And this is you up against the wall- attempting to explain the reality of
your christ. It really ain't dismissable, this attempt. All religions do
it, they have to. At core, they really are placing reality on an
explainable footing, and most usually are using a deity to do it.
There may indeed be _some_ religion out there which will remove deity-
there seems to be a good case for buddhism, although it is thin IMHO,
especially since there are so many 'inspired' actions in buddhism, not to
mention reincarnation....
As a person, not just a skeptic, I have never felt the need to need a
god. Does this make me somewhat abnormal? Perhaps. As a skeptic, am I up
against the wall with _my_ claims of reality? Here's the 'no' to that- I
ain't claiming anything but what can be shown- 'Every fact is backed up
by the entire universe.'
Religions make claims without backing, which is why they're always up
against the wall for facts.
Now- having said all that- I have personally 'related' to the image (the
ideosphere, if you will) of the christ- the liaison between suffering and
knowledge, and have enjoyed my visits there. There seemed to be a
validity to this doorway image of the haggard man, persecuted and near
death, professing love, inviting everyone in.
I have sung with choirs of Baptists at revivals, chanted with yogis at
dawn, and screamed for the blood of the opposing team's first line
forward.
But while I may have felt it within definitional perogative to call any
of these 'religious' experiences, I do not. I include all of them within
the realm of human emotion and experience however, and do not
differentiate. I deny them to no-one, and expect them of all.
But none of them boil water.
*****************
Wade T. Smith
morbius@channel1.com | "There ain't nothin' you
wade_smith@harvard.edu | shouldn't do to a god."
morbius@cyberwarped.com |
******* http://www.channel1.com/users/morbius/ *******