Conversion Ponderings

I don't particularly care that the Catholic church isn't the original church of the apostles like I had been led to believe.  

What I do care about is my personal experience within the Catholic church.  It's stale.  There's a lack of reverence in the New Order Masses, and a depressing atmosphere in the Tridentine Latin Mass.  The Eastern Catholics may be "in communion" with the Pope, but so what?  The Pope is not the head of the Christian church - Jesus Christ is.  So if the Eastern Catholic Masses more closely resemble Eastern Orthodox Liturgies, might as well go with Orthodoxy, which at least doesn't seem to contradict itself.

But it's still awkward.  I'm making a bigger deal out of it than I need to, I know.  There's so much I love about Orthodoxy, and I'm afraid of it not living up to my expectations.  I'm risk-averse, and it will take a conscious effort for me to jump in even as I worry and doubt.

Will I be able to balance an Orthodox spirituality and secular libertarian politics?

Will I be able to see myself as a faithful Orthodox if I still support civil rights of LGBTQ folks?

I used to think I wanted a church where my children could see women in positions of leadership.  But to be honest, I don't think everyone can do everyone else's job.  Secularly speaking, absolutely I think women should have all the same opportunities and compensation as men.  I just don't want to be expected to do traditionally masculine work, like the military or police work, nor have my daughter be expected to do these unless she want to.  I worry that too much focus on egalitarianism will mean this.

Also, women bring a different aura to whatever they do, so like our language demonstrates, to be feminine is to be human and then some.... there's an additional quality to being a female human.  It's not neutral.  Hence, we speak of "man" to refer to both men and women, but only "woman" can refer to "women".  (Except today, now that gender is being completely obliterated by extreme liberals who simply want no guardrails in life at all and think a free-for-all is equivalent to freedom.)

But I digress.  I'm putting a lot of pressure on myself to somehow transition quickly to Orthodoxy. I need to stop and pace myself.

Rule of life: morning and evening prayer of 20 minutes each.

Meatless Wednesdays and Fridays (and no sweets on Fridays?).

Weekly attendance at Divine Liturgy?  We'll have to figure out a schedule for DL and Mass to help prepare Antonio for his First Communion.

Which brings me to another question: is there any hope of reconciling with Catholicism?  Since I'm not actually seeking for "truth" as most converts, I feel much more comfortable holding my own views and interpretations and values up and against the standard Catholic view, because this view has been changing a lot lately and I guess I just don't respect it much anymore.  Orthodoxy, on the other hand - even if I disagree with something, I can't argue that the church is trying to be consistent and live out the Apostolic Faith.

I guess the question is, do I want to be part of a faith tradition that I respect, if I'm not going to see eye to eye with it on interpretation?

I can't really argue with that notion.  Why wouldn't I want to respect the faith tradition I belong to?  

I liken it to marriage in a way.  Of course, neither I as a spouse nor my spouse are perfect.  But we check off enough boxes to have made a lifetime commitment something worth holding onto.  

My relationship with Catholicism is pretty much like an arranged marriage.  I did not choose to grow up with it.  I was submerged in it such that it has been difficult to shake the impact it has had on my life.

Here's Orthodoxy offering me a familiar side-step - a way to keep many of the best things that I remember about Catholicism (which sadly no longer apply) while at the same time offering a more compelling theology, more available mysticism, and a more intimate community.  

Right now, I have realized that I cannot simply be deciding if I want to convert and join the Orthodox church or not.  What I need to do first - and this is actually something I realized about the Orthodox church that initially made me step back - is to establish my relationship with Christ.  Perhaps it won't be a personal relationship in the way that Evangelical Protestants like to talk about.  

Especially as an autistic, it may be unrealistic for me to have the kind of relationship that neurotypicals have with Jesus.  But through the liturgy, sacraments, ascetic practices, and yes - the bells and whistles of beauty that come with that - I can feel like I am at least participating in the relationship with God, instead of just sort of hoping and waiting for feelings of consolation.  

Marriage is not romance.  Marriage is a lifetime commitment.  It's based on love, which is a decision.  A daily, ongoing decision to do what's best for the other person.  I think the same applies to spirituality/religion/faith/our relationship with God.  We decide to do certain things on a regular basis as a way to demonstrate our love to God, and through those very things, God makes room in our hearts and minds and souls for Himself.

Catholicism used to be like this.  If it is still like this in Tridentine Latin Masses, I don't know. I don't remember being impressed the few times I've attended.  It's certainly formal and conducive to prayer, but it's also got something I could do without - a sense of Catholic guilt.  That doesn't go away with the form of worship.  That's ingrained in our theology.  I'm ready for a theology of healing over a theology of penitence.

