Why saying "I believe" doesn't cut it anymore

Why don't we talk about religion, shall we? I feel it's a highly debatable topic, and in keeping with the goals of this website, I'd like to spur on as much conversation/debate as possible. Of course, I'm trying to do so without being too blatantly opinionated, as well as slowly edging into the more controversial topics, all the while building a basis for the argument for bi-ness.

(Here I feel I must inject a parenthetical caveat about the viewpoint this subject is being addressed from. I was raised in a Christian family. They are Lutheran, mind you, and quite accept folk in general, so I've never had religion forced down my throat. Because of--or perhaps in spite of--this, I no longer believe in that particular faith. However, my time in the church has allowed me to commune with believers (in more ways than one), so I feel this experience gives me some room to speak about/for them. In addition to this, the majority of the believers in this country are Christian, and the majority of my readers are from this country, so I feel like this makes my viewpoint at the very least relevant, and at the very most one hundred percent correct. Lol.)

What makes this topic so interesting is that it invokes a very heavy polarity on itself. Not only that, it seems a great deal of the time and energy invested in it is spent on furthering the myth of the duality of religion. Here, the them's and the us's are spelled out in very plain words, and one can know after an objective analysis of one's person whether or not one lives up to those words.

Or so the creators of major religions would hope. If it were as easy as drawing a line in the sand across countless past generations of humans clear through to millennia beyond the foreseeable future to determine who was "getting it right" and who was failing miserably, this topic wouldn't draw any controversy. (It is true, there is a sharp line between "believers" and "anti-believers"--or, that is, between the spiritual and the atheists. But this is a distinction that both parties seem to be quite comfortable with, and so the topic will be discussed at greater length in a future essay.)

There does exist a gray scale of beliefs, though. Right from the get-go, the concept of religion is riddled with bi-ness. For instance, the fallibility of written word is something that all people can relate to, especially current generations. How many times has a misspelled or improperly chosen word completely changed the intention and tone of a letter, email, or text message? It would seem that the very concept of writing is based on the idea that the symbols used will be up to the interpreter to decipher and derive meaning from--or perhaps provide meaning to. Yet, it is collections of writings that have been passed down for thousands of years that still serve as the rock religion is built upon. Some say they are the exact words of god himself, making the work therefore infallible and so that it should be followed to the letter with no exceptions; Others, simply the description of certain people's touches with the divine. Some feel that only one official interpretation can be valid, while others feel that it should be up to the individual believer to derive what he or she can. All seem to agree, though, that the writings of a religion are still relevant today.

This conclusion I find interesting, because it at once insists upon polarity within itself and yet opens up all new routes of inquiry and doubt about the matter. One of the biggest arguments I've noticed within the Christian faith is between those who believe the Bible should be taken word-for-word literally and those who feel that the book is a collection of lessons and stories that are to be taken in the context of the present-day world. Both groups take themselves to be "true" Christians, and while it may not necessarily be true that they believe those individuals from the other camp are wrong, they are certainly different, which brings us again to them versus us.

Already variation within the category of "believers" is starting to become apparent. Now, it is my personal belief that, statistically speaking, there are more people in this world that fall into the category I will refer to as "interpreters" than there are people who could pass muster in a test of "literalism". Now, could anyone suggest that these people, the majority of the faithful, are not holding true to the tenants of their religions? I should hope not. (For any Christians out there who would vehemently disagree, make sure you're obeying Leviticus to the letter before casting the first stone.) So we continue our dig further towards the heart of this matter by examining the now-newly-redefined majority of the faithful. First, a broad generalization: I would wager that the believers of the 21st century feel that time is not a factor in religion insofar as that the lessons about humanity that their literature contains are the same today as they were when they were written. The interpreters feel that this is true because the holy books are viewed through the lens of the present day, taking into account all that has happened since their conception, whereas the literalists feel that the divine got it right the first time and, being able to view the grand scope of existence all at once (the divine has a wide-screen monitor, btw), designed its laws to take all humanity, past and future, into account. All this is to suggest that the results of religiousness have been different in the past, and they will be different in the future; The difference just lies in the path that leads to those results. I feel that this is an example of the ends justifying the means, and should be harshly scrutinized. Where does infallibility fit into all of this? And what of omniscience? It is these things that define godliness in general, and the Christian god in specific, and they no doubt play an integral role in the "absoluteness" of the truth religions profess.

