A PERSONAL EXPLORATION OF THE CREATIVE EXPERIENCE - HTTP://GIOVANNIANDFRANCO.INFO -
We consider ideas that people often think about but seldom explore - ideas on how to remain authentic and be your real self. We define success as the realization of what you need to be and having the courage to become that person - this is what creativity is about.
Conjectures of a recovering dillettante while traveling the road to Utopia..
Why do we believe what we do with such conviction?
When I ask people what proof they can offer to substantiate their strong feelings about a given subject, you would think they would offer, easily and quickly, substantial historical facts to prove their point. Strangely enough, few can.
I am not suggesting you should not believe what you do, but go easy. It is possible that the best you can offer for the validity of your position is an assumption.
That’s okay, but stop selling it to the world with such vigor.
Here is an idea, Why talk about it at all? Why not make your actions speak for your beliefs? Let what you believe be who you are. Now that’s a thought for the ages.
A Catholic priest once said to me – “It’s too bad we stopped writing “gospels.” When I asked why, he said, “Because we need to update the message, not the content, but the places and references so young people can better relate to the Christian message.”
To prove his point that Sunday at Mass, he read the Gospel, replacing the biblical names and places with localized references in their place. The difference was amazing- how more relevant the words became because of the regional reference to familiar names and places.
The issue is how to make the message of 2000 years ago as compelling and relevant today as it was in the time it took place.
Even the most ardent atheist agrees that Jesus preached an ethical and humanist philosophy. The concept of love and sacrifice that embraces a committed community is as relevant today as it was in the day it was first preached. How then do we continue to preach the Gospel so it can reach beyond the faithful?
Some would argue that we already do. And in many ways this is true. However, the message of Jesus, though preached regularly, is still not received by many people all over the world. One problem is the unbending and intolerant view that some Christians have and project to the world. It is hard to project love and tolerance, when tolerance is not there.
For many fundamental Christians, the above statement amounts to heresy. This begs the question: “Is the non-fundamental Christian any less faithful? And of course, the next question as well: “What is a non-fundamental Christian?”
First, we must establish what makes all Christians alike - we all except Jesus as friend and savior, as the Christ, the son of the living God. We would all agree that the Bible is the “word of God.” The problem has always been how we interpret the “word of God” – literally or metaphorically – allegory of actual fact?
It also raises the additional question: Does a parable or allegory make the concept or subject being discussed less factual? Is a story that is considered a “myth” presumed to be not as truthful in its concept? Merriam Webster’s full definition of parable states: A parable is usually a short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or religious principle.”
We know Jesus often used parables to make his point. Most of the important messages of the New Testament come to us in stories or parables that Jesus used to make his point to the people he was addressing. Does this make His comments any less true? Most Christians would agree - they do not.
Why then is it necessary to believe that all the events in the Bible, while true, were not told as metaphors or allegories? When you consider the linear evolution of human consciousness, it seems that an all-knowing God would have spoken the truth in a form that would resonate through the ages for peoples of all time.
Now those who don’t agree with me would say the words of the Bible do just that when they are accepted as literal truth. They would also tell us that being able to accept the word of God as literal – just as it is stated - is a matter of faith – and that faith is a gift they receive directly from a loving deity.
This makes any discussion impossible. How can you argue with the direct word of God? For one, you can’t. However, you can challenge the fundamentalist's basic premise. This is important to do so, not to change the mind of the fundamentalist, but to create a more relevant dialogue with each new generation so that the word of God is also significant to them. And when we do this, I still believe the Gospel’s message reflects true word of God.
And what moral justification do we have for this. Again, how about Jesus himself who used parables as his most important way of making his message relevant and clear to all who were willing to hear.
As we said in our previous remarks, even the most ardent atheist agrees that Jesus preached an ethical and humanist philosophy. The concept of love and sacrifice that embraces a committed community is as relevant today as it was in the day it was first preached. How then do we continue to preach the Gospel so it can reach beyond the faithful?
