Philosophy Suit

Yesterday I saw an old friend wearing a philosophy suit. It didn't fit her very well so it appeared rather garish and awkward. The problem is she didn't realise her philosophy suit didn't suit her at all, like a fat woman wearing skin tight leopard-print leg-ins her unawareness of her position rather unfortunate.

So today I put on my philosophy suit and this is what happened:

Trusting God to give you what you need is equivalent to pragmatism.

Like many things in life, you can attribute it to a creator or follow through and see the philosophical benefits of the practice, in this case pragmatism being an effective system of coping with your present situation in life which will never be ideal.

I'm not saying there is no religion, I'm just saying that it's important to analyse things to their logical conclusion because religion is not the solution to everything.

I always used to have a problem with Catholicism, but I realised the problem wasn't with Catholicism at all but with this practice of limiting your world view at the God post instead of exploring things further. I figure there are lots of valid reasons even intelligent people might limit themselves in such a way, fear of straying into heresy for example? Maybe the same way a homosexual man can become a hard right-wing Nazi, those who claim they have faith are scared by the tiniest bits of doubt in their mind and thus limit themselves from any discourse which might fan the flames of doubt.

Here is my Catholic problem which I have solved: the Romans wanted a piece of the action. So they took Abrahmic religion and made it more applicable to what turned them on. They even burned all traces of certain books which were previously part of Abrahmic doctrine. Now they have their own Abrahmic religion. This isn't rare though, the Chinese took Buddhism and created their own form. Against all of the logic touted by the original form of Buddhism the Chinese now get their luck charms but with the backing of a much-followed religion to lend them credence. The Gnostics had tension with the Jews so created an Abrahmic religion out of Judaism which sets the Jews against "true" belief. The Arabs were previous anti-abrahmic religion and then came Islam which poses the Christians as outdated.

Why do I not have a problem with this anymore? The Romans were against Abrahmic religion, they saw it as a threat to their existence and through it's transformation into Catholicism they were bought into the Abrahmic religion fold. The same with the Arabs and Islam. You could look at this pragmatically and say "The God found his way to spread his religion to all people" or you could say "People create religion to suit what they need", but it doesn't matter because both can be true at the same time and neither can be true, but pragmatically speaking I don't think either can be true on its own and there we have a dependent arising.

That is all the reconciliation I need. It's not the religion that bothers me it's the self-censorship that religious people often perform. People shouldn't be so frightened of where their religion came from. Denying objective proofs is not a sign of the unfaithful, if anything fear of seeking takes away from the religion because it is a fear of discovering personal truths and religion is nothing but personal.