Today I had a glimpse of hope.  It was while my daughter was reading on my lap.  I thought about the rule of life I have been trying to establish this week, and how I may miss morning prayers and simply turn to God asking for mercy and fully knowing He will grant it.  Because I am asking for healing, not pardon for a crime.  And no loving father will opt not to heal their child, especially when they request it, if it is in their power to do so.  I can't explain it, but I smiled, feeling like I think I may have grasped the ticket to avoiding scrupulosity while nonetheless not giving up on the daily intention of living up to the ideal of my rule of life.  

It's actually quite simple, but I had to intentionally have it presented and mull it over before I realized, ah, yes.  God treats me the way I treat my children, only a world better!  I do not see my children as any less when they make a mistake or even do something to disappoint me.  The moment they show their repentance, I know they've learned their lesson and I'm more than happy to hug it out and move on with our day.

Because my Catholic prayer and worship is associated with guilt, Orthodox prayer and worship may be just what the Good Doctor ordered ;)

After the Talk

My appointment with Fr. Joshua went swimmingly.  Not only was he his usual, friendly and reassuring self, but he also validated for me several questions I had that were giving me pause.  I have very esoteric understandings of spiritual things, but most people I meet online do not.  It is sort of like speaking past each other, except I tend to forget that they are in no way more knowledgeable than me just because they parrot back what their favorite spiritual authors have said.

Faith will take a nuanced approach.  It will not be black-or-white, even though many would like me to believe that you either believe X or you don't, and only one of the beliefs is correct.  No, faith is fluid.  Faith is "yes, and".  

One of my main concerns was the literal interpretation of scripture.  I was focusing on the OT/Hebrew Bible, especially the Adam and Eve story.  Fr. Joshua surprised me with a rendition of Jesus's Ascension that was very refreshing and reassuring.  

And with that open mindedness, I started to see that if we can get past the "giftwrap" of the myth's language, we can receive the gift of the message contained therein.  

Fr. Joshua and I compared notes on our understanding of the Holy Trinity, which was super rewarding.  He likened the Father to the sun, and Christ and the Holy Spirit to the light and heat that comes from the sun (the Source).  I likened the Father to reality and Jesus and the Spirit to matter and energy - something I recently read from a scientific point of view that can be seen as one and the same.  If matter and energy are interchangeable at their core, yet we experience them differently, and they both emanate from (for lack of a better word) Ultimate Reality, and we experience Reality only thanks to matter and energy, then are the three not one and the same?  A trinity yet unity? And isn't what we do with one automatically influencial over the other two?

In the same light, I got my answer to why we worship Christ and not the Father.  First, the Father is a personification of that Source aspect of God.  God the Father is not embodied, and therefore not gendered.  Rather, it's the personification of the Tao which allows us to more easily relate to it/Him.  When we worship Christ, we worship God.  There's only the one God, so there is nothing to get jealous over; there's no idolatry, as Jews and Muslims would accuse us of. 

Further, when we say "worship", Fr. Joshua gave me a new way of looking at the meaning of the word: self-offering.  How do we offer ourselves to an abstract ideal?  We only know what we live, and we live embodied lives, and we can only relate to other embodied people.  Therefore, we know what it means to be humble in relation to another human being, but we cannot possibly compare ourselves to the Cosmos at large!  We cannot worship the Cosmos, Reality, the Source, because we cannot define it nor contain it in language or our mind.  But God emptied Himself in the Incarnation, and made Himself available to us in the form of a human, Jesus, precisely so that we could worship in spirit and in truth.  So we can now worship God by worshipping God's Incarnation.  We can offer ourselves to God.  And if we think about it, we have nothing to offer God but what God has given us, and if we know what's good for us, we empty ourselves of our egos and replace them with Christ and the Holy Spirit, and then we offer back to God... God Himself!

I like also that ecological concerns in burial practices are on the radar at least at this church.  I like that there's no objections to organ donation.  I like that while cremation does not lend itself to an Orthodox funeral, it does not imply anything about our eternal salvation.

I like that due to this sense that God can still save us after death, we pray for our deceased loved ones.  And therefore, we can hold out hope for our non-Christian sisters and brothers as well.

I like that it seems I can bring all of my concerns and beliefs and values, so long as I also bring my humility and willingness to learn and be corrected.

I know that I cannot expect perfection, not from myself and not from the Orthodox Church, either.  But I can expect to grow and deepen my faith.

