Religion and me.
Feb. 24th, 2005 11:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lykomancerA friend-- you know who you are-- once commented that she was boggled that I could be happy going to seminary.
I am.
I have met such wonderful people (granted, 10,000 miles away from Northland-wonderful, but that's not a bad thing-- just a difference); I have, in the last two years, come to a more wholesome and realistic reevaluation Christianity and Christians based not off the ignoramuses who wouldn't know Christ if he wandered into church wearing a goat's wool robe, dusty sandals, and name badge proclaiming "HELLO, MY NAME IS: J-Dawg, your Messiah!", but based instead off of a more thorough understanding of 2,000 years of theology, church history, scientific documentary analysis, and personal detailed explanations of faith from people who are intelligent, willing to question their own beliefs, and constantly test what they are told against what is true in their experience.
No, I'm not converting.
I still see too many discrepancies and problems with Christianity to convert. However, it is a better story than I thought it was, and can be very useful.
Like all of the ancient great Mystery religions, Christianity became watered down so that the common people could understand it; though strong men eat meat, babes cannot handle it and need milk. Unfortunately for some of us, we crave a nice steak in a breast-obsessed culture-- it's easy to become angry when the only form of religion offered to you by society has had all the real power, magic, and mystery sucked out of it so that it won't confuse the simple-minded.
(In manuscript analysis of the New Testament, it is accepted that if a one text is simpler-- in word choice, language, or theology-- or contains extraneous explanations, that text has been "fixed" by the scribes. Complex theological points rarely make it though the editing process.)
It's kind of sad, really, that such potentially deep and meaningful religion has been ruined by the hoi polloi, common hate, easy outs and answer, and used as an excuse for just about every kind of persecution, intolerance, and hypocrisy. There are no modern Augustine of Hippos.
It has been proven that most people cannot fully renounce the religion of their childhood; it extremely rare for people to actually, fully convert.
I think of this a lot in relation to the antitheists.
Based off of the stem a- meaning "without" or "not" or even "away from" combined with theist, clearly from the Greek root theos, meaning god(s), an a-theist is, literally, without god. [Probably by choice.]
Applying this same logic to anti-theists: Anti- is also from a Greek root meaning "against" or "in opposition to". It would seem then that an anti-theist is, again literally, in opposition to god. [Probably also by choice.]
Great. And what did this little tangetically etymological meandering prove?
Prove? Probably nothing except that three weeks of Greek is, sometimes, actually useful.
However, it does suggest to me that an antitheist still has faith in god. You cannot be in opposition to or against something you don't believe exists.
It's kind of like paralepsis; if you say, "Well, I'm not going to mention how you own me money..." you already have said it by saying you won't say it.
Or like contrast; things exist in contrast to one another... how do you describe darkness without having light to set up as a foil? If there is no light, there is no dark either.
*pauses to struggle with the inadequacy of language*
Does that make sense?
[This wasn't meant as an attack, obviously; I was trying to wrap my mind around the differences, and this occurred to me. Is it incorrect, and if so, in what way?]
To be honest though, I am still happier in my Taoism class than my New Testament Texts in Contexts class, although if I were going to go into a Bible study field, I'd probably specialize-- like most female theologians-- on the New Testament. Actually, I'd prefer to specialize in non-canonical/Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, and non-canonical apocalypses/revelations, if I had to pick something Bible-based.
[Random quote--
Marilyn Salmon: "There are lots of apocalypses; lot's of 'em got written. We only have one. Why?"
Student: "'Cause they're depressing?"]
I don't know. Maybe this is what growing up is; not caring so much about the differences and looking instead for some common ground. I'm tried of disliking Christians just for being Christian. I'd rather dislike dumb Christians for being dumb and like all the rest of 'em.
Maybe it's just that I am actually applying my pluralism, my henotheism, and my universalism. (In other words, my belief that there are many ways to god that are all equally valid, my belief in one god without needed to assert IT is the only god, and my idea that everyone is saved no matter what they do or believe.)
Marilyn asked us if there was any way for monotheism to be anything other than intolerant, and I think there is, if people really want to be something other than intolerant.
I also think I've figured out more of my "call". *shudders* (I hate that terminology for some reason, but I'll use it because I have no other right now.)
Unitarian Universalism is a wonderful, open-minded, tolerant religion...but no one knows about us. We are so divergent and eclectic that we have problems putting on a united front for nearly everything. (Except gay marriage. We kick ass fighting for gay rights.) UU's need to...*gasp*...start proselytizing. We need to get out there and advertise. We need to have our theological, um, discussions out in public where people can hear us. We need to grab attention.
I think I can help do something about that.
Anyone wanna help me write/draw up Unitarian Universalist versions of Chicktracts? XD
I am.
I have met such wonderful people (granted, 10,000 miles away from Northland-wonderful, but that's not a bad thing-- just a difference); I have, in the last two years, come to a more wholesome and realistic reevaluation Christianity and Christians based not off the ignoramuses who wouldn't know Christ if he wandered into church wearing a goat's wool robe, dusty sandals, and name badge proclaiming "HELLO, MY NAME IS: J-Dawg, your Messiah!", but based instead off of a more thorough understanding of 2,000 years of theology, church history, scientific documentary analysis, and personal detailed explanations of faith from people who are intelligent, willing to question their own beliefs, and constantly test what they are told against what is true in their experience.
