January 07, 2003

Various & sundry
It seems to me that as notions of God become more specific and more loving, they become harder to believe but more consoling. It would seem to be an act of faith to believe that all this is an accident. To believe that a billion-billion stars exist and that we naturally perceive the beauty in those stars and the trees and seas purely by evolutionary means is hard to believe. To believe that the level of complexity in the earth started with an ameoba takes, well, an act of faith. Thus it is a miracle that God created the world, but it would also be a miracle if it happened by accident - either way is a leap. But to believe in a loving God is different from believing in a creating God, and it seems to me that believing in the Jewish notion of God is easier than believing in divinity of Jesus because it is harder to believe that God would take human form. An omnipotent God is more in line with our expectations. God went from being nameless ("I am who am") to taking human form to taking the form of bread, each requiring a greater seeming humility of God and each requiring greater faith on our part but offering the consolation of greater closeness.

We have things backwards - we want mysticism so as to love God more fully, whereas mysticism grows out of a love for God and the willingness to suffer. I wish I spent as much time exploring Christ's wounds as I do my own ("suffering and sorrow are proportional to love" wrote St. Catherine of Siena).

No comments: