atonement and reincarnation

Last night I had a discussion with a friend about whether the concepts of Christian atonement and reincarnation were compatible or could be reconciled. I've always seen the whole idea of this life as a test and redemption through Christ as a one-shot deal. If reincarnation is real, I don't see a place for the atonement - at least certainly not the same sort of place it occupies if this life is our only life. My friend Tesla* (whose religious beliefs can probably best be described as 'Christian alternative') sees Jesus as having achieved perfection through the process of reincarnation, and the Atonement as an act of mercy so profound that God granted him the right to forgive sin and in essence to help us move along the path of spiritual development more quickly. We also went off on about eight or nine tangents, but I won't go there.

Now I'm not asking you what you believe exactly. But if it interests you as a debate topic, I am interested in your ideas on whether you feel the two concepts can be considered compatible. (So, in other words, even if, say, you don't believe in reincarnation, assume it's real just for the sake of the discussion. Same goes for Jesus Christ - assume he existed and performed an act of Atonement for all humankind.) This is more about the concepts than any actual spiritual belief of individuals.

Do you think that the idea of redemption through a saviour can apply to many lives as it applies in most Christian doctrine to one life? Why might that work, or not work? I have some ideas to add, but I'm curious to see if anyone else has an opinion first.

By the way, I'd planned an Easter post with a Lent recap, but it's still in draft. Stay tuned!

*I love choosing nicks for people mentioned on this blog. It's become like a tiny hobby.

lent

I'm doing Lent this year. Observing Lent isn't common in the LDS religion, so it's not something I've done often in the past, but I was talking to Notredame (my soon to be ex-boarder) about it and I'm attracted to the idea. I like that its purpose it to get closer to God. I like that it precedes a celebration of renewal and redemption. I also like that it happens over forty days. It's a Goldilocks amount of time ~ not too long or too short, but just right. :)

The three traditional practices of Lent were prayer, fasting and almsgiving, and these represented justice to god, self and one's neighbour. The modern interpretation of those is to give up some vice, adopt some good practice that brings you closer to God and to spend time or money giving to others.

So what am I giving up? It was tempting to choose housework, but I've decided on television. In the absence of that major and largely mindless distraction I think concentrating on some deeper issues will be easier. I also get more sleep when I watch less TV and use my time better as a result. If I want this to be a serious project, then I'll need both the time and the energy.

For my added task I've decided to reread a book a friend lent me several years ago that I later bought. I think it will be a useful exercise. It's about Christianity, but very focussed in on simplifying the living of it. I've lived the complicated version - the one that fills your schedule, but doesn't always develop you as a person. It's surprising how effectively you can crowd out real spirituality with 'good' activities. I think reading this book over the forty days and considering its questions and challenges will give me a vehicle to focus on this area of my life.

Last year could have been one of introspection over activity, but it wasn't. I even thought I was going through the process of examining my beliefs, but at some point that process wound down into nothingness without me even noticing. In hindsight I think I needed to take a break spiritually ~ to pull away from any kind of religion/religious practice or belief before I could approach them again with new eyes and decide with more objectivity what it means to me now.

The last challenge is almsgiving. I wanted to think of something really cool to do for that. Finally I remembered a project I was involved in a long time ago in Adelaide to create the packs they give to women when they first go to a women's shelter. Often when someone is escaping domestic violence, they don't have time to plan for it. A crisis occurs and they just have to run. They also may have very little money to start over. These packs provide basic toiletries: soap, shampoo, toothbrush, comb, that sort of thing. I like the idea of giving something so immediately useful to the woman receiving it.

So there's my plan. I'll let you know how it goes. Anyone else celebrating Lent? If so, what did you choose to do or give up for forty days?

slipping out from under the radar

So the new year is here and I'm no longer attending church. For those who didn't see that coming (and who care about such things) don't sweat it: it's something I've only blogged around the edges of over the last year, mainly because I sometimes have trouble remembering who reads the blog. Incidentally, if you're (you know who you are) reading this and we have mutual real life (as opposed to web-based) friends, try to resist the urge to gossip. It would be kind of good to tell people myself when I visit home in a couple of months.

