i'm not in my right mind, and i probably shouldn't post this. but we'll see.
my mind feels like every horrible thing i've ever known coming back. i don't know if these thoughts are foolish hopelessness or just realism. the things i want the most will most likely at best be only shadows of the fullness for which i long; the things i miss the most will never come back at all. some of those who long to know me wish for mutuality i do not and cannot possess, and it forces my hand, clutching a knife, unless i want to fake my way through encounters. i feel like one stuck forever in the middle space between things, hopeless of ever reaching one side or another. relationships are seasonal at best, and only tastes to whet my appetite before the season changes. sometimes i think it would be better to live as a hermit, or at least with as few connections as possible--less to lose. i've posted a lot of this before. maybe i should just post links to those ones instead of filling up more space with repeated words.
i say all this knowing full well that i have no place at all to complain about anything, and i hate that this is here.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
acceptance speech
i've come to the conclusion that simply "accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior" is not enough. not for me. not anymore. i'm not even sure it ever was.
"heresy!"
possibly. but here's what i'm thinking. accepting is what you do if someone invites you to a party, or to a hangout, or to be their friend on Facebook. or if someone wants to sit at your lunch table. or if someone apologizes to you. it's a response to an intentional move.
now initially, in the context of Christianity, this makes perfect sense. i don't think anyone would argue that God becoming human and coming down into His creation to claim their mistakes and wrongs as his own (dying and resurrecting himself in the process)--all for the purpose of establishing a relationship--is a very intentional move.
i know this. but what if i weren't raised Christian? what if i were raised Mormon, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or something else? would i be as certain of those things? those people sure are!
ok, let's look at a little metaphor here, so neither of us loses our train of thought. i am currently in the process of shopping around a bit for car insurance. now, i don't know the first thing about car insurance. so i have a few options:
if i'm honest, i find myself using all three of these when i make this decision. now for the practical side of the metaphor, which i'm sure hasn't escaped anyone reading this.
observation and speculation tell me that most people choose option 1: beliefs based on upbringing. this might be true even if people do not realize that they are doing it. i can make an educated decision and choose State Farm, knowing from second-hand experience that they have quality policies and great customer service, even if they are more expensive than some other companies. and then i can say, "hey! that's true! i am satisfied!" from a religious standpoint, this might be what i've done up through now. (to clarify: i still chose it. but my choice was heavily influenced by trusted upbringing, rather than research and comparison.)
for the sake of the metaphor, we won't go into option 2 too much. it involves peer pressure (metaphorically) which i refuse to validate as a good main reason to make important decisions. people do that, and it can be helpful support in making decisions, but as i like to be an independent thinker, that's all i'll say about this for now.
option 3 is the only one that is at all objective, which is why i like it. i can look at [what seem to be] the facts and then make my decision based on my predicted outcome. and if i don't like the outcome, i can change my mind.
one crucial problem with this analogy (besides the fact that i'm not trying to find the least expensive--yet still quality--option) is that car insurance companies basically all offer the same thing, while religions may not.
i say "may not" rather than "don't" 1) because i only speak from one perspective, and 2) because i know very little about non-Christian religions, so i don't even know what their beliefs and lifestyles are like.
so if i don't know about any other religions besides Christianity (besides the fact that they exist), then how can i know i've really chosen to be a Christian? if i've only ever viewed one choice, then how can i say that i've chosen it?
to give background: i've been a Christian pretty much my whole life. i've heard and experienced things that make me convinced that this is the truth, or, in Christianese, the Truth. (truth is not relative. people have different beliefs about what is true, but ultimately, exactly one set of events actually happened.) to be honest, i'm not experiencing a time of doubt in my faith at this point.
but it's occurring to me that perhaps that's a problem. maybe i've done too much accepting of what is true, and not enough investigating of what other people believe is true. i am absolutely convinced of the truth of my beliefs. but so is a faithful Mormon, or a faithful Buddhist, or a faithful Muslim, or even a faithful atheist. shouldn't i at least give God the benefit of choosing Him over other religions, rather than just accepting Him by default because His truth is the only one i've ever known?
another problem with my analogy is that insurance companies don't generally make an intentional effort to invite you personally to be a part of their program. God does. i don't know about any other religions, but i get the impression that religion is generally a thing that is supposed to be spread. so many invitations, but only one Truth. this is why it has to be a choice.
through this point, i've used the words "truth" and "choice." obviously, you don't get to choose what is true. only what you believe about it. i don't really know as i make my choice whether State Farm or Geico will actually be a better insurance provider for me. (this is where option 2 comes in handy sometimes, if i already have gathered information.) but i still have to choose one. in the religious realm, this is called "faith"--assurance of hope and certainty of the unseen.
perhaps the nuances in this post aren't all quite correct. i definitely don't claim to have a full grasp of this (nor do i doubt my own salvation/faith, to be frank), but it seems that something as foundational to the Christian faith as the choice (or acceptance) of it is worth exploring.
