Ship of Fools: Mourning the loss of faith

Thread: Mourning the loss of 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=029838

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Or maybe mourning the loss of the way faith used to 'work' in your life?

Pondering the Hell thread "Why I hate, loathe, and despise the Bible / OT / NT / Paul/ whatever the freak it is." I was struck by quetzalcoatl's post on the "Would it be possible to radically change the bible?" thread in Purg.

And I wonder if the first stage of grief (anger) is partly in play here? Maybe people like me are dealing with a mourning time for a faith we no longer have.

So I thought I'd start an AS thread for us to talk about it.

quote:

Boogie wrote:

Like Susan Doris said, an unaffected reading of the Bible would not be possible. In the days when I was looking for inspiration in there I found it all the time. Even one word would light up for me as if illuminated from outside. It was quite an experience.

Now I can read it for two minutes at a time and become bored. I think now that - in the past - my own expectations, beliefs and psychology brought me far more inspiration than the actual words ever could. It wasn't God, it was me.

quetzalcoatl wrote:

The same thing happened to me. I am still pondering it, and to an extent, mourning it. When I was young, religious symbols would pierce me to the heart, but now they don't.

As you say, it was me, not God, although I am still wondering about the difference.

I was going to launch into a complicated Jungian analysis of it, but FFS, enough. Well, actually, life is enough.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I can relate to mourning the way faith used to 'work' in my life, but I have put it down to the different spiritual ages - that is, I was like a baby to start with although I was an adult, then like a teenager, and I have continued to mature. Although I know I have lost, and lament the loss, of the excitement and passions of youth, I appreciate the steadiness and confidence of adulthood. As with the physical, so with the spiritual dimensions of life.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

I find it difficult to comment on a thread about loss of faith. What is faith? I find it difficult to answer.

One upon a time, I thought I knew the answer; after all, I had been told, many times, what the answer was. In fact it had been rammed down my throat, again and again, and I accepted it without (much) question. Faith was the ability to believe - believe what? a statement of facts. The facts varied somewhat between denominations and factions, but the Nicene Creed was a general starting point. Doubt (ie intelligent questioning) was Bad and to be condemned. Thus, the less one thought, the greater the faith.

It was with some satisfaction, therefore, that I came to realise that the above definition of "faith" isn't in the Bible. Some of the Old Testament heroes mentioned in the letter to the Hebrews, for instance, were notably short on "faith" as above, and would have had difficulty in passing an examination on basic theology. But their faith shone through in (some of) what they did. Even better - the letter of James; faith is seen in action, and in the case action is seen principally in practical help with the desperate social problems of the day.

So if you find yourself giving a little time or effort to help someone in need, maybe you haven't lost your faith after all.

(Helping the blind to see, with a little canine assistance, might qualify?)

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

In part I think it is about how the individual sees the journey - is it seen as a journey away from something or towards something.

I think faith does change for some of us as we get older and our understanding alters but this can be seen as positive as well as negative. When I left the Church of England back in the early 1980s, yes, that was a time of grief but, in fact, it led me via some time in the wilderness, to the Religious Society of Friends [Quakers] which has been a huge personal blessing.

Any journey involves change and sometimes change can hurt. Yes, I think it is okay to grieve for what we lose but we should also look ahead and be open to the new that is coming to us. On the whole I have found God's plans for me to pretty exciting.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I think actually it's good for me that I'm starting to feel sad about it.

I stopped going to church AGES ago because of the LGBT thing but it was unreflected on. About two years ago I looked into becoming Catholic and started to look seriously at what I felt were my 'stumbling blocks' around sexual morality and (ironically) Mary.

Big mistake. I got really, really, really angry about the sheer bollocks of it all and the parsing words to try and make the bollocks sound official. So I became angry 'spiritual but not religious'.

Recently I've been reading all sorts of books from Dawkins and Harris through to Feser to try and understand the arguments for the existence of God. So far they tell me that you can POSSIBLY argue for a God to exist but this isn't anything like the God that most Christians would know.

I feel sad about that. Part of me wants God to swoop down and say 'it's okay, I'm here and it will be okay.' but I less and less feel that he will. It's bittersweet because in some ways that means I can be less angry and more focussed on living a good life and helping people because this is all we have. But I do wish that I could have a faith.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Personally, I like the idea of the Numinous, not least because it removes the very loaded word "God" from the discussion, and you have to explore the nature and existence of the divine without the preconceptions that "God" implies.

I think you are right that if you start to argue to the existence of the Divine Numinous, you don't end up with the same as most churches seem to understand. I think you end up with something far bigger, far more God-like.

I was having a discussion with someone at work recently about proofs for the existence of God, and Pascals Wager. What struck me was that these are very limited ideas. Pascals Wager starts from the basis that God either exists or doesn't. But actually, this is not the choice discussed. The existence of God doesn't mean the existence of the Christian God, or a God anything like the one argued for here. God may exist, and be malicious, vile and hate us. I often think this is the case.

So I would rather argue for the numinous, the divine, that there is something more than the physical world that we can identify (and that Dawkins is so insistent is all). I think there is evidence for this, for something non-empirical. Beyond that, if we try to define this, we are liable to be reflecting our own prejudices into having divine status.

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

When I lost my faith, it was a hotch potch of a number of things. The loss of community and friends, the loss of a structure, the frustration that I had invested time, money, energy into things that no longer added up. But now, years on, I'm glad that I did take that path and cease trying on the faith route.

I still get angry about it all, but I'm not sure why. Probably because it was so much a part of my life and I still wish I hadn't done the things that I did.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

I do not have the faith I was taught as a child, because that faith didn't make sense to me, and was full of contradictions and hypocrosies. I don't think I have mourned it and I don't know whether I need to - I'm not even sure I ever had it in the first place to mourn for, but I had the understanding that I was supposed to have it and that God would reject me if I didn't. I no longer have that understanding, and I don't mourn that. I have had to work out my own faith, working it out as I go along, with lots of people thinking I was wrong, or weak-faithed, or not a real Christian.

I think what I do mourn (if it is possible to mourn something one never had but would have liked to have) is the lack of support and openness within many churches to enable people to express what they really think and feel, and to question assumptions that are deep-rooted within the church. It has often been a lonely journey.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I don't have the faith I was taught as a child, because I wasn't taught faith as a child. I came to understand (as much as anyone can) and accept the Christian faith in my late teens. Since then my beliefs and practices have been on something of a roller coaster ride, although the practices part has evened out some since I became Orthodox*. Faith waxes and wanes, but for me (so far) always comes back.

