Thread: Purgatory: When you're hanging on by your fingernails.... Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000645

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?


(* For me, at the moment, any day when I've read the Church Times.)

[ 15. June 2016, 18:40: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
 
Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

I think it's true. Not the platitudinous crap. The whole God creating the world, Jesus offering salvation bit.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
Jesus.


Sorry, I sound like some bright-eyed loon.

Must be some way of making that sound more intellectually satisfying.

Nope - can't think of one.

Must be it then.

Jesus.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Grace. Pure, unmerited God (Triune, of course [Biased] ).

[ETA - plus, TBH, the bit at the end of John 6 - there's nowhere else for me to go]

[ 15. June 2007, 13:23: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by PeaceFeet (# 11001) on :
 
I let go of my faith because of platitudinous crap. My faith (or, more accurately, God) didn't let go of me and I came back. I now put the platitudinous crap down to fallible humans, and now consider my faith walk to be trying get past that to the good stuff. I rarely go to church now. The ship helps.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
I think I'd actually need a positive reason to formally drop it. I'd need to be sure it was rubbish - a positive non-belief in it rather than just a lack of belief, because I've got to justify a positive shift in position.
 
Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :
 
I reflect on my life and all the times my love for Jesus and my faith have saved me from disastrous decisions, when every other aspect of my life seemed like a forced-march over the cliff to death or insanity.

I guess it's always faith that prevents me. The intellectual artifacts of Christianity have never been enough. It's the living Word within me that sustains me until my next heartbeat and breath. Nothing else really matters.

LAFF
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

My wife and kids. It hurts them that I've let go of all but that last fingernail's hold. So I don't quite let go, or, to switch metaphors, I can't bring myself to completely close that door.

I want to still believe, but I don't. Half of what the church teaches is platitudinous crap and the other half is destructive, hurtful crap. Sure, there's good in the church, but it's because of the good in people, and it's not at all unique to the church. All of the objective evidence falls apart under any serious scrutiny. All of the subjective evidence seems to be nothing more than emotion.

I want to still believe, but I can't find any reason. But I don't shut the door because it would hurt my family.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
I let go. But it wasn't because of the "platitudinous crap" (I reckon as long as people are trying to be nicer than they really are - which is a good thing - "platitudinous crap" is a feature of human nature, not Christianity per se) but because of feeling weighed down by the expectation of it all.

Having said that, if I was ever in that position again, I'd remind myself of how hard it's been to claw my way back to even the tiny measure of faith I have now and somehow try to hold on.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Adeodatus,
I fell over the cliff - and it felt terrifying as I fell. It was the same circumstances "when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap" that you mention.

But I landed, (or was caught and carried by God as a flying eagle) down in a jungle where I had to cut and slash through to move along. But it was a fertile area full of green plants, as opposed to the cropped, dry, area I'd been in before.

What happened was that somehow or other, my belief was eventually totally transformed into its fresh birth and growth.

I think it might be the relationship with God, God's responsibility, that either pulls us up or catches/directs us as we dive down.

{ETA; why can't my fingers always spell correctly, in the right order?}

[ 15. June 2007, 14:44: Message edited by: daisymay ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
{Because you were hanging on by your fingernails too long, perhaps? [Smile] }
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
I'm not sure. But I don't think I can let go anymore.

It's a great story, though - the best ever told, I think. I don't think much about platitudinous crap, but about the plain story and the weirdness and beauty of it. Nothing quite like it. The Church itself is an ass, but we always knew that. I could easily leave it, but not faith. The religion itself is weird, wild, revolutionary stuff that I think is true. And it seems to be Good For Me.

Anyway, I really like that Guy.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
Having not quite loosened my grip completely I still hang on because my reason (such as it is) apparently requires a supernatural element to the universe.

And IMO Jesus' resurrection is the best evidence for supernatural intervention by God.

But it's all faith.
 
Posted by Jenn R (# 5239) on :
 
I guess I hang on because somewhere deep down I believe that God exists and that Jesus is the closest I'm gonna get to finding out about him.

I've been hanging on by my fingernails many times in the last couple of years, and that has what kept me there, and (I believe) God holding me there, although why he didn't give me a hand up earlier I never did work out!

The story of the prodigal son always helps me too. When I am feeling really crappy about Christianity I want to be there with God, but I simply don't believe he loves me. So I return to him as a servant and hope he meets me. I guess if I believe God exists, then I should serve him. The sonship stuff comes later.
 
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
I so know what you mean about needing something to come back to when it all looks so implausible.

These are the thoughts that generally work for me. Everyone's different, so they probably won't work for you, but I hope they might.


 
Posted by Yangtze (# 4965) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
...what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig: Jesus
I'm always stunned when people say this. I just don't have that experience at all. And, given the centrality of Jesus to Christianity, question whether I really am Christian as opposed to merely spiritual / churchy / whatever...

I've had my moments when Jesus has been useful as my 'invisible friend' but generally it's a more general God that I connect with.

And that, to attempt to answer the OP, is why I hang on. Because I have experience (and want to believe??) in something transcendant. I probably remain in Christianity because of inculturization (it's the culture and tradition I was raised in) and because it tells a good story. Therefore no driving reason to change to a different religion with a different story.

I remain with the church (albeit I only have ever had one leg in the CofE and that is only remaining in by a toe at the moment) because of community.
 
Posted by Goar (# 3939) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

There's not just one thing; there's two.

First, somehow through it all, I find myself believing it's true (say, the Nicene creed).

And second, during long periods when I have not acted in accordance with it, life has become disastrous and hardly worth living. I guess it's the end of John 6 for me too. The last house on the block.
 
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

Nothing at all.
[Devil]
 
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on :
 
I haven't had too much of a problem with losing faith yet. I have had a problem with finding the church being full of platitudes, and I haven't found an easy answer for that. My faith and the mass keep me coming back, but it can be exhausting.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Nothing at all.
[Devil]

But still you post here. Some latent evangelical motivation?
 
Posted by MerlintheMad (# 12279) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?


(* For me, at the moment, any day when I've read the Church Times.)

Too late. But I don't utterly throw out Jesus Christ, because to me the story of his life and teachings seems to make him the most profound human manifestation of God ever. My belief in Jesus Christ AS God suffers from too much exposure to our dogmatic doctrines. I don't think that he was out to create a new religion, but rather to reform the old one. Everyone else took it from there.

"The whole religion thing", to my mind, is supposed to morph over time for each individual. Some people will leave it (dogmatic, organized religion) altogether; others will keep looking for a better congregation to hang out with. As long as you are always wanting reunion with "God", and living the best you can to not betray that desire (and repenting when you fail), I don't see how personal religious faith can ever die. It may spend some eons virtually comatose, but never dead: and "God" will see to the reviving of our faith.
 
Posted by Afghan (# 10478) on :
 
I was well aware that the platitudinous crap content could run quite high and the evidence was somewhat underwhelming when I gave up on trying to make metaphysical naturalism work for me. I was baptised into the Christian faith with my eyes open. I knew there'd be days like that.

What gets me through them? A feeling that my faith is right for me - even if it turns out not to be true (which is after all a risk with any faith). I hope, of course, that my sympathy for the faith is somehow indicative of a spiritual discernment of its truth, but I'm aware it might not be.

But I can't give up on it. It's become too much a part of who I am. I like to think it was who I always but never saw it before. A certain amount of bloody-mindedness probably helps as well.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
Jesus.


Sorry, I sound like some bright-eyed loon.

Must be some way of making that sound more intellectually satisfying.

Nope - can't think of one.

Must be it then.

Jesus.

Right there with you. Even when (and it's most of the time) I can't connect with God, or Jesus, as a felt presence in the moment, I hold to the stories of him. The one where he pays taxes by asking Peter to just grab the coin from a fish's mouth so they can get on with the more important business of God; the one where he raises Jairus' daughter from the dead and then demands that they make sure she has something to eat. How his last documented miracle is healing the ear of the man sent to arrest him.

I read and reflect about the life of Christ, and it challenges, intrigues, and betters me in a way nothing else really has--even when I don't really see him on the path ahead of me, I feel driven to follow.
 
Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

I can't. I've tried many, many times to let go, to walk away from God, the church and all the flaming bullshit that surrounds it. I only get so far before I get drawn back. I've found that each time I get drawn back it's in a different position and that position takes some time for the disillusionment and anger to settle in.

I've said this before when I was in a different place but I think it's probably still true now. 80% of the time I don't believe in God, the other 20% I wish he would bugger off.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I let go.

And God is still there.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
What if he's not?
 
Posted by feast of stephen (# 8885) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?


(* For me, at the moment, any day when I've read the Church Times.)

Remember all the times God has been there for you. How even bad times can turn out eventually for the best, but you didn't realise it at the time.

And failing that, like some of the others have said, what else is there?! Christianity's the best show in town. Only our God (or version of God) bothered to manifest himself in semi-human form and suffer to help us. All the other Gods (versions of God) were too lazy! And because Jesus was human aswell as divine, we can relate to God alot better, as we know that Jesus went through alot of crap in life (alot more than most of us will ever see!) and that even though he could have escaped from it, he chose to perservere. And as for atheism...Dawkins Hitchens... [Snore] [Biased] And if Christianity should turn out to be a pipe-dream...then it jolly well should have been true!! And I will feel extremely hard done by and will remonstrate with the creator to find out why he didn't bother to send his only Son etc! But I trust (to believe is to hope for that which we do not see yet have been told all about, to paraprhase ) that there won't ever be a reason for me having to misbehave myself like that. I hope my ramblings helped and didn't seem trite, I also go through difficult times, but it's the above along with prayer and usually some very strange conicidences, that keeps me going when I hit rock bottom, and I'm always so glad that I did hold on by my fingertips. Also, throw away that bloody Church Times man! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I want to still believe, but I don't. Half of what the church teaches is platitudinous crap and the other half is destructive, hurtful crap. Sure, there's good in the church, but it's because of the good in people, and it's not at all unique to the church. All of the objective evidence falls apart under any serious scrutiny. All of the subjective evidence seems to be nothing more than emotion.

I want to still believe, but I can't find any reason. But I don't shut the door because it would hurt my family.

This is me. Though the "family" bit would expand outward to include community. The Episcopalians in Alaska all know me and count on me, like one counts on a slightly eccentric cousin.

It's family. not something you can walk away from.

I have let go of most of it - the anglican version of christianity doesn't speak for me anymore. But I'm family, and I still attend and still send my money and still chant the liturgy because that is what you do when Grandpa asks you to.

And then I go to the Quaker Meeting because they do speak to my heart. They do represent me, and my relationship with God.

Because when I did despair, and I did let go of that last grasp with my fingernail, God was there. God was there in the kindness of my neighbors, of the birds at the feeder and the blooming of spring. God was there in the money that always appeared right when I needed it. God was there in the person who just felt they should call right at the moment I was ready to give it all up.

And when I attended a Meeting. Then two. And walked away feeling like I had received a message. a kindness. a loving "hug" through the silence.

So, it may be a bit wierd, but that's why I'm still listening.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Jesuit Spirituality says, very wisely, never make a binding decision in a state of dejection. That includes decisions about what to believe. If you're in a mood where everything seems meaningless and you're quite unsure about whether any of your beliefs make sense, that's not a good time to start reviewing your belief in God.

That seems sensible to me.

Dafyd
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
Every time I wander off down some leafy sideroad, trying to tune out the abysmal unChristianity of the church or the Church or the Synod or whatever, I am brought back by a specific event of one sort or another. One of my writing students takes a "But there is no God" position and I have to engage with her; the church community offers me an opening to do something worthwhile; another church offers a seminar (I was at a workshop led by Marcus Borg this week, sponsored through the United Church, immediately after my Anglican diocese had moved back to about 1890 at Synod) and so it goes.

SomeOne is not letting me go.

(But, yes, you should never read The Anglican Journal or whatever church newsrag you get.)
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
The way I see it, God simply is what's there. IT doesn't mean I have to like it, doesn't mean I have to expect it to be nice to me, doesn't mean that I have to believe in religion, or that I have to go to church, but ultimately I think God is there.

Hell, God is here.

I suppose at some point I realized that religion isn't really a change in reality, it's a change in perception. I can look at all of this and say it's just a random, meaningless chaotic blur, or I can sat=y that it's God. Either way, I have to love it, because loving it is the easiest way to to cope. Apathy is boring and hatred just leaves me feeling burned out.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Because when I did despair, and I did let go of that last grasp with my fingernail, God was there. God was there in the kindness of my neighbors, of the birds at the feeder and the blooming of spring. God was there in the money that always appeared right when I needed it. God was there in the person who just felt they should call right at the moment I was ready to give it all up.

And when I attended a Meeting. Then two. And walked away feeling like I had received a message. a kindness. a loving "hug" through the silence.

I sort of relate to that, except it's the other way around. I let go of God and religion and found beauty in nature, hope in the kindness of strangers, love in my family, peace in the silence. Those worthwhile things, and so many more, are there, are real, are what makes each new day worth living. Once I let go, I realized that all of the good in the world didn't go away.
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
Jesus.

That is it. And I know a good bit about hanging on by your fingernails, because for quite some time this is where I was. I had had it with organized religion or the legalism I had come to know all too well. Not a small factor was the fact that I have bipolar and during the depression/mixed states, the last thing I feel is close to God. But I had basically been through the wringer with some believers I was involved with who taught a very distorted view of God and were very judgemental. I left these people and I left a lot of the baggage of the legalistic groups, but I never left Jesus Himself. Despite how much I pulled away, He kept coming after me and sending good friends to help in my healing. I am still a work in progress, though. I still have a hard time letting go of some things, but He never let go of me. I eventually was able to trust 'church people' again, and found a good church home.

Sorry if this wasn't the answer you wanted, or sounds too trite. But it is true.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
I sort of relate to that, except it's the other way around. I let go of God and religion and found beauty in nature, hope in the kindness of strangers, love in my family, peace in the silence. Those worthwhile things, and so many more, are there, are real, are what makes each new day worth living. Once I let go, I realized that all of the good in the world didn't go away.

exactly. And I don't think that Thing - sentient or not - really gives two shits wat we call it. It's still real and still worth getting up every morning for.
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
Jesus for me, too.

I did give up. In fact, I've spent my entire life running to God or away from him. I have scars to remind me of how beautifully I managed my life on my own. I left the church after being abused by one of those "hired shepherds" Jesus warned about. So Jesus let me run away as long as I needed to, and let me feel like a lost sheep for a good decade. But he always knew where I was, and when he called me back, I was ready to return.

And now, leaving the wooly imagery behind, I've had a good long look at him and the only thing I really fear is being separated from him. I've been through scary periods of darkness since then, when I look and look but can't see him. I think this is because my face is buried in his chest and I can't see anything; that is, he's too close to be seen, not too far. I hang on to that -- by my fingernails, when necessary.

It's so hard to talk about these things without sounding like a complete idiot.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Mechtilde:
It's so hard to talk about these things without sounding like a complete idiot.

Definitely. Words never seem to be able to do "him/her/it" justice, whatever the hell "he/she/it" is.

Welcome to the ship!
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

To echo others to some extent and also fearing sounding like a complete loon. What has stopped me walking away is the reassurance of GOd reaching out through the crap (both mine and the Church's) and dragging me out of a spiritual vacuum. It is impossible for me to not believe in God now. I have hung on by a fingernail once or twice, when things have been really tough and I feared that rather than unbelief, I will be like Job's wife and curse God. Prayer, your own and others for you really does help.

The church can be so crap and I have walked away from it in the sense of the human institution, but I hope I will never be able walk away from God.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
It's so hard to talk about these things without sounding like a complete idiot.

Indeed.

Like many others, it is the inability to walk away because of the conviction, emotional and experiential, of being at points of complete and utter loss of hope, and finding that, through people that I believe have been sent by God and a divine sense of peace [see, I am a complete loon! [Smile] ], and knowing the prayers of many people helped me, I was able to be carried through it.

I am one of those people who seemingly is always struggling: when I see bombs go off, children dying of famine, people killed in car accidents, etc... , I wonder what on earth is going on. Even in my day to day life I find it a struggle. Holding on to belief is sometimes very difficult [which is why I'm always amazed (and annoyed sometimes) when people say Christianity (or religion in general) is switching off your brain or being all happy and joyful knowing God is in charge -- I may believe He is, but I struggle with what goes on in the world continually(*)]. The words of John Donne forever echo for me:
quote:
Yet dearly I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betroth'd unto your enemy ;
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Yes, take me Lord: even though I be "betroth'd unto your enemy", for true freedom is to be found only in you. However hard that may be.


[(*) I've resigned myself to accepting it's our free-will and not so much God's will, and not prying deeper, but it's still darn difficult]

[ 16. June 2007, 03:43: Message edited by: Ian Climacus ]
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
For me, it's routine.

I go in and out of religious phases. Sometimes, I feel joyously overwhelmed by God and creation and I go about my daily routine in a rapture.

But that's a rarity.

More often, I wake up on Sunday mornings and think, "I do NOT want to go to church today." I rail at God for allowing me to suffer. For allowing others to suffer. For not healing me.

But if I can make myself go through the motions- go to liturgies, say a prayer or two, make the sign of the cross before I eat, kiss an icon- then I can usually pull myself out of the darkest of doubts and claw my way into some kind of peace with God.

