Ship of Fools: All that remains of my Faith.

Thread: All that remains of my Faith. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029677

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

65 years since I first fell in line with my mates by feigning 'born again conversion', I find that the more I learn (or at least think that I learn) the less I actually 'think I know'.
But one thing that I do 'think I know' (and the older I grow, the more peripheral things, like Religion and Bibliolatry evaporate, leaving only the one thing) is that God sent his Son to become 'man', to live, and to die, in the fullest possible way, even to the extent of briefly actually tasting 'sin' in its ultimate form (which was to be forsaken by God), before simultaneously returning from whence he came and sending the Holy Spirit to indwell 'man' (Christ within by the power of the Holy Spirit).
Thereon I strive to 'know' nothing more, simply because IMO further knowledge would detract from the need to 'trust' (the element that exemplifies the essential differentiation between man and God).

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Hello AB, welcome to the Ship. You haven't said what you want from fellow ship members here. Are you happy with your current thinking about God? Do you continue to search for answers, even though they tend to bring us more questions, or have you given up on that?

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Hello AB, welcome to the Ship. You haven't said what you want from fellow ship members here. Are you happy with your current thinking about God? Do you continue to search for answers, even though they tend to bring us more questions, or have you given up on that?

1. I guess I hope to find fellow members who share my conviction that God is to be trusted and worshipped from the basis of childlike faith, as distinct from the basis of human elaboration.
2. I am happy with the direction that my conviction leads me but ever fearful of the danger of embracing answers to the questions that I feel we ought not to be asking.
3. I suspect that 'Confusion' might well be God's response to man's 'age enduring' folly in asserting his opinions of what God might have said and meant by it.
4. I suspect that 'Truth' might well be 'personally relevant' as distinct from 'universally absolute' and best kept to oneself (not much point in forum involvement, eh?).

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

Childlike faith/human elaboration: I am not sure how you work out this supposed dichotomy. Where does CF stop and HE begin? Who is to judge? Isn't the danger that it is simply a way to reject any bit of religion you dislike or find hard? 'Oh, that's just a human elaboration. I worship God with a childlike faith and don't need to do/believe that stuff'.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
1. I guess I hope to find fellow members who share my conviction that God is to be trusted and worshipped from the basis of childlike faith, as distinct from the basis of human elaboration.

I agree that this trust and worship of the unknowable, unfathomable God is at the root of our faith. I agree that we need to throw out images of God in our minds which might reduce God to a human construct. However, I believe that God gives us glimpses of who he is, and particularly so in the form of Jesus Christ, and these are to be held onto as they strengthen the root of our faith.

quote:

2. I am happy with the direction that my conviction leads me but ever fearful of the danger of embracing answers to the questions that I feel we ought not to be asking.

Surely if God is to be trusted, and if God tells us not to be afraid, there are no questions we should not ask?

quote:

3. I suspect that 'Confusion' might well be God's response to man's 'age enduring' folly in asserting his opinions of what God might have said and meant by it.

4. I suspect that 'Truth' might well be 'personally relevant' as distinct from 'universally absolute' and best kept to oneself (not much point in forum involvement, eh?).

Is it folly to come to a brief place of understanding and to share our insights at that point?

To say that I have learned a great deal through discussion on the ship is an understatement. The pilgrimage of faith surely has many stage posts.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Childlike faith/human elaboration: I am not sure how you work out this supposed dichotomy. Where does CF stop and HE begin? Who is to judge? Isn't the danger that it is simply a way to reject any bit of religion you dislike or find hard? 'Oh, that's just a human elaboration. I worship God with a childlike faith and don't need to do/believe that stuff'.

Better than 30,000 odd differing "Thus say the Word of God" versus "Oh no it doesn't it says thus", denominations, each declaring "We alone have seen a light that warrants the setting up of a denomination based on what we have seen".