I think the arguments for God's existence are all well and good, but they are not sound arguments**, and even if accepted are, as a proof of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jesus, like using a stepladder to fetch a cone at the top of a redwood.

_________
*the church's various practices don't change, but how and to what extent one participates in them can and does and arguably should
**in the technical use of the term: a deductive argument with true premises and demonstrably truth-preserving modes of inference

[ 08. November 2015, 13:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

There seems to be a confusion about "faith" which is personal and consists in relationship, and "the Faith" which is body of doctrine,

People can subscribe ( and later unsubscribe) to the latter and, inevitably the body of doctrine to which they are committed changes and evolves.

But faith as relationship is another thing. Of course it is possible to lose a relationship for all sorts of reasons. But that is different from mourning the loss of belief.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Faith, right. I devoted a significant chunk of my life to faith and my beliefs, committed to God and all the rest of it. Here I am at 50-something with nothing to show for it and a lot of questions about why there are problems in the world that wreck someone's declining years, like crippling arthritis, or dementia, or Parkinson's. And why and how life shrivels inexorably around many people, their mobility increasingly restricted and how bit by bit they give up the things they used to enjoy doing. And why prayer goes unanswered. I feel like saying with a shrug, "Well, whatever. You have faith if you want, I don't want to spoil it for you. Believe while you still can."

I don't think I mourn the loss of faith, it's more a weary sort of acceptance that I wasted years doing what I thought was the right thing to do, but that really is all anyone can do: what you think is the right thing to do at the time.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Very interesting thread and posts. Rather than 'mourn' a loss of faith in religious beliefs, I would say, celebrate the move away from it, and to a much more securely based understanding that our human species has never had an actual god doing anything anyway; we humans have done it all including imagining the existence of all gods. The belief that God/god/s exist has had such a powerful influence on our history that it will never itself completely become a part of past history, but unless there can be presented a fact which then becomes objective knowledge, the decline in religious beliefs will continue.

I can ccompletely understand and sympathise with the feeling of mourning, although, my faith had always contained a good dose of scepticism. For me it was more a case of kick-self for taking so long to shake myself freeand really understand what the non-believers I knew had been talking about! The increasing number of good books (e.g. ‘Human Universe’ by Prof Brian Cox which is associated with a TV series I understand), most of the excellent BBC Radio 4 Science based programmes – often used in the Open University studies – and plenty of evidence-based info on the internet all help to provide firm ground to move onto when leaving faith. The number of atheists (and humanists) is most decidedly on the rise.

Hmmmm, actually, all we need is a few good rousing songs, set to some really strong, memorable tunes!!

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Good questions and answers.

Is there such a thing as a "negative" getting struck on the road to Damascus like Paul experienced? Because I think I had one. Where the experience of an incident dealt me with a blow I felt physically, and everything changed. I could talk and see and hear, but all through a surreal bubble, that took about 6 weeks before I really could function. Then it was and is a matter of figuring out, post flood, how to rebuilt life. Can't say I like it much - it destroyed our family faith life as it was constituted then.

I wonder how long Paul's ministry was, his trips, letter writing, etc before his encounter with the axe. I'd also like to get a better sense of how long after his Damascus road experience he was credibly preachifying. I can't believe that it was immediate. Unless he was a superman.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Hmmmm, actually, all we need is a few good rousing songs, set to some really strong, memorable tunes!!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Good questions and answers.

Is there such a thing as a "negative" getting struck on the road to Damascus like Paul experienced? Because I think I had one. Where the experience of an incident dealt me with a blow I felt physically, and everything changed. I could talk and see and hear, but all through a surreal bubble, that took about 6 weeks before I really could function. Then it was and is a matter of figuring out, post flood, how to rebuilt life. Can't say I like it much - it destroyed our family faith life as it was constituted then.

I wonder how long Paul's ministry was, his trips, letter writing, etc before his encounter with the axe. I'd also like to get a better sense of how long after his Damascus road experience he was credibly preachifying. I can't believe that it was immediate. Unless he was a superman.

It was several years, it looks like. He went away into Arabia for a while, and I think some other stuff.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It was several years, it looks like. He went away into Arabia for a while, and I think some other stuff.

That makes a lot of sense. He had to reinvent himself, adopt to a new world view, which is no simple chore as an adult, perhaps easier as a young person. I should like to think, headstrong personality that he was, that he'd have had a few wrestling matches and some hip pain along the way.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I think actually it's good for me that I'm starting to feel sad about it.

I stopped going to church AGES ago because of the LGBT thing but it was unreflected on. About two years ago I looked into becoming Catholic and started to look seriously at what I felt were my 'stumbling blocks' around sexual morality and (ironically) Mary.

Big mistake. I got really, really, really angry about the sheer bollocks of it all and the parsing words to try and make the bollocks sound official. So I became angry 'spiritual but not religious'.

Recently I've been reading all sorts of books from Dawkins and Harris through to Feser to try and understand the arguments for the existence of God. So far they tell me that you can POSSIBLY argue for a God to exist but this isn't anything like the God that most Christians would know.

I feel sad about that. Part of me wants God to swoop down and say 'it's okay, I'm here and it will be okay.' but I less and less feel that he will. It's bittersweet because in some ways that means I can be less angry and more focussed on living a good life and helping people because this is all we have. But I do wish that I could have a faith.

'spiritual but not religious'.

to the bolded: for me, it was becoming religious but not terribly spiritual. I'm (Western) Christian because I live in a Western country that is culturally (at least in name) Christian and therefore the philosophy makes a certain sense. It acknowledges the reality of suffering and the hope of ultimate healing / resurrection.

I now work with a lot of homeless people and working poor. They may not experience healing in a way society might want them to experience it (being free of mental illness, addiction, or stubbornness and becoming a working, housed person), but I can do a little something for them today.

That, IMO, is an allegory to the Eucharist, extending the Lord's table. It doesn't matter whether I believe, in a literal sense, the events of the Bible; it makes sense philosophically. It doesn't matter whether I utter the prayer of institution (or whether I pray at all). Faith is what is alive. This is what "alive" looks like for me.

Posted by Angel Wrestler (# 13673) on :

When I lost my faith, it was like losing a best friend. I lost it when I was praying and an answer came to me: "Y'know, Angel Wrestler, God's just not that into you." It was heartbreaking to think that I'd spent so much time and effort trying to establish a relationship that just wasn't going to come out in the way that I thought (and most folks think) that it should.

