Monday, November 21, 2005

Question:

This is related to the previous post. I'm trying to explore the same idea, but with a different type of investigation. So here's the question:

If you had been born to parents with an entirely different creed (set of beliefs), what would your creed look like now? What would it look like 10 or 15 years down the road? How would it have looked when you were growing up?

The reason we need to ask this question at so many different points is clearly because people alter their creeds over time, and frequently those changes reflect periodic realities (i.e. during the time when someone is a teenager they're more likely to rebel against their parents, etc.).

So, for those of you who have embraced the same creed as your parents, would you also have done so if it was a different creed? For those who rejected that creed, would you also have done so if it was a different creed? For those who have done both over time, or are some combination of embracing/rejecting, would you look the same today? Would the beliefs you had instilled as a child control? Would your personal journey to whatever your current creed have looked the same or different?

And that's the question. Imagine your parents had a different creed. How would your creed be different today, and why?

Oh lordy, trouble so hard
Don't nobody know my troubles but God

3 comments:

Eric Michael Peterson said...

moby natural blues

joel. said...

Fantastic song.

dyk said...

And speaking of songs, I now have "Sheep go to heaven, goats go to hell..." running through my head, but just that one line that I remember from that song.

That song (or at least that line) brought back a flash from sophomore year: J-term. J-term, in which Matt got two credit hours for completing both of the N-64 Zelda games, and I lied on the couch when not at class or practice and watched Matt complete two Zelda games.

It might have been that kind of intense academic rigor that prompted me to begin a theological discussion, something which I was usually careful not to do. (No, I take that back, we had plenty of good discussions. I just avoided the arguments. I left those to Marsh (or Joel), although I sometimes observed for the entertainment value. Or to put off doing homework with a semi-legitimate excuse.)

I'm sure my interest was along the lines of just how much the mitigating factors of life will buy us. Is there more room for error in the Amazonian indigenous person than for the born and raised catholic? (I'm not getting into which set of rules is 'the standard.' I'm catholic, of course I believe those are the rules that will ultimately apply. Substitute your own creed there. You know what I mean. Man, don't get so sensitive.)

Our sense of fairness would posit that more ought to be expected of those who understand 'the rules.' I believe God's infinite understanding will adequately level the playing field.

If you think about it, what is good about a person is not what rituals or rules they comply with. What matters is the heart, the intent to value one's fellow human being...

But even that may not work so well because while most differing societies will share similar values (ones we consider righteous), there are those in which hostility and aggression towards outsiders is the learned value. (...feeling a flash of Nietsche there...something about the values of the weak...)

So we're back to hoping God knows where we're coming from.


To speak to this post...

I'm sure I would be just as stubborn a Lutheran, Jew, even (shudder) evangelical. Don't think I haven't pondered that one before. Don't think that doesn't humble and/or scare me.