Francis Berger's Blog, page 13
December 16, 2024
What I'm Repenting at the Moment
Better if you don't ask...
Griping About Liberalism and the Modern World
…while willingly doing virtually everything liberalism and the modern world command you to do, and doing it all unrepentantly, of course.
You could also add immensely benefitting from, enriching yourself through, and spiritually aligning yourself with liberalism and the modern world, but why complicate things?
The thing that matters most is that you’re not liberal or modern.
No, not you.
You hate liberalism and modernism as much as those damned Luther-worshipping Protestants hate the pope.
Oh, if only you had a time machine. Better yet, a glorious, global inquisition!
You'd set the world right, goshdarnit, because you're not liberal or modern.
Well, kudos to you, illiberal, unmodern soul!
Now, get back to your incessant griping…
...unrepentantly, of course!
You could also add immensely benefitting from, enriching yourself through, and spiritually aligning yourself with liberalism and the modern world, but why complicate things?
The thing that matters most is that you’re not liberal or modern.
No, not you.
You hate liberalism and modernism as much as those damned Luther-worshipping Protestants hate the pope.
Oh, if only you had a time machine. Better yet, a glorious, global inquisition!
You'd set the world right, goshdarnit, because you're not liberal or modern.
Well, kudos to you, illiberal, unmodern soul!
Now, get back to your incessant griping…
...unrepentantly, of course!
December 15, 2024
many are called, but few pick up
many are called, but few pick up
The aphorism above—from Laeth’s latest installment of small talk—reminded me of a post I had written a few years back concerning God’s apparent unresponsiveness. I still stand by what I expressed in that post:
Yet perhaps there is a reason for God's seeming unresponsiveness - a reason that has everything to do with co-respondence. By co-respondence, I am not referring to an exchange of letters, but rather to the notion that perhaps God's seeming unresponsiveness to us has a great deal to do with our unresponsiveness to Him.
I cannot believe God has ceased communicating with us. What I can believe is the notion that perhaps our communications with God - those tried and true, good, solid Christian methods of communication that served so well in earlier times - have become inadequate and insufficient in the here and now.
By the same token, our adherence to these tried and true methods of communication might very well be making us deaf and blind to God's communication. Simply put, perhaps God does not appear to be responding to us because we are not properly responding to Him.
In other words, I believe that God communicates with every one of us consistently but most of us are unreceptive to the signals—communication—he transmits. Or, as Laeth puts it, many are called, but few pick up.
In that post on unresponsiveness, I posited that our lack of response to God’s communication may lie in an overreliance on tried-and-true, conventional methods of communicating with God.
I believe God is our loving father, and that he desires what is best for his children. Like all loving fathers, God wants his children to grow up and mature. This entails different approaches to and different levels of communication.
God has taken this step forward; we, in turn, have not. Put another way, God is trying to talk to us like adults, but we continue to talk and listen to him like adolescents (and fairly apathetic adolescents at that).
God will respond to us once we understand how we should begin responding to him. Part of responding to him as adults must contain an element of understanding our role as co-creators.
According to Berdyaev, the next step in Christianity involves not only Man discovering himself in God, but also God discovering Himself in Man. This type of discovery necessitates a new, unprecedented form of co-respondence.
It includes viewing God from an entirely new perspective - not as some distant, autocratic ruler one must obsequiously and blindly tremble before and obey, but as a relatable friend and partner one can love and work cooperatively with, in the same manner as an adult son or daughter can love and work cooperatively with a loving parent.
Some might regard referring to God as a relatable friend and partner as a denigration of God; the culminating pipedream of human illusion saturated in syrupy human emotions and intoxicated by erroneous notions of God as existing in the same category of being as us.
Yet the same criticism can be directed to human descriptions of God as a largely unknowable, impassible, distant monarch who exists in a different category of being altogether.
Laeth’s aphorism also contains two unspoken questions. The first is, why is God calling?
How one perceives, frames, interprets, and understands that question hinges entirely on one’s consciousness of God; and how one frames, interprets, and understands God.
If we believe the Christian God is an omnigod, then this belief will ultimately determine the possible reasons for God’s call, though I suspect the reasons for the call would be rather limited in scope because, at the end of the day, the omnigod already knows everything and doesn’t need us.
