Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Mars Hill,,,
,,,and I don't know what to say. So, there is this Philosopher at work, who has a plan to fix the world. A Utopian plan based on everybody being nice to one another and not being greedy. So far so good---it's worked before... He uses many biblical and pseudo-biblical ideas and metaphors. He takes on the label of "Christian", but usually doesn't stress it, because he talks about philosophy, not so much religion. I usually disagree with most of what he says because it is almost right, and almost plausible, and maybe I am just pretty much an antagonist. Today, after we had discussed something, I mentioned that part of my problem was that I can't seem to divorce my beliefs and philosophy---and so we got onto religion. He reiterated that he was a christian, but that he thought that the way that everyone in the world can get along is by all the religions coming to a compromise, because if you get down to the basics of all religions, they are pretty much the same. I suggested that he meant people could not kill others, but try to help others eventually see the light. No, that would be me waiting until I could conquer you, or prove you are wrong. What we need is a "world conscience" to turn around the way the world is going. Each religion will have to give up some beliefs, and come to a consensus about what to believe. I can't really tell him that actually, the others are wrong, and I am right. Where is my evidence? What would it accomplish anyway?
Often I find that I hate him because what he says has no obvious, glaring flaws, and even if it does, he philosophies it away. He seems remarkably patient when I attack his ideas---maybe he confuses my backhanded disagreement with the not-so-witty banter that floats around the office. It isn't as easy as I figured curing someone of wrong conclusions using logic would be--you can't just show that a view leads to eating babies--after all, if it's you or the baby... Without a lot of time, it seems that I have no direct, clear, reason for what I believe if I don't use Scripture or other evidence that would seem inadmissible in a secular debate. Maybe I need to make it obviously un-secular. Or, just ignore the stream of almost-correct views on life (I've ignored the glaringly false ones) and just do my work, and let it be. Or, bring a constant flow of anecdotal stories about my own walk with God. Hmmm,,,mostly I see my failure to regularly connect with God on a personal, reciprocal level.
And, I am not sure that posting such stuff on a public forum isn't uncouth, but, where else can I get advice about my day-to-day life?
You might ask him what specifics he would ask a particular religion to compromise on. If it's something like asking Baptists to give up full dunking in favor of pouring, maybe he has a (small) chance. On the other hand, if he asks Jesus to back up from His statement of exclusivity "I am the way." he just doesn't understand Christianity. Or Islam. Or any religon for that matter.
I'm not aware of any religion that has as it's main goal the unification of all beliefs. They all search for TRUTH. And no religion will give up its understanding of TRUTH for anything less.
Nor should they.
PapaFjord
Do you co-workers see you as a semantics-arguing nitpicker always out to disagree with the Philosopher, or do they agree with you against his utopianism?
Try using biblical proofs once. Before he can refute the proof, he must refute the validity of the source (the Bible)--plenty of evidence to back you there...
I hope that you have a wonderful weekend! Let me know how that "farm house" comes along ;)
and, you are living a rich life
with lots of doors out of 'just go to work, eat, sleep..blessings..
<< Home