So, to recap, we already have a few tiers of bi-ness: literalists and interpreters, the latter of which branches off immediately into a murky cloud of interpretations, made complex by the extent to which a believer considers the lessons of faith to be relevant today and whether or not said believer is willing to fill in the blanks with religious doctrine. If we can all accept these conclusions as reasonable, let's take a further step back and discuss a different kind of religiosity.

Agnosticism, I feel, is often misconstrued, confused with it's cousin atheism. Again, I will draw from a dictionary.com definition to begin: the doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge. This I find very interesting, considering my layperson definition: the belief that there is no way any religious beliefs that have been stumbled upon by any one person or group of people could be 100% correct. The terms "first principle" and "absolute truth", I feel, are just broad enough, covering not only religious phenomena but also other more scientific observations.

This definition does, however, convey a degree of skepticism that is perhaps only partially correct and proper. Most of us can picture in our minds someone who is overly skeptical. I feel, however, that the term "skeptical" is often used as a personality trait, and there should be some separation between that and skepticism founded in one's philosophical ideals. In this situation, I feel like it's a means to the end of religiousness. I feel that religious skepticism is akin to religious eclecticism, in that if the only thing you're sure of is that you can't be sure of anything, each and every experience you have with religion will be looked at from that baseline, thereby making you more open to that inherent worth or value that eclectics, by definition, seek. Not only this, but it bridges the whole of that second tier of bi-ness among believers that we were previously discussing. So agnosticism, I feel, covers two separate, branching levels of fluidity that are barely understood and often misrepresented.

Of course, this is to look at things through the idea of "active agnosticism". There are those who are irreligious simply because to actively believe in anything--even atheistic ideals--is too much of an effort. These folks, however, I think should be categorized as irreligious to distinguish them from those who take the time to be skeptical, to analyze all everything through a critical lens, not to dismiss or accept any whole doctrine without first understanding it. These are the people who make up what I predict is the bulk of agnostics.

I hope there to be a point where those of you reading the phrase "I predict" will prick up your ears and look for a way to contribute to the study of just what it is that I'm predicting. Every topic that I cover has some aspect of bi-ness in it, and my goal is to convince you, the reader, that this is so. If I'm successful in doing that, I want to be able to gather some data to gauge just how accurate my prediction was. So, for instance, in the case of the entry you're reading right now, I feel like most people who consider themselves agnostics, even in the current sense of the word (that is, including irreligious folks in the equation as well), will be similar: perhaps in their political leanings, or their upbringing, or their attitude towards traditionally religious people, or by some other connection that won't come to the surface until some discussion begins about this topic.

And it is you, dear reader, who can help with this. If you get done reading and have developed some curiosity about the subject at hand, feel free to respond! Once this site reaches maturity, I intend to have the capability to give each user hir own profile that can be linked to hir blog, message board posts, survey responses, essay responses, as well as be able to access the data about the subjects covered on this site that will be gathered and compiled into an easy-to-read format. At that point, anyone will be able to become a part of the community and lend more credibility to the data you and your friends provide.

In the end, I hope you keep reading and thinking. So long as the thoughts get out there, things will be easier for those of us questing for more bi-ness in our lives. And, like I've said before, please do respond with your thoughts on the matter! You could even use this as an opportunity to start writing about what interests you most and sharing it with people who care

The New American Politics: Ruling from the Middle

As I've suggested previously, this project has been a long time coming. It's not for no reason that I've finally gotten the inspiration to begin it. There were many factors involved: I'm going back to school to get my Associate's before enrolling at CSU, I'm going to be living with my parents and so am going to be trying as hard as I can to make friends and to keep myself busy when I get bored, I feel like I've got a solid core of friends...it seems like now is the time for change in my own life.

But there's one factor that stands out further than any: the presidential election. For years, I've been of a political viewpoint that was not shared by the man in charge. For years, all I could do was stare in agonized horror as our country steadily became more and more hated because of a man elected through a (clearly broken) system. The whole world did what they could to stop him, but alas. I was ashamed.

And I honestly feel that these feelings are not just strictly related to anyone's political affiliation. It's just the utter disregard for any opposing argument. It's the abuse. It's the dirty dealings and the under-the-table transactions. A Democrat as entrenched in the underbelly of the oil business and with as many sketchy associates as Bush did would make me feel the same way. Especially if he decided to wage a premature, open-ended, unwinnable war on top of all that.