It is important to separate my previous remarks from the philosophy of post modernism as preached by Brian McLaren. (A new kind of Christian) When it comes to the Bible, literal interpretation as the only way of accepting God's word and the complete rejection of the possibility of any objectivity when trying to understand the truth, are the two extremes.
While the message of complete love and sacrifice that Christ taught during his time on earth was radical for His time, surely. He would have understood the need to have the meaning of his words to be understood within the context of each evolving generation, rather than unyielding, never changing dogma as it related to the historical times in which he lived. If we accept this - faith becomes the relevant issue.
For me the question becomes: Can you still retain the objectivity of the truth of the bible and at the same time accept the veracity of God’s word to come to us in metaphors and parables? At what point does intent trump dogma? In fact, the legitimate question is – do they have to actually be different. These two concepts should be able to coexist without changing the word of God in any way.
It seems to me that our current Catholic Pope, Francis, is struggling with this issue and encountering the same difficulties that always arise when focusing on intent as your source for primary meaning. One could legitimately ask – is not the concept of interpreting the intent subjective in and of itself? If the answer is yes as fundamentalist proclaim - there is no room for further discussion.
Again, I come back to the same position every time. Would an all-knowing and loving God not leave room for the evolution of human conscious so that each succeeding generation could understand the Gospels within the context of their time? Would that change the meaning of the intent of the word of God? I do not believe it does and here is why.
The same faith that fundamentalists bring in proclaiming the unchanging word of God can also be used as the basis of reinterpreting the Gospels from an evolving and updated view of the Word. If an all-knowing God is aware of the inevitable evolution of human consciousness would not that God enable future generations to come to the identical conclusions that the people of Jesus’s time understood?
Is this any less legitimate as a means for using faith as the criteria for your conclusion? Is it not as valid as the faith used by fundamentalist who insist on an unbending dogma created for people of a different time?
How then does this separate me from the philosophy of the new evolving, purely subjective Christianity that is now being preached by modernist?
For one, I believe as an act of faith that a loving God would allow for the correct, objective interpreting of the Word by the people of each millennial as we continue to evolve into the future. It is also important to remember that the faithful who lived at the time the New Testament was being formulated believed in the imminent end of the world as they knew it. We still concede the world can end, but obviously in God’s good time, not ours.
It should also occur to all of us, that the world ends for millions of people individually each day. Is that any less the end of the world for them? I think not. When this happens, as it will for each us, our personal faith will be all that we have left.
In the final analysis maybe *Kierkegaard's concept of Christian existentialism was right to begin with.
Faith, morals and political integrity, three subjects that most Americans believe they have. The question, however, always comes to mind, how much of these belief systems are real or just a matter of convenience?
As we listen to the caustic and angry rhetoric of our current election campaign, where does integrity begin? Again, I need to remind us that I am not talking about hypocrites. I prefer to believe most people are sincere. What concerns me is how the belief systems that candidates espouse, or anyone of us, become compromised when it is no longer profitable, financially or emotionally, to continue to believe in them.
Let’s consider religious convictions or faith. We all deal with the two bookends of life: Birth and Death – the tension created by the frame they produce, fuels the positive impulse that drives life.
Within each of us a need for certainty exists – a certainty that cannot exist in the world as we know it. From this premise, we begin a journey to seek an uncertain truth that can only exist in faith. Within the intuitive understanding of this concept, we begin our journey.
The frame of life created at birth and ending with death is a vertical boundary. To travel beyond the vertical boundary is a matter of transcendence, and if we go beyond the frame, we go from the uncertainty of reality to the certainty of uncertainty. We call that journey faith, and it cannot be resolved as long as we remain in the frame.
It is easy to see how normal it would be to have these faith belief systems challenged by circumstances that could harm us. How would we hold up if challenged to this degree?
Here we have many examples of people who believed and acted according to their ideology. This also includes those who gave their lives. It seems a good idea to reflect on the lives on these heroic people, so we can see how we might compare to them.
