Figuring Out Religion

[doodle]

Nietzsche and Marx, for example, were basically charity cases for their whole lives who never married, never had children, never meaningfully accumulated property, and were difficult to get along with.

Actually, Marx was quite a family man :-)....Nietzsche was an extremely frustrated And socially inept romantic

[moda0306]

Some further thoughts on stoicism, and its cousins minimalism and asceticism: the unifying thread here is less. Less stuff, less attachment, less possessiveness, less desire, less control, less impact. Less, less, less.

I can't say Nietzsche saw it this way, but this seems a lot like what he called slave morality. He said that slave morality was basically created by slaves as an inversion of their masters' master morality in that it declared bad everything the masters liked: activity, strength, virility, creation, domination, destruction, power. Slave moralities dealt with the slaves' lack of physical power by extolling mental power in the form of self-denial, self-control, non-judgementalism, compassion, and good intentions.

The problem with slave moralities is that following them doesn't actually make you happy if you have ambition or creativity, since they act to extinguish these tendencies. And the problem with master morality is that it's easy to follow it and become a dickhead or warlord.

I think we have to put "things" in their proper context.  Not that I practice this perfectly by any means, but I think "stuff" should either serve to give us more time doing things more "intrinsically enriching," or help to add to those enriching activities.  I think this ties back into the balance in those different areas of life.  Physical/social/family/spiritual/mental/career/financial... or whatever mix you can find that can help you organize your thoughts on how to get the most out of life. 

I feel like one possible example of "hedonistic" items that could go the other way would be that of "games."

Some video games keep people in front of a computer constantly searching for a new high via a new experience, story, graphics, etc.  I tend to think, sometimes, this can get to be a very toxic element in people's lives if they take it too far (most people have "that friend" who can put hours upon hours into video games).

Some video games, or even board games, serve to bring people together, though.  I can play "Mario Kart" with the right folks, or cribbage, or poker, and even though I've played these games a hundred times before, there seems to be something about "game night" or whatever with good friends that actually contributes to those bonds that actually seem to have a lasting value in your life.

So at this point, I try to identify those purchases that are going to have the more hedonistic 1-time surge of happiness only to be followed by some emptiness, and what purchases are going to maximize my time for more permanently enriching experiences, or make those experiences that much better.

It's still easy to get sucked into hedonistic purchases, but it's easier than it's ever been for me to see those purchases for what they are, vs those that will contribute to more fundamentally enriching aspects of life.

[Pointedstick]

Nietzsche and Marx, for example, were basically charity cases for their whole lives who never married, never had children, never meaningfully accumulated property, and were difficult to get along with.

Actually, Marx was quite a family man :-)

Oh jeez, you're right. Who was I thinking of then?

[doodle]

Artur Schopenhauer? He was a pretty miserable guy :-)....actually, I think one must be on the margins of society in order to truly engage in philosophical inquiry. The amount that one suffers from this state of affairs depends on the individual. Diogenes the cynic while a complete outcast seemed to revel in people's disdain for him

[Mountaineer]

PS,

Your comments made me think of sin.  One definition of sin is to love yourself preferentially rather than love your neighbor (e.g. looking out for number one no matter what the expense to my neighbor's needs).  Perhaps the benefit of Jesus' great commandments - loving God and loving neighbor - is to give us a sense of purpose and meaning that is external to ourselves - maybe morals flow from that.

What you're describing isn't just Jesus; All religions provide their believers with an external source of meaning. The messages are different between religions, but the fact that there are messages to hear and rules to follow and so on and so forth is what creates the external meaning in a believer's life. Or at least that's how I see it.

At least for the Christians that I'm associated with, nihlism is not typically one of the forces with which we are constantly struggling (although there are many others probably just as tough).

Right, because you all have an externally-provided source of meaning in your lives.

I've said this before, but from my perspective, I can't even imagine how hard it must be for people who do not have a clear purpose or sense of meaning, and for those who think it is just "lights out forever" when death is imminent.