However, what if we consider the unthinkable and unspeakable and ponder whether God needs us? Traditional/conventional Christianity vehemently denies that God needs man. The mere act of suggesting that God might need man for anything is not only heresy but an automatic demotion of God because it suggests that the divine possesses some sort of lack, deficiency, or incompleteness.
Such concerns seem to be rooted in the potential devaluation of God’s power. If God needs us for anything, then he is not all-powerful and not ultimate. And if he is not all-powerful and ultimate, then he is not God.
I sense this sort of focus reveals far more about the believer than it reveals about God. I suppose the problem lies in the definition of need. Do wealthy, self-sufficient parents need communcative relationships with their adult children to live, survive, or be wealthy and powerful? In the strictest sense, probably not. Does this lack of need increase or decrease their wealth or power in any way? Again, probably not. However, would it be entirely correct to say that such wealthy, self-sufficient parents do not really need their adult children?
This brings us to the matter of love. Do the wealthy, self-sufficient parents mentioned above really need the love of their adult children? Once again, in the strictest sense, probably not, but yet again, would it be entirely accurate to claim that this sort of love between parents and their adult children is not needed, at least in the sense of being optimal and desirable? Wouldn’t the wealthy, self-sufficient parents be better off if their adult children picked up the calls?
I’m not sure if the analogy above communicates what I am attempting to express when it comes to the matter of God needing us, but it’s a start.
Okay, but what about Creation?
Here is where we get back to basic assumptions and first principles. If we believe God created us from nothing, and that he is the only being capable of such creation, then our potential contributions to creation are severely narrowed and limited. On top of that, we can confidently proclaim that God does not need us for anything at all.
However, if we consider the possibility that God did not create us from nothing, then the question of God’s potential “needs” becomes a little more open-ended.
Each of us can contribute something to Creation that no one else can -- and, yes, "no one else" means not even God.
The statement above comes via a comment Wm Jas Tychonievich left on a post in which I touched upon the idea of God’s needs.
I include it here to connect it to the idea of God’s call and communication and to address the second silent question in Laeth's aphorism about many being called -- why do only a few pick up?
Perhaps God’s call has everything to do with our potential contributions to Creation; contributions God cannot manifest on his own, which ties into the concept of co-creation.
God is not responding to us because our communications with him are not creative. God will respond to us fully the moment we begin creatively communicating with Him.
Once we learn to do that, we become co-creators. Our creative spirituality will become enhanced through God, and God's creative spirituality will become enhanced through us.
The new co-respondence involves a fortifying and enhancement of both God and Man, a fortification and enhancement that can occur only when we understand our creative role.
Spiritual creativity requires initiative from us. This initiative must derive from freedom.
According to William Arkle, once Man shows this initiative, he escapes all determinism and becomes actively creative - to the point that God can no longer accurately predict what Man will do. This is the essence of co-creation. This is the essence of the latent spiritual power within us - a latent spiritual power demonstrated fully by Christ.
I should include that the essence of co-creation also includes love; or, more precisely, the essence of co-creation is love.
Does God need co-creation from us in the strictest sense? Maybe not.
All the same, would it be inaccurate to say that God does not desire such co-creation and, perhaps, that the very motive behind Creation is to nurture such co-creative relationships?
And maybe that’s the basis of God’s call and communication in this time and place. Shouldn’t we at least consider being open to the possibility of such a call?
And if we happen to hear it, wouldn’t it be best to pick it up?
The aphorism above—from Laeth’s latest installment of small talk—reminded me of a post I had written a few years back concerning God’s apparent unresponsiveness. I still stand by what I expressed in that post:
Yet perhaps there is a reason for God's seeming unresponsiveness - a reason that has everything to do with co-respondence. By co-respondence, I am not referring to an exchange of letters, but rather to the notion that perhaps God's seeming unresponsiveness to us has a great deal to do with our unresponsiveness to Him.
I cannot believe God has ceased communicating with us. What I can believe is the notion that perhaps our communications with God - those tried and true, good, solid Christian methods of communication that served so well in earlier times - have become inadequate and insufficient in the here and now.