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:
Originally posted by Bibaculus:
Childlike faith/human elaboration: I am not sure how you work out this supposed dichotomy. Where does CF stop and HE begin? Who is to judge? Isn't the danger that it is simply a way to reject any bit of religion you dislike or find hard? 'Oh, that's just a human elaboration. I worship God with a childlike faith and don't need to do/believe that stuff'.
Better than 30,000 odd differing "Thus say the Word of God" versus "Oh no it doesn't it says thus", denominations, each declaring "We alone have seen a light that warrants the setting up of a denomination based on what we have seen".

Really? It seems to me you are creating the 30,001st, saying 'I alone have seen what is True Childlike Faith.'

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
leaving only the one thing) is that God sent his Son to become 'man', to live, and to die, in the fullest possible way, even to the extent of briefly actually tasting 'sin' in its ultimate form (which was to be forsaken by God), before simultaneously returning from whence he came and sending the Holy Spirit to indwell 'man' (Christ within by the power of the Holy Spirit).

Why even let this remain? I went through the process of working out what bits of faith were worth keeping, and this bit fell away quite soon!

Neil

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

[/QUOTE]Better than 30,000 odd differing "Thus say the Word of God" versus "Oh no it doesn't it says thus", denominations, each declaring "We alone have seen a light that warrants the setting up of a denomination based on what we have seen". [/qb][/QUOTE]Really? It seems to me you are creating the 30,001st, saying 'I alone have seen what is True Childlike Faith.' [/QB][/QUOTE]
So, one cannot denounce denominationalism without being accuse of perpetuating the very charade that one denounces.
If I could have a modest donation for every time that old chestnut has been trotted out by a denominationalist, I would be a rich man financially instead of a broken hearted man spiritually.

“I pray that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”……..no wonder Jesus wept.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

So, one cannot denounce denominationalism without being accuse of perpetuating the very charade that one denounces.

If I could have a modest donation for every time that old chestnut has been trotted out by a denominationalist, I would be a rich man financially instead of a broken hearted man spiritually.

Indeed not. I am not the 'denominationalist', you are. I try to stand within a tradition. It is those who claim to know better that cause divisions and found denominations. I have belonged to two churches in my life - the Church of England & the Roman Catholic Church. Neither are perfect, but I do not seek to take it upon myself to decide what is part of 'true Christianity' and what is not.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

I'm a Quaker [Britain Yearly Meeting variety] and have come to the point where I see the vast proliferation of denominations as a good thing and something for which I give thanks - there's one to seek every temperament.

It's great.

Rather like the 3 million Hindu Gods each emphasise different aspects of the One.

I have no problem with that, either.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
I am not the 'denominationalist', you are. I try to stand within a tradition. It is those who claim to know better that cause divisions and found denominations. I have belonged to two churches in my life - the Church of England & the Roman Catholic Church. Neither are perfect, but I do not seek to take it upon myself to decide what is part of 'true Christianity' and what is not.

So, one of us "belongs" to the CoE/RCC, and the other belongs to no denominations whatsoever, but does in fact occasionally attend a variety of 'churches' from time to time.
And it is the 'pot who calls the kettle black'!
Well, well.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:
I am not the 'denominationalist', you are. I try to stand within a tradition. It is those who claim to know better that cause divisions and found denominations. I have belonged to two churches in my life - the Church of England & the Roman Catholic Church. Neither are perfect, but I do not seek to take it upon myself to decide what is part of 'true Christianity' and what is not.
So, one of us "belongs" to the CoE/RCC, and the other belongs to no denominations whatsoever, but does in fact occasionally attend a variety of 'churches' from time to time.
And it is the 'pot who calls the kettle black'!
Well, well.

I don't belong to a denomination. I say that I have belonged to two churches.