At times, it's scary to think about, and I'll admit to battling nihilism more than I'd like to. It's at these times that I wish I could be a believer, but no matter how hard I try or how much I feel like I've opened myself up to receiving the kind of signals that believers see… nothing. I can't seem to make it happen.

PS,

Unsolicited advice is rarely welcomed, no matter how pure the intent.  But, I'm going to share some "advice" or perspective with you on the gamble it might be helpful to you and bring you peace.

My perspective is that you are half way there.  Your last sentence re. becoming a believer - "I can't seem to make it happen." - contains the solution as well as the problem.  You are completely right, you cannot make it happen, only God can do that.  Once you come to realize (and no one can do that for you, it has to come from within you) that God is in total, complete charge and there is absolutely nothing you can do to make yourself have faith, and that man's natural state is to continually rebel against God, the battle is won.  The only thing you CAN do is to receive God's Word, both Law and Gospel - in my opinion, the most effective and efficient way to do that is to regularly attend a church where the Scriptures are preached faithfully and the Sacraments administered rightly and to learn about Christianity just as you learn about any other subject you have interest in, and hear what Jesus did for you - personally.  For me, that is my LCMS congregation where I am blessed with a caring, knowledgeable Pastor and congregation - sinners all, saints all.  I can't begin to tell you how freeing it is to turn your unsolvable problems over to God and let go, and how comforting it is to literally receive Jesus at every service - you have to discover that for yourself by placing yourself in a similar environment as mine (yes, there are many flavors of Christianity that may facilitate God coming to you; I'm just giving my opinion on a good way from my experience).  Again, the key is to realize that God comes to you, not you going to find God - that is the hardest obstacle to realize as it is backwards from most other things that our culture teaches us to rely on (self-sufficiency, work ethic, independence, etc.).  Peace.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Thanks, mountaineer. I always appreciate your perspective.

However I will say that the advice of "just attend church" has always struck me as an appeal to peer pressure. I realize this is my unbeliever perspective, but it sort of seems like going to a church would encourage religiosity in much the same way that joining a fly fishing club might make one more likely to go fly fishing, or joining a choir might make one start to enjoy singing.

It could be that church is different, and the spiritual energy felt by believers really does come from God rather than their collective shared belief in an appealing and personally satisfying mythos. But every religious service I have ever attended--even with a very open mind--has never imparted any particular spiritual meaning to me. I think part of the problem is that I've mostly focused on Judeo-Christian religions and frankly the Judeo-Christian mythology simply does not appeal very much to me. So religious services that involve Judeo-Christian stories and anecdotes turn me off or seem oddly discordant with the overarching messages that are advocated.

I think I want a religion that seems at least internally consistent. But is that the wrong thing to want from a religion? Maybe I just need to keep doing it.

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

Piggybacking on PS's post, the "just attend church" mantra begs a lot of questions.  Which church?  Why Christianity?  If I'm searching for God to find me, and it truly is up to him, and I have "no control" over it, why would arbitrarily picking one subset of one religion to attend church every Sunday make much of a difference?  Chances are I've picked the wrong one.

And if it truly is out of our hands, how are we ever supposed to know that in the first place?  Assuming God hasn't found us yet, there are tons of competing ideas out there on what our role in that discovery should be.  One of them says make a trip to Mecca at one point in your life.

If we're not trying them all, are we truly finding God?  A Christian would say a Jew hasn't "truly found God," because there can't really be a bigger disagreement than whether or not Jesus is the Messiah when it comes to Christianity.  But a Jew's suggestion of how I should find God might be very different than a Christian's.  Why am I to believe one or the other.  What objective (or subjective) reason do I have, in the seemingly infinite options I have laid out to me.

If I haven't found God yet, or God hasn't found me, then, if there IS something I can do to induce the process, having different religions offer their self-referential solutions as "objective" because they believe they've found God is certainly frustrating for a non-believer or agnostic.  If you're dealing with someone who hasn't had the same subjective "epiphany" or "discovery" or miracle or whatever, to make any headway at all, if there is any to be made, would be to offer some objective solution.  Or a course of actions that will have some higher likelihood, objectively, of connecting someone to God.  That is, of course, unless you believe your process to be fast/sure enough that one isn't obliged to just sit at mass and wait for God to speak with him.

