I use Google Reader a lot, and recently a “popular item” showed up on my reading list regarding how to resist the temptations of Satan. I poked into it just enough to get bored and start scrolling through the article until I saw this image:
Here’s an excerpt:
6. Christ is your identity
Christ is your identity. I don’t care what you’ve done, and I don’t care what has been done to you. Those things are horrible and we can deal with them in Redemption Groups, biblical counseling, community groups, friendship, and relationship, but here’s your identity. It’s not what has been done to you or what has been done by you, but it is what Christ has done for you. In the eyes of Christ, you are clean. You were forgiven. You were adopted. You were redeemed. You are beloved. You are, you are. And I know some of you, the guilt is deep, the sin is real, and life is a wreck. And Christ is good. And if you believe that your identity is transformed in Christ as an adoptive, loved, forgiven, regenerated, transformed, empowered, renewed, hopeful child of God, you will live differently.
I’d hope that without having to go into the truth or reality of religion that everyone reading this post can recognize the sheer memetic power of the idea above. This is what makes religious arguments so difficult and emotional; it is why it’s impolite to bring up religion (and politics). When we tell ourselves that an idea is who we are we cease to want (anyone) to think critically about it. Many have died because they dared question such ideas. I’m glad that happens less often nowadays.
4 Comments
Hey ho,
Christianity has survived 2,000 years because of this heart message. People have paid billions of dollars for redemption and have gone on countless pilgrimages. It’s a human message and one can merely take out “Christ” and say anything in place of it. At the root of all people is that place that is called Christ, it’s real, and therefore the message is sticky.
I don’t argue the terminology. If I call that place “the inner self” and someone else calls it “Christ” it’s the same thing. Redemption is real. Most people need to be redeemed from outside, which doesn’t stick and has to be renewed again and again.
It’s a common evil to take a human thing and add in something to it that will benefit your group (bring it money or power) and take advantage of the “truth.” Don’t argue it, for then you argue against the truth of the reality.
hugs
me
I’m with Anne here. This is a lovely redemption message that I find compelling, and it informs my life, transforms it.
I’m curious about what you’re saying, above. Are you saying that ideas like “redemption is true, and inside you” are “religious” and so have more “memetic power” than ideas like “women tend to be hysterical” or “men can’t control their sexuality”? Is that right?
All sorts of questions come up for me. Like “What do you mean by religious?” and “How do you measure memetic power?”
Love,
Mama
I’m not saying that religious ideas are inherently more sticky than non-religious ones; I’m saying that an idea which becomes identity is more sticky, and that religious ideas often include personal identity. (Political ideas too.)
I really don’t have a grasp on what redemption means, or looks like, so I don’t think I can comment on it specifically. Maybe you could explain it? Does it have to do with feeling accepted, or being cleared of shame, perhaps?
I’m using “religion” in the fuzzy sense to describe ideas that pertain to ethics, the nature of reality, and purpose.
As I’m using it, “memetic power” describes an approximation of how likely an idea is to be maintained in the mind of someone, especially when under criticism, and how likely a person is to try and transmit the idea to their child. I realize that the concept is very vague, and probably not very easily testable. If I wanted to measure the “stickiness” of an idea, I’d probably find a very large group of people who identify the idea as true, then follow them over time and measure the decay rate. That’s just off the top of my head, though. I hadn’t really thought about it.
I’m pretty curious about this stickiness thing. I think it’s likely that it’s possible to “measure” or at least investigate how stickiness compares. And I’m not sure how it will come out. First thing is to figure out the question (and define “sticky). Maybe “Are ideas about ethics and aesthetics that involve a God-concept more sticky than ideas about ethics and aesthetics that don’t involve a God-concept?”
I suspect part of the puzzle here is that there are a couple of really different ways to hold God-ideas. They can be a framework through which to see the world, or they can be held like factual, testable claims, but without the factual-ness or the testing.
Maybe you’re talking about concrete ideas like “Jesus was born of a mother without the involvement of any male parent” or “The sun revolves around the earth” or “It’s turtles, all the way down.” If that’s the case, maybe the question becomes “Are dumb ideas stickier if they involve God than if they don’t?”