The things I will do to avoid work ...
On my way in to work today to review financial disclosure forms, I was thinking about some religious discussions that I've had recently, at church, at home and with friends. A short essay began to compose itself in my head. I got to to work but I kept thinking about it, even though I was trying to review financial disclosure reports. Quite distracting. So to get it out of my head I decided to write it down, and then it occurred to me that I could blog it. So that is what is behind the cut below. I enter this arena somewhat hesitantly, because I don't believe my views are more intrinsically "right" than another's. As background, I was raised Catholic on my mother's side and Baptist on my father's side. My wife is Jewish, as was my first wife (it seems I keep chosing the Chosen). I have met and befriended people from a variety of faiths, including Bahai, Muslim and Hindu, as well as atheists (which I also regard as a faith, although it makes atheists gnash their teeth when I do that - which is half the fun), agnostics and the whole panoply of protestant faiths. I suppose it's an advantage of living in the Nation's Capitol, where people from all over the world converge.
As I've developed in life I find that I feel more and more secure in the thought that there is something there beyond the purely physical world, even though it is something that we only perceive "through the mirror darkly" to use the NT phrase, or as shadows on the wall to use the Platonic imagery. All faiths are grappling with that image as best they can. It's like the three blind men asked to describe an elephant. One grabs the trunk, another a leg, and another the tail. They each describe the same animal very differently. This is how I feel the religions have it. We cannot comprehend God, so we try to comprehend, categorize and describe the part we perceive.
Where I believe that people go astray is in saying that their part is the right part, to try to box in and confine God to what that person can perceive and to decry those outside their "God box" as unbelievers, heretics or pagans. This view is easily extended to the notion that not only are such people wrong when they live outside the proponent's "God box", but that they should be forced to accept the "God box," perhaps even killed if they refuse. Human ambition and desire for power finds both a ready tool and perfect camouflage in this type of religion. It can't help but be noticed that the need to convert the heathen is virtually always in the interests of the people who come up with the theory that the heathen are being converted to. When I say I am suspicious of organized religion, because it tends to serve those societies that advance it. For example, it's easy for Christians to say that it is only by believing in THEIR version of Jesus that a person can be saved, no matter how virtuous that person is. Wars have been fought between people ostensibly of the same faith, on this basis. This is especially easy to say in our American culture, because almost all of us are raised as Christians and therefore it is easy to accept. Does this mean that God likes us more than those living in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East? For those people it is much harder to come to a Christian faith, because they are raised in other faiths that have an equally strong hold on them as "the truth." The converse is also true: Muslims believe that they have the path to Paradise. If so, does God especially value semitic peoples?
Such exclusionism would flow from a God like Iago's, who said "I believe in a cruel God." I reject that vision, because we are all creations of God. I view heaven or paradise as a closeness to God, and hell to be separation from God. I believe in a very personal view of religion, and reject the notion that someone else can tell me what God's plan for me is or what God's relationship with me is. I'm not convinced in that MY perception of God is correct, it is a work in progress. While willing to learn from others, I refuse to abandon my work, my responsibility, in favor of their vision. This is why I am most at ease in the Baptist faith, for traditional Baptist faith is very personal. Don't confuse the Southern Baptists with traditional Baptist faith, for they left that path long ago. Trust me, traditional Baptist faith is NOT a very organized religion.
Reading the Bible is powerful, because it shows so much more than many Christians are comfortable with, or would be if they read it for themselves. Ambition and desire for power over others can be seen when movements chose to quote selectively from their holy works, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, etc., to advance their interests. I admit that I reject the principle of the Christian Bible being infallible, literal truth because it is filtered through human hands. My quick snapshot argument is the Gospel's description of the death of Jesus. Were his last words "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34); "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46); or "It is finished" (John 19:30). If you can't agree on something as basic as the last words of Jesus, that's not a strong indication of literal truth. And that's not even getting into the issue of how the Bible was created, the various different translations through the centuries, etc. But that doesn't mean I disavow the Bible, I just view arguments over the infallibility of the Bible to be foolishly missing the point, to be arguing over the types of trees while standing in the middle of a forest. There is so much wisdom, so much love in the Bible, that I do believe God is there. The hymn says "They will know that we are Christians by our love" and that's how I feel the presence of God - through love.
It is through that love that I tend to examine matters of the spirit. If I feel that love shining in something, I will want to move towards it. If I don't, or if I feel something else, I become more questioning. God's love is not a zero sum game, withheld for a select few. Beware those who hate or harm others in the name of God! The more we love, both ourselves and others, the closer we come to God's untapped and infinite capacity to love and care for others. Conversely, the farther from love we are, the farther from God. I'm not saying it's easy; I can be pretty hard to love sometimes, and sometimes I find it hard to love others. I'm a work in progress too, and I expect that to continue as long as I am breathing.
