Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Good Questions!

Yol asked in my last post:  "James, first of all let me tell you that I do enjoy your blog very much. It feels sincere, open, and full of doubts (which I do value.) I am always full of questions myself. Also, as a disclaimer, I am not christian. Please keep in mind that I mean no offense to you or your belief system. I respect you. So, question #1: Would you give me your thoughts on why is the christian god needed? Why the rules and regulations? Question #2: regarding the polyamory situation, why do we assume that there is The One and then the others? What if it is a flat hierarchy where all the parts are like you said in your previous blog, sharing equally in all matters (emotionally, physically, financially)? Lastly, I think that if the christian god were to be real she would would be very intrigued/amused/dismissive of the "fine print" (and it feels like it is full of fine print) placed in the contract (between her and the humans) by the lawyers involved in the transaction... Peace!"

Hm.  Ok, I guess we'll just take them line by line, si?

#1  I can only answer your question from the two perspectives I have had in my life: My original pre-Christian mindset, and my current Christian one.  From the original perspective, He's not needed at all.  He's demanding, confusing, harsh, uncompromising, restrictive, and a real buzz-kill.  His people spout hate and are intolerant.  He appears no different than any other petty, demanding god with a nasty narcissistic streak.  Need?  Who would WANT that?
Now, I say all this so you can appreciate that this was my perspective of God BEFORE I became a Christian, to see where I was and how much my view changed.  My view and belief has always been logical in basis, which seems ironic to the point of contradiction in a spiritual arena, but it's true:  I read a book called "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis; yes, the Narnia one.  He set out to prove that Christians were wrong, and in the process ended up convincing himself the opposite; Christ was either liar, lunatic, or Lord.  Discounting the first two, that only left one option; I recommend the book heartily.  It's not preachy. 
Once I made it through the logical assertion, it made it possible to accept certain other things on faith.  Thus began a life-long search for understanding in Scripture; you see, the Christian view is not that we have rules to live by and regulations...the view is instead that because of our human nature, we're predisposed to a sinful condition that is a binding, pleasurable silken cord that is killing our spirits, and the teachings you consider restrictive keep us free and safe from morally and spiritually destructive elements of life, severing that cord.  Christians don't view this life or our existing bodies as the "end all"; we take the long view.  From the Christian perspective, we do things displeasing to our Creator; that's not His fault...He created us with free will so we could choose to follow Him, and gave us the tools to do it.  The rewards are eternal; so are the penalties.
So, the path in a nutshell was this:  Belief that Jesus was Lord and not a liar or lunatic, accepting His teachings as result, accepting knowledge of my sinful nature as a human, accepting His sacrifice as necessary ( a WHOOOLE other story...), and then accepting that the only safe path through a life full of temptations to do things against my new paradigm was following God.  Seeing my previous life as sinful and restrictive, and embracing His paradigm as freeing from that, was liberating, not confining.  Oh, don't get me wrong, there's been questioning all along in my life; I don't simply accept man's opinion of Scripture as fact; I don't blindly accept the Bible as fact, as I pointed out in my second post.  There are some things that would be stumbling blocks, and thus wrong, for a baby Christian that are not wrong for me...it's a process.  He's a forgiving God; but we have to own up and accept the consequences for what we do when we're told, time and time and time again, that what we're doing is wrong.  And if we do it ANYWAY, well...it's not His fault.  He DID warn us.

#2  This one is still difficult for me.  I've been in a 3-way relationship; more than once, actually.  It worked between us until someone just grew in a different direction; so, we parted, amicably.  That's not to say it ALWAYS works; actually it works pretty rarely.  Like Nurodancer said in another comment, and like I agreed, there are certain circumstances it seems to work best in.
But that's a lifestyle outside of the chosen paradigm of Christianity that I've put my self into; even though I've proven it can work with the right mix, people, and maturity, it's outside the Christian model of one man, one woman.  And before you even ask, I support gay marriage.  I don't see it as a morality issue that I have any business trying to control; it's a civil rights issue.  The morality is between them and their God, not them and me and the court system.  So yes, I support the right of two gay people to marry if they choose; I, however, choose the Christian paradigm, and as such must follow the tenets of the faith.

#3  Yolanda, I could not agree more!  I'm positive God hates it.
Religion is rules lawyering; it's either following the rules until all life and fun is sucked from it, or it's used as a weapon to beat people over the head to make them "be like me"...neither represents any definition of the word "Freedom" as I understand it.  Neither one is based in life or love, two things Jesus stood for: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and the second is like the first, love your neighbor as yourself."  *crickets chirp*

Kinda sums it up, huh.

16 comments:

  1. That whole thing is both nebulous and selective all at the same time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kinda like your comment. If you were more specific, we could discuss it. Were you nebulous in order to prevent that?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not at all.

    #1 - What need drove you to religion? What I mean to ask, is how does your answer answer her question? How does your God provide anything any other (G/g)od(s)/((ess)(es)) can't?

    #2 - How can you support gay marriage when it is against a specific proscription? Did your mean to say tolerate? It reminds me of Penn saying he'd rather believe that people are worried enough about his soul to continue to evangelize him.

