Faith, Part II

And in full awareness of the fact that probably no one cares what I think about this book, especially in light of yesterday's post, which I have now deleted because I'm a fickle, fickle beast and I just...I don't even know. I need to actually sort myself out here because I'm doing things that are going in opposite directions. Let's just call me confused and still looking, okay? Anyway, back to the book!

This is the end of the section of Morals. Aren't you all glad?

Here's how Lewis starts out the chapter:

"I want to start by saying something that I would like every one to notice carefully. It is this. If this chapter means nothing to you, if it seems to be trying to answer questions you never asked, drop it at once. Do not bother about it at all. There are certain things in Christianity that can be understood from the outside, before you have become a Christian. But there area great many things that cannot be understood until after you have gone a certain distance along the Christian road. These things are purely practical, though they do not look as if they were. They are directions for dealing with particular cross-roads and obstacles on the journey and they do not make sense until a man has reached those places. Whenever you find any statement in Christian writings which you can make nothing of, do not worry. Leave it alone. There will come a day, perhaps years later, when you suddenly see what it meant. If one could understand it now, it would only do one harm."

I am torn on my reaction to this statement. On the one hand, it's true that there are some things in every religion that people outside of the religion cannot make sense of. I tend to think that it's a lack of proper building blocks of knowledge in many cases, a lack of the understanding of the foundation of the belief. For instance, the Trinity. It makes absolutely no sense to many people who are non-Trinitarian, whether those are non-Trinitarian Christians or members of other monotheistic faiths. I think the Trinity probably makes a bit more sense to polytheists of certain stripes since they're used to thinking of a single divine entity that presents in different aspects or forms. And for other polytheists, it doesn't make as much sense because they're used to discrete gods. So yes, there is some truth to the fact that certain aspects of a religion don't make sense to those outside of it and might confuse them. My problem is the idea that people studying the faith or converting should 'just leave' the parts that confuse them in the hopes that it will some day make sense.

There are some things that I think you need to understand before you commit to a faith! And if you don't understand them then you shouldn't join the religion. Yes, some things are 'minor' or 'not salvation issues' according to some opinions. But those are just opinions and other people may believe that those same issues are a part of the heart of the faith. So if you don't understand them to your satisfaction, because I'm not saying that you have to be able to grasp every mystery of your chosen faith perfectly of course, are you really 'saved'? Are you truly a member of that religion?

Then again, this may be part of my own personal problem. I want to understand and the not understanding drives me crazy. I do know that divinity is so different from us that we can't understand it through our filter of limited senses and I'm okay with that. But the things that we do know, I want to understand. I want it to make sense to me. If I can't grasp even that much, how can I have faith in it?

"the question of Faith in this (second) sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God's own. In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy."

I have issues with the concept of moral bankruptcy as the default human condition! I always have. I don't see where people get that. In the Bible, does God create man? Yes. Is God the author of anything evil or wrong? No. That's one of the basic tenets at the heart of monotheism. God = good. End of story. He only contains good, so He can only create good. So if both of these statements are true, then man is inherently, morally good. I do know that this is a simple view of reality, really I do. But boiled down, this is what it comes to in my mind. If God created everything, then everything is at it's core good. That does not take away the fact that people do bad things. We make mistakes. Free will is a bitch, remember? But this whole idea that people are born morally corrupt and dirty just doesn't make sense to me. I much prefer and better understand the Orthodox position that the Fall didn't corrupt the core of human beings but more...smudged them up. So it's like having an incredible work of art covered by a layer of dirt and grime. The art is still there, still beautiful as the day it was created, you just have to get to it.

Since the next several paragraphs are all about the moral bankruptcy of humans and how we cannot understand our relation to God until we understand that we are scum...I just have to go, 'no' at Lewis and shake my head. I disagree. There are morally good people who don't believe in God at all. There are morally good people who believe in different gods. Believing that you are scum and inherently flawed does not necessarily lead you to being a better person or in a 'right' relationship with deity. It seems so very self-destructive to me, like being raised in a household where you're told the entire time that your every impulse is wrong, that your opinions are wrong, that you shouldn't think for yourself in some areas but leave the judgment to those who are your 'moral superiors'. This is a pattern of behavior that leads people to depression and no sense of self-worth when it occurs between human beings. How much worse is it when you believe that the creator of all things thinks that you're so bad He can't even look at you?

So...blah, blah, handwave, 'humans are morally bankrupt'. :p

"Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come."

