Dreamy selfie? How??? Check out the priests in the background though. I found a pizzeria in a hole-in-the-wall just outside the Vatican.
Okay. I'm a bit grumpy. I spent easily an hour writing this blog post, but Blogger crashed and freakin' ate it. Not cool, Blogger. Not cool. I'm going to try to rewrite but retyped blogs are never any good,..
Today was Vatican City Day. Now, if your time has more value than mine, you can buy your tickets online and bypass the general admission line. Two problems. One, you need to set an appointment time. I have no idea what happens if you are late for your appointment and appointments on vacation make me struggle for breath. Two, there is an annoying €4 fast pass/online fee. Lame. That's a price I wasn't willing to add to my €16 ticket (to the Catholic Church who, trust me, isn't waiting anxiously for the first of the month).
If you get in line and change your mind, some friendly blokes (scalpers) will get you a ticket inside faster. That will set you back €16 + €4 +€10 for the I-have-a-data-plan-on-my-mobile-and-you-don't fee. Nah, I'll wait (but I liked listening to other tourists trying to get a better deal). Besides, waiting is line is part of the experience! I spent an hour talking to a lovely couple from California and then, poof, an hour was over.
The Vatican is just as opulent and glittery as you imagine. If you wanna see some great images, I'd recommend Google. You know, there is something wonderfully arrogant about taking photos of a famous whatever that has been photographed millions of times before especially on a cell phone cam which is all I use for this blog. Besides, all the famous locations are strictly no-photos zones which I, as a respectful tourist and friend of The Church, abide.
There was a great moment when I thought, "oh. He's got niiiice legs. Oh. That's God. That makes sense. Was I just checking out God? Is that a sin?"
So I get in the Sistine Chapel and the midday prayers about to start. I happened to be standing in the front by the priest. He does his prayer, steps aside to a little alcove, and a security guard asks if anyone would like to speak to the priest. No one does.
You know where this is going.
No, let me just say that I was very nervous and very worried about being rude. I know damn well what they meant was if you want to get a quick blessing by the priest, come on up. Well, no one took them up on that. I like talking to religious people, so I had a, count 'em, 100 minute long minute long, an hour and forty minutes, conversation about religion and atheism with a Catholic priest in the Sistine Chappel of the Vatican.
Now let's be honest: I fully admit I didn't go in to this conversation expecting to change my mind or, certainly, to affect the thoughts of a priest. For me, that's not the point of the conversation. What I'm hoping for is a new reason to believe what I believe, to find a flaw in my argument to be strengthened later, or honestly, the best thing in the world would be to proven wrong. Not at the moment. I'm human and I have an easily wounded sense of pride, but when somebody proves you wrong you think about it later and later again. It changes the way you think, and isn't that the whole point of travel? You go from place to place just hoping something makes an impression on you enough to change you somehow. I went into this conversation just curious as to how it would play and hopeful I'd get some new ideas.
It was a rough start. I hate when people assume that because I'm atheist I don't know the Bible. Actually, I've read the Bible. And I've studied the Bible, not in detail but more than many, and I enjoy reading theological philosophy. Don't come to this argument with your stupid "watch on the beach" argument.
For the most part nothing was really said besides God is mysterious and God is love. OK, that's nice. Let's go further. We focused on two main ideas which took most of the time. He claimed he wasn't familiar with the idea of the God of the Gaps theory--is that possible???--and even though he said he has spoken to many atheists, he had never heard of Christopher Hitchens and and attributed the Ghandi quote about liking Christ but not liking Christians to A Philosopher. Okay then. I think I am not going to get schooled here. Our first set of ideas led to the question, "is seeking answers to the big questions heretical since chips away at the mystery of God and reduced his importance in everyday life?" He Sarah Palined me on this one with "God is mysterious" and "God is not responsible for suffering and evil."
The conversation then turned to atheism and atheists. Is it the atheist's fault if he or she doesn't have faith? If it atheist reads the Bible or looks at science, they may be led away from faith. Are they to blame for that? He responded with "reason without faith lead to secularism. Faith without reason leads to extremism."
