|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How do you know whether or not you have faith?
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because if the object of that faith doesn't actually exist, then it's a bit pointless trying to interact with it.
I'm sorry, but I can't see what that reply means, nor how it could be relevant.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.
It may not matter much to you whether God actually exists or not, but it does to me, and it's a bit patronising to be told it's not important when to some of us it clearly is.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Can someone help me here, please - I'm getting a little confused.
There seems to be an assumption in much of the above that the term "faith" has, to a working approximation, the same meaning as the term "belief".
I think that's one of the meanings of faith, yes.
quote:
So far as I can see, the two terms evidently do not mean the same thing, not even approximately.
Yeah they do. Faith covers a range of meanings and both are in this range. But even you don't agree I'm having a hard time believing you've never met someone for whom the meaning of "faith" includes "belief" (PS now you have)
quote:
Faith has more the meaning of "a basis for action". This is also, more or less, so far as I can see, roughly the viewpoint found in the Bible.
I think "basis for action" is included in there, as is "trust". I think the Bible contains examples of all these.
quote:
So why, why, why is there such concern about the presence or absence of intellectual certainty, that is to say, of belief? Why can we not say "Here I am, and this is the way I go, and here is what I try to do?".
Because,
quote:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11v6
Which is kind of what Karl said.
And even if Karl (or me, or anyone) doesn't see this as authoritative and/or doesn't particularly want to "please God", he/we will still encounter lots of Christians who do, and so the idea of interacting with a being that may not exist would naturally be a question of concern.
[XP with Karl]
[ 05. March 2015, 19:21: Message edited by: Paul. ]
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.
It may not matter much to you whether God actually exists or not, but it does to me, and it's a bit patronising to be told it's not important when to some of us it clearly is.
I don't know Karl, I have been thinking about this a lot. I think there are a number of things which might be positive about religion even if God does not exist: for example community, shared purpose, meaning, direction etc and so on.
On some level I can see that it being right or wrong can be seen as being of ultimate importance, but I think it is possible (maybe at a different level) to see that there might be some benefits in living as if it is true.
Maybe that is too much of a rationalisation for you, but it works for me.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
blackbeard
Ship's Pirate
# 10848
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Because,
quote:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11v6
Which is kind of what Karl said.
[/QB]
Thanks Paul, you have at least illuminated an area of misunderstanding.
Always a bit of a risk in quoting proof texts, because later in that same chapter of Hebrews we have some magnificent examples of men of faith; and, bluntly, some of them leave a bit to be desired so far as faith is concerned. For instance, Gideon who later turned to the Baal; Jephthah, who sacrificed his own daughter; David, about whom much has been written in the forums of this very Ship. What is magnificent about them, though, is what they managed to achieve, even if they would have had trouble passing GCSE in religious studies (if there is such a thing).
I think, if you are going to start using proof texts, you might as well go a bit further and quote some from the epistle of James as well (ch 2 vv 14 onwards). Try v 19 for example.
Perhaps I did not make myself clear (though I thought I did). I have not claimed that God doesn't exist, nor have I advocated that anyone should so claim. But I am concerned with the state many find themselves in, apparently; something along the lines of "well, I used to believe, and to a large extent still do, but now and then a little shadow of a doubt creeps in ...". And, as you know, this can lead to severe distress. I would say that the little shadow of doubt is not terminal and does not mean that faith has gone, so long as you can find something that enables you to carry on and, to some extent, continue to do what God asks of us.
On the meanings of words: we will probably continue to disagree. I will say again that "faith" and "belief" are not synonyms. As you point out, each term can have a range of meanings which can overlap. It seems to me that the verse of Hebrews which you quote could be an example of such an overlap, but in view of the rest of the chapter, I do not see that the term "faith" in that context can be stretched to include the term "faith" as I have sometimes seen it used (or, I might claim, abused). One of the pitfalls of the English language; terms are not always precise.
Posts: 823 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know Karl, I have been thinking about this a lot. I think there are a number of things which might be positive about religion even if God does not exist: for example community, shared purpose, meaning, direction etc and so on.
A framework for life. I think those who follow the monastic path, eg. The Rule of St. Benedict, understand this.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Faith, the word, doesn't work as a verb. You can't faith in something, you have to use a longer phrase and put your faith in it. Which means we tend to switch to believe and before you know it we are back with 'belief that'.
Karl LB, you insist you can't interact with something that doesn't exist, but is that absolutely so? What about mathematics? The hunt for the proof to Fermat's last theorem? Or what about Englishness in a Billy Bragg sense? Or the ever encouraging spirit of the young? There are some pretty diffuse ideas and social movements that have a life and pop up and surprise us here and there; abstract ideas that have partial but concrete expression.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
But with God I don't see the point. I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief. If there's no God to have faith in, I just don't see any reason to frame that mode of living in religious terms.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Faith, the word, doesn't work as a verb.
