If you had never heard of the Bible or the Koran, or if you had read them but thought of them as either invalid or unbelievable, for whatever reasons, what kind of religion or lack therof would you have found most plausible, and why?
Samster! Nice try. Maybe I would be overcome with testosterone and take up the religion of Cain. It saves alot of wasted time on small talk and puts everybody else in a position to defend their faith or suffer mine.
Or maybe I would inhale and find myself astir with noble notions of puppies and daffodils... but I can't know for sure. Maybe you can help me, oh I get so confused.
Here is my bottom line. It is universally inherent within the human condition to learn "from whence I came and whither I goest." This is the basic theologian in each of us. We are not all plumbers, lawyers, etc. But in the most basic sense, we are all theologians. Some of us are better at it than others. It is similar to accounting in the strictest sense. Anyone who conducts the most menial financial transaction is an economist of sorts... but perhaps not qualified to balance the national debt.(Yikes...we have really smart people do that for us!) Basic knowledge is often enough to get the job done in accounting and theology as long as we understand the basics. This is where it gets messy. The question must be asked, "Is there absolute truth?" If there is absolute, objective truth, can we know it? The IRS is going to use an objective numerical system to impose a subjective burden upon you. You may bend the burden, but you may not bend the numbers. In math, 2+2=4. In basic theology and philosophy, we try to do the same thing. But words are not as concrete as numbers. Hence, when dealing with the notion of where I came from and where I'm going, it seems impossible to be objective. After all, my initial act of theological expression is merely realizing I think. Hey, I think, therefore I am!!! I think I'm on to something!
Religion, philosophy, economics, politics all seem so nebulous compared to math, no? Not really. If one applies rules of definition, semantics, logic to these fields they become manageable. But remember; do not judge science by the scientist any more than you would judge math by the IRS agent.
If you are satisfied guessing at your bank balance and suppose the outcome to be "whatever works for you", good luck. Perhaps you can teach that system to your bank! Be prepared to be confronted with "facts". And so it goes with theology. You may try to define and redfine it to your liking or comfort, to suit your worldview or personal agenda, or call it dead or insignificant. All that is simply the theologian practicing his craft.
So no matter what any of us thinks, there is really nothing new under the sun. It has all been said or thought in some shape or fashion before and will be again. Hence the importance of examining all the data one can before one straps on the suicide belt or drinks the kool-aid.
I appreciate the manner in which you have attempted to broach the apparent issue. But we do have a Bible, and we do have a Koran, and a host of other "holy" literature, as well as those who have it and have it not, who believe it and believe it not. So... methinks you are taking me somewhere. Where wouldst thou takest me, grasshopper? Not, I fear.
JtheR