"heresy!"
possibly. but here's what i'm thinking. accepting is what you do if someone invites you to a party, or to a hangout, or to be their friend on Facebook. or if someone wants to sit at your lunch table. or if someone apologizes to you. it's a response to an intentional move.
now initially, in the context of Christianity, this makes perfect sense. i don't think anyone would argue that God becoming human and coming down into His creation to claim their mistakes and wrongs as his own (dying and resurrecting himself in the process)--all for the purpose of establishing a relationship--is a very intentional move.
i know this. but what if i weren't raised Christian? what if i were raised Mormon, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or something else? would i be as certain of those things? those people sure are!
ok, let's look at a little metaphor here, so neither of us loses our train of thought. i am currently in the process of shopping around a bit for car insurance. now, i don't know the first thing about car insurance. so i have a few options:
- i can go with State Farm because my parents have it, and have always been satisfied with it.
- i can ask my friends/family about their experiences with other companies, then choose a company based on popular opinion or recommendation.
- i can research what each company claims to provide, compare them, and decide a company and a policy based on what sacrifices i'm willing to make and what i am certain i need. oh, and hope that those companies are telling the truth about their customer service.
if i'm honest, i find myself using all three of these when i make this decision. now for the practical side of the metaphor, which i'm sure hasn't escaped anyone reading this.
observation and speculation tell me that most people choose option 1: beliefs based on upbringing. this might be true even if people do not realize that they are doing it. i can make an educated decision and choose State Farm, knowing from second-hand experience that they have quality policies and great customer service, even if they are more expensive than some other companies. and then i can say, "hey! that's true! i am satisfied!" from a religious standpoint, this might be what i've done up through now. (to clarify: i still chose it. but my choice was heavily influenced by trusted upbringing, rather than research and comparison.)
for the sake of the metaphor, we won't go into option 2 too much. it involves peer pressure (metaphorically) which i refuse to validate as a good main reason to make important decisions. people do that, and it can be helpful support in making decisions, but as i like to be an independent thinker, that's all i'll say about this for now.
option 3 is the only one that is at all objective, which is why i like it. i can look at [what seem to be] the facts and then make my decision based on my predicted outcome. and if i don't like the outcome, i can change my mind.
one crucial problem with this analogy (besides the fact that i'm not trying to find the least expensive--yet still quality--option) is that car insurance companies basically all offer the same thing, while religions may not.
i say "may not" rather than "don't" 1) because i only speak from one perspective, and 2) because i know very little about non-Christian religions, so i don't even know what their beliefs and lifestyles are like.
so if i don't know about any other religions besides Christianity (besides the fact that they exist), then how can i know i've really chosen to be a Christian? if i've only ever viewed one choice, then how can i say that i've chosen it?
to give background: i've been a Christian pretty much my whole life. i've heard and experienced things that make me convinced that this is the truth, or, in Christianese, the Truth. (truth is not relative. people have different beliefs about what is true, but ultimately, exactly one set of events actually happened.) to be honest, i'm not experiencing a time of doubt in my faith at this point.
but it's occurring to me that perhaps that's a problem. maybe i've done too much accepting of what is true, and not enough investigating of what other people believe is true. i am absolutely convinced of the truth of my beliefs. but so is a faithful Mormon, or a faithful Buddhist, or a faithful Muslim, or even a faithful atheist. shouldn't i at least give God the benefit of choosing Him over other religions, rather than just accepting Him by default because His truth is the only one i've ever known?
another problem with my analogy is that insurance companies don't generally make an intentional effort to invite you personally to be a part of their program. God does. i don't know about any other religions, but i get the impression that religion is generally a thing that is supposed to be spread. so many invitations, but only one Truth. this is why it has to be a choice.
through this point, i've used the words "truth" and "choice." obviously, you don't get to choose what is true. only what you believe about it. i don't really know as i make my choice whether State Farm or Geico will actually be a better insurance provider for me. (this is where option 2 comes in handy sometimes, if i already have gathered information.) but i still have to choose one. in the religious realm, this is called "faith"--assurance of hope and certainty of the unseen.
perhaps the nuances in this post aren't all quite correct. i definitely don't claim to have a full grasp of this (nor do i doubt my own salvation/faith, to be frank), but it seems that something as foundational to the Christian faith as the choice (or acceptance) of it is worth exploring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)