Well it does in the New Testament Greek. Pisteuo is the verb of the noun pistis .
Interestingly, the commentary on the noun does seem to imply it's a gift from God, not something we can conjure up ourselves. Not sure what I think about that but it could be true.
This convo reminds of the clip from Angels and Demons with Tom Hanks when he is asked whether he believes in God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But with God I don't see the point. I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief. If there's no God to have faith in, I just don't see any reason to frame that mode of living in religious terms.
I think the reality is that few manage that without the structures available in forms of organised religion.
But I'm not trying to talk you into or out of anything - whatever floats your boat.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.
I agree. May as well have one's worldview framed by current fads of society or whatever social club you're a part of (Tennis anyone?).
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief.
No you can't. You have to see some value in living according to Jesus' example. Why would you choose to live according to Jesus' example if his God didn't exist and he made it all up? That would be irrational.
You're trusting (believing - having faith) there is some value in living according to Jesus' example and beliefs about his father.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.
I agree. May as well have one's worldview framed by current fads of society or whatever social club you're a part of (Tennis anyone?).
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief.
No you can't. You have to see some value in living according to Jesus' example. Why would you choose to live according to Jesus' example if his God didn't exist and he made it all up? That would be irrational.
You're trusting (believing - having faith) there is some value in living according to Jesus' example and beliefs about his father.
You've introduced another element there "and belief's about his father." I thought it was clear I was talking about Jesus' ethics. Those one might follow simply because they appear to be a very good set of ethics. That would be their value.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
But why would you trust his ethics but not his faith? His ethics come from his faith in God. He believes they are God's will for humankind.
Where else would they come from?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But why would you trust his ethics but not his faith? His ethics come from his faith in God. He believes they are God's will for humankind.
Where else would they come from?
Well this is very hard to answer. But let's say - from inside his own head. Maybe he was deluded about where the ethics came from - does that make them bad ethics?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Oh Evensong, this is a silly imaginary game of ethics.
Let's say: because I value the ethics. Plenty of people have developed ethical systems based on delusions, what should that in and of itself make it untrustworthy?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Sounds like the genetic fallacy to me, that the value of an idea can be linked to its source. I would think that many people would say that they approve of Christian ethics; they aren't required to have a theological understanding of them. That's too purist.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Of course, there are many other possible ways to rationalise it: the church changed it, someone else changed it, Paul changed it etc and so on.
Very possibly a person doing this would not be taking Christ's ethics in a way that (some) Christians would approve of - but I can't really see why this is a problem either. There is no monopoly on Christ in Christianity, after all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
You can also cherrypick from an ethical system - why not? People don't have a monopoly on ideas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Well, we're all free to do what we like, and cherrypicking is certainly the order of the day; every man is the author of his own spiritual destiny. But if the question is whether Christians or Christian fellowships should feel obliged to 'approve' of this practice in every circumstance then I don't see any obligation on either side.
IMO a religious fellowship should not feel pressured to envision itself as a social club for nice, helpful people, with a few optional supernatural ideas attached. Yes, some churches do turn into that over time, and that's fine if the group is happy with that. But if that's something it wishes to resist then I don't see why it should be condemned for doing so.
I sense, too, that many churches that drift too far towards accommodating modern cherry picking tendencies end up losing their distinctiveness, which means they no longer possess the qualities that made them interesting (if not particularly obliging) in the first place.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, we're all free to do what we like, and cherrypicking is certainly the order of the day; every man is the author of his own spiritual destiny. But if the question is whether Christians or Christian fellowships should feel obliged to 'approve' of this practice in every circumstance then I don't see any obligation on either side.
Why is that a question? That wasn't what was being discussed at all. Of course, it goes without saying that the Christian churches would not approve and nobody is asking them to endorse anything. Why would they be asked to?
quote:
IMO a religious fellowship should not feel pressured to envision itself as a social club for nice, helpful people, with a few optional supernatural ideas attached. Yes, some churches do turn into that over time, and that's fine if the group is happy with that. But if that's something it wishes to resist then I don't see why it should be condemned for doing so.
Nobody is suggesting otherwise. In fact, the question was not about the church at all, but whether Karl could in good conscience take the ethics and leave the supernatural from Christianity.
quote:
I sense, too, that many churches that drift too far towards accommodating modern cherry picking tendencies end up losing their distinctiveness, which means they no longer possess the qualities that made them interesting (if not particularly obliging) in the first place.
That's nice.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The question was not about the church at all, but whether Karl could in good conscience take the ethics and leave the supernatural from Christianity.
But isn't that what Western society has already achieved? There doesn't seem to be too much angst about it these days. 'Do unto others...' is considered to apply to everyone, without the need to reference Jesus. Some commentators say that the moral and cultural work of Christianity is done, and now we can drop the supernatural and simply carry on being nice people.
