06.05.07

Can’t Take It In

Posted in Lyrics, Music, Mystery, Spirituality at 10:52 pm by Kullervo

Can’t close my eyes
They’re wide awake
Ev’ry hair on my body
has got a thing for this place
Oh empty my heart
I’ve got to make room for this feeling
so much bigger than me

It couldn’t be any more beautiful - I can’t take it in.

Weightless in love…unraveling
For all that’s to come
and all that’s ever been
We’re back to the board
with every shade under the sun
Let’s make it a good one

It couldn’t be any more beautiful - I can’t take it in.

-Imogen Heap

There’s Something About Jesus

Posted in Christianity, Cosmology, God, Intuition, Jesus, Love, Mystery, Spirituality, Theology at 10:46 pm by Kullervo

Here’s the thing: I find Jesus compelling.

The things he taught, the way he taught them, the way he treated people- he was something special, and it makes “special” sound like a lame word.  There’s something about Jesus, something different.  Something big, and something important.  There is something about him that makes me want to find out as much about him as I can, and makes me want to try to be like him and follow the things he taught.

He seems significant.  And not just as a great moral teacher.  I don’t know what I belive about God and the universe and everything, but I believe that at the very least, Jesus was connected in a way that other people aren’t.  He was connected to whatever it is out there that makes us stare in wonder at the skies and realize how big the universe is.

It’s kind of hard to explain.  But he was radically inclusive, he preached counterintuitive things in a way that seems not counterintuitive at all, but like intuitive on a different level.  Superintuitive, maybe.  He taught that the Kingdom was at hand, and he told us how to live it.  They killed him for it, but even his death just proved him right.  He won by losing.

At the risk of sounding lame and trite, I’m not going to gomuch further than that.  I’m not going to claim to know truth or God or much of anything really.  All I know is that there is something magnetic and electric about Jesus Christ that I want to have more of. This is new, this is different, and I like this.

I don’t know about theology, or truth, or cosmology, or anything like that.  But I know I want to know Jesus Christ.

06.01.07

The Other Argument From Evil

Posted in Calvinism, Christianity, Conversion, Cosmology, Evil, Humanity, Metaphysics, Morality, Mystery, Paradox, Philosophy, Religion, Salvation, Science, Sex, War at 3:57 pm by Kullervo

Still thinking of reasons to believe…

Something hit me about a week ago, when watching the Passion of the Christ: people do really, really horrible things to each other.  The sick twisted stuff that people do to each other, the brutality, the dehumanization, the sadism, the torture, it blows the mind.  Why do people do such horrific things?

At the same time, I wonder if that isn’t a kind of evidence for God for me.  This isn’t a logical argument with premises and conclusions- I don’t even really want to go there right now.  It’s an intuitive thing.  Here goes-

Human beings are capable of unique evil.  We do so much that is purely motivated by malice, and we are capable of an kind of evil that you don’t see elsewhere in the natural world.  Some of the nasty crap we do can be explained as evolutionarily functional: war overresources, for example, or male promiscuity.  I’m not talking about that stuff.  I’m talking about genocide and systematic horror that we inflict on each other, the kind of stuff that isn’t really functional, so it doesn’t make sense, or rather, it doesn’t seem to have a natural explanation.

Nature isn’t malicious; it’s indifferent.  It’s not evil; it’s amoral.  But we can do things that are horrible to each other that go far beyond the harsh indifferent cruelty of nature.

And it’s not limited to the Hitlers and Pol Pots of the world, either.  Just think for a second; I’ll bet you can imagine some pretty horrible things that you could do to another person, if you put your mind to it.  Even if we’d never consider doing it, why can we even think of those things?

By contrast, almost all the good we seem to be able to do is either  1) evolutionarily functional (like parents sacrificing for their children, or pretty much anything good you do that has an element of self-interest or group-interest) or 2) only a matter of correcting bad stuff.  If I feed millions of starving people, for example, I’m not creating a positive good so much as I am merely correcting an evil.

