Is There A Practical Side To Faith?

[Kathlene]

Well my friends, Im back.

 

I would like to open up a discussion in here between christians and non-christians to see if there is a practical side to faith.

 

So here is my viewpoint of it all, make of it what you wish.

 

When I got saved, things changed in my life. I started to have belief obviously in God and Jesus, but did this thing called faith have a practical aspect? What is after all the purpose of believing in God? What is the purpose of hope and faith?

 

It probably sounds very trite talking about a God who I believe communicates with his people, when there are very serious problems going on in the world, that has already been debated in another thread.

 

I will however go on with it, regardless of how imbecile and ludicrous it sounds.

I have already pointed out in other threads that God has done healing and redemptive work in my life and my family. What I want to discuss is how does that work in a faith practical manner?

 

What does it mean after all to surrender everything to God? Does it mean you stop thinking for yourself?

 

What does it mean to have a problem and pray about it and then put your faith into practice?

Does God talk to his people? Does he communicate with them. Is he interested in their day to day trials? I would love other christians to give their viewpoints on this too.

 

One thing I have noticed in other threads is the timing of God. End mentioned waiting 25yrs for something, and someone replied what a waste of effort and time. I see it as a growing time, a changing time. Maybe God had to change End's heart during that time. Maybe He was waiting for someone else to grow and change. However, the point is God does give promises and communicates this to his people, and it is in the middle(ie the practical outworking of that faith) that we can either draw closer to God and His purposes for us, or back away in confusion, stress, whatever.

 

I will give an example in my life.

 

10yrs ago exactly I went to Israel. It was very clear that this was all a new exciting path for me and God showed me so clearly and lead me there with a christian group.

 

In my head, I thought this was it, I was going there to live forever.

Before I had even been led by God to go to Israel, this is a very clear succint word I got from God.

 

God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was SHORTER. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."

Exodus13v17

 

So I just went, ok whatever. Now notice that God did not lead them on the shortest and easiest quickest route to get to their destination. He wanted them to learn how to wage war, and become strong, and learn to trust and rely on Him in the desert so that when they did eventually get into war, they were prepared. See? God's ways are not our ways.

 

Anyway, I went to Israel, and three short months I came back. It confused me a lot. I cried out to God, Why?? all the time.

 

This is an answer I got. I know it just happens to be a coincidence in the Bible that Abraham was sent to Israel too. That was not the bit I actually mean.

 

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.Heb11v8.

 

See the time schedule though? Its now 10yrs down the track. When I got back to Australia I had to fight my inner struggle for 10yrs in my head that I wanted to be in the home where I was meant to be. Not living some dull life here with my son, watching him grow. But by golly I have been through fire and back again in these years. Do you know what has happened to me in my heart in all that very long exceeding time? I have finally come to realise this is my home. I am not meant to be running away looking out there, trying to work out Gods plan. He has it worked out. Instead of fighting my circumstances, I have now finally surrendered them and found peace. My heart has grown. Will I ever go back to Israel? I dont know. God never actually told me Israel was going to be my home forever. He didnt take me on the quickest shortest route to get me there, if that is my eventual goal. I just went and obeyed. I dont know the rest of the plan. All I know now, is how much I have grown up and matured these past years because of the challenges I had to face. Now if I had to say face those challenges in another country, you can bet I would of run away.

 

What a lesson for me to learn. For some people, they would of got back home, and just as they say, bloom where they are planted. For me though, I fought and fought, and never planted myself in my home. My phyisical being was here, but not my spiritual. The other day I walked around my little place and smiled. When I first got here 10yrs ago it was so stark and barren. Now it is filled with me and my life. I feel for the first time in my life, full and complete.

 

Did I have to walk in a practical way with my faith? yes. I had to change my heart attitudes. Did it happen overnight? Does any change happen overnight? No. Whatever challenges I have been through these past 15 yrs as a single parent have certainly made me into the person I am today. Today I choose not to be bitter. I choose life. Does that mean no-one else can do that who doesnt have a personal God in their life? Of course they can. Anyone can change their heart and grow and learn. For me though, as a christian, I find the practical aspect of faith, is believing in God, trusting in him, and listening to His voice in my heart. With that comes such a deep sense of peace. I can make sense of who I am and where I fit into the world, and I know that whatever the next step is in my life, God can and will show me. His purposes are far higher than mine.

