ON BECOMING A CHRISTIAN

Kierkegaard's self-proclaimed “Socratic task – to rectify the concept of what it means to be a Christian” follows his concept of subjective truth, defined as passionate commitment, and suggests the absurd is that the “eternal truth has come into being in time.” Essentially, Kierkegaard proposes that it would be impossible to prove God's non-existence, and foolish to attempt to prove God's existence because in attempting to prove the existence of God, one would have presupposed that such evidence exists at all, and that presupposition is not akin to true Christianity. Kierkegaard continues, proposing that God is neither man nor woman nor name nor any other sort of being as suggested by virtually every religion, but rather God is a concept. God is the conceptualization of the unknown, and religion has created this conceptualization in human form so as to appeal and seem more familiar to humanity; which totally makes sense. Nothing is more fascinating and familiar to man than man, and man likes familiarity, so it only seems natural that religious leaders from long, long ago whenever all of this was taking shape, intent on attracting as many followers as possible, would have chosen to depict God as an omnipotent, man-like being. What could be more unnerving, and in turn, convince people to follow a doctrine more than the shaking fist of an all-seeing, all-knowing 'superman' of sorts?

But back to the notion of God as a concept. I like that idea. I like it a lot. Although a concept is by nature intangible and, as Kierkegaard states, it would be foolish to try to prove the existence of the intangible, it seems way more plausible to view God as a concept rather than a big man in the sky; albeit a concept might not attract as sizable a congregation as an omnipotent being. But a concept wouldn't give man the 'license' to kill in His name that his God seemingly does. A concept wouldn't prevent people from living their way of living for fear of eternal retribution. A concept is more of a suggestion; a gentle nudge in the right direction. Whereas a God is an absolute and non-negotiable decree; like being thrust into a line you'd better not leave. So I guess I agree with Kierkegaard in respect to the detriment of Christianity by way of the modification of God by man. Man took an idea, radically transformed that idea into something that better suits him (a man-like being), and accepts and abides by the 'word' of this being as he sees fit. And perhaps worst of all, humanity accepts these truths as absolute, (in most cases at least) not because he sought truth or salvation, but simply because he was born into it and had his head dunked (again, in most cases) as an infant and without his consent into magic water. If it's that easy to become a Christian, doesn't that diminish its significance?

I also think that the classification of a concept (God) - something that is universal and far-reaching - into a religious doctrine - something with limits and specifications – confines man's perspective on God and hinders man's capacity to understand God. By understand I don't mean have God all figured out - if there is in fact a God, I'm almost certain man lacks the capacity to 'understand' (for lack of a better term) him or her or it or they. Maybe understand wasn't the best choice of word. Interpret is better. Confining God to a religious doctrine inhibits man's perspective on God as well as his interpretation of God. If one's interpretation of God deviates from that of one's prescribed (by birth or otherwise) religion, then it is essentially invalidated by that religion. And isn't God supposed to be all about inclusion? They say God loves all his children, right? So isn't a religion so steadfast in the posits of its doctrine, that it is unwilling to allow for even the slightest deviation, thus, making it more exclusive than inclusive, actually operating in a manner in direct opposition to that of God? And doesn't that too diminish its significance?