OTOH, the notion of 'good conscience' is interesting, because one of the advantages of atheism (possibly borrowed from Protestantism) is supposedly that individuals can follow their own guiding light, their own conscience, and don't need permission from any human or (in the final analysis) divine authority to create their own rules for living. 'Do unto others...' may or may not be the outcome of this process.
As for churches, I should really have linked to your post above, in which you mentioned the benefits of religion without the supernatural; you brought up 'community and shared purpose', which most people connect with churches in a religious context. I was questioning the idea that religious groups can successfully provide community and shared purpose once their reason for being - the worship of and obedience to God - is removed.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But with God I don't see the point. I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief. If there's no God to have faith in, I just don't see any reason to frame that mode of living in religious terms.
That's having faith in Christ. You're saying you are inspired by Christ, that you identify with him and his way, that his teaching is not only how you live, but is a bit better than that because it's something you fall short of but aspire to follow more fully. That's faith in Christ. The Church might also ask that you get a bit exercised about his death, too; get upset, find your sense of justice challenged, even find your faith troubled that such a thing could happen to such a man.
Having that sort of practical, participative identification with Christ is also having faith in God, who offers us, they say, Jesus Christ as a definitive revelation of God's character, call and promise.
What would it add to also believe in the existence of a supreme being? As far as your suffering neighbour is concerned, is it any better if you live in the style of Jesus AND you also believe that a supreme being exists?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You're saying you are inspired by Christ, that you identify with him and his way, that his teaching is not only how you live, but is a bit better than that because it's something you fall short of but aspire to follow more fully. That's faith in Christ. The Church might also ask that you get a bit exercised about his death, too; get upset, find your sense of justice challenged, even find your faith troubled that such a thing could happen to such a man.
However, you could argue that Christ brought his death on himself - by claiming to be something that he wasn't.
If he'd died simply for being a good man rather than misleading people about being a god, wouldn't that have been better? If nothing else, it would have been more humble of him....
At this point in history perhaps it's necessary for the (emerging?) post-theistic movement in Christianity to create an entirely secular Jesus who makes no mention of a god. Atheistic god-talk clearly leads to confusion in a theistic world, and creates new theological problems even as it solves others.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, we're all free to do what we like, and cherrypicking is certainly the order of the day; every man is the author of his own spiritual destiny. But if the question is whether Christians or Christian fellowships should feel obliged to 'approve' of this practice in every circumstance then I don't see any obligation on either side.
Why shouldn't Christians approve of "cherrypicking" - they do it just as much as anyone else, on both the individual and organizational level. Each denominational group chooses which issues to make central, which ones to reject, and which ones to leave up to the individuals. Each individual chooses which of their denomination's teachings to accept personally or to ignore. Of course they might not like it when this is pointed out - they often would rather refer to "tradition" or a particular interpretation of some ancient document for why their particular choice of cherries are the "right" ones and all others are heretical, but, basically, all religions are manifestations of cherrypicking if they have any sort of core beliefs, and those may change and shift emphasis over time.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief.
No you can't.
Actually, yes, you can. Depending, of course, on what aspects of his example you choose to follow. There are many of Jesus' teachings that are common with the teachings of other religious and secular people over the course of human history, and that I may aspire to in my life, particularly about how to treat others, that don't require any belief in an omnipotent, anthropomorphic supreme being to put into practice. In the same way, believing in a divine Jesus + Big Daddy and the Spook doesn't necessarily force people to follow Jesus' teachings: if they did, we'd see a lot more charity and a lot less hatred among some Christians.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Why shouldn't Christians approve of "cherrypicking" - they do it just as much as anyone else, on both the individual and organizational level. Each denominational group chooses which issues to make central, which ones to reject, and which ones to leave up to the individuals. Each individual chooses which of their denomination's teachings to accept personally or to ignore.
You've answered your own question: every group has the right to decide what it will tolerate or not tolerate. That doesn't mean that it has to tolerate everything.
It's true that churchgoers tend to be less deferent towards priestly authority than used to be the case. But then again, priests and theologians openly disagree with each other, especially in the larger denominations, so they can hardly expect the laity to hang on every word they say. I certainly don't put the clergy on a pedestal. Church doctrines, IMO, should be owned by every church member, not just by a priestly elite. I think this situation is more likely where there is a diverse choice of churches, rather than individual churches that try to be all things to all men. But we do need the latter - the CofE does the job relatively well.
Secularisation has unfortunately undermined choice, though, and I can see that, for example, young middle class Christian couples in some areas will feel drawn to the lively local evangelical church because it's the only place where they can meet other Christians like themselves in an engaging environment, not because their theology is particularly evangelical. This must create a degree of tension (which one can read about on the Ship), and the problem could increase in the future as MOTR options continue to decline in many parts of the country.
