Hi Wil —
Well, coming from a traditional orthodoxy point of view, I think your post raises some interesting ideas, so below is not so much a 'response' (well, obviously it is) but rather hopes to throw some aspects into the thinking that today are largely ignored.
Now this is the issue, while many of us have moved on from our given, born into religions, others have not. Not saying that any of it is right or wrong but just the contemplation, you are born a Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist?? And a large percentage of the world never moves from that designation. Whats up with that? This scientologist sperm found this scientologist egg and hence we have a scientologist? Born and raised not to question. (Note replace scientologist with whatever belief)
Well there's a huge chunk of stuff ... I'd offer two things.
1 — The Dalai Lama, when asked about Westerners converting to Buddhism, observed that it was not a particularly good idea. His view was that if Christianity does not work for you, the problem's with you, not Christianity ...
2 — On a larger scale, denominationism is the same process — Martin Luther was so dogged by the sense of his own guilt that he could not accept the love of Christ ... so he comes up with a new doctrine that better suits his personality (and its shortcomings).
In all religions there is a sociological dimension, some it is forward, some more discreet. Christianity is a religion where the sociological is posited within the context of the human soul — so the idea of 'individual salvation', whilst valid, is not the point, the idea of 'personal religion' is actually invalid because it excludes one's neighbour ... Christianity is not a personalist religion.
The most profound mystery — theosis, deification, filiation, call it what you will, is collective, not individual, at the level of the human
nature, not the human
person (ousia, not hypostasis) ... but I digress ...
We, however, live is an intensely personalist culture, where the cult of the individual has become a fetish ... terms such as 'freedom', 'choice' and 'rights' have taken on values out of all proportion to their relation to terms such as 'love', 'humility', 'prudence', etc.
with regards to 'conversion' — the Perennialist Philosophers tend to agree with the philosophers of religion that there is far
too much movement ... it's not about 'true' conversion, that is being drawn inexorably into a Tradition — and the ancients say its the tradition that calls the man, not the other way round — it's mostly about 'shopping around'.
+++
And when I say whatever belief I mean ... patriotism. What the hell is that?
This is oh so true.
I think in some ways it stems from above ... religion has been relegated to the private and the individual, so the state has replaced the vision of 'the kingdom of God', for example, 'heaven on earth' becomes a political agenda because the faith agenda has been marginalised. This was an undercurrent of the Reformation. Thus communal faith has become largely secular — 'the American Dream' was the commercial and consumerist replacement for the 'Beatific Vision', if you like. The Marxist manifesto was another example ...
To echo you ... what the hell is that?
If you think "Damn Right" I was born a WASP, or Catholic Brit, or American Baptist, or Iranian Jew in India...if you have such allegance to your birthplace or heritage or religion...how can you not respect others to have the same?
I know ... people misread their allegiances ...'render unto Caesar' as the saying goes.
If you actually believe "Damn right" — then you have an
obligation both to God and neighbour that begins with respect and ends in love ...
ie if you think your Christian Capitiolism is so great just because you were born there and indoctrinated there, than can't you respect the Athiest Communist or the Socialist Hindu or the Muslim Kingdom? After all you are in the exact same boat!!!
Agreed.
Am I as usual off my rocker?
No.
That does not mean however, that reasoned theological argument cannot show the errors implicit in some systems. The enlightened and the ignorant might say the same thing ... but for two very different reasons.
Thomas
(It can all be traced back to the philosophy of the Enlightenment)