 

Just as a side note too...here is another verse I got from God concerning Israel.

 

In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. Exodus16.4

 

Ha, what a verse to argue in the god tests us thread.

[Snakefoot]

I did not read past the first paragraph or two of this Epistle to the Ex-xtianites (WAY too long). But I have an answer to the basic question anyway:

 

The "practical" side of faith is it provides hope and comfort to the credulous who otherwise would be, well, hopeless and miserable because they could see no relief ever coming.

 

The chronically ill, the dying, the hopelessly poor, the hopelessly stupid (as opposed to ignorant) all find comfort and peace in believing a gawd will someday redeem/heal/vindicate/make them happy. And that's a wonderful thing. Religion truly is the opiate of the masses.

 

So, there is a practical side to faith. Just keep it to yourself and those similarly disposed.

[Shyone]

Well my friends, Im back.

 

I would like to open up a discussion in here between christians and non-christians to see if there is a practical side to faith.

 

<snip>

 

What does it mean after all to surrender everything to God? Does it mean you stop thinking for yourself?

 

<snip>

 

What does it mean to have a problem and pray about it and then put your faith into practice?

Here's a question for you. What does it mean after all to surrender everything to Quetzalcoatl?

 

Answer? Not much, except the opportunity to really screw things up by doing something that has no better odds that flipping a coin. If you come out of a prayer with a plan, you created the plan. If you have two plans and pray, then subconsciously you weighed the two plans to determine which is more likely to succeed. If you really can't choose and rely on prayer, you may as well flip a coin.

 

Let's say you think you have two choices. Maybe you have created a false dichotomy for yourself, but still let's imagine that there are only two choices: Kill a man, or pay him back what you owe him.

 

Duh, what do you think that God would tell you? If you use your common sense, you'll pay the guy what you owe. If God tells you to kill the guy, get a new god.

 

Seriously, making choices with prayer means contemplating and determining what the best choice is without any supernatural hocus pocus. If you really don't think, then you may as well kill the guy because you are clearly not thinking.

[Franko47]

It's a perfectly fair question, Kathlene, and I also know Christians who would give similar testimony and reasons like you have here.

 

 

There can be a practical side to any line of thinking that quits "worrying" all the time; as opposed to that which invites apprehension, anxiety, trepidation, additional stress, and frustration which drives some people to booze and drugs, family abuse and so on.

 

The answer can sometimes be God or Xanax. Sometimes (heck, often) many problems have a financial element.

 

Often it is just the process of a family moving closer together, renewing some loyalties, and helping each other out. I saw some miraculous changes years ago when this went on with my own family, and no "religion" was really involved, but a more of a renewed "faith" in each other and forgiveness for conflicts of the past.

 

I suppose in a more clinical sense that if a guy is stranded at sea on a life raft, that it is better he have faith in being rescued, than believing that he will soon perish. There is a basic psychological basis for having a healthy sense of "faith" just in our every day processes. (I don't mean necessarily a religious-based kind)

 

On the other hand, I've also seen people fooling themselves. Believing that some time, some where, over the rainbow, their "faith" will finally hit them a home run, and their marriage will work, they will have financial security, and the cosmic slot machine will spew forth it's "cash". Or that after thirty some years, "God" finally got around to helping them with their problems, and hey, we can just write off the interim as a "learning phase".

 

It's fine, but when one does not examine the causes and results of where they are at, or doesn't want to face certain problems, then in a way you can end up just playing games with yourself.

[mwc]

God did not lead them on the road through the Philistine country, though that was SHORTER. For God said, "If they face war, they might change their minds and return to Egypt."

Exodus13v17

This is an anachronism. There were no Philistines during any of the times the Exodus could have occurred. If only the term is to be considered an anachronism then who was in their way to wage war? A name? Unlikely. Someone had to be behind that name anachronistic or not.

 

Beyond that this same "god" was going to promise to go before them and drive out the Canaanites from the land. Not so for these Philistines? Instead they *ALL*, 100% of them, had to DIE. Keep that in mind. Each and every person that left from Egypt that night *DIED* without crossing the Jordon. It was the following generation that entered into Canaan.