In a way it was freeing; I no longer had to work so hard at this relationship.

It was also crushing. The one I'd consigned my life to, if s/he responded at all, was only after blood, sweat, and tears on my part.

If this relationship were a human relationship, I'd distance myself. So, I did.

I'm grateful that I found a different sort of path and one that works for me, but even so, those years were worse than losing my dad. I knew my dad was sick and he died. God, as I understood God at the time, isn't ill and can't die and yet still severed the relationship.

Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :

I haven't lost my faith, but after having been burnt too many times I have written off the organized church. I do mourn the loss of the fellowship I used to enjoy with other Christians in a local church.

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

Hi all,

It has been years since I have posted but I popped in tonight and spotted this thread. I started on the ship in 2003ish as a GLE and 12 years later I attend an anglican church and am hanging on to my faith barely and by a spider web like thread.

Somewhere in the last 10 years I have gotten so angry with the church for the crappy authoritarian, patriarchal bolloks that they put me through for the last 37 years that I cant even pray.

I get major comfort from my church which is liberal theologically and the liturgy supports my spirituality in the only way I can handle. I am super lucky that I have stumbled in to a community that actually lives the real gospel.

The problem is that I am essentially not speaking to God. I cant seem to untangle my concept of God from the hideous asshole pastors and spiritual leaders and manipulation I experienced for all tnose years.

I cant quite leave for good but I cant handle calling myself a christian due to all of the madness that this implies.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Dee - welcome back.

You do know that a spiders web thread is incredibly strong, weight for weight, don't you?

I suppose I would say the same to you as to everyone - hold onto your faith, reject the expressions of it that have been hurtful. And I know that is glib and easy to say. But I hope that in the community you are now in you can find a way to build and grow your faith.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:

The problem is that I am essentially not speaking to God. ...

I cant quite leave for good but I cant handle calling myself a christian due to all of the madness that this implies.

Yes - I'm the same, for different reasons.

Welcome back Dee [Smile]

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Me too with a tiny thread of faith! Keep hoping it might strengthen, but as I rarely speak to God, why should it?

Oh heck!

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

Totally with you on that one Nicodemia. Am going with the keep calm and carry on approach. And in my more optimistic moments I figure that if whoever is out there wants me then they will light my path back...

Fingers crossed.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
The problem is that I am essentially not speaking to God. I cant seem to untangle my concept of God from the hideous asshole pastors and spiritual leaders and manipulation I experienced for all those years.

But that may be the whole thing with liturgy (in various forms). In my 30+ years of stumbling faith there have been times I have been so spewing at the church and its members (not least in recent weeks) and at humanity and its godawfulness that I can barely comprehend the possibility of the glimmer of a cell of an existent god. But the liturgy provides a dance and a poem that keep me stumbling on and somehow those speakings stutter their way godwards despite the all but obliterative fuckery.

Welcome back, by the way. [Axe murder]

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The strange thing is that I find it the other way around. I find the liturgy and formality of the church get in the way of my relationship with God.

For me, it crystallised the fact that my faith was in God, not the church.

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

Funny how different aspects of the church and community support or undermine our faith at different times.

I feel at the moment like I am not speaking to one of my parents and I am too mad to know how to open up a conversation to start to try and make it right.

I hate unresolved anger in relationships

BTW Thanks for all the welcome backs guys.

[ 30. November 2015, 05:22: Message edited by: Dee. ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

I hope you don't mind if I pray for the opportunity for reconciliation to arise, Dee, and for the words.

[Votive]

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

All prayers welcome Raptor,

It occurs to me that I actually want to walk away from the church, not from God, and not all of the church, just most of the church of my experience.

And perhaps who is out there is totally different from who they told me. And that is who I want to know.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
All prayers welcome Raptor,

It occurs to me that I actually want to walk away from the church, not from God, and not all of the church, just most of the church of my experience.

And perhaps who is out there is totally different from who they told me. And that is who I want to know.

For me, it was the other way around. I drew close to God through prayer, and church came later, not what I wanted at all. I agree that we do have to find out for ourselves, we can't take anyone's word for it, and we do have to jettison some of the stuff we were told as children and held onto.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
It occurs to me that I actually want to walk away from the church, not from God, and not all of the church, just most of the church of my experience.

And perhaps who is out there is totally different from who they told me. And that is who I want to know.

I think differentiating God and the church is always a good thing. That doesn't mean the church is irrelevant, just that God is not defined by the church.

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

So true S Cat,

I am staring to realise that God is not who they said s/he was. And more to the point they did not reflect the divine image at all. What I need to find my way to is a new understanding of the divine being that does not reflect all of these assholes that said they represented him.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Hi Dee, good to see you.

I think my view of God is evolving. I have been very lucky to find a church with some loving people, so I don't have that jarring disconnect between what they say, who they are and their various views of God.

Mind you I had to move to one of the most liberal Presbyterian churches in the country to find that. I don't fit so well with official Presbyterian doctrine, but then I probably didn't with Anglican either.

If Presbies become more conservative I may go back and explore the Quakers, though I'm not sure where they are now since they lost their Meeting House in the quakes.

Huia

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

Hi Huia

My church community is the real deal and our vicar is great. She is leavng in January so I am nervous about what will happen next because it is the community that has kept me from walking away entirely. I have experienced a number of churches turn pear shaped with a new priest taking over and wanting to make his mark on the church.

Fingers crossed the new vicar will have the same theology and similar churchmansip. With a bit if luck we might even get another woman.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

I changed churches, Dee, for precisely the opposite reason! The previous vicar left, he was great, and a woman came, who was not. Theologically she left me far behind, and for other reasons I went. She also turned the church upside down, but she has now gone, so I am back there, having found the dogmatic approach at the Evo church unpalatable.

I now find the liturgy quite a comfort sometimes, and hopefully, can find God there again. Though he/she won't be my previous understanding, still struggling with the whole vastness and un-understandability of the universe!

Crossing my fingers (in a Christian way, of course [Biased]

) for the right Vicar, gender immaterial.

Posted by Dee. (# 5681) on :

Yup,

Its always a punt. My fingers are crossed as well. And there is a great Anglo-catholic congregation not too far away if by some freak of the process we end up with an arm waving evangellyfish.

D

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

We will have a new Minister after Easter as the present one is retiring. The church chose a good one last time and has in the past ( a retired Minister is part of the congregation) so I am hoping...

I may yet have to locate the Quakers though it would be hard to leave the people.

