I notice as I debate conflicting ideas either with a friend, or not so much friend, or just ponder other takes on issues or my own takes, I come to a realization that all ideas collapse at some point. Essentially, no idea is infinite, linear, or even fully functional within all but strict artificial parameters, at least within the limits of my mind. I can poke Titanic sized holes in almost any idea proffered. Every argument I play against ‘their’ argument can be played against my beliefs, or most anyway. Now, my ideas have an origin which I believe to be God, ‘their’ ideas, should ‘they’ check, are at best from men (though some are rather carnal or animal based). I won’t negate even the carnal based origins as they are a part of our experience if a mistake to take as either the goal or sum of it. Without God, carnal reality is it.
What it comes down to is faith. Oddly, though I understand I have a faith, and though I understand this faith is nothing if not flimsy to an atheist as an example, I can’t help but know that ‘their’ beliefs are based completely on faith in spite of ‘their’ reluctance to even believe ‘they’ have faith. I am not sure why one cannot admit that one could never prove, let alone outright know, even a tiny fraction of the science one has been taught (dogma). Basically this means that what ‘they’ have been taught is accepted on faith and as such is no more substantial to me than religion is to ‘them’.
So, while I open the door to conversation, ‘they’ shut the door to communication, even personal realization. While I look for and at proof and proofs, ‘they’ close 'their' eyes to my sources of wisdom. While I fail to uphold my faith, then realign, then fail, then realign, in a never ending yet self-aware fashion aiming at an objective ideal, I see ‘them’ fail and write it off as subjectively irrelevant or by a blanket assumption that there are no wrong answers (except, that is, for the answers I offer, or more to point, God offers).
The Lutheran Pastor of my confirmation classes Told me he saw me as continuing my religious education. Right and wrong... I continued to learn what I could... just not at a "formal place of theological instruction" (Would be too cool to attend the Seminary in Gettysburg). May need to look into something...
ReplyDeleteWhich Lutheran? While growing up, I was Missouri Synod, for a while. It, to me, was closer. But... no. Something was missing. Same with Presby, Methodist, and some others.
ReplyDeleteBetter to dig, question, doubt, ask, and read though, than not. Doesn't have to be formal.
After digging, beating things up, praying, joining, leaving, and more, I became catholic. They, mostly, don't want me. And I don't want to be catholic. I... just... for my purposes, don't have a choice.
Many of the born catholics don't... seem to like true believers? Many of them take it as... a... thing. Something to do that they have always done. But, don't really... think it is special? Or to be taken literally or seriously? Something. I am not welcome, for my... seriousness. If too, that I question things that are supposed to not be questioned? And... am different... in... many ways.
A non-queer Jesuit? Something. Bah. Yes, I... get in trouble everywhere I go. But, then... what did Christ say He came here to do? Among many other things? Rend father from son, brother from brother, daughter from mother, and etc, or thereabouts.
I don't even like to be some part of the fulfillment of that. But... so be it.
Oh, if you are more technical, from the nuke perspective? The catholic catechism is an excellent place to start. It covers everything, and offers reasoning. If... you can dig through it.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to debate it, that's a good start. Don't believe in some catholic dogma? Fine, then find, in the bible and church traditions why not. Of course... you're debating two thousand years of concentrated efforts by genius level believers. But... it's... doable. I still have some... issues.
Now, to be fair, I had already mostly come to catholicism by the time I read it the first time. And, had read the new testament... three times by then? King James olde timey. But, in reading the catechism, I started reading the old testament. Have now read that three times, and the new testament seven times. Though, the last three have been the douay rheims, 1899 version. One other was some other version... the newer catholic main bible... which I pretty much reject at this point.
However, it is an excellent starting point. Oh, and as to rejected books, by Luther and others? Those have been proven legit by the Dead Sea Scrolls... so... you can add those back in. I do notice churches which should, now, know better and add them, and their meanings back, refuse. Why... is that? Hmm... *grumps*
Yup, Missouri Synod.
ReplyDeleteAlways avid reader until... you ever been too drunk to crack a book at bedtime, for YEARS?
I'm reading again.
I suspected? Hoped even. Never le minde.
ReplyDeleteDrunk? No? Dead, or... thereabout? Yes. I do understand. Reading is, currently, and for a decade or so now, has been a futile exercise of brutally pounding my head into a wall of everything and nothing.