The modernist religious preoccupation with choosing and believing over estimates the significance of both. We have far less freedom to choose what we believe than we would like to think.
What we are given are not choices but symbols and stories. And they are given, to all. One doesn't believe IN them. (One might believe that they exist, or that they contain meaning, but that's so superficial as to not be worth saying.)
The issue isn't what symbols we chose, or whether or not we believe them, it's what we do with them.
There's a long history people contemplating sacred stories and becoming extraordinarily free and compassionate, full of wisdom and grace. The effect on these people is why these symbols are considered sacred.
It's noteworthy that the people who are most transformed by contemplating these symbols tend to find them fathomless. This is what keeps their hearts engaged, their imaginations creative. To limit the possible meanings would be unthinkable. It would be like putting a cap on a fresh spring, turning a clear pool into a stagnant pond.
The inclination to define the Divine and the symbols that evoke an experience of the Divine is common and thus forgivable, but it must not be praised or normalized.
That which is defined is dead. The desire to define comes from a desire to control. God is neither, dead nor controllable.
What we are given are not choices but symbols and stories. And they are given, to all. One doesn't believe IN them. (One might believe that they exist, or that they contain meaning, but that's so superficial as to not be worth saying.)
The issue isn't what symbols we chose, or whether or not we believe them, it's what we do with them.
There's a long history people contemplating sacred stories and becoming extraordinarily free and compassionate, full of wisdom and grace. The effect on these people is why these symbols are considered sacred.
It's noteworthy that the people who are most transformed by contemplating these symbols tend to find them fathomless. This is what keeps their hearts engaged, their imaginations creative. To limit the possible meanings would be unthinkable. It would be like putting a cap on a fresh spring, turning a clear pool into a stagnant pond.
The inclination to define the Divine and the symbols that evoke an experience of the Divine is common and thus forgivable, but it must not be praised or normalized.
That which is defined is dead. The desire to define comes from a desire to control. God is neither, dead nor controllable.
