Time for Aunt BeaN and family to head east for a family reunion. Will report more on my return. Have a great week and don't think too much while I'm gone.
H&K,
AB
Friday, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
So I figured out this afternoon that the reason why I'm having such a hard time getting started on this is that I don't want to argue about inerrancy (the belief that the Bible is "inerrant," without error). Since that is the lynchpin of the conservative Christian mindset, it seemed like the place to start. But every time I start lining up my ideas, I hear knives being sharpened in the background-- people girding up to do battle with my meager little arguments. I don't have anything to say that will change the mind of someone who is already convinced. So I just don't want to do it.
And of course I don't have to. So I'm not going to. Whole books have been written on this topic and you can read them if you want. (Try Bart Ehrman and Timothy Paul Jones, who take opposite sides, for a start). I'm just going to chime in with my little bit of experience, the thing that turned the tide for me once I started questioning.
So imagine me, about 23 or 24 years old, still more Evangelical Christian than not, but questioning and thinking and questioning and thinking. And it occurred to me that I had never had the experience of God requiring someone or something to be perfect before God could use it. My experience had always been (and still is, although I would use a different vocabulary to describe it now) that God works through imperfect human beings, messed-up situations, and so on. Moses, David, Peter-- they all had many moments of highly imperfect human-ness. So why would God's scriptures be any different? Why would God cause human beings to supernaturally create an absolutely perfect book, when that isn't the way God has done anything else? Why wouldn't God have scriptures that were messy, vibrant, open to interpretation, a bit confusing, somewhat chaotic-- just like the rest of the world that God created? (again, remember this is me 20 years ago, not the way I would phrase it now).
And that was the grain of sand that tipped the scales for me. You could argue, of course, as Paul does in several of his letters, that Jesus was perfect. But even if you accept that, Jesus didn't write the Bible. Several dozen regular people did. So there it is and I'm moving on, after having been stuck on this topic for weeks trying to figure out how to say it. I know that's not going to convince anyone, so no drive-bys, please. I know it's not an airtight argument. It's just what was helpful to me.
And Happy Summer Solstice to all, by the way...........
Aunt BeaN
p.s. sorry about some of the awkward wording in there, but I was trying to avoid using the male pronoun for God. Even at that stage when I was still mostly Evangelical, that would have been important to me, which I suppose would be the main reason I was only "mostly" Evangelical.
And of course I don't have to. So I'm not going to. Whole books have been written on this topic and you can read them if you want. (Try Bart Ehrman and Timothy Paul Jones, who take opposite sides, for a start). I'm just going to chime in with my little bit of experience, the thing that turned the tide for me once I started questioning.
So imagine me, about 23 or 24 years old, still more Evangelical Christian than not, but questioning and thinking and questioning and thinking. And it occurred to me that I had never had the experience of God requiring someone or something to be perfect before God could use it. My experience had always been (and still is, although I would use a different vocabulary to describe it now) that God works through imperfect human beings, messed-up situations, and so on. Moses, David, Peter-- they all had many moments of highly imperfect human-ness. So why would God's scriptures be any different? Why would God cause human beings to supernaturally create an absolutely perfect book, when that isn't the way God has done anything else? Why wouldn't God have scriptures that were messy, vibrant, open to interpretation, a bit confusing, somewhat chaotic-- just like the rest of the world that God created? (again, remember this is me 20 years ago, not the way I would phrase it now).
And that was the grain of sand that tipped the scales for me. You could argue, of course, as Paul does in several of his letters, that Jesus was perfect. But even if you accept that, Jesus didn't write the Bible. Several dozen regular people did. So there it is and I'm moving on, after having been stuck on this topic for weeks trying to figure out how to say it. I know that's not going to convince anyone, so no drive-bys, please. I know it's not an airtight argument. It's just what was helpful to me.
And Happy Summer Solstice to all, by the way...........
Aunt BeaN
p.s. sorry about some of the awkward wording in there, but I was trying to avoid using the male pronoun for God. Even at that stage when I was still mostly Evangelical, that would have been important to me, which I suppose would be the main reason I was only "mostly" Evangelical.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
I've spent several weeks now writing posts in my head about how and why I left fundamentalism behind some twenty years ago. At the time it was happening, it was more a survival thing; I had reached the point where continuing in that direction was toxic for me, and I turned and ran. But I never really thought it out, and that seems important, even at this late date. But now that our summer has settled into as much of a routine as it is likely to, and I have an hour to myself before the kids are awake, I'm sitting here at the computer to type out what I've been thinking and the things I've been meaning to say just don't seem that important--the logical inconsistencies in believing in inerrancy; the need to pierce through the self-reinforcing nature of being inside an all-encompassing system of thought; separating out what is one's cultural heritage and what one believes.
It seems more important to point out what I'm moving toward rather than what I'm leaving behind. Which would be: a sense of gratitude flavored with a bit of humility toward the experience of life; a practical integration of what I theoretically believe with the details of being fully present in my current surroundings; and relinquishing the need for the false sense of security provided by the feeling that the universe is explicable. Which is all a very wordy way of saying I want to find meaning in my experience-- my experience as it is not as I want it to be-- rather than thinking about my experience. Meaning instead of meta-meaning.
Ack. Words words words. It's so hard to get them to say what you want them to say. That doesn't quite do it. It's a work in progress.
And my hour is up.