I know the standard is high here, but so is the concept of personal integrity. Self-examination should be an important part of our growth process. To wait for the trial to appear without serious introspection beforehand would be foolish. There is a reason military training is so vigorous and often dangerous. It prepares the soldier, as best as possible, to understand the dangers and tasks they will be facing.
Should we be any less vigorous with our faith? If one needs an example of “the Christian life” there could be none better than Dietrich Bonhoeffer*. Take some time to consider this man’s life and faith. He set the standard. How would each of us hold up? That is a question only for you and your God.
While there are at least four definitions of faith in Merriam Webster, the one that sums up all of them is: “Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof: complete trust
If there is a profound effect modern science has on the thinking process of the average person; it is the notion that you must have proof to define reality. Since so much of what we believe that determines how we conduct our lives is based on assumptions, where does that leave us?
For one, I hope less dogmatic in our opinions.
Perhaps, the most important act of faith many of us make is to believe in God. Then we take our belief in God one more step. We choose to believe in a specific religion. In my case, I chose Christianity.
I am sure all of us have definitive ideas of how religious faith affects our individual lives. I would like my faith to be unconditional; however, I often do not live up to its ideals. To complicate the issue, I have always suffered doubts about my beliefs, but choose to continue to believe. Why?
For one, what Jesus was and preached makes sense to me. When I divorce religion and a belief in a loving God from his message, and keep only the moral, ethical message - it is difficult to reject the intrinsic goodness of his philosophy.
It also makes sense as a practical approach to life – in much the same way as our existential philosophers do. Existentialism can find no meaning or reality in existence other than the obvious suffering that all living things must endure. This is clear through our daily observation. We witness every day the obvious fact that we will die - and that all other living things share the same fate.
Our only recourse is to find meaning in suffering. Is this not what Christianity does? For me, it reinforces what I learn from my experience. Every day I observe the process that all life travels – life, death and resurrection.
And in the resurrection and newborn beginnings of life, we find hope and meaning that suffering created.
Conjectures of a recovering dilettante traveling the road to Utopia
How do we know our faith is based on the love of God, or the need for God in our lives?
I wonder how many of us actually ask this question? If we don’t, we should and often. It seems a realistic assumption that by nature most of us are selfish. I don’t mean in the obvious ways. That would be easy to figure out. This type of selfishness is more insidious - mainly because it disguises itself as altruistic even though it is very self-serving.
What do we really mean when we say: "Keep us from temptation."
When we say the Lord’s Prayer we say, “And keep us from temptation. I have always felt we should add to that – particularly that temptation which disguises itself as virtuous. What makes this so difficult to clarify is that most of us reach the point where we lead reasonably decent lives. It would probably be considered by most standards as a “good Christian life.”
There are the saints and the rest of us
Here is the point where we separate the saints from the rest of us. Clearly, the saints have managed through prayer and desire to place their egos on hold and put the Lord’s will in its place. When we say ‘Let your will be done” they in fact not only have the good intention of doing it, they actually do it.
Do we really mean - "Your will be done" or has this become a "catch phrase" that we use often?
Consider how difficult this is. All we have to do is see how few of us achieve this, even though it is the goal we all aspire to reach.
So how do we reach the goal – to imitate and be like the saints - For one - not alone? Prayer and meditation are not only necessary but inseparable. Prayer builds our personal relationship with our God. If that does not make you whole, it certainly gets you thinking about it in a more realistic way.
What is your answer going to be?
So where are you in this journey? What would be your answer be when the Lord asks you “to sell everything and follow me?" Our answer clarifies where we are on our spiritual journey.
As for me – I would rather not answer the question right now.
Faith is a word that is thrown around a lot. I wonder how many of us take it seriously. If we think about it, it seems that we live and plan our lives by having faith. For one, we have to have faith that there will be a life to look forward to – we really don’t know that, it is an act of faith that there will even be a tomorrow.
I know we have probability on our side. The odds are there will be a tomorrow. That doesn’t change the fact that for many of us that will not be true. However, that is not going to stop us from doing what we have to do to get ready for the next day.
Unspoken faith dominates our lives. We couldn’t function without it. The question has to be asked: “Why is it that faith is so often questionable as a concept?” I suspect it is because we live in the “age of science.”
