On Apr 4, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Warren, that is a good example of the kind of Atheistic thinking that I respect. It matters little whether one agrees or disagrees about the specifics; the general idea you propose is one most Christians should be able to discuss and compare with their own beliefs (and faith) without feeling insulted.
Thanks. In my cynical youth I would have been more inclined, I think, to agree with the "Good news from the Vatican" sentiments. But in the intervening years my rebellion against (specifically) Christianity and (generally) religion has moderated some.
The anger came from a place of personal pain; it was narrow interpretations of Leviticus that caused me to feel outcast and outcaste in the group to which I'd chosen to align in the foolishness of boyhood. Most of that anger has dissipated, but I still tend to get hackled over certain parties supporting, for instance, certain Constitutional amendments.
I try not to simply reject religious messages because they're religious; though I also fail in that endeavor regularly. It's not easy sometimes to keep a fa�ade of balance. ;)
But there is wisdom to be found in doctrines which have endured for centuries or millennia, and it might even be argued that an organic, flexible interpretation of scriptures is more in keeping with the idea of a living gospel or living god than a rigid, hardline insistence on literalism. As an atheist, then, I might be more religious than many who claim to hold faith. At the very least I might understand Christianity better than some who claim to preach its "truths".
Gotta love them there ironies.
Your take on the mustard seed is practically an exact synopsis of a lesson we were given one afternoon by our parish priest at the Catholic school I attended over 35 years ago.
Huh. That's interesting. It's hard for me to imagine a Baptist or LDS Sunday School teacher giving such a liberal lesson.
I mentioned "rational hope" in the mustard seed graf; what that means to me is a hope that can be defended in a rational dialogue. As a recent example, the parents of Terri Schiavo wanted to keep her body alive even though there was simply no chance of it ever being "reanimated" by even a ghost of her former self.
In their desperation they even imagined things happened which could not have -- such as her sitting upright in bed and saying "I want to live" before the feeding tube was pulled for the last time -- and while I certainly feel sympathy for their sensibilities in the case, the fact was that Terri's mind, for all practical purposes, died in 1990. Thus their hope was irrational, and their attachment to an impossible outcome led them into a decade and a half of needless agony.
But sometimes I think we all tend to create our own pain.
(BTW, has anyone else noted the irony that Bush and his cohort blather on about "erring on the side of life" while at the same time sweeping the Iraq debacle -- which has cost thousands of civilian, innocent lives -- under the rug? Where was Congress's demand for investigation before we bombed the hell out of Baghdad in our elective, ill-advised war?)
I regularly try to remember to give up all but rational hopes. I've found it to be a fairly worthwhile exercise, when it works; by not clinging to futures that are impossible, for the most part I spare myself a lot of unnecessary sleepless nights. My biggest hurdle currently is remembering to be patient with those who harbor impossibilities. :\
I don't want to come off like I'm arrogating Full Understanding to myself. I don't have all the answers; I don't have most of the answers. Often I'm not even sure what the questions are. But that's the perspective that suits me. Some find such an outlook fuzzy. Frustrating. We want closure, we want to be certain of our facts. But life is fuzzy, life is often counterintuitive and bizarre, and most of all life is dynamic, an open system that changes not only itself but its constituents and those participants' outlooks. So hard answers aren't easy to find and yet we frequently need to behave as though we have them.
I suppose it could be argued that certitude is the realm of the blindly devout; there are some who believe they *do* have all the answers, and the answers are usually to be found in some text or other. On balance I think that's probably a much more dangerous approach to take to life -- at least insofar as it affects the destinies of others.
The epitome of the perspective I dislike most can be found in the saying "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it". A more safe rendering might be "I believe God said it, and that settles it" -- safer, and more accurate, I suspect. Which is why we don't see that version of the phrase. It says more about the believer than it does about anything else.
Some people like to build dams, others prefer to build bridges, I'll cross your bridge and shake your hand!
Oh. Dam.
;)
xponent Catlick Maru
Roaming Catlick?
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