AB
It seems more important to point out what I'm moving toward rather than what I'm leaving behind. Which would be: a sense of gratitude flavored with a bit of humility toward the experience of life; a practical integration of what I theoretically believe with the details of being fully present in my current surroundings; and relinquishing the need for the false sense of security provided by the feeling that the universe is explicable. Which is all a very wordy way of saying I want to find meaning in my experience-- my experience as it is not as I want it to be-- rather than thinking about my experience. Meaning instead of meta-meaning.
Ack. Words words words. It's so hard to get them to say what you want them to say. That doesn't quite do it. It's a work in progress.
And my hour is up.
AB
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
One of the best things about having a teenager in the house is that you keep up with what's going on in popular music, books, and movies. My daughter has me hooked on her radio station, which plays far more interesting stuff than my old classic rock station. But with a few exceptions like Good Charlotte and Pink, we end up buying different CDs. Well, actually, she doesn't buy CDs, she downloads them from iTunes, but that's an aside. She likes the techno-dance-rap stuff that is to me scarily reminiscent of disco music, while I like Robert Randolph and Ben Harper.
I've become a bit obsessed with Ben Harper's new double-disc album, Both Sides of the Gun (you have to wonder if he knew about Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience). He's the guy that did the pop-ish song that was on the radio all the time a few months ago "Always have to steal my kisses from you" --which probably will pay for his children's college educations and many vacations in exotic locations, but most of his music is profoundly thoughtful. I find as I listen to it that lines from the songs pop up in my head in contexts that he probably never anticipated. "Fools will be fools and wise will be wise, but I will look this world straight in the eyes..."
Which brings me to the real topic of this post, which is the relationship that believers have with their sacred scriptures. It's difficult to describe if you've never experienced it. What makes the headlines are things like the Christian Right's insistence on a literal interpretation of the creation story and Muslim suicide bombers who are supposedly acting out the commands of the Koran. But what doesn't make the headlines is the way the wisdom of the sacred words informs all of your actions in a way that makes them both meaningful and thoughtful. The closest I can come to explaining how it feels is the analogy of immersing yourself in someone's lyrics or poetry (Ben Harper, U2, Shakespeare, Keats), which probably everyone has done at some point. The words begin to float around in your ahead, coming to mind at the oddest times-- sometimes adding meaning that you wouldn't otherwise have noticed, sometimes reminding you that others have been where you are.
I think if you weren't raised in a conservative religious environment, any religion, it is difficult to understand how deeply the faithful love their scripture. For Muslims, it's the Koran; for Jews, the Torah; for American Evangelicals, the Protestant Bible. I don't know that much about the eastern religions, but I imagine for Buddhists the sutras of the Buddha and for Hindus, the vedas or Upanishads hold a similar place of veneration.
I still feel a great deal of love for and devotion to the scriptures on which I was raised-- and I use "on" advisedly there, because we were raised on the Bible the way other children were raised on meat & potatoes, or organic foods. I suppose it would be more accurate to say I still feel this love among a blend of other emotions which includes fear (because every time my dad opened the Bible in a disciplinary setting, we knew we were about to feel really, really bad); guilt (of course, because I never have been able to measure up to the teachings of Jesus); and even a bit of embarrassment, because the way we were taught to read the scriptures sometimes led to opinions that (now) I can't believe I ever endorsed.
But there are so many supportive, enriching, marvelous words in the Bible. When I worry about the way I am raising my children, "Perfect love casteth out fear" comes to mind, (I think only those of us who were born up to about 1965 still memorized the King James Version) reminding me that it is more important to love them than to worry about them. When I'm worried that I'll never figure out how to integrate who I am with what I believe, there's James: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault..." and looking that up to make sure I had the wording right reminded me of another good one: "Consider it all joy my brethren when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be full and complete, lacking in nothing." That was always quite comforting to me. That translation is the NASV, I had to try three different versions to find the one I memorized. My sentimental favorite bible is an NASV (New American Standard Version). I could go on and on but it's probably not all that interesting.
This post has been pieced together because I've been working on it all week. It seems an important thing to say before I go on to the next one I'm working on, which is why I'm not a literalist anymore. So this one is "to be continued......."
Aunt BeaN
Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path (Psalm 119)
My soul wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from him.
He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be shaken. (Ps 62.5-6)
How blessed are they who walk not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of the scoffers, but their delight is in the Law of the Lord, and on it they meditate, day and night. (Psalm 1)
As the deer pants for water, so my soul pants for Thee.... The Lord will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and His song will be with me in the night, a prayer to the God of my life. (Psalm 42)
The Lord's lovingkindnesses never cease, His compassions never fail.
They are new every morning. Great is Your faithfulness. (Lamentations 3:22-23) which of course brings up the whole topic of hymns, which also live in your head, because there is a great one based on those verses: Great is Thy faithfulness, Great is Thy Faithfulness, morning by morning new mercies I see. All I have needed thy hand hath provided, Great is Thy Faithfulness, Lord, unto me.
ok, I'll stop now. but I could go on and on.
I've become a bit obsessed with Ben Harper's new double-disc album, Both Sides of the Gun (you have to wonder if he knew about Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience). He's the guy that did the pop-ish song that was on the radio all the time a few months ago "Always have to steal my kisses from you" --which probably will pay for his children's college educations and many vacations in exotic locations, but most of his music is profoundly thoughtful. I find as I listen to it that lines from the songs pop up in my head in contexts that he probably never anticipated. "Fools will be fools and wise will be wise, but I will look this world straight in the eyes..."