I was even reassured that Fr. Joshua doesn't often experience this "relationship with Jesus" that is the cornerstone of Protestant faith. 

Learning to Trust God

On the one hand, Orthodoxy is supposed to be more nuanced, less legalistic than Western religion.

On the other hand, Orthodoxy maintains it is The One True Church (don't they all, though?) and therefore, Orthodox are not supposed to worship with heterodox Christians and certainly never with non-Christians.  

I find this problematic.  I do not believe God can only be found in one church or tradition.  I believe God is way bigger than that.  But I don't think that's really what's in question here.

I don't think we're not supposed to worship with heterodox believers because God isn't there.  Rather, I think we're not supposed to worship in heterodox ways because it waters down our own Orthodox tradition and leads to relativism and doubt.

I have to take notice here, because I am certainly in danger of relativism and doubt!  That is in fact the story of my life!  Perhaps Orthodoxy is just what I need at this stage of my journey?  It's not that God isn't elsewhere, but if I'm constantly looking around, when am I ever going to go deep enough to actually find God?  After all, while God is indeed everywhere in His creation, to really sense His presence, we have to get beyond the superficial and go deeper.  And the only way to go deeper is to sacrifice going wider.  

I have to come to a place where I trust that God will meet everyone wherever they are, and I do not need to worry about their salvation, other than staying on my proverbial side of the street and doing my best to make room for God in my life, so that I can possibly draw others to Christ through my example.  

Perhaps God does indeed have a plan B for non-Christians, non-Orthodox, non-believers.  That does not mean that He doesn't also have a solid, valid plan of salvation laid out in the tradition of the Orthodox Church.  And since I am a particular individual, born into certain circumstances that would make my relating to God much more plausible within the boundaries of Holy Orthodoxy, then that is where I should claim my spot and make my home.  

I am drawn to it for a reason.  Yes, there's been some truth in all the different religions I've researched - how can there not be if God is Creator of it all?  But that isn't sufficient.  If my goal is theosis, or emptying myself enough to be ready to live face-to-face with God upon my death, then it is not enough to simply say "God is here".  What of it?  God is in the forest.  God is in the cosmos.  God is in the inhale of my breath right this moment.  But if I can't become cognizant of it, it will not change me from the inside.  If I am not aware of it, I will miss making space for God in my soul.

Perhaps the reason I haven't been able to settle into any one religion, even the religion of my upbringing, is that feelings of comfort are not enough.  Perhaps I know that feeling comfortable will not get the job done.  I need to trade comfort and "happiness" for joy and conentment and eventually - inner peace.

What if God needs to take everyone through a certain spiritual journey before they are ready to embrace Christ in all His glory?

What if it is true afterall that Satan - the personfication of evil - is indeed at work to keep us as confused and doubtful as possible so that we keep from going deeper in relationship with God?  What if Satan indeed is using the very things that I hold dear - open mindedness, compassion, sense of justice - and turning them against me?  Certainly I know from the Tao Te Ching that there is a seed of evil in goodness - and so this must be it!  

And the inverse is true, too.  There is a seed of goodness in evil as well.  Narrowmindedness may seem "bad" on the surface, but it's precisely that sort of one-track mind that helps autistics (and others) to accomplish great things.  To go deeper, you must stay narrow.  There is no other way.  You can cast a wide net over shallow water, or you can go down in a submarine and see sights that net could never phathom.

I have to stop priding myself on my reasoning abilities, logic.  I have to stop letting my ego get the best of me.  I have to start trusting God and pick this one faith tradition, the one that speaks to me the most out of all of them, the one that feels most like home, the one that is closest to what I already know and love, the one where I've already found friendly people and a beautiful liturgy, and put down my baggage of fears over naivete, put down my baggage of critical thinking, and yes, put down my baggage of "fear of missing out", and put down roots in the Orthodox church.

I have to trust that God has got me.  God know what to do with me as soon as I let go and turn over the reigns to Him, my Maker, Who knows me better than I know myself. 

Of course Satan would want to tempt me with pride.  Of course Satan would want me to think of my image before people.  But whose opinion is more important?  Only God's.  And I need God back in my life.  Like nobody's business.

Just like I made a conscious choice to let go of the illusion theory of Buddhism because it was not bringing me inner joy and peace, so too I need to make a conscious choice  to let go of the idea that the church I belong to must be perfect.  Only God Whom we serve needs to be perfect.  Only He even CAN be perfect.  

