posted
(That was actually me posting, I'm afraid.)
When people talk about listening to their heart, I think they're USUALLY referring to the act of reasoning based on an intuitive understanding of a situation. But you've also specifically eliminated that process from consideration, too.
In what way do you "perceive" God in your heart if you don't feel, hear, taste, see, or smell any sensation of communication, and you aren't receiving direct intelligence -- i.e. reason -- from that God? And how can you possibly encourage that communication in someone else if, by your own definition, it takes no earthly form that can be understood or described by man?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is that if your faith depends on "material evidence or logic" then you are vulnerable when either of those fail you - just as enochville was.
I think faith always entails being vulnerable. This is true no matter what you base your faith on.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing in myself that is closest to what Kate seems to be decribing would be whatever it is inside me that makes me an over-all optimist. It's also a "big picture" kind of faith that I just "feel" without being able to say it's a 5-senses kind of "feeling". It's also a feeling that isn't born of any real rational thought. I mean, I can make a semi-plausible rational arguement for remaining optimistic, but it's more a justification for the way I already feel than it is a reason for feeling that way.
This "faith" is important to me and likely a fundamental part of my most basic personality. It informs many of my attitudes and decisions on some level. But it isn't a source of any kind of knowledge, which is where I feel that it differs from most kinds of religious faith. There is no way I can progress from my faith, no matter how I nurture it, to any kind of faith in Jesus Christ, God, The Bible, The Pope, Joseph Smith, The Book of Mormon, or any other religious lynchpin.
Is this "faith" that I'm talking about anything remotely similar to the idea you are trying to describe, Kate? What is it about your inherent kernel of faith that tells you it comes from God? Because without the "god" part, I know what you mean. When I examine the base kernel of faith upon which I operate, not only is it irrelevant whether Jesus was married or not, it's irrelevant whether he existed or not, or indeed whether "God" exists or not. All paths I can trace that would connect "God" to this kernel of faith are external cultural labeling, and not informed from the thing itself.
(Does that make sense to you? Anyone?)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think that we need labels in order to communicate. So at the beginning of the communication era, there was a need of a label for “the good/moral” concept. A benevolent, loving, all powerful deity seems to be an obvious and useful choice (as a source of all that is good and moral and such). Having faith in that kind of “good” is quite acceptable for me. But the concept evolved and the “deity” became a concept more powerful than the original “good”.
So, when someone says: “I’m good in response to the call of the deity I believe/have faith in.” I find it more than OK.
What is not OK for me is when someone says something like “the deity I believe in is better than the deity you believe in” (based on the “obvious” premise that we all NEED to believe in some deity). We find ourselves here on the slippery edge of the slope. Not only one would start judging the others by “self-sustained reasons” but the “need to save the souls of the rest” becomes “justified” (see human history) …
My personal theory is that the goodness/usefulness of the “deity concept” was broken when people noticed (and craved for) the power that comes with the “spoken by the deity” office.
I’m not saying that all organised religion is “bad”, I just don’t like the “true believers” preaching and feeling righteous and worthy and all that, while “obviously” distrusting the ones that “don’t respond to the call of the (same) deity” …
posted
Made sense to me, Karl, and I think Optimism would be a very good example of both something you "feel" without feeling it physically, and faith in the sense Kate means it.
In case I haven't mentioned it lately, Karl, I really do enjoy and appreciate your perceptive ability.
A., this part:
quote:I just don’t like the “true believers” preaching and feeling righteous and worthy and all that, while “obviously” distrusting the ones that “don’t respond to the call of the (same) deity”
is what worries me about over-emphasizing the internal aspect of "God reveals this to us". I don't attribute this attitude to Kate, but I have seen a correlation between "God revealed this to me so I know it's true" and "God revealed this to me, so I'm better than you", though that is admittedly anecdotal evidence and not a detailed study.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, yes. That is very much what I am talking about. The further step is that my "big-picture-good-moral (I would add "love") thing" has a "personality" and a desire to be in relationship. It is the source of "good-moral-love-ness". I also agree that naming it (which defines it as smaller) and claiming it as different or better than that other tribe's source of "good-moral-love-ness is the cause of great wrong. I think that religion runs into problems when instead of saying that this is the way I choose to be in relationship with/respond to the invitation to be in relationship with, the source of good-moral-love-ness, we start thinking that that facet of this infinite concept is the whole thing.
Karl, I think that you and I have a very similar faith. I have different channels to access it and I believe that Jesus is one way that "good-moral-love-ness" has reached out to us. And I believe that, despite the dangers, getting together with other people to acknowledge and be in relationship with g-m-l-ness is useful - mostly because the most concrete way to be in relationship with gmlness is to recognize the gmlness in each other.
And Jim - if God has revealed anything to me, it is that, since God's love is infinite and God loves all God's children, that defining myself as "better" than someone else because of my relationship with God is a ridiculous idea.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And Jim - if God has revealed anything to me, it is that, since God's love is infinite and God loves all God's children, that defining myself as "better" than someone else because of my relationship with God is a ridiculous idea.