Which brings me to the real topic of this post, which is the relationship that believers have with their sacred scriptures. It's difficult to describe if you've never experienced it. What makes the headlines are things like the Christian Right's insistence on a literal interpretation of the creation story and Muslim suicide bombers who are supposedly acting out the commands of the Koran. But what doesn't make the headlines is the way the wisdom of the sacred words informs all of your actions in a way that makes them both meaningful and thoughtful. The closest I can come to explaining how it feels is the analogy of immersing yourself in someone's lyrics or poetry (Ben Harper, U2, Shakespeare, Keats), which probably everyone has done at some point. The words begin to float around in your ahead, coming to mind at the oddest times-- sometimes adding meaning that you wouldn't otherwise have noticed, sometimes reminding you that others have been where you are.
I think if you weren't raised in a conservative religious environment, any religion, it is difficult to understand how deeply the faithful love their scripture. For Muslims, it's the Koran; for Jews, the Torah; for American Evangelicals, the Protestant Bible. I don't know that much about the eastern religions, but I imagine for Buddhists the sutras of the Buddha and for Hindus, the vedas or Upanishads hold a similar place of veneration.
I still feel a great deal of love for and devotion to the scriptures on which I was raised-- and I use "on" advisedly there, because we were raised on the Bible the way other children were raised on meat & potatoes, or organic foods. I suppose it would be more accurate to say I still feel this love among a blend of other emotions which includes fear (because every time my dad opened the Bible in a disciplinary setting, we knew we were about to feel really, really bad); guilt (of course, because I never have been able to measure up to the teachings of Jesus); and even a bit of embarrassment, because the way we were taught to read the scriptures sometimes led to opinions that (now) I can't believe I ever endorsed.
But there are so many supportive, enriching, marvelous words in the Bible. When I worry about the way I am raising my children, "Perfect love casteth out fear" comes to mind, (I think only those of us who were born up to about 1965 still memorized the King James Version) reminding me that it is more important to love them than to worry about them. When I'm worried that I'll never figure out how to integrate who I am with what I believe, there's James: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault..." and looking that up to make sure I had the wording right reminded me of another good one: "Consider it all joy my brethren when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance have its perfect result, that you may be full and complete, lacking in nothing." That was always quite comforting to me. That translation is the NASV, I had to try three different versions to find the one I memorized. My sentimental favorite bible is an NASV (New American Standard Version). I could go on and on but it's probably not all that interesting.
This post has been pieced together because I've been working on it all week. It seems an important thing to say before I go on to the next one I'm working on, which is why I'm not a literalist anymore. So this one is "to be continued......."
Aunt BeaN
Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a Light unto my path (Psalm 119)
My soul wait in silence for God only, for my hope is from him.
He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be shaken. (Ps 62.5-6)
How blessed are they who walk not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in the seat of the scoffers, but their delight is in the Law of the Lord, and on it they meditate, day and night. (Psalm 1)
As the deer pants for water, so my soul pants for Thee.... The Lord will command his lovingkindness in the daytime, and His song will be with me in the night, a prayer to the God of my life. (Psalm 42)
The Lord's lovingkindnesses never cease, His compassions never fail.
They are new every morning. Great is Your faithfulness. (Lamentations 3:22-23) which of course brings up the whole topic of hymns, which also live in your head, because there is a great one based on those verses: Great is Thy faithfulness, Great is Thy Faithfulness, morning by morning new mercies I see. All I have needed thy hand hath provided, Great is Thy Faithfulness, Lord, unto me.
ok, I'll stop now. but I could go on and on.
OK, here's a couple more, maybe my favorites of all.
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
The wording of this next one is from the version we sang in choir when I was in high school, so it doesn't really match up with any particular translation. But this is the way it exists in my head.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall persecution, or distress, or nakedness, or peril or sword? Nay, in all these things, we are more than conquerors, through Him who loves us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God; the love of God which is in our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 8:35-39 (more or less)
Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
The wording of this next one is from the version we sang in choir when I was in high school, so it doesn't really match up with any particular translation. But this is the way it exists in my head.
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall persecution, or distress, or nakedness, or peril or sword? Nay, in all these things, we are more than conquerors, through Him who loves us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life nor angels, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height nor depth nor any other creature shall be able to separate us from the love of God; the love of God which is in our Lord Jesus Christ. Romans 8:35-39 (more or less)
Sunday, June 03, 2007
I've talked on a number of occasions about podcasts I've listened to, mostly NPR shows that are made available on iTunes or audible.com. I don't think I've ever mentioned my all-time favorite, though, which is Speaking of Faith. I've been listening to it for over a year now, and while there's been the occasional clinker, it is generally a thoughtful, stimulating look at the many ways that faith plays a role in our culture. It is "public radio's conversation about religion, meaning, ethics, and ideas." The interviews she does often are the springboard for posts in this blog (though sometimes months after they aired). Highly recommended.
Friday, June 01, 2007
a technical aside
So I suppose I should say something about the difference between being a Fundamentalist and an Evangelical Christian. I usually refer to myself as a recovering fundamentalist because most people who are not part of the conservative Christian world don't know the difference. And in fact, from that perspective, I don't think there is much difference. Both groups believe that the bible is the inspired Word of God, every last word of it. It is, according to both groups, "inerrant," meaning "without error." Both groups believe that humans are sinful and that this sin separates us from union with God. Both groups believe that you are only saved if you have accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior, to borrow an overused phrase. And that we can only be reunited with God because Jesus gave his life for us. And the virgin birth and the divinity of Jesus and the bodily resurrection and so on.
