. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
Perhaps it is a shadow, but I don't think that applies to what I'm talking about, which is how one communicates and relates to someone. Do you think it is harder to misconstrue something your wife says to you or something God says to you?
You've never been married.
Actually I think it is easier to misconstrue what my wife says because it is one limited being communicating with another limited being. I mean, can God really miscommunicate? And, again, I think a lot of this conversation is hovering around a larger one about God communicating through Scripture, which we can address in private.
Quote:
I don't think I agree that it begins and ends with God. Because you are relating to God through your experience. You can never remove yourself from the picture.
But, the point is that it is God who initiates and sustains the experience. Think about it. If God didn't want us to know that He exists, could we ascertain that fact on our own?
Quote:
I agree with your girl example, but is it the same with God? Do people meet God having no ideas about Him? People know some things about scripture, some things about religion. You might take a non-Christian to church and they will hear about God. Or you might just preach to someone about God. Does the experience with God come before all that? It just seems impractical in real life for someone to have an experience of God having no ideas or beliefs already in place. However, I'm not saying those beliefs can not or will not change.
I'd say that the true God will utterly alter the context of any preconceptions one might have about Him. Using and modifying our analogy, let's say you have a friend that wants to set you up with a girl that he knows. He tells you a little about her. He describes her physical characteristics and some of her personality traits, and so you begin to form a mental picture of both, but then you meet her. She, the real girl, completely shifts the paradigm of your preconceptions of her. Your preconceptions were only a shadow of the real thing, and the experience of her blows all of the notions of her away.
Now, when it comes to knowing things about God and about Scripture before meeting the actual Person, much of that knowledge can do more harm than good, much of it can make it harder to know and relate to the true God. Thus, a belief system that exists before relation ought to be discarded once relation begins because it was merely hints and notions of the real thing. In much the same way, a child's picture of a sunset should be discarded, as a way of relating to a real sunset, when standing front of the actual thing and feeling the warm of that sun on my face. Townie noted a similar idea when talking about becoming a parent. People can tell you what it's like, but the belief doesn't become knowledge until you are rocking your firstborn to sleep.
Quote:
Have you been following my discussion with TH and Moses? If so, what are your thoughts on it?
I haven't. Can you point me to it, or summarize it for me?
Quote:
And conversation with nature?
Expound, please.
Quote:
Quote:
How do you think other religions tie in? Are they experiencing the divine?
I'd agree with Lewis on this point. Did you happen to read the link I posted earlier in the thread? If not, I'll find it for you.
Quote:
Turns out it was just a gray patch...
Quote:
Honestly, I don't know if you need correction because this has been a long conversation and I'm not sure what I had in mind from the beginning. But going on those 2 places, being in Christ is better, sure. But I guess a key part of this entire discussion is that I don't really put "in Christ" and "in doubt" as mutually exclusive places. But I suppose that depends on what the doubts are about.
I think it does depend on what the doubts are about, but I think that's the point of the entire thread, right?
Quote:
I've had similar experiences. Some of the worst pain.
I'm just lucky to be alive.
Quote:
Eucharist [thanksgiving] is the state of the perfect man. Eucharist is the life of paradise. Eucharist is the only full and real response of man to God's creation, redemption, and gift of heaven. - Alexander Schemann
hi PureX,
I think I relate to your descriptions because they appear to sequentially match my own previous experiences spread over perhaps 35 years of immersion in Christianity, btw I’m 59 and have left faith behind for about 5 years. The vagueness is because it was a gradual and reluctant detachment, argued mulled cogitated every step of the way. I think the reason for that is having been in the way of belief for so long, it took a fair amount of explicit self reflection to realise my position, my whole psychological make-up, was shifting inexorably towards the opposite of what I had stood for for so long. I labour this a little, expecting it to be hard to understand if you have not gone through it yourself.
