board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

Justifications for faith

Post Reply   Page 5 of 6  [ 114 posts ]
Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 4:59 am
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Objective truth differs from subjective truth, and objectivity differs from subjectivity. Objective truth is an outer truth, and subjective truth is an inner truth.

The objective thinker is interested in objective truth, while the subjective thinker is interested in subjective truth. Objective truth includes scientific and historical truth. Subjective truth includes religious and spiritual truth. The objective thinker is indifferent to the truth of subjectivity, while the subjective thinker finds an eternal happiness in subjectivity. For the subjective thinker, eternal happiness is an absolute good which is attained by faith. Faith is a passionate inwardness which affirms the truth of subjectivity. Objective truth is characterized by outwardness, while subjective truth is characterized by inwardness. The objective thinker does not find an eternal happiness in subjective truth, and is disinterested in the truth of subjectivity. The objective thinker is interested in what defines existence, while the subjective thinker is interested in how existence is defined.

Reflection on the nature of existence may be objective or subjective. Truth may be reflected upon objectively or subjectively. The objective thinker finds truth by approximation, while the subjective thinker finds truth by appropriation. The objective thinker has a need to quantify certainty or probability, while the subjective thinker ultimately must accept uncertainty. Faith cannot be attained by approximation, or by an effort to quantify deliberation into a higher degree of certainty. Faith can only be attained by an appropriation or acceptance of the condition of uncertainty. Thus, faith requires a leap from disbelief to belief. Faith is a state of objective uncertainty in which the individual affirms his or her own subjectivity.

Faith is a subjective, personal, passionate interestedness in attaining eternal happiness, as found through appropriation. Faith is a category of decision-making in which an individual confronts an “either-or” situation, either accepting or rejecting subjectivity. The falsehood of objectivity may be revealed by a lack of need for personal commitment, and by a lack of need for decision-making, while the truth of subjectivity may be revealed by a need for personal commitment, and by a need for decision-making. The speculative thinker attempts to stand apart from his or her own existence, and attempts to view existence objectively. In contrast, the subjective thinker realizes that he or or she cannot stand apart from existence, and that the truth of his or her own existence is found in his or her own subjectivity.

Truth is a paradox, in that it is objectively defined as subjectivity, and in that the outwardness of objectivity is also the inwardness of subjectivity. Truth may be objectively defined as a passionate inwardness, which may change in depth or intensity according to the experience of the subjective thinker. Inwardness is an ethical infinity in which the individual may find eternal happiness. Although truth may be appropriated by faith, faith must be surrendered in order to be objective. Thus, truth may be defined from either an objective or subjective point of view.

Speculative thinking may be useful to explain matters about which it is not necessary to have faith. However, questions about matters of faith (or questions about whether to have faith) must be answered subjectively. To know the truth of personal existence is to be aware of uncertainty. Truth is not an abstract set of relations, or an immutable state of being. Truth is found in the existence of the subjective thinker, and is more passionately appropriated as the subjective thinker progresses from the aesthetic to the ethical to the religious stages of existence. The subjective thinker is always in a state of becoming. The passion of the subjective thinker may be revealed by a deepening inwardness, and by a heightening of subjectivity. Being is a process of becoming, and is thus a state of uncertainty.

The objective point of view regarding the nature of truth is taken by speculative philosophy, while the subjective point of view regarding the nature of truth is taken by religious faith. Truth from the subjective point of view is a leap of faith. While speculative thinking reflects on concrete things abstractly, subjective thinking reflects on abstract things concretely.

Subjectivity becomes comical when it is misplaced; i.e. when subjectivity is misinterpreted as objectivity. The subjective thinker may become either comical or tragic when he or she tries to achieve an objective certainty (or the highest possible degree of probability) concerning an aspect of truth which can only be known by faith. The subjective thinker may become either comical or tragic when he or she tries to achieve an objective certainty by means of faith, which is defined by objective uncertainty. The subjective thinker may also become comical or tragic when he or she falsely pretends to be infinitely interested in attaining eternal happiness.

There are three stages of subjective existence: 1) the aesthetic, 2) the ethical, and 3) the religious. The aesthetic stage is a stage in which the individual is interested in pleasure and enjoyment. The aesthetic stage is not characterized by the passionate engagement and personal commitment which are characteristic of the higher stages of existence. The ethical stage is a higher stage of personal commitment, and the religious stage is the highest stage of personal commitment. Inwardness includes the ethical, ethical-religious, and religious stages of existence. The religious stage is the highest stage of subjectivity. The religious person understands that suffering is inherent to the religious experience. While the aesthete considers suffering to be something accidental, the religious person understands that suffering is an essential aspect of his or her own existence. This is the paradox of faith, that in the process of attaining eternal happiness, the subjective individual is able to understand the meaning of suffering. In the process of discovering subjective truth, the individual becomes more aware of his or her own objective uncertainty.

Last edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Mon 14 Jan , 2008 7:05 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
laureanna
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 5:00 am
Triathlete
Offline
 
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed 26 Jan , 2005 2:08 am
Location: beachcombing
 
I'm skeptical of the whole synchronicity idea, however I do think that people draw meaning from random collections of things, and the meaning can be very helpful in guiding decisions. I believe that astrology charts, crystal balls, palm reading, candles, crystals, numerology, or other symbolic manipulations, in the hands of a thoughtful person, can be used to meditate and to see possibilities that might not have been apparent on the surface - the structure of the meditation object allows the person to get past the inner critic and brainstorm freely. The candle or the star has no power, it is just a tool to allow the mind to focus.

Likewise, if I go to Mass on Sunday (if my daughter drags me there) and if I have a particular conundrum of a problem, I'll say to myself before hand "Please open my heart and mind to hear your Word." Invariably, one of the readings will have something pertinent to say about the problem I'm mulling over. Actually, every reading has something pertinent to say, but I usually am not listening, or haven't connected it to what it is pertinent to. Or don't want to hear the message even if it's really obvious. Like Iavas said about I Ching, most of the readings are vague enough that they could apply to lots of things. The trick is to be in a receptive mood to hear the suggested paradigm shift in the words.