I'm not even sure I remember what the technical differences are, but I know I had an impression that Fundamentalists had a lot more rules. I remember my dad saying once that Evangelicals concentrated more on God's grace (his willingness to forgive us even when we don't deserve it), while Fundamentalists concentrated more on God's righteousness and judgment. If someone wants to chime in here and help me out, please feel free. I do remember that we teased about going to Bob Jones University, a decidedly fundamentalist institution, where (supposedly) the male and female students were so thoroughly separated that they were required to walk on different sidewalks. (I have no idea whether or not this was actually true, I just know we used to joke about it). (great humor Evangelicals have).
For the record, I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. I don't think this will make a difference to most of my readers (all dozen of you) but just in case it ever comes up, I disclosed. :-)
I'm not even sure I remember what the technical differences are, but I know I had an impression that Fundamentalists had a lot more rules. I remember my dad saying once that Evangelicals concentrated more on God's grace (his willingness to forgive us even when we don't deserve it), while Fundamentalists concentrated more on God's righteousness and judgment. If someone wants to chime in here and help me out, please feel free. I do remember that we teased about going to Bob Jones University, a decidedly fundamentalist institution, where (supposedly) the male and female students were so thoroughly separated that they were required to walk on different sidewalks. (I have no idea whether or not this was actually true, I just know we used to joke about it). (great humor Evangelicals have).
For the record, I was raised as an Evangelical Christian. I don't think this will make a difference to most of my readers (all dozen of you) but just in case it ever comes up, I disclosed. :-)
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
OK, I'm adding this in June, but I'll put it back here with the other post that has my list of the my favorite five movies of the last five years. I can't believe I left out Howl's Moving Castle. Those of you who were around for the Original Aunt BeaN's blog may remember how I went on and on about how much I loved that movie. Still do. It's been cool and rainy here, and the kids are out of school, so we've watched quite a few movies this past week-- including Incredibles, Nemo, and Howl. I was going to bump Incredibles for Howl, but I just checked and officially speaking, the Fellowship of the Ring came out more than five years ago, so I can bump that one instead.
Also watched The Queen and the Keira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice. Both get two thumbs up, though the new P&P doesn't even come close to the Colin Firth version, let alone the book. (though you have to admit, as my daughter says in that tone of "Hello, stupid," that only a teenager can manage: "But it's FOUR HOURS shorter, Mom.") She is sure that's a good thing, but I'm not sure you can ever get too much of Colin Firth.
Ah, the things I can waste time on................
Also watched The Queen and the Keira Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice. Both get two thumbs up, though the new P&P doesn't even come close to the Colin Firth version, let alone the book. (though you have to admit, as my daughter says in that tone of "Hello, stupid," that only a teenager can manage: "But it's FOUR HOURS shorter, Mom.") She is sure that's a good thing, but I'm not sure you can ever get too much of Colin Firth.
Ah, the things I can waste time on................
Monday, May 21, 2007
A couple of months ago, after the Oscars that nobody cared about, I posted a fairly lame objection to the grisly, depressing content of most "important" films these days. I couldn't come up with a reason to feel that way other than I just don't want to be depressed when I go to the movies. Sure you can get a certain kind of bleak joy out of a beautifully made film no matter what its content, art from despair and all that. But I just don't like them.
So you can imagine my delight today when I read not one but TWO opinions that said much of the same thing. one at salon.com click here that is commentary by Andrew O'Hehir about the current crop of films at the Cannes festival, and one that I found at Arts and Letters Daily that is actually about literary novels but says something along the same lines click here. They express my general idea far more gracefully and elegantly and make it sound like a real opinion. I've actually thought about this a fair amount lately (there's a surprise) because there haven't been any movies I wanted to see for a long time. What kind of movies do I like? I can't stand brainless romantic comedies, it's been years since I saw one that I enjoyed (which was "While You Were Sleeping" because I love Bill Pullman-- with possible honorable mention to "You've Got Mail" which I mainly enjoyed because of all the references to great kids' books). So I was trying to think what are the five movies I've seen in the last five years that I enjoyed the most. So, (don't laugh) here's the list: the three Lord of the Rings movies, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles. I'm hopeless.
But Shrek 3 is out and the new Pirates movie starts this weekend-- suddenly fluff movies abound.
fluffily yours,
Aunt BeaN
So you can imagine my delight today when I read not one but TWO opinions that said much of the same thing. one at salon.com click here that is commentary by Andrew O'Hehir about the current crop of films at the Cannes festival, and one that I found at Arts and Letters Daily that is actually about literary novels but says something along the same lines click here. They express my general idea far more gracefully and elegantly and make it sound like a real opinion. I've actually thought about this a fair amount lately (there's a surprise) because there haven't been any movies I wanted to see for a long time. What kind of movies do I like? I can't stand brainless romantic comedies, it's been years since I saw one that I enjoyed (which was "While You Were Sleeping" because I love Bill Pullman-- with possible honorable mention to "You've Got Mail" which I mainly enjoyed because of all the references to great kids' books). So I was trying to think what are the five movies I've seen in the last five years that I enjoyed the most. So, (don't laugh) here's the list: the three Lord of the Rings movies, Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles. I'm hopeless.
But Shrek 3 is out and the new Pirates movie starts this weekend-- suddenly fluff movies abound.
fluffily yours,
Aunt BeaN
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Some quotations that have been making me think recently, commentary to follow:
Sam Harris, in a column that appeared a couple of months ago in our local paper, you can read it here : these are where I agree with him, disagreements to be discussed later--
"People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?"