So why am I mentioning it now? Well, I just had an interesting experience. A few days ago the ward Relief Society president sent an email because she hadn't heard back from me on whether or not I wanted to be a visiting teacher this year. I explained that 'for various reasons' I wouldn't be able to accept that role. She then (in a kindly-intentioned fashion) sent me some alternative options that would allow me to still be involved (eg would I be willing to write a letter to two sisters each month?) So finally I just explained that I didn't think it would appropriate for me to take on any VT role, because I wasn't planning to attend church anymore.

I've already told some people about this and their reactions have been interesting to say the least. My mother told me that she would support whatever decision I made. Some weeks later she asked me if I was still planning to leave, in a rather timid voice. I asked her if this upset her and she said no, but that it made her feel lonely (she's now the only active member in our immediate family and we have no members in our extended family). I explained to her that I would always support her decision to attend, that she was welcome to discuss church and/or church doctrine with me anytime, and that I would never think she was silly for being a member of the church. And I won't. If I thought it was silly, I could never have been a member so long. There are a lot of basic values I learned at church that I will always respect and try to live.

Two friends were a little sad about it, but calm and accepting. Three other friends (to my great surprise) informed me that they either hadn't been active for some time, or were attending but also experiencing serious doubts/issues that had them questioning their membership.

This week was the first time I had explained my absence to someone I knew for sure was fully active and 100% believing. I've heard about some people having bad experiences with former friends when they left the church and so when she immediately asked if she could visit me I wasn't sure how that would go. I said yes because I consider her a friend and because I was happy to give her an opportunity to ask questions if she wanted to.

In the end it was a strange conversation - although she didn't question my decision, and was very tactful in asking about my reasons for leaving, there was a quiet tension in the air. Her opinions on the range of topics we discussed came from such a place of absolute faith that there was really no place for us to meet in the middle. Though I had just explained that I no longer believed the church to be true or have any authority to act for God, she still used quotes from latter-day prophets or recent leaders of the church to make her points and asked me questions I found odd, like whether or not I was still reading the Book of Mormon.

None of it was bad, none of it was accusatory or judgmental. She was actually really nice. It still felt odd and made me realise just how far past the point of no return I am. I no longer wish I could just reverse it all and go back to the Matrix. Well, actually I never wished that (I'm very much a red pill kind of girl), but there was a time when I first realised I no longer believed Joseph Smith and that was painful to me, because I knew in my heart that it was the beginning of the end. Now, an introspective and confusing year or so later, it's just a reality to deal with. Ironically it's the church that taught me to be so uncompromising about truth. I can't pretend I believe and I've realised that being open about it (while still attending) is just a recipe for a sucky church life (no calling, no temple recommend, no realistic chance of a successful romantic relationship with a member, etc). I'm glad I have friends who've been accepting rather than not. I know some people aren't that lucky. I guess we'll see what happens from here on out as more people find out.

orson scott card is an idiot...oh sorry, was that unkind?

Craig posted this document (Disagree But Don't Be Unkind) from Orson Scott Card. It should not be understood from that sentence that Craig agrees with the document. I had too many problems with it to contain within one comment on his post, so I'm writing my thoughts here. I'm also including some TG/GID-related thoughts, because that's something I've been looking at a lot lately and I think there are some connected issues. This post is way long...apologies in advance.

From the document:

Legalizing gay marriage has huge legal implications far beyond letting same-sex couples enter into marriage contracts. Once "marriage" has been so radically redefined, it will become unlawful and discriminatory for schools or any other public facility to favor, for instance, heterosexual dating or dancing.

Okay firstly, as to the (largely misunderstood and sometimes made up) legal implications, OSC really needs to read this document. It is written by a member of his church and very aptly deals with the misconceptions under which he is clearly suffering. Secondly, same-sex marriage has already been legalised in many places and the things he is describing DIDN'T HAPPEN.

Homosexuality itself is simply not understood. The available evidence suggests that bisexuality is far more common than exclusive homosexuality, that same-sex attraction may be a phase in some individuals and is merely an option for others. Even where individuals feel they have no option except same-sex attraction, we do not understand the cause.