I was fortunate in that I was somewhat 'immunized' against religious indoctrination as a small child by an actual "God-experience" of my own. Even though I was very young and soon forgot about what happened, consciously, I'm sure that the effect of this experience remained in me and caused me to never fully accept the Catholic religious indoctrination that was to be a big part of my childhood education. So, although I can't honestly say that I identify directly with your changes, I can certainly understand it and relate to it for other reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
I tried act-of-will faith only after much wrestling with what I would hesitate to call doubt, more an inability to believe despite feeling the need. From that act came a measure of calm; I had in effect quelled my uncertainty, or, in your terms, achieved some measure of spiritual grace. It made me confident to challenge opposing atheistic falsehoods, and I went online to dissect my opponent’s errors. Er, no. Did not work out that way. That’s the challenge and danger for believers of all the world’s different religions, if you delve deeply you may drown.
Yes and no.
The term 'religion' refers to a lot of different conceptual methodologies. By it's simplest meaning, it's just a collection of superstitions woven together into a set of ritual behaviors designed to assuage the adherent's fear of the unknown. In time this was developed into a set of story-myths used to indoctrinate children into prevailing cultural superstitions and taboos, and then into a method of a behavior control. And in large part, this is still the how and why of religion, today, I think.
But there are 'deeper' and much more sophisticated concepts and methodologies at work under the conceptual umbrella that we call 'religion'. These probably originated in the practice of attempting to heal ourselves and each other via the manipulation of our own ignorance based superstitions. But in time they developed into a holistic physical and psychological lifestyle based on the very real capacity of 'faith' to positively effect the well-being of those who practice it. And this can reach levels of awareness and effectiveness that would be difficult and foolish of us to dismiss, and that have long since transcended the simple superstitions from which it may have evolved.
It has been my observation that most atheists AND most religious adherents are pretty much oblivious to these more sophisticated and effective forms of religious practice, and so their debates remain centered on superstition, and on the religious story-myths that are used to perpetuate them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
Why did I do it? A mind constantly enquiring to find more truth, to tidy up loose ends.
And the foolish exuberance of our youth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
Now for my most serious criticism of your position: You cut yourself off from knowledge when you believe stuff without enough checking. If it “works” for you as you say, it tells me you are uncomfortable with ignorance, and have a need for knowledge. See the paradox?
Yes, but you are presuming that what I found to "work" was "belief". It wasn't. What I find to be working for me is faith itself, not necessarily a specific system of beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
I will hazard a guess that all believers of this board are like I once was; a signer-up in good faith to a contract, without reading all the small print, meaning fully understanding the implications of divine command morality among many other things. And very often by a young unformed and uninformed mind. It’s like going through a turnstile, impossible to go out the door you came in, not knowing precisely why faith in untestable and often exclusionary doctrines creates unease, and instead accepting its comforts nevertheless. It becomes too late in the minds of many, to begin again to question and re-evaluate articles of faith and strong feelings of personal relationship. Not to mention reflecting on confirmation bias of prayer answered, and dissonance brushed aside.
I agree, mostly, but there are exceptions to this generalization, as there always are. And I think the exceptions are important to note because our generalizations can blind us just as easily as any other bias can.
Many of us confuse the act of applying faith to an ideal with the ideal we are applying that faith to. We don't recognize that these are not the same things. Faith, itself, is just a psychological tool. We have to use it constantly in our daily lives because we're being confronted with the unknowable outcomes of our choices all the time. We have to assess, consider, and then choose our course of action all day long without knowing what will result, and we use the psychological tool of 'faith' to act more effectively and fearlessly on the choices that we're making.
But we also use the tool of faith on a larger and more philosophical scale in our lives, too. We assess the information, consider the probabilities, and then choose a philosophical paradigm through which we will "understand" the totality of our life experience, and again we use the tool of faith to help us more effectively and fearlessly utilize our chosen philosophical paradigms. And this is as true of an atheist who places their faith in an atheistic paradigm as it does the religionist who places his faith in a religious paradigm.
Faith is faith, apart from the 'object' that faith is being used to support and implement.