Harris again, in the same column: "Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know. "
E.J. Graff in a column that appeared in our local paper last Sunday, it looks like it was originally published in the Washington Post, about "The Mommy Wars" (the purported tension between working moms and stay-at-home moms) (which is not what interests me so much as the idea that you can manipulate women by inducing anxiety) :
"...middle- and upper-class women are a demographic that responds well to anxiety, says Caryl Rivers, author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women." ... Tell women that working will damage their marriages, health and children and they will buy your magazine, click on your website, blog about your episode and write letters to the editor."
Giles Harvey, in a salon.com review (click here) of Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great:
"Although I am an unbeliever, this doesn't prevent me from recognizing that what led humans to create gods was not simply fear but a desire to harness and account for those sustaining moments when we receive our lives most abundantly. Iris Murdoch gives a far more persuasive and imaginatively generous account of religion when she writes, "God does not and cannot exist. But what led us to conceive of him does exist and is constantly pictured. That is, it is real as an Idea, and also incarnate in knowledge and work and love." "
more later
Sam Harris, in a column that appeared a couple of months ago in our local paper, you can read it here : these are where I agree with him, disagreements to be discussed later--
"People of all faiths — and none — regularly change their lives for the better, for good and bad reasons. And yet such transformations are regularly put forward as evidence in support of a specific religious creed. President Bush has cited his own sobriety as suggestive of the divinity of Jesus. No doubt Christians do get sober from time to time — but Hindus (polytheists) and atheists do as well. How, therefore, can any thinking person imagine that his experience of sobriety lends credence to the idea that a supreme being is watching over our world and that Jesus is his son?"
Harris again, in the same column: "Compassion is deeper than religion. As is ecstasy. It is time that we acknowledge that human beings can be profoundly ethical — and even spiritual — without pretending to know things they do not know. "
E.J. Graff in a column that appeared in our local paper last Sunday, it looks like it was originally published in the Washington Post, about "The Mommy Wars" (the purported tension between working moms and stay-at-home moms) (which is not what interests me so much as the idea that you can manipulate women by inducing anxiety) :
"...middle- and upper-class women are a demographic that responds well to anxiety, says Caryl Rivers, author of "Selling Anxiety: How the News Media Scare Women." ... Tell women that working will damage their marriages, health and children and they will buy your magazine, click on your website, blog about your episode and write letters to the editor."
Giles Harvey, in a salon.com review (click here) of Christopher Hitchens' book God is Not Great:
"Although I am an unbeliever, this doesn't prevent me from recognizing that what led humans to create gods was not simply fear but a desire to harness and account for those sustaining moments when we receive our lives most abundantly. Iris Murdoch gives a far more persuasive and imaginatively generous account of religion when she writes, "God does not and cannot exist. But what led us to conceive of him does exist and is constantly pictured. That is, it is real as an Idea, and also incarnate in knowledge and work and love." "
more later
In the midst of the current set of posts, it would seem appropriate to be more specific about what I actually do believe right now. Which is something of a moving target, but I'm OK with that. I spent quite a bit of time in the Original Aunt BeaN's Blog typing about this, probably way more time than the topic deserved. There were a whole series of posts which I even numbered. When I was moving things over from the original blog to this one, I decided not to move those because already there were some things that had changed. I figured I would edit them and re-post them another time. But after reading them over again recently, I 've decided to start from scratch. I did move two of them over, very slightly edited, and if you're interested, you can find them in this blog in August 2006-- scroll down (or up, as the case may be) the right hand side and click on August 2006 and there you are. But I'm working on the new version, which I promise will be far less wordy and (I hope) only one post instead of a half dozen.
Friday, May 18, 2007
So here's a bit of what's happened over the last several weeks that I haven't been posting. It isn't that I haven't been thinking about things -- far from it, my brain has been doing its nonstop hamster-wheel-churning as usual. It's just that I haven't sifted through it long enough to have formulated an opinion, which has felt like I have nothing to say. Or at least nothing worth the bandwidth required to say it. But here's a start.
Several months ago, I first heard prominent atheist Richard Dawkins in an interview on NPR. It was fascinating, but he's so over the top (in my opinion) it was hard to take seriously. As I've said before, a part of my litmus test for any belief system -- as silly as it may seem, but at least I'm being honest-- is whether or not I'd be willing to be associated with the people who believe it. And there is no way I would want anyone to think I was rowing merrily out to sea in the same boat as Richard Dawkins. He's just irritating-- I've never met the man, of course, but he comes across as someone who is getting a little too much enjoyment out of his 15 minutes of fame. And I've never appreciated people who enjoy being controversial and stirring things up. It seems like such a waste of energy to argue with them since a big part of why they're doing it is just because they think it's fun.
But then I heard Sam Harris, and read a couple of articles by him (though I still haven't read his book, the End of Faith). And then I read an article by Christopher Hitchens and some thoughtful reviews of his new book, God is Not Great. So I started mapping out how I would respond as a person of faith, although no particular faith at the moment. I was trying to come up with an intellectual basis for being a person of faith (as opposed to an intellectual basis for faith-- a small but important difference). Part of my response was going to be making the case that they completely misunderstand what most "people of faith" are like.
So I went out on the web to do a little research to support my thesis. And honestly, after several hours of poking around some Christian websites (I ended up in the homeschooling world), the only response I have at the moment is a somewhat stunned, glazed look in my eye as I realize OHMYGOSH. THEY ARE RIGHT. The Christian Right has become ridiculous. No wonder Sam Harris, et. al. think the world would be a better place without religion. I honestly could not believe some of the utter nonsense that is out there with page after page of positive, supportive responses. People who believe that the founding fathers were 21st-century-style fundamentalist Christians and are willing to re-write history and publish their own history books to prove it. People objecting to math textbooks because the story problems have fairies and elves in them. People who are determined to see conservative Christians as a persecuted minority even though they are the most powerful demographic in the most powerful country on the planet.