I agree. We don't know the cause. He is using that idea to argue that we shouldn't be 'rushing into' legalising same-sex marriage. In doing so he is really arguing that we cannot allow what we do not understand. I think he is missing an important point. We cannot identify the causes of sexual orientation (there are theories, but nothing definite) - which means that we therefore can no more identify how heterosexual attraction is caused than we can how homosexual attraction is caused. We understand the purpose of (hetero) attraction (to propagate the species...some people even think homosexuality is Nature's way of doing the opposite, though Nature should really take away the parenting instinct with it if it wants to achieve that goal...) but that's not the same as defining what causes a particular orientation to occur in one and not another. Card may consider heterosexual attraction a gift from God, but wouldn't that mean that, by implication, homosexual attraction is, too? Not that his religious beliefs are the defining marker here, even if he wants them to be.

According to some members and leaders in the LDS church, homosexuality is indeed from God, but not so much a gift as a burden that will bring reward if the person can only bear it long enough. (Being born with a disability is sometimes explained the same way, except of course for the major difference that acting on a handicap isn't considered a sin, whereas acting on a homosexual attraction is.) This is the most common explanation I have been given (that it's a test) and I've been a member almost my whole life. I've been thinking a lot about this issue lately - the concept that some things are just meant to be borne and do not instead indicate flaws in religious thinking- and not just in relation to homosexuality, but also in relation to gender identity disorder (the Mormon church also believes that gender is fixed, eternally. The official church handbook used by ward and stake leaders, I just found out today. indicates that persons who are considering an elective transsexual operation should not be baptized and that while persons who have already undergone an elective transsexual operation may be baptized if they are otherwise found worthy, such persons may not receive the priesthood or a temple recommend. I have no idea what the official policy is (if one exists) on people who are intersexed). Overall, the conclusion I have come to is that homosexuality (or GID) makes no logical sense as a trial, temptation or life burden. The implied personality of God in that scenario is disturbing.

In the interests of being honest, and also describing how my thinking has changed, I used to see these issues like this:
Homosexuality can be accurately described as unnatural because it denies the biological imperitive on which so much of our instinctual human behaviour is based. Therefore the LDS doctrine on homosexuality as a wrong seemed logical to me on the basis that it was unnatural. GID to me was also an anomaly, even an aberration, to nature, to the way things were supposed to happen. Often I felt that GID was caused by imposed conformity to unnecessary and often illogical society-defined gender roles (and I have to admit that in thinking this I pretty much ignored the relevence of how the Church teaches and continually reinforces traditional gender roles in its doctrine and policy). I knew very little about GID and had no understanding of the way the physical body itself (its shape, development and function, which of course is defined by biology not society) can be a major part of gender dysphoria. I think I just put both of these things in the 'too hard' basket and forgot about them. I think that was the wrong approach.

The flawed underlying premise in my previous thinking, whether I saw it or not at the time, was that 'difference is wrong'. Over the last several months I've come to the realisation that difference is...well, different. And that's all. Difference doesn't need to be threatening, or wrong. I knew that logically, and I didn't see myself as a person who feared or rejected difference, but I think I still believed it on some other level, perhaps because my belief system didn't make sense otherwise. I don't even think it (difference) is inherently good (though it is often positive and productive for various reasons).

Something that is different to the norm ('norm' defined only as what the majority of the population experience) can be described as an anomaly...it's technically accurate...but so what? I mean seriously, people born with six fingers used to be considered in some societies to be cursed or of the devil and killed at birth. In other societies these things were seen as signs of a person destined to be a shaman or spiritual leader. My point is, sometimes (often even) societies assign meaning to things that have no meaning. This is especially true in terms of religion. We want an explanation. We want to understand why things are not as we expect them to be. Because uncertainty ~ lack of a discernable reason for something happening or existing ~ makes us nervous or afraid. We start to contemplate just how little we really know or control in this life and we don't like it.