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

But one thing that I do 'think I know' (and the older I grow, the more peripheral things, like Religion and Bibliolatry evaporate, leaving only the one thing) is that God sent his Son to become 'man', to live, and to die, in the fullest possible way, even to the extent of briefly actually tasting 'sin' in its ultimate form (which was to be forsaken by God), before simultaneously returning from whence he came and sending the Holy Spirit to indwell 'man' (Christ within by the power of the Holy Spirit).
Thereon I strive to 'know' nothing more, simply because IMO further knowledge would detract from the need to 'trust' (the element that exemplifies the essential differentiation between man and God). [/QB]

Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :

Sorry, my iPad is being awkward. Meant to say that I think you have the nub of what Christianity is all about as summarised in John 3:16

Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on :

Rather enjoyed the stripped back version of what following Jesus is all about in the recent movie Risen. A fine Easter offering in the tradition of Ben Hur and The Robe starring Joseph Fiennes. I would be interested to know what those struggling with the question of faith think of it. Even TP, who abhors anything mawkish thought it was handled quite well.

The older I get, the more I hate what institutions have done with religion and the more I long to be around those who reflect spirit and grace. I don't think I am alone there.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I find that you can't make yourself believe things. It's not that you set yourself up to judge, it's just that if the Church says something you just don't believe, you still don't believe it. You can't make yourself do so.

That doesn't mean that the particular set of beliefs I have at any given time are 'the truth' - they change too much anyway. And it may be that the teachings of the RCC or the Westminster Confession (please no, I'm not sure I can cope with an eternity with a choice between Hell and the Calvinist version of God) is closer to the truth than what I believe, but that doesn't mean I can make myself believe it.

It has to be enough to just admit you could be wrong, rather than sign up to beliefs you just don't share. If it's not enough, then tough shit, it's all I've got.

[ 10. March 2016, 23:11: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

I agree. I have trouble seeing how I can believe something that doesn't make at least some sense to me, and I think that the less sense it makes, the harder it has to be for me to believe. Otherwise, I can't even be sure what it is that I'm believing.

And if what I really believe is that God must be good (if he exists), then I won't be able to believe something else that seems to be incompatible with that belief (say, something like God arbitrarily condemning some people to eternal punishment in hell). I might try to tell myself I believe it, but in some sense I have to believe that it can't be true because otherwise I have to give up what I really believe about God being good.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I agree. I have trouble seeing how I can believe something that doesn't make at least some sense to me, and I think that the less sense it makes, the harder it has to be for me to believe. Otherwise, I can't even be sure what it is that I'm believing.

And if what I really believe is that God must be good (if he exists), then I won't be able to believe something else that seems to be incompatible with that belief (say, something like God arbitrarily condemning some people to eternal punishment in hell). I might try to tell myself I believe it, but in some sense I have to believe that it can't be true because otherwise I have to give up what I really believe about God being good.

That which God writes in your heart tops anything written by man, regardless of what the writer might have said about the inspired inerrancy of what he wrote.
But it is well within the sovereignty of God to use something written by a metaphoric donkey as the media that He might choose from which to do his writing in your heart.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

So we're back to Primacy of Conscience - and this thread is seeming more and more like it may be heading for Purgatory!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
So we're back to Primacy of Conscience - and this thread is seeming more and more like it may be heading for Purgatory!

That writing's been on the wall since the OP

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I find that you can't make yourself believe things.

I agree. I can make myself obey things though. Even when I don't really believe in God I find I can act as if he is real. I find I don't regret having done that when the unbelief passes - and I find I often do regret failing to do act as if he is real.

Of course what one believes about how one should act is very different with different visions of God - and is part of how I would evaluate the truth of any particular vision.

Posted by Bibaculus (# 18528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
So we're back to Primacy of Conscience

We are indeed. And hopefully one which respects other people's conscience.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Okay, to Purgatory you go. Enjoy the trip.

WW - AS Host.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
1. I guess I hope to find fellow members who share my conviction that God is to be trusted and worshipped from the basis of childlike faith, as distinct from the basis of human elaboration.
2. I am happy with the direction that my conviction leads me but ever fearful of the danger of embracing answers to the questions that I feel we ought not to be asking.

Answering as a whole, I guess I would say I halfway agree with you.

I would agree that there is a simplicity to the "basics" of the faith-- the things that unite us, the things that our faith is built upon. And there is tremendous value in continually coming back to that one thing.

