posted
As a side note: in order for God to meet someone halfway, He HAS to approach them. If He's just sitting in His default position, He's not exactly trying to meet them.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if his default position is helping 90%?
----
...to switch to a slightly intrusive and you don't have to answer in public note, how are your prayers?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
They're prayers. They happen, and they kind of rattle around in the universe like the last peanut in a very big jar. But I haven't stopped trying.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: To rationalize this, I have to assume either that people are misconstruing the messages they're getting from God, that God's deliberately giving people contradictory messages for some reason, that there are multiple gods giving contradictory messages, or that at least some of those people merely think they're getting messages from God.
Just my opinion...I think the first and last choices are most correct.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
Have you tried reading scripture? I have to say, I get more answers to prayers during scripture study than during actual prayers. Together, it's a pretty powerful combo.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not reading scripture more than I already do, precisely because I don't want to commit to any given scripture. It's not like I KNOW God's a Mormon, after all, and I don't want to tick Him off and blow my chances. Besides, scripture study always backfires on me, anyway; I wind up pointing out the inconsistencies and silliness.
posted
Heh. I didn't actually say the Book of Mormon, but you know I wanted to.
But either way, I'm pretty sure you can't tick off the Lord by searching. I'm telling you, the BoM works, but studying any scripture is...giving the spirit opportunity to work within you. Maybe Isaiah?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it’s not scripture, but I still think you should read Schleiermacher. If you can stomach 18th/19th century German romanticism, that is.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wind up pointing out the inconsistencies and silliness.
(...) Maybe your pride could give you a break for a minute to...allow you to read from the less educated.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, have you tried sitting in a dandelion patch for a bit and not worrying about it?
(It's odd that Kat endorses 'scripture' as something that helps one to become closer to God. I myself find most scripture to be about as spiritual as lint. YMMV, I suppose. )
posted
Dana, all I remember about Schleiermacher is that he was a Calvinist who thought that the Gospel of John was the only "accurate" gospel and believed that dogma got in the way of the proper "intuition" of God. Is that right? I've got to admit that I largely dismissed the guy in philosophy class, but I vaguely remember that his theory of hemeneutics (?) reminded me of memetics -- the idea that language was the natural expression of certain inherently shared social concepts born into every human.
Now that I think about it, Schleiermacher was also big into semiotics, wasn't he? The idea that words with multiple denotations simultaneously SHARED those denotations as subconscious connotations, and that these connotations actually were inevitable constructs of which conscious thought would be composed?
If I remember correctly, Schleiermacher always bothered me in a religious sense because he was actually quite areligious -- claiming that a conscious God was not actually necessary for the benefit of religion, and belief in a life after death absurd -- but encouraged belief in Christian monotheism because he felt monotheism offered the most psychological benefits, and Christian monotheism in particular offered the best balance between the feeling of dependence on a higher power -- which is how, IIRC, he wound up defining religion, and which he argued was an essential feeling for human growth -- and personal responsibility.
I haven't read anything by him, as I recall, that specifically discussed the idea of being contacted by God, but I DO remember that he was rather insistent that things like dogma and practice were irrelevant, and that the actual worship was, definitionally, the whole point of religion. That always struck me as being particularly apologetic.
----
Edit: I guess this comes back to my primary quibble with modern Protestantism: the idea that believing SOMETHING, as long as you're humble and submissive enough, is good enough -- even if it's not necessary The Truth.
Frankly, I believe that believing something which is not The Truth is not only a complete waste of time but downright psychologically harmful, and want to be convinced of Truth before I commit to Belief.
Isaiah was going to be my suggestion too. I love that book, it's my comfort food. Whenever I'm feeling down and need to reconnect, I pick up the Bible and turn to Isaiah.
Isaiah 54:10 is a fav.
The mountains may fall, and the hills depart, but my lovingkindness will never leave you and my covenant of peace with you will never be shaken.
That's from memory, not an exact quote, so I encourage you to look it up yourself. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trust me, you guys, I'm familiar with Christian scripture. It's not like I'm going to read a passage and go, "Oh, I haven't seen THAT before! That changes the whole way I look at God!" *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, give it up. No religious doctrine will ever measure up enough for you. No religion that is non-doctrinal will ever be good enough for you because you demand doctrine.
Unless you like being miserable, what's the point? Why do you want religion in your life? Why not be happy with what you have?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Trust me, you guys, I'm familiar with Christian scripture. It's not like I'm going to read a passage and go, "Oh, I haven't seen THAT before! That changes the whole way I look at God!"
I'm pretty danged versed in the Bible, and even I still have those epiphanies.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps that's because you have pre-conceived notions about God based on your observations of scripture, whereas MY pre-conceived notions about God come from my observations of the physical universe.
Scripture seems like a remarkably second-hand way to learn about the nature of God if one posits that God is capable of communicating His nature to people directly.
-------
Seriously, Storm, I continue to try because I genuinely WANT there to be a higher power. It's a shame that I haven't found one that's really worth the effort, yet, but that doesn't mean there ISN'T one, or that the search isn't worthwhile.
