The proof Satan exists is that he has deceived you into thinking he doesn’t exist.
QED
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Friday, May 27, 2011
What the Large Print Giveth; the Small Print Taketh Away
Obviously, one week (and a few thousand years) later—no Rapture has been forthcoming.
I smiled at all those “true believers” who smugly smacked down Rev. Camping’s predictions with the gloating scorn, “Ha! No one knows the hour of Jesus’ coming. Who was Harold Camping to proclaim such a thing?” Stabbing out Matthew 24:36 like a weapon.
Yet curiously, many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—believe the Rapture will occur. And many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—declare it could happen this very afternoon. And those same people—just like Harold Camping—urge you to “get right with God” or else you could be too late, ‘cause it could happen today. (Why is there is always a hint of gleeful revenge when we say, “No” as they look forward to showing US who was correct?)
Aren’t these same people committing the same error, albeit with slightly less precision? They know it could happen today. Yet, ironically, by such knowledge, seem to have eliminated today as a possibility, pursuant to their own Bible verse.
Has Jesus been waiting around for 2000 years for people to stop remembering he is coming back?
I wonder if he regrets putting that clause in the contract….
I smiled at all those “true believers” who smugly smacked down Rev. Camping’s predictions with the gloating scorn, “Ha! No one knows the hour of Jesus’ coming. Who was Harold Camping to proclaim such a thing?” Stabbing out Matthew 24:36 like a weapon.
Yet curiously, many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—believe the Rapture will occur. And many of those same people—just like Harold Camping—declare it could happen this very afternoon. And those same people—just like Harold Camping—urge you to “get right with God” or else you could be too late, ‘cause it could happen today. (Why is there is always a hint of gleeful revenge when we say, “No” as they look forward to showing US who was correct?)
Aren’t these same people committing the same error, albeit with slightly less precision? They know it could happen today. Yet, ironically, by such knowledge, seem to have eliminated today as a possibility, pursuant to their own Bible verse.
Has Jesus been waiting around for 2000 years for people to stop remembering he is coming back?
I wonder if he regrets putting that clause in the contract….
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Ripple Effect
The United States was developed under an interesting, mutli-faceted balancing act. Not only the famous Checks-and-Balance within the three branches of the Federal Government, but balancing individual states sovereignty while maintaining the country’s unity.
One such concern was to have states recognize other state’s judgments and decrees, thus the framers included the Full Faith and Credit Clause within the United States Constitution—each State must give “full faith and credit” to the other States’ public acts, records and Judicial proceedings.
This has been so fully implemented; we hardly think anything of it. We don’t stop at the Ohio border to get a new Driver’s license, registration on our vehicle or insurance. We understand our Michigan License is valid in any of the other 49 States. Even if we may not meet the requirements of the other states to have a Driver’s license!
Part of my work includes “domesticating Judgments”—filing and enforcing judgments from other States against Michigan residents. Whether the rights or benefits under that judgment would be available in Michigan is irrelevant—if the judgment is valid under Oregon Law, we domesticate it here and enforce it just as if Oregon Law was in effect on the Judgment.
So everyone was happy enforcing other State’s decrees (with few hiccups) until…
Same Sex Marriage.
See, we even recognized marriages from other States. Even through Michigan does not have Common Law Marriage—if someone was married in such a fashion elsewhere—we recognized them as married here. If a person did not meet the age requirement here, but did where they were married—they were still just as married.
Anyone who has moved from one state to another knows they did not have to re-perform a marriage ceremony under the new State’s requirements. The new State recognized the old State’s marriage decree.
But this would mean…if two fellows were married in Massachusetts…under the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause…Michigan would have to recognize the marriage! Once one state had same sex marriage—all the states would!
Panicking, U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act indicating, in spite of the U.S. Constitution, no state would have to recognize the same sex marriage of another. Thus avoiding the perceived issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been too timid to take up the problem whether the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution.
Occasionally problems will go away if ignored. This is not one of them. If your ankle hurts for a few hours after running—you can probably ignore it. After a few weeks—time to get medical attention.
The problem of recognizing same sex marriage will not go away. It will not be ignored.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sasser, it is not that simple. States ARE allowed to define (through their people and representatives) the institution of marriage. But States are part of a Union. Which operates under the United States Constitution. Which clearly states, regardless how an individual State defines marriage—it must give full faith and credit to other States’ legally instituted marriage.
Now States such as Texas are wrestling with whether they can divorce such couples—even if they can’t get married in Texas. What about same sex couples who adopt children, move to Texas, and then divorce?
