Re: Reply to Glenn's 9/11 post

On 10/1/04 4:17 AM, "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net> wrote:

>
> What I can't figure out, Howard, is why you bother with religion anymore.
> If I held your views, I wouldn't. If texts and interps are all human
> products, then why not believe in Beinn sithe's (Celtic mountain faeries)
> are every bit as real as Jehovah, Allah etc. I would think your view would
> lead to an that of agnosticism.
>

Glenn,

No, on the contrary, it leads me to a sense of the need to take
responsibility for painting my portrait of God in a way that makes use of as
much of human experience as I can process. That includes the human
experience to which revered texts attest as well as my own experience of the
presence of the Sacred. (You are free to speak of that experience in the
language of "the leading of the Spirit" if you like.)

Does this approach make the product of no more worth than faerie stories?
No, this is not a simple case of _either_, 1) a portrait of God derived form
selected portions of ancient canonical text, _or_ 2) silly nonsense or folk
lore. Your rhetoric is often built around this false dichotomy, but no one
need buy such a stark either/or dilemma. There are many other options,
including worldviews that do include, for the sake of honesty and humility,
healthy doses of agnosticism.

Does this approach lead to the sort of certainty that many people lust
after? No, that degree of certainty is unattainable. (I must note here that
the same problem appears to be just as prevalent among those people who
claim to craft their portraits from sacred text alone. Look at the myriad
conflicting claims re "what the Bible clearly teaches about God.")

Respectfully,

Howard
Received on Fri Oct 1 16:23:58 2004