I still don't know why I make myself do all the work it takes to get out of the mire. Why don't I let myself just not believe? I believe because I want to believe, but I don't know why I want it.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

J.S. Bach. Olivier Messiaen. Herbert Howells (even though, or maybe partly because, he apparently thought so too and still hung on by his fingernails).
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
For me, and it's been a semi-permanent state for a lot of my christian life, it's because at the end of the day I believe it, dammit.

Intellectually that is; I've only rarely felt much emotionally. But, there it is, I believe.

M.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
Wrong question?

Perhaps it should be:

"Why not let go?" What is preventing you - fear? Simple anxiety; or merely habit?

Let's try a somewhat different analogy.

A very comfortable house which protects you from the outside; where death and suffering occur - but they are not final; merely transitional - simply a case of going into that room (which unfortunately you can't peek into; nor have you ever seen anybody come out: Although of course you are told that long, long ago...someone actually did!)

But you keep glimpsing the world outdoors, and begin to question the veracity of what you have been told: Contradictions cannot simply be explained away. They multiply.

Open the front door.

Step outside.

As Morbius says:

"Welcome: to the real world."


S-E
 
Posted by PeteCanada (# 10422) on :
 
When I get overwhelmed by the whole bureaucratic people-organised church politics thing the one thing that keeps me sane is remembering that God is.

He there, and never lost, even if I appear to be.
 
Posted by Jonm (# 1246) on :
 
Some sort of daily office?

(and giving up all of CT except the prayer page and Word from Wormingford for a few weeks [Smile] )
 
Posted by CJ (# 2166) on :
 
quote:
But as I raved and grew more fierce and wild
At every word,
Methought I heard one calling, Child!
And I replied, My Lord.

George Herbert

That's as close as I can get. A mixture of love and some sort of recognition that I went into this as open eyed as I could, and need to stick with it however muddled and meaningless it sometimes seems. A sort of half relieved, half resentful surrender sometimes.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
The church choir (a weekly commitment) and the rhythm of the liturgy.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
The only answer I can give is that I really do believe, as far as Christology and the Trinity go. I have had times when I 'let go' of church attendance, and I worked for the Church for too many years not to have seen the platidunous crap manufactured. Somehow, I never lost my faith.

I need worship and the sacraments, even though I went without them at times. I've had to be 'on the outside' of things to preserve my sanity, ultimately. I have no regard for 'obligations,' obedience, determining where one attends church by postcode, etc.. When I 'go my own way,' as it were, I hang on because my life is empty without worship.
 
Posted by Beautiful_Dreamer (# 10880) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
Jesus for me, too.

I did give up. In fact, I've spent my entire life running to God or away from him. I have scars to remind me of how beautifully I managed my life on my own. I left the church after being abused by one of those "hired shepherds" Jesus warned about. So Jesus let me run away as long as I needed to, and let me feel like a lost sheep for a good decade. But he always knew where I was, and when he called me back, I was ready to return.

...
It's so hard to talk about these things without sounding like a complete idiot.

Glad to know I am not the only person to have been in a somewhat abusive situation. But, to their credit, I don't think the people I had problems with even knew they were doing me harm, or meant to. I didn't really see how harmful some of their teachings were until I got away (I broke up with my ex, whose family was the inner circle I speak of). Is that how it was for you too? And did you ever confront the person or people? I confronted my ex over an email and we had a nice long talk about it, but I don't think I really changed anything. Oh well.

They are good people, it is just that their brand of faith does not work for me. I guess I have too realistic a world view to believe that you can get anything you want from God just by having enough faith or believing right. That is a heresy anyway, I think. Or it should be.

Having bipolar has taught me a lot about relying on God even when I cannot see Him. I seriously wonder if that is the reason why God allowed this to happen. I have also learned a lot about compassion for other people, although I still have problems with that sometimes.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
What keeps me from letting go?

Realizing that, if all that's keeping me hanging on is my own clutching grasp, then I am simply not seeing the whole picture. There I am gasping and grasping, desperate and dogged, working so hard to keep hold of Him, while all the time it's He Who has hold of me.

So, in the end, I try not to cling. If staying with Him depended on my own personal strength and the skill with which I can grunt and sweat and work up a good steaming "head" of faith... well, it wouldn't happen.
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
Thanks for the welcome, mirrizin.

Beautiful_Dreamer, my experience was like yours mainly in that it wasn't till I was way out of the situation (years later) that I realized I wasn't equally responsible for an illicit relationship I was pushed into by a much older priest when I was very young and vulnerable. I did actually try, a few years ago, to hold out an olive branch. I contacted the parish secretary and asked if she had an address for Fr. X. Instead of saying yes or no, she forwarded my message to him -- definitely not what I'd wanted to happen. He didn't respond, no doubt thinking I was coming after him with a team of lawyers. I may try again; he's an old man now and I'd like him to know I forgave him long ago, but I don't know, maybe I should let sleeping dogs (!) lie.

Back to the OP: I know I'm capable of letting go, so I pray like hell that Jesus will not let go of me. He's got a pretty firm grip so far, and I trust it because I have no choice.
 
Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
Great thread, Adeodatus. Here are a few of my random reasons:

I have occasional "What if I'm just making it all up?" moments, but I do remember the one time when I yelled at God "You know, I really don't think you're there any more" and really meant it, and as soon as I'd said it I *just knew* I was wrong. Not in a way that I can explain to someone, or even to myself, in any remotely satisfactory way, but it's just something that is now so central to who I am that even with all the crap I can't let go even if I wanted to.

Something which strathclydezero said on these boards a few years back really resonated with me, about "God as a construct". I think I said then, and I'll certainly say now, I think God is much more than just a construct (like, I think he's real too!), but I do think it makes a lot of sense that my idea of God is, amongst other things, a lens through which I try to make sense of the world and what I see happening. When I take God out of the picture and try to look at the world, it's very like when I take my contact lenses out and try to make sense of my surroundings - I just can't see clearly any more, and don't feel safe.

Another thing is that a lot of things about Christianity I actually think are really cool. Like, for example, the fact that Jesus commends the widow's mite because even though it's pretty much worthless monetarily it represents a huge sacrifice - I like the fact that values are turned upside down; I often read about those kinds of things and think "I wish I'd thought of that". Grace is something I want to believe in, because as a concept I find it revolutionary and inspirational and totally liberating.

Plus, lots of people I love and respect and don't think are bonkers believe it, and I really struggle to think that *all* of them are deluded (Yes, I *know* that's pretty close to 20,000 lemmings can't be wrong, but it works for me).
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
So, in the end, I try not to cling. If staying with Him depended on my own personal strength and the skill with which I can grunt and sweat and work up a good steaming "head" of faith... well, it wouldn't happen.

And if it doesn't...be assured that there are those prepared to catch you if you fall...

S-E
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

J.S. Bach. Olivier Messiaen. Herbert Howells (even though, or maybe partly because, he apparently thought so too and still hung on by his fingernails).
Excellent reasons. Particularly the first, for me.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
So, in the end, I try not to cling. If staying with Him depended on my own personal strength and the skill with which I can grunt and sweat and work up a good steaming "head" of faith... well, it wouldn't happen.

And if it doesn't...be assured that there are those prepared to catch you if you fall...

S-E

Not to derail this thread, but I don't think there is any "assurance" of this at all. Are you the person who's going to catch Janine if she falls? And can we have that in writing?
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
{cue the trademark crooked grin)
I know Who is there. And He's got a catcher's mitt the size of the Universe.
 
Posted by benjdm (# 11779) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Originally posted by benjdm:
Nothing at all.
[Devil]

But still you post here. Some latent evangelical motivation?
I am a bit of an athevangelist, yes. But I try not to be an annoying one. Plus, it's healthy to talk to people with differing opinions.
 
Posted by 206 (# 206) on :
 
quote:
I am a bit of an athevangelist, yes. But I try not to be an annoying one. Plus, it's healthy to talk to people with differing opinions.
You mean there are annoying atheists? [Two face]

BTW, I should have put one of those winkie emoticons on my previous post as you're one of the all too few atheists who don't come across like they've got all this figured out.
 
Posted by bc_anglican (# 12349) on :
 
In spite of everything, in spite of right wing Christians often embarrassing me with their views on eschatology, in spite of Christian moralizing and hypocrisy, I still cling on to Jesus Christ.

I don't always feel the presence of God strongly, but I always know that He is there. He was in my past, molding me and guiding me alone. He is in my present, conversing and walking with me. And He is in my future, beckoning me to come to him.

And that is what keeps me whole.
 
Posted by Merchant Trader (# 9007) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
Back to the OP: I know I'm capable of letting go, so I pray like hell that Jesus will not let go of me. He's got a pretty firm grip so far, and I trust it because I have no choice.

That resonates with me: there have been times when my faith is so challenged I dont't get much further than the Lord's prayer. But then I often find that sufficient, especially if I think carfeully about every phrase.

God's grace allows us to go forward; I only read the Church Times when I feel like thinking about the challenge we have going forward. We have to go forward with a vision not dwell too much on the mistakes the church has made and makes except to learn from them.
 
Posted by EveJ (# 9063) on :
 
quote:
what's the one thing that stops you letting go?
It seems to me I let go sometimes several times a day, and God just keeps holding on to me. There's no other way for me to explain why I still, despite everything, believe in God.

I have plenty of personal reasons not to believe in God, and yet I find myself believing nevertheless.

In my good moments, it seems belief is a gift that has been given to me. In my bad moments, I toss that gift away, only to find it in my life yet again - and it seems it never went away.
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Okay, for all of you (and there have been many) who say that when you let go, Jesus and/or God caught you, what does that mean? What do you mean by "let go" and what do you mean by "caught" or "didn't let go of me"?

When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Sometimes all I have left, in low times, is "Lord, I do believe, help my unbelief".

I think maybe what you're saying and what some of us others have said isn't that far apart.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Socratic Enigma:

quote:
As Morbius says:

"Welcome: to the real world."

That's Morpheus. Morbius was the renegade Timelord in the eponymous 'Brain of Morbius'.

Really, whatever do they teach them in these schools!

My twopennorth:

Bach's St John's Passion, Dante's Divine Comedy, Caravaggio's Deposition.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Perhaps Christ screaming on the cross

"My God, my God why has thou forsaken me"

Once during a sermon a preacher shouted this in Aramaic (or at least that is what he claimed he did) and what I heard was a vocalisation of a silent scream that always seems to be at the root of existence.

This does not make reasonable sense, but then when I try to explicate my faith honestly I am met all the time by the contrariness of what it is. Faith statements for me is an attempt to make coherent sense of life, not something I will (descriptive rather than constructive).

Jengie
 
Posted by WatersOfBabylon (# 11893) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
Sometimes all I have left, in low times, is "Lord, I do believe, help my unbelief".

Yes.

I think I can relate more with that man than just about anyone else in the Bible.
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
Scot, I guess by "not letting go" I mean "continuing to do the work necessary to keep the relationship going." That could be not giving in to temptation or just continuing the maintenance work that keeps my soul alive: prayer, liturgy, sacraments, community, etc. You're right, that's not what you seem to mean by "not letting go," which is more about hanging onto ideas you no longer believe.

I confess I don't really struggle with that much, because for whatever reason, faith (as "belief") comes pretty easily to me. Once I accept my own existence and consciousness, which strike me as unlikely in the extreme, the Trinity, virgin births, walking on water and all the rest seems like small potatoes. Sorry, I'm sure this can't be very helpful to you. But I do see the distinction you're making.
 
Posted by Jon J (# 11091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?


(* For me, at the moment, any day when I've read the Church Times.)

I don't really know what stops me from walking away. Personally I find myself plagued by doubt and there are some days when I think its far too much hassle, not worth the effort and wish I could be an atheist and just say "fuck it".

I did like your mention of the Church Times though - I find myself in exactly the same situation which concerns me slightly, perhaps I'm more attracted to the Church of England's ethos than its God.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.

I think you've got me there.

That is what I mean, only it's really not. (follow me, here) because when things have gotten crummy (and oh boy have they this year) I have had that screaming, raging thing, "if there was a God, he would not let this shit happen! Fuck it!"

But then, as soon as I came down from my tantrum, there were quiet voices, like bird song and kind strangers, that to me were God in action. Because I guess on a basic, deep level, I believe in God. I believe. I know. the same way I know my face in the mirror.

That's that whole faith thing, I guess. So even though I "let go" I didn't really, because I can't.

I have lots of reasons why I know God, none of which need to be gone into here. Some are scientific, some are beyond explanation.

But because of all those things, when I see the baby nuthatches trying out their wings, I see God. And when I hear a fresh new baby cry, I hear God. and when I touch a loved one, I touch God.

The rest is just human trappings.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
It's in the moments that I let all the theological crap go that I tend to feel closest to God.

It's not a matter of thinking, it's a matter of Being.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
It's not a matter of thinking, it's a matter of Being.

Whar on earth does that mean? We all 'Are' after all.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.

To me, the letting go meant that I let go of all effort to force myself to believe but neither could I actively disbelieve. I felt myself falling deeper into a pit of self-absorbed despair as I fought to find proof of God and meaning in life the deeper the pit became and the footholds became more and more treacherous. At the point where I let go of trying to force myself to think God into existence, He reached out with a tangible and very real reassurance of his presence and of the right response to Him.
 
Posted by EveJ (# 9063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Okay, for all of you (and there have been many) who say that when you let go, Jesus and/or God caught you, what does that mean? What do you mean by "let go" and what do you mean by "caught" or "didn't let go of me"?

When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.

When I say I let go, I say "f*ck you, and especially emphatically this little sh*t-hole of a church of yours" to God and go my merry way. God doesn't seem to mind, actually. And then I find Him in some completely odd place, in an odd way. That's the way it seems to work. I don't want to convince myself that I believe: if I believe, I believe, and if I don't, I don't. I just end up believing for some reason I can't really fathom myself. It's all very emotional and passionate, to tell the truth.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
People. Not God, consciously. Not Jesus, consciously. People. Some specific people. Others rather more vague. And here's the interesting bit. My best friend is a bigoted asshole when it comes to religion. But then, one of his family is an utterly objectionable Christian.

When the friend gets steamed up, I relax. Put his own arguments to him sometimes. At other times, talk about my own idiosyncratic take.
I am never offended. The argument rarely gets heated. When it does, we have unspoken ways of cooling off. My guess is that he will always be an atheist. My goal is that he should become a happier one.

And that's how he helps me. He takes my own worst doubts and makes them look ridiculous. I try to find in him some hope in his world that I can show to be plausible.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.

I have completely walked away a couple of times, and argued against the whole shebang, rationalised the Bible, faith as a human construct, the lot. Once as a teenager because I objected to the way I was forced to go to Church (no food if I didn't go, so I didn't eat) and I stayed away for 10-15 years, but I got pulled back to faith, and then to church, and am more involved than anyone else in my family now (but I have not made my daughter go to church).

Second time after a relationship with someone deep into the church went wrong and I lost my faith and roots and ended up in a very deep dark place, but I am back again.

I would rationalise this as a striving for good and God being the good in all - the David Jenkins quote "God is; He is as he is in Jesus, so there is Hope."
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally Posted by mirrizin:
It's not a matter of thinking, it's a matter of Being.

What on earth does that mean? We all 'Are' after all.
For me, I don't think faith is an intellectual construct. It's not a matter of mouthing a certain creed with conviction. It's not about understanding the trinity, or having the whole bloody bible memorized, or knowing exactly why you're going to heaven. Heck, I'm not even sure it's "knowing" that you're going to heaven. It's not a matter of intellectual debate (though I do enjoy the theology game), it's not a matter of "believing" in a particular set of scriptures, and it's not about being able to walk up to someone and tell them beyond a reasonable doubt why God exists.

Sometimes religion is kind of a mystical gut-level kind of thing for me. Partly because of the observation I picked up in Aikido that thinking is sometimes an obstacle to living, and partly because if my beliefs rested solely on my logical ability to "prove" God, I'd probably become an atheist. Faith doesn't mean I know what God is to the last detail, it means that I trust the universe to take care of itself, and that on some insignificantly puny level, I'm part of it.

"Be still and know that I am God"
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
Interesting that for some it's usually God, and for others it's usually people, (oh yes and even nature). I know the two are not mutually exclusive but I don't fully understand why our answers are so different. I'm more in the 'usually God' camp, but then it is sometimes difficult to quantify the value of relationships that could easily be taken for granted. Then again, there are aspects of my 'religion' which can become too ritualistic and not really connected with what gave me hope in the first place.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally Posted by mirrizin:
It's not a matter of thinking, it's a matter of Being.

What on earth does that mean? We all 'Are' after all.
For me, I don't think faith is an intellectual construct. It's not a matter of mouthing a certain creed with conviction. It's not about understanding the trinity, or having the whole bloody bible memorized, or knowing exactly why you're going to heaven. Heck, I'm not even sure it's "knowing" that you're going to heaven. It's not a matter of intellectual debate (though I do enjoy the theology game), it's not a matter of "believing" in a particular set of scriptures, and it's not about being able to walk up to someone and tell them beyond a reasonable doubt why God exists.
You seem to be answering a question that I'm not asking. I didn't say "give me an intellectual construct". I said "What does 'it's a matter of Being' mean?" Because I don't know. Not in a way that makes it relevant to this thread. Not in a way that makes it the reason why you feel close to God.

