The Real Meaning of “God-Fearing” Isn’t What You Think
There is a subtle yet enormous difference between respect and fear. Respect answers a question, while fear demands an action.
There is a clear indicator of the true nature of the prevailing view, and belief in “God” in our modern world. Can you see it? Allow me to demonstrate what I allude to with another line of questioning,
“If God is Love, then why would anyone believe Love needs, or would ever want, anyone to “fear” it? At what point did “showing honor for, or respect to” anything representative of the idea of “love” become rooted, associated with, the concept of fear?”
Let me take this process a little further. Most would have heard the axiom, “power corrupts”, or the continuance of that line of logic, “if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
What then does that mean for those who believe in an “all powerful God”, or deity?
From the standpoint of how I have always understood Love, its definition, and how to recognize love in action, then almost all modern expressions of “Christianity”, and the psychological “victim mindset of the abused”, would strongly support the declaration that,
“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled, was convincing everyone that he was God”.
How is it then, that it is nearly impossible to utilize any kind of reason or logic to demonstrate the glaring incongruencies of such a combination of clearly opposing emotions, to those trapped in an understanding of Love that incorporates the idea of fear into its philosophy of applied Love?
Is It due to the clear implications that one would also have to accept if such an admission were made by those who have dedicated an entire lifetime to promoting it?
I believe in freedom of speech and religion, but does a group, no matter how large, that is clearly victimizing itself, and any associated with it, actually count as a “religion” when its core philosophy is so deeply flawed, incongruent, and devastating to emotional, spiritual, and physical life?
If “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is basic set of unalienable rights, then shouldn’t any “religion” we acknowledge in western society necessarily have demonstrable historical record of always supporting those rights?
Should those “religions” that have not, cannot, or will not support those basic rights even be acknowledged as a religion by any government, irrespective of how long they have existed? Why would anyone follow a religious philosophy that directly, or indirectly, denies these inalienable, basic human rights? If a “religion” cannot show it has taken seriously, and has addressed gender inequality, slavery, all forms of abuse, class, or race inequality, and/or solve most causes of homelessness, hunger, or patriarchy?
What defines a “religion” for western societies so that the recognized entities, get tax immunity, when they provide mental justifications and shelter to ideologies that are clearly unedifying, as well as tacitly endorse the promulgation of unethical and immoral societal stances? Would “Jesus” be packing an AR-15 at a protest in support of his “flock”?
Am I misunderstanding the separation of church and state because I see it proudly associated throughout governments, and I might be tempted to be ok with it they, at the very least, they NOT do what I was able to demonstrate, so very, very easily in this answer. There is a clear distinction between what is right and what is wrong in life. I am very curious to know why we allow such wrong to continue to hide behind an idea of “religion” and “the good of humanity “ when it is demonstrably a false, or incorrect assignment of identification to groups that cannot uphold the barest definition of religion in their aggregate actions, history, or existence?
UPDATE: with so much happened since this article, such as coming to a turning point in my acceptance of myself “as-is”, and I know, logic says, that should be easy, just-do-it. The Heart says, not so fast their Pilgrim, ignoring something, or simply saying, “Oh yeah, I am all over that now” is NOT accepting it. I still have Love on the other side of the door (that doesn’t exit), and saying you know, you SAY you never went anywhere, then how come you vanished? That is a bit of personal discussion going on between Love and I, fortunately Love is unconditional with love, and fine with my processing taking whatever I need to get me unconditional with myself.
I wanted to update the fear and love model. I used to say that Fear and Love were two sides of the same coin, despite it not feeling quite right. I know why now. A coin is a static thing that simply has two sides, but Fear and Love? Fear and Love are dynamic! There are in fact, closer to the idea of being two sides of the same magnet! One side draws you near, the other forces you back, repels you, or clears the way. I also like them to Mind (Love), and Heart (Fear). Both are a part of our essential selves. Fear protected us in the savannah from becoming lunch, while Love was busy planning ahead by being observant, and in the moment noticing and learning to identify patterns that would signal “SAFE”, or “UM, GUYS”. More later..
A. Yobi Blumberg
Your Pilgrim on Point
There IS “light at the end of the tunnel”. You don’t have to wait till you die to experience “heaven”.
When silence and inaction allow evil to flourished and grow, then the cause of it is also evil.