I was having a conversation with Jondavid earlier today and we were discussing some pretty interesting issues, chiefly among them the idea of a religion and its figures as literature. As he said to me, and I'm paraphrasing, "If religion was really who has the best literary figure to follow, we'd see more Gandalfism than we do current." I think he has a point here; if religion is literature, albeit very powerful literature, what is its meaning?
I guess I'm still in the camp that it has no meaning if this is the case. As a Catholic I really believe that Jesus performed miracles, was crucified for our sins and was raised from the dead. Also, I actually believed he established a hierarchical Church here on Earth. This has no meaning if Jesus is only a strong literary figure. Rather, since I believe these to be true, metaphysical claims, it makes all the difference in the world. My faith is shaped by the implications of these truths not just here, but in all of reality.
I'm not convinced that as literature, Christianity has any of the meaning it does if it is literally true.
Fair enough; everyone's entitled to a different opinion. Yours is not by any means the view of all Catholics, though.
ReplyDeleteBut JD, "Gandalfism"???
True, my view is not the view of all Catholics. However, it is the official, dogmatic view of the Catholic Church.
ReplyDeleteIf someone presenting himself as an authority -- say L. Ron Hubbard, Muhammad, whoever -- told you to think something that was on its face implausible, and told you to accept it without question as dogma, I am sure you would treat it with a healthy skepticism, and properly so. The problem with ANY dogma is that we're supposed to accept it on authority, setting aside our (putatively god-given) critical faculties, and since there will always be competing authorities the result can only be dueling dogmas. I think the Qu'ran gets this right when it declares that "there can be no compulsion in matters of religion."
ReplyDelete