It’s easy to think of horrible and nasty things you could to to hurt other people for no reason and no real benefit to you (and therefore not easy to explain by evolution or nature), but it’s hard to even think of positive good (something above and beyond just correcting something bad) that you can do that isn’t naturally explicable and evolutionarily functional.

To me, this makes me think a couple of things.  One, maybe there’s something to the idea that we’re fallen, broken people in a fallen, broken world that needs fixing.  And maybe unnatural evil means that there might be unnatural good.  It’s hard to even imagine what that kind of unnatural, positive good would look like (because of the T in the Tulip, maybe?), but if there can be malicious non-functional evil, why can’t there be pure good, righteousness, sanctification, holiness.  And if it’s not here in our world, then where is it?

Where did evil come from?  It’s not easily explainable from a naturalistic point of view.  Does that mean it comes from outside the naturalist model somewhere?  And if there is evil from outside, why not good?

05.29.07

The Lens Problem

Posted in Agnosticism, Christianity, Conversion, Cosmology, Doubt, Metaphysics, Music, Mystery, Perception, Philosophy, Post-modernism, Reality, Religion, Spirituality, Theology at 10:53 am by Kullervo

I talked about this before in another post, but I didn’t feel like I articulated what I was thinking as well as I would have liked, so I want to try it again.  Also, it’s still on my mind so I still want to talk about it.

I feel like I’m on the verge of believing, but I’m holding myself back because I am extremely conflicted.  I know I’ve been over probably a dozen problems that were “the thing” that kept me from believing, but this is the one that’s bothering me right now.

I’d like to believe, and I’d even like to be a Christian, but I’m uncomfortable with having to see the whole world and all of existence through the lens of Christianity.  Its what I was talking about before when I said I was reluctant to take on a worldview, but I don’t think that expressed what I meant to express very well.  I don’t want to have to interpret everything I experience and think about in terms of its relationship to Jesus Christ.  I just don’t know if I’m cut out for that, and I don’t see how I can be a Christian without putting on Christianity-colored glasses.

I don’t always want to see everything in that color, that’s all.  And I fear that if I’m always looking at things through a Christian lens, that my life will be poorer for it.  That life and existence will be less nuanced and less

Like I said before, I’ll be getting my head into a Christianity groove, and then I’ll hear some cosmic, mysterious Moody Blues song or something and Christianity will suddenly seem so small, provincial, limited, and limiting.  I feel like there’s so much mystery out there and I’m not sure that Christianity is a perfect fit.  Since it’s nit a perfect fit, you wind up having to cram the  universe into the Christianity shoebox, where either the universe or the box gets broken and warped in the process.

I don’t know how to articulate it better than that, so that will have to do.  I’m thinking about disabling comments on this post, though, because I’m afraid that what I’m trying to explain will once again be minimized, misunderstood, and dismissed.

05.27.07

Pentecost

Posted in Art, Bible, Christianity, Emerging Church, God, Music, Mystery, Mysticism, Poetry, Post-modernism, Spirituality, Truth at 2:16 pm by Kullervo

We watched this at church on Sunday, as kind of the prelude to the sermon. The lady who was speaking asked the congregation to say what they felt about it. One person said she thought is seemed ominous. I said it certainly was uncomfortable, but “ominous” isn’t the word I would necessarily use. It made me think of being on an almost out-of-control rollercoaster. The things of God are a little bit intense, and not everyday- they should leave us unsettled. Aslan is not a tame lion.

05.23.07

Fresh And Crispy; Bad Guys Are History

Posted in Agnosticism, Art, Christianity, Consciousness, Conversion, Deconversion, Doubt, God, Music, Mystery, Religion, Spirituality, Theology at 11:42 pm by Kullervo

Just when I think that I can do this, that I can believe, that I can even be a Christian, my mind does a 180º and runs sreaming in the other direction. I find that I can “be a Christian” and more importantly want to be a Christian as long as I am immersed in Christianity. When I’m reading the Bible, thinking about religion, reading theology, listening to Handel, etcetera, then I find myself okay with Christianity and believeing in Jesus. But then as soon as something outside the box happens- in this case it was hearing a song that in my opinion hits very close to the cosmic vein, whatever that is, I’m jolted out of my Christianity coccoon and I want to wad the whole thing up and throw it away.