 

So "god's" plan? Take them on the "easy" path directly into their new land and simply take a chance they will turn back *if* war comes to them? Or, lead them into the desert where this "god" *KNOWS* they will *ALL*, 100% of them, *DIE* without seeing this land at all. Not a single one of them (except Moses...and only from afar).

 

Gamble on the short path or guaranteed epic failure on the long route? What a plan.

 

This is an answer I got. I know it just happens to be a coincidence in the Bible that Abraham was sent to Israel too. That was not the bit I actually mean.

Actually, Israel was sent to Isaac in the form of Jacob who got renamed (a couple times at least) to Israel. I thought I covered this recently? Abram blew town with his ancient wife who was apparently still extremely hot and he effectively pimped her out to get rich.

 

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.Heb11v8.

It sounds that way but then it sounds like he always was going to go to Canaan:

11:31 And Terah took Abram, his son, and Lot, the son of Haran, and Sarai, his daughter-in-law, the wife of his son Abram and they went out from Ur of the Chaldees, to go to the land of Canaan; and they came to Haran, and were there for some time.

 

12:1 Now the Lord said to Abram, Go out from your country and from your family and from your father's house, into the land to which I will be your guide:

 

12:4 So Abram went as the Lord had said to him...he went away from Haran. 5 And Abram took ... which they had got in Haran, and they went out to go to the land of Canaan.

 

12:6 And Abram went through the land till he came to Shechem, to the holy tree of Moreh ... 7 And the Lord came to Abram, and said, I will give all this land to your seed

That's the deal there. He knew pretty much where he was going. It was at the magic tree of Moreh where the "guide" thing kicks in and so he drops anchor at Shechem. That's the same way a lot of people have decided where to settle down. They head off someplace (they already know this larger destination...in this case it's Canaan) and then move around a little until it "feels" right. I've picked slot machines using the same method too. You can always "feel" the lucky vibe if you wonder around enough. The machine will "speak" to you.

 

[snip life story]

This is all justification after the fact. I have train tracks not so far from where I live. The quicker drive is over the tracks but the longer drive avoids them. If I take the quicker route and a train comes then I'm upset. If I take the longer drive and a train comes I can justify the longer drive by simply pointing to the train and all the waiting cars. But if there's no train then I'm a sucker for taking the longer route. I can just tell myself "Well, there could have been a train so no harm done." I just justify it somehow. Same if there's a car accident or road work or anything. I look back and I just say "Well, there could have been something that I wasn't aware of so no harm no foul." It's easy. And it's just a form of Pascal's Wager. It really costs me nothing to believe and trust in "the plan" so why not just go ahead and do it? Looking back I can even see this plan at work because if I can't see the plan at work in the past then it's not in effect now and it's not in effect for the future so it was working in the past.

 

Just as a side note too...here is another verse I got from God concerning Israel.

 

In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. Exodus16.4

 

Ha, what a verse to argue in the god tests us thread.

That's not the whole verse:

4 Then the Lord said to Moses, See, I will send down bread from heaven for you; and the people will go out every day and get enough for the day's needs; so that I may put them to the test to see if they will keep my laws or not.

This is the 15th day of the 2nd month after they left Egypt and the people needed food. So they're a bit upset. They haven't been given any laws to speak of yet but this is what "god" is concerning himself with. So he's giving them food, not because they're starving in the desert that he's forced them into (so they would have to take that dreaded short route), but so he can use it as a test to see if they'll obey (which he should know if he's omniscient...this "test" should be a red flag that he could not know how they'd would have reacted on the short route in the first place).

 

He issues the ever vital sabbath rules (connected to this food) and they fail. Up next they all want water. How horrible they are. But what's after that? Good times? No. Not good times. War! With Amelek (those bastards). Let me repeat that. War! War! War!

 

So instead of maybe having war on the short route we take the long route which includes being chased by Egypt's entire army, going into a desert for who knows how long. Thirst. Starvation. The sabbath "law" (with failure and chastisement). Thirst again. And War! There's no training here. No buildup of skills. And in 40 years they will *ALL* die without crossing over the Jordon into Canaan. THAT IS THE PLAN.

