Walled Hearts and Walled Religions

Many years ago when I was in undergraduate education as an adult, I wrote a paper for my"World Religions" course. In that paper, I wrote, "is a rose by any other name, just a sweet?" That question haunted me, but has come to have meaning to what I believe nowadays.

Is a rose by any other name, just as sweet? Yes, of course, it is. The word "rose" conjures up an image to those that have been exposed to roses and sometimes it can activate the sense of smell in our memories. But, what if someone had not known the flower by the name "rose"? If they smelled a rose, called a "chamelleon", would it smell the same? Yes! Would it be the same flower? Yes, even though it was called by a different name. The same goes for true faith and one's character.

My point in all of this "rambling" is this: is the "Christ figure" just as sweet by any other name? Is the Christ figure represented by other names, such as Gandhi, Mother Theresa, uncle Joe and aunt Harriet? Does the "image" of Christ have meaning besides the person of Jesus of Nazareth (if he is a historical person)? What is the Christ image? And does the Christ image have to be manifested in the same way as Jesus of Nazareth?

The Greek Fathers understood the image of god in man. They knew about representation within real time, not the "City of God" of St. Augustine. This is where all religions point beyond themselves to a world beyond our knowing. Some agnostics may find solace in idenifying with a community of faith as they understand the purpose of myth and myth-making. Others may find more solace in understanding their connectedness to sciences' "real reality" in this world. It really doesn't matter, as both types of agnostics will "do faith" in their own realms of influence. Both types have come to terms with faith as a real "unknown" and unknowable mystery about life in its complexity.

I named my paper "Walled Hearts and Walled Religions" because this is what I think hinders the "ideal" world, life and value. Walls bring definition, but do not bring resolution or reconciliation. Walls keep others out, while protecting one's understanding of oneself within comfortable zones of definitions, behaviors, and religious rites.

Today's world is torn because of these walls. Walls that hinder and resist. Walled hearts are not open to another's views. And walled ideas are not about academic or religious freedom. We are bound by the very definitions that we make. We enslave ourselves from our small-mindedness and our fears.

The reason I changed my major from sociology to religion and philosophy was because of an ethics course. That very ethics professor just recently died. I owe him a lot. I wrote a paper for that course about moral development and moral character. He told me at graduation that it was brillant. I found it hard to believe, but the more I have learned, the more I have come to understand that character is indeed the essence of life and it doesn't really matter about religion.

Moral behavior is more about attitude first and foremost, not behavior, as behavior is culturally bound. But, whenever moral behavior is defined by a tightly defined cultural understanding, it is a means of oppression and a hinderance to moral development. Ethics would not allow such "standards" to stand, as it is more important to protect human rights, than any cultural "ideal".

The "New Atheist" Intrigue

I just went to the American Atheist website. I did not know that many of the featured speakers in the upcoming atheist convention were part of the atheist's "cause" of furthering rational thought.
Because I have found their writings, speeches more than interesting, but challenging and enlarging, I am wondering about my ultimate commitment. I think my ultimate commitment is to reason, not the transcendent, or unknown. There are too many "theories" that are just not believable, when they are not verifiable. And supernaturalists do things that are irrational, thinking that they are benefitting some "higher cause" or "purpose". This I find ungrounded, except in "faith", which I do not respect. I respect those who have reason for what they think and do, not some baseless transcendent. And the demands before us nationally is daunting enough than to deal with the unknown and the unverifiable transcentdent.

I do not think that our free society should dismiss or limit the political voice of the religious, but that that voice should no be a domineering one, nor should the atheist's voice be the lone source of our nation's focus. A plurality of voices should be the focus of our nation.

Atheism and Community

Atheism has been viewed as anti-theism, which has meant traditionally, opposition to God. I find that atheism, though, are just supernaturalistic atheist, not anti-humanist! In fact, I think that atheist cease to truly be atheist when they form community. Community is about humans, who are made in God's image. Christians should be atheists, as humans should be the focus of religion, not God.

Conservative Christianity has traditionally dismissed atheists or "prayed" for their salvation and their turn to God. I think that Christians should understand that they worship a human model in Jesus of Nazareth. Christians should understand their history and understand how they came to believe what they believe. Otherwise, those who think they know light really can bring darkness.

Christians have identified themselves as a group in many ways and one of the ways has been to oppose humanism, as a secularization of belief or faith. Humanism has been understood as "secular" because man is fallen and needs to be redeemed to the spiritual realm where true light happens, etc. etc. This understanding is a gnostic faith that believes in a special revelation. There is no special revelation, But, this does not mean that "revelation does not happen in self reflection and personal growth. Personal growth, and self-understanding is about trasformation because it evaluates what one finds most important. No one else can determine that for you. It is a personal commitment of life and choice.

I find that Christian faith is struggling to define itself today when there is real honest evaluation of text, tradition, and revelation.

Am I the ONLY One?Social Construction and Determinism

Am I the only one that doesn't like to be determined? controlled? manipulated? "predestined"? I like choice.

Some social constructionists like to believe that they can create another in an image they want formed. But, can they? How do they know how a person will respond, or react? Do they know what "patterns" are in the brain that may "kick in" and hinder the result they desire?

Some believe, as I do, that the early Church formulated their theology because of the meaning that Jesus' life gave to them. Does this mean that our theology is framed within our own paradigms of understanding in experience? Agnosticism and atheism would come about because the person experiences tragedies that are inexplicable, bring incongruence, and cognitive dissonance. Attempts to resolve these incongruencies resolve themselves in agnosticism or atheism.

Atheist, Agnostic or What?

Yesterday, I listened to Dr. Bart Ehrman, professor of religion at UNC/Chapel Hill, speak on suffering. He had been an evangelical at one time, but is now agnostic. His views were interesting and freeing.

In June, when I started this blog, I had suggested that those who base their authority mainly on reason, but have not denied tradition are agnostics. Otherwise, reason alone will lead to atheism, as it rejects religion's role in human life. I believe this describes Dr. Ehrman. The atheist's agenda is to undermine any value in religion and undo all religious conviction and commitment. Even though Dr. Ehrman does not believe that religion's purpose serves as the only moral compass for man, he does say that the "new atheists" do not seem to have understanding of religion's "good".

Just recently, I read the summarization of a book "Border Lines" (Quadralateral Thoughts' side-bar recommended books). This author's theory is Jewish montheism leaves room for the development of Christian expression, as one of many expressions of faith.

I find this is an interesting concept, as I do believe that this is how man is made. Difference and uniqueness imprint us from our DNA to our fingerprints. This fact alone should underwrite the need for diversity of understanding and functioning of one's faith. Faith should wear no labels, really.

I think that if "Border Lines' is correct in its analysis, then, it also would underwrtie scholarship's understanding of religion and the different ways of understanding in the history of traditions, philosophy of religions, and the psychology of religion. These divisions represent different approaches from experience, tradition, and reason. I find that fascinating and liberating!

So, what would be the "correct" term for one that bases their faith on reason (philosophy of religion), agnostic mysticism; one who bases their understanding on experience (psychology of religion), an existentialist humanitarian; one who bases their understanding on tradition (history of religion), a social/political/cultural reformer....I know I am indentified with agnostic mysticism, but am grappling with the implications of the others...

Each one defines their faith on faith (agnostic mysticism), hope (existential humanitarian), and love (reformer)....and all are connected to the "real world" of the here and now....and is not defined by creed (religion's d0gmatics), or religion (labels of definitions based on dogmatics). it is an undefined faith in life itself, not a system, a culture, or group identity.