This is what I’ve been talking about. It’s spiritual claustrophobia. It’s religious fear of commitment. At least, that’s what it might be.

It might also be that the reality, the true divine, the cosmic consciousness or whatever, is really so much bigger than we can even imagine, such that it makes our religions and philosophies look small and ridiculous. When I put on the blinders, I can go straight forward, but when the blinders slip, and I realize the incomprehensible hugeness of the universe and existence, then I can’t do it. I can’t be a Christian. Christianity is much too small. It makes me claustrophobic.

I envy the people who feel like they have a real relationship with Jesus Christ. Maybe it’s that personal relationship that allows them to be Christian and not feel so trapped, since their Christianity is not about religion so much as it is about spirituality. By that I mean that the rest of the peripherals don’t even matter since they’ve got a relationship withthe Great Jesus. The emphasis is totally inverted, and it’s outward-facing instead of inward-facing (I can’t explain what I man by that, but I know it sounds like something other than what I meant). There’s no claustrophobia because it’s not about a system or a worldview or anything. It’s about a relationship with a person, and they can go on adventures throughtout life and the universe together.

But I can;t seem to manage that, so I reach and grab at religion and I get a few straws but it’s not the right thing, not the real thing, and as soon as I realize it, I want to throw them away.

05.22.07

Why I Don’t Want To Believe: Spiritual Claustrophobia

Posted in Agnosticism, Art, Atheism, Bible, Book of Mormon, Chick Tracts, Christianity, Conversion, Cosmology, Faith, God, Metaphysics, Morality, Mormonism, Mystery, Mysticism, Mythology, Nature, Philosophy, Post-modernism, Religion, Science Fiction, Spirituality, Theology, Unitarian Universalism at 10:11 am by Kullervo

I’d be lying if I tried to continuously assert that faith issues and spiritual experience issues were the only things holding me back from committed belief in anything. There are major parts of me that are reluctant to decide for God or for Christ because I don’t want to decide for God or for Christ. Simply put, I have a religious/spiritual fear of commitment.

I’m not talking about the stereotype of the unbeliever who is unwilling to change his life, so he chooses atheism in order to live a life of immoral license. For me, the hard thing about being a Mormon was never the commandments. I’m not saying I never sinned, but I generally wanted to do the right thing, and I was generally successful in repenting of major wrongdoings and staying on the right track. The hard thing was never all of the rules. It was always intellectual.

What I’m trying to say is that Mormonism was so intellectually complete that it was stifling to me. There was no room for the unconventional, or the speculative. That may sound strange in light of rampant “Mormon folklore” and elders’ quorum-style speculation about Kolob, but I assert that it was/is nevertheless so. Sure, there was “room for speculation” in one sense, but it was always limited to certain narrowly defined directions, and even then you’re encouraged to focus on the essentials and warned of the consequences of straying too far out of bounds (just ask the September Six!).

I don’t really feel like I’m articulating this very well, and I’m sure that be failing to articulate it well, I’m inviting well-meaning Mormons to completely disassemble what I’m trying to say.

I like the idea that anything can be true. I like being able to read science fiction and wonder if that kind of thing will really happen someday (whereas the Second Coming of Christ sort of puts a damper on the voyages of the Starship Enterprise). I like entertaining possibilities. As much as religion appeals to me, uncertainty also appeals to me. Freedom to be as heretical as I please is a precious freedom.

I want to be able to wonder if - or even wish that - maybe some crazy thing is true without worrying that it is somehow beyond the walls of my religious/belief system and I need to repent. I want to be able to entertain any idea without feeling like I have to dismiss it for being unbiblical or unbookofmormonical. Or whatever.