Huia

[ 02. December 2015, 17:48: Message edited by: Huia ]

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dee.:
I am staring to realise that God is not who they said s/he was. And more to the point they did not reflect the divine image at all. What I need to find my way to is a new understanding of the divine being that does not reflect all of these assholes that said they represented him.

Yes. On the days when I think s/he could still be there I feel I am rediscovering God and what his/her nature might be.

Posted by HarryLime (# 18525) on :

I fear this might be a foolish or slightly off-topic point to raise, but here goes. I notice most of you discuss the loss of faith in terms I don't really understand: the relationship with God, the divine image, and so on. I'm a bit different. I was brought up a Catholic, stopped going to Mass or even thinking about religion at about age 14, and am now curious about returning in middle age. I like the church as an institution. I like churches as buildings. I note that churchgoers are among the nicest people I meet. I love the calendar of the church, and the way it used to give shape to the year, although we've mostly lost that.

The problem is, I'm not at all convinced there's a God, and I'm even less convinced there's an afterlife.

It puzzles me that Christians are so uninterested in discussing the fundamentals of faith: creation, the nature of God, the afterlife. I do have one friend who says unapologetically that she believes, literally, in heaven and hell, and we all deserve hell, and should therefore repent so that we can go to heaven instead. That makes sense to me, and those are the kind of basic terms in which I'm thinking about all this at the moment.

So, I'd be grateful for your advice, as someone who feels the pull of the church as an institution rather than God. Where do I go from here? What, precisely, do you believe, and why? Too many questions, and too big, I know. But I thought I'd ask!

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Hello Harry Lime, welcome to the Ship.

I am coming from the perspective of someone who does now believe in God and who does now attend church and has now come to appreciate those things you mention about church, over time.

Among every congregation there are people who are not convinced about the existence of God or of the afterlife. Few people progress beyond the creation stories they learned as children, as few go in for theological study. There is little therefore to talk about, other than whether or not they believe that God is the Creator of the universe. Why they believe it will often be connected with the awe that we feel when we observe nature.

Awe describes what I feel about God, awe and love, which both emanate as the nature of God for me, but God is more than that. Whatever we grasp about God, God is more than that.

As for the afterlife, I believe that the resurrection of Jesus was a real event, and that eternal life is offered to us all through him.

I and others on this forum would be more than happy to discuss all of these on the Purgatory board, if you raise threads about them.

My advice would be to find a church that you feel at home in, and go from there.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
It puzzles me that Christians are so uninterested in discussing the fundamentals of faith: creation, the nature of God, the afterlife. I do have one friend who says unapologetically that she believes, literally, in heaven and hell, and we all deserve hell, and should therefore repent so that we can go to heaven instead. That makes sense to me, and those are the kind of basic terms in which I'm thinking about all this at the moment.

It has always seemed to me that above all, theology should make sense. Otherwise, how can we have enough confidence in our beliefs to allow them to change who we are?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I dunno--I'm interested in discussing the nature of God, heaven, hell, what difference Christianity makes in life, etc. etc. Maybe you just haven't struck the right group of people yet, for conversations like that? Keep trying, I'd say.

As for theology making sense--I'm okay with that up to a certain point, but there are real limits on what we-as-human-beings currently understand, and probably on what we CAN understand, though I hope those are a lot further out. Any field of knowledge is going to have areas where the best answer is "Sorry, we still don't know," and theology is one of those.

Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on :

My problem is that I find my church dull. Great group of people, great fellowship but stuck in a superficial place of comfort.

The problem for me is that I have long been involved in an great interfaith group of people who are offering pastoral care and healing though art, music and story telling.

This group makes my heart sing as I meet people who are in pain that are able to express their needs and have others really listen to them with a caring heart. I see the Spirit here bringing true healing though loving fellowship and open honesty. I feel what I do really matters and is living out the Gospel as I understand it.

Then I go to church on Sunday morning and people talk about the next fund raiser and what Bible study to do for Lent and frankly it all bores me.

Add to this I must drive some distance to attended church and as I age that grows to be more and more a problem. The local churches in my area and 3 independent and one Roman Catholic non of which are a fit for me. I find it all rather vexing. Prayer is for me simply holding someone up in my heart trusting that God honors my care and loves the person I am praying for.

It is not that I do not believe in God it is that the God of my youth and even of my church seems to small..

Posted by Hail Mary (# 18531) on :

This is a possibly boring personal anecdote about faith so please skim as you see fit.

I used to belong to an Anglican church that was home in every way to me. In fact, my family lived beside it. I wanted to devote my life to the ministry. Our deacon encouraged me to stay a lay person, saying that the hardest, but possibly most effective thing is to just live in faith.

Years passed, I left home, and moved across the country, and started attending Quaker Meeting. There’s so much that is appealing about Quakerism, and Anglicans make good Quakers, and vice versa. They have the sacred-in-the-ordinary that I was longing for, and their philosophy of “let your life speak” and “walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone” inspires me still.

One weekend, when I was doing a workshop in a prison, (as a volunteer, I should clarify, although it’s debatable whether I should be locked up), I got that feeling that Quakers describe as feeling ready to speak under the compulsion of the Spirit. This sounds bonkers, but it has happened to me twice. There, during the prison workshop, I could suddenly see how we are all interconnected, and that this is reality. I felt an inner voice telling me to stop pondering theological questions and to live in trust, because everything’s taken care of, to stop wasting time with this navel-gazing and to get to work doing practical things because there's broken hearts and suffering everywhere. And then God basically turned his back on me. I went back to Quaker Meeting and said, this is very odd but I’m not going to come anymore. God told me to stop believing in him and start being more effective in helping others.

And after that, I was very lonely, because I didn’t feel God’s presence any more or my former faith-infused certainty. It’s been years since then, almost twenty years, and I’ve grieved on and off for my former faith, and have prayed and asked God to please return, and have generally felt abandoned, and with time have increasingly thought that those past religious feelings were just a delusion. However I have never stopped believing that the experience I had that day during the prison workshop was a signpost in my life, where God told me what direction to go in.

In the last year or so, the feeling of God’s closeness and grace has been returning, and this is the gift I’ve longed for for such a long time. So to end this ramble, my hopefully evolving understanding of faith means being faithful even when I don’t feel God’s presence at all, and feel lonely and despairing.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Thank you Hail Mary for sharing your story. The time without God meant that you were thirsty for God. I wonder whether without that thirst, we don't remain focussed on God, a focus that does inspire our action in compassion but doesn't consist of it, and as a result we observe the kind of 'boring, fund-raising' focus that does nothing to foster our faith in God.