Hardly a day goes by when the new “high priests” of science proclaim with bursting pride that they deal with facts not faith. “The technology now available makes it possible to know everything.” I might add they always add the caveat, “that what we don’t know now, we will know in the future.” It is just a matter of time.
This is not just uttered as a statement of fact, but virtually as dogma, with a bit of anger thrown in for good measure. I think religion has always been the boogie man for both people of science and religion. While they don’t always admit it, they have waged a war for supremacy from the beginning of recorded civilization.
For years the churches dominated the argument. They had more people on their side. However, as the world modernized and more people drifted away from organized religion science began to make its move. After all they had facts, not faith on their side.
Unfortunately, when you look at the early history of science its record is not much better than religion. We are now led to believe that is no longer the case. I need to add my personal caveat here. I am not anti-science. I am not advocating for religious faith. What I am advocating is an end to the arrogance of both religion and science toward each other.
Sooner or later both sides come to the need for a “first cause.” I know it is no longer fashionable to use that term. But for the sake of our discussion it still works. One could reasonably conclude that science has not removed causality as a concept; they have simply changed its name.
For the religious and people of faith it is inconceivable that there is not a creator or "spiritual force" that sustains the whole process of life. Science now argues that beyond infinity there is nothing, and they can produce theoretical equations to suggest that a universe from nothing is possible.
However, if you look closely it seems to some of us that they have simply changed the name of nothing, and their nothing is really something.
Which brings us back to the subject of faith – and the beat goes on.
If you can grow comfortable with the acceptance of death, at least to the degree you can contemplate the experience of dying without running for cover, than possibly one can legitimately speculate on transcendence as both a created human need and a reality beyond simple need.
There is little doubt that knowing intuitively that life goes on after your physical death is comforting when confronted with the existential reality of suffering and eventual nothingness. From the beginning, religion has been considered the panacea, the snake oil of meaning and comfort, to a world that often seems to have neither.
And that thought alone is enough to allow one to rationalize the belief in the existence of a God. And no religious or spiritual person who has spent any introspective time can deny that the thought of needing to believe in God has not occurred to them.
The question remains: does the psychological need for a God to exist for comfort and meaning conflict with the fact that the human need for transcendence goes beyond selfish need and is a legitimate reality that eventually defines authentic humanness? The two thoughts seem to be considered by many as mutually exclusive when they may very well coexist.
The two extremes that are always in conflict are atheism and religious fundamentalism. If you accept the notion that what is measurable and observable is the only reality, you are an atheist. If you accept that all religious folklore is literally true, you are a fundamentalist. Both positions are condemned to be extremist.
Than we have the extreme of religious fundamentalism. At some point, the need to literally believe absolutely, no matter how it defies the faculties of logic and reason, becomes necessary to deal with existential angst. The path is clear. You are accepted by your God, unconditionally, as long as you follow the dogma of the faith. From that point everything else falls into place.
The easiest position, and by far the safest, is to be an agnostic. The problem with being an agnostic is that you have none of the fervor and enthusiasm of the atheist or fundamentalist, but are still left with the existential angst of the non-believer. Certainly this is not a very good deal.
What then is left for the rest of us? We are the ones who through spiritual insight gained through our life experiences have concluded that there is a reality beyond observation and measurability. That intangible truth does exist the same way common sense exists.
We have based our belief in God on the wisdom of our experience and the ability to find a basis for the infinite. This position does allow us certain flexibility for tolerance, which seems to be contrary to most religious dogma.
As a result, for us the infinite becomes a sweet mystery of expectations that allows us to spiritually move beyond our physical reality. Sooner or later we have to make a choice based on faith. And where ever we land on this issue, they are all decisions based on faith. Does this answer all the questions? I certainly hope not.
Age is a very elusive reality to engage realistically. Flexibility and passion are two ingredients essential to keep life interesting and challenging. We know that these necessary attributes begin to wane as you grow older.
