In the study of sociology, we are presented three varying perspectives concerning our interactions with the world and those in it. Although parts of all three contain some bits of truth, it is this author’s opinion that the structural-functionalism perspective is more in line with that held within the sphere of religion. When discussing our roles in this life, the bible clearly states that there are “diversities of gifts… differences of administrations… and diversities of operations”. (I Corinthians 12:4-6, King James Version) It is unfortunate, however, that many people tend to focus on what others should be doing, and not on their own responsibility. The problem with Karl Marx’s conflict theory is that it focuses solely on one aspect of a problematic situation. In his view, all the rich are evil, and all the poor are good. By his thinking, if you have nothing, it is because those who are wealthy are hoarding it from you, and are by any means possible shielding the wealth, and the means to it, from you. Your only recourse is to rebel and steal what is “rightfully yours”: the Robin Hood complex, so to speak. While this author would never argue that all the wealthy have accrued their riches through just means, he too would never suggest that all the poor are thus, simply because they are being held back by the powerful. Marx fails to take into account that many of the rich have gotten that way through hard work and smart use of their money, and that many of the poor have also entered their state, or remained there, through an irresponsible lifestyle.

In the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we are presented with the idea that the symbols, or labels, we place on people determine how we act toward them. The drawback to this theory is that throughout the world, different peoples and cultures will have contradictory symbols when compared with those from other cultures. Even within a culture, these symbols may change in meaning over time. This fact stems in part from the fact that we are taught that there are no absolutes. Thus, we wind up concluding that something is right, only to change our mind about it when in a different place, or even time. Biblically speaking, right is right and wrong is wrong, regardless of where or when you are.

Structural-functionalism is, according to dictionary.com, “a theoretical orientation that views society as a system of interdependent parts whose functions contribute to the stability and survival of the system.” (“Functionalism”) By system, it is meant any number of organizations that have multiple groups or individuals, who by necessity, must act and interact in a specific manner in order that the organism may survive. The use of organism here is in reference to the fact that some sociologists, such as Auguste Comte, saw the interactions of people in a society working much the same way as the different parts of a living organism work together. Although sociologist Robert Merton didn’t view people’s roles in society as being synonymous with the interactions of a living being’s organs, he did believe that each being has its own important role to play. Those who fail to play their part are no longer contributing to the functions of a society. They are, rather, adding dysfunctions, which damage the equilibrium of a society. In religion, as in society, members must act in accordance with their assigned or chosen roles if it is to survive and perpetuate. In I Corinthians 12, Paul compares the church to the human body, where each individual member of the church has a specific function. “For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?” (I Cor. 1:12, 14, & 15)

Karl Marx believed that “society is in a state of perpetual conflict due to competition for limited resources” (“What is”, 2016). He believed that this conflict was the result of the wealthy and powerful (the bourgeoisie) hoarding their wealth and oppressing the poor (the proletariat). Marx separated his view of society into three parts: the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis. In his model, the thesis was the act of the rich controlling the means of production and wealth, the antithesis was the laborers rebelling against the overlords, and the synthesis was the final society formed. However, this would not be the end, for once the synthesis had formed, it would in turn create another thesis which would eventually lead to another antithesis, and so on. Marx felt that if all conflicts eventually resolved themselves, then the perfect society would have been formed, as everyone would now be equal. Religion touches upon this conflict when the bible discusses the proper relationships between those of different stations. Although the bible does indicate we are all equal in the aspect of our righteousness when it says “… there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalm 14:3), it does indicate that in our situation in life we may not necessarily be peers with those around us. “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.” (II Timothy 2:20) What Marx called the antithesis; the bible refers to as rebellion. We should learn to appreciate where we are and what we have. “… for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.” (Philippians 4:11) That isn’t to say that God requires us to be perpetually in a state of ruin. If we apply ourselves, it is possible to dig ourselves out of our unfavorable estate. “If a man therefore purge himself from these (iniquities), he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master’s use, and prepared unto every good work” (II Timothy 2:21). What those in power must also realize, the impetus to create a better society isn’t just on the workers; those in charge also have a responsibility. “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal… ” (Colossians 4:1).