By the same token, our adherence to these tried and true methods of communication might very well be making us deaf and blind to God's communication. Simply put, perhaps God does not appear to be responding to us because we are not properly responding to Him.
In other words, I believe that God communicates with every one of us consistently but most of us are unreceptive to the signals—communication—he transmits. Or, as Laeth puts it, many are called, but few pick up.
In that post on unresponsiveness, I posited that our lack of response to God’s communication may lie in an overreliance on tried-and-true, conventional methods of communicating with God.
I believe God is our loving father, and that he desires what is best for his children. Like all loving fathers, God wants his children to grow up and mature. This entails different approaches to and different levels of communication.
God has taken this step forward; we, in turn, have not. Put another way, God is trying to talk to us like adults, but we continue to talk and listen to him like adolescents (and fairly apathetic adolescents at that).
God will respond to us once we understand how we should begin responding to him. Part of responding to him as adults must contain an element of understanding our role as co-creators.
According to Berdyaev, the next step in Christianity involves not only Man discovering himself in God, but also God discovering Himself in Man. This type of discovery necessitates a new, unprecedented form of co-respondence.
It includes viewing God from an entirely new perspective - not as some distant, autocratic ruler one must obsequiously and blindly tremble before and obey, but as a relatable friend and partner one can love and work cooperatively with, in the same manner as an adult son or daughter can love and work cooperatively with a loving parent.
Some might regard referring to God as a relatable friend and partner as a denigration of God; the culminating pipedream of human illusion saturated in syrupy human emotions and intoxicated by erroneous notions of God as existing in the same category of being as us.
Yet the same criticism can be directed to human descriptions of God as a largely unknowable, impassible, distant monarch who exists in a different category of being altogether.
Laeth’s aphorism also contains two unspoken questions. The first is, why is God calling?
How one perceives, frames, interprets, and understands that question hinges entirely on one’s consciousness of God; and how one frames, interprets, and understands God.
If we believe the Christian God is an omnigod, then this belief will ultimately determine the possible reasons for God’s call, though I suspect the reasons for the call would be rather limited in scope because, at the end of the day, the omnigod already knows everything and doesn’t need us.
However, what if we consider the unthinkable and unspeakable and ponder whether God needs us? Traditional/conventional Christianity vehemently denies that God needs man. The mere act of suggesting that God might need man for anything is not only heresy but an automatic demotion of God because it suggests that the divine possesses some sort of lack, deficiency, or incompleteness.
Such concerns seem to be rooted in the potential devaluation of God’s power. If God needs us for anything, then he is not all-powerful and not ultimate. And if he is not all-powerful and ultimate, then he is not God.
I sense this sort of focus reveals far more about the believer than it reveals about God. I suppose the problem lies in the definition of need. Do wealthy, self-sufficient parents need communcative relationships with their adult children to live, survive, or be wealthy and powerful? In the strictest sense, probably not. Does this lack of need increase or decrease their wealth or power in any way? Again, probably not. However, would it be entirely correct to say that such wealthy, self-sufficient parents do not really need their adult children?
This brings us to the matter of love. Do the wealthy, self-sufficient parents mentioned above really need the love of their adult children? Once again, in the strictest sense, probably not, but yet again, would it be entirely accurate to claim that this sort of love between parents and their adult children is not needed, at least in the sense of being optimal and desirable? Wouldn’t the wealthy, self-sufficient parents be better off if their adult children picked up the calls?
I’m not sure if the analogy above communicates what I am attempting to express when it comes to the matter of God needing us, but it’s a start.
Okay, but what about Creation?
Here is where we get back to basic assumptions and first principles. If we believe God created us from nothing, and that he is the only being capable of such creation, then our potential contributions to creation are severely narrowed and limited. On top of that, we can confidently proclaim that God does not need us for anything at all.
However, if we consider the possibility that God did not create us from nothing, then the question of God’s potential “needs” becomes a little more open-ended.
Each of us can contribute something to Creation that no one else can -- and, yes, "no one else" means not even God.
The statement above comes via a comment Wm Jas Tychonievich left on a post in which I touched upon the idea of God’s needs.