Posted by HarryLime (# 18525) on :

Thanks to those of you who replied to my post. You all have good points to make and have given me something to think about.

This forum makes me aware that my thinking on religion is quite immature. I'm a middle-aged man, and not stupid, but I frankly haven't thought about religion much since I was a boy. It's great to have found a friendly and interesting environment in which to talk about these things.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
This forum makes me aware that my thinking on religion is quite immature.

Consider it "an opportunity to learn more". You are probably like 90% of churchgoers, who have never really given consideration in a mature, adult, thoughtful way to what they actually believe, what they actually do and why. This is not a criticism as such, just an acknowledgement of reality.

It is a sign of a maturing faith that you acknowledge the need to think more about it.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
...my thinking on religion is quite immature

I'm a prod, but I'm interested in RC things like chanted prayer. I think I'll try your phrase on for a mantra - and if I didn't like my sig line (nicked from another shipmate) as much as I do, I'd use it there, too [Smile]

Posted by HarryLime (# 18525) on :

Thanks Mark. I love your signature, by the way.

It's a funny thing, my Catholic background is the thing that's tied me to religion through the years of not believing. Just because Catholics are a minority in Britain, and so it's been part of my identity. All that teasing about going to a Catholic school and so on.

The truth is I'm probably more comfortable with Protestant churches. Why shouldn't women be priests? I don't see a good reason. In fact, I suspect they'd make better priests. Why shouldn't the Mass be in the vernacular language? It should be. That's obvious.

Would I actually switch to a Protestant church, though? It has a feel of betrayal about it. Irrational. Stupid. UnChrsitian. That's the way I feel at the moment though!

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

I know there's a thread in Purg about the Anglican Primates meeting. I haven't posted there because I don't want to argue a point of view, or discuss it, but I do want to say I feel heart sick about what has happened.

Huia

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I know there's a thread in Purg about the Anglican Primates meeting. I haven't posted there because I don't want to argue a point of view, or discuss it, but I do want to say I feel heart sick about what has happened.

Huia

Me too, Huia. Me too.
[Frown]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
I know there's a thread in Purg about the Anglican Primates meeting. I haven't posted there because I don't want to argue a point of view, or discuss it, but I do want to say I feel heart sick about what has happened.

Another step backwards.

Another step which puts people like me off the whole idea.

I thaw a little, then freeze up again.

I find it very hard to deal with our minister at the moment. She is a lovely person and very new to the job - so super keen. She can't begin to see where I am at and just sees my position as a 'desert time' which I will recover from. She may be right, of course. But - meanwhile - she asks me to do more and more churchy stuff. I say 'no' most of the time, I want to be less involved, not more. I do a lot on the AV side but am trying to draw back from that and be unavailable more often.

We are having a big arty event for Easter - I have agreed to organise the display for Easter Sunday. But I feel a total lack of enthusiasm for it - why did I agree?

I find myself on guard the whole time to say 'no' to requests for involvement. They have started a new housegroup - she came round especially to invite me. Fortunately it's on the only day in the week that I work. I would have declined anyway - but would have had, once more, to explain my lack of interest in God (or his in me).

Their attempts to keep me involved are driving me away. [Frown]

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

All the arguing about the Anglican Primates meeting (including the long thread in Purg, which I don't understand most of the time [Frown]

) just makes me want to throw up the whole idea of "doing" church. My faith in God is so very shaky, that all this argument over who does what in bed (which is really what it all boils down to - sex and money seeming to be the driving forces of the Anglican church) just makes me wonder who or what God really is.

If he is really the God of the Cosmos, and not just a human-inspired God of the Solar System, then does all this "you can, you can't" do this or that really matter?

Wish I could persuade myself that God really does exist, and that he is interested in me. I'll leave love out of the equation for now.

And Boogie, just keep saying NO. You need a life.

Posted by Beenster (# 242) on :

Boogie your priest sounds well-intentioned but misguided. Can you write to her stating your needs and boundaries and offer up the killer expression "I will call you when the time is right".

It's weird she has labelled you in desert time and yet doesn't respect it.

I remember leaving the church. There were so many reasons and I left several times. But one of the final nails was being in a church where the priests was so upset about people not being supportive about some initiative - it warranted support as it was about the homeless / hungry. But, I had nothing to give, needed support myself but it was a defining moment. I don't think the outcome would have been different had he been kind and gentle and he did what he felt he needed to do (in shouting at the congregation).

Put yourself first very very clearly.

On a separate note, I needed to leave very recently a local group. Not church related, I don't do church (and haven't for years). This decision was met with support and understanding and the words "life is a journey and things change and we have to move with the change". I was thanked for my efforts and contribution and treated with proper respect. At no point was the suggestion that I could return if I wished made. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not - I do feel I can breathe now I'm not in that group.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

That's one good thing about church, and about God, that the door is always open should we be ready to return.

We can't persuade ourselves that God is real or that God loves us simply by wanting it to be true. We can become convinced of it by thinking it through, by observing God in action through others, by reading the Bible, by attending church services, through the awe of nature, by way of spiritual experiences, by the words of other people, etc. - but we might not.

Desert experiences happen and they hurt, we might feel as if God has abandoned us and we might bat against what we perceive as injustice. If we hold on, we might come to know God's closeness again. We might not.

Faith is frustrating. Faith is unpredictable. As is God. As are the people who frequent churches.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Your words are kind Raptor eye - a lot like my Minister's. But I haven't reached my age without realising that these things are unpredictable!

I think Churches worry too much about why folks don't attend - they have their reasons and that should be enough.

I would love it if our Church were a community centre - they do all that stuff so very well, including feeding and caring for the lonely and homeless. They don't force religion on them at all (thank goodness!) but people like me who once had strong faith and now have a weak and wobbly one are, for some reason, given too much 'encouragement' imo.

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
Thanks Mark. I love your signature, by the way.

It's a funny thing, my Catholic background is the thing that's tied me to religion through the years of not believing. Just because Catholics are a minority in Britain, and so it's been part of my identity. All that teasing about going to a Catholic school and so on.

The truth is I'm probably more comfortable with Protestant churches. Why shouldn't women be priests? I don't see a good reason. In fact, I suspect they'd make better priests. Why shouldn't the Mass be in the vernacular language? It should be. That's obvious.

Would I actually switch to a Protestant church, though? It has a feel of betrayal about it. Irrational. Stupid. UnChrsitian. That's the way I feel at the moment though!