I don’t like the idea of saying “I believe x is true” because it shuts down the possibility of a through w and y and z. To me, that is almost suffocating. I know I want spirituality, a spiritual path even, replete with practices and a way of life, but I don’t know if I am even really interested in a worldview. I don’t want to have to interpret everything I see through the lens of Mormonism, Christianity, or anything else for that matter. Maybe it’s the postmodernist in me that wants to be able to hit the buffet instead of ordering just one thing off the menu. I don’t know. Maybe this kind of thinking is intellectually dishonest of me, but if I am to be personally honest, I have to admit that it might be the biggest thing holding me back from belief of any kind.

Thinking about this, is sounds to me like I’m begging to be a Unitarian Universalist, but I have to admit that I’m not interested in the UU at all. I actually like traditional liturgical Christianity, and even Christian theology. And besides, like I said, I’m not reluctant about a spiritual path or well-defined spiritual practices, or even scriptures or many aspects of theology (by which I mean the philosophy of religion). It’s a stifling worldview that I’m spiritually claustrophobic about. I know it has a lot to do with gorwing up Mormon, but I also know it’s not an unjustified fear, because I see it in other belief systems, even more so than in Mormonism.

So one facet of my spiritual fear of commitment is this panicky spiritual claustrophobia that I don’t know how to deal with, or indeed if I even want to deal with it, and certainly I don’t want to have to deal with it.

05.21.07

How I Might Believe In God

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Christianity, Conversion, Cosmology, Doubt, Fundamentalism, God, Metaphysics, Mystery, Mysticism, Myth, Mythology, Neo-Paganism, Pantheism, Philosophy, Post-modernism, Religion, Science, Spirituality, Theology at 2:57 pm by Kullervo

I’m always thinking about religion, faith, and belief. At the moment I’m a provisional atheist, but I’m not excited about being a permanent member of the club. I may ultimately feel like I have no choice, but if I do, I’d just as soon be some kind of believer.

Anyway, here are some of the ideas I’m tossing around in my head.

I’ve been reading Joseph Campbell and thinking about the interaction between myth and the human psyche. I wonder if Myth is the process by which human beings process the unprocessable. There’s something out ther,e bigger than all of us, and to attempt to define it scientifically would probably utterly fail. It has to be tackled holistically, using all the disciplines and arts and sciences and philosophies that humanity has at its disposa, and even then we miss it completely. So maybe Myth is the way we deal with it. We conceptualize it in a way that we can wrap our minds around. We use Myth as metaphor for the deeper reality that we otherwise are completely incapable of communicating.

If that is the case, then theology is probably a lost cause- at least if we think that theology is somehow going to lead us to an ultimate truth. Narrative, on the other hand, becomes extremely important.

If that is the case, then to do something with this transcendant reality, humans need ot negage it in a way that is meaningful for them. Thus, different societies and cultures have different myths and religions based on those myths based on what resonates with their culture. For me, the most resonant Myth would be Christianity. Seen that way, I could envision myself believing in God and following Jesus Christ, but with the reservation that I knew full well that it was just the best way I know of how to get at the Ultimate Mystery of Existence.

I simply cannot believe in God, face value, as described by any one religion. And I feel like simply entertaining some vague notion of transcendant reality is not sufficient for anything approaching spiritual fulfillment. So if I am to believe in something, I need to find a vehicle for that belief, and keeping in mind the ultimate flaws in any human conception of the sacred/divine/spiritual is how I would avoid the pitfalls of dogmatism and fundamentalism and furthermore be able to feel intellectually honest with myself.

I realize that this sounds a lot like the liberal Christianity that I normally dismiss without another thought. I don’t know what to do about that except to say that it just might be the best I can do. I also wonder if this doesn’t sound awfully like Neopagan theology, except that I’ve decided to believe in Jesus instead of, I don’t know, Zeus or something.

Anyway, that’s what’s on my mind right now. I’m also trying to read Kierkegaard. From what I know about his approach, it sounds interesting and different, and maybe something I can get on board with. We’ll see.

