More Random Musings

Here are a few random thoughts on spiritual matters for today:

1. On the subject of "being dead" : In a column I came across in a Chapel Hill newspaper the other day the writer bemoaned the increase in cremations in recent years, and went on to express the value people would obtain from having a grave site. A secretary I work with also commented that she questions whether cremations are Scripturally acceptable. I have never been able to understand this mentality at all. To me a deceased body is an empty shell: Once the soul has gone the body is destined to return to the dust one way or another-even those bodies that are buried decay. Whenever I hear someone talk about how they are afraid to be buried underground (which I have heard more times than I care to admit) I have to resist the urge to put my arm around them and explain how the dead tend to be, to put it politely, "awareness deprived". And if someone wonders if I care what happens to my body when I die...well, let's just say I don't give a sh*t. Donate me to science (which I seriously am considering), cremate me, or toss me over the back fence-I can guarantee at that point I'm not going to care.


2. I recently have done some reading on what is known in the New Thought tradition as the "Law of attraction". This law is basically the idea that our thoughts control everything in our lives-it basically is a sort of New Age take on the power of positive thinking (Norman Vincent Peale on steroids). Psychics often comment on people creating their realities in the spirit world with their mind and mystics often speak about creation emanating from the mind of God. While I find all of this interesting I personally take a rather dim view of the law of attraction and its applications-the prosperity Gospel (name it-and-claim-it), spiritual healing, and what I generally see an overemphasis on self-help via positive thinking. Self-help and self-improvement are important but are not the core of faith.
3. Several liberal spiritual groups enjoy distinguishing between "Jesus" and "Christ" (such as the Jesus of History and Christ of Faith), which is often generally translated so that Jesus is understood as the historical man Jesus of Nazareth, while Christ is understood as the divine nature inherent in all people. While I share a similar view (it is actually a common theme in mysticism that man is inherently divine and is transformed into an a true Divine-Man) I do not use such a distinction myself. "Christ" is simply the translation of "Messiah" and means "Anointed One". It is neither a name, nor a term for a mystical or metaphysical concept. I do sometimes refer to the "Christ within" or "becoming Christ", which even traditional orthodox Christianity sometimes does, but this is in reference to the fact that I believe Christ set the bar and is our "template" so to speak.


4. On that note, I recall in a conversation on JP's blog where I referenced a statement about the distinction between Jesus and the "Cosmic Christ", a popular term amongst liberal Christians today such as Deepak Chopra and even Eric Elnes (this, by the way, is a term that I never use myself). Amber, another reader, called this notion an insult to rational thought. Fair enough-but I asked myself (I did not ask on the blog) "Does this mean the traditional 3-in-1 doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity are somehow supposed to be a compliment to rational thought?" What exactly is rational thinking? In religion it seems to have variable meaning. In Religulous Bill Maher notes that Christians often mock Mormons or scientologists as being crazy when there are some truly bizarre ideas in Christianity itself (be it drinking blood at church or the events of revelation). I often get irritated by the fact that literalist Christians mock the stories of Native Americans, other indigenous cultures and Buddhists, but fail to see the double-standard in how literally they take equally bizarre stories in their own Bible (a talking snake is OK but the idea of Sasquatch is crazy?) I also find it interesting that Universal truths are still interpreted through the narrow lens of the myths and symbols of one ancient Near Eastern culture. A book series called The Masks of God offers a good snapshot into the many images used by the "first peoples" of this world. Let's not pretend we are dramatically different. And on that note-what makes a thought rational? It seems to be that any form of spirituality is trans-rational...I do not believe religion needs to reject reason (I'm a good Unitarian, I believe reason is good and compatible with religion) but ultimately faith and spirituality must go beyond reason, beyond symbols. Besides opposing positions can sometimes both be equally rational-and, as Maher points out, equally nuts.


5. I've realized I have little interest in the specifics of metaphysics, which philosophers, theologians, New Agers, and psychics all seem to enjoy spending a great deal of time analyzing and picking apart. That irritates me about Near-Death.com-the focus on explaining things like how the spirit and soul are different, technicalities about the "silver cord", specific realms in the afterlife (are there 7 hells or 9?), and so on and so forth. I find anything at that depth a turn-off. NDEs and psychics have given us some wildly contradictory versions of the 'Beyond' (note that they get increasingly contradictory the more specific they get), and theologians have gone so far with some doctrines that they basically telling us how God relates to and works with Himself! I'm more comfortable with the notion of Mystery-I love philosophical ruminations, so I'm not anti-metaphysics, but none of these things are verified truths-or really even verifiable, despite scientific advances. I believe in God, the soul and life after death, but I don't claim to know anything more, though I have a few theories.


6. It seems to me that some spiritual ideas seem to occur naturally to people without dictation from external religion-and sometimes even in spite. The idea of people possessing a soul and immediate life after death, for instance, seems to be something people just intrinsically know...or at least we all seem to conclude it. That I find interesting. Someone once asked if I believe in pre-existence (before we're born), and I answered that while I don't remember a pre-mortal life this doesn't mean that there wasn't one. Heck, I sometimes forget what I had for lunch!


7. In several conversations on the AUC Forum I expressed that while I disagreed with various positions I could see the concerns of the other side and shared them to some degree. The person I was having the discussions with took this to mean that somehow deep down I actually agreed deep down that the other side was right-in other words that subconsciously I knew the truth and was trying desperately to rationalize and compartmentalize. Another position I don't understand-having doubts about my beliefs is something I take for granted. I see it as normal, not something to fear. And yes there are times I can agree with the other side or at least see what bothers them. But that doesn't mean that I really don't believe what I'm saying or that I'm trying to rationalize a lie. At least if I'm doing so it isn't something I'm doing consciously.


8. Lastly, I've found myself missing Spiritus Christi, my home church in Rochester and Elmira. I have lots of issues with Spiritus and I've found myself gradually moving away from it on various spiritual issues, but I still love the people there and accept the church despite its numerous flaws. The fact that the church hasn't shown much interest in succession planning suggests to me that the movement may die out before long. In the meantime I have yet to decide where I will go to church once I leave New York after finishing at Cornell. I'm sure I'll have options (a theistic UU church, a mainline Protestant church, maybe a house church) but I'm not worried about that yet!