Well the Mass is in the vernacular in the Catholic church nowadays, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why this would make you more inclined to Protestantism. Vatican II happened quite a while ago!

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your words are kind Raptor eye - a lot like my Minister's. But I haven't reached my age without realising that these things are unpredictable!

I think Churches worry too much about why folks don't attend - they have their reasons and that should be enough.

I would love it if our Church were a community centre - they do all that stuff so very well, including feeding and caring for the lonely and homeless. They don't force religion on them at all (thank goodness!) but people like me who once had strong faith and now have a weak and wobbly one are, for some reason, given too much 'encouragement' imo.

Well surely it is self-evident why churches want people to attend? Ultimately churches want everyone to come to faith in Christ, that's sort of their main purpose. I don't see how that's hard to figure out even if you don't agree with it.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Well surely it is self-evident why churches want people to attend? Ultimately churches want everyone to come to faith in Christ, that's sort of their main purpose. I don't see how that's hard to figure out even if you don't agree with it.

Er, no. The purpose of the church is to help to bring about the kingdom of God, which is to say the rule of universal love, since God is love. Faith is one means of doing this, certainly, but the church exists to serve the Kingdom, not to preserve or further itself. This, for me, is the fundamental vainglory of so much religiosity, especially the franchise that is threatening to undermine and overwhelm the Church of England.

[small codefix done]

[ 19. January 2016, 19:47: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Your words are kind Raptor eye - a lot like my Minister's. But I haven't reached my age without realising that these things are unpredictable!

I think Churches worry too much about why folks don't attend - they have their reasons and that should be enough.

I would love it if our Church were a community centre - they do all that stuff so very well, including feeding and caring for the lonely and homeless. They don't force religion on them at all (thank goodness!) but people like me who once had strong faith and now have a weak and wobbly one are, for some reason, given too much 'encouragement' imo.

Perhaps it's a case of 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' Boogie.

I've heard stories about no-one from the church having bothered with people who were struggling with their faith, so that they thought that nobody cared and left feeling very hurt. At least your minister cares enough to try to encourage you, even if she is going about it the wrong way.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Very, very few people at either my present church or my last, understood my problem, where science comes slap up against the Biblical idea of God. I can, just, conceive of a God responsible for the Cosmos, the incredible complexity, vastness and age of the whole bangshoot. To translate that God into a loving father, interested in every little bit of my life, your life and the lives of the billions and billions of other humans, past and present, just doesn't work.

And when it comes to the concept of multiverses, well, I was told "just don't think about it". But why not? If God can't cope with multiverses, then he isn't God, is he??

When my brain is geared towards the Cosmos end of the paradox, then the minutiae of the church services, the different liturgical colours, etc. etc. irritate. But if I can forget the cosmos/cosmoses then I like the liturgy, and can just about imagine there is a God, and he loves me in the person of Jesus.

But my mind rushes between the two ends of the paradox, leaving me feeling alone, unloved, misunderstood and probably destined for Hell.

If I was younger, and lived a lot nearer London, I could attend the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, who have seminars, etc. on these subjects. But I'm not and not.

"I believe; help Thou my unbelief"

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I hadn't noticed this thread, which has a quote from me about mourning in the OP.

A friend said to me, that it's like an ex-wife or -husband, you stop mourning, and then they're not very interesting. Well, it's not as clear cut as that, but they often don't tug on your heart-strings anymore.

I don't feel in a mourning phase now about 'loss of faith'. I think I had been letting go for years, and then you sort of come out of it. It's a relief actually.

There are some good things on this thread - I can relate to the stuff about the numinous, but then I can find that anywhere, nothing to do with religion.

Go well!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:

When my brain is geared towards the Cosmos end of the paradox, then the minutiae of the church services, the different liturgical colours, etc. etc. irritate. But if I can forget the cosmos/cosmoses then I like the liturgy, and can just about imagine there is a God, and he loves me in the person of Jesus.

But my mind rushes between the two ends of the paradox, leaving me feeling alone, unloved, misunderstood and probably destined for Hell.

If I was younger, and lived a lot nearer London, I could attend the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, who have seminars, etc. on these subjects. But I'm not and not.

"I believe; help Thou my unbelief"

Me too.

Some people find compartmentalising their thoughts on this kind of thing easy - I find it impossible!

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

To me, liturgy can help to take my mind off all the minutiæ sometimes. Because it is repetitive and predictable, it can allow my mind to wander.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
Very, very few people at either my present church or my last, understood my problem, where science comes slap up against the Biblical idea of God. I can, just, conceive of a God responsible for the Cosmos, the incredible complexity, vastness and age of the whole bangshoot. To translate that God into a loving father, interested in every little bit of my life, your life and the lives of the billions and billions of other humans, past and present, just doesn't work.

And when it comes to the concept of multiverses, well, I was told "just don't think about it". But why not? If God can't cope with multiverses, then he isn't God, is he??

When my brain is geared towards the Cosmos end of the paradox, then the minutiae of the church services, the different liturgical colours, etc. etc. irritate. But if I can forget the cosmos/cosmoses then I like the liturgy, and can just about imagine there is a God, and he loves me in the person of Jesus.

But my mind rushes between the two ends of the paradox, leaving me feeling alone, unloved, misunderstood and probably destined for Hell.

If I was younger, and lived a lot nearer London, I could attend the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, who have seminars, etc. on these subjects. But I'm not and not.

"I believe; help Thou my unbelief"

I understand this. I too have had struggles with understanding how God can possibly be transcendent and immanent at the same time. I return to the two creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2, and recognise that people since dot have observed those two aspects of God, and set them down side by side.

God knows we struggle with this, there is no way anyone would go to hell for it. In fact, I've become convinced that it is a necessary grit to help the pearl of faith to grow.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think this is one area (of many) where Dawkins is such a pain, and wrong in a dangerous way, by his rejection of NOMA.

The way I understand it is that the scientific ontology or magisteria gives you a way of understanding all of reality, all of the cosmos, as a huge working entity, with no direct relationship to a divine being.

If you then take the religious or Christian ontology, then this also allows you to see the cosmos as the work of the divine, to see us as an important part of that, to see the universe, if you like, through Gods eyes.

For me, these are simply two distinct, non-overlapping ways of seeing reality. They are both right, but neither of them is completely right. They seem incompatible, but in truth that is because we understand neither fully. They are not opposing, but distinct, and - despite the fact that they are, in some areas, struggling to be compatible - possible to hold fully at the same time.

Of course, I am a fan of the Alice stories, so believe five impossible things before breakfast is just routine.