Where I would disagree is in eschewing "human elaboration" or the suggestion that there are "questions we shouldn't be asking." I believe God wants to be known. That's the whole point of Scripture, and even more so, the point of the incarnation-- God revealing himself. Jesus came to show us God, to demonstrate God himself to us. That suggests to me that there is value-- God-honoring value-- in the search to know God. That entails "elaboration"-- discussion, conversation, contemplation-- and yes, questioning. I think it's done best in dialogue-- sharing our thoughts, experiences, insights with one another helps us see beyond our blindspots and cultural limitations to come to know God in new ways, broader ways. That's all good and valuable. It's why we come to the Ship.

The problem, of course, is when those different experiences, perspectives, insights, etc. divide us rather than enlighten us. That's where your first point comes in-- continually coming back to the essential core of the faith that unites us.

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

3. I suspect that 'Confusion' might well be God's response to man's 'age enduring' folly in asserting his opinions of what God might have said and meant by it.

I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion. God is the one who brings order out of chaos. Even more so, as I said above, I believe God wants to be known. I don't think God punishes us for seeking him-- quite the opposite, he comes to us and shows himself to us. In fact, a significant theme in Scripture seems to be God showing up and revealing himself in the most surprising of places to the most unexpected people-- sinners, Samaritans, Persian astrologers. Even an ass (er, donkey) at one point.

Again, the problem is when we get all haughty about it. When pride leads us to think we've got the Almighty all figured out and in our back pocket where we can manipulate him at will. Yeah, that's a problem possibly worthy of divine retribution. But normal seeking, speculating, wondering about the God we worship? No, that is very much a good thing.

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
4. I suspect that 'Truth' might well be 'personally relevant' as distinct from 'universally absolute' and best kept to oneself (not much point in forum involvement, eh?).

I think both.

There are indeed "private revelations"-- when God reveals something that is specific to you personally and your particular walk with God. And sure, it can be problematic to try and generalize that specific revelation to everyone else. But simply sharing what God is saying and doing in your life without the expectation that everyone else has to know/experience/understand God in precisely the same way is not problematic-- indeed, it helps all of us know God in a broader and more nuanced way. It's a good thing.

And there is such a thing as general revelation. The "basics" of the faith that you outlined in the OP-- that's a "universally absolute" general revelation that applies to everyone, everywhere: God is good. God loves us. God is with us. That's not just for a select few.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

3. I suspect that 'Confusion' might well be God's response to man's 'age enduring' folly in asserting his opinions of what God might have said and meant by it.
I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion.

The opposite of 'Peace', in the context of the verse where 'confusion' is not the true opposite, is in fact 'Tumult'.
In Genesis 11 God most certainly was the author of 'confusion', and IMO has been ever since, whenever man attempts to build theological towers reaching up into heaven, such as has been the case ever since Mr Everyman got to read a Bible for the first time and suddenly became an 'expert' Amatuer Theologian.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

3. I suspect that 'Confusion' might well be God's response to man's 'age enduring' folly in asserting his opinions of what God might have said and meant by it.
I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion.
The opposite of 'Peace', in the context of the verse where 'confusion' is not the true opposite, is in fact 'Tumult'.
In Genesis 11 God most certainly was the author of 'confusion', and IMO has been ever since, whenever man attempts to build theological towers reaching up into heaven, such as has been the case ever since Mr Everyman got to read a Bible for the first time and suddenly became an 'expert' Amatuer Theologian.

Whoa, are you seriously saying that access to reading the bible should be limited? And who to?
[Mad]

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
So we're back to Primacy of Conscience - and this thread is seeming more and more like it may be heading for Purgatory!
That writing's been on the wall since the OP

Hi Karl,
I assume http://agnosticchristian.wordpress.com is your blog, in which case we are not poles apart in our thinking.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

Originally posted by Doone:

quote:
Whoa, are you seriously saying that access to reading the bible should be limited? And who to?