So when religious or spiritual practices use texts or objects to expand wisdom and make gestalt connections, I think it is generally beneficial. But because the connections come from within, everyone will have a slightly different experience. Some may get it completely "wrong" in the eyes of the rest of society.

Unfortunately, most people take their spirituality far too literally and shallowly. Instead of thinking for themselves and growing in understanding, they simply keep looking until they find a quote or a tea leaf configuration that supports the stubborn convictions they already have. Don't get me started on Fundamentalism.

_________________

Well, I'm back.


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 6:40 am
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Lidless - good post.

Estel,
Quote:
Mariahobbit isn't hurting anyone with her beliefs. She has tried to tell you what and why she believes and what her justifications for her faith are. She's answered the questions you asked, which was the point of this thread according to the first post.

To go on and on saying that she's wrong, or that anyone else is wrong for their faith.... It isn't kind, and it supposedly was not the reason for this thread. It's one thing to say why a faith/religion/spirituality is wrong for you, but it's another thing to say that it's wrong altogether.
I wasn't forcing anyone to answer, and I warned in the first post that responses would be challenged:

"You should only answer if you do not mind your answers being dissected and challenged."

I don't see how that is misleading?

Maria has given her answers and I challenged them. But I also conceded that some of her evidence made me think and can't yet be explained! I think I've been fair to her in always providing my reasons for disagreement.

I may be rather late to the religion debate, but am I wrong in thinking that if someone has full confidence in their faith, challenges to it should not pose a problem?
Quote:
Try to disprove it gently if you must, and if the person doesn't agree with you, please don't go after their belief again and again until they feel forced to leave the thread.
I was not going after anything "again and again", in my mind I was just continueing a debate - however you are probably right about needing a more gentle approach.
Quote:
Leaving people to their faith if it helps them and doesn't hurt anyone else is not difficult.
I think you're blowing this out of proportion a bit, it's just one thread and I've never done it before. I think it's just the last three years of being in a place where religion is so much more widespread than I was used to in Europe and seeing young people just blindly following the culture (IMO). In Europe I think young people have a greater chance of making up their own minds as there's no pressure to fit in to a religious culture.

democritus wrote:
Now the question I have for Iavas as an Atheist and a Humanist is this: does it really matter what Maria believes so long as it (A) does not actively harm her or anyone else for that matter and (B) she does not seek to impose it on anyone else but just shares her views with us and leaves it at that?
No it doesn't matter, and clearly Maria's life is richer for her faith. But how else can the debate happen? The believer, I would assume, is always going to be someone who feels faith has had a positive impact on their life.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
democritus
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 7:31 am
Offline
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 10:19 am
Location: the vortex of complacency and bad service
 
Lidless wrote:
I just want to point out that, even though Demo is an Antipodean, I consider myself his half-brother in this respect.

The double-posting I mean, not that blathering on in the earlier post.
Now to be fair no one blathers on quite like you do, so I don't see how you could avoid that comparison. :D


Top
Profile Quote
democritus
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 7:35 am
Offline
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri 11 Feb , 2005 10:19 am
Location: the vortex of complacency and bad service
 
Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:
Faith is a subjective, personal, passionate interestedness in attaining eternal happiness, as found through appropriation. Faith is a category of decision-making in which an individual confronts an “either-or” situation, either accepting or rejecting subjectivity. The falsehood of objectivity may be revealed by a lack of need for personal commitment, and by a lack of need for decision-making, while the truth of subjectivity may be revealed by a need for personal commitment, and by a need for decision-making. The speculative thinker attempts to stand apart from his or her own existence, and attempts to view existence objectively. In contrast, the subjective thinker realizes that he or or she cannot stand apart from existence, and that the truth of his or her own existence is found in his or her own subjectivity.
In a post full of falsehoods, this paragraph (and that particular sentence that is bolded) is the worst offender and encapsulates all the 'sins' (sic) of the rest of the post. When I get some proper time today or tomorrow I will outline why.


Top
Profile Quote
Lidless
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 10:14 am
Als u het leven te ernstig neemt, mist u de betekenis.
Offline
 
Posts: 8261
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 8:21 pm
Location: London
 
Very, er, Kierkegaardian, V-man.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 10:43 am
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
Iavas, I feel a bit guilty that I haven’t responded to this thread sooner, since I was the one who pushed you to make a separate thread with your questions.

But in addition to RL interfering, I have been rather at a loss as to how to best address your questions. As I said previously, it seems that in some ways, we are discussing apples and oranges.

For the sake of clarity, and for my own reference, I will repeat your original post here, along with a kind of labelling system:

Quote:
A Could you please lay out how you think everything began and how it works - i.e. the universe, god, humans - in as scientific a manner as you can manage? It should include a description of what you think god is and how he/she came into being.
Does god have a gender?
What is gods motivation?
In what physical way can god change the world? Does god monitor every single person? If so does god have multiple "souls"?
What evidence do you see in todays world that god is doing good things?

B If god can currently change the world, why is there so much unfairness? If he can't change anything, if he just set things in motion, what is the point of prayer? Basically, how can someone pray and at the same time feel god wants the best for everyone?

C And what is the single biggest factor that convinced/convinces you that having faith is correct?
It is interesting to me that you sort of divided your questions into three distinct parts...because they really do fall into three very different types of questions.

Part A is impossible to address in any meaningful way (IMO.) To ask someone who believes in The Divine, or in any manifestation of such to “lay out how you think everything began and how it works in as scientific a manner as you can manage” is a futile and almost silly question. By very definition, God (in any form) is beyond our capacity of knowledge and understanding.

Various religions and belief systems try various ways to bring The Divine down to a level that we can comprehend. Inevitably, these methods fail...because humans tend to be such literal and concrete creatures we glomp on to whatever metaphor is being used and say to ourselves, “Well, that’s God, then!” What we end up with in these kinds of case is a belief in a God who is, basically, a person writ large. This God gets jealous and angry and punishes us when we do bad things. This God is like a Father – in fact, is decidedly male. This God can change the world, but doesn’t because he wants to us figure things out for ourselves. This God created us because he was lonely and wanted company – and then tricked us by planting a forbidden tree that he knew we would not be able to resist and then punishing us for eating the fruit. This God is small, petty, narrow and all-too-human. This is the God that many Fundamentalists (and others) envision.