I exist. So I'm 'being'. That simple fact doesn't make me close to God so you must mean something more.

quote:
Sometimes religion is kind of a mystical gut-level kind of thing for me. Partly because of the observation I picked up in Aikido that thinking is sometimes an obstacle to living, and partly because if my beliefs rested solely on my logical ability to "prove" God, I'd probably become an atheist. Faith doesn't mean I know what God is to the last detail, it means that I trust the universe to take care of itself, and that on some insignificantly puny level, I'm part of it.

But atheists can recognise that the universe would go on without them - which is what I take "can take care of itself" to mean - and recognise themselves as part of it.

Is this gut feeling something you just either have or you don't?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Late Paul:
I exist. So I'm 'being'. That simple fact doesn't make me close to God so you must mean something more.

Actually, the way I see it, that does mean you're close to God. If God is (and I'll admit that this is an article of faith), then you can't not be close to God. Feeling is just a matter of whether you like God at that particular moment, or whether you're in line with God's will, which I think some like to call the Holy Spirit.

And yeah, I'm kind of a Zen Christian. I'm fully convinced there are some things that you just can't put into words, at least not without using words that are so loaded with historical meaning and interpretation as to render the conversation unnecessarily confusing, especially over a medium like the internet. Big questions require big answers.
quote:
Is this gut feeling something you just either have or you don't?
Frankly, I don't know the answer to that one, as the only resource I have to engage with the universe is my own body, mind, and spirit. If I were a Calvinist, I suppose I'd have to give an unequivocal "yes," but I'm not quite sold on Calvinism yet.

I also don't think that Christians have a monopoly on God or whatever you prefer to call it. Perhaps it's just a question of interpretation and semantics. I'm starting to think that one could very easily slaughter any belief system with semantics, which is one reason I'm wary of logical constructs.
 
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Late Paul:
I exist. So I'm 'being'. That simple fact doesn't make me close to God so you must mean something more.

Actually, the way I see it, that does mean you're close to God. If God is (and I'll admit that this is an article of faith), then you can't not be close to God. Feeling is just a matter of whether you like God at that particular moment, or whether you're in line with God's will, which I think some like to call the Holy Spirit.
Fair point. I should've said "doesn't make me feel close to God". You started your original post by saying dumping theological crap made you feel close to God and went on to say that it was a matter of Being. I assumed they were connected.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
They're sort of connected. Sometimes I think the biggest fuss I have with religion is when I think too hard. It's like Aikido...trying too hard sometimes makes things more difficult than they need to be. Sometimes you just have to stop, breath, look at where you are, and move in the most opportune fashion, rather than continually attempting to do the impossible.

And Gwai wants to add that sometimes you have to simply continue to do the impossible.
 
Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
Something else which I find helps me, which I forgot to mention before, is thinking of faith in terms of allegiance rather than just belief.

As in, I've made a commitment and it is right for me to stick to it even when I don't believe. If I didn't have this understanding, then at the times when I don't believe I would walk away, thinking that it was intellectually dishonest to carry on.

It's a bit like what the characters in The Silver Chair say about Aslan when the witch is making them question whether he really exists: I want to be on Aslan's side even if there isn't an Aslan to lead it. So at the times when I'm not sure whether God is there, I still feel that I want to be on the side that he would be on if he were there.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
At times like those mentioned i tend to remember that i don't have a massive argument with God.
Never have.
The platitudinous c**p tends to come out of peoples mouths and there's no sin in ignoring people who raise my blood-pressure.
Added to which walking out of church was not, last time I looked, the unforgivable sin.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:


It's a bit like what the characters in The Silver Chair say about Aslan when the witch is making them question whether he really exists: I want to be on Aslan's side even if there isn't an Aslan to lead it. So at the times when I'm not sure whether God is there, I still feel that I want to be on the side that he would be on if he were there.

I like this--thank you.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all.

I did this -- for about a decade I was one of those godless secular humanists Limbaugh & Co. are forever ranting about. The beginning of the end of that came when someone said to me, "You have a religion, and you worship in the library," and I knew he was right.

Why do I hang on now? Transformative experience of God. Because I think it's true. Jesus. Especially the incarnation.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
Scot said:
quote:
...When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.
Well, if you did let go, within the context you're defining here, what would that look like?
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Nothing much would change, except for some labels and and options that I retain mainly for the comfort of my family. I think I'm talking about something I've already 99.8% done.

Maybe cutting that last 0.02% thread would free me up to turn around and take a completely objective look at the church and God. The trouble is, I think I'd really dislike what I'd see, and that would make it really hard to be open-minded and generous with my many true-believing Christian friends and family. So, I hang on by a fingernail, not for my own sake, but for the sake of my relationships.
 
Posted by Jodi (# 2490) on :
 
This thread is very interesting to me because I've been going through a major period of doubt and fear, and I suppose I've just started clawing my way back up after only barely hanging on by my fingernails for some time.

quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
Once I accept my own existence and consciousness, which strike me as unlikely in the extreme, the Trinity, virgin births, walking on water and all the rest seems like small potatoes.

Heh, well there's one of my problems. When I try to make sense of it all, I just end up doubting my own existence and that of the universe and then recoiling in bafflement to curl up under my duvet and cry.

The thing that has really helped me back into faith to the point where I'm calling myself a Christian again, when for a few years if you'd asked me my religion I really wouldn't have known what to say, is the practical effect in my day-to-day life, especially the way I relate to people. For one thing, one of my biggest flaws is a major tendency to look down on people, for all sorts of reasons. To look at someone I'm having trouble dealing with and say to myself, "but God loves them, too," gives me a whole different perspective on things.

I'm overwhelmed by a fear of death and cannot comprehend either ceasing to exist or going on for ever, and to be honest they both seem equally scary to me because I do not deal well with not being able to understand things. So all I have to cling on to is how my faith works in my life now, and more and more I'm learning once again that I'm better off with it than without it.

I'm also someone who probably only considers myself a Christian because that's the cultural context I'm in and what I've been brought up with, though. I have a very hard time relating to Jesus as such, it's more a general sense of connecting with a God who can guide me in what's right.

One other thing, in the more emotional and spiritual realm, is that often when I encounter creative works that have a big impact on me - a great variety of stuff here, from Jane Eyre to 80s synthpop - I have a moment when I find it impossible to believe that it can come from anything other than an echo of God's urge to create. And then I feel silly and try not to think about it and drive myself nuts with some intellectual argument instead. *sigh*
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Maybe cutting that last 0.02% thread would free me up to turn around and take a completely objective look at the church and God. The trouble is, I think I'd really dislike what I'd see, and that would make it really hard to be open-minded and generous with my many true-believing Christian friends and family.

I'm another who'd answer the question "what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?" with "I've tried and I can't because that all-loving G-d/ sadistic sky-monster won't let me." I probably don't understand where you're coming from at all - I don't know what it's like to want to believe, because I never have. But I spent a long time in disbelief, and then on the fringes of disbelief, until I finally got pushed close enough to make the leap of faith. And even then, I basically said "OK, fine, you exist. But you're a straight-up *&%@&*, and I don't like you, so please *&%* off now. Oh, and I'm currently believing in the whole people-created-in-your-image thing, since so many people who believe in you are also complete *&%@&* " (I never said I was a role-model, especially when it comes to religious faith).

But I suspect you're underestimating your ability to be generous with your true-believing friends and family. Or maybe the "true-believers" are G-d's way of not letting you walk away.
 
Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Maybe cutting that last 0.02% thread would free me up to turn around and take a completely objective look at the church and God. The trouble is, I think I'd really dislike what I'd see, and that would make it really hard to be open-minded and generous with my many true-believing Christian friends and family.

It may also have the opposite effect.

I went through the whole process of letting go/living without any belief/gradually returning and found it all totally cathartic, leaving me with a much more realistic, less crucial view of God and other believers. My theology is a bit wacky these days and I'm not yet a regular church goer (and may never be) but I don't care - and that's a relief in itself!
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Powerful thread. I've let go once in my 30 plus year journey and it was a good thing to do. In the wandering period after (about 18 months or so) I became gradually aware that the God I had given up on was definitely not there -He was an idolatrous creation made partly out of my own head and partly out of the more morbid bits of the culture Christianity in my local church. I talked this stuff over with a wise vicar who observed that God (the One who is there) was into the breaking of idols. So I asked the obvious question; how can you tell what is idol and what is God? He laughed; "Come back and tell me the answers you've discovered to that question, and we'll compare notes!". I found that "Lord I believe, help Thou my unbelief" is a pretty serious prayer.

A comment on an earlier point. I'm sure it wasn't meant this way, but not all platitudes are crap, and conversely, quite a lot a non-platitudinous talk claiming originality really is crap. Neither age or novelty, familiarity or originality, are in themselves any reliable guide to truth.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Maybe cutting that last 0.02% thread would free me up to turn around and take a completely objective look at the church and God. The trouble is, I think I'd really dislike what I'd see, and that would make it really hard to be open-minded and generous with my many true-believing Christian friends and family.

You don't know until you try [Biased] Personally, I can't see much point in forcing yourself to believe something that you are 99.98% certain is not true. Sounds like a waste of effort to me.

But I can understand the family thing. Bummer.

So far as belief is concerned, it seems to me to be a matter of deciding where to plant your flag. You aren't going to have certainty, not in this life anyhow. And eventually, I think, everyone reaches a point where that flag has to be planted somewhere.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
I shall forever look at your avatar, Scot, and see that middle fingernail ever hanging on to the unseen 'Other' at the top.

Those of us who go letterboxing know well the sig. of one of the longest-serving participants: 'Where the hand of man hath never trod'. That makes me think about the vast stretches of otherness which makes up the whole of existence, of which our corner is only a small part, and the vast majority of which we will never be able to visit or experience.

I'm not explaining myself very well, but am constantly made aware that my knowledge and experience of reality is only a fraction of the sum total, so plenty of room for God as well.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
I'm sorry to say I COULD let go of the church and all the attendant paraphernalia. But that isn't what Christianity's about for me--it's (I suppose) a necessary and sometimes unpleasant consequence.

Yes, it's Jesus again. (and I used to be an ordinary decent heathen, so I remember what it was like without him. Don't want to go there again.)

Doesn't mean I don't complain, grouch and bitch like mad at Him (poor Lord) when I'm in the mood.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
A thought that struck me too late for the edit window was that I shouldn't have posted this in Purgatory, since I'm feeling quite exceptionally fragile at the moment. But actually it seems to be turning out rather well.

I have to say, though, that so far none of this excellent discussion has made me go, "Ha! Of course, that's it!"

For instance, I've never got the whole Jesus thing. How one can get emotionally attached to somebody who isn't there has always been a mystery to me. (Although, on reflection, I guess that's probably not what at least some of you have been saying.)

Alogon and TubaMirum: dammit, you nearly got me with Bach! If anyone ever took dictation from the Holy Spirit, it was JSB. They spoke the same language. But, on the other hand, would it not be glorious and wonderful to ascribe what he did to human genius?

Posted by WatersOfBabylon:
quote:
For me, it's routine.

Now we're talking! In my worst times, I've suspected all that holds me is that I make my living through my affiliation to the Church. One day, there might be the real possibility that I might not need the Church to make a living - that'll be an interesting day, if it comes - I'll finally know the answer to that question.

Posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
What is preventing you - fear? Simple anxiety; or merely habit?
Good question. Very good question....
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Not to derail this thread, but I don't think there is any "assurance" of this at all. Are you the person who's going to catch Janine if she falls? And can we have that in writing?

I should not be so presumptuous: I merely sought to elucidate that one does not fall into an abyss - but simply a different awareness...and community.
However, I will undertake that should your grasp ever falter - I shall be there to catch you - even if you squash me in the process; Which I should hurriedly add is in no way meant to suggest...I mean the fall from such a height...and even your remarkably light frame will gain a certain momentum... (do yu reckon I've dug the hole deep enough yet?).

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
(cue the trademark crooked grin)
I know Who is there. And He's got a catcher's mitt the size of the Universe.

Hang on! I was always taught that God is an Englishman - In which case he would use his more than adequate 'open hand' - a' la cricket: Not like those wussy Americans who can't catch - or are they scared of hurting their poor little hands [Biased]

S-E
(He who doesn't lie - OK, maybe the occasional little white...)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Alogon and TubaMirum: dammit, you nearly got me with Bach! If anyone ever took dictation from the Holy Spirit, it was JSB. They spoke the same language. But, on the other hand, would it not be glorious and wonderful to ascribe what he did to human genius?

Even JSB wouldn't do that. Maybe especially JSB, matter of fact.

One thing that always strikes me is that so many great composers were deeply religious themselves. The ones Alogon mentions, and many others besides. This is true right into the present day; Tavener is a good example - and I heard a great piece by James MacMillan, a contemporary Scottish composer who is a devout Roman Catholic. I wasn't surprised to hear it at all.

There are others who weren't religious, too, of course - at least not in any conventional way. And no one would deny that it's human genius, too - but in the case of JSB it seems to me obviously to be an attempt to speak with and about God. Anyone can hear it in the music.

Hey - maybe this is a sort of Chalcedonian genius, in fact? 100% human and 100% divine?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Not to derail this thread, but I don't think there is any "assurance" of this at all. Are you the person who's going to catch Janine if she falls? And can we have that in writing?

I should not be so presumptuous: I merely sought to elucidate that one does not fall into an abyss - but simply a different awareness...and community.
However, I will undertake that should your grasp ever falter - I shall be there to catch you - even if you squash me in the process; Which I should hurriedly add is in no way meant to suggest...I mean the fall from such a height...and even your remarkably light frame will gain a certain momentum... (do yu reckon I've dug the hole deep enough yet?).

I doubt very strongly you will be there; that's the whole point. I don't know you and you don't know me - and I'm sure you've got a busy life and many other important things to do. In any case, there are, by simple observation, plenty of people who "fall through the cracks"; a friend of mine has a brother who just jumped off a building because he felt so alone.

What "community" are you speaking of, BTW? And where was the "community" for the man I mention above?
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
The Curse of the cross-post

Ahh Adeodatus, your openness and honesty humbles me - and makes my levity seem totally out of place.

I am glad that you have gained sustenance from the thread. Bach indeed! One is not denied an appreciation of beauty simply by virtue of one's lack of belief. And even if one considers the artist's motivation somewhat 'misguided'.

But then of course...

I could be wrong.

S-E
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...and I'm sure you've got a busy life and many other important things to do.

True enough. But there is nothing more important than to be there for a friend.

The 'community' is ill-defined, nebulous and lacks direction - but it is there. It is represented by a growing sense of our 'common humanity', especially among the young: I am in awe of my niece's internationalism. During the last Commonwealth Games I shared a wonderful train journey with some Kenyans who were here to support their team. There is a possibility of something there - but it requires nourishing.

I am saddened by the fate of your friend's brother. There is nothing further I can say - anything is inadequate.
Only can I restate that I see that possibility; a seed which I hope will come to flourish.

S-E
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
...and I'm sure you've got a busy life and many other important things to do.

True enough. But there is nothing more important than to be there for a friend.

The 'community' is ill-defined, nebulous and lacks direction - but it is there. It is represented by a growing sense of our 'common humanity', especially among the young: I am in awe of my niece's internationalism. During the last Commonwealth Games I shared a wonderful train journey with some Kenyans who were here to support their team. There is a possibility of something there - but it requires nourishing.

I am saddened by the fate of your friend's brother. There is nothing further I can say - anything is inadequate.
Only can I restate that I see that possibility; a seed which I hope will come to flourish.

S-E

But you're not a friend. As I said, I don't know you and you don't know me. And I doubt very, very strongly you will "be there for me" in the dark and terrible times. Why and how would you be? How could this possibility ever come to pass?

When you give "assurances" of things that are evidently not true and in all likelihood won't ever be true, it really doesn't help your case.

But as I said, this is not really relevant here, and I don't want to derail a thread whose topic is religious belief and how to hold onto it.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Adeodatus, here are a couple of stories from before I was religious, or would have considered myself a Christian.

Story #1: I worked for a summer during college in a Catholic convent, in the kitchen. (I made salads, in case you were interested, and worked with a crazy Polish chef and a really funny line cook who had graduated from the Culinary Institute of America and spent more time on carving garnishes out of radishes than actually cooking.)

Anyway, there was a guy there, a janitor, who had mental problems. He'd undergone electro-shock therapy when that was the treatment, and he blinked a lot, I think from that. He really didn't have anybody in the world to look after him - so the sisters gave him a job for life. He was always trying to give me St. Christopher medals and bookmarks with prayers to Our Lady on them. He was safe (and useful!) in a world that would almost certainly have let him fall into the gutter and die unnoticed.


2. Story #2: Later, I lived as a roomer in a house with several other people, one of whom was an 80+ year old woman. Also Polish, now that I think of it, and we lived in that house together, on the same floor, until she died at about 87 years old, I think. She really didn't have anything in the world, and not many friends left, either, because she'd outlived them all.

