Now that I’m done with school, my days have quickly transformed and I now have time to do more things I love, such as cook and read. I picked up a book that I’ve been meaning to read for a while now, written by a prominent theologian (I don’t know if thats how he identifies himself, but that’s how I see him) named Peter Rollins. I went to the library last weekend and picked up The Orthodox Heretic (And Other Impossible Tales). Its basically a book of parables with a short commentary at the end of each one.
I opened up to a random one titled “G-O-D-I-S-N-O-W-H-E-R-E” and came upon some annotations made by a previous reader. Although I cannot say with full confidence, I believe this person may have been a little disgruntled with the ideas and provoking thoughts that this particular parable evoked. One underlined sentence from Peter’s commentary reads “Just as the light in the room cannot be seen but rather allows us to see…” The reader left an asterisk which leads to a footnote on the bottom of the page, where he/she obviously had an issue with the scientific incorrectness of the statement. The footnote reads, “Incorrect. The retinal reaction to photons is sight. We do not see any object, we “see” the reflected photons. I’m getting sick of this guy and his ‘religion.‘” I like that the reader uses their scientific prowess as the means of their argument. The disgruntled annotator really gets the last word in, though, as his/her words are italicized in the quote:”Once we understand this, we can stop arguing about God and, like the philosopher in the above story, dedicate our lives to being the manifestation of God. (Yea, just like you are I suppose).”
Sadly, the rest of the pages are unmarred. Disgruntled annotator must not have thought it worth their time to continue the escapade, and that is just too bad, because I don’t know if I will enjoy the other parables as much as I have enjoyed this one.