I do not believe in this God. (More on what kind of “God” I do believe in a little later.)

Your questions in section B are little more in the realm of theology, particularly “What is the point of prayer?” Good question. Many people who don’t pray, or who pray infrequently, think of prayer as sort of a “wish list” or a bargaining session. Again, the human God.

I use prayer as a way to center myself and balance my thoughts. I try to empty my mind from distractions and center my thoughts on my specific concern, not asking for anything particular “favor” but simply opening myself up to the Light. For me, that is the point of prayer – the opening. It strengthens my soul and enables me to continue with my daily tasks. I also lift other people up to the Light when I pray...my family, my close friends and anyone I know who is having a tough time or who needs a little help.

And finally, your last question...the only one, I think, that can be answered in any kind of concrete fashion. What convinces me that having faith is “correct?”

It is not a matter of being “correct.” It is what I intrinsically know. I believe – I feel – that there exists Something More. Something that is beyond our ken, and yet has the power and the capacity to connect us all. I believe that when we love each other, we make this Something manifest among ourselves and sometimes we may get a very dim glimpse of What Could Be. I do not believe that “God” is anything like a person with human feelings and needs and motivations and all that ...although I understand why people tend to couch their belief in God in those terms. I think there is much we don’t know about the Universe and the Divine...and most of it we will never know.

What I do know is this. Every once in a while, someone comes along who seems to have a better grasp of the Something More than most people. For me, Jesus is the primary example and the person whose words resonate the loudest for me. And he tried to hard to explain it...using simple words and little stories and walking amongst the most downtrodden and disenfranchised. And what did he say to do? Very concrete, very simple things, really.

Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked. Visit the lonely. Help the afflicted. Shelter the stranger. Don’t judge. Fix yourself first.
Love each other. For it is by loving each other that we show God’s love.


So I try to do these things without worrying too much about the rest. The rest will take care of itself.

You said you were not familiar with the Bible...but I wonder if you know this passage. It’s Paul, speaking about Love and about how we really can only know a very dim portion of what is True. I have my issues with Paul, but I this passage gets to the heart of my faith and what I believe.

1 Corinthians 13 (New Living Translation)

If I could speak all the languages of earth and of angels, but didn’t love others, I would only be a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I understood all of God’s secret plans and possessed all knowledge, and if I had such faith that I could move mountains, but didn’t love others, I would be nothing. If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it;] but if I didn’t love others, I would have gained nothing.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

Prophecy and speaking in unknown languages and special knowledge will become useless. But love will last forever! Now our knowledge is partial and incomplete, and even the gift of prophecy reveals only part of the whole picture! But when full understanding comes, these partial things will become useless.

When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly as in a cloudy mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God now knows me completely.

Three things will last forever—faith, hope, and love—and the greatest of these is love.


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 1:22 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
The main problem I have with these discussions is that the religious side so often goes to great lengths to establish that religious belief is different and separate from rational/empirical belief, and then once they have the non-religious side's provisional or grudging acceptance of this claim, they use is as a shield from behind which they can make rational/empirical claims while being immune to rational/empirical criticisms. It is one thing to say, "I know deep down that it is Right to be kind and Wrong to be cruel"; it is quite another to say "I know deep down that we're surrounded by invisible angels" or (worse) "I know deep down that suffering is the result of one person taking advice from a talking snake 6000 years ago".

tinwe made a comparison between art and religion earlier; I think it is probably quite correct to compare the religious experience to the artistic one--in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn the two were one and the same--but I can think of nothing in art that offers a parallel to religious belief. Going back to where this discussion started, the only thing in my experience that strikes me as categorically similar to religious belief is conspiracy theory. And again, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those two things are also one and the same. (I know it might sound insulting to say so, but I don't intend it that way. In any case, I don't think it's any more insulting than hearing that I must be missing a special sixth sense ;).

ETA: By religious belief, I mean an absolute belief that is founded on something other than reason and the senses and which is not subject to question or modification. It's different to say "I can't explain this thing I experienced, so I will provisionally conclude X until I get more information or a better idea".


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 1:58 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5168
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Very good, Liddy. I'm impressed that you recognized it. Though I have never been a religious person, I have long been strongly influenced by K's theory of approximation vs. appropriation, and the leap of faith.


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 2:19 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21755
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
Dave_LF wrote:
The main problem I have with these discussions is that the religious side so often goes to great lengths to establish that religious belief is different and separate from rational/empirical belief, and then once they have the non-religious side's provisional or grudging acceptance of this claim, they use is as a shield from behind which they can make rational/empirical claims while being immune to rational/empirical criticisms.
Well, what's the alternative, Dave? If I spend all sorts of my time outlining why from an empirical standpoint I believe in God, then I get told: Religion and science--ne'er the twain can meet! :roll:

Not to be snarky, but that is the truth of it. I've been down this road many times before in discussions here or on Manwe. It might be lazy to cut and paste, but that's all I have the energy to do. So maybe later I will do that.

Honestly, I do think science and religion are two different creatures, but I also believe in a kind of synthesis of the two; iow, they do converge but not in a way that will satisfy those who are only open to a naturalistic view of life. If you have no room for anything supernatural, then you can never see the intersection.

I look at this world and its beauty, complexity, design (albeit imperfect at times but much less so than many try to say), logic, symmetry, beautiful chaos, etc. and think, "Hmmm, not buying that this all happened on its own." I'm just not.

That's not to say that evolution is wrong and that we were all created in 6 days by God. Maybe that's true and maybe it isn't. :shrug: I doubt it more each day, actually, but this is not a discussion on creation v. evolution.

I still believe there is a God who was the cause of all of this we see around us. As a scientist (of sorts), I am continually awed by the things I discover. They are the empirical "proof" of the divine.


Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 2:29 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
LalaithUrwen wrote:
Well, what's the alternative, Dave? If I spend all sorts of my time outlining why from an empirical standpoint I believe in God, then I get told: Religion and science--ne'er the twain can meet! :roll:
But not by me, I hope. :) The nonreligious sometimes want to have it both ways too. I guess what I'd say to religious people in general is: if you want to claim that your religious beliefs are separate from empirical ones fine, but then don't try to use them to make claims about history or the material world. If you do this anyway, then you're tacitly admitting that there are at least some areas of intersection between the two, and you can't get upset when scientists or historians try to argue with you in the languages of science and history.