I went to her funeral, and was amazed to see how formal it was, with only a few people in the nave. Her casket was censed, and prayers were sung and said - just as if she'd been the wealthiest and most highly-stationed person on earth instead of a poor old woman who had nothing. I was very impressed, and that's when I started to let my guard down to religion, I think.


Those two stories tell me that Christianity is a most wonderful religion at base, no matter how the Church tries to screw it up. As you may know, I disagree very, very strongly with the Catholic Church on many issues - but if it can get people to behave this way, then I really have no serious quarrel with it at all in the end.

And then there's St. Francis....
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
TubaMirum,

No, you're right, I am not your friend And the assurance (albiet tongue in cheek) only related to that initial 'letting go'; not a life-long ( and as you point out - impossible) committment to always be there.

And I think it is relevant to the OP; because once you have let go - you are ultimately alone. There is no-one to turn to during that dark night of the soul; when we must either reject despair...or embrace it.

But a world without God is not empty: On the contrary it is a world full of joy and beauty - as well as saddness and tragedy. In many respects it is a world more open to possibility - as well as perhaps a bolder recognition of the limitations and fragility of life.

But there is certainly no panacea on offer - Is that the ultimate attraction of Christianity?

S-E

PS I have been fortunate to make many friends here; I hope that you will not completely preclude me from that possibility at some point in the future.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
TubaMirum,

No, you're right, I am not your friend And the assurance (albiet tongue in cheek) only related to that initial 'letting go'; not a life-long ( and as you point out - impossible) committment to always be there.

And I think it is relevant to the OP; because once you have let go - you are ultimately alone. There is no-one to turn to during that dark night of the soul; when we must either reject despair...or embrace it.

But a world without God is not empty: On the contrary it is a world full of joy and beauty - as well as saddness and tragedy. In many respects it is a world more open to possibility - as well as perhaps a bolder recognition of the limitations and fragility of life.

But there is certainly no panacea on offer - Is that the ultimate attraction of Christianity?

S-E

PS I have been fortunate to make many friends here; I hope that you will not completely preclude me from that possibility at some point in the future.

To be honest, I'm a bit suspicious of a claim of "many friends" made in on an internet bulletin board in the space of a few months. "Friendship," to me, is a deep relationship that happens normally over a long period of time. Now, perhaps we have different definitions of the word; perhaps you really do make fast friends in the space of 5 months; perhaps you've been here before using another name and do indeed have long-term friends here.

But so far I just don't buy your claims. And I wonder why you're trying to peddle atheism on a thread that is asking, specifically, about the One Thing that people find most important in their faith. Why the need to do this, rather than starting your own thread on the topic?

And BTW, you've contradicted yourself here already; now you're saying that in fact you won't be there to "catch us" at all; that we just have to "buck up" and accept that we are "ultimately alone." So I'm a bit confused at this point, I must say.

Anyway, how about let's take this outside? If you want to start a thread about the glories of atheism, I'm sure people will be delighted to discuss the topic.
 
Posted by Zealot en vacance (# 9795) on :
 
Pure religion and undefiled is to help those in distress, and remain untarnished by the world. Great yardstick by which to measure the worth of the service industry which has developed around a simple faith. Disengage fingernails and walk in the way your faith tells you is right. You won't be 'in' with many of the religious, but then neither was Jesus much of the time.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic Enigma:
as well as perhaps a bolder recognition of the limitations and fragility of life.

I would disagree. Both atheism and theism seem to illustrate that life in and of itself is not fragile. If it was fragile, we wouldn't be here.

Life, in spite of the frailty of its individual components, is probably some of the most resilient stuff the universe has produced.

Our puny egos, on the other hand, are terribly fragile, but it would be a fallacy to say that we are the only hope that life has in the universe.

I guess that's one reason I believe in God, even in those moments when I feel tempted to throw all the theological stuff into a flaming pit.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Alogon and TubaMirum: dammit, you nearly got me with Bach! If anyone ever took dictation from the Holy Spirit, it was JSB. They spoke the same language. But, on the other hand, would it not be glorious and wonderful to ascribe what he did to human genius?

He didn't. He wrote "SDG" or "Soli Deo Gloria" at the end of his compositions, even the secular ones. And he said, "I have worked very hard, and anyone who works as hard can do as well." Not that I'd believe that, either. But Bach did stand in a long tradition, without which he would not have produced what he did. And that tradition had been primarily nurtured by the church. This fact is worth bearing in mind, as well as the work of Bach in isolation.

Something similar applies to Messiaen's and Howells' cases. Howells loved "the immemorial sound of voices" as the church had long cultivated them in choirs.
 
Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:

Maybe cutting that last 0.02% thread would free me up to turn around and take a completely objective look at the church and God.

and

quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:

It may also have the opposite effect.

Scot, as I read this I thought of how in the dark night of the soul, nothing seems to work anymore, including old ways of praying, believing, imagining and relating to God. And the idea is that God uses those nights to pry our fingers off our attachments (idols, I suppose) and prepare us for a new and improved, deeper relationship with him. That could be one way of letting go having "the opposite effect," producing a deeper faith instead of losing what faith you have left. Sorry if this is deeply obvious and you've already thought about it.
 
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :
 
Ephesians....yeah the Bible...not mentionned all that often anymore but...Ephesians, as first opened up to me at a University course on the Letters of Paul (I am pretty sure Paul didn't write it, but he would have approved)

The wall has been broken down that separated us from God.

That's enough.
 
Posted by infinite_monkey (# 11333) on :
 
Came across this excellent poem by Rumi today that I thought was apropos.

I especially like these lines:
quote:
So let us rather not be sure of anything,
Beside ourselves, and only that, so
Miraculous beings come running to help,
Crazed, lying in a zero circle, mute,
We shall be saying finally,
With tremendous eloquence, Lead us.

It connected for me to a thought I'd had yesterday during the silent prayer bit in church--how I often found myself asking the basic "are you there, God?" kind of questions, then waiting a second or two, then coming up with my own response, my own belief about whether God was, or wasn't. An endless feedback loop that can be boiled down to sunsets and puppies on one hand, and axe murderers and cancer cells on the other.

My new goal is to get past answering the God question definitively inside my own rattling brain and instead to a point where I'm asking in a space big enough to really let God answer, or fail to.
 
Posted by Avalon (# 8094) on :
 
My 'fingernails ' bit is probably like a few others here but I guess every description of it may come form just a slightly different angle. It was like holding onto something I thought was God and thus good and just and cleanly loving; all those God-like things. But with something called religion clutching at my throat bashing my head against a plate glass wall telling me that I was holding onto an idol of my own making and that I had to let go or fear for my soul - either it's salvation or sanctification; God was, according to the strangler something I found bad and it was only indicative of my own hard heartedness that I couldn't subject myself to finding it good. It gets confusing knowing exactly where your fingernails are. Whether they're hanging on or trying to scratch free, whether in the struggle something is hanging onto you or you to it. Breaking point for the fingernails comes when the urge to reject something becomes stronger than the urge to hang on to that other something...

And you end up hurled through that plate glass wall where for a moment of vaccuum, nothingness and winded diaphragm you can't quite take a breath. It's not that God caught you. Both the candidates for God are sitting on the other side of the plate glass. In that moment before you breathe you acknowledge that you hate the one and the other might be an idol of your making. It's a take stock moment as you breathe. Others, I think, have said that it's the moment where you decide whether, even if you don't know that God exists, is that the one you'd rather have on your side? Or, if you rejected the one you found bad, what did you lose? Eternity with something you find evil?

So, I guess what I did as I stared at the images I saw in a glass darkly of deciding between what apparently were a screaming banshee and a beautiful idol was to trim and file my nails (look after myself) and run a neat check list over the contendors. What did I expect to see if I saw goodness? justice? love? etc.

If I divided God up into a trinity of creating father, redeeming son, sanctifying spirit what level of.. well.. intervention would I expect to see from each? Was I being unrealistic about my 'idol' and expecting something for me which might work out unjustly for someone else?

Was God the creator only low level intervention who wound the world up and sat back to let it tick to a certain rule without intervening against his 'rules' again? Could I expect if I prayed that he might tweak a few to suit me if it didn't hurt anyone else? Could I name and claim anything I damn well liked?

Was God the redeemer a high level interventionist who universally redeemed all - whether they liked it or not (relevant when you're sitting in a space where you reserve the right to reject God); or on a predestinational choice of some high interventionalism. Is he the low level redeemer who leaves the whole business to the vagaries of his only hands being our hands so that it fails if we fail to get there geographically or communicatively? Is there a middle way?

Was God the sanctifier something so high level interventionalist that , if you're not permanently 'high', then it's your own fault that you can't find the keg? Is it for medicinal purposes only when you're nearly dead? Somewhere more near the 'drink in moderation' warning so that you're in control of the vehicle you're driving and others don't get hurt?

Long winded perhaps but it is Purgatory. The long and short of it is that, for me, the act of faith isn't so much that God exists but that God is good. You just don't lose anything, whatever the threats to the country, if God is your idea of evil; irrelevant even whether he exists. And, if your fingernails are going to break anyway, go for it and do what you've been always told not to do and paint the details on your idol. Why worship the God you're given if you can build a better one? It just seems so contrary to the infinity of God that a finite human mind could create a better one so try it and judge it. You just might find God
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
I write this occasionally and yet I do not think I am believed.

For me existence is something that I desire an escape from, it seems a constant demand to exist, to be , to do something. If I could let go and believe there was nothing, that I could cease to exist that would be peace.

However Christianity for me does the opposite, it says in death we do not cease to be but only eternity, the being and being known that means we can either turn towards God or away. To turn towards there is a chance of light coming to sustain our being and to at last find being something that we can do, to turn away there is only the continual torment on the awareness of a failure to exist. We have to will the turning towards the light or will the turning away from the light. There is no half option of non-existence.

Christianity is not always a comforter.
Jengie
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
I happened to notice in Wikipedia's article for Exupery's Little Prince this description of one of the characters:
quote:

The Geographer who spends all of his time making maps, but never leaves his desk to explore (even his own planet), going on the pretext that it is the job of an explorer to do so. Even if an explorer were to visit the Geographer, the Geographer is very doubting of any explorer's character and would most likely disregard the report. He doesn't trust things he hasn't seen with his own eyes, yet will not leave his desk.

Out of professional interest, the geographer asks the Prince to describe his asteroid. The Prince describes the volcanoes and the rose. 'We don't record flowers', says the geographer, because they are only temporary.



(Apologies to the hosts if this quote is too long).

It has been so long since I have read this book that I couldn't say whether it was Saint-Exupery's intention to portray atheists with this character. However, it seems an apt parody of them in their arbitrary exclusion of certain types of evidence, or aspects of human experience and thought, that might interfere with their reductionism.

I have often tried as dispassionately and objectively as possible to determine who is more open-minded and wholistic, the settled atheist or the curious agnostic who is willing to entertain the idea that God might exist. The agnostic always comes across as the more honest of the two.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
One day, when I was working as a Park Ranger, a somewhat eccentric entomologist approached us, flush with excitement: He had discovered a rare species of tussock grass in the Reserve, the sole food source for an even rarer species of butterfly.
Seeking permission to venture into normally closed areas of the Reserve, we agreed, as long as he were accompanied: I volunteered.

His enthusiasm was infectious; I had some knowledge of native grasses, but little of the particular objects of his study. I was privileged to learn from an impassioned expert, who seemed cheered to have such a receptive pupil. After some time of watching and waiting - we were rewarded when one of the butterflies flitted in and alighted on a stalk.

I have indeed been privileged; having witnessed the invitational dance of the male lyrebird; watching a killer whale erupt from the ocean at close quarters; looking after a baby seal...but there was indeed something special about this encounter, particularly in the company of one so passionate.

On my ride to work this morning I was heading toward the end of the rainbow - literally.

On does not require God to find the world a place of wonder.

On the contrary?

S-E

[ 20. June 2007, 09:53: Message edited by: Socratic-enigma ]
 
Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
I am not even sure I am hanging on my my fingernails anymore. My last little hope was the belief that God is a good God... whavever happens. To be honest I am not even sure I believe that anymore.

Auntie Doris x
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:

One does not require God to find the world a place of wonder.

On the contrary?

S-E

One also has to understand that for most Christians the incidences of wonder are few and far between and it is the already inscribed devotional theology that turns them from moments of wonder to gratitude. We talk of wonder as the essence of the experience but I wonder if gratitude is not the truer for a Christian. The change from wonder to gratitude is a profound emotional change (I presume it releases a lot of the well being endorphins into the blood stream).

However it is the mundane experience that make up most of our understanding of God, the repetition of daily practices, the noting of small kindnesses that are often over looked. Perhaps thirty second of silence after prayers are said is more regular experience interpreted as of God than the wonder.

I have a mystical bent, I therefore have experienced mystical experiences which are terrific (also in its original meaning) wonder experiences. Yet I was offered one of these in return for for all the mundane silences that make up my everyday experience of God , I would have no difficulty in turning it down.

Jengie
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
I am not even sure I am hanging on my my fingernails anymore. My last little hope was the belief that God is a good God... whavever happens. To be honest I am not even sure I believe that anymore.

Auntie Doris x

I know the feeling. But one thing we do know is that Jesus is a Good Lord. That's what gets me through when my faith in the Father God is shaky....
 
Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
One also has to understand that for most Christians the incidences of wonder are few and far between and it is the already inscribed devotional theology that turns them from moments of wonder to gratitude.

There is plenty of wonder to be experienced in the mundane. Approaching the spectacular or the mundane with an attitude of either theistic gratitude or non-theistic humility can make the experience transcendent. The key to the wonderful is in how we see the world around us, and ourselves in relation to it.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
There is plenty of wonder to be experienced in the mundane. Approaching the spectacular or the mundane with an attitude of either theistic gratitude or non-theistic humility can make the experience transcendent. The key to the wonderful is in how we see the world around us, and ourselves in relation to it.

Of course. But why need it be an either-or experience? For a simple example, Christians have periods of doubt; wouldn't a religious person's experience of wonder in those periods be that of "non-theistic humility"?

Maybe doubt is one of the benefit of religion, in fact! Periods of doubt alternate with periods of faith so that a person can experience wonder from both directions?

Anyway, I think that really doesn't capture how people of faith actually think and feel; at least, it doesn't resonate with me. I believe I can feel a "non-theistic humility" as well as the next guy, because I've been there - and because in some ways I'm still there. I have no real picture of how the universe works, either, or of what God actually is.

I don't know if that makes sense or not. Just wanted to say that I don't think there's such a clear-cut difference between faith and not-faith; don't agnostics simply not know? Meaning, don't they wonder sometimes about God, and in that wondering, try to picture the universe both with and without?
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
I am not even sure I am hanging on my my fingernails anymore. My last little hope was the belief that God is a good God... whatever happens. To be honest I am not even sure I believe that anymore.

Auntie Doris x

Are you speaking for yourself or for others?

What is remarkable is that, by and large, people whose lives we imagine as miserable or horribly deprived don't want to die. Many of them even appear to be happier than we well-off western pointyheads are. If I suddenly found myself in their position, I would be tempted to do myself in, but they find enough value in their lives to want to go on. Mustn't we take this as their empirical judgment that God is more good than bad? This being the case, how rational is it for anyone more fortunate in his circumstances to disagree?

Now, of course, it could be that you are speaking for yourself, i.e. feeling suicidal-- but in that case, how much sense does it make to turn in your theistic model for a thoroughly secular one, when the latter will promptly suggest that your suicidal thoughts are probably the result of depression or other mental illness?
 
Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 
Thanks Adeodatus. I've been hanging on by my fingernails for a while now, and this thread is a help.

Having had a fairly startling conversion experience, I came to faith on a very experiential basis. I always assumed that my intellect would catch up.

Of late, I have started to admit that I cannot construct an internally consistent, rational, logical picture of Christianity that is also consistent with the concept of a "good" God, where the word good has any normal kind of meaning. I've read some attempts at this by more intelligent and theologically-educated people, and I'm not sure they're succeeding either.

However, I can't seem to stop believing, at some base level. Some of the time, at a concious level, I'd actually really like to walk away, but my hind-brain doesn't seem to play ball.

The only thing I've heard in ages which helps related to a verse in Corinthians:

"2 Corinthians 2:14
But thanks be to God, who always leads us in triumphal procession in Christ"

According to a sermon I heard a while ago, since Paul was a Roman citizen, it is likely he was referring here to the kind of "triumphs" the Romans used to have at the end of a big military campaign, where they would parade through the city of Rome, dragging the leaders of the savages they had conquered along behind them in chains. The suggestion was thus that we are not "triumphant" - we aren't the victors in the campaign - but that we are the captives in Christ's "Triumph".

That's me: a savage in chains, dragged along by this Christ from whom I cannot escape.

All the best,

Rachel.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
That's me: a savage in chains, dragged along by this Christ from whom I cannot escape.

All the best,

Rachel.

You and me both, famous rachel....

(That's a great image, BTW.)
 
Posted by the famous rachel (# 1258) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
That's me: a savage in chains, dragged along by this Christ from whom I cannot escape.

All the best,

Rachel.

You and me both, famous rachel....

(That's a great image, BTW.)

Hmmmm.... I might change my sig to this.... I'm getting bored of being a shrivelled appendix!