Once a person comes to understand this difference, they may also come to understand that the various intellectual, philosophical, or theological paradigms that we humans choose to "understand" the world around us and our experiences within it are just that. They are our conceptualizations of reality and truth, and are not reality and truth, itself. And it's at this point that we will have to confront a degree of our own ignorance that's quite frightening and disorienting for most people. Often too much so. So that they return to the comfort of believing that what they think is real and true simply IS real and true, without any further question or doubt. And this is the kind of "faith" that most religious adherents maintain and promote. In fact, doing so is the solemn and primary purpose of the religion, itself.
But for those who can face that profound ignorance, and are able to recognize that their conceptual paradigms of truth and reality are only conceptual paradigms, and are only the dim reflections of truth and reality occurring in our brains, it becomes possible to create, change, and choose whichever of these paradigms works better for us in a given situation. We can in effect transcend our own 'beliefs'. And faith can then be applied to whatever beliefs work best for us in the moment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
Ask yourself this question; say you were of a totally different cultural background, but well educated, and wanted to believe in God and the afterlife, and the benefits of immortality, and were investigating many of the religions on offer, why would you be constrained to land on your present beliefs? So you “go shopping” - How many versions of religious or even non-religious truth would you short list, and give thorough consideration to? Would one life be long enough?
The more belief systems we are aware of, the more possibilities we have at any given moment to choose from IF we are able to choose. But what I have found, is that most all of them are essentially the same in that they were all developed by human beings and we humans tend to experience life similarly. So I don't really need to be aware of all the possible ways we humans view truth and reality to gain a pretty broad spectrum of human experiences and ideas to choose from because most human experiences and ideas have been pretty similar, even over time and across the globe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
Or would you decide that faith was far too broad a landscape, was a thoroughly inadequate plan of life, and prefer to base your life’s aims and attitudes on what can be known with reasonable certainty?
I see no reason that I would have to make such a distinction. Faith is an effective tool. Whatever idea I choose to place that faith in at any given moment depends on myself and the conditions of that particular moment. The "truth" is always now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by heli
That’s where I am at. Honest ignorance and being as objective as I could got me here. I feel the better of it, and have stopped fretting I will not live forever. I have more to say, only if people want to know. But you probably can find better told similar stories if you look.
I am sincerely pleased to 'meet' you. It's clear to me that you are an intelligent and courageous human being: not afraid to look within and confront the ignorance and confusion that you find, there. I aspire to that kind of courage, myself.
And I can fully appreciate the peace and freedom that comes from surrendering to that unknowing, so that I no longer have to protect and defend my conception of truth and reality quite so much as I once did.
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
I thought the sea change thread could benefit from some simple, straightforward, heartfelt emotion through music; I know that it's what I respond to the most. And I thought most everyone participating here could relate to and appreciate Patty Griffin. It's a good crowd.
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
Maybe you should consider a new "Hello" thread. Then you could do the, "Hi, I'm zoo and I'm an agnostic." And I could say, "Are you sure about that?" And you could respond, "I'm sure there's about as much point engaging you as buying the Pope a new hat."
That sort of thing.
Otherwise, I'm with SoJ.
Hello, I'm zoo and I'm an agnostic.
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
You know, I have a big pile of hat jokes, but I'm just not going to do it...
Zip and Anna have warranted some serious respect...
Even though I think they'd probably have a laugh, I'm still setting it aside right now.
Maybe in a day or so...
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
Actually I think it is easier to misconstrue what my wife says because it is one limited being communicating with another limited being. I mean, can God really miscommunicate?)
Or can you miscommunicate with God?
I mean, I'd said this before, but does anyone here really think that God would misinterpret what's in our hearts, minds? A husband or wife might.
But in terms of God, wouldn't it be ludicrous for me to try to pretend something I didn't actually believe? Or even to just put it aside?
Like I'd said, sometimes in relationships with one another, we need to be bridled in our honesty. It just doesn't make any sense to me to do that in terms of God.
"There was so much handwriting on the wall that even the wall fell down"
"In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." – Alfred Whitney, Essays on Education
Don't you know
That it ain't a crime
If all the squares
And the junkmen
Think you're out of line
Linear Mode