 

mwc

[oddbird1963]

In my humble opinion, the practical side of faith is that it gives a person a center or anchor point for shaping their personality. Faith becomes a channel through which the growth of a person can be shaped in fruitful directions. Faith helps to infuse a person with a sense of identity in the Universe and within the greater faith community. Faith can infuse a person or believing community with creativity in both art, music and other modes of expression. Faith also has the aspect of providing internal fortitude in the face of disorganizing and discouraging circumstances.

 

The object of faith does not have to be a personal God. Typically there is some shared narrative about the world which provides the basis for faith. That shared narrative may or may not involve a god. It is the dynamic nature of that shared narrative and it's usefulness for expressing ultimate concern which determines the practicality of one's faith.

[Legion]

Excellent post in my opinion Oddbird.

[Skankboy]

I would agree with much of what Oddbird said. I would only add that usually faith involves the belief in a absolute "truth" or "power" of some kind. Having an aboslute from which to build can help in an uncertain world. It's so much more difficult to believe that nothing is certain and to have to evaluate everything for what it is as it arises. I can still remember what it was like to KNOW there was someone at the helm. To KNOW that even if it all didn't make sense to me, it did to someone and they were looking out for us.

 

Indeed sometimes I even miss this certainty. But in the end, I could not be honest with myself and still have faith.

 

I think faith does indeed work for some people, but if what you thought was the rock of your faith turns out to be a house built on sand, you are in for a very rough time. Believe me.

 

I think most people on this board would agree that we aren't looking to destroy religion. Indeed, to think such a thing was really possible, is in my opinion, a bit foolhardy. What I think most of us can agree on though is that while you are welcome to use religion to guide your own life, you should not try to force that onto anyone else. To do so is to assume (have faith in, if you will) something for which you have no proof and no right to force on others.

 

IMOHO,

[NotBlinded]

In my humble opinion, the practical side of faith is that it gives a person a center or anchor point for shaping their personality. Faith becomes a channel through which the growth of a person can be shaped in fruitful directions. Faith helps to infuse a person with a sense of identity in the Universe and within the greater faith community. Faith can infuse a person or believing community with creativity in both art, music and other modes of expression. Faith also has the aspect of providing internal fortitude in the face of disorganizing and discouraging circumstances.

 

The object of faith does not have to be a personal God. Typically there is some shared narrative about the world which provides the basis for faith. That shared narrative may or may not involve a god. It is the dynamic nature of that shared narrative and it's usefulness for expressing ultimate concern which determines the practicality of one's faith.

I wasn't going to answer in this thread because when I hear things as Kathlene posts, I get angry. I have a hard time sometimes identifying what triggers the anger. Your post helped me pinpoint it. It is the owning of God and faith in one certain religion that triggers it. Arrogance makes me mad and then any goodness is gone (in my eyes). I know she isn't trying to do this, she even states that we can have this too, but I really don't know if she is sincere in that statement. I know this is my weakness, yet I can't help thinking that a claim is being made somewhere.

[Snakefoot]

In my humble opinion, the practical side of faith is that it gives a person a center or anchor point for shaping their personality. Faith becomes a channel through which the growth of a person can be shaped in fruitful directions. Faith helps to infuse a person with a sense of identity in the Universe and within the greater faith community. Faith can infuse a person or believing community with creativity in both art, music and other modes of expression. Faith also has the aspect of providing internal fortitude in the face of disorganizing and discouraging circumstances.

 

The object of faith does not have to be a personal God. Typically there is some shared narrative about the world which provides the basis for faith. That shared narrative may or may not involve a god. It is the dynamic nature of that shared narrative and it's usefulness for expressing ultimate concern which determines the practicality of one's faith.

I wasn't going to answer in this thread because when I hear things as Kathlene posts, I get angry. I have a hard time sometimes identifying what triggers the anger. Your post helped me pinpoint it. It is the owning of God and faith in one certain religion that triggers it. Arrogance makes me mad and then any goodness is gone (in my eyes). I know she isn't trying to do this, she even states that we can have this too, but I really don't know if she is sincere in that statement. I know this is my weakness, yet I can't help thinking that a claim is being made somewhere.

The babble declares, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That is the definition of xitian faith. Therefore, any faith not of this form and origin is not babblical; therefore is not of gawd; and therefore not faith, at least from a True Xtian perspective.