I attend MOTR churches myself. Some of them might want to pursue the post-theistic route in future, as it would certainly make them distinctive. But I don't know if many of them could pull it off.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You're saying you are inspired by Christ, that you identify with him and his way, that his teaching is not only how you live, but is a bit better than that because it's something you fall short of but aspire to follow more fully. That's faith in Christ. The Church might also ask that you get a bit exercised about his death, too; get upset, find your sense of justice challenged, even find your faith troubled that such a thing could happen to such a man.
However, you could argue that Christ brought his death on himself - by claiming to be something that he wasn't.
If he'd died simply for being a good man rather than misleading people about being a god, wouldn't that have been better? If nothing else, it would have been more humble of him....
At this point in history perhaps it's necessary for the (emerging?) post-theistic movement in Christianity to create an entirely secular Jesus who makes no mention of a god. Atheistic god-talk clearly leads to confusion in a theistic world, and creates new theological problems even as it solves others.
Jesus died because he attacked the Temple, and he didn't claim to be a god. But that's irrelevant to the point that having faith in him means following him and standing with him.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
But this still gives rise to the thought that Jesus's early death was rather a waste of time, though. With a little more sense he could have lived a bit longer and still been a decent role model.
This is relevant because I get the impression that some atheists would find Jesus a more faith-worthy character if he'd made some different decisions and taught a somewhat modified message. Putting that aside, however, your description of what it means to have a post-theistic faith in Jesus could apply to almost any great historical character who is worthy of admiration. That's fair enough, but it doesn't particularly justify the attention paid to Jesus.
[ 06. March 2015, 22:19: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
But Jesus is God, in a sense. He is where we meet the ultimate truth of life. He isn't just the author of a set of teachings. He is our last great hope, his death the final tragedy, his resurrection the extraordinary victory of grace. Whether you think of God as some entity or not.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh Evensong, this is a silly imaginary game of ethics.
Let's say: because I value the ethics. Plenty of people have developed ethical systems based on delusions, what should that in and of itself make it untrustworthy?
Because they're delusional?
If you value the ethics, why do you value the ethics? On what basis are you making that value judgement?
I'm not sure the ethics can be divorced from the man. He lived and breathed them - to death and beyond.
Besides, Christian ethics are often counter intuitive. "Take up your cross and follow me" is hardly the greatest advertisement. "The first will be the last and the last will be the first" is extremely revolutionary. It's bizarre. The beatitudes are freekin hilarious without the belief in the resurrected life.
These reflect the nature of the God Jesus believed in.
I suspect we can no longer see the revolutionary nature of Jesus' ministry because in many ways, western socialism has incorporated it and Hollywood has bought it. Howsa about that happy Hollywood ending where good defeats evil in the end? Love wins. We seem to have forgotten why.
[ 07. March 2015, 10:32: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I believe that one of the reasons the church needs to continue, is so that it is always there for those who need it. And the ever-present, open building is a very potent symbol. Therefore, people of faith (however vaguely that is expressed) need to support it and ensure that those doors always stay open to those in need.
Whenever I am stewarding, and see someone come in to light a candle, I have no idea of the strength of their faith. But I do know the church supplies the opportunity and fulfils a need, for that moment, and for that person.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I'm intrigued by the argument that you can stick to belief by being dogged. It's a bit like love, then, isn't it? When your old man gets arthritic and grumpy love may be worth holding on tight to.
And the contrary argument - that you just cannot help believing - or not believing, is equally fascinating. Because so often it's not so much about not believing, but about believing something else. And that's like love, too.
And when a man and his young secretary fall in love, they often feel they just can't help it.
And apostates all - whether from religion or marriage, can have a hard time of it. The default attitude of those who stick it out with the old god or the old spouse is generally dismissive - and very old testament. If you go whoring after other gods, or other women, expect to get notted.
The fact is though, that divorce sometimes works to the benefit of both parties, as does religious apostasy. The only places where it never can is where one or other of the partners sees the outcome as a loss of control over the other.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Some people might find a loss of faith for a while leads ultimately to a deeper and richer faith later, through being tested. Perhaps that's like love too, although it won't be the experience of all.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some people might find a loss of faith for a while leads ultimately to a deeper and richer faith later, through being tested. Perhaps that's like love too, although it won't be the experience of all.
I think my experience is that "losing faith" is that I realise what I need to have faith in. So yes, I would agree with this. I think for a lot of people, it is the crisis that makes them realise what is important.
What I have heard from all sorts of people is that the language they reject means that "faith" might not be the right way to describe what they have afterwards, but it it a deeper faith in what they consider is real.
(I say "they", but, to an extent, I include myself in this. However, I do still embrace the concept of faith).
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