I'm even okay with a non-dogmatic and/or non-sentient higher power, believe it or not, if someone could explain to me why we should bother to worship one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not reading for the wisdom and epiphanies; those are gravy. Reading scripture and praying gives the spirit a chance to work in you.
I mean, it's like going for a climb. Why is there any point in doing it again if you've done it once? It's not like you haven't seen a tree before. But there's a larger point.
posted
"Reading scripture and praying gives the spirit a chance to work in you."
But it's exactly this kind of self-enforced repetitive action that opens one up to suggestions of brainwashing, again. I mean, the process of sitting down and reading the same thing over and over again until you believe it is LITERALLY a communist retraining technique.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Scripture seems like a remarkably second-hand way to learn about the nature of God if one posits that God is capable of communicating His nature to people directly.
Of course, we generally believe that Scripture is the RESULT of that communication.
And God seems to like us to exercise Faith. Visual Manifestations didn't always work. Think of the Israelites who were freed from Egypt. They didn't like the way things were going after they'd been released and experienced pretty powerful miracles, so they decided they'd make their own New Gods that they'd have a little better control over.
But I'm sure you're response will be that you'd at least like the chance to experience that. I'm sure you're not alone in that respect.
posted
Are that certain of being susceptible to brain-washing? You read everything - if certain books are especially persuasive, feel positive, stir a belief in God, and you feel drawn to them, that could be a very good thing.
Does reading Anne Rice force you to believe in vampires? I suspect brainwashing occurs far more often in movies than in real life.
...
Is it a squicky thought that you could find just what has been described, and that it is what you're looking for?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Are that certain of being susceptible to brain-washing?"
It's appeared to work on a substantial percentage of the population, kat. Even if you rather generously assume that half the people saying they talk to God have in fact talked to God, we're still talking about literally millions of Americans who've fooled themselves into thinking that they've communicated with the Creator of the Universe -- which would, I'd think, normally be an event that'd be fairly difficult to mistake for something else.
I don't think I'm somehow exceptional or immune to this possibility.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if you rather generously assume that half the people saying they talk to God have in fact talked to God, we're still talking about literally millions of Americans who've fooled themselves into thinking that they've communicated with the Creator of the Universe -- which would, I'd think, normally be an event that'd be fairly difficult to mistake for something else.
So your proof of the effectiveness of the Bible as Brainwashing is that millions of people have felt answers to their prayers?
Uh... is it really necessary to point out the other possible explanation?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As these millions of people do not agree on which God spoke to them, or what that God told them to do, it's worth noting that a substantial portion of them are obviously wrong.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt most people's prayers are Is there an instrument of thy authority on earth, and who is it? By the way, what's your first name?
Most prayers are more like, Help me, please. Do you love me? Are you there? Please bless my family. Please help me to know what to say to my kid/spouse/friend. I'm sorry for what I have done. Please don't let everything be screwed up. Thank you. Please, what should I do?
It's very possible for everyone to recieve answers to those prayers and the answers not be mutually exclusive.
posted
Tom's still lookin'. Hope is an important, crucial aspect of humanity, and some would say it is a cornerstone of faith as well.
Now, would God communicate directly with Tom if Tom met God more on His terms? (Assuming God's terms are, in fact, Christian terms) Probably. But then again, no one can claim to know everything about God, in particular everything about God as it relates to other people's relationships with God.
In other words, if someone keeps asking-after literally years (possibly decades, I'm not sure) of failurer as they see it-well, I don't think God frowns on that at all. Like a good parent who would respect any child of theirs who holds a carefully-considered, honest opinion that differs from their own, I personally think God would look at it the same way.
And if God ain't up there? Well, everyone needs some romanticism, don't they? Nothing more romantic than a good lost cause:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess this comes back to my primary quibble with modern Protestantism: the idea that believing SOMETHING, as long as you're humble and submissive enough, is good enough -- even if it's not necessary The Truth.
If I honestly thought that that was what modern Protestantism taught, I couldn’t be a part of it either. I do see a segment of the church leaning that way, but I will be working against it with all my heart. (Also mind, soul, strength and will.) I came to religion through physics – I also have a big thing about The Truth. I don’t think I’ve got all of it, but I do think I’ve got a hold of a piece, and I’m trying my darnedest to learn more.
Re: Schleiermacher, I thought the last section of his Speeches, where he actually goes into Christian apologetics, was pretty weak. But I do agree with him that the experience of the Divine is not something that can be easily (if at all) communicated in human words and doctrines.
Banna, and everyone else who asked, I think that for someone already devoted to Christ, and particularly someone standing in the tradition of meditation on Christ’s wounds, the movie could be a very powerful experience, and a productive part of their spiritual life. For any other purpose I think it fails miserably.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was talking to my parents yesterday and they said that there were HUGE traffic jams from the theatres Wednesday Night. I was only a little surprised. It is Arkansas, after all.