Anyway, that's a 30 minute synopsis before I get back to work. Each paragraph could probably be developed into a major theological discussion, but not today. It can also be attacked as a shallow, facile description of theological matters. I don't dispute that, but just remember ... it's only part of the elephant.
As I've developed in life I find that I feel more and more secure in the thought that there is something there beyond the purely physical world, even though it is something that we only perceive "through the mirror darkly" to use the NT phrase, or as shadows on the wall to use the Platonic imagery. All faiths are grappling with that image as best they can. It's like the three blind men asked to describe an elephant. One grabs the trunk, another a leg, and another the tail. They each describe the same animal very differently. This is how I feel the religions have it. We cannot comprehend God, so we try to comprehend, categorize and describe the part we perceive.
Where I believe that people go astray is in saying that their part is the right part, to try to box in and confine God to what that person can perceive and to decry those outside their "God box" as unbelievers, heretics or pagans. This view is easily extended to the notion that not only are such people wrong when they live outside the proponent's "God box", but that they should be forced to accept the "God box," perhaps even killed if they refuse. Human ambition and desire for power finds both a ready tool and perfect camouflage in this type of religion. It can't help but be noticed that the need to convert the heathen is virtually always in the interests of the people who come up with the theory that the heathen are being converted to. When I say I am suspicious of organized religion, because it tends to serve those societies that advance it. For example, it's easy for Christians to say that it is only by believing in THEIR version of Jesus that a person can be saved, no matter how virtuous that person is. Wars have been fought between people ostensibly of the same faith, on this basis. This is especially easy to say in our American culture, because almost all of us are raised as Christians and therefore it is easy to accept. Does this mean that God likes us more than those living in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East? For those people it is much harder to come to a Christian faith, because they are raised in other faiths that have an equally strong hold on them as "the truth." The converse is also true: Muslims believe that they have the path to Paradise. If so, does God especially value semitic peoples?
Such exclusionism would flow from a God like Iago's, who said "I believe in a cruel God." I reject that vision, because we are all creations of God. I view heaven or paradise as a closeness to God, and hell to be separation from God. I believe in a very personal view of religion, and reject the notion that someone else can tell me what God's plan for me is or what God's relationship with me is. I'm not convinced in that MY perception of God is correct, it is a work in progress. While willing to learn from others, I refuse to abandon my work, my responsibility, in favor of their vision. This is why I am most at ease in the Baptist faith, for traditional Baptist faith is very personal. Don't confuse the Southern Baptists with traditional Baptist faith, for they left that path long ago. Trust me, traditional Baptist faith is NOT a very organized religion.
Reading the Bible is powerful, because it shows so much more than many Christians are comfortable with, or would be if they read it for themselves. Ambition and desire for power over others can be seen when movements chose to quote selectively from their holy works, be it the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud, etc., to advance their interests. I admit that I reject the principle of the Christian Bible being infallible, literal truth because it is filtered through human hands. My quick snapshot argument is the Gospel's description of the death of Jesus. Were his last words "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34); "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit" (Luke 23:46); or "It is finished" (John 19:30). If you can't agree on something as basic as the last words of Jesus, that's not a strong indication of literal truth. And that's not even getting into the issue of how the Bible was created, the various different translations through the centuries, etc. But that doesn't mean I disavow the Bible, I just view arguments over the infallibility of the Bible to be foolishly missing the point, to be arguing over the types of trees while standing in the middle of a forest. There is so much wisdom, so much love in the Bible, that I do believe God is there. The hymn says "They will know that we are Christians by our love" and that's how I feel the presence of God - through love.
It is through that love that I tend to examine matters of the spirit. If I feel that love shining in something, I will want to move towards it. If I don't, or if I feel something else, I become more questioning. God's love is not a zero sum game, withheld for a select few. Beware those who hate or harm others in the name of God! The more we love, both ourselves and others, the closer we come to God's untapped and infinite capacity to love and care for others. Conversely, the farther from love we are, the farther from God. I'm not saying it's easy; I can be pretty hard to love sometimes, and sometimes I find it hard to love others. I'm a work in progress too, and I expect that to continue as long as I am breathing.
Anyway, that's a 30 minute synopsis before I get back to work. Each paragraph could probably be developed into a major theological discussion, but not today. It can also be attacked as a shallow, facile description of theological matters. I don't dispute that, but just remember ... it's only part of the elephant.