To Believe or not To Believe    
During my adolescence, two opposite trends influenced my education: that 
classic of my parents together with the entire old educated generation, 
and that of the "new wave" of Soviet propagandists.                     
                 1 + 1 + Soviet help = 2
                 
                                                  
Jokes like this were in fashion in Romania of 50's. As the Soviet help 
was equal to zero, the equality was always true. There are two morals:  
                 - there is a truth in everything;                      
                 - you need remove the ballast for getting clear ideas. 
                 
We used to say that one must be able to know how to read between the 
lines. My mind has formed in such conditions, so that I still think 
there is something true in almost everything but not entirely and it 
is up to me to find out that truth.                                     
                                                                        
The first trend that I mentioned above was a religious one, while the 
second was aggressively atheist. Of course, I used to be inclined to 
adopt my parents' attitude but the rationalist arguments of the others 
claim to be explained. How could I solve this dilemma?                  
                                                                        
On the one hand, the atheists, at the end of their demonstration, 
found out nothing important. Their arguments against the Bible had 
in view minor considerations, and their way leads nowhere. Besides, 
God is not precisely defined. Many religions forbid any representation 
of Him. How could the atheists fight with defined arms against to 
something that is not defined at all? They do not have any chance.      
                                                                        
On the other hand, how could I trust in a simple statement like 
"think and not search"? For one adept at scientist methods as I am, 
any statement must be proved. I needed some reasons. An argument in 
the balance of my thoughts was the declarations of some scientists that 
they were faithful. Some of them like Pascal turned themselves into 
the faith after they had been professionals in precise sciences. How 
could I learn about their reasons? They were clever men.                
                                                                        
These used to be the thoughts of a 15-16 years old boy. Now, as an old 
man, I am much advanced but I  cannot say that I have definitely solved 
the dilemma but, at least, I have a way. As much as I have read - and I 
did it from authors of all kind of orientations - my interest in the 
topic has increased. The matter has become more and more complex and 
tinted. The truth seems to be still far away but I realised that 
searching for the way is more captivating than the aim itself, as far as 
the aim is an ideal.                                                    
                                                                        
One thing is clear: the atheism is good for nothing. It leads nowhere. 
I knew lots of atheists and every of them invoked the help of a divine 
force during some difficult situations. People need to believe in 
something. Even the word 'atheist' (a Theo = without God) proves that 
they are not able to define themselves on an independent way. They 
recognise the God but stand with their back to Him.                     
                                                                        
Yes, people need to believe in something. The problem is in what as long 
as there are more religions, more cults inside Christianity itself and 
lots of sects that fight against each other.                            
                                                                         
                 God, help me to believe in You!                        
                 
                                                  
A friend of mine asked me whether I believe in Jesus but Jesus is the 
God's son so that the final question was the same: whether I believe 
in God. It is difficult to believe in something not-defined. Of course, 
there is a
cosmogony
 but people, as early as the antiquity have imagined
lots of cosmogonies. I could myself invent some. Whould that from the 
Bible be better? On the contrary, this is one of its weak points. 
Nevertheless, the Bible, in spite of its weaknesses, has many good 
things and, above all, It generated a new civilisation. We all, 
believers or atheists, are products of this civilisation, particularly 
if we are Europeans, Americans or Australians. By tradition and culture, 
we are Christians in all that we do, in all our acts. The atheists 
themselves are Christians without knowing it.                           
                                                                        
Probably the question would be better expressed "if I believe in the 
Bible". Yes, I do! All religions come to similar conclusions. Why then 
are people so much different? Because of the priests. The disputes 
among the Christian cults and sects are not against the Bible but 
against each other, particularly among the priests. Priests are 
important because they have to interpret the Bible to the common 
people. Unfortunately, during the history, many of them made many 
mistakes, particularly entering politics. In spite of their statements 
and pacifist slogans, nowadays they still do the same; they serve 
themselves by the faith instead of serve it. In their disputes, they 
use, without knowing the same argument one other, no matter what sect 
they belong to. Besides, there are too few priests able to understand 
deep understanding if the Bible. The most of them know only how to 
preach a sermon.                                                        
                                                                        
Yes, I believe in the Bible but not in priests. That's why I always 
wanted to read more and more, from authors of different faiths, books 
being my single serious source of information and the real society was 
the place where the ideas are proved. What have I learnt from these 
books and my meditation? The great truthss become truisms when we try 
to express them  shortly. (This is a truism as well.)  We cannot 
suddenly discover the whole truth but we find it out again and again, 
more full and rich, just searching for it. God does not need my 
sacrifices. He wants me to be happy. In this order it is satisfying 
whether I am myself: honest and having a loving face to all those 
surrounding me. That is simple, very simple but I have to do it every 
time and this is not always easy but it deserves a try.                 
                                                                        
Why try? Because some things cannot be explained.  Let us take  some 
simple examples as how to ride a bike or of how to swim are. Most 
novels talk about love and nobody understands it but by falling himself 
in love. The joy of love is to live and feel the moment and not to run 
toward a finish line. The happiness is not an aim but a state of mind. 
It comes just by looking for it. We fall in this state as long as we 
are on the way toward the truth. That's why we need do it and not 
explain. There is some truth in the Bible's statement 'think and not 
search' but it is poorly expressed. The idea might be to have trust 
that a God exists so that we ought permanently  try to find the way 
toward Him. In other words, the world still makes sense. We are happy 
as long as we are know ourselves to be on the right way.                
                                                        
  
  
   Home  