Sorry if that's what I came across as saying.
My intent was not to question the 'reading', but to question the theological dogma that oftimes too readily follows the reading.

Posted by Doone (# 18470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
Originally posted by Doone:

quote:
Whoa, are you seriously saying that access to reading the bible should be limited? And who to?

Sorry if that's what I came across as saying.
My intent was not to question the 'reading', but to question the theological dogma that oftimes too readily follows the reading.

Okay, that makes sense and I do agree that dogma can be the result sometimes [Smile]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

People relate to churches, and to God, in various ways, the ways for any one person evolve over the years, and reasons for going to a church or supporting a church's programs may or may not be relate to ones personal beliefs about God.

I don't have any friends who believe everything their church teaches (formally or informally).

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Agnostic Believer:
I don't share your enthusiasm for regressing to childhood. In my experience children tend to believe anything they're taught, and that only gradually gets replaced by mature thinking.

So I was a 100% believing child JW, but with the onset of developing adult thinking I started doubting and finally realised it was bullshit. So I ditched by child's faith. The real maintainers of childlike faith are the YEC fundies.

karl:

quote:
I find that you can't make yourself believe things.

Well . . . .

I learned a lot from my brushes, especially the first, with depression which whilst admittedly not of the most severe, did keep me off work for a time. And one of the symptoms was that I stopped having confidence in things I used to take for granted. I.e. stopped believing, in the sense (that I think is the most basic) of having the feeling of confidence that "this I know".

And in this, there is a degree of persuading yourself back into believing. I know what you mean and there's a lot of truth in it, but 100% truth? Some people especially with anxiety, or say chronic distrust, need to be taught how to believe, and this tends to be the culture we live in and are influenced by.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

3. I suspect that 'Confusion' might well be God's response to man's 'age enduring' folly in asserting his opinions of what God might have said and meant by it.
I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion.
The opposite of 'Peace', in the context of the verse where 'confusion' is not the true opposite, is in fact 'Tumult'.
In Genesis 11 God most certainly was the author of 'confusion', and IMO has been ever since, whenever man attempts to build theological towers reaching up into heaven, such as has been the case ever since Mr Everyman got to read a Bible for the first time and suddenly became an 'expert' Amatuer Theologian.

OK, fair point re God using "confusion" as punishment. But the problem in Babel wasn't "theological towers"-- it wasn't people reading the Bible and asking questions about God. The Bible is full of people who are praised for doing precisely that. Again, what is the point of the Bible if not God's desire to be known?

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

quote:
posted by cliffdweller:
What is the point of the Bible if not God's desire to be known?

The answer to that depends on whether or not you subscribe to the view that it was God who wrote 'The Bible'.
In any case, if you do, then surely it can only have been the original manuscripts.
In which case why did he allow them all to be lost?
And do you mean he also wrote the 'New Testament' Gospels and Epistles?
And that it was God who decided which ones should have been canonised and which ones should have been rejected?
Or that he had to wait centuries after Pentecost before finding a committee of secular and religious men who he could trust with the task of 'selection'?

All too much of a stretch for my conception.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:
posted by cliffdweller:
What is the point of the Bible if not God's desire to be known?
The answer to that depends on whether or not you subscribe to the view that it was God who wrote 'The Bible'.
In any case, if you do, then surely it can only have been the original manuscripts.
In which case why did he allow them all to be lost?
And do you mean he also wrote the 'New Testament' Gospels and Epistles?
And that it was God who decided which ones should have been canonised and which ones should have been rejected?
Or that he had to wait centuries after Pentecost before finding a committee of secular and religious men who he could trust with the task of 'selection'?

All too much of a stretch for my conception.

The authenticity and inspiration of Scripture is probably a dead horse issue. But suffice it to say that I think the evidence suggests a fairly reliable transmission of the original text. I'm not a fan of verbal plenary inspiration so the few odd scribal glosses, etc. don't trouble me much.