I include it here to connect it to the idea of God’s call and communication and to address the second silent question in Laeth's aphorism about many being called -- why do only a few pick up?
Perhaps God’s call has everything to do with our potential contributions to Creation; contributions God cannot manifest on his own, which ties into the concept of co-creation.
God is not responding to us because our communications with him are not creative. God will respond to us fully the moment we begin creatively communicating with Him.
Once we learn to do that, we become co-creators. Our creative spirituality will become enhanced through God, and God's creative spirituality will become enhanced through us.
The new co-respondence involves a fortifying and enhancement of both God and Man, a fortification and enhancement that can occur only when we understand our creative role.
Spiritual creativity requires initiative from us. This initiative must derive from freedom.
According to William Arkle, once Man shows this initiative, he escapes all determinism and becomes actively creative - to the point that God can no longer accurately predict what Man will do. This is the essence of co-creation. This is the essence of the latent spiritual power within us - a latent spiritual power demonstrated fully by Christ.
I should include that the essence of co-creation also includes love; or, more precisely, the essence of co-creation is love.
Does God need co-creation from us in the strictest sense? Maybe not.
All the same, would it be inaccurate to say that God does not desire such co-creation and, perhaps, that the very motive behind Creation is to nurture such co-creative relationships?
And maybe that’s the basis of God’s call and communication in this time and place. Shouldn’t we at least consider being open to the possibility of such a call?
And if we happen to hear it, wouldn’t it be best to pick it up?
December 14, 2024
Omnigod + Obedience + Providence = Spiritual Cecity
By omnigod, I refer to the omni attributes traditional Christianity ascribes to the divine—omnipotence, omnificence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, and things like impassibility and immutability.
Belief in a god with such attributes immediately warrants full obedience, not just to the deity, but to the church hierarchy and any other worldly authority because all temporal authority ultimately comes from god. This “virtue” of obedience is then supported by providence—the protective care of God.
Such an approach may have worked in the past when men were of a different consciousness and temporal authorities were perhaps more aligned with the divine given the consciousness of the age. Still, in this time and place, omnigod + obedience + providence opens one up to a plethora of spiritual hazards—chief among them, spiritual blindness, willing or otherwise.
The omnigod+obedience+providence formula frequently undermines and sabotages the things Christians should focus on and take responsibility for in this time and place—namely freedom and agency; more specifically, the spiritual dimensions and implications of one’s thinking and action.
Most conventional/traditional Christians become tense and uneasy whenever freedom or agency enters the picture. On the one hand, they are acutely aware of how much the omnigod+obedience+providence formula impairs and constrains their thinking and doing. On the other hand, they alleviate such impairments and constraints by citing the virtue of humility pitted against the evil vice of spiritual pride.
Obeying evil mandates, doctrines, and laws is easily explained away by attitudes claiming that even the evil that men do serves the providential plan for universal salvation. Despite appearances to the contrary, the omnigod is in control. A Christian’s main task is to have undying faith in that omni-ness and providence and not allow his prideful, disobedient, rebellious agency and freedom to interfere with that.
As mentioned above, such an approach was probably conducive and effective in earlier times and places when men’s consciousnesses differed. Right now, it is, at best, a sign of spiritual blindness or, worse, a willing and fully conscious shirking of one’s spiritual responsibilities.
Omnigod+obedience+providence is attractive to Christians because it offers a relatively quick and easy solution to the demands of freedom and agency by outsourcing spiritual freedom and agency to a church or some other authority and letting that external source determine what they should think and do. Once again, this probably served well in the past, but not anymore.
The overreliance on omnigod, obedience, and providence builds up from assumptions that implicitly reject authentic freedom; however, I would hasten to add that adherence to such assumptions is often based on little more than expediency—a conveniently justifiable way of sidestepping a pressing spiritual issue while appearing to tackle the issue head-on.
I am not implying that all Christians who adhere to the omnigod+obedience+providence formula are spiritually blind. As is the case with virtually everything, there are notable exceptions. Yet the exceptions do little to diminish the vast majority who continue to demonstrate what can only be described as spiritual myopia as it pertains to the central spiritual issues of these times.