This is all why I am so happy we've elected Barack Hussein Obama as our president. I fully believe in his desire to "reach across the aisle," as he so often put it, in an attempt to decrease the partisanship that keeps our government from functioning with any level of efficiency. I think it's an extreme gesture of bi-ness. I think the idea that almost half of Americans, during any given year, are not having their voices truly heard simply because they don't affiliate with the party in charge should be absolutely sickening to anyone who thinks about it. Do we honestly believe that half this nation is so different from us that their opinions don't matter until the year is divisible by four?

It seems a lot of people feel this way; I know I used to. I used to bash Republicans, praise Clinton, and argue lividly against the death penalty for fun. I was a textbook Liberal, through and through. I'm still pretty left-leaning, but time has taught me a lot of things since before I could vote. I realize that "the right" is not the enemy. They deserve their rights just as much as the rest of us. And they also deserve to have their voices heard.

Now, it is true that the balance has shifted this election, and my opinions are now in the majority, both of the populace and of the people wielding power. It's easy to talk about unifying people from such a position. But now, more than ever, I feel I need to make my voice heard. Now that we have a president whose mantra is "Yes, we can," who is pledging to at least try to unite the parties, we need to hold him to his word. We can't let the standards we hold our figures of authority to be compromised. He will enter the White House with a lot of damage to fix, but with perhaps more power than even Bush and Cheney were able to amass as they caused the damage.

So can we all pledge to work together? I know there are some issues on which certain people and groups simply will not budge, but I believe there are fewer of those than there are issues we agree on, or are at least capable of discussing and compromising and sacrificing for. All of you out there who I would consider peers, all you late-teens and 20-somethings, the coming four years could easily be our time to shine.

In my pre-election time at Grinnell College (in the Iowan city of the same name) there were signs all over the campus stating simply: "Our parents had the sixties. This is our time. Vote November 4th." I think it's pretty damn true! It's time we as one people, as one American cultural experience, tried our damndest to band together and make humanity better than it's ever been before. We can do it. We have the power.

The way I've decided to use my power is what you see before you. I'm spreading the word of bi-ness, Benny Appleseed style, in the hopes that the climate and conditions are just perfect to nurture great forests of knowledge. New knowledge. Old knowledge. Hard knowledge and happy knowledge. You and me and humanity knowledge.

But do you know what would make it all much more effective? If all of you were to contribute what you can. Simply participate. Leave your thoughts, donate your time, and maybe we'll soon find ourselves in a world that is more more tolerant of the middle ground.

A brief introduction to bi-ness, in boxers

Hello there interverse, and welcome to The Billusionist blog!

Lordy, I barely know how to go about introductions like this. *Catches breath* Okay. Let's do it THIS way.

Bi-ness is not about sexuality, or religion, or political affiliation, or gender, or race, or...really, any of it. Bi-ness is all about understanding that there is, in fact, a difference between black and white. Of course, that's a color reference only...the idea is that society, or evolution, or whatever your rationale, is responsible for convincing you, the viewer, (the HUMAN) that there are only two options for whatever you want to be. Either you're gay or straight, male or female, white or not, and acceptance WILL come...but only before you decide your binary code. How many ones and zeroes are you?

Of course, such a code can be useful. It makes it easier to decide who is "like you" and who "is not".

But I reason that these binary labels are only relevant to those who accept them. How many of you are content to be what you tell people you are? How many are content to be democrat, or gay, or female...or ANYTHING that can be simply summarized in a word?

A forewarning: For those of you who ARE (that is, content with singularities, with telling who you are in a word), cruise away from here.

Because this site, this discussion, this 40 acres of speech, isn't about all that. It's about further defining the middle ground.

Because so many minds before us have insisted, have begged us to believe that human experience isn't all that easy to explain.

Because love is different to everyone.

Because gender is different to everyone.

Because political affiliation is different to everyone.

Because every experience that anyone ever has simply CANNOT be described that...simply. Because I know you know, as a human being, that you live with your reality and will never share it in its totality. Because you strive to do it. Because you wish you could make the whole world realize that just because it thinks things are the way they are, does NOT mean things IS the way they IS.

Keep coming back if you feel it. Ignore this if you don't.

As vague as the last passage has been...if you believe in any of it, comment, and let me know, and you'll be included in the next steps.