[NotBlinded]

The babble declares, "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That is the definition of xitian faith. Therefore, any faith not of this form and origin is not babblical; therefore is not of gawd; and therefore not faith, at least from a True Xtian™ perspective.

Yes, but that declaration shouldn't lead one to this conclusion. But, it does. If faith is indeed what this says, then they have no right to keep it from others, unless the rest of the book has anything to do with persuading them to see it otherwise. Of course it does. Contradictory little lot of letters that book is.

[Kathlene]

In my humble opinion, the practical side of faith is that it gives a person a center or anchor point for shaping their personality. Faith becomes a channel through which the growth of a person can be shaped in fruitful directions. Faith helps to infuse a person with a sense of identity in the Universe and within the greater faith community. Faith can infuse a person or believing community with creativity in both art, music and other modes of expression. Faith also has the aspect of providing internal fortitude in the face of disorganizing and discouraging circumstances.

 

The object of faith does not have to be a personal God. Typically there is some shared narrative about the world which provides the basis for faith. That shared narrative may or may not involve a god. It is the dynamic nature of that shared narrative and it's usefulness for expressing ultimate concern which determines the practicality of one's faith.

I wasn't going to answer in this thread because when I hear things as Kathlene posts, I get angry. I have a hard time sometimes identifying what triggers the anger. Your post helped me pinpoint it. It is the owning of God and faith in one certain religion that triggers it. Arrogance makes me mad and then any goodness is gone (in my eyes). I know she isn't trying to do this, she even states that we can have this too, but I really don't know if she is sincere in that statement. I know this is my weakness, yet I can't help thinking that a claim is being made somewhere.

NotBlinded, I wrote a post in the Quran thread telling people I would come back and post after a few days of deep thinking this over. I didnt want to cause more harm to anyone here. However, I did say that all I am offering up is my personal experiences as a different worldview to yours. In effect, to counterbalance the cries of God is not personal, yada yada etc ...that goes on in here. I am not saying you are wrong, or right. I am not saying I am right or wrong. All I am doing is offering a different picture. That is my claim. A different worldview.

[oddbird1963]

I wasn't going to answer in this thread because when I hear things as Kathlene posts, I get angry. I have a hard time sometimes identifying what triggers the anger. Your post helped me pinpoint it. It is the owning of God and faith in one certain religion that triggers it. Arrogance makes me mad and then any goodness is gone (in my eyes). I know she isn't trying to do this, she even states that we can have this too, but I really don't know if she is sincere in that statement. I know this is my weakness, yet I can't help thinking that a claim is being made somewhere.

 

Notblinded,

 

I think you have hit upon something that Skankboy and others have also brought out. The fact that faith can subtly be degraded by the insistence that one particular symbol system identifies the "true god," "true church," "one true religion," "true prophet," etc. I think each of the systems of symbols we point to as religions tell us about the human experience in a Universe that seeks to snuff us out of existence. Because of the common humanity to which the systems with the richest narratives and symbols relate, we can benefit from an understanding of those systems.

 

I think what you may be experiencing is a resistance to any appeal which seeks to pull you into it's exclusivity and restrictiveness. Perhaps as a Christian in the past, you did not feel restricted. Perhaps at a former time Christianity was rich, inspiring and fruitful for you. But now you see existence and life from a more "meta" perspective. Perhaps you feel freer and more alive because of stepping outside of the faith you once found fruitful.

 

I don't know the entirety of your personal journey. I don't presume to know you or know your personal journey.

 

But in the posts of Christians who have not yet wearied of the god shaped box built by Christianity, we are hearing that there is still an appeal and an internal benefit they derive. In hearing that Christian appeal, it could be that you are reminded of trying to be made to fit in a box that has grown way too small and restrictive. Like when a plant grows too large for the flower pot in which it has been planted. It must either be transplanted to a bigger source of life or die. At the most it can only hope to stagnate. Christianity can no longer contain the vision of Life and Existence you have grown to see.

 

Who wouldn't be angry when they feel they are being lured back into the cage that was killing them?

 

Just wondering out loud . . .

[Skankboy]

Who wouldn't be angry when they feel they are being lured back into the cage that was killing them?