This stuff is not even remotely connected to reality, and you know, it's not even really connected to the kind of conservative Christianity in which I was raised. Oddly enough, even though I don't believe it anymore, I find myself wanting to defend intelligent conservative Christianity, because there is such a thing, even if you'd never know it from these websites. I may have left it behind for other reasons (see previous posts on this topic), but it wasn't as nutty as these websites would have one believe.
But then, I'm not sure if the kind of conservative Christianity I was raised on even exists anymore. Have all conservatives migrated over to this far-right nonsense? how many people actually believe this stuff? and it makes me wonder about my dearly beloved family members who are still Evangelical Christians. Would they agree? I try to avoid discussing religion with them because it makes us all uncomfortable. And honestly, if my parents believe that Thomas Jefferson was really a closet Evangelical, I'm not sure I want to know. But just for the record: among the Christians I knew growing up, "loving your neighbor" was still more important than starting a letter-writing campaign over story problems in math textbooks. If you disagreed with what your children were being taught in school, it was an opportunity to teach them yourself about how Christians believe differently than "the world." The separation of church and state was seen as a logical corollary to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (the words of Jesus to Pharisees who ask him if they should pay taxes to the Roman government)-- not an evil doctrine of liberals determined to undermine the authority of Scripture.
Well, I could go on and on here but I guess I already have. but more will be forthcoming, the hamster is still busy.
Aunt BeaN
Several months ago, I first heard prominent atheist Richard Dawkins in an interview on NPR. It was fascinating, but he's so over the top (in my opinion) it was hard to take seriously. As I've said before, a part of my litmus test for any belief system -- as silly as it may seem, but at least I'm being honest-- is whether or not I'd be willing to be associated with the people who believe it. And there is no way I would want anyone to think I was rowing merrily out to sea in the same boat as Richard Dawkins. He's just irritating-- I've never met the man, of course, but he comes across as someone who is getting a little too much enjoyment out of his 15 minutes of fame. And I've never appreciated people who enjoy being controversial and stirring things up. It seems like such a waste of energy to argue with them since a big part of why they're doing it is just because they think it's fun.
But then I heard Sam Harris, and read a couple of articles by him (though I still haven't read his book, the End of Faith). And then I read an article by Christopher Hitchens and some thoughtful reviews of his new book, God is Not Great. So I started mapping out how I would respond as a person of faith, although no particular faith at the moment. I was trying to come up with an intellectual basis for being a person of faith (as opposed to an intellectual basis for faith-- a small but important difference). Part of my response was going to be making the case that they completely misunderstand what most "people of faith" are like.
So I went out on the web to do a little research to support my thesis. And honestly, after several hours of poking around some Christian websites (I ended up in the homeschooling world), the only response I have at the moment is a somewhat stunned, glazed look in my eye as I realize OHMYGOSH. THEY ARE RIGHT. The Christian Right has become ridiculous. No wonder Sam Harris, et. al. think the world would be a better place without religion. I honestly could not believe some of the utter nonsense that is out there with page after page of positive, supportive responses. People who believe that the founding fathers were 21st-century-style fundamentalist Christians and are willing to re-write history and publish their own history books to prove it. People objecting to math textbooks because the story problems have fairies and elves in them. People who are determined to see conservative Christians as a persecuted minority even though they are the most powerful demographic in the most powerful country on the planet.
This stuff is not even remotely connected to reality, and you know, it's not even really connected to the kind of conservative Christianity in which I was raised. Oddly enough, even though I don't believe it anymore, I find myself wanting to defend intelligent conservative Christianity, because there is such a thing, even if you'd never know it from these websites. I may have left it behind for other reasons (see previous posts on this topic), but it wasn't as nutty as these websites would have one believe.
But then, I'm not sure if the kind of conservative Christianity I was raised on even exists anymore. Have all conservatives migrated over to this far-right nonsense? how many people actually believe this stuff? and it makes me wonder about my dearly beloved family members who are still Evangelical Christians. Would they agree? I try to avoid discussing religion with them because it makes us all uncomfortable. And honestly, if my parents believe that Thomas Jefferson was really a closet Evangelical, I'm not sure I want to know. But just for the record: among the Christians I knew growing up, "loving your neighbor" was still more important than starting a letter-writing campaign over story problems in math textbooks. If you disagreed with what your children were being taught in school, it was an opportunity to teach them yourself about how Christians believe differently than "the world." The separation of church and state was seen as a logical corollary to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" (the words of Jesus to Pharisees who ask him if they should pay taxes to the Roman government)-- not an evil doctrine of liberals determined to undermine the authority of Scripture.
Well, I could go on and on here but I guess I already have. but more will be forthcoming, the hamster is still busy.
Aunt BeaN
oops
So here is what I thought I did this week. I spent quite a bit of time early this week writing a post, which was published on Tuesday. After it was up for the better part of a day, I thought better of it and I thought I deleted it until I could re-word some parts of it to be less obnoxious and (possibly) less hurtful to some people I dearly love. I thought I figured out how to do that today, but when I went back to work on it, I realized that the offending post has been up all week. SO. I would just like to say that I'm a spacehead, and a somewhat inconsiderate one, as well. I know this blog doesn't get much traffic, so I'm hoping no one actually saw it and I will post the less heavy-handed version sometime in the near future.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
spring in the northern rockies
In the southern towns where I grew up, spring begins in mid-February. You put out pansies and the crocuses and daffodils come up and then in March, the dogwoods and redbuds start to bloom. By the end of March, the azaleas are out in force, and there are masses of color everywhere. Everything seems to burst back to life overnight. You don't even notice when the grass turns green or the trees leaf out.