R.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by the famous rachel:
Hmmmm.... I might change my sig to this.... I'm getting bored of being a shrivelled appendix!

R.

Go for it!
 
Posted by Auntie Doris (# 9433) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
I am not even sure I am hanging on my my fingernails anymore. My last little hope was the belief that God is a good God... whatever happens. To be honest I am not even sure I believe that anymore.

Auntie Doris x

Are you speaking for yourself or for others?
er... myself... hence the use of 'I' in the sentence.

Auntie Doris x
 
Posted by bush baptist (# 12306) on :
 
Avalaon said:
quote:
Why worship the God you're given if you can build a better one? It just seems so contrary to the infinity of God that a finite human mind could create a better one so try it and judge it. You just might find God

I think I follow where this is coming from. I sometimes feel that I’m gambling my life on my picture of God – and I know well that it’s unlikely to be much like the reality, since I have no real hold-water theology in the academic sense, and know perfectly well there are logical contradictions in my picture – the gamble is that the reality is better than my patchwork picture. I'm holding on by my fingernails to the church, because I'm stubborn; holding on to God because you can't back out of a bet while the horses are still running.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by bush baptist:
I think I follow where this is coming from. I sometimes feel that I’m gambling my life on my picture of God – and I know well that it’s unlikely to be much like the reality, since I have no real hold-water theology in the academic sense, and know perfectly well there are logical contradictions in my picture – the gamble is that the reality is better than my patchwork picture. I'm holding on by my fingernails to the church, because I'm stubborn; holding on to God because you can't back out of a bet while the horses are still running.

Would this bet be called Pascal's Wager?
 
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :
 
Well as a gay man, I have walked away from church several times in my life in disgust. For some reason God keeps pulling me back into it. The bargain I have with God right now is to stay involved but I won't recommend that any other gay people go through it (not that I would turn anyone away.)

I am quite jealous of the majority of the population who doesn't give religion a second thought. I think my life would be a lot easier if I didn't have the ongoing struggle with my faith and my love-hate (and often hate-hate) relationship with the church.
 
Posted by bush baptist (# 12306) on :
 
Having just looked it up, yes, maybe -- I didn't know Pascal was Australian!
More seriously, no, I don't think so; his seems too cerebral and calculating for what I'm up to -- it's more like when I was deciding to get married -- the clerge asked me if I was certain that this man was the one I really wanted to spend my life with -- I said, no, but I just felt like taking a chance. Sort of, 'garn, give it a go, I dare ya!' said to myself. (and it's been great!)
 
Posted by bush baptist (# 12306) on :
 
Sorry about the double-post -- my last was in response to Mirrizin, asking
quote:
Would this bet be called Pascal's Wager?

And it was the marriage which has been great -- Christianity is a slog, and I'm so bad at it, and at human relationships generally, that I feel I shouldn't reveal I am one, in case I put people off. But hanging on...
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
I let go, when it became very clear to me that Christians are not even slightly better then anyone else and that Christianity was not helping me to be a better, freer or wiser person to any extent at all. Not even the ones who have been Christians for decades. It rather crushed by belief in an "indwelling Holy Spirit".

So I guess I committed the unforgivable sin too. Cos I stopped believing in the existance of the Holy Spirit.
 
Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
I don't blame you Papio. And don't be that dramatic... If only that was the unforgivable sin...

Christianity is just another religion. Statistically speaking, I don't see how closer it is to the Holy Spirit than other religions or secularism... Perhaps it is. After all, Christians are not that keen on statistical analysis of their collective holiness...

Not that holy men and women did not and do not beautify creation with their presence. They are still around. But they don't get to influence anybody; they don't get to be recognized by the people as such. Sad, but true.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
I don't have a problem with God, or with our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church, on the other hand... Like ToujoursDan, it seems that my relationship with the Church is often a love-hate relationship.

The problem with the Church, of course, is that it's made up of Christians. And, as Papio notes, Christians aren't any better than anyone else. We should be. We could be. But we aren't.

God in his mercy decided to let the wheat and the weeds grow together; he decided to let the sheep and the goats graze in the same pasture. Only the field seems to be mostly weeds, and it's mostly goats grazing in the pastures. It drives me crazy.

Except when I remember that I'm probably more goat than sheep myself. So I've got to be grateful that I'm allowed in the pasture at all -- if goats weren't allowed here, where would I be? But then I get angry again, because I feel as though, if everyone else would just get their act together, it wouldn't be so hard for me. I could learn to be a sheep, if I were in a flock of sheep.

And the whole flock, it seems, persists in acting like a bunch of goats. And there are days when I don't want to be with the goats. I don't want to associate with the goats. I want to find a flock of sheep.

But sheep are awfully hard to find.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
Dear Josephine,

On behalf of all goats, may I take offense at your post. What is wrong with goats? And conversely...

What is so wonderful about sheep?

When asked why she was going that way, the sheep replied that it was simply following the others; Why didn't it go it's own way? The sheep looked confused. Why don't you think for yourself? The sheep's brain (?) suffered a meltdown.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And, as Papio notes, Christians aren't any better than anyone else.

True

quote:
We should be.
No, you shouldn't be... unless you're something other than human

quote:
We could be.
No, you couldn't, unless...(see above)

quote:
But we aren't.
Precisely. Humans contain a myriad of emotions/ desires which are often irrelevant, sometimes deleterious (for ourselves or others) and occasionally of value. At best, we can perhaps enhance the advantageous aspects, mitigate those less useful, and utilise our experience to actually learn (a commodity which seems to be in short supply these days). Simply supressing desire is unhealthy; and continual self-chatisement was obviously designed by (for?) masochists.

Why don't we just accept being homo sapiens.

S-E
Not really a goat; just a mere human
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
On behalf of all goats, may I take offense at your post. What is wrong with goats? And conversely...

What is so wonderful about sheep?

The allusion is, of course, to Matthew 25.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

So, those who follow blindly and unthinkingly (which is the obvious conclusion to draw from the analogy) will be rewarded.
quote:
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
And those who have the temerity to demonstrate a little independent thinking will be punished.

Have I got it right?

S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
I think, in the context of the passage, goats are selfish bastards who do nothing for anyone else. Sheep are people who care for each other.

Though i agree that the constant comparison between people and sheep in the bible is sometimes troubling, given what I've come to understand about sheep...
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Christians aren't any better than anyone else. We should be. We could be. But we aren't.

Why should Christians be any better than anyone else?
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Sheep are people who care for each other.

Yes, I have often witnessed sheep bandaging another's wounds; taking food to those unable to obtain it for themselves; setting up funds for less fortunate sheep... [Paranoid]

Perhaps the most apt use of the analogy was in the film: 'The Magnificent Seven', when the bandit-chief proclaimed:
quote:
"If God did not want them fleeced: He wouldn't have made them sheep!"
S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Just going on the language that you didn't mention in your quote:
quote:
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

So...what does this passage have to do with literal sheep or goats?
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
So...what does this passage have to do with literal sheep or goats?

Precisely: In that sense it is a poor analogy, unless...

It is drawing a distinction between those who meekly follow blindly and unquestioningly ( which is the strongest characteristic of sheep) as opposed to those who demonstrate a little independence of spirit (the characteristic of goats - at least as opposed to sheep)

Else: Why use that analogy at all?

S-E
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Christians aren't any better than anyone else. We should be. We could be. But we aren't.

Why should Christians be any better than anyone else?
I didn't become a Christian because I wanted to be better than anyone else, I became a Christian because I realised that I needed to be better than what I was. The question I often ask myself is 'How can anyone's output be anything other than equal or less than their input?' because I just don't buy this self-manufactured self-progression nonsense. For this reason I think there is a sense in which we should let go; let go of trying and listen to the voice of redemption.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Is it better to have so much "independence of spirit" that you do nothing but butt heads with everyone around you, or to engage in a little cooperation?

Just to pit one extreme against another... [Snigger]
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
So, you would prefer no independence of spirit? - which is what the analogy seems to infer.

mirrizin

A simple question:

Why use that analogy at all?

S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
On the margins, I prefer cooperation over head-butting.

That's not the same as destroying independence of spirit, just as allowing a little independent spirit isn't the same as destroying our collective humanity. There is no need for this dichotomy, IMO.

If you want to pit extremes against each other, I'd rather live in commune than solo it in a wilderness.
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
Maybe somebody who's more of a Biblical scholar than me can comment on whether this has any validity at all or not ...

... but I think I once heard a theory that in 1st century Palestine sheep and goats would have been much harder to tell apart (sheep's wool left to grow longer, both sheep and goats wandering around getting very dusty and bedraggled, particular breeds in the area at the time, etc) and that that has some bearing on the story.

I'd be extremely cautious about reading modern connotations of 'sheep-like' behaviour into Biblical descriptions of people as sheep. Language and perceptions change. It's not at all obvious to me that a 1st century resident of Palestine would recognise the same connotations as a modern English-speaker does in a metaphor describing people as sheep.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Besides, aren't goats also herd animals?
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
I'd be extremely cautious about reading modern connotations of 'sheep-like' behaviour into Biblical descriptions of people as sheep. Language and perceptions change. It's not at all obvious to me that a 1st century resident of Palestine would recognise the same connotations as a modern English-speaker does in a metaphor describing people as sheep.

Exactly. If you want to know what our Lord meant by sheep and goats in this parable, it's easy to figure it out -- just read the parable. It's hard to get much plainer.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
What if he's not?

Oh, well. I've been wrong before. The worst case is I die having tried to be a good, integrated person for the wrong reasons, and missed sleeping in on a majority of my life's Sundays.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
I'd be extremely cautious about reading modern connotations of 'sheep-like' behaviour into Biblical descriptions of people as sheep.

On the contrary MST, from the contexts of its (as mirrizin has noted) frequent usage, the animals' behaviour and characteristics are virtually unchanged, else why draw the comparison between sheep and goats at all

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Besides, aren't goats also herd animals?

I never said they weren't!


quote:
If you want to pit extremes against each other, I'd rather live in commune than solo it in a wilderness.
Umm, that was you

Apparently goats are able to live in a herd whils't maintaining some independence of spirit (I can't say I know a lot about goats...or sheep come to that).

To be honest, if some deity said to me: "You can be a sheep or a goat"...

Personally, I'm a human

S-E
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
Well, hey, why don't we go the whole hog in mixing our metaphors and say that the Shepherd is a Lion. Poor sheep! But I suppose the goats wouldn't fare much better either. And what about mules, don't they get a mention?
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Is anyone else tired of Socratic-Enigma's straw men? I'm not a Christian because it's a panacea -- it's a terrible panacea. Like true love, it tears things apart in the process of rebuilding them. I'm not a Christian because it makes my life easier, it doesn't. I don't believe Heaven is promised, so that's not it. I don't think God fixes things for people who believe in him here on Earth, so it's not for any earthly benefit. It's not to give meaning in a crushing void of empty universe, because I think that life has meaning even if there's no God.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
And by the original story, the "goats" are described as people who didn't take care of the poor among them. They looked at themselves and went "Gee, we're ok. Nothing to worry about here. Screw the poor. We can take our lives and our salvations for granted."

And I'll admit that I'm reading the whole sheep/goat thing through a 21st century lens, not a first one. I think mountainsnowtiger made a pretty good point.

Have you ever tried to herd goats?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Laura:
Is anyone else tired of Socratic-Enigma's straw men?

Honestly? He's not the only one who uses them. Most atheists, IME, think that the faceless 1984-esque atrocity what he describes is Christianity. It's kind of sad, and goes back to by complaint about the church in general. What the fuck did we do cause this?
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Apparently goats are able to live in a herd whils't maintaining some independence of spirit (I can't say I know a lot about goats...or sheep come to that).



No kidding. It seems like everything you ever knew about sheep and goats you got from watching Saturday morning cartoons.

In real life, the biggest difference between goats and sheep is that goats stink. That's it. Honestly.

I've never noticed real goats to be more independent minded than real sheep, in spite of what you see in cartoons. In fact, it's easier to lead a goat around than a sheep. All you have to do is let the goat think you have something that it wants. It will follow you anywhere.

Sheep, on the other hand (at least the ones I know), will follow you only if they know you and trust you. And it's harder to earn a sheep's trust than it is to convince a goat that you have something that it wants.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
What the fuck did we do cause this?

Well, I think the church really did get into the platitudinous crap business - probably because of its intertwining with the culture.

And of course, for the past 100 years or, religion has in large part just become downright silly with its weird regressiveness. Lots of people can't stand it - they're very nervous about it, understandably - because of certain Recent Events and Political Movements and Raving Lunatics.

Christianity at this point needs a good scrubdown to get rid of all the layers of plat. crap, IMO. And it needs to let go of the reins of political power as well....

[ 27. June 2007, 20:08: Message edited by: TubaMirum ]
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
So, if you can't counter the argument, you fall back on the old chesnut of bemoaning 'ignorant atheists' etc...

Josephine,

As I pointed out in an earlier post, sheep don't make bandages etc.. The only purpose of the analogy seems to be that they follow blindly and unquestioningly.

The others appear to have given up trying to answer that (by 'straw men', I presume they mean, quoting the bible).

If that is not the authors's intent, then it is a bad analogy.

S-E
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
S-E,

If I talk about dogs, what d'you think of? Man's best friend? Cute puppy dogs on greetings cards? Loyal pooch who'll be your life-long friend? Yet in Old Testament times, dogs were considered dirty animals, with which one should have as little contact as possible.

Perceptions of the world and connotations of words change over time.

In both 1st century Palestine and parts of the modern world, a flock of sheep may be cared for by a shepherd - who looks after them, knows each one well, etc. Christ as a shepherd is an extremely important metaphor in the Gospels for those reasons - he looks after his flock, cares about them, knows each one, etc. I cannot think of any clear evidence which demonstrates that Gospel comparisons of Christians to sheep mean that Christians should be 'sheep-like' in the modern Western sense of that phrase. If you wish to argue that this is the case, you need either to point to a Bible verse which you think demonstrates this point*, or to provide other evidence (such as other literature from the time) suggesting that a typical 1st century Palestinian would understand 'sheep-like' to mean roughly what we in the 21st century understand it to mean (docile, unthinking, following a crowd without good reason, etc).

(*nb - you must not use the circular reasoning - currently, your argument seems to be along the lines of, "I think Christians are sheep-like (21st century connotations); in this Bible verse Christians are described as sheep; therefore Christians are sheep-like (21st century connotations)," - as an argument this really doesn't cut it.)
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
Just for the record,

I spent most of my school holidays on my Uncle's sheep farm and regularly helped out on a girlfriend's parents goat farm.

But I don't claim to be an expert.

S-E

[ 27. June 2007, 20:17: Message edited by: Socratic-enigma ]
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
As I pointed out in an earlier post, sheep don't make bandages etc.. The only purpose of the analogy seems to be that they follow blindly and unquestioningly.

The others appear to have given up trying to answer that (by 'straw men', I presume they mean, quoting the bible).

If that is not the authors's intent, then it is a bad analogy.

S-E

Or it is an analogy written at a different time in a different culture.

Where is the evidence in the story itself that sheep are being used to represent people who follow blindly and unquestioningly? This seems to me to be a 21st century English-speaking interpretation which you are forcing onto a 1st century text from the Middle East.
 
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Is anyone else tired of Socratic-Enigma's straw men?

I've been quietly screaming, "METAPHOR! THEY'RE USING METAPHOR!" -- like Captain Picard in the Darmok episode of ST:TNG.

S-E, please re-read the last paragraph of this post by Josephine. The sheep has to want to follow. OliviaG
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
MST,

Please, don't misrepresent me.

I have never described Christians as sheeplike.

We have been discussing a bible analogy.

If you have inferred that, you are wrong.

S-E

[ 27. June 2007, 20:23: Message edited by: Socratic-enigma ]
 
Posted by mountainsnowtiger (# 11152) on :
 
Apologies for any misrepresentation on my part.

So, taking into account your most recent post, your argument seems to be:

'This is what I think sheep are like (modern connotations - they follow blindly and unthinkingly). This Bible passage talks about some people being sheep. That means those people are like my impression of sheep (modern connotations - they follow blindly and unthinkingly).'

Where is your evidence that the 1st century Middle Eastern author and their original readers (/the person who told the story orally and their original hearers) shared your modern perceptions of what sheep are like?
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
MST

Thanks for the apology, and I appreciate the question but... I'm now late for work so if you can be patient.

OliviaG,

I've found a handfull of straw makes trust irrelevant.

[Biased]

S-E
 
Posted by Fauja (# 2054) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mountainsnowtiger:
modern connotations - they follow blindly and unthinkingly

Well, this might be a false connotation but it is nevertheless something that sheep could be accused of. What can sheep see that goats can't? To what extent does a sheep need to think things through if it has a shepherd that can be trusted?
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
To Whom it May Concern, I just started a Kerygmania thread on the subject of metaphors that go baa.
 
Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Christians aren't any better than anyone else. We should be. We could be. But we aren't.

Why should Christians be any better than anyone else?
Because you supposedly have the Holy Spirit to "sanctify" you, unlike the rest of us.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Sanctification isn't like deodorant, Papio. It can't make you a better person all by itself. Alas, as in the old joke, the lightbulb has to want to be changed.