But my point wasn't dependent on that sort of dictation-level inspiration. My point was just that mainstream Christian belief is predicated on the assumption that God wants to be known. If Scripture is anything other than pure human invention, if God had something to do with it, then it is an indication of that desire. If Jesus of Nazareth was someone other than just a common human illegitimate son of a carpenter, then it is an indication of that desire. All the things in your OP-- the things you (rightly IMHO) want to highlight as the core, essential truth of the gospel-- all those things are part and parcel with the evidence that God wants to be known.

God wants to be known. And yes, he could have made himself known by verbally dictating a set of propositional truths about himself or a brief or not-so-brief autobiographical text. But instead, God reveals himself thru story, thru history, and thru the incarnation. All of which is both compelling-- but also nuanced and ambiguous. Subject to interpretation and differing perspectives.

And so I believe our questioning, our discussing, our dialoguing, our sharing of perspectives & experiences-- even our speculating and our verbal theological sparring-- is all part of the way we come to know and understand God.

Again, I agree very much that when those differing perspectives become a means of dividing us, that's bad. Or when those random theological speculations become hardened into prideful certainty-- yeah, you're on dangerous ground. Those are important dangers to watch out for.

But to close off questioning, to close of wondering-- that is to close off the pursuit of God altogether. And no, I don't think that's a good thing at all.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

Cliffdweller,
It is probable that we agree as to the greater good that comes of combining questioning with discussion.
But we must neither preclude where it leads you, nor where it has led me.
The difference is what I regard as personally relevant 'truth', as distinct from universally absolute 'truth'.
Peace be with you.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
Cliffdweller,

But we must neither preclude where it leads you, nor where it has led me.
The difference is what I regard as personally relevant 'truth', as distinct from universally absolute 'truth'.

not sure at all what this means...
[Confused]

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

Peace be with you.

And also with you.

Posted by Agnostic Believer (# 18566) on :

Hi cliffdweller,
I was just referring to the difference between the extent to which you believe God wants to be known, and the extent to which I believe he wants us to 'trust' rather than to 'know'.
Two 'personally relevant truths' IMO.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, what is the point of the Bible if not God's desire to be known?

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
Hi cliffdweller,
I was just referring to the difference between the extent to which you believe God wants to be known, and the extent to which I believe he wants us to 'trust' rather than to 'know'.
Two 'personally relevant truths' IMO.

It seems to me that the underlying question is what do we mean by "know" or "known" when we say that God wants to be known. We can know in the sense of intellectual understanding, of stored information we can draw upon, such as how we know math or history, or the Creed. We can know in the sense of being acquainted with, such as how we know our neighbors.

And then there's knowing someone in the Biblical sense. [Biased]

To be honest, I think it's the latter that's at play when we say that the point of the Bible—and of the Incarnation—is that God wants to be known by us. God doesn't want us to understand everything about him, though there's nothing wrong with seeking to understand God and God's ways better as long as we are aware that our picture will always be incomplete. (Thanks Job.)

God wants an intimate connection with us, one in which we are close enough to him that the Law (love God, love neighbor) is written on our hearts, is part of our being. God wants the trust you talk about, AgnosticBeliever, not because we know we should trust, but because we are so united with God that trust comes as naturally as breathing.

There doesn't have to be a disconnect between "trust" and "knowing"—I would say we trust best when we know God, not intellectually but in our hearts.

Welcome to the ship, AgnosticBeliever!

[ 12. March 2016, 12:52: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

There doesn't have to be a disconnect between "trust" and "knowing"—I would say we trust best when we know God, not intellectually but in our hearts.

Welcome to the ship, AgnosticBeliever!

Yes, this.

But I would say the "intellectual" knowing is related to the "relational" knowing. They don't have to be, of course-- you can have one w/o the other. But generally, as you grow in one you grow in the other. What we believe about God intellectually informs and impacts our relationship with God. And our experiences of God relationally help us to understand more intellectually about the character and heart of God. Same as it is with all our relationships. Getting to know the "other"-- whether it's the cute girl across the hall or the Creator of the Universe-- always involves this sort of trial-and-error learning. And our knowledge is always incomplete, precisely because they are "other". But that doesn't make the process of growing in our knowledge of the "other" any less delightful.