Some people think difference is to be celebrated, others that it is to be tolerated, and still others that it is to be shunned or hidden. I think it depends on the difference at hand. I also think that there is a big difference between believing something (which everyone has the right to do as they choose) and legislating it. I like to use Mill's harm principle for these decisions. It's not strictly applicable in the sense that the principle refers to personal choices, and there's no denying that homosexuality and GID in almost every case is not a choice (I say 'almost' only as an acknowledgement that the feminist movement in its more radical forms did spawn a small number of 'political lesbians'). But the point is that if it doesn't harm other people (and causing offence is not considered a harm), it shouldn't be legislated against. Even if people really believe that a person is hurting themselves in doing some particular thing, they should not legislate to prevent the action.

And to be clear, my understanding of these issues, apart from what I've already explained above, is now is more like this:
I do not know why some people are homosexual or experience GID. I have not seen any convincing evidence that either of these things are caused by environment or upbringing. I assume there is a cause just as there are causes for all matters to do with human development and exceptions to the usual course of human development, but I acknowledge that we may never be able to define what that cause is. I don't think it matters, morally, if we ever can. Regardless of whether or not they are statistically anomalous, these things are real. That is a truth.
Religious belief should not be legislated. The Harm Principle should determine whether or not an action is allowed or forbidden in the law. (For the record, this is not something that has changed. I've never believed that religious beliefs (mine or anyone else's) should be imposed on others by law.) Impact on religious belief is not a valid reason to prevent an action or state that does not violate the Harm Principle. As an example, the above reasoning would allow marriage between two adults of any sex (and actually more than two as well), but wouldn't allow marriage to a cat or a child, because neither a cat nor a child can give legal consent and others are responsible for protecting them from (in the case of children even self-inflicted) harm.

The best evidence is that children are most likely to be reproductively viable -- i.e., able to mate successfully in circumstances likely to produce children who grow up to be reproductively viable -- when they have two parents, one of the same sex, and one of the opposite sex.

Given that statistically most gay people have straight parents, I do not see how this can possibly be true.

Growing up with opposite-sex parents, but in a society that has normalized and actively promotes one-sex marriages, will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable.

I am stomping my feet under the desk.
1. No-one is talking about 'actively promoting' same-sex marriage. And even if they were, they would only be promoting it to people who are already gay, because hello, straight people are not going to consider same-sex marriage just because the advertising is good ~ this isn't a decision between holidaying at the beach or in the mountains, for crying out loud ~ and that being the case they would actually just be promoting the idea of marriage, full stop. That's wrong how?
2. 'will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents'
By itself, I agree. They may become more tolerant and less likely to bully other children for their sexual orientation or for the situation of their parents. I'd be cool with that.
3. 'will certainly affect the children of opposite-sex parents, potentially tipping the balance for children whose sexual identity is still formable'
With the rest of the sentence, that's a crock. Sexual identity is not formable in the way he's claiming it is.

Yet we are proceeding headlong into a vast social experiment whose consequences, as far as we can see, risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few.What's the hurry? Why the hostility toward even the slightest opposition? Can't our opponents wait to get their way until they have persuaded a clear majority?

Setting aside the obvious point that no, as far as we can see, legal same-sex marriage does not 'risk serious damage to many in order to create only the most marginal benefit for a few'...wait for what? How should that persuasion take place? Political action is appropriate and seeking rights and recognition in the law IS a form of persuasion. It brings issues to the attention of society and allows a decision to be made. If Proposition 8 fails in November, it will be because a majority HAVE BEEN persuaded.

Can't they listen to people with ideas that are different from theirs?

Can you, OSC?

new take on the meaning of life

Well, when I say 'new', it's from a seven-year-old episode of Angel, but anyway... The screen captures are a little dark, sorry.

Kate: My whole life has been about being a cop. If I'm not a part of the Force, it's like nothing I do means anything.
Angel: It doesn't.
Kate: Doesn't what?
Angel: Mean anything. In the greater scheme, in the big picture. Nothing we do matters. There's no Grand Plan, no big win.
Kate: You seem kind of chipper about that.
Angel: I guess I kinda worked it out. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is: what we do ~ now, today. I fought for so long...for redemption, for reward, finally just to beat the other guy, but I never got it.
Kate: Now you do?
Angel: No...all I want to do is help. I want to help because I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.
Kate: Yikes, it sounds like you had an epiphany.
Angel: I keep saying that, but no-one's listening...