Indeed. And the irony is I know it's just as strong a feeling from the other side the equation towards us.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

In my humble opinion, the practical side of faith is that it gives a person a center or anchor point for shaping their personality. Faith becomes a channel through which the growth of a person can be shaped in fruitful directions. Faith helps to infuse a person with a sense of identity in the Universe and within the greater faith community. Faith can infuse a person or believing community with creativity in both art, music and other modes of expression. Faith also has the aspect of providing internal fortitude in the face of disorganizing and discouraging circumstances.

 

The object of faith does not have to be a personal God. Typically there is some shared narrative about the world which provides the basis for faith. That shared narrative may or may not involve a god. It is the dynamic nature of that shared narrative and it's usefulness for expressing ultimate concern which determines the practicality of one's faith.

Excellent point, I agree. You make me want a faith, I'm going through an identity crisis right now.

[chefranden]

There probably is a practical side to faith, or rather that faith serves an evolutionary purpose\s. Evolutionary purposes are not necessarily perceived purposes.

 

I'm reading The Faith Instinct: How religion Evolved & Why it Endures, but I'm only on page 21.

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

If there is a evolutionary purpose, then like the concept of stealing, its evolutionary baggage we would be best serve to rid ourselves of. At least IMO

[chefranden]

Well my friends, Im back.

 

...One thing I have noticed in other threads is the timing of God. End mentioned waiting 25yrs for something, and someone replied what a waste of effort and time. I see it as a growing time, a changing time. Maybe God had to change End's heart during that time. Maybe He was waiting for someone else to grow and change. However, the point is God does give promises and communicates this to his people, and it is in the middle(ie the practical outworking of that faith) that we can either draw closer to God and His purposes for us, or back away in confusion, stress, whatever. ...

 

Yes you are.

 

One thing that I've noticed that maybe you haven't is that you use a lot of "maybes" when you talk about God. This makes your faith sound rather iffy. God gives a lot of promises that maybe he keeps and maybe he doesn't depending... Depending on what? Well no one knows. My Holy Brick keeps its promises at about the same rate as God keeps his.

 

Of course you call it Gods timing because that gives you an out when God doesn't come through on the promise. If I started talking about My Holy Brick's timing you'd think I was half a bubble off, and rightly so. However, if you start talking about God's timing I'm supposed to take you seriously.

 

By the way My Holy Brick just gave me a verse for you: "And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?" Maybe you are suppose to start a brothel, maybe?

[NotBlinded]

 

NotBlinded, I wrote a post in the Quran thread telling people I would come back and post after a few days of deep thinking this over. I didnt want to cause more harm to anyone here. However, I did say that all I am offering up is my personal experiences as a different worldview to yours. In effect, to counterbalance the cries of God is not personal, yada yada etc ...that goes on in here. I am not saying you are wrong, or right. I am not saying I am right or wrong. All I am doing is offering a different picture. That is my claim. A different worldview.

Fair enough Kathlene. It's just that the worldview you put forth is riddled with arrogance. I'm not meaning anything towards you personally because I honestly believe that most of the time, this arrogance is not seen as arrogance, it is percieved as being thankful and humble. So, I attack that worldview in order to get those that hold it to recognize what it is that is really hiding behind the mask of gratitude.

[NotBlinded]

Notblinded,

 

I think you have hit upon something that Skankboy and others have also brought out. The fact that faith can subtly be degraded by the insistence that one particular symbol system identifies the "true god," "true church," "one true religion," "true prophet," etc. I think each of the systems of symbols we point to as religions tell us about the human experience in a Universe that seeks to snuff us out of existence. Because of the common humanity to which the systems with the richest narratives and symbols relate, we can benefit from an understanding of those systems.

 

I think what you may be experiencing is a resistance to any appeal which seeks to pull you into it's exclusivity and restrictiveness. Perhaps as a Christian in the past, you did not feel restricted. Perhaps at a former time Christianity was rich, inspiring and fruitful for you. But now you see existence and life from a more "meta" perspective. Perhaps you feel freer and more alive because of stepping outside of the faith you once found fruitful.

Thanks OB for thinking about this so sincerely. I so appreciate it.

 

It's really odd because for a long time, I had no idea that the entire planet wasn't Christian. I wasn't really sheltered or a fundamentalist. I was just raised that Christianity was the truth like the water comes out of the faucet when you turn it on. I really didn't think about it at all. Then I found out other religions were out there, again, I didn't think about it too much because I didn't separate the Christian God from these other beliefs. I was ignorant and presumptious in that ignorance. It's when I really took a look at these other religions did a light go on that illuminated the truth that Christianity wasn't a fact and that by dwelling in my comfort zone, I was saying that others weren't allowed as opposed to everyone being included.

 

I don't know the entirety of your personal journey. I don't presume to know you or know your personal journey.

 

But in the posts of Christians who have not yet wearied of the god shaped box built by Christianity, we are hearing that there is still an appeal and an internal benefit they derive. In hearing that Christian appeal, it could be that you are reminded of trying to be made to fit in a box that has grown way too small and restrictive. Like when a plant grows too large for the flower pot in which it has been planted. It must either be transplanted to a bigger source of life or die. At the most it can only hope to stagnate. Christianity can no longer contain the vision of Life and Existence you have grown to see.

 

Who wouldn't be angry when they feel they are being lured back into the cage that was killing them?

 

Just wondering out loud . . .

Yes, and I can now recognize that inside that box of security lies ego motiviated comfort at the expense of others. I think the anger comes from knowing that the comfort that was experienced in the cage is the same felt by the people in the Allegory of Plato's Cave. You know, that even fits with what I said above about not putting the realities of religions together in my mind.

 

I'm going to post some of that allegory. Strange how things just pop into one's head when trying to describe a life situation. Yes, symbols indeed belong to all. Anyway:

 

[socrates] And now, I said, let me show in a figure how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened: --Behold! human beings living in a underground cave, which has a mouth open towards the light and reaching all along the cave; here they have been from their childhood, and have their legs and necks chained so that they cannot move, and can only see before them, being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads. Above and behind them a fire is blazing at a distance, and between the fire and the prisoners there is a raised way; and you will see, if you look, a low wall built along the way, like the screen which marionette players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets.

[Glaucon] I see.

[socrates] And do you see, I said, men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, and statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials, which appear over the wall? Some of them are talking, others silent.

[Glaucon] You have shown me a strange image, and they are strange prisoners.

[socrates] Like ourselves, I replied; and they see only their own shadows, or the shadows of one another, which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave?

[Glaucon] True, he said; how could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?

[socrates] And of the objects which are being carried in like manner they would only see the shadows?

[Glaucon] Yes, he said.

[socrates] And if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them?

[Glaucon] Very true.

[socrates] And suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure to fancy when one of the passers-by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow?

[Glaucon] No question, he replied.

[socrates] To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images.

[Glaucon] That is certain.

[socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

[Glaucon] Far truer.

[socrates] And if he is compelled to look straight at the light, will he not have a pain in his eyes which will make him turn away to take and take in the objects of vision which he can see, and which he will conceive to be in reality clearer than the things which are now being shown to him?

[Glaucon] True, he now.

[socrates] And suppose once more, that he is reluctantly dragged up a steep and rugged ascent, and held fast until he 's forced into the presence of the sun himself, is he not likely to be pained and irritated? When he approaches the light his eyes will be dazzled, and he will not be able to see anything at all of what are now called realities.

[Glaucon] Not all in a moment, he said.

[socrates] He will require to grow accustomed to the sight of the upper world. And first he will see the shadows best, next the reflections of men and other objects in the water, and then the objects themselves; then he will gaze upon the light of the moon and the stars and the spangled heaven; and he will see the sky and the stars by night better than the sun or the light of the sun by day?

[Glaucon] Certainly.

[socrates] Last of he will be able to see the sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but he will see him in his own proper place, and not in another; and he will contemplate him as he is.

[Glaucon] Certainly.

[socrates] He will then proceed to argue that this is he who gives the season and the years, and is the guardian of all that is in the visible world, and in a certain way the cause of all things which he and his fellows have been accustomed to behold?

[Glaucon] Clearly, he said, he would first see the sun and then reason about him.

[socrates] And when he remembered his old habitation, and the wisdom of the cave and his fellow-prisoners, do you not suppose that he would felicitate himself on the change, and pity them?

