Chris ([info]randomchris) wrote,
@ 2003-03-02 14:19:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: calm
Current music:Driving South - Jimi Hendrix Experience

Today's sermon
It's been a busy few days. I have mainly been writing music - first two movements of a string orchestra piece based on the Greek myths of Echo and Narcissus, the third movement will probably get planned this afternoon, and I'll write parts out over the next couple of days.

Business is going well - got a new enquiry from an Edinburgh choir whose original tour plans have fallen through (they want to go to Spain or Italy, which is going to be tricky as I don't speak Spanish or Italian, but should be manageable, as I'm organising a couple of possible tours there already and have some good information from them.)

I've just got back from church - and met another 43-year-old who came out to me. That's the second this week. How bizarre. We're meeting up for coffee next Sunday (but just coffee - a 23-year age gap is a bit much, no matter how open-minded I protest I am.)


Christianity and religion in general have been in my thoughts over the past few days, and it's time to put these down somewhere. I've always been brought up in a Christian environment, so perhaps my perceptions of other religions are limited. When I came out at the age of 19, it became very obvious that the way I felt Christianity should be was at odds with what I'd been told (although I still feel that there is something intrinsically right for me about Christianity - I couldn't change now.) I decided to look at Christianity from the ground up.

Christianity means believing that Christ was sent to save us. There are other attributes that people associate with it - charity, forgiveness, hepling others - but the fundamental meaning is that Christ was sent to save us. Therefore, we ought to look at the Gospels, as they're a record of Christ and what he said and did.

I've based my new Christian faith on this verse from Matthew: "Love the Lord God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself. All of the Law and the Prophets are based on these two commandments."

This isn't as easy as it sounds. Who is your neighbour? (answer: everyone, those who I know and those who I don't. I feel guilty over every starving child in Africa who I haven't helped, every beggar in the street who I don't give money to, etc. - I do have long-term intentions to do something about this, but right now I have no time, not enough money to make a difference to their lives, and too many excuses.) Also, this means that every action I take that affects somebody else has to be weighed up morally - am I doing the right thing? Would I understand if I was in the other person's position? Is there some way I could do things better?

Loving God isn't easy either. Loving your neighbour is one of way of doing this ("whatever you do for the least of these my brethren, you also do for me") but loving God as a being - we don't even know where to find God (I'm avoiding pronouns here.) My personal vision of God is as some kind of quantum being, able to affect the world through the thoughts and actions of human beings - and this raises the possibility that God may not be the only such being out there (I'm fairly sure God's the only one) and the question of what God gets out of this (maybe God likes the brainwaves of happy people.) How can we love God? Tough one. I'm still trying to answer that.

I don't believe in any sort of evil supernatural being - evil comes from human beings and our lack of consideration for others. I think all acts which we identify as "evil" (or a "sin" if you want to get religious on it) can be seen as due to people trying to gain something for themselves (be it money, everlasting life, a place in Heaven, whatever) and not caring (or sometimes just not realising) that this will result in others losing something that matters to them, or being harmed.

What happens when we die? Well, again, we're looking at something quantum here. I believe that our souls exist, and something goes on after we die - and there is some evidence that quantum processes are involved in human thought (okay, so it's not conclusive.) Our souls are quantum objects, and as such will be in the same "place" as God after we die.

Are we judged - does God draw a line somewhere? Will there be separation into sheep and goats? Or are we all saved by God's unconditional love? In short, do we answer for what we have done in this life?

I hope we do answer for what we've done on this earth (although the idea of God drawing a line somewhere and saying "you are saved - you, because you have taken a tiny bit more money from the poor, are not saved" is a bit odd. Maybe there's a sliding scale of salvation.) That's what keeps me going, and forces me to make choices about what I do. That's why I think Christ was sent to us - to show us how we might be saved, and what we should do - "love the Lord God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself."

Here endeth this Sunday's sermon. Next week - why there are so many Christians who I don't get along with, and not just because I'm non-heterosexual.



(Post a new comment)


[info]ixwin
2003-03-02 03:49 pm UTC (link)
Interesting and thought-provoking. Thank you.

I'd actually define sin more widely to include self-harm as well as harming others. Partly, of course, because self harm does generally harm others indirectly (hurting those you care about, preventing you from doing the most good you could etc.), but mainly because I believe it's simply wrong in the same way as hurting others is wrong (equally wrong? I'm not sure). I remember hearing a sermon once which pointed out that it's love your neighbour as yourself, not more than yourself. Of course, most people probably do veer to the selfish end of the spectrum, but it's equally possible to feel guilty about saying "no" or taking time for yourself and I don't think that benefits anyone (or is what God, should God exist, intends).