Lack of flexibility and long held comfort zones are the enemy. It is hard to imagine what a grip these two personality traits have on your behavior until you confront the need to make your last years productive. The good news is that having to deal with this reality is not new to us. All of our life we have confronted the same issues in one form or the other. What makes it different this time is that there is less time to do something about it.
It is easier when you are younger. In the earlier years the need to grow is thrust upon you in order to survive. You have responsibilities and most of us try to meet them. Conditions often force us to change if we are to meet out goals. Necessity is the oil that lubricates the process. Often there is not that much time to think about it. This is the mechanism that begins to fail as you grow older. When you are younger you must meet the situation or fail and when you are young total failure is not an option.
I say total failure is not an option because partial failure is. Too often we settle for partial success since total success simply requires too much from us. And for most of us partial success allows us to get by. Most of us will live our lives in the twilight zone of partial success – enough to get by, but always knowing that we never lived up to our potential.
Eventually, our personal fulfillment will be determined by our choice for total or partial success. What then defines these two arenas? What is the ingredient that defines the difference? Is it defined genetically or is determined by other causes such as home or school or some lack within the person’s self esteem that demands it be corrected by total success. Or is the whole process simply an accident of nature?
I have no answers. I can only ask you to think of your life and where you are now. While you still have time enter the cold reality of the truth about yourself and see how you react to it. Good luck!
Brother Franco, Head of all Pizzaonian Monasteries
So you are person of religious faith – do you ever wonder what that means – I do. For starters, what faith? Do you believe in one of the many orthodox religions? Or is your faith a generalization about life and God in general? If so, I must confess that seems pretty vague to me.
In the assorted definitions of faith you find in various dictionaries, Merriam-Webster has one that intrigues me: “Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof, complete trust.” Wow, that’s pretty strong. Do you know anyone who does this?
I can hear the answers now – “Of course, I do, not only do I know people like this; I am a person of faith myself.” This of course begs the same question, what does that mean?
It seems that to feel that strongly about “your faith” you should have a very clear and concise concept of what your faith is about. We are not talking about vague generalities here; I mean a concept that can be stated simply and clearly understood.
Most of us will, sooner or later, survive this first step. The next step may be more difficult. Faith bestows on us some benefit. It gives us something we need and want. This is why so many atheists accuse us, who proclaim a faith in a loving God, as something we made up to suit our personal needs.
If we leave it at that, they would have a strong point. However, there is another part of faith that we all need to embrace and that is the necessary, deeply personal obligation that faith asks us to accept as our calling. This can bring with it some troubling revelations.
For one it requires sacrifice, a word that forces us to accept many uncomfortable contradictions about ourselves that have to be confronted and resolved. This is a troubling process because it tends to reveal our hypocrisy.
Most of us do not see ourselves as hypocrites, and in the general sense, we are not. However, when we deal with the deepest meaning of our faith and the personal sacrifice it requires, we are forced to reflect and accept a much deeper course of action than we may have anticipated.
For those of you who have achieved this level of commitment and understanding there is little to offer you from this point, but for the rest of us who still struggle with this dilemma, the problem is real and the contradictions that we are forced to reconcile deeply felt.
What level of sacrifice are we willing to accept? Is there a more telling question than this to test the real level of our faith commitment? When asked in the abstract, it is an easy question. However, it is the very nature of religious faith to eventually present the existential situation or crises that will tell you where you stand.
For most of us we will then learn if our belief in God is an implied contract or a covenant. As you know, a contract has conditions; a covenant is unconditional - without conditions. The distinction between these two realities is so vast it defies description.
For Christians, it is inevitable to realize your God is asking for a convent – love and with sacrifice without conditions. Perhaps this is what divides the rest of us from the saints. They accepted the covenant as an act of love. The rest of us will always have to depend to mercy as our last resort.
Again, this still begs the last question. Is the acceptance of divine mercy nothing more than a last resort, a rationalization that allows us to continue to live a life of “cheap grace” - a term Dietrich Bonhoeffer gave us that will never allow the truth to be anything else but the authentic path we are all called to follow?