![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmerThe reason for my conversion has, at it's base, a concept of 'truth', especially regarding to what a thing "is".
My breaks with mainstream Christianity was in having troubles with trying to express the problem with "names" versus what a thing really is.
For example: people would tell me that a person couldn't obtain salvation without "accepting the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross".
The trouble is, what does it mean to "accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross"? Even if I granted that it was necessary (and I didn't, but was willing to grant it to put forth my argument), it was incredibly hard to explain that there was a question about "what it means".
If the key to salvation was to accept that "You must be a good person, and there is a moral imperative against all theft", then Andrew Thief, who consciously and freely chooses to steal, can't be saved, no matter how often he stands up in church and pronounces agreement that one must be a good person (and not break any moral imperatives), and not steal.
He *SAID* that, but he hasn't accepted it.
Plus, what does it mean to "accept a sacrifice"? You can theorize what it is supposed to mean, but unless you're claiming divine inspiration, you can't be sure that your theory matches what God intended the first writer of the phrase to think.
People say "you have to say you accept it...", but just like A. Thief above, that doesn't mean anything. You can lie.
Okay, people will say, "but saying you accept it is necessary, if not sufficient"... but there's even a parable about that... a father orders his two sons to work in the field; one says "No way!", but relents and goes to work in the field, and the other says "sure, no prob", but doesn't. The former, not the latter, did what his father wanted, or so Jesus says, and I find myself in perfect agreement.
The words can't matter. It's the deeds that the words are supposed to command that have to matter. Because if the words point to truth, what they're pointing to is still more true.
This is what I mean when I say "what a thing is", and "truth".
A person who tries to do what is right, and who would lay down his or her life to save others, has more "belief" in, and "acceptance" for, Jesus dying on the cross than a person who merely says that he, or she, accepts the sacrifice. Trying to do what's right, and being willing to sacrifice for what is right, is more "real" than words that merely say those things.
That whole concept extends for me. A person who tries to do what's right, just because it's the right thing to do, but has never so much as heard the Gospels, has more belief in what God, and Jesus, actually are, than a person who can recite the Gospels by heart, has been baptized, and decided that this means they're saved.
What is good, and right, can't be tied down to something as clumsy as words, which have subtly different meanings for everyone. What is good, and right, just *IS*. And the person who seeks what is good and right, believes in all that is good, and right... and that means a truer belief in God, and Jesus, than can be wrapped up by thinking of the Gospels as historical facts.
(Just as a side note: I'm not running down "belief in biblical historical accuracy"; I'm saying "it's not necessary, nor sufficient, to make a person 'good'" Maybe it's independent, maybe there's a correlation; I won't even try to guess. But a person can be truly 'good' with or without it.)
(As a side note: I define God as "good"; that's God's singular defining characteristic in my theological world. He might also be as-close-as-can-be to omnipotent, or omniscient (I think "all wise", not "all knowing"), but that's not what makes him worthy of love, 'worship', and emulation. So belief in "good" *IS* belief in what makes God God.)
Well, earlier this year, I had a rather unsettling situation come up. Someone pointed out that the 16th chapter of the Gospel According to Mark declares that a person is saved, if any only if they believe in the news that the apostles had to spread.
Just today, I saw a footnote declaring that the most reliable manuscripts do not include that portion, but it is in the bible, and it is generally accepted as doctrine.
"Christian" is a word used by people to mean something. If I used that word to mean "what I believe in", after seeing that passage, I feel that I would actually be giving people more misleading information than good information. To say "I am a Christian" would lead people to think things that are more in line with how the average person uses the word, and when I'm willing to say "But the Gospel is misleading in that passage!", I think saying I'm Christian would paint a misleading image in their mind. "Belief" means, to too many people, stating that you believe, not acting as if you belief, and some people don't even realize you can believe something and not even have words for it. ("We are not certain who discovered water, but we are fairly sure it wasn't a fish", if you understand what I mean.)
So, in that sense, I'm a convert, from Christianity to Wicca. (And I'm probably a Wiccan heretic already, if such a thing is possible :-) ) It's the path I need, since it will require me to throw away the trappings of the old religion more completely than simply saying "but I'm different", and I'm already a little bit familiar with it, enough to know I'm not going to be chased away from the religion itself (though maybe from a few groups/covens/etc.).
But in another sense, I feel like a person who was trying to relax through meditation deciding to start trying to relax through exercise. The goal is the same, but the appearance and methodology is different. And, who knows, someday such a person might meditate while exercising, and do better than the sum of both done alone.