Top
Profile Quote
LalaithUrwen
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 3:48 pm
The Grey Amaretto as Supermega-awesome Proud Heretic Girl
Offline
 
Posts: 21755
Joined: Thu 24 Feb , 2005 3:46 pm
 
That seems to make perfect sense to me, Dave, and it articulates something that has been bugging me about the whole creation science movement. Hmmm, I must give that further thought....



Lali

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 4:21 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
I don't have time left for science to figure out how chi energy works and how the I Ching works and all that. I'm 44 years old, with a life expectancy of about 30 more years. Science isn't going to figure all that stuff out in time to help me.

So, I take what I can from what people before me have already figured out, even if science was in no way involved. If visualization and force of will seems to cause certain effects with regularity, then there's no reason why I shouldn't use them to make my life easier.

Don't forget, I've been an atheist. I scoffed at all hint of anything paranormal being real. When people died I was torn apart for years, not healing, because there was no comfort for me. They were DEAD. Gone. End of story. What's good about that?

When I found and began to use techniques for manipulating chi energy, I also ran into a bit of philosophy: things like reincarnation and the like. Since the techniques for raising and controlling energy really seemed to work, I've given the reincarnation idea the benefit of a doubt. If they got the chi thing right, maybe people get more than one turn at life, too? What if? I've experienced a few things that hint that maybe I've had a past life or two (not fun ones, either) but that's enough to let me put a working model of reincarnation into my brain and try it on for size.

And what happens when I do that? When I allow myself to believe for the first time in my life that there might be some sort of existance beyond the here/now? A: The agony of losing loved ones is shortened. I understand about the metaphysical link between people, and how it hurts when it's severed. I let myself believe that when we die, we hang out in a break room of sorts until it's time to take another turn at being human again.

OH!
A dream I had once was quite instrumental in settling this for me. I dreamed I was in a waiting room and there were lots of other people with me there, and every now and again, an opportunity would come up to volunteer to become a particular person being started in the material world. We'd all just know all that could be known about the environment/ parents/ and culture that the person would be born into, and we could make our own guesses about whether or not this was something we wanted to experience. Some people were so anxious to get back in the game that they'd take really (relatively) poor choices. Some were patiently waiting for some set of circumstances that they really wanted. I remember seeing someone jumping up and down when their prime choice finally became available, a sort of "I want THAT one!!!! Pick me! Pick me!" I was waiting for something in particular, though, and it didn't happen in the scope of my dream.

Anyway, back on topic: That was one of those really vivid, very real dreams. The kind you have trouble realizing when/where you are when you wake up. I took it as as much of an answer as I was likely to get on the subject and now use that as a mental framework for how I view the world.

So, now I can believe that when people die, this is not The End. Some part of what makes them themselves is preserved as well as everyone else in the world. We just might be able to hang out with friends in the break room and laugh about the life we just had together until we jump back in this very addictive game of Life.

And how does this affect how I behave in the world? Does this suddenly mean I think it's OK to kill people, since they are just going to come back anyway? Nooooooo... because Karma is part of the package of the reincarnation belief. I suspect negative Karma points severely limit how much choice you get in your next life, and I am NOT going to mess that up if I can help it.

So, before, I didn't hurt people because I didn't want to. After, I still don't want to hurt people.

Before, I would be hurt and upset for years and years after someone I knew died. Every comment by a well meaning Christian would plunge me into the depths of despair because it just wasn't so! :bawl: They were DEAD. GONE. Never coming back, ever. Everything they were and could have been was disintegrated and lost and useless. The people who told me it was "god's will" infuriated me, because it was such an obvious cop out. There was no god. These people were deluding themselves, and trying to get me to share in their delusion.

Now, it's more like a game. We get to try "Life" again with a new character, and if you did well in your last turn, you get more abilities on the next turn. There's only 16 different personality types, and you get issued one of those, to go with your shiny new body. You get to go through the whole discovery thing again, fresh and new. How cool is that? :D

My father in law had cancer, a nasty lymphoma, but he held on to life for a couple of years after the doctors said he'd be dead. Finally he was in the hospital again, on October 31, and finally slipped away in the middle of the night. Halloween is supposed to be when the "veil between the worlds" is the thinnest. I think that he finally saw or felt something from the other side that finally allowed him to let go.

When he died, it hurt terribly of course. I loved that old man. But I healed faster than ever before, because I knew in my heart that he had not "ended". That something of what he was persisted. (and even interacted once with my mother in law after that, from what she said- but that's second hand and I can't swear to it.)

Why in the world should I exchange the former bleak world view for what I have now? If I should suddenly be convinced of your arguments, Iavas, where would that leave me?

1. In mental agony for years, each time one of my loved ones dies.
2. In constant pain, from the ailments I've only been able to fix with energy healing.
3. Sick too often, like so many of you are.
(Oh, did I mention I haven't had a cold in at least 3 years now? The only sickness I've had has been a couple of bladder infections last year, and that was due to a pre-existing mechanical malfunction of my body) I'm beginning to think that health insurance is a waste of money on me!
4. A decided lack of amusement factor, when I no longer recognize that coincidence has been stretched too far.
5. The gee whiz factor gone, when I no longer see that people influence the weather. You may not admit individual weather control- but consider this: For two years after 2005, there has only been a single hurricane in the Carribbean. I think the massed thoughts and will of the people of the US have combined to dissuade that sort of thing. However, there are side effects: There's a killer drought in the southeast US right now. I think the lack of hurricanes is seriously messing with the normal rainfall amounts in the area bordering the Gulf of Mexico. :nono: But, what can you do? Wish for hurricanes? How can anyone with a conscience wish for that? :( People have an influence on weather, for good or ill, whether they realize it or not.


Anyway, my existance would not be as fun if I went back to the "faith" I grew up with: the faith that nothing that could not be measured by science was real. The faith that people who believed such nonsense were deluded, idiots or charlatons. The faith that was so desolate and crystal clear in it's sincerity.

