But see, what I'm addressing is the School of Thought in which God is basically sitting up there drooling with the prospect of bopping us over the head with a big stick (no phallic reference intended, there), if we dare to think outside of married-missionary-position-boy-girl-lights-off-only sex box, so to speak.
If it's not hurting ourselves and others, I wouldn't imagine God giving a hoot, other than to be happy for us and be happy that we have such an outlet. It's when it becomes an unhealthy obsession that I would assume he or she would start to care. I would like to think that any sort of Deity would be more concerned about the ways in which we injure ourselves (mentally, especially!), than with just purely the "Act of Sex," as tradition would have us believe.
And when it gets down to it, Self Government is practicable with and without theology. Now, if you mean theology in the sense of having a philosophy of life by which you govern your life and your actions, then I agree with you, theology in that sense is a necessity.
But if you mean theology in the sense of "God, One God, and Organized Religion," then I will have to disagree. Yes, it's helpful, I suppose, en masse to control the population, but the bottom line is that human need and indeed, MUST evolve past the point of "I don't do something because God says it's bad."
This is something I struggled with (and still do to a smaller degree) when I gave up on religion in general. If I am accountable for myself, I need to understand the choices I make, whether they are healthy or not for me or for others around me, and the impact they will have on my life and the world at large. When one steps away from the thought process of "right" and "wrong," one really has to THINK about their choices. If you don't believe that Jesus is going to magically wipe away all past transgressions and make everything bright and shiny, there comes a much larger sense of self-responsibility. (at least, there did for me!)
I can honestly (and proudly) say that I am now a much better person as an agnostic-existentialist-sort-of-pagan than I ever was a Christian.
Now, all of this is not to say that Christianity or any religion has no value - if you can reconcile a belief system with being responsible and open thought, hell, go for it. Unfortunately, most people don't, and therein lies not only the problem with organized religion, but also the reason that religion in general is losing popularity.
Oof. Actually, I'd have to disagree with your main thrust here: if Christianity is true, then the need for careful thinking on that matter--theology--necessarily follows. If it's not true, then the theology really doesn't matter at all: there's no good or evil, right or wrong, other than what we choose to make up for our own purposes and convenience. You have ended up reducing every critique on any subject that you've ever made--here or elsewhere--to nothing more than "I don't like it."
You may have taken a personal step forward in becoming an agnostic than in being a Christian, but if Christianity is actually true, then your only possible true fulfillment will be in a less- or non-deficient form of Christianity. In that case, yes, a step away from your earlier form of faith would be progress of a sort, but only temporarily. The real question is the truth question, first and foremost. And since I have to get to the library, I'll link to this response where I just responded to a film director friend on the very same question, if you're interested, rather than try to re-type it all here.
I know you don't know me from Adam, and I'm not trying to be an ass, but I do think that the anthropological/sociological take you are accepting on the nature of religion is intellectual suicide, and so I feel compelled, in courtesy, to debate your point.
"If Christianity is true, then the need for careful thinking on that matter--theology--necessarily follows. If it's not true, then the theology really doesn't matter at all: there's no good or evil, right or wrong, other than what we choose..."
Oof.
No. I think there are truths that don't depend on the truth of Catholicism. And I think St. Thomas is with me here.
I didn't think that's what I said. I was trying to make a case that theology as a merely social construct has no more value than any other statement of preference. I was trying to say, in fact, that theology is of fundamental importance as a science in the investigation of, and development of, the central truth-claims of Christianity. I hope I'm with Thomas there, too!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2005-03-22 09:29 pm (UTC)If it's not hurting ourselves and others, I wouldn't imagine God giving a hoot, other than to be happy for us and be happy that we have such an outlet. It's when it becomes an unhealthy obsession that I would assume he or she would start to care. I would like to think that any sort of Deity would be more concerned about the ways in which we injure ourselves (mentally, especially!), than with just purely the "Act of Sex," as tradition would have us believe.
And when it gets down to it, Self Government is practicable with and without theology. Now, if you mean theology in the sense of having a philosophy of life by which you govern your life and your actions, then I agree with you, theology in that sense is a necessity.
But if you mean theology in the sense of "God, One God, and Organized Religion," then I will have to disagree. Yes, it's helpful, I suppose, en masse to control the population, but the bottom line is that human need and indeed, MUST evolve past the point of "I don't do something because God says it's bad."
This is something I struggled with (and still do to a smaller degree) when I gave up on religion in general. If I am accountable for myself, I need to understand the choices I make, whether they are healthy or not for me or for others around me, and the impact they will have on my life and the world at large. When one steps away from the thought process of "right" and "wrong," one really has to THINK about their choices. If you don't believe that Jesus is going to magically wipe away all past transgressions and make everything bright and shiny, there comes a much larger sense of self-responsibility. (at least, there did for me!)
I can honestly (and proudly) say that I am now a much better person as an agnostic-existentialist-sort-of-pagan than I ever was a Christian.
Now, all of this is not to say that Christianity or any religion has no value - if you can reconcile a belief system with being responsible and open thought, hell, go for it. Unfortunately, most people don't, and therein lies not only the problem with organized religion, but also the reason that religion in general is losing popularity.
no subject
Date: 2005-03-22 10:37 pm (UTC)You may have taken a personal step forward in becoming an agnostic than in being a Christian, but if Christianity is actually true, then your only possible true fulfillment will be in a less- or non-deficient form of Christianity. In that case, yes, a step away from your earlier form of faith would be progress of a sort, but only temporarily. The real question is the truth question, first and foremost. And since I have to get to the library, I'll link to this response where I just responded to a film director friend on the very same question, if you're interested, rather than try to re-type it all here.
I know you don't know me from Adam, and I'm not trying to be an ass, but I do think that the anthropological/sociological take you are accepting on the nature of religion is intellectual suicide, and so I feel compelled, in courtesy, to debate your point.
Mike
no subject
Date: 2005-03-22 10:53 pm (UTC)Oof.
No. I think there are truths that don't depend on the truth of Catholicism. And I think St. Thomas is with me here.
Have you been overdosing on Kierkegaard?
no subject
Date: 2005-03-22 11:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-03-22 11:12 pm (UTC)