Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

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

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

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

---

I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

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

---

I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion.

---

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

---

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

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:

---

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

---

That writing's been on the wall since the OP

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
Originally posted by Doone:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---

Okay, that makes sense and I do agree that dogma can be the result sometimes .

Posted                       

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

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

---

I don't think so. God is not the author of confusion.

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

quote:

---

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

---

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

All too much of a stretch for my conception.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:
Cliffdweller,

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

---

not sure at all what this means...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agnostic Believer:

Peace be with you.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the ship, AgnosticBeliever!

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

--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

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

Welcome to the ship, AgnosticBeliever!

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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

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

karl:

quote:

---

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

---

Well . . . .

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

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

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

---

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

---