Little bits of truth in Doodle Surround Sound?

The gospel according to Stanislaw Jerzy Lec:

“At the beginning there was the Word–at the end just the Cliche.”

This is a telling reality of many churches.

It is sensationally true. 
So true that it has shaped how those outside the Church perceive those inside the church. So true that it doodles the caricature. So true that it turns up the volume on the stereotypes.

It is sadly true.
For many on the inside, there is some form of theological laziness. Instead of struggling with digging into the depths of the Story of stories found in the Book of books, there are many who would rather have someone else expend the effort and hand them the nugget of truth. Typically, that nugget comes in some form of memorable wording.

Ergo, “Cliche.”

Sadly many churches have expressed their religious dialogue and thoughtful discourse in this way. Meaning it is hardly a dialogue and seldom thoughtful. This is something of the reality within in the walls of the church.

But it is not the whole picture.

It isn’t always this way.
It hasn’t always been this way.
It won’t always be this way. 

But It is part of the picture. 

In stereotypes.
In caricatures.
In cliches.

There is a little bit of truth in such criticism. There is a little bit of truth disguised with memorable words. And I find it sensationally and sadly ironic that you made your point with such memorable words.

Memorable words in Doodle Surround Sound.

Where to begin and why continue?

The gospel according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky:

“As for me, I’ve long resolved not to think whether man created God or God man.”

How much passion and zeal ought one to expend towards any degree of apathy? If one is indifferent on such matters, then does it really matter or make a difference to do or say anything at all? Is this not a paradox of thought and practice?

How much must be known before being convinced of agnosticism? If one can not know something about certain matters, then how can it be known that it can not be known? In coming to know that you can not know is a matter of knowledge that requires knowing. Again, is this not a paradox of thought and practice?

Both of these descriptions might sound nice but make little sense regarding these matters.

Is it possible to convince another of apathy or even agnosticism? There are inherent difficulties in efforts to argue others towards such realities. The former doesn’t care and the latter doesn’t know.

Inconsistent.

It seems this statement is full of sentiment and devoid of sense. How does one write about something that one has “long resolved not to think” about? This statement is either a thoughtless one or inconsistent one. Either way, it makes this statement irrelevant for the discussion of God’s existence or non-existence.

Irrelevant.

This is a self-declared admission of inconsistencies and irrelevancies.
Dominated by sentiment.
Deficient in sense.

Where to begin and why continue?
I don’t know?!
I don’t care?!