We are infamous for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring issues. Ironically, while ignoring them, lives move on, and people search for solutions in the legal system. When the legal system (that CANNOT ignore the problem) does provide a solution, half the populace (the ones ignoring the problem until that very moment) cry out, “Activist Judges!”
Here, as there are conflicting opinions, we probably could get both halves to make the same battle cry.
It is time this is brought to head. Tell your friends, “I am for/against gay marriage. And here is why.” Tell your congresspeople. Tell it in your votes.
This state of limbo, where the legal system is left to wrestling out solutions will not last.
While I give a nod to President Obama’s no longer utilizing the argument the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional (while he still enforces its implementation), I want it overturned. Trashed. Either repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (unlikely given the current make-up.)
One such concern was to have states recognize other state’s judgments and decrees, thus the framers included the Full Faith and Credit Clause within the United States Constitution—each State must give “full faith and credit” to the other States’ public acts, records and Judicial proceedings.
This has been so fully implemented; we hardly think anything of it. We don’t stop at the Ohio border to get a new Driver’s license, registration on our vehicle or insurance. We understand our Michigan License is valid in any of the other 49 States. Even if we may not meet the requirements of the other states to have a Driver’s license!
Part of my work includes “domesticating Judgments”—filing and enforcing judgments from other States against Michigan residents. Whether the rights or benefits under that judgment would be available in Michigan is irrelevant—if the judgment is valid under Oregon Law, we domesticate it here and enforce it just as if Oregon Law was in effect on the Judgment.
So everyone was happy enforcing other State’s decrees (with few hiccups) until…
Same Sex Marriage.
See, we even recognized marriages from other States. Even through Michigan does not have Common Law Marriage—if someone was married in such a fashion elsewhere—we recognized them as married here. If a person did not meet the age requirement here, but did where they were married—they were still just as married.
Anyone who has moved from one state to another knows they did not have to re-perform a marriage ceremony under the new State’s requirements. The new State recognized the old State’s marriage decree.
But this would mean…if two fellows were married in Massachusetts…under the Full, Faith, and Credit Clause…Michigan would have to recognize the marriage! Once one state had same sex marriage—all the states would!
Panicking, U.S. Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act indicating, in spite of the U.S. Constitution, no state would have to recognize the same sex marriage of another. Thus avoiding the perceived issue.
The U.S. Supreme Court has been too timid to take up the problem whether the Defense of Marriage Act violates the Constitution.
Occasionally problems will go away if ignored. This is not one of them. If your ankle hurts for a few hours after running—you can probably ignore it. After a few weeks—time to get medical attention.
The problem of recognizing same sex marriage will not go away. It will not be ignored.
’The question of how a state defines the institution of marriage must be decided by the people and their representatives, not activist judges,’ said Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Institute.Texas Supreme Court may decide conflicting Same Sex Divorce Cases.
Unfortunately for Mr. Sasser, it is not that simple. States ARE allowed to define (through their people and representatives) the institution of marriage. But States are part of a Union. Which operates under the United States Constitution. Which clearly states, regardless how an individual State defines marriage—it must give full faith and credit to other States’ legally instituted marriage.
Now States such as Texas are wrestling with whether they can divorce such couples—even if they can’t get married in Texas. What about same sex couples who adopt children, move to Texas, and then divorce?
We are infamous for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring issues. Ironically, while ignoring them, lives move on, and people search for solutions in the legal system. When the legal system (that CANNOT ignore the problem) does provide a solution, half the populace (the ones ignoring the problem until that very moment) cry out, “Activist Judges!”
Here, as there are conflicting opinions, we probably could get both halves to make the same battle cry.
It is time this is brought to head. Tell your friends, “I am for/against gay marriage. And here is why.” Tell your congresspeople. Tell it in your votes.
This state of limbo, where the legal system is left to wrestling out solutions will not last.
While I give a nod to President Obama’s no longer utilizing the argument the Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional (while he still enforces its implementation), I want it overturned. Trashed. Either repealed or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (unlikely given the current make-up.)
Friday, May 13, 2011
Journey’s Beginning
Apparently Blogger Ate Yesterday's post. Which was:
Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.
And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…
I don’t care.
(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)
I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.
It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!
And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”
Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.
Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.
Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?
Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?
If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)
In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.
And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.
Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….
…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.
Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.
Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.
Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.
I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.
But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.
I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.
And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.
Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.
I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.
Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.
And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…
I don’t care.
(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)
I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.
It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!
And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”
Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.
Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.
Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?
Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?
If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)
In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.
And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.
Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….
…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.
Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.
Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.
Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.
I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.
But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.
I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.
