A Lapse In Good Judgment …

All it takes is a single, innocent lapse in hubris for the thought, “My theology could be wrong”, to creep in. Absolute disaster ensues when asking which others may be right. And hearing the reasons for each variant of Christianity only makes things worse; for you have gained understanding. But the utter gaffe comes next, realizing that belief has been made the center of Christianity, of salvation, of atonement.

Suddenly, as much as it pains but still for the lapse in hubris and in light of a vaporous centrality through understanding, a solution comes to mind! What if we find center by saying what is fundamental to Christianity is what all Christians agree on?

Three things become apparent. First is that all Christians believe Christ atones. Second is that no Christian collectively agrees on what atonement really means, because no Christian can agree on exactly what we’re being saved from, what divider between God and man Christ has removed, or how Christ atones in any case. These two things cancel each other out, leaving only a final agreement; the only possible thing which remains to call “fundamental” or “central” to Christianity is … well … to follow Jesus as exemplar in being human, to do as he did.

In a final but thankfully fleeting moment of lucidity, you realize all other Christian beliefs are only central to tradition and community.

But that was all a fleeting lapse, thank God. Of course everyone else is wrong about Jesus but me! What was I thinking after all! Silly me.

Advertisements
Tagged ,

3 thoughts on “A Lapse In Good Judgment …

  1. Steven Hoyt says:

    “can’t do simple math” (i’ll blame my phone. LOL)

  2. campeador says:

    Steven, I don’t see the problem. Here’s my take on the matter:

    1. We humans don’t (and cannot) ‘understand’ the ‘Creation’.
    2. We prefer fantastical, as opposed to simpler, explanations to our ‘mysteries’.
    3. Humanity , several thousand years ago, was, existentially speaking, ‘sucking gutter water’.
    4. Since our then “prophets” couldn’t understand why, they posited (see # 2) that we “had fallen from some previous state of grace”.
    5. This presupposed some offense on our part which caused God to angrily withdraw His grace.
    6. But God, they said, mercifully left open the possibility of future ‘atonement’, or even a ‘redeemer’.
    7. Humans, of course, invested the figure of said ‘redeemer’ with any number of ‘qualities’, none of which were universally agreed upon. This gave birth to ‘new world religions’, mortally at war with the ‘old’ religion – and with each other!
    8. As ‘we’ couldn’t leave well enough alone, new ‘qualities’ were invented for the ‘redeemer’, all of which were, of course, “articles of faith”, i.e., strictly required for ‘salvation’. New – and even more toxic – ‘schisms’ developed, and the ‘new’ religions -Christianity included- engaged in bloody, centuries-old ‘civil’ wars.
    9. As the religious ‘authorities’ are responsible for promoting and ‘waging’ such ‘civil’ wars, and are the chief beneficiaries of the effects of the ‘non-sense’ which they themselves promulgate, one can hardly look to them for ‘clarity’ and ‘truth’.
    10. These ‘authorities’, far from being discredited for their crimes against truth and social well-being, claim for themselves – and are given (by the dummies) – the power to define ‘divine truth’ and to excommunicate and anathematize any and all they so wish. Often, these anathemas involve matters of life and death.
    11. All of which would be laughable, if it were not so dire in its consequences.

    An alternate scenario:

    1. God, for ‘reasons’ not ‘knowable’ to mankind:
    a. Created ‘Matter’ (‘The Mother’), with all Its wonderful attributes.
    b. Over ‘Time’, ‘Matter’ ‘resulted in’ Life, Consciousness, Intelligence, Etc.
    c. Intelligent “Matter’ looked at itself, wondered and speculated as to ‘Meaning’ and the ‘Maker’.
    d. Matter’s ‘idea’ of ‘The Maker’ (God) evolved, along with Matter itself.
    e. Matter made many mistakes, but intuited a ‘Central Idea’ towards which it gravitated and whose ‘Truth’ it approached asymptotically, yet never quite reached, as Matter cannot fully ‘know’ its Maker.
    f. Matter, having learned humility, accepted its ‘not knowing’ and ‘settled down’ to living out its purpose – as given to it by God.
    g. No one was killed, or made to suffer, over competing ‘versions’ of the ‘Maker’.
    h. ‘Matter’ was conscious of happiness, peace and fulfillment. It thanked God.

    I have no doubt as to which scenario best ‘honors’ God’s nature.

    I also have no doubt that my ‘preferred’ scenario would have got me killed at various points in history (the Inquisition), and in the present, in many geographical locations (Northern Syria, Western Iraq).

    Just saying’.

    “Stay thirsty (for knowledge), my friend!”

    • Steven Hoyt says:

      very well put! the problem here is only that some folks can do some very simple math, as it were, that should follow exactly your sets of commentary. and, that’s just a damn shame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: