Is There a Doctrine in the House?
Let me start by saying that Michael Coren got me thinking today. He is filling in for Jim Richards this week on CFRB Newstalk 1010 between 8:00 and 11:00 pm in addition to his normal stint between 6:50 and 8:00. Some of his show today was dedicated to issues of the Christian faith and specifically the Catholic Church in light of the recent appointment of Pope Benedict XVI. At one point a caller made a point of stating that he was an Atheist (now, should Atheist be capitalised?) and Coren asked him to explain how he had come to be an Atheist. The caller was not able to explain his decision beyond it being a matter of belief, but it made me realise that while I have described myself as an Atheist in a previous post, I am, technically, an Agnostic. I could go back and change the word in the previous post, but that would be revisionist history which would be at odds with the Truth and I can not abide that. Instead, I offer this correction.
I will describe myself as an Agnostic because I can not discount the possibility that there is a greater intelligence at work in the Universe. I choose, however, to believe that such an intelligence is so far beyond the scope of our human minds at this point in our evolution that we are incapable of fathoming the reason or intent of such a force. Thus far, our efforts to define this force seem little more than vain anthropomorphism of such Truths as our primitive souls have been lucky enough to comprehend. I also think that organised religion has largely stunted the intellectual momentum of the general public by spoon-feeding an accepted perception to the faithful rather than encouraging free thought and development. I am not Catholic, but I am pretty certain that there is very little room for creativity in the Catechism.
Is religious education a waste of time? Well, no. To further add to the confusion, I must also state that in order to disagree with any argument, a person must understand the counterpoint to their own assertion. Theologians are more accepting, or at least tolerant, of divergent faiths than zealous believers because they have given measured consideration to their own religion and found that it stood up to scrutiny. I don't think that many people can or will make that distinction and fewer still are willing to make the effort to understand their own faith, let alone the faiths of other people. Then again, many are called, but few are chosen (Did you recognise Matthew 22:14? The Bible is just chock-full-o'-truths).
I believe that statement. I believe it as I believe fervently in much of the fundamental Truth of the Bible and the essential Truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The call to be a seeker after the Truth is made to all of humanity. Few are willing to take up the challenge.
I might believe in a God, I just don't believe in worship. A God that demands that kind of appreciation is as flawed as any human. God needs no ego. He transcends that nonsense. In Freudian terms, God is pure id, but where a person has an id that is concerned with the primitive, instinctive, animal aspects of our nature, God is all about creation, life, energy and light. God can not help but express His id through the existence of all things. He is existence. Why create an entire Universe from nothing? Presumably God had been the Everything in the Nothing and had caused there to be a Something from that Nothing that is now our Everything. And so, from the school of thought that brought you the question, "If God is all powerful, could He create a rock that was so large that He Himself could not move it?" comes the question, "If God was the Everything, could He create a Something so vast out of an incomprehensible Nothing that it could also contain Him?" While the concept of the Creation myth is common to every developed culture on Earth and as such is part of my evidence for a Universal (hey, doesn't Catholic mean universal?) Truth, I prefer to believe in a continuum. A Universe without beginning and without end where energies play against each other in a never-ending ballet of the forces of physics. No Creation. Just a sprawling forever that may or may not include an unknowable Architect.
Naturally the question of the nature of God is not one that will be answered in a weblog. The mysteries of Heaven confounded society before the development of language and will follow humanity into whatever future we may devise. I will pick up this train of thought with the notion of salvation and whether the quest to be saved is in and of itself, salvation.
Until then, I remain a screeching monkey; trembling in fear at distant lightning.
I will describe myself as an Agnostic because I can not discount the possibility that there is a greater intelligence at work in the Universe. I choose, however, to believe that such an intelligence is so far beyond the scope of our human minds at this point in our evolution that we are incapable of fathoming the reason or intent of such a force. Thus far, our efforts to define this force seem little more than vain anthropomorphism of such Truths as our primitive souls have been lucky enough to comprehend. I also think that organised religion has largely stunted the intellectual momentum of the general public by spoon-feeding an accepted perception to the faithful rather than encouraging free thought and development. I am not Catholic, but I am pretty certain that there is very little room for creativity in the Catechism.
Is religious education a waste of time? Well, no. To further add to the confusion, I must also state that in order to disagree with any argument, a person must understand the counterpoint to their own assertion. Theologians are more accepting, or at least tolerant, of divergent faiths than zealous believers because they have given measured consideration to their own religion and found that it stood up to scrutiny. I don't think that many people can or will make that distinction and fewer still are willing to make the effort to understand their own faith, let alone the faiths of other people. Then again, many are called, but few are chosen (Did you recognise Matthew 22:14? The Bible is just chock-full-o'-truths).
I believe that statement. I believe it as I believe fervently in much of the fundamental Truth of the Bible and the essential Truth of the teachings of Jesus Christ. The call to be a seeker after the Truth is made to all of humanity. Few are willing to take up the challenge.
I might believe in a God, I just don't believe in worship. A God that demands that kind of appreciation is as flawed as any human. God needs no ego. He transcends that nonsense. In Freudian terms, God is pure id, but where a person has an id that is concerned with the primitive, instinctive, animal aspects of our nature, God is all about creation, life, energy and light. God can not help but express His id through the existence of all things. He is existence. Why create an entire Universe from nothing? Presumably God had been the Everything in the Nothing and had caused there to be a Something from that Nothing that is now our Everything. And so, from the school of thought that brought you the question, "If God is all powerful, could He create a rock that was so large that He Himself could not move it?" comes the question, "If God was the Everything, could He create a Something so vast out of an incomprehensible Nothing that it could also contain Him?" While the concept of the Creation myth is common to every developed culture on Earth and as such is part of my evidence for a Universal (hey, doesn't Catholic mean universal?) Truth, I prefer to believe in a continuum. A Universe without beginning and without end where energies play against each other in a never-ending ballet of the forces of physics. No Creation. Just a sprawling forever that may or may not include an unknowable Architect.
Naturally the question of the nature of God is not one that will be answered in a weblog. The mysteries of Heaven confounded society before the development of language and will follow humanity into whatever future we may devise. I will pick up this train of thought with the notion of salvation and whether the quest to be saved is in and of itself, salvation.
Until then, I remain a screeching monkey; trembling in fear at distant lightning.
posted by The Ughman at 1:15 a.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home