[Glaucon] Certainly, he would.

[socrates] And if they were in the habit of conferring honors among themselves on those who were quickest to observe the passing shadows and to remark which of them went before, and which followed after, and which were together; and who were therefore best able to draw conclusions as to the future, do you think that he would care for such honors and glories, or envy the possessors of them? Would he not say with Homer,

 

Better to be the poor servant of a poor master,

 

and to endure anything, rather than think as they do and live after their manner?

[Glaucon] Yes, he said, I think that he would rather suffer anything than entertain these false notions and live in this miserable manner.

[socrates] Imagine once more, I said, such an one coming suddenly out of the sun to be replaced in his old situation; would he not be certain to have his eyes full of darkness?

[Glaucon] To be sure, he said.

[socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

[Glaucon] No question, he said.

 

Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

[Shyone]

I'm going to post some of that allegory. Strange how things just pop into one's head when trying to describe a life situation. Yes, symbols indeed belong to all. Anyway:

Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

The only problem with allegories is that each side identifies with the same obvious "winner."

 

Who is in the cave, in the darkness?

 

Who has climbed out of the cave, into the Light? (Light capitalized to show you what I mean).

 

And so we can see the objects clearly, without relying on phantoms and shadows. <sigh>

[chefranden]

[socrates] And now look again, and see what will naturally follow if the prisoners are released and disabused of their error. At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision, -what will be his reply? And you may further imagine that his instructor is pointing to the objects as they pass and requiring him to name them, -will he not be perplexed? Will he not fancy that the shadows which he formerly saw are truer than the objects which are now shown to him?

 

This is sort of what happened to you Kathleen. You came out into the light for a moment, but the glare drove you back into the shadows. I won't say that it is sad. The glare is very uncomfortable. Reality is stark and sharp, while the shadows are soft and hazy. Hazy shadows can mean what ever you want them to mean, and they are already half way to being warm fuzzies. If I have to live with a bear make it a teddy rather than a grizzly.

[NotBlinded]

I'm going to post some of that allegory. Strange how things just pop into one's head when trying to describe a life situation. Yes, symbols indeed belong to all. Anyway:

Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

The only problem with allegories is that each side identifies with the same obvious "winner."

 

Who is in the cave, in the darkness?

 

Who has climbed out of the cave, into the Light? (Light capitalized to show you what I mean).

 

And so we can see the objects clearly, without relying on phantoms and shadows. <sigh>

Yes, you are right. I think it would finally rest with who is claiming exclusivity to be in the darkness. Maybe.

[Shyone]

I'm going to post some of that allegory. Strange how things just pop into one's head when trying to describe a life situation. Yes, symbols indeed belong to all. Anyway:

Plato, The Allegory of the Cave

The only problem with allegories is that each side identifies with the same obvious "winner."

 

Who is in the cave, in the darkness?

 

Who has climbed out of the cave, into the Light? (Light capitalized to show you what I mean).

 

And so we can see the objects clearly, without relying on phantoms and shadows. <sigh>

Yes, you are right. I think it would finally rest with who is claiming exclusivity to be in the darkness. Maybe.

Well, here's the thing:

 

I would identify Light with a grasp of natural reality free from superstitions.

 

The Christian would identify Light with Jesus.

 

I would identify darkness with ignorance about science (for example).

 

The Christian would identify darkness with separation from God.

 

So the exact same allegory means different things to different people. I can't use that allegory to show a Christian that they are in the dark anymore than they could use the allegory to show me that I am in the dark.

[NotBlinded]

Well, here's the thing:

 

I would identify Light with a grasp of natural reality free from superstitions.

 

The Christian would identify Light with Jesus.

 

I would identify darkness with ignorance about science (for example).

 

The Christian would identify darkness with separation from God.

 

So the exact same allegory means different things to different people. I can't use that allegory to show a Christian that they are in the dark anymore than they could use the allegory to show me that I am in the dark.

Yes, but in the cave, the shadows are taken for reality just as symbols are taken as reality. Words about what things are are a representation of reality, not reality itself. They mistake the representations for the real. The finger pointing at the moon is mistaken for the finger pointing. Christianity worships the images and takes these images and attributes them to God. It is exclusive to those that worship images.

 

But, yes, I know what you're saying.