And it's not that I mind your suggestions, as you could very well be right, but you have to realize that we hear some differing version of the same assertion from other religions, and it just rings hollow to hear somebody refer to their own book, or interpretation of their book, as a proof that we should read that book and trust it, or at least trust/hope that God will find us quicker if we do.

It really comes down to the fact that the only proof someone has that their path is the correct one is a subjective feeling called "faith."  Everything else is smoke and mirrors to most agnostics until we see some objective, logical path to finding out "the truth."  It would be one thing if all "believers" were telling us the same path... that MAYBE there's something to be discovered here... but we don't have that, and you're now telling us that God finds us, not the other way around, and all we can do is POSSIBLY improve our chances by going to church... but this is all according to your faith, something we have no connection to, and something that is competing with various other assertions on how to find God.


Part of me just finds it extremely odd that God would give us the ability to not only reason, but FEEL the concept of morality without knowing he exists, but then ask us to put those aside to abide by 1) an internal feeling of his existence, and, more interestingly, to make our INTERNAL moral compass subservient to what we believe to be his word, especially in a world where lots of other people are receiving differing messages from God, and we rely on a religious infrastructure run by men to do a lot of the interpreting for us.

It's like we're throwing away one of the greatest gifts he gave us (reason), and allowing the other (an internal moral compass that values life and happiness of others) to be manipulated by a power structure that we're relying on having a closer connection to God than we do.  It just doesn't seem consistent to me , especially after all we've learned about subconscious human motivation, that he would ask us to submit to things as blindly as most churches ask us to, considering the much more obvious gifts he's given us as individuals, if he does truly exist.

I really, really don't think God would give us these things, and then expect us to turn them off or neuter them and submit ourselves to one person's take on how to get closer to God.  I just don't think it passes reasonable muster.  And I'm not talking about you in particular, but the way religion is so-often presented to people in general.

[Mountaineer]

Thanks, mountaineer. I always appreciate your perspective.

However I will say that the advice of "just attend church" has always struck me as an appeal to peer pressure. I realize this is my unbeliever perspective, but it sort of seems like going to a church would encourage religiosity in much the same way that joining a fly fishing club might make one more likely to go fly fishing, or joining a choir might make one start to enjoy singing.

It could be that church is different, and the spiritual energy felt by believers really does come from God rather than their collective shared belief in an appealing and personally satisfying mythos. But every religious service I have ever attended--even with a very open mind--has never imparted any particular spiritual meaning to me. I think part of the problem is that I've mostly focused on Judeo-Christian religions and frankly the Judeo-Christian mythology simply does not appeal very much to me. So religious services that involve Judeo-Christian stories and anecdotes turn me off or seem oddly discordant with the overarching messages that are advocated.

I think I want a religion that seems at least internally consistent. But is that the wrong thing to want from a religion? Maybe I just need to keep doing it.

PS and moda,

From my perspective, Christianity is extremely internally consistent but I did not always think that.  I hesitate to say this, but you can't imagine how many hours I've spent looking for Scriptural inconsistencies.  At my current stage in "development" I have not found any of significant consequence.  It seems the more I learn about Christianity, the fewer are the issues and my prievious misunderstandings; said another way, it is about my shortcomings, not God's.  I think I can understand where you are coming from.  There are many, many preachers who emphasize to varying degrees things other than the Gospel; for example: how to live, what to do, what to wear, how to become wealthy, how to pray, how to do just about anything an audience might want to hear.  The Bible is not a "how to do" book or a "self-help" book.  It is an account of a just and loving God the Creator, Jesus our Savior, and the Holy Sprit who continues his work until the last day.  One other point that is emphasized on one of the Broken chapters:  it is not about "feelings" which can be fleeting, or peer pressure, it is all about what Jesus did for everyone, believers and non-believers alike, and trusting the promises of God; it is about hearing the Truth which somehow will resonate in your brain and heart when you really hear it presented faithfully.