I was raised in freedom from superstions and religion and eventually got a degree in biology. And yet, from all I studied in college, I never learned the one thing, that was the first thing I asked in my first high school biology class. The teacher was describing how impulses traveled down nerves and told the muscles to contract or release, according to need. He went into the biological details of how this happened and my first question was "Why?" Why does this nerve impulse cause this chemical reaction that causes the muscle to contract? What is the link between the two? The teacher could not answer. They don't know. They still don't know.

But I do. It's magic.
;)

I think that nervous tissue is the interface between the soul and chi energy and the body. I think chi energy is derived from another dimension and is what causes the body to go against entropy, to perform specific chemical reactions that cause the body to react to the will. Chi energy flows through us all, every time we perform an act of will, and just by living. Each cell in our body lives, because our "soul" wants it to. Each living thing on the planet has the same sort of animating property.
I have tried putting up shields around myself, with the specific purpose of shutting out all chi energy, and for a while I felt just fine. But, after the available energy had been used up, I started feeling really bad. Dead inside. When I released the circle I'd used to do this, it was like getting fresh air after nearly suffocating.

I believe that our bodies have natural shields that prevent other people's energy from interfering with our own. I think that this is what keeps us individuals. Some people's shields are weaker than others, and they have more than their share of empathy and paranormal experiences as a result. Gaining conscious control over the shields allows one to strengthen or release them at will. This has vast practical application in helping one's own psyche stay stable, if one has weak shields. I strengthen mine when going into crowds. I lower mine in during times of physical intimacy. I lower mine when I need to heal.

I can feel a buzz when I have chi energy flowing through me. My whole body feels tingly. I have felt the exact same feeling when woken unexpectedly from a deep sleep. From this, I conjecture that shields go down, and chi energy recharges when one is asleep. Every once in a while, one needs a recharge when sleep is not possible. Learning how to do this is useful.

I have no problem using something even if I don't know how it really works. I don't understand how my televison works, despite having studied electronics thoroughly when I was in the Army. :shrug: Just because I don't understand it, it doesn't keep me from watching a Stargate Atlantis marathon all weekend....

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 5:25 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
Another thing about this debate in general--it is often framed as "science vs. religion" or "empiricism vs. faith", but what people actually end up talking about is usually something more like "reason vs. intuition". Of course everyone uses both--scientists use leaps of intuition to come up with new ideas to test and religious people use reason to draw further conclusions from things they accept by faith--the difference really comes down to who gets the final word when they disagree. In science, it doesn't matter how much your intuition screams that something must be true; if the empirical data say it's false, that's what you have to conclude (and if the empirical data don't give a clear answer, you reserve judgment). With faith, it doesn't matter how many rational explanations you can marshal against an idea; if your intuition/gut still say it's true, you believe it. Is that fair? Further, not all articles of faith really come down to gut-level intuition. "These experiences I have are God speaking to me" might, but what about "every word of the Bible is inspired by God and literally true"?

Sort of a side question: does anyone want to take a shot at defining the difference between natural and supernatural? This is something that I've never really gotten. Either a thing is a real part of the "all that is" or it isn't, right?


Top
Profile Quote
Dave_LF
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 5:47 pm
You are hearing me talk
Offline
 
Posts: 2950
Joined: Mon 28 Feb , 2005 8:14 am
Location: Great Lakes
 
MariaHobbit wrote:
I don't have time left for science to figure out how chi energy works and how the I Ching works and all that. I'm 44 years old, with a life expectancy of about 30 more years. Science isn't going to figure all that stuff out in time to help me.
But if science did arrive at an explanation for what you've experienced that explained it adequately but differed from what you'd come up with on your own, what would you do?
Quote:
So, I take what I can from what people before me have already figured out, even if science was in no way involved. If visualization and force of will seems to cause certain effects with regularity, then there's no reason why I shouldn't use them to make my life easier.
But observing that certain actions consistently produce certain reactions is science; or part of it at least. What if the force of will effects disappeared, or after you played around some more you found out they only work once in a while and you couldn't predict when? Would you change your beliefs? That's where the difference lies, IMO.
Quote:
Don't forget, I've been an atheist. I scoffed at all hint of anything paranormal being real.
Atheism doesn't preclude belief in the paranormal :). Not even strict naturalism/empiricism does that, really--it just insists on constantly tweaking the model to fit reason and the empirical data, and throwing the whole thing out if a better explanation is found.
Quote:
Since the techniques for raising and controlling energy really seemed to work, I've given the reincarnation idea the benefit of a doubt. If they got the chi thing right, maybe people get more than one turn at life, too?
At the risk of totally derailing this, how does one reconcile reincarnation with population growth?
Quote:
Why in the world should I exchange the former bleak world view for what I have now? If I should suddenly be convinced of your arguments, Iavas, where would that leave me?

1. In mental agony for years, each time one of my loved ones dies.
<snip>
This is a pragmatic approach to belief, obviously. Rhetorically, should people believe things that can be shown to be false if they're comforting?
Quote:
Anyway, my existance would not be as fun if I went back to the "faith" I grew up with: the faith that nothing that could not be measured by science was real.
This is a strawman. I've never known of anyone who's claimed that nothing is real except what we can observe and measure--only that if something can't be observed and measured, there's no way we can know anything about it and no grounds for making assertions or having beliefs about it.
Quote:
Why does this nerve impulse cause this chemical reaction that causes the muscle to contract? What is the link between the two? The teacher could not answer. They don't know. They still don't know.
Sure they do. I can remember learning about it in detail.
Quote:
I have no problem using something even if I don't know how it really works. I don't understand how my televison works, despite having studied electronics thoroughly when I was in the Army. :shrug: Just because I don't understand it, it doesn't keep me from watching a Stargate Atlantis marathon all weekend....
This is inching toward a strawman again. No one is claiming that you have to either understand something completely or conclude that it doesn't exist. The evidence that TVs work is orders of magnitude better than the evidence that prayer works, for example, but if that weren't the case, there would be nothing to stop a strict empiricist from concluding that prayer works; he just wouldn't go further and conclude that prayer works because God answers prayers until he could come up with a way to test that.