The symbolic interactionism perspective states that we view those people and things around us based on what symbols we have attached to them. We view people differently based on whether they are our sister or girlfriend, uncle or father, or any other number of symbols we have assigned to those around us. One caveat of this perspective is that meanings of symbols will change over time. One example is marriage and divorce. The meaning of marriage has changed from two parties uniting in mutual feelings of what they can do for each other to “what can the other do for me?” Divorce is no longer looked down on as a sign of failure, but rather as a symbol of freedom. In the last few years the rate of divorce has skyrocketed, splitting families and even friends. In religion, these same symbols are used; however, because they are designated by God, there is no allowance for change. “I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) In the area of divorce the bible says, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)

So when considering these three perspectives from the viewpoint of the bible, which one should we concentrate on? When considering the symbolic-interactionist perspective, we must keep in mind what the bible says about our relationships with others. “… whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them… ” (Matthew 7:12) “… an elder, but treat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren… ” (I Timothy 5:1) In a direct clash with the conflict theory, we are commanded biblically to “obey them that have the rule over you… salute them that have the rule over you… ” (Hebrews 13:17 & 24), and “… Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward.” (I Peter 2:17) When considering the structural-functionalism perspective, it is very important to keep in mind that our most important concern should be to fulfill our own responsibilities. After he had assigned roles to his disciples, and one of them had confronted him wanting to know what another disciple was going to do, Jesus said to him, “… what is that to thee? follow thou me.” (John 21:22)

References

Functionalism. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from Dictionary.com website. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/functionalism

What is the Conflict Theory? (2016). Investopedia. Retrieved February 23, 2016 from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/conflict-theory.asp

When we were children we were asked, Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If we based our answer on the creation story in the Bible, we would answer, Chicken. But if we based our answer on our experience in raising chickens, our answer would be, Egg.

The same can be said of the answer to the question, Which came first, Religion or Spirituality?

In terms of our experience with religious books and discussions, religion came first. It is only now that more and more people are talking about spirituality and writing about it. In terms of the origin of the reality behind those words or in terms of the object of our understanding, spirituality came first. The spirit was there before there was any religion. God was there before there was anybody to worship him.

We can even say that spirituality is an offshoot of religion. For many centuries people professed religion. Some of them fiercely opposed religions other their own. Christians for many centuries opposed paganism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and any other religion. This has happened also with paganism, Islam, and the rest with respect to the other religions. They too opposed other religions.

But more and more people discover that mere religion cannot answer their deeper yearning for a better experience of life. So, they turned to something deeper and better than religion. They found this in spirituality.

Because spirituality in a sense is an offshoot of religion, there is bound to be some similarity between them, just like the similarity between the egg and the chicken.

First, both believe in a higher power of some kind. Religion believes in God the Father or Jesus, or Allah, or Brahman, or Tao. Spirituality believes also in this God or it may conceive of God as a universal or primal energy. Both believe that such being possesses power higher and greater than what we have.

Secondly, both religion and spirituality desire to have a relationship with this higher power. Although the nature of the relationship is different in religion than in spirituality, the desire for this relationship is there. Religion connects with this higher power with fear and trembling. Spirituality connects with this higher power with love and affection.

Thirdly, both religion and spirituality have rituals and practices which deepen one’s religiosity or spirituality. Religion usually has sacred rites or sacraments. Spirituality has meditation or yoga sessions.

Fourthly, both have respect for the sacred, the other worldly. This is not just respect for God. This is respect for the reality that is beyond our senses and reason. When religion pushes this respect to its extreme, it becomes superstition. When spirituality pushes this respect to its extreme, it becomes religious spirituality.

Fifthly, both have fear of failure. In religion this failure is punished by hell fire or repetition of existence or some other worse fate. In spirituality this failure is the inability to realize one’s true worth or value and the destiny of a life of meaninglessness. Hell, repetition of existence, non-existence, meaninglessness are forms of punishment for failure, either in religion or in spirituality.

