FEAR OF WHAT?
NOTE: Readers of this article who do not agree with the concept of "God" in one way or another should please bear with me. I use the word "God" to describe the omnipotent, omniscient creator-force which is the motivation behind the universe. Normally I hesitate to use the word "God" because I know that frequently some people, including those who are Buddhists, Pagans or Athiests, will be "turned off" by it. This is to inform such people that when I refer to "God", I do so only because society in my part of the world doesn't accept messages like this one if I refer to that creator-force as "It", "She" or any one of a variety of other, appropriately descriptive names. The same goes for my references to "God" as "He" or "Him". I 'know' that the omnipotent, omniscient creator-force which is the motivation behind the universe, and of which every single creation is a part, is beyond description and far beyond any concepts that might limit it to a particular gender. Here again, my use of the words "He" and "Him" in reference to this force is due to the fact that I want my words to be accepted on the surface by many who would shun them without thinking if I did not follow such conventions. It is not an indication of "'belief'", it is a concession to those who would not make the effort to learn otherwise. Thank you for your patience.
I was engaged in one of my techniques for keeping my mind alert while driving in rush hour traffic the other day, namely listening to "christian" radio, and I heard something which almost immediately caught my attention and made me think a couple of things at the same time. The first was that this particular "christian" was not like most of the others I hear on the radio and would probably not last very long under the scrutiny of the self-proclaimed orthodoxy spewing forth from the likes of Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts and Pat Robertson. My second thought was that, once again, in the process of arguing how superior their position is is to that of people who are not "christian", this particular "christian" had managed to bring out yet another glaring example of how it really doesn't matter what religion you belong to.
His comment was relatively simple, and was in answer to a question asked by a person concerning the phrase "fear of God" in the Bible. The person had asked what the difference was between that kind of "fear" and the fear that we feel when our life is being threatened. The commentator made the following statement in answer to that question:
"It is impossible to fear anything of which you have true and perfect knowledge."
The "christian" commentator then proceded to explain how the Bible gives a person the ability to have "true and perfect knowledge" of the things of God, as long as the reader agreed with the point of view of the commentator.
Remember that there is a distinct difference between 'knowledge' and 'belief'. Webster's defines 'Knowledge' as: "1. The act or state of knowing; clear perception of fact, truth, or duty; certain apprehension; familiar cognizance; cognition.", and 'Belief' as: "1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses."
In other words, if you 'know' something, you are confident because of familiar experience or clear perception of the veracity of a particular fact (regardless, I might add, of whether other people agree with you or not), whereas if you 'believe' something, you are taking someone else's word that it is true, having not experienced it for yourself.
This is an important point to remember when dealing with spiritual subjects, because most "religions" will ask you to 'believe' a particular thing, but give you no means of actually experiencing it (outside of dying, and then only sometimes) so that you will 'know' that it is true.
Logically, then, it follows that if you 'know' God, you are incapable of fearing Him, whereas if you 'believe' in God, you probably do fear Him, simply because the information you obtained about Him was incomplete in some way or another.
This, for me, is where the stereotypical "christian" argument falls apart. I see no reason, Biblical or otherwise, to 'believe' something which is not logical, and without exception I, personally, have discovered that all the reasons presented in the Bible in favour of a belief in God are stricly logical and can be demonstrated and experienced very easily... as long as you don't listen to the self-proclaimed "christians".
One of the things that has always attracted me to Hinduism is the fact that, it has been my impression that Hinduism makes no requirement on its adherents to 'believe' a particular way (outside of the somewhat mandatory belief in God), and it offers a wide and various array of very specific tools, through the use of which one may experience, and ultimately 'know' pretty much anything you could possibly imagine, including many things which are thought to be "unknowable" or "impossible" by the majority of 'believers'.
The only place I have ever seen where 'belief' is necessary is when a person is not satisfied or happy with their 'knowledge' concerning their own individual "salvation". If a person has never had any direct experience of what God's presence is like, and has heard all kinds of wild and outlandish stories from self-proclaimed "christians", it can be quite difficult to imagine what a close, personal relationship with God might be like.
Before I became interested in spiritual subjects, I was an athiest. In fact, I was a raving athiest: I had experienced abuse and ridicule from those who claimed to be God's children, and I had not bothered to read the Bible to find out whether what they were saying had any basis in fact or logic or not. For me, I had to force myself to believe, against all the evidence and experiences I had, that God existed. I found, however, that once I had got to the point where I could accept the existence of God, absent any solid proof, that suddenly God started showing Himself to me in ways I never would have expected possible.