S-E: When I say straw-men, I mean your little digs about "why not just be satisfied with what there apparently is" and "but isn't it more exciting in a way to think just Bach wrote those things"? Sure, whatever -- you're implying that a Christian believes in God because he isn't satisfied that the world is WYSIWYG. I'm okay with that possibility, just as I am with the possibility that Bach is just a really talented guy. Indeed, I don't think positing a creator God takes anything away from Bach or the sunset. I like these things either way.

I think you think you're asking intelligent "leading questions", but they don't go anywhere, because you don't really understand the real Why of faith, at least as an intelligent Christian sees it. It hasn't got anything to do with rewards on earth or heaven forever. It has to do with a way of life that, however ludicrous you may find it, we believe is worth following. And also that following that path does not require one give up one's brain or one's sense of natural wonder.

I concede freely that, if you accept the materialist philosophical assertion that all that is Real is what can be seen and empirically tested, the whole God thing falls apart. But I see no reason to accept the materialist philosophy any more than the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is equally a philosophical and essentially solipsistic construct.

So there. [Razz]
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Re: sheep and goats. There are things even sheep won't eat.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Laura:
Re: sheep and goats. There are things even sheep won't eat.

Like cigarettes?
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
quote:
Originally Posted by Laura:
Re: sheep and goats. There are things even sheep won't eat.

Like cigarettes?
Actually, I think Laura may have been referring to baloney

But I must say that I enjoyed your previous post Laura. It was a measured and intelligent response and almost complimentary to my contributions (OK, that's stretching it!).

quote:
I think you think you're asking intelligent "leading questions", but they don't go anywhere, because you don't really understand the real Why of faith, at least as an intelligent Christian sees it. It hasn't got anything to do with rewards on earth or heaven forever. It has to do with a way of life that, however ludicrous you may find it, we believe is worth following.
Dear,
(I trust you won't mind the appellation) [Biased]

You forget that I am a mere male; to suggest that you think that I think, that I think... in increasing orders of magnitude - I have sufficient difficulty in harnessing one thought at a time - I am flattered, but you grant me a far greater cognitive ability than I actually possess.

Can I just say that I have never maligned any Christian's way of life; it is their beliefs I have difficulty in understanding - but as for the people themselves; I have great respect for most of the Christians I know (and those with whom I interact here) and the way they deport themselves in their daily lives.

But I am intrigued as to what the real Why of faith is. Not fear; or habit; or comfort; or a ready answer to every question; or something to fill the void?

Please, enlighten me.

S-E

PS You must excuse my ignorance of acronyms but in answer to your question: "WHY SWIG?", I think it's because it's the best way to drink beer.

PPS

mirrizin,

I appreciate the invitation (as one of the concernees?) but really my initial post was only made to come to the defence of the poor, humble (and much maligned) goat.

S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
The cigarettes thing was after a chat I had with someone else IRL. Her friend works at a meat processing plant.

Apparently goats love cigarettes. It's how they lead them to slaughter. You give the goat a cigarette, show him another one, and he'll follow you to the arctic and beyond for a nibble.

Sheep, on the other hand, can't be made to eat the things. They only eat grass. They're extremely finicky eaters, in fact, as they're extremely finicky in general; they won't lie down until their circumstances are absolutely calm. They won't drink from water until it's perfectly still. They aren't happy until it's done right. It puts a certain psalm in an entirely new light when you realize this.

So sheep do possess a certain common sense. They're not really that bright, but come to think of it, neither are goats. The two species seem to be on relatively equal footing on the IQ scale. Also, when called, the sheep come. Goats are harder to deal with in general, because they form cliques and packs and tribes within themselves, hierarchies, etc. It's as if they think they're special or something...

I think the comparison made (and also, by various reasons, in the middle east sheep and goats were pretty close to identical) is that goats are stupid and selfish whereas sheep are just plain stupid. As much as it grates on individualism, there's something to be said for being a good little social animal instead of a stubborn reprobate (though I'll admit that some of my nearest and dearest are stubborn reprobates).

Eh, I'm just trying to defend the lowly and under-appreciated sheep. As a defender of goats, I'm sure you understand the need to stand up for poor overused allegories.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Back to S-E's serious question later, since we're on the subject of goats. Goats may be smarter or dumber than sheep but it's hard to tell because they're so stubborn. It's like the cats/dogs thing. I read a scientist writing about the intelligence issue vis-a-vis dogs and cats and said basically, we'll never really know how smart cats are because it's hard to construct a lab test that cats are sufficiently motivated to take. One day, they might be tempted by tuna, but usually not. They don't want to run your damned maze. Go get a dog if you want that. [Big Grin] That's what goats are like. Though I didn't know they liked cigarettes.

eta: to S-E: nobody but my mother (and my husband when being ironic) calls me "dear". [Disappointed] Try something else if you want further reflections on the Why of faith. Like "ma'am". Or just "Laura".

[ 28. June 2007, 18:22: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Actually, that's a good point. Why do people sneer at sheep, and at the same time adore dogs? Dogs are pack animals, too, and go wherever their owners go; they can't stand to be left alone for even a minute. My stupid mutt - I adore him - is always underfoot, terrified I'm going to leave him forever, I guess.

Why are sheep so terrible and dogs so great? 'Cause dogs can give the paw for a Snausage?
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Well dogs certanly are smarter. You'd never see a dog starve to death while there was food in the next field!
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well dogs certanly are smarter. You'd never see a dog starve to death while there was food in the next field!

So it's not actually the following thing; it's the stupid thing. It's intelligism.

(BTW, a friend told me he loved dogs and hated cats for an interesting reason: that if you died and fell down at home, your dog would lie there beside you and starve to death out of loyalty - while your cat would, well, you know....)
 
Posted by Hooker's Trick (# 89) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
[Because you supposedly have the Holy Spirit to "sanctify" you, unlike the rest of us.

It doesn't follow that that makes Christians better. Christianity is about salvation. Salvation doesn't necessarily make on morally, ethically or even aesthetically better. And one find perfectly good (one might say superior) moral, ethical or aesthetic systems to follow to make one "better", but presumably the Christian is a Christian in order to be saved. Morality, ethics and Beauty/Goodness may be (should be) by-products of this but not necessarily so.

And if one is a Christian for some other reason that one connected to salvation, I would submit one is essentially a Christian because one enjoys a good Stanford canticle at Choral Evensong.

(which is, incidentally, my answer to the OP: Choral Evensong. Even if it's all made up and I rot in the ground for all eternity, at least I had Choral Evensong. And I generally leave Choral Evensong pretty sure it's not all made up).
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
Sheep? Goats? Dogs? Cats?

"When you're hanging on by your fingernails..." Buy a pet?

Laura,

Yes, it was a serious question; although this thread appears to have become somewhat side-tracked.

quote:
They don't want to run your damned maze.
Once, when I was constructing a bookcase, next-door's kitten paid a visit and had a wonderful time running around and under the cardboard in which the furniture had arrived. For a few days I arranged the cardboard into a series of tunnels and platforms, which 'Minnie' delighted in exploring - its head occasionally popping up from unexpected openings with a wonderfully bemused expression.
Tragically, its favorite playground was the road...

I apologise for my inappropriate term of address; would MEO be more suitable?

And I look forward to your answer (on the serious question that is)

S-E

MEO? No, I was not alluding to a feline utterence: most esteemed one -
However, I promise that in all our future interactions I shall refer to you simply as Laura. [Smile]
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
presumably the Christian is a Christian in order to be saved. Morality, ethics and Beauty/Goodness may be (should be) by-products of this but not necessarily so.



I suppose it depends on what you mean by salvation. If you understand salvation as the process by which we become by grace what God is by nature, then you would expect that, in general, people in the process of being saved would show some evidence of it. The fact that, in general, and on the average, we show so little evidence of it is, to me, discouraging.

And, if I'm brutally honest, my reasons for attending Church don't all relate to salvation anyway. Some do. And it's probably the salvation-related reasons that keep me there. But there are other reasons to go to Church -- to see friends, to visit with people you care about that you don't see for the rest of the week.

At least that's the case for me. And since I some of my reasons for attending Church are social rather than soteriological, when I find that I don't connect socially with many of the people there, for various reasons, I begin to wonder if it's worth it.

Not if the Christian faith is. I don't have any doubt about that. But Church, rather than being a place of warmth and nurturing and safety and such, sometimes feels like a minefield.
 
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Okay, for all of you (and there have been many) who say that when you let go, Jesus and/or God caught you, what does that mean? What do you mean by "let go" and what do you mean by "caught" or "didn't let go of me"?

When I say "let go" I mean abandoning all pretense of believing something that I don't believe, and ceasing all effort to convince myself that I really do believe it after all. That's clearly not what the rest of you mean.

My wife let go last year and she said exactly this kind of thing. To herit turns out none of it ever had been real. She wanted it to be true, she wanted to keep family together and now..well it is time to be honest. She simply doesn't and never did believe and she found it a great relief to stop pretending.
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hooker's Trick:
my answer to the OP: Choral Evensong. Even if it's all made up and I rot in the ground for all eternity, at least I had Choral Evensong. And I generally leave Choral Evensong pretty sure it's not all made up.

Which is one very good reason why, no matter how many other services the church experiments with, they should never give up on Choral Evensong.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
See here. It happens to a lot of people. And the third collect in Evensong says it all for the many many of us who have been there.

"Lighten our darkness we beseech Thee O Lord".

Hard to pray that prayer when you're close to concluding that the darkness may be all there is, and the Light you thought you have seen an illusion. But that's where its at sometimes.

In her blog linked to the Jonathan Edwards article, I think Libby Purvis is right to point to the dangers of hanging everything on a particular kind of conversion theology and its associated ecclesiology. But its a door through which I entered. From experience, I now know the dangers very well and have worked through them. But I don't think I would be here now without finding God through that door. There are many of us who can say that.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hard to pray that prayer when you're close to concluding that the darkness may be all there is, and the Light you thought you have seen an illusion.

But may not the 'darkness' be an illusion as well?
My world is multi-coloured: And whils't there may be moments of blackness; there are also times of blinding illumination.

Is Jonathon Edwards any the less happy because of his loss of faith? Perhaps; and he may also have moments of greater enjoyment now that it is not coloured by an over-arching prism which obscured his view of reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
If you understand salvation as the process by which we become by grace what God is by nature, then you would expect that, in general, people in the process of being saved would show some evidence of it. The fact that, in general, and on the average, we show so little evidence of it is, to me, discouraging.

But isn't that the problem? You expect people to be something other than what they are?
To be inhuman in fact?

If you don't view people as 'sinners'; the whole 'We're not worthy' thing; but simply as beings which have evolved with a complexity of desires which are sometimes advantageous; occasionally deleterious; and generally benign then one's view of the world takes on a whole new complexion.

From my perspective there are no 'worthy' or 'unworthy' individuals - there are only people: and as far as I'm concerned they all have worth.


And this view is flawed because?

S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic-Enigma:
From my perspective there are no 'worthy' or 'unworthy' individuals - there are only people: and as far as I'm concerned they all have worth.

Strongly agreed. I just think that this "worth" is in many cases potential, not assumed. All men and women are created equal, but what they do from their relatively equal states is another matter entirely.

And I think everybody screws up sometimes (which to me, is all being a sinner really means). That's just human. It's not, IMO, supposed to be an excuse for guilt tripping folks or building hierarchies of the saved. It's just accepting people as they are, meritorious parts, deleterious parts, and all.
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
Speaking for myself, I'd say religion is for us poor sinners who hope for and ask for God's help so that we don't get all twisted up and maimed in life (twisted and maimed usually by our own hands, BTW). Christians have an example of this to work with, and we - hopefully - operate on the "Imitation of Christ" as a first principle.

I can only speak to Christianity because it's all I know.

And that's all there is to it, really, IMO. If there are people who can avoid the (self-)twisting and (self-)maiming on their own, more power to them.

(Of course, a lot of us like the music and colorful processions, too.)
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Speaking for myself, I'd say religion is for us poor sinners who hope for and ask for God's help so that we don't get all twisted up and maimed in life (twisted and maimed usually by our own hands, BTW). Christians have an example of this to work with, and we - hopefully - operate on the "Imitation of Christ" as a first principle.

I can only speak to Christianity because it's all I know.

And that's all there is to it, really, IMO. If there are people who can avoid the (self-)twisting and (self-)maiming on their own, more power to them.

(Of course, a lot of us like the music and colorful processions, too.)

I just wanted to correct something I wrote above: that we are "twisted and maimed usually by our own hands."

"Usually" should be replaced by "often"; sometimes people are harmed simply by dint of who they are or where they happen to live - under which tyrant or oppressive economic system - or because of the prejudice of others. Sometimes they're born with disability of some kind. Sometimes life just plain treats people like crap, and people get messed up because of one thing or another in this list.

And that's another answer to "why faith," BTW. Many people depend on it - and always have - to get them through otherwise impossible situations: slaves in America before the civil war; poor people everywhere; the sick, the destitute, the mentally ill, the addicted, the friendless, the lost. God grant that it always be so.

I'm tired of being told by the privileged that we're all supposed to quit "behaving religiously" now. Atheism is a luxury.

As somebody said elsewhere: Shut up, Dawkins.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMiram:
Atheism is a luxury.

As somebody said elsewhere: Shut up, Dawkins.

Would you prefer people such as myself to be banned from the boards?

Or perhaps restricted to only posting on non-religious topics?

Is Faith so fragile - that it cannot withstand even a meagre scrutiny?

And because it provides succour to some, we should over-look the prejudice, oppression and promotion of ignorance that it also engenders?

My unbelief is neither a luxury, nor a necessity: It simply is. I can no more believe in God than in fairies.

Do Christians need to be cossetted from those with views different to themselves?

I have been told that I only attack 'Straw men'; and so I am waiting to be shown a REAL man.

I'm still waiting.

S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
quote:
Originally Posted by Socratic-Enigma:
Would you prefer people such as myself to be banned from the boards?

Nobody has suggested that.
quote:
Or perhaps restricted to only posting on non-religious topics?
Of course not.
quote:
Is Faith so fragile - that it cannot withstand even a meager scrutiny?
Mine's been withstanding your scrutiny, as well as the scrutiny of an entire pack of dittohead atheists on another board. I haven't really persuaded them, and they haven't really persuaded me. It gets really dull after a while...same arguments, same refutations, same arguments, same refutations... [brick wall]

You can argue your particular brand of logic until you're blue in the face, but if you don't know how to actually be persuasive to people who aren't already of your mindset, it doesn't work.

Also, faith is trust. It's an emotional thing, not really a logical thing, which is one thing I think atheists have trouble with. You can't touch it because I simply don't care what you think, and I don't put a lot of stock in intellectual constructs. Life is a lot more than intellectualizing everything in existence into a pigeonhole.
quote:
And because it provides succor to some, we should over-look the prejudice, oppression and promotion of ignorance that it also engenders?
That's your straw man. You look at the most oppressive acts of humanity throughout history, and assume it's a theological issue. I look at it, and see a human issue. Wiping religion out of the world is not going to change the fact that some people are just mean and some people will do anything to further their own agendas. If anything, they'll make up a new ideological excuse for their rampant assholery.

The religious people I associate with are very, very fervently anti-oppression, anti-prejudice, and anti-ignorance.

Surely, you have been on this board long enough to realize that not all Christians, in fact I'd say many Christians, are not Jerry Falwell wannabes, Pat Robertson idolizers, and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads.
quote:
My unbelief is neither a luxury, nor a necessity: It simply is. I can no more believe in God than in fairies.
Good for you. My faith simply is, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with fairies.
quote:
Do Christians need to be cosseted from those with views different to themselves?
No, it's just that most Christians have more important things to do than argue with people. Also, our notions of "Christianity" are two completely different logical constructs.
quote:
I have been told that I only attack 'Straw men'; and so I am waiting to be shown a REAL man.
I'm right here.
quote:
I'm still waiting.
For what? All of us to give in and kow tow to your logical superiority? To prove God to you when you have no desire or apparent need to have your views changed? For the letters "I EXIST" to appear in flames in the sky so that you can have your personal miracle?

You're in for a long wait in any case...
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMiram:
Atheism is a luxury.

As somebody said elsewhere: Shut up, Dawkins.

Would you prefer people such as myself to be banned from the boards?

Or perhaps restricted to only posting on non-religious topics?

Is Faith so fragile - that it cannot withstand even a meagre scrutiny?

And because it provides succour to some, we should over-look the prejudice, oppression and promotion of ignorance that it also engenders?

My unbelief is neither a luxury, nor a necessity: It simply is. I can no more believe in God than in fairies.

Do Christians need to be cossetted from those with views different to themselves?

I have been told that I only attack 'Straw men'; and so I am waiting to be shown a REAL man.

I'm still waiting.

S-E

Hit a nerve there, did I? Interesting to me that that's the only part of my post you chose to quote.....
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
mirrizin

My comments are not necessarily (or even primarily) directed at those who respond: There may be someone, possibly just a visitor; who is wondering whether 'unbelief' is a legitimate position - and what are the implications.

