Postby Eaquae Legit » Sun Mar 04, 2007 1:46 am
Hey Satya, would you be interested in exchanging reading lists? I know you've got a number of books that have informed your own moral and religious beliefs, and most I probably haven't read. I'll likely read them eventually, but if you're willing to match me book for book, I'll make that a promise (would be slow progress, though, till school gets out).
Just a thought, no obligation. Anyone else is welcome to contribute, if they want.
*****
Alright. I'm procrastinating on my collation assignment (BAD EL!), so I'll start on why I'm a Christian. It'll probably branch off in places into why I'm a Catholic, specifically, because at times the two are hard to separate. This might go on for a couple of posts, I'm not sure. Like I said in my previous post, these are my reasons why I believe what I do. They're personal, and I don't expect them to be anyone else's reasons. I don't ask anyone to agree with me, but I ask that any doubts or questions be expressed in a thoughtful, respectful manner.
We'll start with the easy stuff. I was raised as a Catholic, like I said in my post about "How It Began." Unlike many people my age, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for my mother. I could have been raised in a fearful, condemning "hellfire and brimstone" kind of pre-Vatican II household, but I wasn't. She still is to me one of the best models I have for a thoughtful, informed, and generous faith. I've studied an awful lot, and there are still many times when I can ask my mother for the answer to a "Why?" question about Catholicism, and find it. She really knows her stuff, and she's happy to share when people ask, but I've never seen her be an evangelist. What does my mother have to do with anything? I grew up with a balanced, nuanced perception of religion that welcomed the presence of science and reason (she has a chem degree, even!). It was neither the bubbly, saccarrhine, empty religion of "Jesus loves you!" nor the depressing, fearful religion of "Sin and you go to HELL!" I believe that being in the middle allowed for doors in my mind where I could question and inquire without the mental hindrances of fear (of hell or of what might destroy The Happy). Also, my questions were never dismissed out-of-mind, as what might lead one to suspect the answers were so many mirages.
I read a lot as a kid. All sorts of books. I know that by my second year of high school, at least, I was into some apologetics and theology. There are some books which I read then which I cringe at, now. (A rip-off of The Screwtape Letters comes to mind, particularly.) I don't recall what year I first read C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity, which I mentioned before. The first section starts with nothing more than "What can we observe about people?" and builds an argument for the existence of Deity. The second sections goes from there and builds an argument for the Christian Deity. (The succeeding sections discuss Christian theology.) People can and do read that book and come away from it disagreeing with Lewis. I was one of the ones to whom it rang startlingly true. To this day I maintain that it is one of the best theistic arguments ever written. I'd loved Lewis before, from his Narnian Chronicles, but when I discovered his apologetics, I went and read through a good number of his books. (Thinking about that was what occasioned the first bit of this post. I can only dream of expressing myself as clearly as Lewis, and reading his stuff would be far clearer an explanation of my beliefs than my own shoddy prose.)
Sometime in there, I also attended my church's presentation of Fr. John Corapi's lecture series on the Catechism. While I disagreed with him occasionally, I was impressed by his personal testimony and the depth of his knowledge. More importantly, the majority of the time, I found that what he said simply jibed with the world I observed.
Further study allowed me more knowledge of my religion, and I never found that I couldn't reconcile its core teachings with the observable world. Someday I might, I don't know. But I haven't yet, so I am what I am.
I've already established that there are things in this world which I believe are unexplainable without some numinous, Otheworldly being. Christianity isn't the only religion to claim miracles, saints, or visions, so why pick that particular religion? Especially if you believe that the miracles, saints, and visions of other religions aren't necessarily "fake."
To answer that, I have to turn to a different sort of explanation.
I'm not a Hindu because the concept of a single God makes more sense to me than many gods. They are, perhaps, a bit TOO human for me. I also have trouble accepting the religious caste system, and the idea that moksha is only available to men. (Yes, I know that individual Hindus may or may not hold these exact beliefs. Many are actually monotheists, for example.) In short, I have a host of troubles which could not allow me to accept Hinduism.
I'm not Muslim because if humanity is imperfect, and God is perfect, I don't see how humans can bridge the gap on their own.
I'm not Sikh, Jain, Shinto, Taoist, a practitioner of vodun, or anything other than Christian for similar reasons. I see flaws in the theology, philosophy, and/or history, much like I'm sure they see flaws in mine. Perhaps I just don't understand them well enough yet.
You'll note, perhaps, two conspicuous absences on my list. I'm not Buddhist largely because I understand human nature differently, and the formulation of the universe differently. I find its faith and philosophy quite sensible and that (for some schools at least), the theology follows very logically from the premeses. I have great admiration for those who've taken the three refuges. However, I DO see things differently, and my premeses are different, and the consequences of that result in Christianity.
I'm not Jewish a) because I wasn't born one, and b) because I believe that Jesus was resurrected and began a new chapter in that story.
None of that was a slam on anyone else's faith. It's just that my own experiences don't lead me to those conclusions.
One of the things I like about my faith is that it allows me a certain great freedom. I believe in a God who is active and present throughout the world, and that people's experiences may lead them to different understandings of that presence. That is, I'm happily content to believe that a person of a different faith can sincerely claim a mystical or supernatural experience, and that it might actually be true (gasp!). People who believe differently than I do don't have to be worshipping the Devil or other such nonsense. Just because I believe that Christianity (and especially Catholicism) has the best understanding of Truth doesn't mean others don't have any understanding at all. Does that make sense? Or am I babbling without knowing it, it being almost 3am?
Anyway, I know I still have stuff to add here, but it's late and I'm tired. If there's anything that needs clarification, let me know.
"Only for today, I will devote 10 minutes of my time to some good reading, remembering that just as food is necessary to the life of the body, so good reading is necessary to the life of the soul." -- Pope John XXIII