Joe sez: As I've said before (and Steve has not responded), Europeans tend to disregard and destroy the wisdom and religious practices of every culture they have conquered, attempting to replace such "primitive" thought with their own "enlightened" thinking - just as they have politicized and destroyed the ancient wisdom of their own culture. Alliance with European government has not done Christianity any favors, and Christianity is finally learning that lesson after being in bed with government for most of the last 1500 years or more.

Steve finally does respond: Well, Joe, just replace "Europeans" with "Catholic imperialists" there and you have it about right!

But note that Joe, a Catholic, has a respect for the ancient religious traditions of the various cultures of the world. Steve, an atheist, does not. Steve's attempt to limit blame to Catholics, is a failure to acknowledge that as Europeans, his own ancestors share the responsibility for the destruction of the wisdom which conquered aboriginal peoples held sacred.

---

I attended a retreat today that was directed by one of the Sisters of Mercy. The theme was "thanksgiving." Here's an Iroquois prayer from the handout given us by Sister Diana:

We return thanks to our mother,
the earth, which sustains us.
We return thanks to the rivers and streams
which supply us with water.
We return thanks to all herbs, which furnish medicines
for the cure of our diseases.
We return thanks to the moon and the stars,
which have given us their light when the sun was gone.
We return thanks to the sun,
that he has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye.
Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit,
in whom is embodied all goodness,
and who directs all things for the good of his children.

Full text here: http://www.worldprayers.org/archive/prayers/celebrations/we_return_thanks.html

This is a very anthropomorphic view of both nature and divinity, but I see value in it. It establishes a kinship between humankind and the rest of creation - and between humankind and The Divinity. And if one recognizes that kinship, one is likely to respect and appreciate those other aspects of creation (and yes, I'm sure that some of the hairsplitters here won't like the word "creation.") Nonetheless, if one recognizes the anthropomorphism for what it is, it can be a helpful tool for appreciation of what surrounds us. There are other ways to appreciate what surrounds us, but that doesn't mean the anthropomorphism is "wrong." And whether one sees God in our surroundings or not, it is worthwhile to view our surroundings with awe and respect and humility - to see something beyond the self is to broaden our horizons infinitely.

The use of metaphor is a very effective tool that can enable us to see beyond our own, narrow perspective. Belief in a God is one metaphor that is very useful to many people, but of course it is not useful to those who claim to be atheists. What I seek to do is not to convert atheists to belief in God. I ask only that they see belief in God as a different perspective that is not necessarily incorrect.

Whether God is metaphor or real, is a question I do not care to address. I find it most effective to me to accept the religious tradition I was raised in, and to be somewhat literal in my acceptance - knowing full well that my tradition may be more metaphorical than real, or maybe not. As I tell people in the Bible studies I teach, it is important to respect the integrity of the story and not to intellectualize it too much - knowing full well that there is legitimate discussion whether the story is real or metaphorical.

Now, Steve wonders how this "faith" that can invite lengthy discussion by theologians, can be relevant to people who are not drawn so such academic exploration. That's the beauty of expressing faith by sacred stories instead of by doctrines and theological discussions. Stories can be understood by everyone, at whatever level they're at - both children and college professors. I think that's why Jesus preached in parables.

Steve wonders why Jesus didn't get more "press coverage" in Roman documents. To most Romans, Jesus was just another Jewish preacher. There were lots of them, and many were executed as revolutionaries or zealots. Why should the Romans take any special notice of this Jesus?

-Joe-