And my concerns with religion are not simply historical (although as the adage suggests:'one ignores history at one's peril' - it was interesting that TM mentioned the solace that religion brought to African American slaves - conveniently ignoring the fact that the 'owners' utilised the sanction of the Bible to justify their oppression. This is pertinent because I'm currently having a discussion with some young men on another board, who are vainly trying to defend the Bible's position)

Leaving aside for a moment, the crimes agains't human rights which distinguish many Islamic regimes (although they alone justify the attacks on superstition) -

Today; In a significant number of American States, it is impossible for a young woman to obtain a safe, legal, medically supervised abortion - because of religious persecution.
Similarly: In many of those same states there is limited (or for many in small towns no) access to birth control measures, because the Pharmacist/drug store proprietor has decided that it is immoral and agains't Christian principles.

Despite the fact that it's use is approved in Australia, it is impossible for a woman in Australia to obtain RU486, because our 'Catholic' Health Minister has allowed the perception to arise that any drug company that imports it will suffer accordingly.

Currently, millions of American children are being taught that evolution is a myth; and disturbingly also many in Australia and I suspect in the UK.

When I returned to University in the mid-nineties, I was bewildered at how many intelligent young people had a 'Creationist' view of the world - this had been unknown when I first attended in the late '70s.

And the continuing prejudice / persecution of homosexuals has no religious basis?


But this is not your Christianity: Yours is an all-encompassing, unprejudiced, humanist doctrine - to which no compassionate open-minded free-thinker can possibly object?

But if one superstition is legitimate then all are: which our High Court recently concluded after a series of cases stretching over 20 years involving the 'Church (sic) of Scientology'.

And if it is the 'Stawman' form of Christianity which is rapidly expanding; then it is not possible to attack it, without challenging your version as well (to be honest I find the 'Conservative Evangelical' position easier to understand - there is something inherently contradictory about the 'Liberal Christian' who happily jettisons large slabs of the Bible because they are 'inconvenient')

And no, I'm not for a moment suggesting that we prevent or impede evangelising: On the contrary, that's why many of 'us Atheists' have entered the fray - the 'Live and let Live' approach has only seen an increase in the promotion of ignorance.

quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
...because I simply don't care what you think

That saddens me: I have a respect for, and interest in all the comments on the threads in which I am involved (and their progenitors) whether I agree with them or not.

And I have never thought of you as anything other than a real man (it was after all, simply a descriptor of arguments [Biased] )

I look forward to our future interactions.

S-E

P.S. Have you read Dawkins' TGD ?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
This will only be the 7,340th time I've said this in my life, but the 20th Century was the bloodiest of all time - wall-to-wall with massacres, most of which occurred in explicitly atheist states: the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, etc. Which I suppose goes to show that human beings can be vicious and unfeeling bastards, both with religion and without it - so what was your point again?

My point is that people who are oppressed and distressed often lean on faith for support; perhaps you've never been in that place yourself and can't identify. (It is quite interesting to me that the most ardent atheists all seem to be highly-educated upper-class Western white males.) It's true that slaveholders argued for slavery using religion; they also argued for it using economic rationales. So is economics intrinsically evil, then? Again, what's your point?

I have to repeat my opinion that in earlier eras and in different circumstances you would, along with almost everybody else, have indeed believed in fairies (or God, or gods).

What's really annoying to me is the Elmer Gantryesque huckstering for atheism - the (false) assurances that "someone will catch us when we fall," etc. If you'd just started out by criticizing the excesses of religion, you'd have found most of us would have agreed with you readily. What bothers me most, though - and perhaps it bothers others as well - is that this thread was started by someone who was asking for help in finding his faith again. It really seems that you don't care much about that, and it's not quite kosher, I'd say, to go trolling for converts on such a thread.

And really: you might note that most of us are having a fine time debating with Dogwonderer and other nonbelievers; the difference is that he's straightforward and starts his own threads when he wants to talk about his atheism.

(You do realize that we've heard all these arguments a million times, don't you? It's not anything new; the world is a hard place, and people can be bastards. Buck up, dear. And again: please refrain from using gay people to make your anti-religion points. Not interesting.)
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
TubaMirum said
quote:
... I don't want to derail a thread whose topic is religious belief and how to hold onto it...
I thought it was more like "why do you bother to hang on".
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
HOSTS: I do not intend to turn this into a dead horse thread, honest!

EVERYONE ELSE: Please do not turn this into a discussion of dead horse material. You know where to go. Any mention I make of homosexuality or abortion is merely to answer Socratic-Enigma's post as examples and answers to his questions.

Thanks. That said...

Socratic Enigma:

Here's some thoughts. Take them as you will.

Atheism is certainly a legitimate belief. I have no desire to persecute, decry, blast, mock, etc. atheists. Hell, with regard to fundamentalism and its ills, I can sympathize. In some ways, I sympathize more strongly with atheists than I do with what I refer to, somewhat facetiously, as fundagelical Christians.

If you actually read the bible, it's about freedom from oppression, not oppression, and using it to justify oppression, to my eyes, usually requires a very, very warped reading of the biblical text.

Whenever Paul mentioned slaves respecting their masters, he would follow up by saying masters should be kind to their slaves and remember that God is master over all. To use that as an excuse to justify a rather perverse (certainly peculiar) institution in the states was, quite frankly, an abomination.

Not to mention that Greco-Roman or Hebrew slave traditions were completely different animals than the American variety.

And on that note, I think a sufficiently mean and ideologically fixated person could turn any ideology into a weapon, if given enough power and enough angry and/or frightened people willing to listen. That's not a uniquely Christian problem, as I like to say, that's a human problem, and if the church does its job (HA!), it should try to do something about that. In some places, I believe that it does.

I'm not Muslim, so I'm not going to speak for Islam anymore than to say I live near an Muslim neighborhood and so far, nothing has blown up. I've also shopped at some Muslim-owned stores and found the people to be very gracious and generally friendly.

Abortion is an issue I'm very wary of. I personally don't like the idea of having an abortion as a mere matter of convenience, but I also don't think it's the government's job to meddle. I have this weird idea that a person's life is their responsibility, and I don't think it's the government's job to rob them of that responsibility. Also, as a church, we should be there to pick up the pieces, and if we don't, [Mad] sums my opinion up nicely.

The persecution of homosexuals has a very flimsy biblical basis at best. My spin on that is that what Paul was writing about was Greco Roman sexuality. Comparing modern homosexuality to Greco Roman hedonism, to my eyes (based on some classics majors I knew in college) like comparing modern prison systems to a Nazi death camp.

Pedophilia was very, very popular in ancient Greece and Rome, for instance. It was great to penetrate. Temple prostitution was also very common, and I do think prostitution is generally unethical, possibly because I have sympathy with women who get stuck in those kinds of straits.

Taking what I suspect was Paul's attitude towards that and applying it to modern, more or less monogamous homosexual couples is ridiculous.

My Christianity is basically on the Micah model of doing justice, loving kindness, and walking humbly with God. Love thy neighbor, love God. Take care of people because that's what we're here to do.

Then again, I'm also a bleeding heart liberal, so go figure.

Legitimate? Depends on what you mean by legitimate. I naturally think that Christianity has a better system than other religions (and yes, I'm biased, but I have my reasons too), but I don't think that's the same as saying they aren't "legitimate." People have the right to worship as they choose, as long as they're not harming anyone.

I think there are very biblically consistent ways to tear down fundagelical Christianity, a few of which I mentioned above. Ultimately, we're not here to condemn, we have no way of knowing who the "elect" are (assuming such exist), and Christ didn't come so we could declare ourselves gods and lord it over everyone around us. We're here to forgive and to heal, not to condemn and punish. It's honestly a very biblically consistent attitude.

I don't jettison any part of the bible. I will admit that it's not a literal history, and I will admit that it has to be read within context, but I'm really happy to say the whole thing is useful.

For instance, I actually really enjoy reading Psalm 137, for instance. It gives a really wonderful lesson on why you shouldn't oppress people, and it's really a very eloquent demonstration of what it feels like to be driven face-down into the dirt. It might not be a pleasant thought, but it's true and it's a useful reading.

When I say "I don't care what you think," it doesn't mean I disregard you or your thoughts. It means I've heard this argument before and it doesn't really phase me. I just think you have a very jaded and narrow (though honest and justified) notion of what religion means.

Ya know what's funny? So do I. That's why I have faith in God. As young as I am, I've known too many people. The universe is about more than us.

I'm a big fan of live and let live. I'd be more than happy to help you put another nail in the coffin of neo-con fundamentalism.

I just don't want to see my own church get torn down in the process.

And FWIW, I think the days of the Bushes are numbered. We've seen what this new fundamentalism can do, and it's fruits are most bitter indeed.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
My unbelief is neither a luxury, nor a necessity: It simply is. I can no more believe in God than in fairies.
That's just because you've never seen a fairy.

At this point, asking me to not believe in G-d is akin to asking me to believe that I'm a brain in a vat; it contradicts everything I think I know about the world and how to get around in it. I know that isn't true of a lot of people - and I don't expect them to privilege my experience over theirs (and I assume yours). But it's still true, and why many of these conversations don't tend to go anywhere... My belief is definitely not about fear; or habit; or comfort; or a ready answer to every question; or something to fill the void. It's about responding to something that has given every indication of being real.
 
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?


(* For me, at the moment, any day when I've read the Church Times.)

An empty tomb and no one could come up with a body. The apostles' testimony and unwavering commitment after seeing Jesus get done in. One of them was a tax collector. No one's going to hang out with a tax collector to promote a lie about something that isn't even going to put dough in their pocket.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
That's just because you've never seen a fairy.

Or their spoor; or discarded clothing; or shedded wings; or footprints; or the fact that to even surmise their existence is contradictory to everything we know from biology.

quote:
At this point, asking me to not believe in G-d is akin to asking me to believe that I'm a brain in a vat; it contradicts everything I think I know about the world and how to get around in it.
I don't see how - if you were a brain in a vat (or a character in "The Matrix"), what you know about the world and how you get around; would in any way contradict it. How would you know? That is the problem of induction.
At best we can only assume that the world is as we perceive it. I have always thought that the best defence is 'Ockham's Razor' and evolution (that the perception of the world which most closely correlates to how the world actually is will be selected for). William provides the reasoning and Charles the explanation.
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Whenever Paul mentioned slaves respecting their masters, he would follow up by saying masters should be kind to their slaves and remember that God is master over all. To use that as an excuse to justify a rather perverse (certainly peculiar) institution in the states was, quite frankly, an abomination.

So, slavery is alright as long as you're kind to your slave? Are you sure you're not masquerading on another board as a computer programming student from Sydney?

My position is pretty simple: Owning another human being is abhorrent. Full Stop. Always was, is and will be.

quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
I thought it was more like "why do you bother to hang on".

I questioned whether my contributions were appropriate before/ and after my initial posts.

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Posted by Socratic-enigma:
What is preventing you - fear? Simple anxiety; or merely habit?

Good question. Very good question....
Now I realise that simply starting a thread does not convey any proprietorship - but surely their comments are worthy of a certain respect. If Adeodatus had simply wanted affirmation, then surely he would have started this thread in Ecclesiantics or Kergymania.

Purgatory
our space for serious debate (yes, really)


And if someone is hanging on by their fingernails are they not entitled to hear from someone who has 'let go' and the possible consequences: and the questions which led them to such a decision?

And I did only re-enter the thread after someone maligned a poor, innocent and (largely) defenceless goat.

Now who was that? [Biased]

S-E
 
Posted by Jimmy B (# 220) on :
 
quote:
S-E:
But I must say that I enjoyed your previous post Laura. It was a measured and intelligent response and almost complimentary to my contributions (OK, that's stretching it!).

Er, just out of interest... and because my irony detector is malfunctioning, is the humourous twist to this statement that you recognise your own intellectual feebleness and the sub-par nature of your contributions compared to Laura's, or were you really implying that Laura's responses are 'almost (at a stretch) as good as my own'?

[Confused]

quote:
S-E:
to be honest I find the 'Conservative Evangelical' position easier to understand - there is something inherently contradictory about the 'Liberal Christian' who happily jettisons large slabs of the Bible because they are 'inconvenient'

(My bold) Yes, Laura (at top of page). I am tired of S-E's strawmen.

S-E, I'm just saying this 'cos I am kind, right. No-one else commented on the above bold. When things like that go by and no-one says anything, what that means is, your credibility and academic rigour is so low that people can't be bothered engaging you any more.

Just sayin'.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
I don't jettison any part of the bible. I will admit that it's not a literal history, and I will admit that it has to be read within context, but I'm really happy to say the whole thing is useful.

I, for one, do not consider mirrizin no-one; on the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for his opinions, and value my interactions with him.

Laura,

When next you despatch one of your eunuchs, can you at least ensure that they have the good grace to actually read the thread before passing comment(or was that wind).

S-E
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
For those interested, I've started a Kerygmania thread on the "biblical" institution of slavery.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I can't say I've read the whole of this thread (and I gave up more or less completely after it moved onto sheep and goats) but personally I've found it the most moving thing I've read on the boards since Fields of Gold (or possibly the sadly lost Speaking in Tongues thread in Heaven).

I could say similar things to others who have posted but for now I too will go with the famous rachel

quote:
a savage in chains, dragged along by this Christ from whom I cannot escape
and am inspired by the thought of getting to meet other savages here when we all eventually get to the end of the parade, "wake up after Thy likeness", and are "satisfied".
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
And I did only re-enter the thread after someone maligned a poor, innocent and (largely) defenceless goat.

Now who was that?

That would have been me. And I am heartily sorry that I used that particular metaphor, and didn't stick with the wheat and the tares, because your inability to see the point of what was being said over the wall of your own ignorance and prejudice has derailed what was a thought-provoking and moving thread.
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
This really should go on. I can't contribute anything useful at the moment but I'm getting one helluva lot from pages 1-3.
 
Posted by hild (# 6042) on :
 
I'm definitely very fingertippish at the moment. And have been for some time now.

I don't want to go into the whys and wherefores, but it's reassuring in a way to know there are so many others in similar situations.

I can't not believe at all; I can't continue believing as I used to. I have a wonderful husband who still believes very strongly, and I can very much sympathise with those who hang on because they don't want to hurt or worry those they love. It becomes very hard to talk with them about faith in this situation.

To those who are getting into the inevitable, repetitive arguments: yes, we have heard these ideas before. But feel free to continue posting, and I shall feel free to skim your posts.

To those who are, like me, not sure where to go from here, or how, or if it's possible to let go (or find a way of hanging on a little longer): thank you for your company. Please let us know how you get on. I shall try to do the same.

Hild.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Laura,

When next you despatch one of your eunuchs, can you at least ensure that they have the good grace to actually read the thread before passing comment(or was that wind).

S-E

I'm sure a host will be happy to point out that calling another poster names is a violation of the third commandment. While I appreciate the PM apology, I think it's JimmyB you owe one to. You can dispute his premises here without calling him names.

Anyway, I haven't got any minions that I'm aware of.

Regarding Occam's or Ockham's razor, which everyone loves to toss around, as a logical maxim it has the risk of being too reductive. Was it Einstein who said that explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler? The problem with Occam's razor is the assumption behind it, which was enunciated by others before Occam as well (like Aquinas) Why is the simpler theory more likely to be true? There is a fairly complex philosophical history behind that principle.

But let's take one example of a situation in which Occam's razor might lead one the wrong way: in medicine, application of Occam's razor might drive the diagnostician to pick a rare disease that covers all of a patient's set of symptoms, yet as Hickam's dictum states, "patents can have as many diseases as they damned well please". In medicine, it's generally far more likely that a patient with a constellation of symptoms has a combination of common conditions rather than one rare one.

Anyway, the point is, Occam's razor might be a useful assist, but it isn't logically dispositive. And remember that many of us are not making logically comparable claims about the same phenomenon, which is the circumstance in which Occam's razor is useful.

To pare down the heart of the disagreement between Atheism and Faith of some sort into two theories which can be compared is difficult. I suppose the central positions would be:

1) there is a God or gods who do something, (because there are many teachings about gods) and

2) there is no God of any sort.

How do we apply Occam's razor to this? Both are equally unprovable assertions with rich philosophical histories. You can only get to Occam's razor if you inject other assumptions to the statements above - a false dichotomy like arguing that accepting the existence of God means you have to reject modern science. You could, however, go within a particular tradition and select the Resurrection and have an argument about that, and of course, Christians themselves disagree about what happened that day.

Also, the question of Bad Things Christians Do is entirely logically irrelevant to whether there is truth in its teachings. So all that other stuff is just irrelevant. Like your assertion that religion is bad because there are women in South Dakota who can't get an abortion. In a democracy, the availability of abortion is dependent upon the law and the willingness of health care providers to provide the service in that place. It may be religious conviction which compels citizens to oppose abortion legally, just as it was religious conviction that compelled many opponents of American chattel slavery and also the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 70s. That's the way democracy works. It is also illegal for public schools to teach creationism, at least in the US, but because we don't have thought police, parents can teach their children stupid things if they want to.

Anyway, that's a really long post.