Agency and freedom lie at the core of these spiritual issues. Christians who recognize the vitalness of focusing upon and developing freedom and agency within themselves despite assumptions that insist upon the contrary are likely to be far more perceptive and discerning concerning the spiritual challenges and opportunities of this time and place.
Belief in a god with such attributes immediately warrants full obedience, not just to the deity, but to the church hierarchy and any other worldly authority because all temporal authority ultimately comes from god. This “virtue” of obedience is then supported by providence—the protective care of God.
Such an approach may have worked in the past when men were of a different consciousness and temporal authorities were perhaps more aligned with the divine given the consciousness of the age. Still, in this time and place, omnigod + obedience + providence opens one up to a plethora of spiritual hazards—chief among them, spiritual blindness, willing or otherwise.
The omnigod+obedience+providence formula frequently undermines and sabotages the things Christians should focus on and take responsibility for in this time and place—namely freedom and agency; more specifically, the spiritual dimensions and implications of one’s thinking and action.
Most conventional/traditional Christians become tense and uneasy whenever freedom or agency enters the picture. On the one hand, they are acutely aware of how much the omnigod+obedience+providence formula impairs and constrains their thinking and doing. On the other hand, they alleviate such impairments and constraints by citing the virtue of humility pitted against the evil vice of spiritual pride.
Obeying evil mandates, doctrines, and laws is easily explained away by attitudes claiming that even the evil that men do serves the providential plan for universal salvation. Despite appearances to the contrary, the omnigod is in control. A Christian’s main task is to have undying faith in that omni-ness and providence and not allow his prideful, disobedient, rebellious agency and freedom to interfere with that.
As mentioned above, such an approach was probably conducive and effective in earlier times and places when men’s consciousnesses differed. Right now, it is, at best, a sign of spiritual blindness or, worse, a willing and fully conscious shirking of one’s spiritual responsibilities.
Omnigod+obedience+providence is attractive to Christians because it offers a relatively quick and easy solution to the demands of freedom and agency by outsourcing spiritual freedom and agency to a church or some other authority and letting that external source determine what they should think and do. Once again, this probably served well in the past, but not anymore.
The overreliance on omnigod, obedience, and providence builds up from assumptions that implicitly reject authentic freedom; however, I would hasten to add that adherence to such assumptions is often based on little more than expediency—a conveniently justifiable way of sidestepping a pressing spiritual issue while appearing to tackle the issue head-on.
I am not implying that all Christians who adhere to the omnigod+obedience+providence formula are spiritually blind. As is the case with virtually everything, there are notable exceptions. Yet the exceptions do little to diminish the vast majority who continue to demonstrate what can only be described as spiritual myopia as it pertains to the central spiritual issues of these times.
Agency and freedom lie at the core of these spiritual issues. Christians who recognize the vitalness of focusing upon and developing freedom and agency within themselves despite assumptions that insist upon the contrary are likely to be far more perceptive and discerning concerning the spiritual challenges and opportunities of this time and place.
December 12, 2024
Winter Landscape?
I have hoped for a white Christmas every year since I moved to Hungary, and every year it fails to materialize.
Unfortunately, this year looks no different. But who knows? Still two weeks to go.
Carl Gustav Carus - Winterlandschaft mit verfallenem Tor - c.1816
Unfortunately, this year looks no different. But who knows? Still two weeks to go.
Carl Gustav Carus - Winterlandschaft mit verfallenem Tor - c.1816
December 11, 2024
Christ or Law, Son?
Christ or law, son?
Read that carefully. That is the choice.
Christ or law, son?
This is Christianity’s most pressing question.
Christ or law, son?
Freedom or submission and renunciation?
Christ is freedom; the law is not.
Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor rebuked Jesus for burdening man with freedom instead of laying down the law:
“Instead of taking mastery of people's freedom, you increased it and saddled the spiritual kingdom of man with it forever. You desired that man's love should be free, that he should follow you freely, enticed and captivated by you. Henceforth, in place of the ancient, rigid law, man was himself to decide with a free heart what is good and what is evil, with only your image before him to guide him . . .”
Christ or law, son?