No, I'm not converting.
I still see too many discrepancies and problems with Christianity to convert. However, it is a better story than I thought it was, and can be very useful.
Like all of the ancient great Mystery religions, Christianity became watered down so that the common people could understand it; though strong men eat meat, babes cannot handle it and need milk. Unfortunately for some of us, we crave a nice steak in a breast-obsessed culture-- it's easy to become angry when the only form of religion offered to you by society has had all the real power, magic, and mystery sucked out of it so that it won't confuse the simple-minded.
(In manuscript analysis of the New Testament, it is accepted that if a one text is simpler-- in word choice, language, or theology-- or contains extraneous explanations, that text has been "fixed" by the scribes. Complex theological points rarely make it though the editing process.)
It's kind of sad, really, that such potentially deep and meaningful religion has been ruined by the hoi polloi, common hate, easy outs and answer, and used as an excuse for just about every kind of persecution, intolerance, and hypocrisy. There are no modern Augustine of Hippos.
It has been proven that most people cannot fully renounce the religion of their childhood; it extremely rare for people to actually, fully convert.
I think of this a lot in relation to the antitheists.
Based off of the stem a- meaning "without" or "not" or even "away from" combined with theist, clearly from the Greek root theos, meaning god(s), an a-theist is, literally, without god. [Probably by choice.]
Applying this same logic to anti-theists: Anti- is also from a Greek root meaning "against" or "in opposition to". It would seem then that an anti-theist is, again literally, in opposition to god. [Probably also by choice.]
Great. And what did this little tangetically etymological meandering prove?
Prove? Probably nothing except that three weeks of Greek is, sometimes, actually useful.
However, it does suggest to me that an antitheist still has faith in god. You cannot be in opposition to or against something you don't believe exists.
It's kind of like paralepsis; if you say, "Well, I'm not going to mention how you own me money..." you already have said it by saying you won't say it.
Or like contrast; things exist in contrast to one another... how do you describe darkness without having light to set up as a foil? If there is no light, there is no dark either.
*pauses to struggle with the inadequacy of language*
Does that make sense?
[This wasn't meant as an attack, obviously; I was trying to wrap my mind around the differences, and this occurred to me. Is it incorrect, and if so, in what way?]
To be honest though, I am still happier in my Taoism class than my New Testament Texts in Contexts class, although if I were going to go into a Bible study field, I'd probably specialize-- like most female theologians-- on the New Testament. Actually, I'd prefer to specialize in non-canonical/Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas, and non-canonical apocalypses/revelations, if I had to pick something Bible-based.
[Random quote--
Marilyn Salmon: "There are lots of apocalypses; lot's of 'em got written. We only have one. Why?"
Student: "'Cause they're depressing?"]
I don't know. Maybe this is what growing up is; not caring so much about the differences and looking instead for some common ground. I'm tried of disliking Christians just for being Christian. I'd rather dislike dumb Christians for being dumb and like all the rest of 'em.
Maybe it's just that I am actually applying my pluralism, my henotheism, and my universalism. (In other words, my belief that there are many ways to god that are all equally valid, my belief in one god without needed to assert IT is the only god, and my idea that everyone is saved no matter what they do or believe.)
Marilyn asked us if there was any way for monotheism to be anything other than intolerant, and I think there is, if people really want to be something other than intolerant.
I also think I've figured out more of my "call". *shudders* (I hate that terminology for some reason, but I'll use it because I have no other right now.)
Unitarian Universalism is a wonderful, open-minded, tolerant religion...but no one knows about us. We are so divergent and eclectic that we have problems putting on a united front for nearly everything. (Except gay marriage. We kick ass fighting for gay rights.) UU's need to...*gasp*...start proselytizing. We need to get out there and advertise. We need to have our theological, um, discussions out in public where people can hear us. We need to grab attention.
I think I can help do something about that.
Anyone wanna help me write/draw up Unitarian Universalist versions of Chicktracts? XD
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Nah, some of us just think it's bunk.
Date: 2005-02-24 02:36 pm (UTC)No, that's not what I was saying. I would never say anything so selfish and stupid. Unlike a lot of other people, I'm OK with you (plural) not believing in god, being contrary to god, believing in god but believing that IT's a real fuckhead, or anything else people can come up with. I am not trying to convert. I am not prostlytizing. I don't think you need to find religion.
Geez, Angela, I thought you knew me better than that!
What I was saying was, linguistically speaking, not believing in god is atheism, and that in order to be contrary to something (which implies a duality, or at least a contrasting foil), it has to exist in the first place. You can't really have antiracism if there is no such thing as racism, for example.
However... using "theism" as meaning "a belief in gods" rather than an Anglisized form of theos makes antitheism not "in opposition to god" but rather in the "opposition to the belief in god," which is, I think, a better definition for the word (unless, of course, you're the antichrist). Also, by that you are both an atheist and an antitheist. You don't believe in god, and are, in fact, totally opposed to the idea.
Also, the light/dark dualism is not a relic of Christian thinking because it is not, in fact, originally Christian, but is a relic of the Zoroastrian and Manichean traditions reenforced by Decarte.