I have attempted to harvest from some of the greatest minds insight into the nature of God, human existence, and our ability to transcend what is commonly referred to as self-preservation – the “most powerful” human instinct. Further, I make the argument that debunks the myth that humans are mortal beings – simply living and ultimately dying.

If things were as simple as traditional biology tells us, then what accounts for a spouse or a parent willing to give his (her) life in exchange for his beloved? Perhaps love and the divine human spirit provide us with the innate spiritual supremacy to rise above our “greatest human instinct,” and propel a person to outrival our “captive,” namely, the primitive drive to survive. It goes without saying, we’re back to where we began. The question that remains to be answered centers on whether human beings are eternal beings?

I did some research with respect to the probability of a person being alive at this very moment – living on the planet we call earth. We’ll get back to this in a moment.

Bear in mind that our universe sprang into existence as “singularity” around 13.7 billion years ago.

Though I have been flirting with the possibility of eternal life (in some shape or form), and, something or Someone who was the grand designer of the cosmos, I haven’t used the word “religion” – correct?

Comparing apples-to-apples, I will use the word “faith” when contrasting faith as a higher power vs. faith in the science underlying the Big Bang Theory.

We know that our universe was born almost 14 billion years ago, however, ask a scientist ‘how the Big Bang occurred.’ You will likely get a response that goes something like this, ’14 billion years ago the universe burst into being from an unknown cosmic trigger.” Hmm – an unknown cosmic trigger… what’s an unknown cosmic trigger? Beats me, but surely it takes some faith to believe in one!

Logic tells me that faith comes in two competing forms, faith in the form of a scientific theory and faith in something or Someone, i.e. higher power. I tend to look for compelling evidence to support a given faith.

The supposition that some unknown cosmic trigger led to me sitting in front of my computer typing would require me to have faith in the existence of a cosmic trigger. So, what’s a reasonable alternative to an unknown cosmic trigger? Probability and statistics, of course! I will illustrate my point without getting too deep into the mathematical discipline.

I noted above that I did some research with respect to the probability of a person being alive today – living on the planet we call earth. First and foremost, no matter what faith you embrace, you are a miracle – at least in the eyes of probability and statistics.

Throughout the violent and turbulent early moments of the Big Bang to the formation of earth 4.5 billion years ago, you “survived” the hundreds of millions of catastrophic events such as the meteor that hit earth killing 80% of all life on earth including the dinosaurs which occurred 66 million years ago.

From the Big Bang through the moment of your conception and birth, you are indeed a miracle given the statistical probability of you being here is somewhere around 1 in 400 trillion. I suggest that it’s more likely for a person to win the lottery thousands of times consecutively than being alive.

Is statistical science fact or faith? Perhaps the probability (1 in 400 trillion) of you being alive, living on earth, is utter nonsense given that statistical analysis can be quite a daunting endeavor when it comes to controlling critical variables while analyzing and normalizing the data.

Frankly, it may be too difficult to arrive at a valid conclusion? I don’t have a good answer, nonetheless, I think it more prudent to hitch a horse to a wagon that missing a wheel, i.e. unknown cosmic trigger.

Einstein went on to hold a deistic concept of God. He stood in awe at the beauty and complexity of the cosmos but could not bring himself to accept the idea of a God who meddles in human history.

Einstein’s concept of beauty is that it resonates with the awe at the beauty and complexity of the cosmos. Certainly, something or Someone must have had a hand in the beautiful design of the cosmos.

Perhaps Einstein saw correctly that the beauty of the universe reflects the beauty of something or Someone beyond the universe. If God had remained silent, we could say no more than Einstein said – that “the vast darkness of the universe presents suggestions of a transcendent beauty.”

Earnest Becker wrote “Man breaks through the bounds of mere cultural heroism; he destroys the character lie that had him perform as a hero in the everyday social scheme of things; and by doing so he opens himself up to infinity, to the possibility of cosmic heroism… He links his secret inner self, his authentic talent, his deepest feelings of uniqueness… to the very ground of creation. Out of the ruins of the broken cultural self there remains the mystery of the private, invisible, inner self which yearned for ultimate significance.