My breaks with mainstream Christianity was in having troubles with trying to express the problem with "names" versus what a thing really is.
For example: people would tell me that a person couldn't obtain salvation without "accepting the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross".
The trouble is, what does it mean to "accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross"? Even if I granted that it was necessary (and I didn't, but was willing to grant it to put forth my argument), it was incredibly hard to explain that there was a question about "what it means".
If the key to salvation was to accept that "You must be a good person, and there is a moral imperative against all theft", then Andrew Thief, who consciously and freely chooses to steal, can't be saved, no matter how often he stands up in church and pronounces agreement that one must be a good person (and not break any moral imperatives), and not steal.
He *SAID* that, but he hasn't accepted it.
Plus, what does it mean to "accept a sacrifice"? You can theorize what it is supposed to mean, but unless you're claiming divine inspiration, you can't be sure that your theory matches what God intended the first writer of the phrase to think.
People say "you have to say you accept it...", but just like A. Thief above, that doesn't mean anything. You can lie.
Okay, people will say, "but saying you accept it is necessary, if not sufficient"... but there's even a parable about that... a father orders his two sons to work in the field; one says "No way!", but relents and goes to work in the field, and the other says "sure, no prob", but doesn't. The former, not the latter, did what his father wanted, or so Jesus says, and I find myself in perfect agreement.
The words can't matter. It's the deeds that the words are supposed to command that have to matter. Because if the words point to truth, what they're pointing to is still more true.
This is what I mean when I say "what a thing is", and "truth".
A person who tries to do what is right, and who would lay down his or her life to save others, has more "belief" in, and "acceptance" for, Jesus dying on the cross than a person who merely says that he, or she, accepts the sacrifice. Trying to do what's right, and being willing to sacrifice for what is right, is more "real" than words that merely say those things.
That whole concept extends for me. A person who tries to do what's right, just because it's the right thing to do, but has never so much as heard the Gospels, has more belief in what God, and Jesus, actually are, than a person who can recite the Gospels by heart, has been baptized, and decided that this means they're saved.
What is good, and right, can't be tied down to something as clumsy as words, which have subtly different meanings for everyone. What is good, and right, just *IS*. And the person who seeks what is good and right, believes in all that is good, and right... and that means a truer belief in God, and Jesus, than can be wrapped up by thinking of the Gospels as historical facts.
(Just as a side note: I'm not running down "belief in biblical historical accuracy"; I'm saying "it's not necessary, nor sufficient, to make a person 'good'" Maybe it's independent, maybe there's a correlation; I won't even try to guess. But a person can be truly 'good' with or without it.)
(As a side note: I define God as "good"; that's God's singular defining characteristic in my theological world. He might also be as-close-as-can-be to omnipotent, or omniscient (I think "all wise", not "all knowing"), but that's not what makes him worthy of love, 'worship', and emulation. So belief in "good" *IS* belief in what makes God God.)
Well, earlier this year, I had a rather unsettling situation come up. Someone pointed out that the 16th chapter of the Gospel According to Mark declares that a person is saved, if any only if they believe in the news that the apostles had to spread.
Just today, I saw a footnote declaring that the most reliable manuscripts do not include that portion, but it is in the bible, and it is generally accepted as doctrine.
"Christian" is a word used by people to mean something. If I used that word to mean "what I believe in", after seeing that passage, I feel that I would actually be giving people more misleading information than good information. To say "I am a Christian" would lead people to think things that are more in line with how the average person uses the word, and when I'm willing to say "But the Gospel is misleading in that passage!", I think saying I'm Christian would paint a misleading image in their mind. "Belief" means, to too many people, stating that you believe, not acting as if you belief, and some people don't even realize you can believe something and not even have words for it. ("We are not certain who discovered water, but we are fairly sure it wasn't a fish", if you understand what I mean.)
So, in that sense, I'm a convert, from Christianity to Wicca. (And I'm probably a Wiccan heretic already, if such a thing is possible :-) ) It's the path I need, since it will require me to throw away the trappings of the old religion more completely than simply saying "but I'm different", and I'm already a little bit familiar with it, enough to know I'm not going to be chased away from the religion itself (though maybe from a few groups/covens/etc.).
But in another sense, I feel like a person who was trying to relax through meditation deciding to start trying to relax through exercise. The goal is the same, but the appearance and methodology is different. And, who knows, someday such a person might meditate while exercising, and do better than the sum of both done alone.