I'm doubtful about invoking "quantum" to describe the way God could interact with the world (the physicist part of me speaking now). Partly because I don't think it's necessary (see this essay for an approach which allows free will and determinism to coexist - thanks to [info]andrewwyld for the link); partly because it's a word that tends to get bandied about without really explaining anything (e.g. you say "our souls are quantum objects" but even quantum-scale objects are part of the material universe (electrons, neutrinos, protons etc.) they're not some weird other substance, so I don't see that an immortal soul could be one - it would be truer to say that it's possible a soul would interact with the material universe at a quantum level); and partly because it seems to leave part of your faith as a hostage to future scientific discoveries - what happens if science discovers that free will/consciousness can be explained at a non-quantum level? I'm sure you wouldn't stop believing in God/immortal souls etc. you'd just say "well, I don't know how it works exactly, but I have faith that it does" and that being the case, why not just say that now? Personally I don't think consciousness is necessarily explicable by science anyway, but that's a whole other can of worms.

Hmmmm...big questions. Take a look at my journal if you'd like to know more about what I believe - they're generally the posts with lj cut tags labelled "philosophical ramblings" or suchlike pantheism also comes pretty close.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-03 03:55 am UTC (link)
Wow, cool!

Only thing I can think of to add is that sinful should probably be reparsed as harmful to remove its guilt-associations (and have a little orange box with an X in it -- not a bad idea, actually, I'll go draw one).

I just re-read the Smullyan article and I'm astonished, again, by how much ground it covers.  I believe it's a teaching of Buddhism that the existence or otherwise of God is something which becomes apparent with enlightenment.  I find this very compelling, but actually not because I think enlightenment helps answer the question so much as because enlightenment helps formulate the question -- it simply isn't possible to understand what the existence or non-existence of God means below that level, although I also think it may eventually become apparent that enlightenment is itself not a binary state, or even a graded one.  In fact, rejection of the categories of enlightenment and non-enlightenment may be one of the steps on the road to enlightenment.

Of course, rejection seems to suggest that one can either meaningfully accept or reject the concept of separation, which may in itself be impossible -- therefore rejection of rejection and acceptance may follow suit.

Before I oversimplify things further, I think it probably best to unask the question of duality with the time-honoured syllable, MU.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]randomchris
2003-03-03 04:45 am UTC (link)
I suppose the concept of God as a collection of particles is a bit misleading. My concept is more of something at that size - permeating the whole world at a subatomic level, yet imperceptible to us - like some kind of cosmic radio broadcast that (if we had receivers) we could pick up from anywhere, but can't be perceived by science. The "quantum level" stuff is just my (underinformed) scientific idea of how God could be a part of the same world as us, and is only one possibility of many.

"it's possible a soul would interact with the material universe at a quantum level"

That's what I meant. I just didn't put it quite as coherently. Thank you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-03 05:21 am UTC (link)
I have this concept of quantum angels, who are little tiny angels whose entire function is to affect a single quantum event, and this being the way God chooses to affect the universe.  It's actually based on an idea I had for a near-death experience in a cartoon in which all the panels are out of sequence (to indicate the idea of heaven being out of sequence).  The angels would have been represented in the NDE character's mind (and therefore, the cartoon) as blue (boo) bears about an inch and a half long.  There would be no way of telling them apart, especially to they themselves.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]andrewwyld
2003-03-04 04:01 am UTC (link)

Raymond SmullyanIt's Albus Dumbledore!

Even more so when he's wearing glasses.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ashfae
2004-08-05 06:24 am UTC (link)
Incidently, I love you, and I love that you've seriously thought about all this, and continue to seriously think about all this.

(Reply to this)


[info]vio
2006-08-25 11:35 pm UTC (link)
I feel guilty over every starving child in Africa who I haven't helped, every beggar in the street who I don't give money to, etc. - I do have long-term intentions to do something about this, but right now I have no time, not enough money to make a difference to their lives, and too many excuses.)

Feeling guilty only affects you and makes you unhappy. You can't possibly help everyone, so it doesn't really make sense to feel guilty to me. If I feel guilty, people starve AND I feel guilty. If I don't feel guilty, people starve and I'm ok. By working on my guilt then, I make one more person happy (me) therefore I make the world a better place.

Unless what you meant was not guilt, but COMPASSION.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…