The Grand Inquisitor acknowledges the central role of freedom in Jesus’ work, which I interpret as a testament to Jesus’ confirmation of humanity’s divine spark and potential.
Jesus thinks highly of us, our fundamental nature, and our spiritual possibilities. For Jesus, freedom is never an escape from or a rejection of reality. Freedom is reality. Spirit lives, moves, and communicates through freedom.
Christ or law, son?
On the flip side, the Grand Inquisitor believes Jesus has overestimated man’s potential; and that Jesus’ mission to increase spiritual freedom within individual hearts ended up spiritually burdening rather than spiritually liberating man.
In humanity, the Grand Inquisitor sees mostly weaklings, cowards, and slaves, the bulk of whom are utterly incapable of embracing the increased spiritual freedom Christ offers. In light of this, he chastises Jesus for thinking too highly of man and his potential.
“There is for man no preoccupation more constant or more nagging than, while in a condition of freedom, quickly to find someone to bow down before. But man seeks to bow down before that which is already beyond dispute, so far beyond dispute that all human beings will instantly agree to a universal bowing down before it.
For the preoccupation of these miserable creatures consists not only in finding that before which I or another may bow down, but in finding something that everyone can come to believe in and bow down before, and that it should indeed be everyone, and that they should do it all together. It is this need for a community of bowing down that has been the principal torment of each individual person and of mankind as a whole since the earliest ages.”
Freedom or bowing down?
Christ or law, son?
The spiritual freedom Jesus desires is a bar set too high. Man prefers the ancient, rigid law—complete with its Miracle, Mystery, and Authority. Of course, the ancient, rigid law flies the flag of freedom. Still, as the Grand Inquisitor declares, it is merely a deception:
"Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only become free when they renounce their freedom for us and submit to us. And what does it matter whether we are right or whether we are telling a lie? They themselves will be persuaded we are right, for they will remember to what horrors of slavery and confusion your freedom has brought them.”
Christ or law, son?
I sincerely believe all Christians must now make that choice.
Can one have both?
Perhaps, but only if Christ is given precedence. Yet, I don't see how that could work.
Freedom does not mix well with unfreedom. Moreover, if Christ and law are given equal footing, the law will eventually and inevitably supersede Christ.
Why? Because Christ is freedom and the law is not.
And since most people tremble before the very thought of freedom, they will inevitably find unfree solace in the law.
That is what it all comes down to now.
Christ or law, son?
Christ or law?
December 9, 2024
Sub-Domain From Now On
My domain has expired, and I have decided against renewing it. In light of this, the blog address from now on will be:
https://francis-berger.weebly.com/
I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause and ask regular readers to update their links, reader, bookmarks, etc.
Thanks,
Francis
https://francis-berger.weebly.com/
I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause and ask regular readers to update their links, reader, bookmarks, etc.
Thanks,
Francis
December 7, 2024
The Epic Battle of Which Essentially Meaningless Belief System is True
'it's all God' is not meaningfully different from 'it's all chemicals'
The aphorism above comes courtesy of the internet’s premier aphorist, Laeth, who touches upon a crucial point—one I have addressed in various ways on this blog over the years.
'It's all God' Christians rebuke the meaninglessness inherent in the materialist position that regards matter as the fundamental substance from which all else, including consciousness and thinking, emerges without divine creation, intervention, or influence.
‘It’s all chemicals’ is the only explanation the materialist can offer when asked about the ultimate meaning of the universe.
‘It’s all chemicals’ is materialism’s brute fact because chemicals (or matter or energy) signify the endpoint beyond which reasonable questions can no longer be posed.
'If it’s all chemicals and nothing else, then our lives have no meaning,' the Christian complains. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out his secret key to the meaning of the universe. 'It’s not all chemicals,' he insists. 'It’s all God. Behind those chemicals, there is God. And it is God who made those chemicals and everything else in existence.'
The 'it’s all chemicals' materialist and the 'it’s all God' Christian are smug in their worldviews. Both are content with whats and hows. Neither seems particularly interested in discovering the whys because they regard why questions as pointless.
Their fundamental metaphysical disagreement and struggle boil down to which essentially meaningless worldview is true .
They are both welcome to that endless debate.