Top
Profile Quote
halplm
Post subject: Re: Justifications for faith
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 7:44 pm
b77 whipping boy
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 9079
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 4:40 pm
 
At the risk of extreme personal aggitation, I'm going to try and address the original questions. I have not done more than glance at the thread so far, as I have not really been in the right mental state for some time.
Iavas_Saar wrote:
I posted these questions in the dark ages thread, and jewel was intending to start a new thread with her answers, but I figured I'd get the ball rolling. So here are the questions again. You should only answer if you do not mind your answers being dissected and challenged. :)
I don't mind my answers being dissected and challenged, but in the interest of fair warning, I'm not sure I have the energy or desire for a debate on them, so I may not respond to said challenges right now. appologies in advance if that's the case.
Quote:
Could you please lay out how you think everything began and how it works - i.e. the universe, god, humans - in as scientific a manner as you can manage? It should include a description of what you think god is and how he/she came into being.
I'm afraid I don't understand the "as scientific a manner" as possible statement, but I'm assuming you mean leave out statments like "God just made it that way" and leaving it at that.

To me, Science is a process of observation and experimentation. For instance, we can observe evolution happening, not only around us, but in experiments that we set up on a smaller scale. The problem I (and I believe many others) have with many scientists that theorize about the distant past... is that they claim some sort of superiority in their theories, because they are "based on science." That is, they are based simply on observation, and do not require a "belief" in anything, or faith. However, to me... unless you observe something happen, or can replicate it in an experiment, then you are operating on "belief" more than enough to disqualify it as "science" as it were.

This is the fundamental problem in the "science vs. religion" debate, and I think it is misunderstood by everyone foolish enough to even begin to enter such a debate. Religion is not about understanding the universe around us... it is about understanding ourselves... in essence, what separates humanity from the world around us. If we are simply another step in the mechanism of the universe, then nothing does separate us, and religion is totally pointless. If we are simply another cog in the wheel, then it matters little if there is a creator or not. we're just part of this place.

However, if we are something apart from simply existing in this place... if we have a soul. If there is something more to life than perpetuation of our species and seeing if we can get our DNA to survive into the future. If there is anything that separates us from simple physical existence... then we should try to understand that. This is where science cannot help us, but religion can.

IMHO, if there is more than the life we live on this planet, in this universe, then that requires a force, external to our existence here, to have given that to us. Call it God, call it something else... but if part of us exists outside of our physical existence here, then it had to be given to us by something outside of that physical existence.

Which brings me back to the original question. How did we come into being? Frankly, I don't know and I don't care about the origins of the universe. It's very interesting every time we learn something new about what may or may not have happened, or how old things are, or how our last theory was totally wrong, or whatever. Thousands, millions, billions, trillions of years old, I think the question itself is flawed, because we look at time in a very concrete and understandable way, and you can ask any physicist, and they'll tell you time is not in any way concrete or understandable ;). Taken one step further, from the point of view of an entity (lets just call it God from now on) outside of our universe, time is meaningless. So, where does that leave the universe and man being created...

There are two issues I have with the modern theory of evolution as it pertance to the origin of the species on our planet. One, I don't believe it can account for a soul, as explained above, and two, I don't believe it actually can account for the diversity we observe at a level even above species, maybe the order, or families of creatures is more like the place I'm thinking about. On this second point, I'm more flexible. Is the mechanism of evolution capable of generating all diversity of life we can see? Perhaps, but I'm not convinced of that. The only other alternatives are that the mechanism was helped in some way (by God), or it had an alternative starting point. That is, things were created at different points... primates didn't evolve from something else, but were created as primates at some point, and then things diversified.

Possible? Sure... Scientific? No, because we cannot observe the event, nor can we duplicated it in an experiment. However, I would argue the same is true of complex changes over billions of years... but that's really another debate :).

Personally, I believe, whatever mechanism for life starting out and getting to the point it's at now there is, no matter what caused us to get here... at some point, mankind was set apart from the rest of life, and made into something more. If this was a spontanious creation, it makes sense to me. If it was an alteration of an existing creature into something more, it make sense to me. But in my opinion, it had to be done by God.

I think I covered that first question... a little anyway... so moving on...
Quote:
Does god have a gender?
A. Why does it matter?
B. Sure, why not?
Quote:
What is gods motivation?
Well, Tolkien believed (and I would not presume to claim he was a theologan of any sort), that one of the reasons we (humanity) enjoyed creating things (new worlds, for instance), was that we were created in God's image. This isn't necessarily (although it is almost always assumed to be) a physical description, but probably more of a mental one. To me, this is a wonderful way of considering God's motivation. He wanted to create... specifically us, because he wanted to experience fellowship with us. So in essence, we are his motivation.
Quote:
In what physical way can god change the world? Does god monitor every single person? If so does god have multiple "souls"?
God can change the world in any way he likes. To say that there is something he could not change, implies some power the universe would have over him. As discussed, I believe him to be outside the universes limitations.

God can, of course "monitor" every person, but I'm not sure what you mean by that. God would exist outside of time and space, so the limitations of being with each individual do not exist. There is no difficulty in being with every person if you are not limited by time or space. There is no need to have "multiple souls" to accomlish such a thing. The concept of a "soul" doesn't even really apply to God, I wouldn't think, although that's an interesting concept.

By these questions, it seems like you are trying to fit God into some kind of box you can understand. To me, the greatest leap in my personal faith in God, came when I came to understand the simple truth... that there is NO WAY to understand God. There is simply no way to even comprehend God, much less understand him or all he does or could do. It's a hard thing to admit that there is something "out there" that cannot be understood, no matter what we do. In essence, that is faith.
Quote:
What evidence do you see in todays world that god is doing good things?
Well, first you have to define "good things." I'm speaking in my personl opinions, of course, and from a Christian perspective, although I'd never presume to speak for all Christians.

What I believe, is that God is love. There's no simpler way to explain it. Love is a connection we all can share, and do share. It is essentially the glue that binds all of us together as humanity. It can be misunderstood and distorted, and lead to pain, but that is not God working, that is humanity trying to usurp the power in love from God, for our own personal gain.