Enough worrying about things that have no eternal conseqences, and on with the business of trusting in God for my life!

Beliefs and Unbelief and Faith

I do not believe that Adam and Eve were historical people.  I do believe that Adam and Eve represent humanity as a whole, and that the story of the Garden of Eden, temptation, dissatisfaction with what God has given us and the resulting shame and expulsion from Paradise are all alegorical of what happens to the individual when we turn away from God in our ego-driven desire to "be" somebody.  I think the eternal truth of this story is to be content with what God has given, to be humble and honest, and to trust that God has already given us all we need for peace, joy, and love.  I also believe this story points to Jesus in how His incarnation, teaching, death, and resurrection represent our rebirth into paradise.  He showed us the way: die to self in order to be born to eternal life.  Kill the ego, and you can again live forever with God in paradise.  The way to do so is through following Jesus's teachings and example.

I do not believe that it only took God 6 days to create everything.  First of all, we have science not so we can ignore its findings, but so that it can help us better understand the wonderful works of God.  Second of all, time did not exist before God's creation of everything, and the way we measure time is based on our planet's revolving around the sun.  Until those two things were created and put into motion, time had not yet begun.  Finally, the point of the story is not how long it took, but that it was all orchestrated by God.  We are intentionally created in love.  

I believe that human evolution is a likely possibility, but that it in no way changes the meaning of the story of creation.  God created all manner of animals before finally creating humanity.  God made Adam out of clay but he didn't become a man until God breathed life into him.  God didn't breathe life into any of the other animals, yet they were still alive.  This must point to a different type of life - eternal life of the soul.  Humanity could've been evolving as God waited for the opportune moment in our evolution to breathe life into us, as it were.  I see it akin to God's breathing life into the embryo at some point in early development.  I know the official stance of the Church is that human life begins at conception, but seeing as a fertilized egg can split into identical twins (or more!) or two separate blastocysts can fuse into one embryo, it is hard to reconcile that there isn't some magical time period slightly after conception when God decides if this will be one person, two, or none at all.  But I digress.

I believe that Noah literally built an arc and gathered two of every wild animal onto it during the Great Flood.   Again, I believe the symbolism here is great.  Noah trusts God in the face of unlikely circumstances and when confronted with ridicule.  We should do likewise, when discerning God's will.  Trust God and do not question.  But actual discernment is key.  Not merely following a stock assumption.  Two of every kind of animal symbolizes God's concern not only for humanity but for all animal life.  The flood is symbolic of cleansing, as well as how something life-giving can also be life-destroying when not held withing proper bounds.

I believe Jesus was born to Mary and Joseph.  I don't think it matters where Mary got the sperm to conceive Jesus, or if he was conceived without sperm.  Spontaneous reproduction is possible in some other species, opening the conceivability of it in humans, even if only this one time.  But even if Joseph is the biological father, or if Mary was assaulted prior to her marriage, the point is only that Mary said yes to God, trusted in God, gave birth to Jesus and raised Him in such a way that He came to understand His mission and role in life.  The miracles surrounding Jesus's birth I think are symbolic.  I don't think it takes anything away from Jesus's divinity to say that he had a biological father.  Mystery is mystery, and Jesus is fully human and fully God.  I don't think it is our place to split hairs and try to describe or define how exactly that happened or what exactly that means.  

In the end, Christian Orthodoxy is about Christ.  Everything the Bible has to say must somehow inform Who Christ is and what our proper response ought to be to Christ.  How we get there is a matter of contention among people of various denominations and even within denominations.  The Tao Te Ching says "those who are good do not debate, those who debate are not good".  In other words, the point is not to squabble over technicalitites, as this only seeks to lift one over someone else, proving one is worthy.  The goal of the Christian life is to empty oneself of egotistic pride to make room for Christ.  We are to be the temples for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The more time we focus on trying to understand things that are beyond our understanding, the less time we can devote to making room for God to live in us and through us.

Yesterday I learned this and that sin = darkness, emptiness, non-being - the very things I had been reading about as the goal (!) in Buddhist meditation.  Salvation is the dispelling of darkness with Christ's light, turning a dead person (non-beig) into a person alive in Christ!  In the universe, there is darkness.  Mostly darkness.  Darkness has to make room for the light to shine through.  The light would be imperceptible without the darkness.  The Tao Te Ching says that "being and non-being produce each other".  I have been denying Satan for a long time now.  In fact, I believe Satan was the first Christian teaching that I abandoned long before everything else started unraveling for me.  But as I think about the Orthodox view of salvation as healing, bringing back from spiritual death, and making room for God via emptying the self of sin through ascetic practices (not because these are in themselves good, but because they help us draw closer to God), it makes sense that Satan is the personification of all those things that lead to anihilism, the things that are actually pursued as the end goal by Buddhists!  The things that are accepted by secularists.  