This part I like, in a way. I view the whole faith vs. actions thing as a sort of chicken vs. egg thing. You can't have one without the other. Or, well, you can, but in the salvation economy of Christianity it doesn't work. You have to have faith *and* do good works. I'm not denying that there are arguments as to whether or not the good works are motivated by the fact that you have faith or not, but I'm not aware of any branch of Christianity (which doesn't mean that there isn't one, just that I don't know about it. My knowledge base isn't all inclusive) that says that you can earn your way into God's good graces. I know that some branches have been mis-characterised in that fashion, but it's simply not true. Even Islam, which is accused very often of being a works based religion, doesn't work without faith. I could pray salat five times a day for the rest of my life, give charity, make Hajj, do all the things that are outward signs of a good and faithful Muslim and it wouldn't mean anything if I didn't believe in the message of Islam.

Change in the House of Amber - Restored Post

There are a few changes going on in my life right now, some you know about and some you don't

I decided to do a reading last night on a change that I've been feeling and seeing for a while now. The truth of the matter is that I've been feeling very disconnected from Christianity for a long time now. I've never been 100% comfortable with it, in spite of the face that I have tried to present to people. I made a choice based on in part wanting to keep the peace in my house and in part on wanting to irritate someone who was nasty to me. Which I think we can all agree are not good reasons to choose a religion.

And I want to say that I feel that, in spite of the wrong beginning, I really did believe. Or maybe it would be better to say that I decided that I should believe, that I wanted to believe and so I believed that I believed. I wasn't lying, or at least not to anyone but myself. But I never felt quite exactly like I meshed. I did have moments of comfort and happiness, where I felt as though I'd found someplace that I could belong. If I was just going on feelings I could happily keep plugging along under the label of Christian because I feel good about it.

But here's the honest truth: I don't see any difference between the claims of Christianity versus the claims of any other religion, ever. Yes, there are different details, but what I mean is that the likelihood of any one of these faiths being correct is equal. So there's no automatic greater weight to be applied to Christianity simply because it's monotheistic and monotheism is so much simpler and more logical than polytheism. First, that's not true. Just look at the debates that rage in Christianity, whether you're Trinitarian or Unitarian. Or Judaism or Islam. Second, monotheism has been tried before, in antiquity. It didn't take off quite as well as it later did but it's not new.

This...really has little to do with what I'm saying though. Other than accepting that fact has made it easier for me to step back and really evaluate what I'm doing. I think, in part, I wanted to be Christian, or at least in the monotheistic tradition because that's what is common. It's what is expected, in many ways, unless you've become an atheist.

The truth of the matter though is that I have always understood the universe and divinity best through paganism. I have to admit and accept that I never really left it, even when I said that I was a Christian and had done away with the old 'superstitions' of my life. I never stopped worshiping some of the gods in small ways. I never stopped feeling the need to perform certain rituals. And when I *did* stop them, something reached out and reminded me. I debated, within my own mind whether or not it was an accident and a coincidence or not. And I don't believe that it was. It's too perfect with meaning and with the devotion that I had let slip.

Since I picked that devotion back up, I've felt better. More settled in my own soul and things have been looking up in my life in general. I know now that in the past my religion has been unbalanced. I'm not going to pick it up exactly the way that I left it because I left it for a reason. I was allowing my anger to control a great many things and my form of worship was one of them. And that's why, I think, it didn't work the way it's working now.

I feel like I'm finally seeing the path that's been beneath my feet the entire time.

So, that was rambling, all to get to the reading. I use a set of rune cards, for the moment. I plan on making my own proper rune set but I need to make them in stone rather than clay since I sleep with the runes beneath my pillow and I'm afraid clay would break. For the moment, the cards work well enough.

The way I do a reading is really simple. I shuffle the deck while concentrating on the question or the event that I want insight on. When I feel that I've got the focus right and given enough time I cut the deck in half (roughly) and draw the card on top of the bottom half. That's the first card. I will usually draw two more cards to further focus and clarify the answer.

Last night I did two readings on the same issue. The issue being whether or not I was right to let go of Christianity and follow what I was feeling.

These are my cards from the first reading:

Cen (Freya) - Asa (Odin) - Mannaz

Right. So Cen (Kenaz) was my first card. It's associated, in this deck, with the goddess Freya. There are a *lot* of meanings on different levels associated with each rune but I'm just going to focus here on the ones that apply to my question. On the mental level Cen is associated with insight. Spiritually, it represents enlightenment, a spiritual awakening or opening. It is a sign of guidance, a reminder that the spirits (or gods) guide believers along their chosen paths.