And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.
Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.
I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Journey Beginning
Last month, I was reading Dr. Dale Allison’s Constructing Jesus--another learned treatise explaining a scholar’s conclusions what we can or cannot know regarding Jesus.
And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…
I don’t care.
(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)
I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.
It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!
And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”
Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.
Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.
Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?
Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?
If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)
In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.
And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.
Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….
…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.
Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.
Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.
Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.
I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.
But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.
I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.
And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.
Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.
I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.
And in the middle of a re-read paragraph, it struck me…
I don’t care.
(Don’t blame Dr. Allison—this work is as fine as any other. Makes some good points, and qualifies what we cannot know.)
I found myself having to forcibly re-engage (with reluctance) each time I picked up the book. Not because of the writing style, or the method of argumentation; I realized I am no longer interested in the topic itself.
It seems each author desires to paint Jesus in some light—and not just any old light, but something slightly “new” and “different” and captivating to the recipients. He was eschatological! He was philosophical! He was Jewish! He didn’t exist!
And with each approach, the scholars triumphantly extol a “new” revelation to the readers—the Gospel of Thomas holds the “true Jesus.” The Gospels give hints as to their eyewitness underpinning. Paul didn’t know Jesus. The Gospel of John was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Mark was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.” The Gospel of Matthew was first—look to it for the “real Jesus.”
Anywhere from inspecting each Greek word as if it dripped from Heaven itself, utterly packed with wholesome “trueness,” to looking at the general gist to looking at none of it at all! I think if we gathered every word some scholar held to be “true” when it comes to Jesus, it would include every word written in the first two centuries. And if we excluded every word some other scholar held to be false, we would have nothing left.
Take your pick—the piles are plentiful for the taking.
Then, even amongst those who agree on the excluded/included words, we are left with interpretation. Was he the Son of God? The Messiah? A traveling Rabbi? Did he preach love, hate, justice, mercy, all and none? Should we follow the Law? Or have we triumphed over it?
Would Jesus vote for Gay Marriage?
If Jesus called out certain Religious leaders, as he did the Pharisees, who would it be? (Having heard the polemic raised time and time again, I can answer confidently what every “True Christian” would reply: “Not me!”)
In the end, most people create the Jesus they want. Utilizing (and dismissing) whatever texts and/or interpretations are necessary to get there.
And my life is so full right now. I am running more than I ever have before (deciding for some inexplicable reason I will do a half-marathon this fall.) My son is in two (2) soccer teams and track, guaranteeing a practice and/or game every day. (Not to mention my own soccer.) My daughter continues to need assistance with schoolwork. My house enjoys creating work with drippy faucets, leaky roofs or peeling paint.
Adding on spring time projects outside, a family that would like to spend a little time together, an interest in a charitable project and friends who are inviting….
…just no time to care about what sandals the “true Jesus” would have worn. Or whether Nazareth existed enough to allow him to be from there at the time.
Equally my reasons to study the topic are waning. Arguing with apologists has become tedious. Sure, at one time it was fun, to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of argumentation. Never to convince the apologist, of course. They will staunchly hold to their belief even when their claims have blown up so completely the ashes will have nothing to do with them.
Always for the lurker. Always to let the non-talkative watcher know the tricks being pulled, the strawmen being created, the errors ignored.
Now the apologists come here no more. I can manage a comment or two on their sites and blogs, but then I am ignored. A new topic quickly brought up to bury the lingering questions that need not be addressed if not seen.
I ache for people struggling with their beliefs—verging on deconversion. Yet I find, even with my empathy, so little to say. I realize (having been there) they desperately desire to maintain some theism; some faith in a higher being. I have no words to encourage that hope. (I AM an atheist after all.) I hope they find truth. And hey, if they find a great argument for God, I hope they share it.
But how can I, a non-believer, in good conscience say, “Gee, I really hope Christianity in some form, or theism in another form work out for you”? So under the adage, “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all” I either maintain silence or attempt to convey my empathy without compromising what I am convinced is true.
I understand I should up-in-arms over the Christian invasion into the politics of America. Somehow I doubt my blog has changed enough minds to see Gay Marriage legalized more than it was before.
And finally, the people I am chumming with don’t talk about Christianity; they don’t swim in it. Frankly, I don’t know (and don’t care) what their particular religious beliefs are. Without feeding the idea—the idea dies.
Where do I go from here? Anywhere I want! The world is wide open. I still find the topic interesting enough to lurk on my own, so I review my blogroll as need be.
I originally titled this blog entry “Journey’s End.” Now written, I see that as completely incorrect and have changed the title to the more appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