This invisible mystery at the heart of [the] creature now attains cosmic significance by affirming its connection with the invisible mystery at the heart of creation. “This,” he concludes, “is the meaning of faith.”

According to Becker, faith is the belief that despite one’s “insignificance, weakness, death, one’s existence has meaning in some ultimate sense because it exists within an eternal and infinite scheme of things brought about and maintained to design by some creative force.

Becker’s ideas about cosmic design and a creative force is not as bold as Einstein’s cosmic perspective that includes a non-traditional God, or “something or Someone” beyond the universe… I interpret this to mean a higher power.

I will end with a quote by Albert Einstein, “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Brainwashing of the young and social adhesion to religious indoctrination by one’s country is no different to communism and tribal control of a population. That is why countries like Australia and the United States separated church and state. It is why many have fallen away from such worship but now comes the fight back as organisations and governments favour such folly to regain the upper hand.

True freedom of spirit and input of reality is almost impossible when ears and eyes are closed to the evil. Dictators thrive when ignorance prevails and the media and those who consider money more important than truth are driving the force behind it.

It is now 30 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre in China put down a rebellion by young students against the Communist Regime of that region. Young people were shot dead while others were run over by tanks. Bodies were reduced to pulp and then scraped into heaps and burned. No remains could be returned to parents for burial.

Dictators of all types do the same and religions have done similar deeds and worse over centuries. History, however, is no teacher as we continue to repeat the same errors of judgement and allow the evil to rise again in our midst.

The threats and fear instilled in people work for the continuance of it. That is because we are confused about the reality and hell looms large against those in opposition to their call.

For the thinker and those who manage to escape the yoke of terror that such organisations and governments impose can see the folly. But who among us can speak out loudly enough to warn the less fortunate of their situations?

It takes only a few suggestions of the adverse kind to swing them back to the lies. Language is full of the anecdotes that govern them. While they cannot perceive the role of their own imagination in maintaining the prison of their entrapment religions thrive.

Since my reincarnation, which is outlawed by religions, my purpose has been to work it out. The questions I had from birth are governed by the desire to know why people believe in the ridiculous and discard the logic.

Heaven and hell are ridiculous and stand tall as the weapons by which religions rob many of knowledge of the Great Spirit of the Universe. They have stolen their connection to the real power to safeguard their survival and prosperity. The false gods, imagery, and brainwashing are, however, being outdone now as the scientific evidence of their falsehood are exposed.

The confusion over Islam and the subsequent Muslim religion is widespread and questions are asked about its origin. In the modern context of rapid communication and the Internet the depth of deceit has grown as the Vatican tries to avoid the facts coming to light. Recently the Pope is embracing Islam as a sister religion to his own. That’s because he must realise that the two religions are of the same source.

Every religion is the same as they started with sun worship and Babylon, the home of the first organised religious rituals. It was the capital city of the Amor, who played a huge role in the start of both the Catholic and Muslim practices. Interest in their origin started with recall of my reincarnation and knowledge of the Spirit of the Universe, the only true God.

Between lives and with the Spirit my witness is that heaven and hell are fake. As weapons of fear and reward they are used by religions to get people in and keep them. This led to a lifetime of observations, research, and the free publication of same for the benefit of all.

While the bible is a greatly polluted and altered document it holds truths that have been deliberately interfered with to suit the establishment. Enough of the original stories and prophecies remain, however, when the facts are known.

Pushed along by the Spirit my research led me to the depths of the ancient world to uncover them. In Babylon where language and religion grew into greatness the answers were readily forthcoming. This is the origin home of Islam, a name derived from Ismal, corrupted to Ishmael. It originally meant ‘eye of light mother god’, which was the sun.

Many visions given to me included the one that showed how the ‘star’ of Islam came to be when the rays penetrate a hole (the hole’s eye) and forms into the circles of colour. It is from this that the term ‘holy’ came into being.

Over the years since called to the work the answers to all the mysteries were laid out. They are written of over and again in my articles, on my websites, and in the books produced to be an enlightenment to the world. The answers about Islam and the religions born of it are startling while the evidence of proof is everywhere, especially in the words spoken globally. Language has captured the facts while changes to it were impossible.