But my point is, any time anyone does something good out of love... any time a friend helps you out, any time a doctor heals a patient... any time, a parent hugs his or her child... any time you are comforted by a prayer... any time you are comforted by a lover... all of these are evidence of God doing "good things." Like I said, my opinion, I'm sure many disagree...
Quote:
If god can currently change the world, why is there so much unfairness?
Who judges what is fair? One of my fundamental beliefs is that if we were not given free will to act as we like, we would be worthless to God as a fellowship. Yeah, he could create us to all behave the same way be the same, and have the same things, and then we'd be billions of copies of one idea... not billions of individuals, each unique. That freedom creates an inherant unfairness in the world. Some people will get lucky and get born to parents who earned millions... others will be born to people with nothing, not because they didn't work hard their whole lives, but because someone else stole everything they worked for.

Life isn't fair. That doesn't mean everything outside of life isn't precisely fair. I believe we are all identicle when we are judged by God... what things happened in our lives that we deemed to be fair or unfair are irrelevant at that judgement. Only one thing matters, do we choose to accept God and want to be with him? Or do we reject that idea and offer? How much fairer can you get?
Quote:
If he can't change anything, if he just set things in motion, what is the point of prayer?
Well, I reject your original supposition, but I think the question of the point of prayer is still valid. Prayer is NOT, as I think you are accurately pointing out, an "ask for something and if God wants to and you're good enough, he'll give it to you" system. Prayer is worship. It is one of the ultimate expressions of faith, because you are showing your belief that God is there, and that you love him and have faith he will help you even in your darkest hours.

But then you have to understand, what we think will help us the most in our darkest hours, might not be what will, and so while we can pray and ask for whatever... God might instead give us what we actually need, even if we don't correlate the two.
Quote:
Basically, how can someone pray and at the same time feel god wants the best for everyone?
Again, define "the best." God may very well want "the best" for everyone, but we go back to the fact that we all make choices, and our own choices may lead to suffering on our own part, or on the part of many others. This has nothing to do with Prayer in my opinion, or in how God interacts with the world. What I would think God defines as "the best" for everyone is to love him, accept his love, and share that love with everyone else around... you can do that regardless of your circumstances in this life.
Quote:
And what is the single biggest factor that convinced/convinces you that having faith is correct?
Because if it's not, then we do live in that universe where nothing matters except trying to pass on your DNA and make sure the strongest survive... and ultimately, that is a universe without love.

_________________

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.


Top
Profile Quote
jewelsong
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 7:52 pm
Just keep singin'!
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Sun 20 Feb , 2005 9:26 pm
Location: UK
 
Hal, that was an excellent post. Well thought-out and well-said.

I hope that we see more of those kinds of posts from you!

:)


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 7:59 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
This cut and paste thing is gonna get quite convoluted! :D
Dave_LF wrote:
MariaHobbit wrote:
I don't have time left for science to figure out how chi energy works and how the I Ching works and all that. I'm 44 years old, with a life expectancy of about 30 more years. Science isn't going to figure all that stuff out in time to help me.
But if science did arrive at an explanation for what you've experienced that explained it adequately but differed from what you'd come up with on your own, what would you do?
I'm pretty open minded. I would LOVE a "rational" explanation for all I've experienced. A sort of superstring theory that explained all paranormal/supernatural stuff would be great! However, though, no "rational" explanation covers all the bases yet. :shrug: I'm going for the pragmatic approach. If it works, I'll use it.
Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
So, I take what I can from what people before me have already figured out, even if science was in no way involved. If visualization and force of will seems to cause certain effects with regularity, then there's no reason why I shouldn't use them to make my life easier.
But observing that certain actions consistently produce certain reactions is science; or part of it at least. What if the force of will effects disappeared, or after you played around some more you found out they only work once in a while and you couldn't predict when? Would you change your beliefs? That's where the difference lies, IMO.
It's such a mental thing, that you can't really depend on regularity of cause and effect. Distractions of various sorts can throw off efforts at making things happen such that sometimes I have doubts that it really works. Sometimes I go for weeks without being able to feel that tingle of energy ready at my hands. :shrug: I don't know why. Sometimes I do know why. Once early on, when I tried to send healing vibes to a sick child at a distance, I had a headache for 3 days and I couldn't move energy for a couple of months afterwards. It's like I hurt myself inside somehow. (What I did then was try to channel the emotional energy of an entire school choir performance that was dedicated one of their members, a kid with cancer. My kid was singing in the choir, so I was there, and it seemed the right thing to do to try to channel the well wishes over to her- and although it seemed to work, I was kinda burnt out for a while)
Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
Don't forget, I've been an atheist. I scoffed at all hint of anything paranormal being real.
Atheism doesn't preclude belief in the paranormal :). Not even strict naturalism/empiricism does that, really--it just insists on constantly tweaking the model to fit reason and the empirical data, and throwing the whole thing out if a better explanation is found.
I was pretty much an all or nothing person back then. I've learned to see shades of gray since then.
Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
Since the techniques for raising and controlling energy really seemed to work, I've given the reincarnation idea the benefit of a doubt. If they got the chi thing right, maybe people get more than one turn at life, too?
At the risk of totally derailing this, how does one reconcile reincarnation with population growth?
I figure there are many, many more souls than there are slots available in the game. Some people are first timers, and some have been reincarnated a few times, and some are old hands that have had so many turns that they serve more as caretakers than actual players anymore. But I'm just guessing on that. :shrug:

Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
Why in the world should I exchange the former bleak world view for what I have now? If I should suddenly be convinced of your arguments, Iavas, where would that leave me?