Me? I'm interested in meaning and firmly believe the why questions can be answered to lesser and greater degrees if one is willing to ask and then think about it a bit.
The aphorism above comes courtesy of the internet’s premier aphorist, Laeth, who touches upon a crucial point—one I have addressed in various ways on this blog over the years.
'It's all God' Christians rebuke the meaninglessness inherent in the materialist position that regards matter as the fundamental substance from which all else, including consciousness and thinking, emerges without divine creation, intervention, or influence.
‘It’s all chemicals’ is the only explanation the materialist can offer when asked about the ultimate meaning of the universe.
‘It’s all chemicals’ is materialism’s brute fact because chemicals (or matter or energy) signify the endpoint beyond which reasonable questions can no longer be posed.
'If it’s all chemicals and nothing else, then our lives have no meaning,' the Christian complains. He reaches into his pocket and pulls out his secret key to the meaning of the universe. 'It’s not all chemicals,' he insists. 'It’s all God. Behind those chemicals, there is God. And it is God who made those chemicals and everything else in existence.'
The 'it’s all chemicals' materialist and the 'it’s all God' Christian are smug in their worldviews. Both are content with whats and hows. Neither seems particularly interested in discovering the whys because they regard why questions as pointless.
Their fundamental metaphysical disagreement and struggle boil down to which essentially meaningless worldview is true .
They are both welcome to that endless debate.
Me? I'm interested in meaning and firmly believe the why questions can be answered to lesser and greater degrees if one is willing to ask and then think about it a bit.
December 3, 2024
Moonlight + Landscape = Carl Gustav Carus
Mondscheinlandschaft - c. 1830
December 1, 2024
Never Really Be Convincing
I have come to Christ through liberty and through an intimate experience of the paths of freedom.
My Christian faith is not a faith based on habit or tradition. It was won through an experience of the inner life of a most painful character.
I knew no compulsion in my religious life, and I had no experience of authoritarianism either in faith or in the sphere of religious devotion.
Can one oppose to this fact dogmatic formulas or abstract theologies? I answer No, for in my case they will never be really convincing.
Nikolai Berdyaev ~ Freedom and the Spirit
My experience mirrors Berdyaev's to a great degree, particularly the bit about coming to Christ through the paths of freedom.
Like Berdyaev, my faith is not based on habit or tradition, although my faith did begin in those--or, rather, were inculcated through those. Had I not found the paths of freedom Berdyaev cites, I likely would have followed the millions of other recent apostates and ceased being Christian altogether.
I was never moved by any of the external compulsions and coercions organized religion insists upon and never felt the fear and trembling before externals that keeps so many traditional/conventional Christians "in line."
And to those who have countered my faith with dogmatic formulas and abstract theologies...well, knock yourselves out, but I will never find any of it really convincing, particularly now when the bulk of the formulas and theologies fail to serve even the most superficial of spiritual concerns.
And to those who claim that I do not really follow Christ, that what I follow is anti-Christian, I say...
My Christian faith is not a faith based on habit or tradition. It was won through an experience of the inner life of a most painful character.
I knew no compulsion in my religious life, and I had no experience of authoritarianism either in faith or in the sphere of religious devotion.
Can one oppose to this fact dogmatic formulas or abstract theologies? I answer No, for in my case they will never be really convincing.
Nikolai Berdyaev ~ Freedom and the Spirit
My experience mirrors Berdyaev's to a great degree, particularly the bit about coming to Christ through the paths of freedom.
Like Berdyaev, my faith is not based on habit or tradition, although my faith did begin in those--or, rather, were inculcated through those. Had I not found the paths of freedom Berdyaev cites, I likely would have followed the millions of other recent apostates and ceased being Christian altogether.
I was never moved by any of the external compulsions and coercions organized religion insists upon and never felt the fear and trembling before externals that keeps so many traditional/conventional Christians "in line."
And to those who have countered my faith with dogmatic formulas and abstract theologies...well, knock yourselves out, but I will never find any of it really convincing, particularly now when the bulk of the formulas and theologies fail to serve even the most superficial of spiritual concerns.
And to those who claim that I do not really follow Christ, that what I follow is anti-Christian, I say...