Not me.  I believe life is eternal.  I always have.  When I started to try to figure out the proofs for it, that's when I started to get farther and farther away from God.  The way to God is not through reason.  Reason is one of the many faculties God has given us to help us on the spiritual journey, but it is not the boss.  Frankly, even Buddhists will agree to this!  If all there is of me after I die is that my body decomposes and serves as composted food for other living organisms, and my spirit dissolves into the ethersphere and rejoins energy as a whole (like a wave back into the ocean), then that is in no way any better than ceasing to exist altogethe at death.  And frankly, that just doesn't sound right to me, and I cannot deny my intution even if others want to call it illusions.  I'd rather live a peaceful, joyful life of illusion than parade around like a brick, stuck in my role of holding up a house and not seeing beyond my own reasoning abilities.  

If the study of science teaches us anything, it's that "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy."  Even the Bard can weigh in on this.  See, truth is everywhere, not just in science, but in literature, and art, and poetry, and yes, religion.

I also learned yesterday that the Orthodox prioritize the truth, goodness, and beauty of God in a way that really resonates with me and is contrary to the secular West's perspective.  Orthodoxy starts with beauty, then moves to goodness, and ends up in truth.  Morality is kind of a non-issue.  We do good things not to earn God's love, but make room for God.  So whenever we fail, we just dust ourselves off and try again.  We all sin, so we do not judge others.  At least, that's the ideal.  And that's the point of religion, to give us an ideal, something to work towards, not a goal per se.  It's not about reaching that goal but about constantly working towards it.  

I started out worrying that without a literal understanding of Orthodoxy, I would not be welcomed in.  Now I am starting to see that the only person that can keep me from entering the Orthodox Church is myself!   "I believe, help my unbelief!" Mark 9:24

I am quite excited about reengaging with Jesus within the Orthodox church.  Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy! Amen.

Thoughts about Conversion

I hadn't gotten as far as family conversion in my thought process, surprisingly enough.  I am only beginning to think in terms of "conversion" for myself.  

But when I brought up to my kids next week's appointment with Fr. Joshua at the Orthodox church, since they're coming with me as it will be midday, I mentioned the purpose of our meeting: that I am thinking about joining that church.

Interestingly, my daughter immediately asked if I was going to get "dunked" (baptised by immersion).  I mentioned that I might, if I'm "unable" to deliver a certificate of baptism to the priest.  She immediately lit up and announced that she also wanted to get dunked.  (My son, by the way, does not.)

Speaking of dunking, if my daughter and I joined together, she wants to get dunked, so we could just not have baptismal certificates for either of us.  If later the boys join the church, they can present their baptismal certificates and not get dunked (since Antonio does not want to get dunked).  I know it's a little bit of playing fast and loose, but I want to make the process meaningful for my kids.  I've been struggling to engage them in religion for a long time.  If being dunked for my daughter helps make the transition meaningful and helps her feel like something big is happeneing, then I want that for her!  And if not getting dunked for my son will help him feel comfortable about joining us, then I want that for him.  

One thing led to another, and we started talking about how some families convert en masse, and how everyone - children included - immediately become eligible to receive Communion.  

One of the two reasons I have been mentally "waiting" with thoughts of conversion is that my son is about to enter the 2 year preparation period before receiving his first confession and first communion.... in the Catholic church.  The reason we have lingered in the Catholic church is because my daughter did not start receiving Communion until she was 7, and she longed for it for a long time beforehand, and so she doesn't think it's fair that her younger brother should be able to receive at a younger age than her.  

Curiously, both she and I seem to have had the same thought - that if a formal coversion process takes about 2 years, even if children are able to approach for communion right away, in 2 years time, my son will be the "magical" age anyway, and all will be well with the world.

I assumed I had to wait until after his first communion to take any formal steps to leave the Catholic church or join the Orthodox church.  But this is a fascinating monkeywrench....

Then again, Receiving First Communion in the Catholic church is pretty much the last Polish religious traditional milestone that I wanted for both of my children.  Communion in the Catholic church and Communion in the Orthodox church is, well, different.  

Catholic communion is "a wafer" (with possible wine offered separately at some Masses pre-COVID), generally received on the hand nowadays.  It is mass-produced, albeit supposedly in convents or monasteries, and bought en masse and transported long distances to each church.