1. In mental agony for years, each time one of my loved ones dies.
<snip>
This is a pragmatic approach to belief, obviously. Rhetorically, should people believe things that can be shown to be false if they're comforting?
Why take anesthetic, if it blunts the reality of the experience? Isn't that just blinding yourself to the fact that someone is doing seriously unkind things to your body? What does it hurt for someone to believe that there is more to life than the physical? If they are wrong, they just snuff out at the end anyway. If they are right, then maybe that eases their transition to whatever comes next. Belief is a win/win scenario- as long as you don't give up your free will to others in the process.
Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
Anyway, my existence would not be as fun if I went back to the "faith" I grew up with: the faith that nothing that could not be measured by science was real.
This is a strawman. I've never known of anyone who's claimed that nothing is real except what we can observe and measure--only that if something can't be observed and measured, there's no way we can know anything about it and no grounds for making assertions or having beliefs about it.
What is this "straw man" you speak of? :suspicious: I know, I know, it's some kind of debate terminology... I assure you, I used to have exactly that sort of black and white mentality: good/bad, right/wrong, real/not real. One of the hardest lessons I've learned in this life so far is that a person can do some "bad" things and still be a good person. Those shades of gray can be confusing.
Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
Why does this nerve impulse cause this chemical reaction that causes the muscle to contract? What is the link between the two? The teacher could not answer. They don't know. They still don't know.
Sure they do. I can remember learning about it in detail.
Then please tell me, my bio info is admittedly 20 years out of date. WHY do these things happen? I understand that the "how" is known, but not the "why".
Dave wrote:
Maria wrote:
I have no problem using something even if I don't know how it really works. I don't understand how my televison works, despite having studied electronics thoroughly when I was in the Army. :shrug: Just because I don't understand it, it doesn't keep me from watching a Stargate Atlantis marathon all weekend....
This is inching toward a strawman again. No one is claiming that you have to either understand something completely or conclude that it doesn't exist. The evidence that TVs work is orders of magnitude better than the evidence that prayer works, for example, but if that weren't the case, there would be nothing to stop a strict empiricist from concluding that prayer works; he just wouldn't go further and conclude that prayer works because God answers prayers until he could come up with a way to test that.
What is it with you and the scarecrows? :D I don't assume that God answers prayers. I just know that when one "prays" and puts enough ooomph in it, you get the same results as when one "moves energy" or works "spells" : a result. A change. A bending of the rules of reality, or stretching the bounds of probability. Sometimes it doesn't work, especially if you have conflicting desires about the subject. I haven't been able to win a lottery yet, despite trying a few times, because I know the statistics: most people who win lotteries are NOT happier afterwards and most couples end up divorced. No amount of money is worth that. My stated goal was not compatable with my primary goals.

But when you are united in your subconscious and conscious desires and earnestly want something and pray or do a working, then something will likely change to make your wish more probable. You generally still have to *do* something in the real world to accomplish your goals but that's the easy part. I've been stumped by problems a few times in the past few years, and went to sleep earnestly "wishing" for a solution, and the next day or the day after I wake up and realize that I have the answer. I know everyone has these epiphanies, but I like the fact that I can seem to trigger them. Whereever they come from.

And as an aside, I apologize to all the Christians in this thread who are undoubtedly made uncomfortable by my talk of magic. Another of my beliefs is that this sort of energy is impersonal in nature, and that a person does good or evil by their intentions and results. I will never knowingly harm any person, animal or plant by my mental gymnastics (bacteria and viruses are fair game, though! ), and don't ascribe to any sort of worship or sacrifice belief.

I believe that certain ways of thinking can affect physical reality, and that the deeds done in such a way are only as good or evil as we make them. Sometimes I wonder, though, whether the taboos on such things are to keep internal stresses down in our reality. If something bucks the rules of the universe, might that create strain? And if everyone did it, might something fracture??? :Q

Errrrrrr... so, everyone, go on scoffing. The fate of the universe might depend on it! :help:

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
MariaHobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 8:35 pm
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 8039
Joined: Thu 03 Feb , 2005 2:39 pm
Location: MO
 
Nice post, hal. I'm shocked to find that I agree with most of it! :Q ;)
hal wrote:
What I believe, is that God is love. There's no simpler way to explain it. Love is a connection we all can share, and do share. It is essentially the glue that binds all of us together as humanity. It can be misunderstood and distorted, and lead to pain, but that is not God working, that is humanity trying to usurp the power in love from God, for our own personal gain.
It's worth mentioning that when I am attempting something, whether healing or "wishing" for something, it works a whole lot better if I let a feeling of love wash through me.

And love is tangible. We had a lot of trouble with my youngest daughter last year, such that we kind of gave up on her over the summer, when we were so busy on weekends renovating that house 100 miles away. We kind of left her to her own devices, and tried not to think of her. She'd hurt us so bad, and so often that I think I was closing down the mother/daughter bond. It felt like something between us was dead. At least it didn't hurt anymore.

But, when the summer was over, and we were staying home more, and interacting more with her, one thing led to another and she told us she'd been using drugs the previous spring, and that while we were gone so much in the summer, she'd realized that she had to take care of herself, or no one else would. She stopped using. She's been clean for months. And when she started telling me this, I felt a pain in my chest, right over the "heart chakra". As she talked and I realized that the bad part was over, it hurt worse and worse and I started crying as I realized the link between us was active again, and that I really did love that girl a lot. And I told her why and we both cried and hugged each other and the link between us is a living, vibrant thing again.

The link between loved ones can be visualized as a thick glowing cord going from chest to chest. One time, a few years ago, I was annoyed at feeling my husband's aches and pains. I was in a grumpy mood and had accepted that this phenomenon was real, and I didn't want any part of it that day. I took imaginary scissors, and reached up and CUT the bond between my husband and I. I didn't tell him about it, being in dangerously grumpy mood anyway, but the weirdest thing happened later that evening. He asked me for a bandaid, because a little pore in the center of his chest was trickling blood and not clotting. I thought he'd been pricked by some blackberries we were picking earlier that day, but it should have clotted by then. I didn't think anything more about it, until the next morning when he complained that the bandaid was soaked and he needed another one. :scratch: Then (being in a better mood) I made the connection, between my actions of the day before and his current ailment. I made haste to reestablish the link between us, and the pore sealed up and quit bleeding. I had NOT told him of what I'd done. I did, a couple of years later, but at the time, he had no idea.

I've never risked damaging the connection between us again. Love flows back and forth between such a link, and is necessary, I think. I've learned to filter out his pains for the most part (you'd be surprised how much a 45 year old athlete aches!) but sometimes they still catch me unawares.

_________________


.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Iavas_Saar
Post subject:
Posted: Mon 14 Jan , 2008 10:34 pm
His Rosyness
Offline
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Mon 31 Jan , 2005 7:02 pm
Location: Salisbury, England
 
Jewel and hal, thanks for your answers, I appreciate the different perspectives.

I just heard that I got a job and I start tomorrow, so just to warn you I might not get round to keeping up with this discussion (probably a good thing!).

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 5 of 6  [ 114 posts ]
Return to “The Symposium” | Jump to page « 1 2 3 4 5 6 »
Jump to: