He bats so well, to me the he’s God of cricket. I love his songs, God of music.I could let my house be burgled when he’s acting, God of acting he must be.The motif goes on endlessly…
Were men from our times or from an inaccessible long time ago who displayed great character under immense duress or leveraged their prowess to toe the line of altruism fondly referred to as gods by those with a penchant for drama.
Was it the choices that they made or were they the chosen ones of providence? Did being “God” assign hallow around a lice ridden head or was it used to describe celestial beings with hallow around the head? Did God percolate to poetry and folklore or were they instruments to rhapsodize the concept to the hoi polloi?
There’s another popular school of thought which says reaching the abode of God is the bedrock of salvation.
That leaves me with the question-Is God a designation or a destination?
Was the famous tale of Ramayana devised to spread a way of life or was it an impressionist tale of a man,a dutiful prince, a doting husband and the travails he underwent to preserve a bouquet of ideals?
In that case, how does a staunch Rama devotee with extra marital affairs galore, compare as opposed to a faithful husband, an atheist who doesn’t endorse you?
That brings me to the question- To idolize or idealize God?
We as a race, seem to prefer convenience over correctness. For what would explain our over-romanticizing of the anecdotes and personalities contained in scriptures over the virtues and philosophies they flag-shipped.
To me God has always been a metaphor, misunderstood.
When one shines the cage more passionately than feed the bird it encages, the cage glitters with the dying bird with efflux of time.
His grandfather died over-speeding and a cat happened to cross his path. The son obediently took his dad’s words and never drove when a cat crossed his path. Who’s fault is it when the son died over-speeding , the dad in a fiduciary capacity with erroneous inference or the son with the blind faith?
As a creator, does God like the concept of blind faith or would he rather prefer men prone to reasons and consequences? Blind faith is a two sided knife, which could harm the wielder and the wielded,while a society characterized by too much reasoning would be volatile and disobedient.
There was a wonderful septuagenarian who passed away recently. I really looked upto the man’s altruist lifestyle. Now would I be justified in taking people with me to cities that have housed him in various phases of his life and probably build a lavish pantheon in his place of birth or am I supposed to imbibe his virtues in my way of life to carry forward his legacy?
If the latter is a better option to immortalize one’s personality, why sanctify monuments and birth places over teachings of an Individual. Being from India, I know the political connotations and the carnage that ensued over a birthplace and a monument. The misplaced righteousness blurs the judgement of a blind endorser who’s taken it upon himself to protect a tangible extension of his ideology from an perpetrating ideology, flattering him to believe his fanaticism to be altruism.
An evolved society with a faith founded on archaic principles from an bygone era, could be likened to the quandary of a grown up man with a heart that seized to grow beyond his toddler days.
So what would God prefer more hypothetically, A demography of god-fearing or god-loving people?
A society that seeks solace in monuments and sees Gods in stones or one that relies on labour and love and looks up to good men as heroes, which one would he revel in?
That brings me to my last question-
Is God the means to achieve a higher purpose or the end itself?