Orthodox communion is a spoonfull of a wine-soaked morsel of actual bread, baked by one of the parish families specifically for the occasion.

At first, I wasn't interested in conversion to Orthodoxy in part because their communion is so different from ours.  I had grown up on "the wafer", albeit I received on the tongue while kneeling at the altar railing growing up.  Nowadays, the only church where I can still get that sort of experience of "communing with God" (after all, it is called "communion" for a reason!) is either at a Latin Mass church (which in all other ways is depressing and downright creepy in my experience) or at the Polish churches, but even this was pre-pandemic.  Since then, the assembly line is now universal.

Even though there may be said of the Orthodox communion that there's likewise "an assemblyline" since people do walk up in a line and receive standing, the whole experience is so unlike anything done elsewhere in the mundane, secular world, that it warrants comment.  We are literally spoon-fed!  Talk about humility! And symbolism!  We do not "take" communion (which is the general sense when you "receive" in the hand and then help yourself); we "receive" it quite literally. 

What's more, while Catholics used to receive on the tongue from a priest, an altar server would hold a communion plate underneath each communicant's mouth in the event that the host fell, so as to catch it and try again.  No more.  No more communion plate.  No more reception on the tongue.  Half the time, no more priest distributing.  I have seen multiple times eucharistic ministers (or even the priest) drop a host and just casually pick it up as if nothing happened.  I remember hearing stories from my great-grandmother's time that when such a thing happened, the priest would lay prostrate on the ground to repent or pray it back into the chalice or whatnot.  Now, I know it sounds superstitious now, but if we're going to call it the body and blood of our lord, then we should act like it.  That's all.

Orthodox communicants receive from the priest, directly in the mouth, and an assistant or two hold up a red cloth under the chin to catch any drops.  The basic premise is still there - respect communion; it is special.

Another way it's special is that the pre-communion fast in the Orthodox church is no food or drink other than water from midnight on.  While there used to be a noteable pre-communion fast in the Catholic church, it is now a meager "one hour before", which for most people means don't eat anything en route to church, so that by the time communion comes around, it's been an hour since you last ate.  Multiple masses throughout the day also make it tricky.

Then again, apparently sometimes there is a divine liturgy later in the day, though generally it's one on Sunday, as it goes for about 2.5 hours.  When it's in the evening, the fasting suggested is from noon.  Maybe it all comes down to individual devotion.  But most Catholics nowadays are just going through the motions.  I don't know enough Orthodox to know if that's true for them, too.  But at least from my limited experience, and at least at the church I'm looking at, the parish is small enough that the priest knows everyone by name - including me, a mere inquirer!  

I digressed here.  The point was to bring up the idea of my kids potentially converting with me if I do get the green light.  And the timing for that.  I hesitate because of the whole Polish tradition thing, but really, Natalia's first communion was not like mine.  It was luckily outdoors, but she didn't receive kneeling, though she did receive on the tongue. And I have a picture of that.  I know the Orthodox don't encourage photos of such momentous occasions, so I'd be a little disappointed about that.  (But then again, I was disappointed when I couldn't see the doctor loading up my embabies under the microscope, like I did with the first two attempts.  Still, while not how I had hoped, they turned out to be ideal, since they are here with me as my children, and those embies I did see under the microscope are not.)

We can pose for photos in fancy outfits just the same.  Though it won't be a special "Antonio" moment per se if we were to convert together.  It would be a "family" moment, and I think that would take something away from Antonio.

Revisiting Christian Orthodoxy

In a previous post, I outlined the reasons why I decided against affiliating myself with various world religions/world-views.  I am reconsidering one angle after months of deconstructing and considering what it's like to live life according to the secular map, which I am finding uninspiring.

The first thing that had to happen on my deconstruction journey was that I had to give myself permission to question everything without fear of wrath from God.  Once I did, I was able to be honest about which beliefs I... well, believed or at least wanted to believe even if the evidence, strictly speaking, was lacking. 

The second thing I did was give myself permission to take what I like and leave the rest.  I had to acknowledge that there is no such thing as a panacea religion, and that if being religiously affiliated was important to me, I would have to take it with a grain of salt.  The only question that remained was which grains to take and which were not worth the hassle.

The third thing I did was try on different world views.  In other words, I followed the thought experiment process of seeing how I would feel in a life where I believed in different scenarios.  The most prevalent of these recently has been the secular world-view, even if spiritualized by Buddhist or Daoist philosophy.