God is not willing to force Himself on people who aren't interested, mostly because He knows that it really doesn't make any difference whether people 'believe' or not. God is not interested in belief. God is interested in knowledge!
As far as I've been able to tell, and I have based my conclusion on many years of Bible study, as well as study of many other scriptures from many other world religions, God (or whatever you may choose to call it) doesn't really care if you believe a particular way or not, and doesn't even care that much if you choose to believe that there is no God.
Personally I'm asking nobody to believe what I say as fact in spite of the fact that I know that what I have experienced is fact. I know, through direct personal experience (clear perception of fact), and through familiar cognizance that God exists. I cannot prove that to anyone else, but it's not my job to do that. According to what I read in the Bible, and in the scriptures of every other religion, my job, and the job of every individual, is to insure my own personal salvation through whatever relationship is most appropriate for me.
I see nowhere in the Bible, or in any other scripture where God says, in essense, "Follow this particular set of illogical rules without questioning, otherwise your soul will be eternally tormented and punished". In fact, quite to the contrary, I see over and over again scriptures such as 2 Peter 3.9 and Luke 12.32 which tell us that the God of the Bible is not willing to let any fail to reach the goal, not willing to let any slip through His grasp, and that it is God's "good pleasure" to give us His rewards. God never says "you must be a Christian", rather, God says "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest"... regardless of what the "christians" tell you!
What makes it so weird is that the "christians" themselves will give you some of this information without realizing that what they're telling you is exactly the opposite of what they think they're saying. For example, John 14.2 says "In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you." and John 10.16 says "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold..." I've never quite been able to figure out why the "christians" can't see that Jesus is referring to people who hold different beliefs than those of the people to whom he is speaking. "christians" in fact, have an entirely different and somewhat bizarre explanation for these statements. The "many mansions" statement is explained by saying that God's house (presumably heaven) is big enough for anyone who wants to get in bad enough, and the "other sheep" statement is explained as being a reference to those who don't already follow Jesus.
Neither of these explanations make an awful lot of sense to me, primarily because, despite the fact that the disciples were followers of Jesus, there are plenty of places in the Bible where one can read about them doing things entirely opposite of what Jesus asked them to do, and plenty of places in the Bible where Jesus rebuked the disciples for their ignorance, stupidity and stubbornness. Jesus spent most of the New Testament attempting to show the disciples things which they were not ready or willing to see, and explaining to them things which they didn't understand, but 'believed' they did.
This is frequently what happens with followers of any great spiritual teacher; the followers think they understand. They get all righteous and fired-up to go out and convert unbelievers to their new-found religion only to be disappointed when they discover that most people can see through the logical fallacies of their arguments. This is why, when people ask me about religion, I am very careful not to encourage them to follow one particular belief system, but rather to examine all of them and then make an informed personal decision, not based on pressure or encouragement from someone else, but based on personal preference and personal experience; I tell people what I 'know', but I don't make any requirement that they agree with me.
Jesus even says that those who follow what he taught will do the kinds of things he did. Jesus isn't special in any particular way and never said he was (he consistently referred to himself as the "son of man"). Jesus is just one of the ones whose mission is to show us the way. We are all like him and we all have the capability to be like him in every way, regardless of the traditions we follow. After all, it is possible to follow the teachings of Jesus, and still not be a "christian".
In fact, those who 'know' that they have found the correct path to God, whose knowledge comes from a direct, personal relationship with God, should resist those who would tell them that they have made the wrong decision regardless of what their reasons are. The results of such 'knowledge', such resistance in the face of adversity, can be seen in many places in the Bible: Matthew 10.22, Matthew 24.13, Mark 13.13 and Hebrews 6.15 are good examples. Those who have such knowledge of God, who resist the arguments of those who would try to pursuade them differently, are truly saved, as is clearly stated by the above scriptures. Those who would try to persuade a person who is possessed of such 'knowledge' do so out of ignorance, not truly understanding God's message in the Bible.
If all religious people were so concientious when discussing their 'beliefs' with those who do not hold to the same 'beliefs' then we might end up with an entirely more 'knowledgable' society made up of people who understand their own 'knowledge' and who don't fight with other people about stuff that doesn't matter.
|