I was confronted with an assertion I found troubling, but possible; likely, in fact. The purpose of wakefulness is to provide fodder for our dreams. Reality exists only in unconsciousness. Sleep is actuality. Our imagination takes us to the only place that is real. A diet of unalterable facts leads us to an artificial existence that can never be more than pretense. Awareness is endless emptiness; vapor so dense it flows like frozen light.
+++
Yesterday, I stumbled on an article on Facebook that differentiated between so-called (and self-styled) “Christian Nationalists” and people who adhere to more traditional Christian values and who claim to more closely follow the real teaching of Jesus. The comments that responded to the article (and to other comments) were far longer than the article itself. And they seemed to me to be more firmly grounded in the teachings of the Bible than did comments by the nationalists (admittedly, though, I am thoroughly unqualified to judge the degree to which a statement reflects the “real” messages that book contains). Both the traditionalist commenters and the nationalist respondents often justified their positions with references to interpretations of passages in the Bible. They insisted their understanding was based on the “truth” contained in the Bible—their interpretation of the “truth,” anyway. Some of the other commenters, though, were outliers; they identified either as atheists or agnostics who dismissed both traditionalists and nationalists as misguided or delusional. They did not necessarily dispute the “morality” of either group; only the claims that moral positions are valid only to the extent that those positions conform to their individual interpretations of the Bible. And, yes, of course, many of the disagreements between them were based on the proposition that the source of all morality is the Bible; though, some claim other religious texts (e.g., Quran, Torah, et., etc., are equally valid. Only a few comments, as I recall, suggested morals are essentially social contracts crafted to reflect and conform to rules that may differ—in some cases, dramatically—between societies. That is to say rules, and the morals that drive them, are contextual. From that vantage point, abortion is perfectly acceptable. Or it is not. And, from that perspective, homosexuality is an abomination. Or it is not. And killing another human being is permissible—in certain contexts. In others, it is strictly forbidden, regardless of the circumstances. In other words, right and wrong is situational. Our definitions of right and wrong are parochial. So, therefore, are our religions. As are our morals. Our beliefs. Our ways of viewing the world. Certainty is an admission of hypocrisy. Doubt is a willingness to attempt to fully comprehend everything that cannot be universally understood.
+++
Bewilderment steps with an endless stride.