Then I had to consider what sort of life I wanted to live.  Did I want to take Neo's red pill at all costs?  Or was leading a joyful, peaceful, content life more important than any supposedly "objective reality"?  I decided that no one, not even scientists or atheistic philosophers have a monopoly on what is TRULY true in the end.  I began to consider that maybe there are multiple truths that manifest based on the believer's state of mind?  Light and matter are simultaneously both waves and particles, and this is hard-core science!

I miss "being" religious, "doing" spiritual things, orienting my life towards an omnicient and omnipresent and omnibenevolent Creator-Source.  I realized there was an element of not wanting to be "duped" by religionists.  I wanted to stake my life on something I had no doubt in, and traditional Christianity was wanting in many ways.

But then I remembered that I had recently decided to "stay" Catholic even if I no longer believed in the teachings or principles, if for no other reason than that I grew up with it and so it was familiar and thus comforting, if largely uninspiring.  If I could make such compromises towards the default of "staying Catholic", perhaps there was a chance I could do likewise towards something only slightly outside of my comfort zone and yet hugely beautiful and inspiring.  I assumed I would not be allowed to convert to Orthodoxy if I did not literally believe in the Christian message the way tradition teaches it.  I still don't know the answer to that.  But I've decided to find out, at least.  I've decided to come at it not from the perspective of a "cafeteria Catholic" but rather from a "Chrisitan mystic" perspective.  After all, how I view the Christian themes is not exactly unique to me.  

Maybe if I put myself out there, Fr. Joshua will be able to appreciate where I'm coming from, between being autistic and desiring a much deeper and more mystical interpretation of the faith that literal understandings only stand in the way of for me.  I do believe in the historical Jesus, so that's got to count for something!  

There was one question that hadn't been addressed during my previous Intro to Orthodoxy classes (probably in part bc I wasn't able to attend all of them), and that was the issue of why worship Christ?  But you know what, with the benefit of my deconstruction journey, which included reinterpreting not only "who" God is, but even "what" God actually is, and seeing the Trinity as a Christian koan, I see the light at the end of that conundrum.  I no longer have a knee-jerk reaction of "but- but- that's idolatry!" to the idea of worshipping Christ.

First of all, because I'm vaguely and slowly starting to recognize that I wouldn't be worshipping the historical Jesus but the Christ which Jesus embodied.

And second of all, because I have realized that to "worship" is to reverence, to stand in awe, to give due reverence, and simultaneously to humble onselef by comparison.  And I can't argue with that goal.  Death of the ego is a universal goal of spirituality and religion, I believe.

What's more, I realize that it may be completely impossible to worship "God" but not Christ, as that would entail separating the two and viewing "God" as "a god" - a mere deity as in ancient Greco-Roman mythology, where "god" is somehow separate and away from me.  Rather, I believe as Christianity teaches that in God we live and breathe and have our being - that God permeates our very beeing.  How can we "bow down" (what I envision as worship, even if only symbolically) if not in front of something that is not already inside of us? Christ the Logos, by becoming incarnate, allowed Himself to be separated from the rest of humanity in His individuality and historicity, specifically so that we could hang onto this technicality and bow down before God without needing to separate ourselves from God first. 

Before continuing, I'd like to revisit some of my previous conflicts with both of these spiritual traditions.

Taoism

a. no belief in personified God.  (Turns out there really IS a "God-shaped hole" in my heart!)

b. no clear moral boundaries.  (While I certainly appreciate the need to consider context and nuance and I recognize now that most things actually aren't black or white, it is helpful to have moral guardrails if only as a starting point, to help ease decision fatigue.)

c. lack of gathering in my area. (For an introverted autistic, who knew this would actually be something I crave?!)

d. definitely good points but incomplete for my needs.

Eastern Orthodoxy

a. no female priests. (I personally do not want to be a priest, and I do appreciate that the sexes are different and have complimentary roles.  I understand that this world-view cannot readily translate in the secular world anymore, but there's no reason that my faith tradition has to be fully reflected in the world at large, nor that it should be.)

b. no LGBTQ inclusion, something I believe Jesus would not approve (their exclusion).  (See above.  If forced to choose, I would not abandon my loved ones by not attending a same-sex wedding, though I know this would be expected of a "good Orthodox Christian".  This would be a matter of discernment and conscience for me, and I'd have to be OK with being at odds with the official teaching of my church in order to gain the other overwhelming benefits.)

