THE IMPETUS -
Recently I was visiting a good friend of mine in a land far, far away. After an evening perfectly balanced between friends, fun, and copious amounts of libations, many of the guest had absconded to the shadows of the city in the hopes of thirty minutes of true love, or simply a concession to the unrelenting circadian rhythms within us all. It was then that I found myself in a small kitchen with two family sized bags of Doritos and another one of my good friends - Mr. X. I have chosen to call him Mr. X because I am not sure he wants his name published for all to see, and I have always wanted to use a clandestine name to enhance the effect of my stories. Now, it should be said that Mr. X had chosen a bag of original cheddar Doritos, while I, the more rebellious yet greatly accepted flavor of Cool Ranch (although this has no bearing on the story as a whole, I like comparing our disparate tastes in Doritos to our disparate religious views).
Although I cannot recall exactly how we got on the topic of religion, we did, and thus the journey began. Unfortunately, the specific details of the conversation elude me; however, what I do remember is rather than having a conversation on religious views, I was having to defend my religious affiliations against his singular postulate - how could I call myself a Christian when I did not follow the Bible literally? I tried to explain to him that fundamentalism was not at the root of all Christian's beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with picking and choosing what you deem literal, and what you determine to be a fictitious anecdotal donut with a creamy moral filling (as it is, after all. about defining INDIVIDUAL beliefs. It seemed his reading of the Bible at a young age led to fear a "God" that was described only as having wrath and vengeance. He has since chosen the path of Atheism, and that is perfectly fine with me; however, by trying to have me define my religious ethos so precisely, so as to have it fall definitively on one side of his 'judgement line' (i.e., right vs. wrong) or the other, he has single handedly undone any prior claim of being open-minded. Let me explain...
A truly open-minded person would not try to monopolize the talking points of a conversation in order to serve their factious needs by funneling the other party into a singular 'yes or no' situation. He or she would not choose to enter into a discussion with the sole intention of proving the other person wrong (at no gain to either party), but rather would seek to better understand the other person by asking specific questions in order to illuminate the core ethos of that person. This is not to say that disagreements of their own accord, work against the goal of mutual understanding; however, there is a stark difference between statements that begin with "I see where you are coming from; however, I would contend...", and "you're wrong because..." The subtle differences founded in ones intentions can make or break a potentially intellectually stimulating and enlightening conversation. That being said, Mr. X came into the conversation in the hope of either proving that I was not a "true Christian", or forcing me into conceding some facet of my beliefs (neither of which happened); ergo, he approached the conversation closed minded and I truly feel nothing was gained by either party because of it.
The Moral Of the Story...
- Preferring Cool Ranch Doritos is indicative of an open-minded, welcoming, and knowledge seeking personality, while Original Cheddar is indicative of a close-minded, accusatory, and pedantic personality. (actual results may vary depending on everything other than the Doritos).
FAITH...WHAT THE HELL IS IT?
After my conversation with Mr. X, I stumbled upon a book owned by another one of my friends...We'll call him Jake (because that's his name). The book was entitled "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins, and was essentially a manifesto arguing against the existence of God. It was the combination of the conversation and the book that led me to start trying to identify what exactly it was people like Mr. Dawkins, or Mr. X were trying to achieve by attempting to disprove a greater existence, and why the opposing sides could not seem to find a middle ground upon which to build mutual understanding. After much thought, I have come up with some of the major points of contention, responded to these issues using my beliefs as a guide, and tried to define a few concepts so as to help the overall process of communication. First, the definitions.
FAITH - I have decided that faith is a belief in something that not only does not require proof to thrive, but may actually strengthen when evidence surmounts against it.
CHRISTIANITY - A religious faith associated with a strong belief in the teachings of Jesus and the words of the Bible. There are many different variants of Christianity, with beliefs ranging from 100% certainty that every word in the Bible is fact (fundamentalism) to an appreciation for the values taught and themes found within the Bible and placing no association between the words found in it's text and fact.
SCIENCE - The use of methods and principles to establish a clearer picture of how the world, and all of its different nuances , works.
#1) How can one claim to be a Christian when he/she doesn't accept every word in the Bible as fact?
- As previously stated, Christianity presents itself in many different ways. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are more than 33,820 different Christian denominations. To further divided these denominations, there are more than twenty different Catholic Churches (Roman, Greek, Ruthenian, etc...). This extreme diversity within the label of Christianity is, in my opinion, due to an overall agreement among Christians that there is a larger force, 'God', playing a role in the workings of the universe; however, there are subtle differences among the varying denominations as to what role that is, or how best to celebrate 'Gods' presence. The same logic may be used to explain the separate churches within each of the denominations. Thus, I contend it is logical to reason that within each of the churches are many different individual souls/minds that have their own unique understanding of the Bible and, based on personal experiences and axioms, choose to live out there lives using the teachings of the particular church to which they belong as a guiding light and not a tethered leash.
#2) You claim to be an accepting religion; however, you will not allow someone to walk in off of the street and receive the Eucharist because they are not an official "member" of your faith.
- This one is a little more complicated for me as I have some part of my mind that agrees with the statement; however, through thinking about how to address it for this Blog, I have come to terms with this practice and will try to convey my reasoning through an anecdote. Suppose you are a passionate artist putting your life's energy into various different creations which you feel represent you. Another artist friend of yours asks if they could have one of your works to better understand your approach to art and to show others. You decided to give him what you consider to be your greatest piece for two reasons: he is a friend and you would like to give him a meaningful gift, and if your work is to be seen by others, you want to achieve the greatest first impression you can. Because this piece means so much to you, you feel it necessary to give a little background on the work (tell the story of how you came up with the concept, how much time and effort you put into it, and maybe what you hope others will see when viewing it) in order to avoid anyone taking for granted a gift which you hold so dear. It is the same with the Roman Catholic Church. When someone from another denomination or Church attends our ceremonies, while we welcome them with open arms, we are not willing to give up our greatest gift, the Eucharist, until they have had the chance to hear our story and tell us if they view it as we do. If so, it is shared openly, if not, we are simply not willing to part with something sacred to us just for a test ride. While slightly dictatorial, I hope my point is well received.