05.20.07

Relationship Stuff

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Bible, Christianity, Clergy, Deism, Doubt, Emerging Church, God, Humanism, Mystery, Mysticism, Prayer, Religion, Spirituality, Theology at 6:43 pm by Kullervo

We went to church today, as usual.  Pastor Matthew talked about living in community, authentic community to be precise.  The subtext was definitely that the most important community for us was community with God, i.e., a relationship with the divine.

I’m still not sure what that means.  How do you have a relationship with someone you can’t see?  With someone you can talk at, but they never seem to respond?  I mean, I can read about Jesus, but that doesn’t put me in a relationship with him any more than reading about Alexander Hamilton puts me in a relationship.  Even if I’m this obsessive Hamiltonian scholar, I may feel like I know Hamilton, and I may know his life backwards and forwards, but it’s still a fairly one-sided affair.  Alexander Hamilton doesn’t really reciprocate.

A lot of people who I respect talk about having a relationship with the divine,  so I don’t dismiss it out of hand.  But when I pray, I don’t get answers, and I don’t believe I ever really have.  I don’t get that, either.  I mean, God is God, right?  If he wants to have a relationship, why doesn’t he engage a little bit.  Actually say something, you know?  And I don’t mean this subtle stuff, like a vague feeling of divine presence or “he spoke to me… through the Bible!”  I mean spoke.  If I can talk to god the same way that I can talk on the phone to my brother Racticas, why doesn’t God talk back the way my brother does?  Does he not have the ability?

I just don’t understand what people mean by having a relationship with God.  Don’t get me wrong- I think it sounds really nice.  I just am at a loss to what it actually means.

If God isn’t able to relate to me, or I am not able to relate to God, then we’re really talking about Deism.  And I don’t see the point to Deism.  Why believe, based on no affirmative evidence whatsoever, in a God that isn’t really interested in interacting with you?  You may as well be an open-minded humanist atheist, willing to accept that “there are more things in heaven and earth…” but assuming in general that there’s not such a thing as God, at least not in a way that’s particularly relevant to your day-to-day life.

To untangle that sentence, what difference would it make in my life, between Deism and atheism?  If there’s no functional difference, I may as well go with the preponderance of the evidence and assume atheism.

05.18.07

Mystery Writ Large

Posted in Agnosticism, Atheism, Consciousness, Cosmology, Doubt, God, Mystery, Mysticism, Mythology, Religion, Spirituality at 8:16 am by Kullervo

I might believe in something yet.  I’ve been reading Brian McLaren’s Finding Faith this week.  It’s good- very conversational, honest, and vulnerable, which seems to be McLaren’s usual style (as a side note, I got the impression from Pastor Matthew that Brian McLaren will be back at Cedar Ridge in the next couple of weeks to speak, and that will be cooler having actually read a book by him now).  anyway, it hasn;t magically transformed me or anything- I don;t know if it’s really that convincing, but at the same time I don;t know if it was meant to convince.  It has gotten me to rething some things, at least to mull them over in my mind, and I actually think that was McLaren’s point.

Anyway; I’m digressing.  I was up late reading the other night, when I started to think about the existence of the Divine.  It’s hard to explain this because it wasn’t a mystical experience per se- it was more of a dawning realization, but not a full realization.  I know that doesn;t make sense.  Maybe it was just an inkling.

Anyway, here it was: there’s something out there.  But it’s somethign so much bigger than we can imagine, something that makes our religions and mythologies and everything we can even imagine look insignificant.  Something that goes far beyond our silly conceptions.  There’s something out there that is Mystery.

I might even call it God.

Anyway, it was more if an inkling than anything else.  That’s all I’ve got.  At the same time, I have raging doubts.  I feel silly for even imagining that there’s a God out there (or right here), because in the end I simply feel skeptical.  Really, Kullervo? 

I don’t really think I want to be an atheist.  But I don’t want to believe in a fairy tale or a  made-up God of wishful thinking either.

« Older entries