c. requirement to stay away from other places of worship.  For an omnist universalist, this was a deal-breaker. (It need not be.  My priest will not GPS track me.  If my conscience allows me to visit other places of worship, why not?  Though to be honest, few non-Orthodox places even feel like "worship spaces" in the first place.  That's actually WHY I am intrigued by the Orthodox church.  Still, I know I will have to formally cease my ties with the Catholic church before converting.  This means I must wait until after Antonio's First Communion in 2 years.)

d. their communion is actually not very hygienic, I do not like the idea of using a shared spoon, or being spoon-fed in the first place - Jesus did not use a spoon at the Last Supper. (This is not an entirely fair assessment.  The community as a whole is not "not hygienic".  The shared spoon practice is a bit off-putting, but then so is drinking from a shared cup in the Catholic tradition, which I generally avoided before COVID anyway.  Still, maybe this sense of discomfort is here for a reason, to teach me something about humility, being literally spoon-fed God's truth in a very embodied way.  It's a different way of doing it that used to be accomplished in the Catholic church via reception on the tongue, while kneeling at the altar railing.  But it's only different - not worse or better.  And the trade-off is that REAL Bread is used to represent the REAL Body of Christ, and there is no separation of bread and wine (or body and blood) like is customary in the Catholic Communion.

All in all, my politics and my religion are not one and the same thing, and that is something else that I have to contend with.  My religious values and beliefs certainly inform my politics, but they do not dictate them, even now.  Perhaps it is absolutely what the proverbial doctor ordered to keep separation of church and state?  My universalism frees me from the Protestant evangelicalism that has tainted my view of faith and so I can return to a more private understanding of the purpose of religion in my life.

I want to be Orthodox because I want an embodied faith.  I want to worship God with my whole being.  I want to be in spaces that feel holy, drinking in the Holy Spirit's presence.  I want to belong to a group of others who likewise appreciate such spiritual beauty, and to belong, one must by necessity conform at least to some degree.  I must decrease; He must increase.  I must let go of some of my intellectualizing and instead embrace the sheer joy and love and peace of the ride.  Because ultimately, that is all anyone wants anyway: love, joy, and peace.

Quantum Entanglement, Teleportation, and Eternal Life

 Don't ask me for the scientific details.  Luckily my graduate school days are over and I am no longer compelled to cite every source before making a comment.  Suffice it to say that things I have been reading lately about quantum entanglement got me thinking that there may be hope yet for my fundamental spiritual hope and assumption - namely that there is some sort of life after death where we maintain our sense of self, some sort of self-identity, some kind of self-awarenenss and consciousness.  

I recently read about successful teleportation of information thanks to quantum entanglement that showed the simultaneous disappearance of information at the sender end and its appearance at the receiver end, without any trace of it in between.  In mundane terms, this has relevance for future tech security, but in terms of spirituality, here's a thought I had.

While evidence seems to point to the fact that our consciousness, thoughts, sense of "I" comes from the brain, this would on the surface also suggest that our personal continuity is out of the question once our brain dies.  But quantum entanglement opens up the possibility that our physical brain may very well be entangled at the quantum level with some sort of super-brain, pan-consciousness, and that our identities can be "uploaded" if you will, upon death, to this main brain, and then "downloaded" in varying degrees in future incarnations.  I say "varying degrees" since most people do not have any clear memories of previous lives, yet some do.  And most of us have experienced otherwise unexplainable phenomenon such as dejavous, or a strong affinity or repulsion of something without having any earthly exposure to it in our current life.

As I lay in bed thinking about this new bit of hope, it occurred to me that perhaps this is another example of how I am attached to my desire for immortality, a holdover from my Catholic Christian days, as well as being attached to my loved ones with whom I want to spend eternity.

Buddhism would frown on this new idea of mine and suggest I need to keep letting go.  While there are plenty of things I do need to keep letting go of, I disagree with Buddhism on the underlying goal of total detachment.  I think that the human experience by its very nature requires a certain healthy level of attachment.  Babies and young children who do not develop a healthy attachment to their caregivers grow up maladjusted at best, and downright criminal at worst.  

And while I appreciate the idea of feeling one type of love towards all of humanity, I do not see the virtue in being "beyond" preferential treatment of one's own family to some degree.  Not to the point where relatives can do no wrong, of course, but to the point where if I have to choose who will live under my roof when two people are in need, and one of them is a relative, then the relative wins.

The only sort of Buddhism that appeals to me is Zen, which overlaps heavily with Daoism.  And since there is a lot more literature about Buddhism in the West, it does behoove me to wade through it and just keep in mind that just because it's not Christianity doesn't mean it's got all the answers either.  But I digress.