Perhaps the most glaring and significant problem with religion today is the spectacular failure to distinguish between religion involving genuine, spiritual belief in God and the practice of arbitrary, often self-serving worship effected with robotic ceremony. The two processes are as significantly different as the religious organizations themselves profess to be. The question as to whether spiritual completeness is achieved only by expressing faith in an official manner under the banner of one approved dogma is valid . Does one right religion exist today?
In practice, large orthodox religious organizations have seemingly presumed a God-given right to dominate religion and prescribe spiritually correct dogma, yet vehemently proscribe and deny singular alternative beliefs. Smaller faith groups and unique groups of worshipers are challenged and denied religious importance as blasphemous sinners and cults.
Even with modern social enlightenment, affiliate churches, even those choosing alternative thought, including separation from a main congregation specifically to preserve once-important values of that very congregation, may be rejected for lack of social-religious conformity to edicts of the righteous.
Individuals shunted outside of mainstream society on religious grounds were also often alienated in community life, and scorned. Any direct challenge to the power wielded by churches and the express distaste for alternative worship not only necessitated forceful social alienation of the guilty, but guilt by association and the prediction that all such practitioners of such imperfect worship were, at best, destined for hell as non-believers, heathens, and heretics.
Elevation of specific doctrine to a self-proclaimed state of perfection and assuming the ultimate approval of God while simultaneously denigrating and minimizing alternative beliefs remains a questionable but common root cause of religious dissent.
Does any system of doctrine have the right to belittle or condemn other faiths? Thou shalt not judge immediately comes to mind. The concept of tolerance is brought to question. The concept of personal opinion arises. Let us not exclude the oft-ignored detail that mankind arrogantly even presumes to know the mind of God in loudly proclaiming both the protection and perfection of their specific beliefs and practices.
In fact, logic dictates the ultimate enigmatic religious question should first be carefully examined and answered.
How can thousands of religions, various church affiliations, and followers of inexplicably different and opposing dogma, beliefs, religious practice and ideology all be assumed, simultaneously, to be perfect and correct ?
The reader is encouraged to begin examination of that quandary by noting that each faction optimistically and enthusiastically claims to be the true church. Who is right?
If each is a 'true church' with such extremes demonstrated from one faith to the next, it may also be offered that believers may also be worshiping significantly different beings, alternative deities, whether they be spiritually based, golden calves, false prophets, or stone gods.
Has the unbelievable happened, with every doctrine practiced by every faith, church, and cult evolving to a state of God-approved perfection? Clearly not. Why? Human beings are imperfect.
The pointed finger of an imperfect, hypocritical belief system toward the perceived deficiencies and iniquities of others is erroneous basic human nature. Those who define their own perfection and deny the righteous status of others are themselves, invariably also defined as wrong and arrogant. Practitioners of every affiliation at one time or the other may have been politely condemned as godless blasphemers foolishly choosing the stained roadway to hell.
Over the ages little has changed. In history, genocidal religious battles were fought and non-believers and other challengers were quickly and unreasonably murdered, thereby being committed to their next life for correction and atonement. Human sacrifice in the name of religion has also been rampant with many creative methods of purging or expunging the souls of the guilty, including torture, removal of the heart, burning at the stake, the rack, drowning, or beheading.
Shall observers of persistent modern ecumenical battles be declared unfit to serve God and burned at the stake or beheaded for making simple observations of the discrepancy, paranoia and hypocrisy displayed by modern religious groups? Perhaps common sense and reason should be encouraged instead.
It seems ever more apparent that religion, belief, and faith in God belongs within the individual who will hopefully accept personal responsibility, practice humanitarian attributes, good works, charity, and kindness, and thereby become worthy of faith and even humanity itself.
Clearly, something is wrong with the status quo. The trend to seriously declining populations of believers in organized religion suggests that faith, the paramount and genuine connection to God, is often absent. The fleeting vision of heaven and hollow words seemingly offered to Sunday flocks by inexplicably rich religious organizations appears to be poor enticement to souls desperate for solace, peace, and a confirmation of a connection to God.
Does condemnation of other religions purchase influence in the eyes of God ? Will such hypocrisy encourage Godly approval of any man-made doctrine over all others similarly created?
The question of whether or not any organized, dogmatic vision of religion is acceptable to God ultimately must remain with God Himself, should it not ?
The aspects of control, hypocrisy, wealth and earthly goods are also eternally drawn into the question of religion, and rightly so. Is the show of sparkling jewelry and accouterments of church ceremony sufficient atonement for practicing a specific brand of heresy as tithes are endlessly collected from the poor?
One might correctly contemplate whether the Son of God wore silken robes and drank fine wines from jeweled vessels made of gold as He served the poor. Somehow it seems unlikely. Did Jesus demand or allow the collection of tithes or payment for healing? He, instead, asked for nothing except faith, and fed the poor masses in open fields, seated in the dust, not in gold-filled edifices of marble, brick and stone mortared together with imagined righteousness while overflowing with spiritual agony.
It is evident the gathering of people to pray and worship God can be beneficial to both spiritual and social infrastructure. It may also be assumed that specific beliefs, methodology of worship and programs might reasonably be practiced as a matter of necessity and convenience. Such is the nature of tending to a flock.
It should not, however, be automatically assumed that any specific religious dogma is better, or more right and righteous than any other. There is simply not enough evidence other than self-serving, circular arguments of questionable value too often used only to condemn others.
What is used as the approved basis of condemnation of others? Even the foundation of Christian church doctrine, the revered bible, the word of God, - has been endlessly argued, re- translated, re-printed, and altered . Has precious information been wilfully omitted? Has misinformation been similarly included ? Are all other religious writings inspired by God?
Regardless, many writings of priceless spiritual value may have historically also been rejected, destroyed, or hidden in the same fashion to achieve the same end, - which is ultimately the fight for control of individual believers.
The true answer, then, must remain in personal, individual faith in God, and a genuine understanding of the curious and insatiable power-hungry ways of man. The identity of the true church and the absolute righteousness of one religion over any other, therefore, must reasonably remain an open question - as it has for centuries.