I'm off to bake cookies. I have a theory about whether it's better to use brown or white sugar or a combination of both that I have to test empirically.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Oh, and a general note to our latest atheist shipmate:

I think you'll find that some of the irritation at some of the cheaper shots atheists make on this board is that we do this quite a bit. We have a number of atheist members and about every quarter we seem to pick up an evangelical atheist who leaps aboard, to show us all with brilliance the wrongness of faith, especially Christianity. Then one of two things happens: i) they get angry when they to win converts and flame out and either stomp away or sometimes behave in such a way as to get banned; ii) they get sucked in by our pleasant community and general intelligence and reasonableness and find themselves staying in spite of themselves or quietly drifting off. Guess which one is better? You can apply Occam's razor if you wish.

Because nobody has ever converted anyone to atheism here. It has happened to some over time as a natural result of the sort of constant examination we do. And - warning, it's happened the other way, too. But you're not really asking new questions -- reasonable people ask themselves these questions all the time. It's like smoking - you think smokers don't know it's bad for them? Christians have mostly thought about many of the objections to faith.

That's not to say you shouldn't feel free to knock yourself out asking them. I want you to understand some of the irritation and/or even hostility you may occasionally find.
 
Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
What Laura said.

That's my experience too. I don't get annoyed when atheists ask questions. I get annoyed when they ask the same questions, over and over again, as if I didn't hear them correctly the first time, or expect that somehow I'm going to be knocked flat by some profound philosophical argument involving teapots orbiting Mars (just for one example).

Also, the imputation that Christians are generally misogynist, racist, homophobic, oppressive, etc. bothers me since my church tends to make very, very strong stands against all of the above. I know we're not necessarily a majority, but I don't think that makes our witness invalid or somehow makes us "the exception that proves the rule."
 
Posted by Duo Seraphim (# 256) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
Laura,

When next you despatch one of your eunuchs, can you at least ensure that they have the good grace to actually read the thread before passing comment(or was that wind).
S-E

Apart from being a cheap shot,Socratic-enigma that is a personal attack on two posters and thus a breach of Commandment 3.

Josephine, referring to another another poster's "ignorance and prejudice" is acceptable only in Hell - not in Purgatory.

Generally - this is a worthy thread and I don't want to see it derailed further by comments about the posting styles of atheists as if they were a uniform group with annoying debating habits.

We like strong debate here. We encourage it. Just leave any personal attacks or getting overly personal to Hell.

Duo Seraphim, Purgatory Host

[typo]

[ 02. July 2007, 03:03: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
As a dedicated fence sitter, the many apologetics I have read for both atheism and christianity have always sent me running rapidly in the opposite direction. When one doesn't have a definite leaning for or against, they simply appear as completely circular arguments, preaching to the choir, only convincing if you already are inclined to believe one way or the other.

So if none of the arguments always have a contrary effect on me, fence-sitter for many decades, why should they convert someone who actually firmly believes one side or the other of the debate?

I think people with genuine beliefs have those beliefs somewhere deep in their core personality from an early age. With deepest apologies to any shipmates who had conversion experiences, I think that these are simply manifestations of a deep-seated need to be a True Believer in something.

As far as the OP
quote:
When you're hanging on by your fingernails... to the whole religion thing (assuming you ever are in such a position), what's the one thing that stops you letting go?

Or, to put it another way - on those days* when the whole of Christianity, from start to finish, seems just one long line of platitudinous crap, what's the one thing that stops you walking away from it all?

my advice would be to let go. That doesn't mean that you totally give up on your faith, merely that you accept that you only have a fingernail faith. Stop worrying about Being a Christian, and start thinking about what you actually believe and how God is (or isn't) working in your life.

It won't be easy or comfortable, but my experience is that God will give you what you need if you are willing to listen. In my case, I'm intellectually (as an adult) Buddhist/Hindu, but totally steeped from childhood with an odd combination of Baha'i teachings (my Dad), UU (my Mom), Roman Catholicism and Baptist (my early environment).

Despite roughly twenty years of trying to become a practicing Buddhist, my musical inclinations had me firmly settled into the RCC. Another ten years or so and I gave up and gave in. I still don't consider myself a Christian (don't tell my priest or the Pope!) and I fervently wish that I could be part of a nice high-church Anglo-Catholic tat enclave, but...

I have found people at both my RCC and Baptist churches who have provided what I need (both personally and as part of my spiritual journey) and I suspect and hope that I have been able to help others in turn.

I don't "believe" all the credal stuff, but I do believe that I am in a place that I am supposed to be and have learned and will learn what I need to know. At this point, I trust that God will go on patiently nagging me, and that I will continue to be my obstinate self and thus it will take way more time and effort than it perhaps should.

It is difficult on the practical personal level. I'm the opposite of Scot; my involvement with the Church and with God creates a barrier, a gulf, with my atheistic/agnostic spouse and children. It takes up a lot of my life and thoughts, and they really aren't interested, so I can't talk about it with them.

The bottom line is that we can only be who we are. I believe that we are all manifestations of God and thus whatever we happen to be living out is God experiencing the infinite variety of existence through our (and all of creation's) particular existence. On the other hand, God may be simply a figment of human imagination. In which case, we can only be who we are. So the bottom line is the same.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
One piece of advice a friend gave another friend is this. If you think there might be a God, what is the nature of this maybe-God? Try living as you would if this maybe-God existed and see what happens.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
I though lawyers were supposed to use 200 words where one would do?

Yeah, that's a single sentence that sums up what my long-winded post was trying to say.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
Josephine, referring to another another poster's "ignorance and prejudice" is acceptable only in Hell - not in Purgatory.

You're right. I should have been careful to describe the argument and not the one making the argument. My apologies.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Socratic-enigma:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Hard to pray that prayer when you're close to concluding that the darkness may be all there is, and the Light you thought you have seen an illusion.

But may not the 'darkness' be an illusion as well?

The darkness is an illusion. A good friend of mine put it this way. "For almost 10 months I never saw a sunrise or a sunset. Of course they were happening, but I never saw them." She was talking about the effects of severe depression, not loss of, or lack of, faith. It coloured (perhaps uncoloured would be more accurate) her perception. The depression was certainly very real.

The language of the third collect in Evensong (lighten our darkness) simply draws parallels between the coming natural darkness (and its perceived perils) and any present darkness (psychological, spiritual, whatever) within us and its perceived perils. The darkness which creates irrational fears, distorts perspective, may indeed be a normal part of life experiences, and indeed can be learned from. But it is surely not a bad thing to want be free of that distortion so that we can see clearly again? In the praying, it is put into its proportionate place - something which we are enduring, not enjoying.

I know what you are saying; you misunderstood what I was saying.
 
Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
As a dedicated fence sitter, the many apologetics I have read for both atheism and christianity have always sent me running rapidly in the opposite direction. When one doesn't have a definite leaning for or against, they simply appear as completely circular arguments, preaching to the choir, only convincing if you already are inclined to believe one way or the other.

Of course you're right: there is no knock-down, killer argument for or against theistic belief. So of course no apologetic argument is going to `convert' a person of strong views, one way or the other.

But I think what one can do, and should do, is to oppose bad arguments that form an obstacle to belief (or non-belief, if that's the way you're arguing). I don't really know why, but it bothers me when people believe or disbelieve on the basis of stupid and unworthy arguments.

Many of the reasons I hear people give for why they are not believers seem to be absolutely absurd. As Laura said, the view that to be a believer is to reject science is such an absurd reason. There are plenty of others. Of course there are absurd reasons for belief as well as non-belief ( any argument based on anything the Bible says, for example [Smile] ), and I oppose those too.

You can only convert people (one way or the other) by walking the walk. But, at the same time, I think we have a duty to help people make an informed choice of belief.
 
Posted by Socratic-enigma (# 12074) on :
 
Duo Seraphim

I apologise for my behaviour and the breach.

I will endeavour to maintain all the commandments in future; behave with appropriate decorum; and grant to both the Hosts and Admins,and my fellow shipmates, the respect they deserve.

S-E
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
One piece of advice a friend gave another friend is this. If you think there might be a God, what is the nature of this maybe-God? Try living as you would if this maybe-God existed and see what happens.

I think this really hits the nail on the head.

The impulse to faith itself, as jlg says, might be a sort of hard-wired thing. Although I've had one of those conversion experiences, it really didn't take me very far - just over the top of the next hill to Christianity instead of a diffuse sort of A.A. "Higher Power" thing. Both are good approaches, for me; I do tend to believe that sobriety depends on the maintenance of my "spiritual condition," just as the founders of A.A. found for themselves and wrote about.

Of course, we now suspect that this has a lot to do with neurotransmitters and serotonin-uptake, etc. - but A.A. was founded in 1935, long before the drugs came along. Anyway, if faith in a Higher Power, and the way of life that the A.A. program offers, can accomplish the same thing - almost - as SSRI's (and addicts are and were a really hard case, BTW), there's something to be said for it, don't you think? I actually think we're only seeing the tip of the possible iceberg here; after all, yoga is an outgrowth of religion, right? So is meditation. Perhaps some of the disciplines within Christian mysticism will eventually develop along these lines, too.

Anyway, what's interesting about Christianity - and about A.A., and I'm sure about other faiths, too, I don't know - is what happens after that "conversion" experience. And Laura's pointing to a really fascinating part of the experience in the intellectual realm: what, actually, does it mean to posit a God? What sorts of questions does this address, and what sorts of problems present themselves?

And then you're off and running in a hundred different directions - as, indeed, the Western world did go running for a couple thousand years: religion inspired two millennia of art, literature, music, philosophy, ritual, and all the other stuff we've talked about here. Same thing happened within the cultures of the other faiths. Sometimes I wonder if the muse is dead now, or just sleeping.

Anyway, the tentacles of faith reach into all areas of human life; again, that's because it was all things to all people in earlier times. Science has done great things and its power is such that it's trampling wildly over everything else - but ultimately I just don't think it's going to fulfill all human needs, sorry. So faith ain't going anyplace.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
That's very interesting, I'd forgotten that A.A. essentially requires that you "posit" a God of some sort, and that is a key piece of its effectiveness (and also why some people object to it, even though it is plainly not requiring you accept a Judeo-Christian God)

And then that reminded me of the story of Bill W's conversion, which is a classic of the 'revivalist' genre.

He was at rock, rock bottom and still digging, and then:

quote:
All at once I found myself crying out, 'If there is a God, let Him show Himself! I am ready to do anything, anything!' Suddenly the room lit up with a great white light. I was caught up into an ecstasy which there are no words to describe. It seemed to me, in the mind's eye, that I was on a mountain and that a wind not of air but spirit was blowing. And then it burst upon me that I was a free man. Slowly the ecstasy subsided. I lay on the bed, but now for a time I was in another world, a new world of consciousness. All about me and through me there was a wonderful feeling of Presence, and I thought to myself, 'So this is the God of the preachers!' A great peace stole over me and I thought, 'No matter how wrong things seem to be, they are right. Things are all right with God and His world.'"
There are a lot of ways of explaining this sort of thing, both physical and psychological. But there is no denying the power of the conversion experience. And what it did for Bill W, to take one example, who went out and developed a system of dealing with addiction that was the last hope for a lot of desperate people, and has undoubtedly saved many lives.

[ 02. July 2007, 13:52: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
That's very interesting, I'd forgotten that A.A. essentially requires that you "posit" a God of some sort, and that is a key piece of its effectiveness (and also why some people object to it, even though it is plainly not requiring you accept a Judeo-Christian God)

Bill Wilson was a nut after that for awhile, because he thought that everybody had to have that sort of experience in order to recover. As bad as any nutcase preacher anybody's ever heard, he went around dragging alcoholics off the streets and trying to sober them up at home. His poor wife had to put out the (literal) fires a lot of the time, and one guy chased Bill around his own house with a hatchet.

Finally they settled on the "Power greater than myself" thing - it didn't have to be the white light, or as you say, the Judeo-Christian God. For me at first, it was simply the "force that through the green fuse drives the flower" - the power of nature.

A.A. is a simple thing - a sort of non-denominational Enlightenment path or something - and it actually has a lot going for it. You meet people who are adepts - that is, who've lived in the process for a lot longer - and they teach you this simple idea about living in the moment, and how to do that, and etc. Frankly, given the weirdness of the Church, sometimes I wish I'd simply have stayed with that path - but after awhile, you start to seek more anyway. A.A. is really meant for, and focussed on, the newcomer - which is how it should be - and people who've been around for awhile tend to turn to other places for deeper experiences.

Maybe after Christianity stops being part of the State and Culture for a few hundred years, it will develop in a different way. Monastics already live that kind of life, actually; that's probably why I like Anglicanism, too, since it has essentially, with the Daily Office, brought daily monastic practice into the Christian faith. That's where I think the whole thing is going, in fact.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
TM:

There are many saints who "walked the enlightenment path" - found the church too complicated and retreated. It might be spiritually productive for you or anyone who is drawn to that path to read about the lives of assorted contemplatives and what they have made of Christianity. My sense is that there's a really broad scope within the Church corporate for choosing which practices appeal to a given believer. Which is one of its strengths. There are many gifts, but one Spirit - we can't all be tat queens. [Big Grin]

[ 02. July 2007, 14:36: Message edited by: Laura ]
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
TM:

There are many saints who "walked the enlightenment path" - found the church too complicated and retreated. It might be spiritually productive for you or anyone who is drawn to that path to read about the lives of assorted contemplatives and what they have made of Christianity. My sense is that there's a really broad scope within the Church corporate for choosing which practices appeal to a given believer. Which is one of its strengths. There are many gifts, but one Spirit - we can't all be tat queens. [Big Grin]

Well actually, monastics are tat queens, too. That's the beauty part!
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Bill Wilson was a nut after that for awhile, because he thought that everybody had to have that sort of experience in order to recover. As bad as any nutcase preacher anybody's ever heard, he went around dragging alcoholics off the streets and trying to sober them up at home. His poor wife had to put out the (literal) fires a lot of the time, and one guy chased Bill around his own house with a hatchet.

Finally they settled on the "Power greater than myself" thing - it didn't have to be the white light, or as you say, the Judeo-Christian God. For me at first, it was simply the "force that through the green fuse drives the flower" - the power of nature.

Yes, I remember that, too. Though I do think crazy visionaries should get a pass for their occasional bouts of insanity. I also remember reading somewhere that apparently, on his death bed, Bill W decided he wanted a drink and it was extremely difficult to keep him from it. That really drove home to me the power of alcoholic addiction. Even after all those years. Wow. Of course, if I was dying, I'd want a drink, too, so who can blame him?
 
Posted by TubaMirum (# 8282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
Yes, I remember that, too. Though I do think crazy visionaries should get a pass for their occasional bouts of insanity. I also remember reading somewhere that apparently, on his death bed, Bill W decided he wanted a drink and it was extremely difficult to keep him from it. That really drove home to me the power of alcoholic addiction. Even after all those years. Wow. Of course, if I was dying, I'd want a drink, too, so who can blame him?

I have a crazy theory that there really is a "tribe" of people who are extra-ordinarily attuned to the spiritual life - i.e., the "priest" class. And it wouldn't suprise me in the least if they make up about 1/12th of the population, either! [Biased]

So the religious nuts can do the exploring and messing around with theology and faith practice, and report back to the rest of us what they find. And yes, Bill Wilson was definitely one of those.
 
Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
I'm still trying to picture monastics -- a monk, a cloistered nun, an anchoress! -- as a "tat queen".

Maybe my imagination ain't good enough.

Or I don't know enough Tat Queens.

[ 02. July 2007, 23:37: Message edited by: Janine ]
 
Posted by Jenn R (# 5239) on :
 
I got almost congratulated the other day for having held on. I realised that it really shouldn't suprise anyone that I haven't let go. if I let go I would lose everything. I can't work anymore, and I have no children. Everything I do revolves around either my husband or the church. Letting go would throw such a huge wedge between me and my husband, and I would lose everything else. So I can't let go, even though I don't know anything I thought I knew about God. I just can't let go.
 
Posted by Izzybee (# 10931) on :
 
Jenn R, that really sucks.

As far as fingernails go, I'm pretty much deciding to let go.

I have no problem with God, but I can't take the majority of Christians anymore. I can't self identify as something that I find really downright nasty about 80% of the time - Christianity and quite a few of it's adherants. The Ship is one of the only things that keeps me trying, really - there are some great people here that remind me that all of Christendom are not assholes.

So maybe thats the next question - what do you do once you've finally let go?
 
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Stay on the ship and challenge us with your developing ideas?
 
Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Because when I did despair, and I did let go of that last grasp with my fingernail, God was there. God was there in the kindness of my neighbors, of the birds at the feeder and the blooming of spring. God was there in the money that always appeared right when I needed it. God was there in the person who just felt they should call right at the moment I was ready to give it all up.

And when I attended a Meeting. Then two. And walked away feeling like I had received a message. a kindness. a loving "hug" through the silence.

I sort of relate to that, except it's the other way around. I let go of God and religion and found beauty in nature, hope in the kindness of strangers, love in my family, peace in the silence. Those worthwhile things, and so many more, are there, are real, are what makes each new day worth living. Once I let go, I realized that all of the good in the world didn't go away.
I let go. And all the good didn't go away. A lot of the crap did though [Smile]

So, now, what? I am at the place where I know God is with me. I know he's for me and not against me. I don't feel the same way at all about the church. I hope to find a church community again that feels like home. I would like to walk out this walk in community. But I also know He remains with me even when that community isn't there.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0