My second card was Asa (Ansuz) which is associated with Odin. For those unaware, Odin is the chief god of the Norse pantheon. Again, many meanings but it is wisdom, the gaining of knowledge and religious acts. Inspiration.

My third card was Mannaz, or Man as the cards call it. The meanings attached to this are the human intellect, rationality, memory and tradition.

It's a very good, positive reading! I was surprise that the message was so very straightforward and positive without any pitfalls or notes of warning. You get that, sometimes, where there's a message of progress but it comes with a second card that warns of delays or blocks in your life. That's why you draw multiple cards, in order to see further.

I was so surprised by the goodness of this first reading that I did a second one!

Asa (Odin) - Sol - Algiz

I got the Asa/Ansuz card first this time. Which actually just about knocked me on my ass. I've never done two readings back to back as it were and gotten the same card in both. Never. So we remember from the first reading that Odin is associated with this rune and that it's wisdom and knowledge. I personally associate Odin with self-sacrifice in the name of knowledge.

Sol (Sowulo) is a rune that means success, or favorable circumstances.

Algiz is a rune associated with the god Heimdall who is said to be all seeing. There's nothing that can be hidden from him. He's considered a protective deity. It means protection, success through effort at the end of a quest or a period of seeking.

Which all boils down to me getting two readings on the same question with very similar answers. It's...I'm not going to lie. It's very awesome.

TV: The River

Did anyone else watch The River last night? It's a new horror/suspense/something show on ABC. According to the end of the premier there're only six more episodes of the season, so it's really more of a mini-series than a regular series anyway.

I watched it and I have to say I was neither impressed nor disappointed in it.

The basic idea is that there's a family; Tess (mom), Lincoln (son), and Emmett (father). The father, Emmett Cole, is a famous explorer whose television show followed the family around as they explored the world. Of course there's the requisite falling out between Lincoln and his father and the suspicion/knowledge that Tess cheated on Emmett at some point. But those are all things that are mentioned but not fleshed out in much detail just yet. At the start of the show Emmett has been missing for six months and he and his crew are declared dead. They had gone off on a strange (are you really surprised?), kind of secretive mission to the Amazon and vanished.

Tess convinces Lincoln, who is ready to try and move on, to come with her and some of the television crew to try and find the missing expedition. They tack down Emmett's beacon, which has suddenly and mysteriously turned on after being inactive for half a year, and find it inside a diving cage at the bottom of the river. With no sign of anyone. *makes spooky sounds*

They continue looking, even though everyone is *sure* that the crew is dead, and come across the boat that the missing expedition was using. Also mysteriously abandoned. Blah, blah, spooky shots of the interior, they come to the panic room on the boat (designed in case of pirate attack), which has been welded shut from the outside. There are banging noises coming from within, so the rescue mission believes that some of the crew are alive and trapped inside.

Eventually they restore power and bust the room open to discover...a creepy shrine looking thing, something that looks like a giant seed and no one home. The seed thing turns out to be a native made coffin for an infant which is also alternatively used to capture 'dry ghosts'. Which, shock, is what was in there. According to the recordings that are found on the boat, the producer that Emmett brought with him, Cam, died and for whatever reason came back as one of these dry ghosts. They captured his spirit inside the little coffin and sealed it up in the room after it had killed some other members of the crew.

So the rescue mission, having accidentally set the ghost free, as you do, try to flee. The ghost shreds their little rafts that they need to get back to the boat they were using. They get the Magus (Emmett's ship), going again in 2 hours. Even though it's been sitting in the Amazon for six months with no maintenance, but whatever. The ghost kills one of the camera men and then they manage to trap it back in the little coffin. Not before it tells them that Emmett is still alive somewhere though.

Point of logic: Lincoln decides to dump the ghost-pod into the river. Which seems to me like it would un-seal the pod since there's nothing holding the two halves together. Thus re-freeing the ghost to hunt more people. But whatever. *handwaves the logic*

That's the first hour.

Second hour, they're still on the Magus and there's another point of logic. They have a perfectly good boat without any rust or, you know, giant smears of blood on the walls. Why did they not use the Magus to get back to the non-damaged boat. Then they could still keep looking, but in a perfectly functioning boat. Anyway. Moving On.

Still searching. Through *mumbltyconvenientplotpoint* they pick a direction to look for Emmett which just happens to lead them to an old colonial cemetery. Which happens to be right next to a giant creepy tree with dolls tied to it. Not voodoo dolls or anything, just plain old baby dolls.