    #3 - Religion is indeed rule lawyering. Without religion there's no context or language for faith. It's the selective interpretation and implementation that are the problem. After 2,000 years an O/O/O being could pass on a field revision or something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #1 I wasn't driven to religion; I was led to God. And I answered her question; I felt the logical assumptions made by C.S. Lewis sufficiently convincing that if Jesus were Lord, that precluded other gods, and made Him the only logical choice. Also, assuming He is who He said He was, to NOT follow Him would be foolish.

      #2 No, and you should know better than to mince those words. To tolerate would imply that my opinion in some way matters; it does not. I SUPPORT the RIGHT to marriage, gay or not, as a civil rights issue.

      #3 Correct; this is why I'm not religious. I'm a Christian. I'm a follower of Christ. I actively seek out ways to undermine the rules lawyering aspect of religion, because religion is a straightjacket; faith in Christ is SUPPOSED to be freedom.

      Delete
    2. #1 - So your were logically directed to a fundamentally irrational decision?

      #2 - It's not mincing if I'm asking a question.

      #3 - Now who's mincing. Without religion, you'd have no faith. You'd have no language for it.

      I've heard the argument from a bunch of people about them not being religious. It's a specious assertion at best, and ridiculous. You are, by definition and logical necessity, religious.

      Delete
    3. #1 Irrational only from a mundane, atheist view. If one believes, from experience, in occult or spiritual forces, then receives sufficient logical assertions as to one Power being legit, then it's only logical to accept the assertions of that Power as also legit. How is that irrational?

      #2 Mincing, nitpick...either way, you're nuancing my choice of words; since when have you ever known me to be imprecise with word usage?

      #3 Nurodancer, as mentioned in another reply, hit the nail on the head with his explanation; he's exactly right. What should be a simple faith with a few simple teachings has ballooned and morphed into this huge, latticed structure, bloated and mired in "tradition" and unnecessary dogma. Christian means "Little Christ" or "Follower of Christ"; when you start getting into "Baptist", "Catholic", "Lutheran", "Pastafarian", etc, THEN you're getting religious, because at that point it's more about the practices than the faith.

      Delete
  4. When one claims to be non-religious, they are asking you not to lump them in with those members of their belief system who focus on dogma. They seek the truth within the belief even if that is counter to dogma. I myself am non religious but very spiritual, an explorer of various dogma, seeking the truth. I disagree with your assertion that one has to follow a specific dogma to have a conversation about faith. And it does not logically follow that to have faith is to be religious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See, Troubleshooter? Nurodancer gets it.

      Delete
    2. You're religious. What you want to convey doesn't change that. It's syntactical and logical necessity. If you don't like that, find another word. What you're doing by saying that you aren't religious is the same thing that people do when they say that atheism is a religion, just in the converse.

      You're in the same boat I am with hard atheists, I just don't avoid using the word atheist.

      It's a word game. You're a Christian, Christianity is a religion, thus you're religious.

      I don't recall saying these things,

      "I disagree with your assertion that one has to follow a specific dogma to have a conversation about faith. And it does not logically follow that to have faith is to be religious."

      Delete
    3. Faith is a necessary component of religion.

      You can't make supernatural claims without faith because there's no evidence to support the supernatural claims.

      And just a reminder, my atheism falls into the "I don't know and you don't either." category, not the "There's no such thing as God." category. The latter is is as wrong as religion in that it makes an unprovable assertion.

      Delete
    4. No, I have to say you're wrong; Christianity isn't a religion, it's a simple belief and following of Christ. "Baptist" is a Protestant religion; you're confusing faith with religion, and you CAN have one without the other. By using "religion" to refer to Christianity, it is YOU that are misusing words, my friend. Christianity is a faith, just like there is the Moslem faith, but there are Sunni religions, sects of the Moslem FAITH. There are flavors of Baptist religion, but they're parts of the Christian FAITH. While faith may be a component of religion, it is not the sum or the definition of it; that's like saying you're automatically a member of the NRA because you believe in their definition of the 2nd Amendment.

      Delete
  5. You can say it all you want.

    It doesn't change the fact that you're trying to distance yourself from elements of your religion with which you don't agree.

    You're dangerously close to donning a kilt there laddy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Troubleshooter, you seem to be evangelizing for YOUR religion, just as fiercely as any religious person I've heard. There is a vast difference between faith and religion, but perhaps you're so mired in your "lack of faith" that you can't see it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you James, thank you Troubleshooter, thank you Nurodancer. I am pondering your thoughts...

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1352703e-e1c7-11e1-91b1-000bcdcb8a73

    Sorry for the delay...

    My religion isn't, by definition.

    And my understanding of the differences between atheism and what constitutes religion, and what doesn't, is greater than you might think.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Perhaps what we all need to admit to is being adherents of "disorganized religion"? I am a religious person, myself, just not into church that much. I have found that, too many times in my past, the church busies itself getting in between me and God.

    Yeah... a disorganized religion. You know, something like, "Wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"?

    It ain't always easy being an independently minded ole cuss...

    From Dr. Frankenputer's Laboratory, Peace!

    ReplyDelete