What they should both do is remind me of how small I am, or rather, how vast is reality. Which is not about saying how insignificant I am, but about saying how ridiculous that we think something that vast, that peculiar, should be understood without some paradoxes. How ridiculous that just one ontological perspective should be able to encompass all of that.

Our ancestors looked up into the sky and saw the divine. Today, we understand not how simple they were, but how small their view was. I think we should be able to look up today, see a universe infinitely bigger in scale and concept, and still see the divine.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Nice one, S. Cat [Overused]

Posted by Piglet (# 11803) on :

Raptor Eye is right - SC [Overused]

I'm inclined to think that it's because God could create the universe and everything in it that He's also capable of knowing and caring about individuals; if He weren't, what would be the point?

eta: I also get LeRoc's point about liturgy: there are few things that can make me feel closer to God than a beautifully-executed Choral Evensong.

[ 21. January 2016, 01:37: Message edited by: Piglet ]

Posted by HarryLime (# 18525) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:
Originally posted by HarryLime:
Thanks Mark. I love your signature, by the way.

It's a funny thing, my Catholic background is the thing that's tied me to religion through the years of not believing. Just because Catholics are a minority in Britain, and so it's been part of my identity. All that teasing about going to a Catholic school and so on.

The truth is I'm probably more comfortable with Protestant churches. Why shouldn't women be priests? I don't see a good reason. In fact, I suspect they'd make better priests. Why shouldn't the Mass be in the vernacular language? It should be. That's obvious.

Would I actually switch to a Protestant church, though? It has a feel of betrayal about it. Irrational. Stupid. UnChrsitian. That's the way I feel at the moment though!
Well the Mass is in the vernacular in the Catholic church nowadays, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why this would make you more inclined to Protestantism. Vatican II happened quite a while ago!

Well, if the Protestants were right about the vernacular all along and we were slow to see it, that's 1-0 to them, right? Plus, my mother and many Catholics of her generation mourned the passing of the Latin Mass. It has a special atmosphere, but on balance I'd prefer that the congregation could understand the words.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

quote:
Piglet said
I'm inclined to think that it's because God could create the universe and everything in it that He's also capable of knowing and caring about individuals; if He weren't, what would be the point?

Its because the cosmos is so vast (and there are possibly many other universes) that I cannot imagine why God would be interested in a very unimportant and tidgey dot in a second rate galaxy in one gigantic, enormous and then more, cosmos. Let alone one insignificant sentient being on aforesaid tidgey dot.

I know its a paradox that we probably cannot solve, whether or not we are meant to. but I feel I'm just going mad with my brain batting back and forth between one end and the other. If I could abandon one or other of the ends then I'd be OK but I can't.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I don't know if this does any good at all, but when the macrosphere has got me freaked out (galaxies, superclusters, multiverse), I go mentally to the other end of the spectrum (cells, proteins, atoms, electrons, quarks, etc. etc.) God presumably knows each one of those as well, made them all, keeps track of them, and so forth, even though they are unimaginably tinier than we are, and we are universes to them. A God who can cope with those tiny wee things (and so many of them!) must have the capacity to deal with a boring midsize creature like a human being.

In the end it isn't our size or position that matters; it's God's capacity (memory, attention, interest) to focus on things. If his capacity is great enough (and it must be, to be God and have created all this stuff, mustn't it?) then for him to be interested in us is just to say "God is interested in everything he has made." In other words, we are not a special case.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Yes, I like that! (especially the thingies that can be in two places at once!) Thank you, LC.

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

It's vastness in time that gets me.

When people believed that the universe was only a few thousand years old and a special supernatural creation of God, it was easy to believe it could end in a similar timescale and by the same means.

But now we inhabit a thirteen billion year old cosmos, which if it be the creation of God has processes set within it that operate over billions of years, such as stellar evolution, and which may have its own heat-death baked into it, but not for billions more years to come. It's harder in that cosmos to believe that the current cosmos could come to an end by supernatural means within a human time-frame.

Does Jesus' return mean only the end of the earth, or the end of the whole created cosmos?

This troubles me.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

I've always thought, possibly because it's easier, that the return of Jesus will be at the end of this planet. That is, if his physical return is really and truly "on the cards". I find the return one of the harder things to believe. Along with the resurrection of the body. After all, you and I are recycling atoms etc which have been used many times before, more than possibly in another human being.

It all seems so highly unlikely. And yet.........

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

quote:
Originally posted by Nicodemia:
I've always thought, possibly because it's easier, that the return of Jesus will be at the end of this planet.

But that's billions of years away. Hardly "coming soon" even compared with the age of the universe, and certainly not what anyone reading the Bible in most of the last two millenia could possibly have interpreted as "coming soon".

That's unless the world ends supernaturally, but that just doesn't seem to be how God operates, as Lyell in his day and Darwin in his demonstrated.

Perhaps the universe and the earth carry on, but without the structures (the "principalities and powers") that make it imperfect?

And then, what happens when the physical universe does die?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I love those two (the particles that do weird things at the subatomic level). And especially the names, like "vanilla quark". Very cool.

I tend to think of this creation, this heaven and earth, as the seed of the new one. At the right time, when Jesus returns (whenever that may be), the seed will become a seedling, a plant, a glorious tree. It will still have continuity with the old creation--we won't be adrift wondering "Where the heck is this?"--but it will be so much more than before. And that could happen at any time, just as some seeds sprout almost instantly and others require months or years to show any movement.

But the continuity may not be (I think, probably isn't) in terms of individual atoms returned to their owners. We don't even keep the same set throughout this lifetime. But we are still us.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But the continuity may not be (I think, probably isn't) in terms of individual atoms returned to their owners. We don't even keep the same set throughout this lifetime. But we are still us.

Quarks are not only very cool, they are part of the reason I keep coming to the same conclusion that there must be more to creation than the physical universe.

It's not just that we maintain our individual identity while some of our constituent atoms are replaced. It turns out that the whole concept of identity can only really be applied at the macro level because at the subatomic level of quarks, there is no physical object with an identity. Not only is there no way to distinguish one quark from another, asking if one quark at a particular point in space/time is the "same" quark as one at a slightly different point in space/time makes no more sense than asking if the middle C I heard in one symphony performance was the same object as the middle C I heard in a different performance of the same music.

And yet somehow, our entire physical body is composed of these anonymous points of energy that don't even have a precise location and speed at any given moment. In a very real sense, my body is like an incredibly complex piece of music that has an identity of its own apart from the individual "notes" that make it up. So the question is whether "I" am just a huge collection of these "notes" that somehow has become self-aware, or am "I" a physical container that is continuously receiving life and self-awareness from a God who exists independently of the physical universe?