To be honest I see some flaws in his reasoning (eg, to say that 'all that matters is what we do' ignores the drivers that motivate what we do, the scope of which cover a lot more ground than 'live well' or 'be kind to others and do no harm') but still I find that I like this reasoning.

We may wonder about the afterlife and hope (we have one and) it's something happy or productive or beautiful, but in the end it's kind of sad if the only reason we do good is to make installments on a fat final reward. And where does end-game thinking like that leave people who don't believe there is anything after this life? I think life needs purpose, even if it's a purpose we assign to it. And I think most people who life above subsistence level (who have the time and energy to give to pondering what life's about) want to carve out some kind of purposeful life for themselves.

What do you guys think?

all fridays are good

Maybe we should call it Great Friday instead.

I'm not going to get into a big post on Christian belief or the doctrines surrounding Easter. But I was thinking today about one aspect of the Atonement that I find beautiful and that is the concept of 'hope for redemption'.

There is nothing worse than that feeling that comes when you realise that you've done something terrible and that there's no way you can fix it. You've said something that can't be taken back, broken something precious that can't be replaced, or destroyed someone's trust in you. There's no hope in a feeling like that. Some people feel like that about themselves - that somehow they are so lost, so bad, so defeated, that there isn't any hope left in them to turn things around. They don't believe that they are redeemable.

It reminds me of a particular scene towards the end of Pretty Woman. Edward and Vivian are lying in bed talking about how she came to be a hooker.

Vivian: First guy I ever loved was a total nothing. Second was worse. My mom called me a bum magnet. If there was a bum within a 5-mile radius, I was completely attracted to him. That's how I ended up here. I followed bum number three.
Edward: Oh.
Vivian: So here I was: no money, no friends, no bum.
Edward [Chuckles]: And you chose this as your profession?
Vivian: I worked at a couple fast food places, parked cars at wrestling. And I couldn't make the rent. I was too ashamed to go home. That's when I met Kit. She was a hooker and made it sound so great. So one day I did it. I cried the whole time. But then I got some regulars and, you know... It's not like anybody plans this. It's not your childhood dream.
Edward: You could be so much more.
Vivian: People put you down enough, you start to believe it.
Edward: I think you are a very bright, very special woman.
Vivian: The bad stuff is easier to believe. You ever notice that?

What I love most about that movie (moreso than any other Pygmalion adaptation, though it does keep the basic theme that makes a lady a lady is not how she behaves, but how she is treated) is not that he saves her from a hard life like his character carrying Debra Winger out of the factory in Officer and a Gentleman. It's that he makes her realise that she is worth more than the life she is living. She's not irredeemable because she's a hooker, or because guys left her and didn't treat her right. She just believed all the bad stuff and lost her hope. It isn't enough now for him to hand her a better version of her current life, because she can't live that life any more. She finally understands that she is too precious for that.

I also love how once she knows that she passes it straight on to her friend, Kit. When Kit refuses to come to San Francisco with her, she gives her some money.

Kit: Whoa. Whoa. What is this ?
Vivian: It's part of the Edward Lewis scholarship fund. We think you got a lot of potential, Kit De Luca.
Kit: You do ? You think I got potential ?
Vivian: Oh, yeah. Don't let anybody tell you different, okay ?
Kit: Okay.

People need hope. We all need to understand that second chances exist and that mistakes we make don't define us. Hope in Christ is just one form of that and actually quite a beautiful one - not only the promise that we can be forgiven of our mistakes, but that there is someone who loves us, always, in spite of those mistakes or anything else we might dislike about ourselves. I wish people treated each other that way more often, instead of just seeing it as something God does.

I wish I treated people that way more often. It's something I find easy to do when I'm in a good place myself. It's one of my favourite things about teaching: getting to know students as individuals, helping them to understand that they are interesting and worthwhile people, with potential beyond what they currently see in themselves. But when I'm down or stressed I'm not spreading any hope or joy at all. I know a few people who are great at the whole 'glass is half full' thing, no matter what life throws at them, and it amazes me.

Anyway, I see a tangent happening, so I'll break it off here. Happy Easter, Everyone! Whether what it means to you is church or just chocolate, I hope it's a good one.