The place where I live now is in the northern rockies, and spring is an entirely different affair. It is raw and slow and cold, just not as cold as February. When I first moved here, it seemed to me that the natives decided it was spring in March just because it was March--it had nothing to do with the weather. People start wearing sandals and capris in March just because the sun is out, even though the high for the day will only be 45. You sit watching your child participate in various sports wrapped in a blanket and prepared for wind, rain, sleet and even outright snow. It's nuts.
Of course after nearly 15 years, I've adapted. I find myself wearing capris when it is sunny and 55. But the thing I've come to appreciate about the slow progress of spring up here is how you notice every little thing. Two weeks ago, the grass turned green. This past week, the trees began to leaf out. They seemed dusted with that spring green that is so new it is practically yellow. On Wednesday, the first tulip bloomed in our yard. My internal Southern self still throws up her hands with impatience and says, "It's MAY, for god's sake," but my growing Northern self knows that we're right on schedule for another glorious summer. We get our payback in July when it's sunny and 80 here and the South is sweltering in the dog days.
I can't wait.
Aunt BeaN
reporting from the Northern Rockies, where it is a balmy 58 and sunny at the moment
The place where I live now is in the northern rockies, and spring is an entirely different affair. It is raw and slow and cold, just not as cold as February. When I first moved here, it seemed to me that the natives decided it was spring in March just because it was March--it had nothing to do with the weather. People start wearing sandals and capris in March just because the sun is out, even though the high for the day will only be 45. You sit watching your child participate in various sports wrapped in a blanket and prepared for wind, rain, sleet and even outright snow. It's nuts.
Of course after nearly 15 years, I've adapted. I find myself wearing capris when it is sunny and 55. But the thing I've come to appreciate about the slow progress of spring up here is how you notice every little thing. Two weeks ago, the grass turned green. This past week, the trees began to leaf out. They seemed dusted with that spring green that is so new it is practically yellow. On Wednesday, the first tulip bloomed in our yard. My internal Southern self still throws up her hands with impatience and says, "It's MAY, for god's sake," but my growing Northern self knows that we're right on schedule for another glorious summer. We get our payback in July when it's sunny and 80 here and the South is sweltering in the dog days.
I can't wait.
Aunt BeaN
reporting from the Northern Rockies, where it is a balmy 58 and sunny at the moment
Monday, April 30, 2007
reading report for april
Oh, I suppose I could post the April reading report. It will be short, because I don't have enough energy to go on and on. but THREE great books this month, which is like manna from heaven, don't you think? I can't even remember the last time I read three good books in one month.
The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion. Well, of course I've heard of her. But I'd never read anything by her. This is one amazing book. It's received so much press I probably don't have to say much about it, but briefly, it's the chronicle of the year following her husband's unexpected death. She is just ferociously intelligent, you can see it in every paragraph. And the writing is so clean and sharp it's like a razor. It's a wonderful read, even though her grief shadows every page. Highly recommended. the new "best book so far this year."
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. Another amazing book. It's about a young boy whose father was killed at the Top of the World restaurant on 9/11. Foer's great achievement is the voice of the boy, Oskar-- it almost echoes in your head, it's so clear and distinctive. You're almost relieved when he (briefly) moves to a different narrator. but it (the narrative voice) starts to falter and drag a bit toward the end. Otherwise it would have knocked the previous entry out of the "best book so far this year" spot. The plot is very carefully worked out, though, I thought it ended well-- which doesn't always happen, as previously discussed.
Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. Very moving and inspiring account of a former mountain climber's determination to build schools in Central Asia. I actually still have about 50 pages to go, but it's a great read, very absorbing.
and that's all for now.
Aunt BeaN
The Year of Magical Thinking by Joan Didion. Well, of course I've heard of her. But I'd never read anything by her. This is one amazing book. It's received so much press I probably don't have to say much about it, but briefly, it's the chronicle of the year following her husband's unexpected death. She is just ferociously intelligent, you can see it in every paragraph. And the writing is so clean and sharp it's like a razor. It's a wonderful read, even though her grief shadows every page. Highly recommended. the new "best book so far this year."
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer. Another amazing book. It's about a young boy whose father was killed at the Top of the World restaurant on 9/11. Foer's great achievement is the voice of the boy, Oskar-- it almost echoes in your head, it's so clear and distinctive. You're almost relieved when he (briefly) moves to a different narrator. but it (the narrative voice) starts to falter and drag a bit toward the end. Otherwise it would have knocked the previous entry out of the "best book so far this year" spot. The plot is very carefully worked out, though, I thought it ended well-- which doesn't always happen, as previously discussed.
Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson. Very moving and inspiring account of a former mountain climber's determination to build schools in Central Asia. I actually still have about 50 pages to go, but it's a great read, very absorbing.
and that's all for now.
Aunt BeaN
It has been quite a long time since I posted, and it's for a very good reason: nothing to say. I make it one of my goals not to bore you to death. I think I'm going through my midlife crisis. Will let you know when I get out the other side. I thought I was almost there this weekend, but it has returned in force today, so boring-ness abounds.