I figured Not everyone gets that, however.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is very much what I am talking about. The further step is that my "big-picture-good-moral (I would add "love") thing" has a "personality" and a desire to be in relationship.
I still want to know how you know this, since you can't perceive it OR think about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, certainly I both perceive and think about it. It does not, however, depend upon either my perception or my thought.
You love your daughter. I'm sure, there are certain physical sensations related to this that are perceptable; I'm sure that there are rational, logical reasons to love your daughter. Is your love, then, dependent on those things?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Absolutely. If I could not sense my daughter and could not think about my daughter, I am completely confident that I would not love my daughter. Moreover, lacking these thoughts and sensations, I would be completely unaware that loving my daughter would be possible, much less desirable or necessary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, I think Tom's issue, and I know mine, is your use of the word "know" to describe this. Again, knowledge of your own love is easy-- it's *yours*. God is not yours, and you can't know He loves you in the same way you know you love someone else... even with a deposit of faith.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Absolutely. If I could not sense my daughter and could not think about my daughter, I am completely confident that I would not love my daughter. Moreover, lacking these thoughts and sensations, I would be completely unaware that loving my daughter would be possible, much less desirable or necessary.
I know that even when my Dad isn't thinking about me and I'm not anywhere near him so he isn't sensing me, he still even in that moment, loves me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Absolutely. If I could not sense my daughter and could not think about my daughter, I am completely confident that I would not love my daughter. Moreover, lacking these thoughts and sensations, I would be completely unaware that loving my daughter would be possible, much less desirable or necessary.
This just brought to mind that movie "The Forgotten". I didn't particularly enjoy the movie, but it dealt with this almost exact issue.
***SPOILERS***
The aliens took away her son physically, and then erased every memory of her son. And yet, she didn't forget. I know it's just a movie, but it raises the question, is there some sort of connection which transcends thought and perception?
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The aliens took away her son physically, and then erased every memory of her son. And yet, she didn't forget.
Then they clearly missed a memory or two, by definition.
--------
quote:I know that even when my Dad isn't thinking about me and I'm not anywhere near him so he isn't sensing me, he still even in that moment, loves me.
Only in the same way that he remains a human even when he's not thinking about it, or your pencil remains yellow when you put it in a drawer. "Love" in that context is a meaningless potential state, not an actively aware state. If I were to ask you "what color is that pencil in the drawer," you could reply "yellow" based on previous experiences with the pencil -- but would NOT be basing your reply on any actual knowledge of the pencil's current condition.
In the same way, since we humans conceive of being "in love" as a persistent state, it is possible for us to say that we "know" that someone whose love we've experienced continues to love us even when we're no longer having that experience. (Note that this is not always accurate; many people presume that love continues to exist in situations where it no longer does, based on an erroneous assumption of state. In doing this, we simply apply a few principles of rational prediction to our prior experiences; it's not anything "other-worldly," but rather a function of real-world logic.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I think that your "meaningless, potential state" is about as far from meaningless as you can get. The whole is more than the sum of the parts. Intangibles exist and love is more than a chemical reaction and a logical byproduct of evolution.
We may just have to disagree on that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they took away the memory of her son being born, thereby negating any memories after that. But, they didn't take away the memory of her being pregnant. It actually had an odd sort of pro-life twist to it. But the point is that the aliens had detected some sort of a connection between people, and noticed that it was strongest between parent and child. So they set about experimenting with it and found that in the case of this woman, they could not break it, no matter how hard they tried. I just thought of some great applications this has to the present discussion, but unfortunately my shift is up. Maybe later, if this thread is still on something resembling this topic.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious as to what greater meaning the stated object can have in potentia that it does not possess when acting on or expressing its condition in any way.
I'm also highly curious as to what proof you can offer that intangibles exist that does not rely on tangible applications of those intangibles.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet the question remains: what good is an intangible with no tangible application? What greater value does an object with hypothetical potential have that it loses once that potential is realized? I can understand the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but that idea is usually predicated on the assumption that the "whole" brings with it synergies among its parts that produce some sort of perceptible value.
Moreover, if your knowledge of God's otherwise imperceptible love is a "faith-thing," it seems unusual to use it as evidence of the existence of God and a justification for your faith. If your faith is based on something which is based on faith, it's turtles all the way down.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" makes you think I should come up with either of those things to justify faith?
posted
Well, it may be my definitions of "logical" and "material" that are hanging you up. Because while I don't think your justifications necessarily have to be "rational" or "reproducible," I think -- assuming as I do that you're sane -- they DO have to be "logical" or "material" (or both) in order to constitute any sort of functional justification for anything.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rational: A) All elephants are grey. B) This is an elephant. C) Therefore, the color it is must be gray.
Logical but not rational: A) All elephants are grey. B) This object is grey. C) Therefore, it is an elephant.
Material: A) I see an elephant. B) It is yellow.
Reproducible: A) John, come here and see this elephant. B) Is it yellow? C) John also says this elephant is yellow.
