that they believe in, whether that God is God, power, money, etc. If the rules are followed closely and carefully then Heaven, or whatever reward you've been promised, usually awaits on the other side or even now and in this life. If the rules are strayed from or broken repeatedly, or ignored by non/unbelievers and doubters then eternal pain and suffering can be expected at the end of this life or exile from a social group/organization.

Organized Religion is a good way to get people in line do what you want them to do. But then again, isn't that every organization?

Where people come into conflict with God is in their subconscious connecting of him to organized Religions, despite none of them even being able to accurately represent him. They're all taking shots at explaining him, at trying to convey him correctly, but because God is not fully understandable by the human mind, then it's a fact that no organization could ever portray/convey him with 100% certainty and accuracy. Many would say they can and that they do, but it's impossible and foolish to believe as such. It's men creating parameters that they swear God exists within. But these are parameters created by humans, not by God. Remember the God box? (It should be broken by now.)

Part two, about the undeniable fact that all of us are judges and hypocrites and that it's okay, is meant to show that judgment, as well as a lot of other innate "flaws" are simply a part of our human nature and again, something we can work to go against because we can, because we're that powerful; we can actively seek to be better people. But none of us are born into sin, with original sin or are born flawed, rather were born into human nature which is much more an animalistic nature than that which we can aspire to be. But it's in our judging, in our need to classify and belong to groups, that we have organizations. Therefore it is in our nature to belong to organizations. And all organizations, from social groups to corporations to Religion, all tend to act and work within those same basic parameters. They all have written or unwritten rules about how things work, and ultimately, how people who belong to or associate with that group should behave. If these rules are disobeyed or met with resistance or met by a person who seems inherently different from how they operate, then there are consequences. Whether people are kicked out of the group, shunned, looked down upon, looked at strangely, etc., it just goes to show that organizations all function on the same basic level, to a certain degree. Once we get into specifics, then we start to feel that organizations have individuality, but at their core, they're all incredibly similar.

What sets certain organizations apart from others, what makes people perceive organized Religion with hostility and non-profit organizations with admiration, is two simple things: intent and tactics.

Intent is the inner emotion that begins an organization, the feelings people hold so dearly and truly that they wish to spread like wildfire in the hope of changing the world. Tactics are the methods in which you go about trying to convey your intentions. Given that we are all humans, our tactics are relatively limited. There have only been so many ways that we can actually go about doing things, go about sharing our word. (Yes, even "sharing the word" is a practical way of saying what all organizations wish to do, get bigger, gain more members, further spread their intentions.) Because of this, organizations are inevitably tied together on that base of similarity because, when broken down and observed enough and with a clear mind, we see that the tactics are limited and used by everyone. But it's those tactics blended with the intent that causes us to come away with judgment and creates the "individuality" of an organization.

Individuality exists only to a degree and I wouldn't actually call it individuality. Since everything shares such a vital and broad sameness, then it would be more appropriate to say there is less individuality amongst different organizatons and more commonality. The tactics define the commonality whereas the intent suggests the individuality. This is how two diametrically opposed groups can actually share common ground. It's like a venn diagram, where the two spaces on the far left and right are the two opposing organizations, inside these opposing spaces is their constrasting intent, how they actually differ, and the blended oval in the center is the tactics they use that because of their human nature they must inherently share. It's not to say that Hate and Love are incredibly similar, but that those who wish to spread Love or disseminate Hatred sometimes do so by using the same tactics.

I see people holding signs on Hollywood Boulevard all the time saying "The End is Nigh", "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life", "Repent", etc. The Westboro Baptist Church is notoriously known for their bitterly ignorant "God Hates Fags", "Thank God for 9/11", and "Pray for more Dead Soldiers", just to name a few. Then look at groups like the various occupy movements, or any form of protest for the matter. Signs being used to communicate a point, to communicate their intent. All of these organizations, despite having different intent, share the exact same tactics. Why? Because the tactic is the human nature aspect, the intent is learned, taught, and influenced.