Love and kisses,
The Menopausal BeaN
(except it might only be PERI menopause, which is reason enough for a week-long pout if you ask me)
Love and kisses,
The Menopausal BeaN
(except it might only be PERI menopause, which is reason enough for a week-long pout if you ask me)
Monday, April 09, 2007
If you're at all a fan of classical music, you should check out the Washington Post article about Joshua Bell playing incognito in the subway in D.C. Try this link, I don't know how long it will work. Joshua Bell is one of the greatest violinists in the world, and he plays on a priceless Stradivarius. The Post convinced him to play for about 45 minutes unannounced at the entrance to the L'Enfant Plaza subway stop. You'll have to read the article to find out what happened, but one of the main points is how so many of us are too busy to appreciate beauty. I wonder which group I would have been in-- the ones who hurried on by, raising their voices on their cell phones to be heard above the music, or the ones who stopped to listen. I think, I'm sad to say, that it would depend on the day. There would be days where I would rush right on because I was late for something "important." But there would be days when I would stop. I've stopped for lesser musicians than that, I know. I remember once on a subway in-- let's see, it must have been D.C. because that's the only true subway I've been on in the past four years-- there was a guitar player playing. He probably wasn't a professional-level player, I'm not enough of an aficionado to know, but he was good enough that it sounded heavenly in the echoing subway chamber. We were tourists, with time on our hands, so we stopped to listen for awhile. But there are plenty of times when I'm late for something and anything that stands in my way is just a nuisance. And that's a shame.
Aunt BeaN
Aunt BeaN
Saturday, April 07, 2007
The prom (again) now that it's over
Well, she looked gorgeous and the dress fit and the shoes matched. Her date looked handsome in his rented tux. They had a great time. I never experienced a high school dance as anything but torture, although a torture I would have been heartbroken to miss. So it came as a great surprise to me that they were having so much fun they didn't want to leave when it was over at midnight. So much fun they couldn't be bothered with calling home to check in. So much fun they couldn't be bothered to get home by 12:30 (which was their curfew). I had gone on to bed and my spouse was waiting up, or it might have gone a little differently. But finally at 1:15 she got home, safely, which is the main thing, of course, but still-- 45 minutes late. We didn't find out until the next day that she had also stranded a friend that she was supposed to drive home, and that his parents received a call at 2 a.m. to come pick him up because he didn't have a ride.
Oh, it was a lovely experience. We're not used to this. It was not good.
She had a variety of school things scheduled over the next week and weekend that she couldn't miss, so she ended up being grounded this weekend. She doesn't like being grounded. She keeps asking if she can go do this or that thing, some of which we've said yes to, but to anything in the evening we've said no. On the plus side, she stayed home for an entire evening (on a weekend!) and worked on her homework. It was nice to see her that much. On the minus side, it's made us all into real grumps.
the continuing saga.
Aunt (Mom) BeaN
Oh, it was a lovely experience. We're not used to this. It was not good.
She had a variety of school things scheduled over the next week and weekend that she couldn't miss, so she ended up being grounded this weekend. She doesn't like being grounded. She keeps asking if she can go do this or that thing, some of which we've said yes to, but to anything in the evening we've said no. On the plus side, she stayed home for an entire evening (on a weekend!) and worked on her homework. It was nice to see her that much. On the minus side, it's made us all into real grumps.
the continuing saga.
Aunt (Mom) BeaN
atheism, the new religion
In the last couple of months, I've listened to interviews with controversial atheists Sam Harris (once) and Richard Dawkins (twice), and also read the recent column Mr. Harris syndicated nationally. I haven't read their books, though I do plan on reading The End of Faith, which has been sitting on my shelf for a year now. I'm mainly responding to Harris. Richard Dawkins strikes me as someone who enjoys fanning the flames, being at the center of a storm of controversy -- someone who relishes stirring things up. I just don't have a lot of energy for that. His arguments seem to me to be as much about getting his fifteen minutes of fame as anything else. But while that element is present in Mr. Harris's arguments, I find them much more interesting and thought provoking.
At the heart of both Mr. Harris's and Mr. Dawkins' argument is a firm belief that fundamentalism is the true face of religious belief. Mr. Harris mostly pokes fun at religious moderates; he claims that theologically they are on shaky ground compared to their fundamentalist counterparts. Mr. Dawkins claims that religious moderates make extremism possible, by mainstreaming religious beliefs that are centuries out of date. But who says? They have no way to back that up, it's just their opinion about the religious experience. And it has the added bonus of making their argument 100% easier-- then they only have to respond to the extremists.
At the heart of both Mr. Harris's and Mr. Dawkins' argument is a firm belief that fundamentalism is the true face of religious belief. Mr. Harris mostly pokes fun at religious moderates; he claims that theologically they are on shaky ground compared to their fundamentalist counterparts. Mr. Dawkins claims that religious moderates make extremism possible, by mainstreaming religious beliefs that are centuries out of date. But who says? They have no way to back that up, it's just their opinion about the religious experience. And it has the added bonus of making their argument 100% easier-- then they only have to respond to the extremists.
In short, at the same time that they criticize the fundamentalist mindset, they insist that fundamentalists have the only correct way to experience religion. The millions of us out here who have religious beliefs but don't share fundamentalism's strict (biased) interpretation of some ancient text are just dismissed with a jibe about "believing what we want to believe." It's easy to set up the terms of your argument and then insist that that is the only way the discussion can be conducted. Good job, guys. But it ignores the truth of the experience of millions of people on the planet who have deeply-held religious beliefs that are based on compassion and tolerance.
never finished this one but I'm posting it anyway.
never finished this one but I'm posting it anyway.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)