I find it much easier to believe the latter.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
W Hyatt: So the question is whether "I" am just a huge collection of these "notes" that somehow has become self-aware, or am "I" a physical container that is continuously receiving life and self-awareness from a God who exists independently of the physical universe?

I find it much easier to believe the latter.

Hear hear!

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

- Extracts Quaker Hosting Hat from cupboard, sneezes several times as it is so dusty, wipes it down with a damp cloth, places it on head -

This is great stuff and I feel sure there are the makings of a great Purgatory thread here but it is getting a bit technical for AS. We could discuss moving the thread to Purgatory with the Purg Hosts or someone could just start a thread there discussing these ideas on faith but really we have moved quite a way off the OP topic - a topic we think is quite important to keep here in AS as it can affect so many shipmates.

WW - AS Host

- Removes hat and replaces it in cupboard making mental note to dust the cupboard one day -

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

Towards the end of her life my mum, God rest her, told me she thought she had lost her faith. When I was relaying this later to a wise woman I know she said Mum may have lost her beliefs but not her faith, because faith has to do with relationship. It was a statement I didn't understand and still don't, really, but somehow it comforted me.

For me the last few years have seen a loss and unravelling of a lot of the things I have believed about God and how faith (or belief) used to work and now doesn't. There have been, and still are, tears and dark places. But there seems to be now the glimmer of something new and possibly liberating. Still scary. Still unknown. Not anything I have drummed up or manufactured, nor can I yet explain it. All I would say is that the mourning is an important part of the journey.

Nen - unable to express herself properly so going in search of a duster for WW.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I am writing this hoping it may help others. "Belief" is an extremely problematic word. This is not news, the problematic nature of belief has been known about at least as far back as St Thomas Aquinas. What is more, is that"belief" does not transfer easily to non-western cultures. If language is a method of labelling intellectual territory then other cultures have different boundaries that mean that the territory the West (not just the anglophone world) calls "belief" does not approximate to any singular territory in other cultures. Rather it is a mishmash of territories that are seen as quite distinctly different in other cultures.

There are elements of intellectual assent, communal participation, ritual practice, loyalty and ethical behaviour within the Western concept of belief. Sometimes the distinction is drawn between "faith" and "belief" because of this although it rarely stands up in common usage.

My examiners made me put into my thesis quite review of the literature around belief. I had to a large extent deliberately bracketed it out in my approach partly at least because I was having serious problems myself personally with the notion of belief within the religious setting. My observation within congregations of the establishment of a person as believing did not neatly map onto "belief" and this had made me question what I meant by belief. Thus I am one of those people who have difficulty saying "I believe in God" not because of "God" but because I do not know what I mean by "believe".

Jengie

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

A friend said to me, that it's like an ex-wife or -husband, you stop mourning, and then they're not very interesting. Well, it's not as clear cut as that, but they often don't tug on your heart-strings anymore.

I don't feel in a mourning phase now about 'loss of faith'. I think I had been letting go for years, and then you sort of come out of it. It's a relief actually.

This is a great way to explain the emotional journey of the loss of faith, the relief can be huge and really allow you to think clearer, and live better. Great analogy Quetzalcoatl!

Neil

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

I agree, Jengie, and think that a lot of words to do with faith (and that's one of the words I mean) have been overworked, or misused, or have come to be loaded and have unhelpful connotations, and mean different things to different people. Belief, faith, God, prayer, ritual, sacred, spiritual... I love words, but they can get in the way sometimes.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I also like that Jengie. Belief changes a lot easier than faith, I think!

The emotional feeling of mourning is connected to the loss of faith, not belief, in my case. Belief changes and evolves over the years - it's an intellectual, not an emotional thing. But faith is a relationship of trust. If that trust goes then the whole thing seems to slide away.

As I have said before, I have a smidgen of that trust remaining - but the certainty has long gone. Rather like a partner who has cheated several times yet their lover hangs on in desperate hope that the relationship will spark up again (except that this partner - God - seems to have already left the building anyway!)

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
I agree, Jengie, and think that a lot of words to do with faith (and that's one of the words I mean) have been overworked, or misused, or have come to be loaded and have unhelpful connotations, and mean different things to different people. Belief, faith, God, prayer, ritual, sacred, spiritual... I love words, but they can get in the way sometimes.

Yes. I have done an exercise of trying to explain your faith while using no jargon. Of course, what constituted "jargon" is a challenge in itself, but avoiding all of these words that we know and pretend to understand is a useful challenge. It can bring us back to an understanding of what we actually believe.

For me, leaving my church meant that I didn't have to structure my faith in a way that others were happy with, that fitted into their templates.

I still like the term "numinous", because it has not been co-opted by any faith, and defines the divine as something I cannot ever grasp. Any other word - including The Divine and God - is loaded to the speaker and/or the listener.

I am all for using words that the listener - even if that listener is only us - can properly grasp. This doesn't diminish our faith, it helps it grow.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I still like the term "numinous", because it has not been co-opted by any faith, and defines the divine as something I cannot ever grasp. Any other word - including The Divine and God - is loaded to the speaker and/or the listener.

Aha! This came out in a conversation with someone a week or so ago about expressing the inexpressible and finding a name for the indescribable. The word "numinous" floated into my brain and it seemed absolutely to fit the bill, and I knew I'd heard it somewhere recently but couldn't remember where. [Smile]

The Richard Rohr book I'm reading at present ("Things Hidden") talks about the importance of having a name for God/the Divine that expresses relationship, and it's the relationship that's the important thing rather than the name. All others that I've been able to think of are, as you say, too loaded or have been co-opted.

Nen - aware of being a tad off-topic. Sorry.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I don't think that's off topic at all, personally. To me, the biggest problem with the term "numinous" is that it doesn't express a sense of relationship, or an entity that one could have a relationship with.

I suppose Rohr's comment is why I am more likely to use phrases like "engage with the divine", because this has a sense of relationship that doesn't have the many problems of so many relationship terms. Calling God "father", for example, puts God into a box, whether that is a good or bad box, it is still rather limiting. My dad was wonderful, but God is not like him.

And glad something I said could be of use!

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

I like the word because it seems to describe a divinity that is bigger and all-pervading and nearer and simultaneously knowable and yet unknowable and quite different to the boxed-in God I had believed in, and for the past few years have found very hard to believe in.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0