And yes, as Nick said, all of that informs our ability to trust-- again, much as is true in all our relationships.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I struggle with my faith almost daily.

To things I have to tell myself:

1) Doubt is not the enemy of faith--it is certainty. Faith entails struggle

2) When all else fails, I have to remind myself, "I am baptized." That means God claims me even when I am in the midst of stormy seas.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Whatever gets you through the day Gramps49.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
1. I guess I hope to find fellow members who share my conviction that God is to be trusted and worshipped from the basis of childlike faith, as distinct from the basis of human elaboration

Speaking as someone who once had a passionate interest in theology and understanding the faith, the older I get, the more I believe in devotion. This is because I've become convinced that the sum total of what we can know is zero, even about whether God exists. I now believe that an hour spent in silent prayer, in a church or elsewhere, is of far more value than an hour trying to understand God. The anonymous writer of the 14th century classic "The Cloud of Unknowing" wrote, "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never." In my 60's I've finally arrived at a similar understanding.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Agnostic Believer:
I don't share your enthusiasm for regressing to childhood. In my experience children tend to believe anything they're taught, and that only gradually gets replaced by mature thinking.

So I was a 100% believing child JW, but with the onset of developing adult thinking I started doubting and finally realised it was bullshit. So I ditched by child's faith. The real maintainers of childlike faith are the YEC fundies.

karl:
quote:
I find that you can't make yourself believe things.
Well . . . .

I learned a lot from my brushes, especially the first, with depression which whilst admittedly not of the most severe, did keep me off work for a time. And one of the symptoms was that I stopped having confidence in things I used to take for granted. I.e. stopped believing, in the sense (that I think is the most basic) of having the feeling of confidence that "this I know".

And in this, there is a degree of persuading yourself back into believing. I know what you mean and there's a lot of truth in it, but 100% truth? Some people especially with anxiety, or say chronic distrust, need to be taught how to believe, and this tends to be the culture we live in and are influenced by.

I'm familiar with depression and anxiety, and nothing in them makes me think that belief is something you can will in yourself. The concept just doesn't seem to be meaningful to me; even if I managed some kind of suspension of disbelief, I'd know it was because I'd talked myself into it, not because it was actually true. If I thought it was true, I wouldn't have to persuade myself, because to me at any rate "believe" and "think is true" are synonyms.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Speaking as someone who once had a passionate interest in theology and understanding the faith, the older I get, the more I believe in devotion. This is because I've become convinced that the sum total of what we can know is zero, even about whether God exists. I now believe that an hour spent in silent prayer, in a church or elsewhere, is of far more value than an hour trying to understand God. The anonymous writer of the 14th century classic "The Cloud of Unknowing" wrote, "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never." In my 60's I've finally arrived at a similar understanding.

As ever, I think it is both/and and not either/or.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:
Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
1. I guess I hope to find fellow members who share my conviction that God is to be trusted and worshipped from the basis of childlike faith, as distinct from the basis of human elaboration
Speaking as someone who once had a passionate interest in theology and understanding the faith, the older I get, the more I believe in devotion. This is because I've become convinced that the sum total of what we can know is zero, even about whether God exists. I now believe that an hour spent in silent prayer, in a church or elsewhere, is of far more value than an hour trying to understand God. The anonymous writer of the 14th century classic "The Cloud of Unknowing" wrote, "By love may He be gotten and holden, but by thought never." In my 60's I've finally arrived at a similar understanding.

I love empty churches. Although they're very difficult to come by: Even though I am a house of God, I like His house. So I pour myself out in solitary walks and He does me good. I am shorn of all superstition except in extremis - it's not that there are no atheists in foxholes, it's that there are no rationalists - and explore that with Him. This feels like a paraphrase of the 23rd Psalm. Although I am in want. Of works.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0