wandering thesis October 23, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, bible, christian, church, nature, religion, scripture, struggle.Tags: axial age, christianity, God, guru nanak, interfaith, lauryn hill, religion, universalism
add a comment
I like something that Professor Lindahl said the other day. The jist was that polytheistic peoples are pretty good about accepting the God of a monotheistic tradition because they have like 104 gods and are like, “Cool, now we have 105.” But the monotheists are like, “Yeah but you have to give up your other gods.” And the polytheists say, “Yeah, but then we’d only have 1.”
“The more that we express, the farther it extends.”–Guru Nanak, on attempts to describe God.
Mystic understandings of deities are similar, no matter from which tradition they come. This universality of separately growing, isolated traditions implies Truth to me. God would speak to all people, right? If God would be opening her/himself to all peoples, not just to those who have access to scripture or leaders, perhaps this is how God did it. The differences represent the mistranslation of man. The universal morals consistent in Humanity are a reflection of God’s Will. No stealing, no hurting, compassion… (remember the axial age? Check out the consistency, man).
This is also consistent with the idea that we are all created in God’s image. If the Holy Spirit is in us, if God gives us the ability to understand right and wrong, shouldn’t we trust this Truth more than any other and acknowledge it as God’s Will?
“How then to be true?” Guru Nanak asked. “How do we break the wall of lies? By following the Will.” The Will created, determines history. It is responsible for all things. We each sing praise in different ways. “Preaching and preaching leads nowhere.”
I believe in Christ, but I think more important than my belief in God is my belief in Jesus’ teachings and my understanding of God’s Will. I read the gospels and understand– I see that same Truth that’s present in the waves of the ocean and in the silence of the forest, but how can I be dogmatic about a text that is subject to human error, that is ambiguous, that spoke to a world that is entirely different from today, but to a Humanity whose core is still essentially the same? Jesus was forgiving; Jesus was caring; Jesus rebelled against ritual– senselessly abiding to tradition and rules when logic and the Humanity within us tell us to be compassionate… Jesus healed on the Sabbath. We cannot be defying God if we are acting out of compassion, Love, and/or forgiveness.
Mahayana Buddhism argues that the Buddha gave each person what they needed to reach enlightenment, regardless of an empirical truth to his teachings. He was not concerned with truth or reality, he was concerned with helping people find enlightenment. Doctrines are the boats we use to cross the river, but carrying the boat around on shore once you have crossed over is stupidity. We should never be attached to the doctrines, to the rituals, or to the rules. These are means that can help us achieve the goals set before us. Doctrines and rituals are absurd if there is no meaning behind them. They are expressions of meaning, but can become their own meaning and distort the original intent. Saying the Lord’s Prayer is only useful if you understand and feel why Jesus wanted us to pray this way. Once we forget the morals behind the teachings, behind the tradition and doctrines, they become secular.
The fundamentalists are secular. Their spirituality is a perversion of Truth, is founded in the rules and literal meaning of translations. This is stupidity.
“I get out. I get out of all your boxes, I get out.” –Lauryn Hill
How can we claim dogmatic knowledge about that which transcends the human mind? If God is beyond, pervasive, and eternal, how can we contain God in the boxes of doctrine? If God is in everything, God is in the sinner, God is in the rapist, God is in the dirt, God is in the water, and God is in the air. Who are we to destroy what is created in God’s image? Meh.
I don’t know if this makes sense to anyone but me, but yeah. I love the world, I love people, and I see God in everything. So if you’re reading this, I love you even if you don’t understand why or what the heck I’m talking about. You’re beautiful.
PIA August 19, 2008
Posted by relsdork in christian, church, religion.Tags: ccsm, christian, church, congregationalism, ihn, interfaith, interfaith housing network, peninsula interfaith action, pia, ucc, united church of christ
add a comment
Yesterday morning, I met with a woman from PIA (Peninsula Interfaith Action) to talk about my church, social justice, and the elements of my religious and community experience that are important to me. We talked about school, seminary, my church, and the efforts my community intends to engage in soon.
A woman from my church gave her my number because I always volunteer for IHN (Interfaith Housing Network)… in fact, my church is hosting the shelter this week and I’ll be working it both Friday and Saturday nights.
Apparently, PIA is planning a retreat in September or October that would allow members of the participating congregations to come together and discuss what aspects of policy and justice we want to be involved in and then how we can incorporate the needs and desires of our fellow congregants in the process… it’ll probably involve many coffee meetings with people to understand what they want to see in their church and community, but of course I love doing church and justice related things, so I am totally open to having such coffee dates with people
respectful disagreement July 15, 2008
Posted by relsdork in God, christian, church, religion.Tags: catholicism, garden, God, interfaith, religion, respect
add a comment
While we could go into the ethics of spending money on things like that garden at St. Raymond’s, I think it’s fair to say that Americans (especially in urban and suburban areas) need a bit more nature in their worship. I know I do. I’m particularly forest deprived right now. Not the point.
In that garden, it occurred to me how decidedly beautiful the vocation of “priest” is.
That little garden on the grounds of a Catholic church was certainly built and is certainly maintained by Catholics. They appreciate that garden as much as my protestant self.
It’s so easy to see myself as different from Catholics, to be angered by the positions they take and the theologies they claim. I’ll admit that I argued with a Catholic priest in front of a classroom full of students. A lot of what Roman Catholicism does bothers me… It angers me how wealthy the Catholic Church is. Their positions on certain issues are backwards and often hinder equality and justice. They haven’t done enough about pedophilia in their clergy. They produce an unhealthy amount of “bitter ex-Catholics” who harbor biases and misconceptions about religion.
Yet what is a priest doing? The same thing as me, essentially. He finds peace in that garden and seeks to love God the best way he knows how.
That’s why interfaith work is important. It’s important to understand that we are all trying to live and love God the best way we know how. We may have different ideas about how we are to do that, but I want my endeavor to be respected and want to respect others’. I aim to be vocal about those things I disagree about, but also respectful of someone’s love for their faith.
We can certainly be angry with religions, but it’s important to love their members and understand their good intentions.
