|
|
20:53:16 - 2001-01-21 A short time back, I read "Farewell to God", by Charles Templeton. He was a minister for twenty years, a contemporary of Billy Graham's, who became plagued by doubts and eventually rejected a God he came to feel was cruel and vindictive. Templeton, at one time in his life much more dedicated to Christianity than I EVER was, seemed to have many of the same questions and doubts that I did about it, and through what I imagine was a lot more study and soul searching on the issue, reached the same conclusion I did; Basically, that you couldn't be an intelligent, open-minded person and be a Christian. For a while afterwards, I felt pretty good. I felt VINDICATED--"Here's a smart guy who thinks the same way I do..."--and it provoked ( And is still provoking ) a lot of thought on issues I don't think about often enough. But then I started to feel intellectually dishonest. Kind of like all the Clinton haters who would come into the store and buy the Clinton-bashing books; They didn't want to learn anything new, they just wanted support for their views. My online friend Tracy, who is a Christian, had mentioned Lee Strobel in an e-mail some time back ( When I had expressed some severe reservations about Christianity that she couldn't completely address ). He basically went in the opposite direction from Templeton; He was an atheist, a journalist with a law degree, who decided after a lot of study and questioning, that Christianity made sense to him ( To clarify--Templeton is NOT an atheist. He defines himself as an "agnostic", saying that it is impossible to KNOW whether there is a God or not. I actually liked what he said about atheism--Basically, that it's just as unreasonable to take that stand as to believe in God, since neither can be proven--But there does seem to be some conflict in what he's saying, since his entire book seems to be a pretty definite repudiation of God, at least the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible ). I wanted to read "The Case for Christ", Strobel's first book, but we didn't have it in at the bookstore, so I read the follow-up, "The Case for Faith". I took issue with some of the book, and I thought some of the answers were pretty weak ( Any charge of God being cruel seemed to be answered by "God made life, so he has the right to take it away" or "We aren't God, and can't know how human suffering fits into his plan" ). I found myself still not really understanding why God would need us to love and worship him, or why we'll go to Hell if we don't ( The theologian Strobel interviewed on Hell basically said, if I understood him correctly, that Hell is not literal fire and brimstone, but eternal seperation from God. I don't really have much of a sense of what being "with God" or "without God" really MEANS, and I'm fuzzier still on how this proves that God really cares about us, as the book contends. Something to do with "respecting our free will" ). I found myself wanting to object when a theologian, confronted by some Bible verse Strobel throws out indicating God is at best pretty harsh, says, "Well, you're using the King James translation, which is not accurate. What that verse is REALLY saying is..." ( If one translation of the Bible is better, or more accurate, than another, that seems to blow the old "Bible is the inspired word of God" notion right out of the water ). All that said, I'd be lying if I didn't confess that I was moved by the book as well. Templeton seemed like a bright, reasonable guy in his book, but so does Strobel--though Strobel is starting out with much more of an "agenda" in his book, in my opinion--and Strobel marshalls the opinions of a number of theologians who also seemed like bright, reasonable people. These aren't the fire-and-brimstone preachers of my youth that scared the crap out of me, or the Right-wing nuts that make Christianity seem like a club only bigoted morons would want to join. They seem like sincere, intelligent people who seem to have gotten a great deal from their belief in God. There were arguments the book posed that I really wouldn't know how to answer--the contention that the Bible is quite historically accurate ( I don't know how true that is, and I think it's making quite a leap to say, as the book does, that "If the Bible is historically accurate in terms of what can be verified through other sources, why wouldn't it be accurate in terms of what CAN'T be verified through other sources?" ), or that certain events in Jesus's life were reported so close to the time they happened that there was no time for a "mythology" to develop, as some people would contend ( Templeton, and John Shelby Spong in "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism", make the opposite argument, that you can't trust the reportage of the New Testament because it was written, by and large, by people who were not witnesses to the events they describe, and who were writing many years after the life of the historical Jesus ). But all that aside, what remains is a desire to BELIEVE. I may find it hard to believe in or understand "God", but it's also really hard to believe that this existence, this world, this universe, is some sort of ACCIDENT. There's obviously something MISSING in my life. That seems pretty self-evident. But what IS it? Is it GOD? And if it is, WHAT God? WHOSE God? The next book on my religious reading list is "Conversations With God ( Bk 1 )". Jane's wanted me to read it for some time, and after she read my journal entries relating to "Farewell to God", she pressed it on me. I feel more than a little internal resistance--The book's always struck me as a little too squishy and "New Age" to be worth much--but it meant something to Jane when she read it, and I think I should see what's there for myself. ************************************************************ Today, after Kevin and I had breakfast, I asked him if we could stop somewhere so I could get some packing tape ( I had a couple boxes left over from the garage sale awhile back ). I didn't have as many broken-down boxes as I thought I did--Just two, when I thought I had four or five--and while I've been meaning to start taking some packing material home from work ( Stuff that gets thrown away ), I haven't yet, so I ended up just boxing up some books. It didn't feel like I did much of anything, but I guess it's a start. I'm starting to get really anxious for the show to be up and running. That way, I can stop worrying about it, and start focusing on moving stuff. I've pretty much decided that if there's an apartment open there when I call, I'm going to move into a place called the Langham, on 7th and Normandie in LA. The price is right, at four-fifty a month ( For a studio with no kitchen ), and Chris says the location is good ( While Cary B., who moved out there last year and was back briefly for the holidays, told me the other places I had thought about were a long way from anything, which is a BIG issue in LA ). There feels like there's so much to do, and I'm feeling overwhelmed and frightened before I even start. But I know that once I get an apartment nailed down ( If not the Langham, then whatever cheap place I can find ), momentum will build in a hurry; I'll have an address for Leo's tags ( My address, plus the address of Mark and Jane, or maybe Chris, in the event I lose him en route to California ), an address to tell the movers, an address to have things forwarded to. An address will ease a lot of my present anxiety. At some point soon, I need to list all the things I need to do in the next month. I think I would feel better, I think I'd be less afraid, if I could see that getting out of here and to California is just a matter of getting one task at a time out of the way. It FEELS like it right now, but I really don't have to do everything at once ( And if I ask nice, I'm sure my friends will do anything they can to help me ). I had been planning to be out of my apartment at the end of next month, then spend my last days in town at Mark and Jane's, while I waited for my final paycheck ( Which would have three days and my severance pay on it ). But when I look at the calendar, that final paycheck wouldn't be until March 9th, which means I wouldn't get to Califormia till the middle of the month. I know it's not a RACE or anything, but I find myself very aware of telling people that I was leaving "at the end of February". If I didn't leave till after March 9th, I'd feel like I'd have to hide out. More importantly, the longer I stay in town, the more money I'll spend, even if I'm mostly sponging off Mark and Jane. And there's also Leo to consider; If there's no real need for it, I should probably spare him the grief of extra moving around. That's the current plan, such as it is. If at all possible, I'll be tooling out of town March 1st.
0 comments so far 
|