It's been rather too long since I updated this blog with the events of day 4, for which I should apologise - it's mainly owing to a busy period with work but in truth, there was also an experimental side to steering clear which was intended to see if a little distance added any new perspectives. In this case, having had a period to digest and gather insight hasn’t really worked. I have felt rather divorced from proceedings since last Wednesday’s session, the theme of which was prayer, and as such I haven’t dwelled quite so fully on things as I have done previously as I haven’t been forced to order my thoughts by writing this blog.
However, I’ll try to recreate the events of last week as faithfully as possible with respect to events and to my reactions.
The session was interesting primarily for the continued challenge it offered from Week 3. I was fortunate enough to be in the same group as some of the more analytical Alpha-ites – “Des” from week 1 and also the Canadian Jesus Team leader who really does facilitate the discussion very well.
I have a sneaking suspicion that I’m resented a little by other members of the group. It’s possible that this is purely paranoia, but I do feel as though sometimes I monopolise events, though I am obviously only speaking in the framework of the topic at hand. Moreover, I’m clearly one of the few dissenting voices.
All the same, I will attempt to curb my participation a little for tonight’s meeting. It will be interesting to adopt a more observational position, if only to see if the dynamics change, and if some of the quieter members of the group step up to the plate a little more. I think I just intensely dislike the kind of dumbstruck, uncomfortable silence that seems to occur at the start of every group. There’s not much of a fraternal or friendly feeling, though I suspect it’s because I am not really overly open to that in general, let alone in the very unusual circumstance of willingly discussing the question of God with a group of strangers. I wonder how things would progress if we were all on a jury, snow-bound and isolated, forced to stay put until we’d reached a decision. I think it might be a couple of months before some of them even spoke.
Before the session, I was moderately enthused about the subject, enough so to write some preliminary thoughts into my notebook. My initial thoughts revolved around the idea that prayer removed the power of self-determination – by being slavishly deferential to a “higher power”, there’s a very real risk to me that you lose focus on the steps needed and the power in your own hands to change things. That said, most people only do tend to pray when the hope of influencing things themselves is lost. This very point was put to me by Des – as to whether I ever “prayed”. He used a bad example – being stuck in a traffic jam, which doesn’t work for me for a number of reasons. But I knew what he meant, and transposed his logic mentally to something more meaningful. It was definitely true that at times of extreme despair or fear something resembling a prayer comes to mind. That’s not entirely explicable by conditioning alone – I haven’t been around anyone who would outwardly admit that, but it’s possibly learnt behaviour from society and popular culture. Or possibly the question that the Alpha course proclaims to tackle – “Is there a God – YES/NO” is subconsciously on the minds of a lot of people. And given the right stimulus externally, they will all shuffle to the edge of the “Yes” cliff and peek over it (if they don’t exactly chuck themselves off). So yes, I admitted that there were times, I spoke silently to something or someone else.
I further admitted that it was true that no proof as such would attest to the “power of prayer” as advertised. I think I said a “signed legal document” from God might be enough to convince me that a “prayer” had been answered. Which I immediately knew kind of reduced the “mysterious wonder” of prayer to nothing more than a mechanical “contract” governing cause and effect. Touché, Jesus Team.
The mystery of Christianity is beautiful, truly. But it’s not a basis for embracing it (for me at least). It just means it’s self-consciously defensive in many ways – that it’s constantly on the back-foot against those who’d seek to dissect it and disassemble it. For me, it’s a snowball effect across the ages, as fractures and inconsistencies are discovered it seems like they’re justified and rationalised in ever more ingenious/ludicrous ways. It’s hardly surprising that after over a thousand years of extremely intelligent people’s passionate diligence, that there’s no universal refutation possible, and that most of the logical anomalies are written off as the “mysterious ways” of an unknowable God.
And that’s the point, we can’t know God in that “inside-out” way, as we would essentially “be” him. Instead, we’re sold the idea of a “relationship” with him. This is again rather hard to justify for me, and brought me again to the subject of hell.
I was slightly annoyed at this point to be told that I was “fixated” with hell. By a Christian. Which seemed extraordinary. In any case, I stated that what Christians stated was unconditional love was neither unconditional or particularly loving. I can’t pretend that hell doesn’t exist if I am to engage with Christians on a level playing field. They believe it does, so I do them the courtesy of operating on that assumption when talking to them. I didn’t invent it after all.
I was told that God doesn’t send anyone to hell, that we choose our path. Well, that’s fine, but again, it’s not really unconditional is it? Nor do I find the idea that God has “booby trapped” this life of “free will” with the spectre of hell particularly loving. Especially given the spurious reasons for ending up there. What’s that? You devoted your entire life to helping the poor and needy? Well come on i… hold on? You’re a Muslim? Elevator’s over there chum.
It’s ridiculous. It’s more than that in fact, by any human parameter it’s entirely and terminally unlovable. I fear that I descended into a slightly sarcastic and sneering mode around this time; I lost patience for maybe the first time with someone who tried to recount to me that hell was an invention of Satan. Who created Satan, for heaven’s sake (pun entirely intentional).
Free choice and free will is an illusion it seems. It’s not free – there’s a rather hefty price, and it’s not unconditional. At the root, I can’t understand any entity – God or otherwise – demanding continual praise and obedience for doing anything at all – even creating the universe. Who praised him before then? Aliens? Dinosaurs? Absolutely not, according to the bible. So why does he need this praise now? Was he feeling insecure?!?
It just doesn’t paint a picture of something lovable. It paints a picture of something horrendously narcissistic and controlling, prone to tantrums. This “worship” element has never sat well with me. What does God get from our servile kneeling and singing and crying out? Does it satisfy him? Did “smiting” so many people satisfy him? Did he get what he wanted from that?
More mystery, the kind of mystery that means we can’t interrogate him. We can’t know what he meant by all that.
A convenient kind of mystery really, if one was to be uncharitable in an analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment