Then he starts to expand in this idea that if religion is based on time, then events in holy books had to occur if the timeline was to stand. So he asks what could we find to support these events and why upon this support being put forward did these groups not embrace this evidence? This evidence gets into some sketchy science and history stuff and leads to the possibility of ancient astronauts from another galaxy interfering in human events or perhaps even creating humans. This brought me back to my original prejudice.
I am half way through this book and I don't regret reading it, but I am a little uncomfortable. Is this the point of these sections? To push us out of the comfort zone, to play with the idea that if it all stories, what is another story to add to the mix? Why not astronauts? Who am I to judge another person's/religions' story? I am not really sure where he is going with this analysis and it is making these sections hard to read.
It is timely I guess, as Runa asked at the Ikea, (where one has all one's deep religions conversations) if I believe in god. This book provided a good articulation of the idea of believing in something mysterious and not me and part of the all. I could relate to this. My first question for Runa was what do you mean by god? I still think old white guy worrying about who puts what body part in whom. She didn't seem sure, just asking. Maybe Ikea is her sacred space. Do you keep reading in situations like this or let the book go?
No comments:
Post a Comment