Some light reading

Is it necessary, if one claims or wants to be a member of a religion, to accept all the doctrine of that religion?

Holy crap. I have no idea, really. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but clearly there are parts of the Catechism that I don't agree with and which seem counter to the morals I have ingrained in me, whether by birth or upbringing. But then, as I read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, I am confused. Mr. Lewis, author of The Chronicles of Narnia and many other books, was a very respected author and professor and was an atheist until he went about trying to disprove Christianity and instead because Christian himself. He says that one must totally accept the religion in all its aspects in order to be true, not only to the religion, but to oneself and to God.

The problem is as follows: He says that man's sense of morality can only come from God, and it is in fact in this way that the existence of a superior being is proven. Every civilization has had similar morals throughout history (though widely varying rules accompanying them). Morals that don't agree with these standards are said to be "perverted." For example, a man who enjoys kicking a dog has a perverted sense of pleasure. It also says a man's love of another man is perverted. Basically, the doctrine of a religion is to support and possibly even enforce these mores. So if I disagree with them, does that make me perverted? But isn't it God who gave me my sense of morality? Did I just screw it up? Or does it just mean that I am lazy? There are only 4 Cardinal Virtues - those of prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude. Does adhering to those seem so difficult? Why this "doctrine" around them? Clearly "Do to others as you would have done to you" is nothing new. But then, ss drunkeness really a roadblock on a path in pursuit of perfection, as the doctrine would claim? Does indulging an appetite, whether for drink or for sexuality, really lead away from God?

I recently read a book on Buddhism. That author also said that in order to achieve the aims of the religion it is necessary to fully embody everything it says. While it is possible to go halfway, you will not get anything out of it. Is this why so many young people are disenchanted with Christianity and organized religion in general these days? Is it because we do not have the motivation or desire to follow it to its ends? Or do we prefer science and what can be proven? Or perhaps we can only see taking a stand against religion as taking a stand, while defending religion is old-fashioned or close-minded or just plain wrong.

So what if I don't want to follow a specific religion? They all claim great things, such as eternal life or nirvana, etc, and their purpose seems to be to show the meaning of life to their followers. But maybe I don't believe it. Or maybe it's just that I don't feel like abiding by all these pesky rules that are required. Maybe I could live "just to be happy," and that would be enough. But probably not. Einstein once called that outlook, "The pigsty mentality," and I am inclined to agree. Should I only experience love so I feel good about it? Should I only serve others so that I can further my own interests? What about beauty and truth and everything else I have a chance to experience - is that just to make me happy? If I determine my standards, the point where I will make a stand, on a piecemeal basis, is that going to make my world better or worse? Or do I even care?

Though books and preachers and bibles and rabbis and monks will tell you what you must do, it all means nothing. Each one of us must decide for ourselves what to believe and how to embody these beliefs, and I don't think these choice can be proven right or wrong. Yet despite never being proven wrong, "what do I believe" still seems to be the most difficult question I can ever put an answer to.