Reproducible and Rational: A) All elephants are gray. B) John and I both think this elephant is yellow. C) John and I base our understanding of "yellow" and "gray" on multiple data sets, including bananas and business suits. D) It is more likely that this elephant is yellow than it is that both John and I are wrong. E) This elephant is yellow. F) Ergo, not all elephants are grey in all cases and situations. G) This elephant has, upon closer material inspection, clearly been painted yellow. H) We can safely suppose that this elephant is grey underneath, but we are not entirely sure.
Logical and Material: A) I have a gut feeling about this. This gut feeling can be roughly described as butterflies in my stomach and a general sensation of "being watched." B) I am alone in a room. C) I am perhaps being watched. Maybe there is a camera somewhere.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I am saying that, while my faith is shaped and informed by all of the above, it does not depend on it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I am saying that, while my faith is shaped and informed by all of the above, it does not depend on it.
And I'm trying to figure out what else it could POSSIBLY depend on. How can you even be AWARE of something in the absence of logical extrapolation and/or material evidence of its existence?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, there is no way for you understand this (logically) and no way for me to explain it. It depends on things you don't believe exist. It won't make sense to you unless you make a "leap of faith". It is, by definition, beyond logic and beyond the physical.
I am aware because I have faith.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, see, I'm asking how you're aware that you have this thing you can't perceive, can't describe, and can't think about.
In what way does it manifest, thus leaving you confident of its existence? Does it provoke an emotion? Does it produce a thought? What, in other words, does it DO?
And if it does nothing, what makes you sure you have it? You can insist that you have it by definition as a side-effect of "faith," but then it becomes useless as groundwork for faith; that's tautological.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can perceive it (sometimes). I can't describe it (adequately); I haven't the vocabulary. I can think about it - obviously.
Sometimes it evokes emotion, sometimes it produces thoughts, sometimes it comforts me, sometimes it provokes me, sometimes it spurs me to action, sometimes it is "silent".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. It sounds like you DO perceive it just fine, then, in the same way that I perceive my heart: when my heart doesn't need to get my attention, I'm barely aware of it -- but when it does, some physical sensation is produced that calls my attention to it. I'd still consider that material evidence, if indeed you're confident that nothing else is capable of producing those emotions in the same way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When that sensation/emotion - I hesitate to call it physical, but it isn't important - is absent, even when I look for it, my faith is not changed. Thus, not dependant. The sensation is one effect of faith, not faith itself. Faith is a decision, a response.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When that sensation/emotion - I hesitate to call it physical, but it isn't important - is absent, even when I look for it, my faith is not changed.
But that's rather like saying that when your father isn't saying "I love you," he loves you. It's TRUE, but there would presumably reach a point where, barring any demonstrations of your father's love, you would begin to doubt its existence. no?
In the same way, if that sensation/emotion were absent EVERY time you looked for it, wouldn't you start to wonder?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. You are too concerned with the sensation. or you think I am. The conversation has focused on that because you questions led that way, but it is not about the sensation.
Faith is a choice, a decision. It is in response to an invitation. That invitation makes itself known through many means. One of those, but by no means the most important, is a sensation/emotion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Testimony of other people - written and otherwise, observation of creation, the resonance of the idea itself. For example.
But honestly, Tom, why? You aren't really curious. It isn't going to convince you of anything - nor would I try. I am answering your questions mostly to be polite, but my answers are only going to be frustrating for you, because the real answer is something you don't think exists.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, see, that's the problem. You're arguing about the EXISTENCE of God, which is completely irrelevant to this conversation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
screw that, kmbboots. Threads change direction all the time, so as long as you have something to say and people are responding, you're welcome in any thread I start.
At any rate, I wouldn't get too offended. A's post was too cryptic to jump to any conclusions.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Me too, and for what it's worth, I have a new insight into "faith" that I wouldn't have were it not for Kate's posts.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I wasn't offended - just reminded of my own tendency to hog the soapbox. Thanks for the reassurance, though.
Tom, the existance of God is central to the conversation, because it is the Holy Spirit (or that "divinity" or "part of God" that exists in me) that responds to the invitation to faith. And God that, I pray, helps me to continue to respond even when as Merton says,"the time comes to enter the darkness in which we are naked and helpless and alone; in which we see the insufficiency of our greatest strenght and the hollowness of our greatest virtues.; in which we have nothing of our own to rely on, and nothing in our nature to support us, and nothing in the world to guide us or give us light."
When I am long past being able to reason, or to believe in my senses, or even to comfort myself with "feelings", I trust that something in me will still respond.
See? Without God, that doesn't make any sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, the existance of God is central to the conversation, because it is the Holy Spirit (or that "divinity" or "part of God" that exists in me) that responds to the invitation to faith.
Ah. You're having a different conversation than I'm having, then. Because I'm asking what form the invitation to faith takes, and what form(s) the response takes, and how you're aware of either. If that response doesn't constitute 'reason' or 'feeling' or 'emotion,' I'm left baffled as to how you can be conscious of it in any way.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine that I am aware of the invitation in a way similar to the way that I am self-aware at all. I'm not sure what that is.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