Tom, have you ever read The Screwtape Letters? I really want to get a copy and read it sometime. My former religion teacher once said that there was a part where one of the devil's minions was bragging about how this one new convert was not feeling the Spirit like he was at the time of his conversion. The devil chided him, saying that it wasn't him doing that, it was God, to see if he would still be a christian even though he felt nothing. I think that was the general theme of the conversation. I really should read it sometime.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was just wondering what people could still be having to say about this movie. Of course, it turns out the thread was derailed.
quote: if someone could explain to me why we should bother to worship one.
Well, I have to admit that the idea that we are the highest intelligence in the Universe is a pretty alarming one. It's fairly natural to want to believe in something greater. I guess not believing would be like having no parents, if they were a source of strength for you.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Screwtape Letters is a fun read. There's a great audio version of it read by John Cleese that is very good.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm going to talk about the movie. Because I just got back from seeing it a second time.
The funny thing is, I had expected the impact to be far less this second time around, since I knew all the shocking bits before they came. Shock has a tendency to wear off fast.
No such luck. The movie was every bit as hard-hitting as the first time. Sure, my attention was slightly derailed by the little bits that annoyed me the first time around (like the abuse of slo-mo shots of jesus falling down), but these were completely in the background. I can't help thinking that people criticizing the historical accuracy of the movie are looking for a reason to nitpick. So they didn't really nail him through the hands, they nailed him through the wrists. Big deal.
It wasn't the point of the movie. Gibson was making a religously accurate movie, one that was designed to get people to feel the story, like we were actually standing there watching it. I think on that level, it's a roaring success. That being said, I don't think I would have wanted to be standing there watching it when it happened, and i'm glad we were spared at least some of the whipping as he focuses on the reactions of the people who were there.
Some reviewers have complained that Gibson was making a brutal movie to make an emotional impact. Well, duh. I thought that was the whole point of the story of the Passion: that by realizing how much Jesus suffered, we would realize that we deserve every bit of that punishment every day of our lives, and realize what he spared us from.
Now, I am not a religious person by any stretch of the imagination (though I was raised in a very christian household), but I am constantly boggled by some people's determination to miss the point...
Anyway, I don't think I've said anything here that hasn't been said many times over and much more eloquently by other people, but there you go, that's my opinion after seeing the movie twice. I'm not sure I was entirely coherant, and I could ramble on a lot longer, but whatever. It's a great movie. It's also a horrifying movie. I think I got the point.
posted
It is a very "tense" movie. I need a couple hours to unwind.
It wasn't great story-telling. You kind of have to know the background material for the flashbacks, else you'd just be watching a 2 hour "kicking the living shit out of some guy" film. Competent shooting, but not very good story telling.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really had some difficulty with this film.
On the one hand, it was a story I was familiar with. It was a story I could identify with. It jerked tears and made shivers go down the spine. But , it also struck a consumer chord. The cynical one saying "Explain this pornographic violence, please, so I know what I'm paying for? Am I seeing a depiction of the faith I was raised in or am I watching the heavy-handed emotional manipulation by a pop-culture megalomaniac?"
As I left the theater after my first viewing, a couple of younger audience members were discussing the film. The boy turned to the girl and said "It was 'ok', but I kinda wished they would have shown more of the good things about his life."
That kind of summed up how I felt about it.
Posts: 3061 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see what is hard to understand about it.
It's a film adaptation of a Passion play. Passion plays are about the last twelve hours of Christ's life. Had it shown anything else, it would not have been a Passion play.
A Passion play is not by any means a new concept, and these plays have been performed for centuries.
[ March 07, 2004, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: HRE ]
Posts: 515 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
The first scene. It's good that it portrayed the fear and doubt.
The point-of-view of Mary. This was a woman who watched as her son was beaten, mocked, and killed. It's about time this was given serious thought.
The ruthlessness of the Romans. They were brutal. They get off easy with all the "Jews killed Christ" rhetoric.
Dislikes:
Ciaphas. If the man had really talked to Pilate like that, he'd have hung right next to Jesus. Sorry, folks, but while he was a manipulative bastard, he did not handle things like that.
Latin. Now, I understand that Latin was the vernacular in Rome's heyday, but it wasn't the language of choice for people like Pilate. Pilate spoke Greek (wrote some in Latin, but was Greek at heart).
History. While this was a very... Catholic movie, but not quite historically correct. That bugged me from a strictly historical POV.
The lowercase "T". Really, why does this baloney need to be propagated?
I don't think it was overtly anti-semitic, but it still bears the ugly misconception of "the Jews killed Jesus" in it. This is what has sparked most of the vehement anti-semitism throughout the last two millenia. The violence, while gory, was sadly consistent with how people like Jesus were treated.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one seems to be writing the most significant story about The Passion at this point, which is that after almost two full weeks in at least three English-speaking countries, there has not been a legit report of violence stemming from the film. Not one. And while I still maintain that the film is clearly anti-Semitic – not because it claims that Jews had the lion’s share of responsibility for the death of Christ, but because every other “bad guy” gets an out and the Jews who are not Christ’s family or disciples are all pretty cartoonish – I must say that this reality is yet another reason why The Passion is moving to the inside pages of the papers this week.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm glad.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
You can read the Bible or the BoM without pledging your will. 