Now, without offending an incredible amount of people, I need to ask you to go with me on an example to really illustrate my point clearly and to hopefully open some eyes. The organization Invisible Children and its opponent, Joseph Kony, have two drastically different intents. One positive, loving, and seeking to change the world for the better, the other the exact opposite, desiring bloodshed and power. Violence and weapons aside, they both share some tactical common ground on a very basic level. Both utilize young people to communicate their point and do their bidding. (Bidding in it's dictionary sense, not sinister sense. To do the will or desire of the organization, plain and simple.)

Again, don't take my example as me saying that Invisible Children is actually the same as Joseph Kony, but it's important to understand how humans operate as tactical animals and that those tactics, and the originality of "new" tactics, is really a rouse. We've been using the same tactics to do a variety of things since the beginning of time.

I don't believe we can be born as evil, bad, or hateful people. I don't believe people are born "hating fags" or even that they're born believing in Jesus. To the same degree no one is born with the awareness of how wall street works or with the knowledge of corruption in politics. We're born as a happy blank slate, as I like to think. We're born inherently tolerant because we do not understand intolerance. Without parental influence, a child will befriend another regardless of skin color. We're born as concordant beings, not discordant ones. By nature we actively seek concordance, because of influence we discover the choice to actively choose discordance. By utilizing my own rhetoric from part one, this means that humans are born inherently good and that being bad is a learned trait. We are good by nature.

That being said, when you start to understand that the intent of an organization is what drives its members to do things is when you start to become able of formulating judgments and opinions of them. Though we all utilize the same tactics, our intentions define how we use them. How many times have you heard someone say about someone who has just screwed up, "Yes, well s/he had good intentions" or, "S/he meant well." Sometimes people do things that seem stupid, but at their core are genuinely good people. They may be different from you, but just because someone belongs to an organization that you don't does not make them evil. More than anything, organizations mislead people because of their intent. If we're all born as happy blank slates, then the intent of a baby could never be to promote discordance, but rather the natural concordance that resides within it.

Understanding that every single individual on earth is in some way, shape, or form part of at least one or several more organizations (yes, including you, you rebel you) means if we're willing to break it down we can find common ground amongst all humans, and when we analyze the heart of a person, their intent, that's where you learn to draw your differences in personality, where you make your judgments. But because we are all connected on that low level, it's as if we resonate on the same frequency, that really, if you listen closely, we all make the same sounds because we're derived from the same thing, born of the same energy. We're all cut from the same cloth and we all bleed red. There is no black, white, red, or brown, there is only the blood that courses through the veins of all humans and all living animals. As we have evolved into a race of self aware animals who hold a special place amongst the rest of the animal kingdom, it should be obvious that we shouldn't waste this.

As we wind down on this series of posts (two left), my biggest submission lies here, in this point; that energy that runs through each of us, that gives us our individuality and simultaneously or commonality means that we are all at once unique and the same, that we're distinctly different from all other humans and also distinctly similar, and what a beautiful contradiction that is. We should embrace our individuality as we see it through the prism of our commonality. The energy that gives way to the matter that makes up our being is God. Here he is, for the first time or once again. God does not command you but is in you regardless, experiencing his infinite potential through the seemingly contradictory existence of you and all other humans, animals, and matter. And if this God, a being of infinite potential, has created you "in his image" that is only to imply that he has created you, by his own nature which has now become yours, as a corcordant being. One who creates is by definition concordant, not discordant. Because of my prior and consistent terminology, this, within the confines of my arguments, strongly suggests what I set out to in the beginning, that because concordance is synonymous with agreeable harmony and peace makes it synonymous with Love, and because God is a concordant being then this would prove that, to make it much simpler, God is Love. And because he is, you are, thus you too are Love. You are goodness.

So let it be written, so let it be done. To quote my Mom, who's words were unclear until now, get out there and "Do good." It's what you were made for.

No comments:

Post a Comment