Uh. Yes. I agree? I kid you not; that's what he gave me.
I brought up the idea of willful disobedience since Christians especially like this idea. I offered the idea that some people who claim to be atheists are actually just mad at whatever God they believe in. I don't know anyone who this applies to, but I'll grant the possibility that they might exist. He agreed with this, of course. So I asked him what about the other people, and you must admit these people exist too, who aren't being disobedient but honestly are inclined away from faith for the various reasons that do exist. He brought up the idea of willful ignorance, that people have the opportunity to learn about God, but choose not to. The struck me as a but ironic considering the situation, but let's not make this personal.
"I've read atheist philosophers before. I read Nietzsche, but the part of his writings that didn't support my faith I ignored those."
And there is the crux of it. I had a Catholic priest tell me he can and chooses to ignore that which doesn't support his faith. I can't, or at least consciously don't willfully, make the decision to ignore evidence I don't like. I'm sure I do, I'm human and therefore quite flawed with imperfect reasoning, but knowing you're ignoring evidence seems amazing. I'll grant it happens subconsciously, but that's not what you are saying. You SEE but choose to look away from the laundry on the floor. I honestly didn't notice.
I kind of steered the conversation in a way that compared faith to personality traits such as shyness. It's not a person's fault if they're born shy. A shy person will probably not be a public speaker. They might be, but it is much more difficult for them and that is not their fault. At first he was onboard with faith and personality and that some people find faith easier than others, but when I suggested the person's ability to be faithful was part of their nature determined before they were born or at least influenced by their circumstances, he disagreed and said Faith was more like choosing to see light coming in from an open window.
Okay. I can run with this.
"Suppose my window has blue glass and everything I see is in a blue light. Your window has red glass and everything you see is in a red light this is not anyone's fault, but just the way we were born."-me
"No, there is no blue glass and there was no red glass. The light of God is natural light. Look at the ceiling (and remember, looking at the ceiling means looking at the best of Michelangelo. Kind of a cool ceiling to be directed to). That painting is the same for you and the same for me. We can both see the same thing. I look at it and I can see God, but you choose to look at it and only see paint. This is your choice. We both see the same thing."-him
"Okay. (Takes off glasses) We don't see the same thing. Without my glasses on, I naturally cannot see anything further that my wrist. This is not my fault; this is the way I was born. The way I was created. My natural condition. And there are many people, those who are blind or those who are colorblind, who do not see the painting the way you do. Let's say the inability to accept something without faith is a birth defect. Is that the handicapped persons fault?"-me
"You can wear glasses!"-him
"Sure. I can wear glasses and have my vision artificially corrected, but I need more than you to see this painting, never mind the fact that, in this case, I need something quite man-made and scientific which temporarily alters my true condition. My question is, is my inability to see without glasses, in our way-overextended metaphor, or to accept without evidence, my fault? Do you think Athesists who honestly are not being disobedient but have a predisposition to need Reason more than Faith going to Hell? Going from broad to general, honestly, and I've asked this to many Christians before, do you think I, the person in front of you, is condemned to Hell?"-me
"I don't like that word condemned."-him
"Never mind it we like the word or not, if that's the correct word to use. Are all atheists condemned to Hell?"-me
"People who are ignorant of Jesus, those who have not learned about him, are not condemned to hell. It is possible that even though someone knows of Jesus they don't truely know Jesus. For them, maybe...not heaven or hell."-him
So. There you go. I'm bound for purgatory. There was more, I'm telling you, we talked for nearly two hours, but I'll cut it off here. I mean. You get the gist.
I am sure everyone who goes to the Vatican has the same experience.
I ended my day by attending mass in Saint Maria in Trastevere and, because why not, taking communion. Maybe this time, I'll feel the waffer turn into the literal body of Christ! ...nope. Rice cracker.
Do some Christians worry about gluten-free Jesus?
Anyway. Guess I am not going to Hell? I kinda suspected that since, you know. There is no evidence it actually exists. It was an interesting day though.
So. Yeah. Laterz!
tl;dr it all but you go! way to huff a can of whipped religion from the source
ReplyDelete