Blah, blah, they find Lincoln's childhood bear tied to the tree so they know they're on the right path. He takes the bear from the creepy tree of dolls and you just know that that's never a good idea. Later, there's footage of the dolls moving behind peoples backs and then when they all go to sleep something grabs Lincoln and pulls him out of his tent. The group freak, try to leave, and wind up running in a circle back to the tree. Try to leave again, something grabs Tess and tries to drag her under in this little stream. Back to the tree. Someone suddenly remembers an old story about a girl whose mother had no time for her. The girl fell into the river and drowned, then her spirit, still lonely, started luring people to the river to drown them. The locals, to appease her, started to leave dolls at a tree for her. Thus, creepy doll tree. So they figure Lincoln pissed her off and make him give back his bear.

Ghost girl rejects the bear. She's decided she wants her mommy. She lures Tess off and takes her into the river. In a brilliant move they decide that if they give the little ghost girl her real mother's body that she'll give back Tess. So they go back to the graveyard, find the ghost girl's grave - easily identifiable since the only thing it says on it is her name, 'Rachel' and something about being taken by the river. Then they find the mother's grave. Also easily identifiable because apparently there was only one woman on this expedition and her grave, conveniently, mentions her heartbreak at losing her daughter to the river. Dig, carry somehow fully articulated skeleton to the river and drop it in. Tess pops up in the open grave of Rachel's mom.

And after all that, they're still willing to keep looking for Emmett. The end.

It's like...it's supposed to be a horror show, but there was nothing truly frightening about it. The doll tree was creepy, because really. Dolls. But that was a total rip on a real myth that actually exists in Mexico. See the Destination Truth episode, Island of the Dolls for that one. So far it seems like they're taking things that are supposed to be creepy and throwing them all at us. I'm fairly 'meh' about the show thus far, but I'm all about giving shows the chance to prove themselves so I'll withhold final judgment for a while yet.

That is *not* right!

I would like someone to please explain to me what thought process would lead a man to believe that the appropriate response to being informed that his flirtatious approaches to a woman at the gym are not welcome is to come up while the woman is on the treadmill and make sexual gestures at her.

No, it was not me this happened to, and no, I did not see it. If it had been, or I had, I would already have complained and the man would be banned from the gym.

I can't decide which part pisses me off more: that the man thought this was an acceptable thing to do or that the woman didn't report it. Or, or, that she was so freaking *shocked* when it was mentioned to her that she could, in fact, complain about his behavior. Like the thought had never occurred to her that she had another path to take rather than just take it and try to rebuff him herself. *twitches*

I just- I don't even have the coherency to make a rant about this. I'm too pissed for words and that *never* happens.

in which i rant about things i know nothing about

After talking with Eve on the drive home yesterday I've become half convinced that so much of prenatal care/screenings/tests is deliberately designed to make the parents freak out and then have to go to specialists.

So Evesdottir (still in the womb, keep in mind), has one kidney that is slightly larger than normal. This, according to what Eve told me, is one of the most common birth 'issues', and usually corrects itself. But she only knows this after having been told that the problem which causes that enlargement is one of the signs of Downs Syndrome, panicking about that, then being told that Evesdottir doesn't have any of the other signs three weeks later, then being told that if the problem doesn't correct itself that Evesdottir will be born and have to have surgery. So they have to go to Sarasota, which is a larger city north of where we live, to see a specialist to keep an eye on this 'problem' which, according to everyone is most likely not a problem at all. But just in case. Thus sucking more and more money out of Eve and Kyle, all while making them worry that there's something horrifically wrong with their baby.

*sighs*

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely understand that modern medicine is a necessary thing in many instances. That it saves people who would otherwise die. I'm all for it, when it's necessary. But is it really necessary to panic people for seemingly no reason at all except to have to send them to specialists?

New Books!

The arrival of these books has totally made up for having to host a baby shower for two hours. The shower went well, by the way and Evesdottir is set up at least for a little while.

Now, on to the books!

The ones on Christ and God is Red are from sanil, thank you!

The others, the Eddas and the book on Asatru, are ones that I picked up earlier in the week.

I want to go where I'm not exactly allowed...

I want to go on Hajj. Really.

It's wrong, which I realize. I have no faith in the pilgrimage or in Islam, but I have a desire to experience Hajj and see Mecca. Not just through photos and videos, but in person. No clue why. I want to touch things, you know?

I was reading the Two Cheers for British Museum's Sanitized Hajj Exhibition on Religion Dispatches and it reminded me of my bizarre desire to do this.

Here ends your random revelation of the day.