So, to conclude my rambling, my perspective is that it is even more important to find a good church (where the Word is faithfully preached and the Sacraments are rightly administered) to regularly attend than to find a good spouse whom I regularly want to spend time with.  I wasted far too much of my life being satisfied with no church, a conveniently located church, or a mediocre church.  I now prefer "filet and lobster" to MacDonalds. 

Peace.

... Mountaineer

Edited to include moda as an addressee too because I had not read moda's post when I posted the reply to PS.  Some of moda's comments are addressed in my response above, but if it is not sufficient, let me know what to comment on and I'll give it my best shot.

[Pointedstick]

Okay, here's a perceived internal inconsistency that doesn't make sense to me: if god is "just and loving", how can I account for his differing personalities in the old and new testaments, both of which Christians seem to refer to as "the Bible"?

The God of the old testament sure doesn't seem very kind or loving to me. He seems vengeful and capricious, and constantly frustrated that his creations don't seem to be doing what he wants them to. He picks sides in human conflicts and causes terrible death and destruction. He tells people to do things he told them not to do in other contexts. I find myself actively repelled by reading the old testament because of how much of a jerk God seems to be, or seems to have been. Where is the love in killing 90% of humanity deemed to be wicked? Where is the love in telling someone to murder his own child? Where is the love in hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he walks into a trap that God and Moses have set for him, causing his death and the deaths of thousands of his soldiers, all of this after he had already let Moses and the Jews go? That just seems vindictive to me.

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

Piggybacking on PS's post, the "just attend church" mantra begs a lot of questions.  Which church?  Why Christianity?  If I'm searching for God to find me, and it truly is up to him, and I have "no control" over it, why would arbitrarily picking one subset of one religion to attend church every Sunday make much of a difference?  Chances are I've picked the wrong one.

And if it truly is out of our hands, how are we ever supposed to know that in the first place?  Assuming God hasn't found us yet, there are tons of competing ideas out there on what our role in that discovery should be.  One of them says make a trip to Mecca at one point in your life.

If we're not trying them all, are we truly finding God?  A Christian would say a Jew hasn't "truly found God," because there can't really be a bigger disagreement than whether or not Jesus is the Messiah when it comes to Christianity.  But a Jew's suggestion of how I should find God might be very different than a Christian's.  Why am I to believe one or the other.  What objective (or subjective) reason do I have, in the seemingly infinite options I have laid out to me.

If I haven't found God yet, or God hasn't found me, then, if there IS something I can do to induce the process, having different religions offer their self-referential solutions as "objective" because they believe they've found God is certainly frustrating for a non-believer or agnostic.  If you're dealing with someone who hasn't had the same subjective "epiphany" or "discovery" or miracle or whatever, to make any headway at all, if there is any to be made, would be to offer some objective solution.  Or a course of actions that will have some higher likelihood, objectively, of connecting someone to God.  That is, of course, unless you believe your process to be fast/sure enough that one isn't obliged to just sit at mass and wait for God to speak with him.

And it's not that I mind your suggestions, as you could very well be right, but you have to realize that we hear some differing version of the same assertion from other religions, and it just rings hollow to hear somebody refer to their own book, or interpretation of their book, as a proof that we should read that book and trust it, or at least trust/hope that God will find us quicker if we do.

It really comes down to the fact that the only proof someone has that their path is the correct one is a subjective feeling called "faith."  Everything else is smoke and mirrors to most agnostics until we see some objective, logical path to finding out "the truth."  It would be one thing if all "believers" were telling us the same path... that MAYBE there's something to be discovered here... but we don't have that, and you're now telling us that God finds us, not the other way around, and all we can do is POSSIBLY improve our chances by going to church... but this is all according to your faith, something we have no connection to, and something that is competing with various other assertions on how to find God.


Part of me just finds it extremely odd that God would give us the ability to not only reason, but FEEL the concept of morality without knowing he exists, but then ask us to put those aside to abide by 1) an internal feeling of his existence, and, more interestingly, to make our INTERNAL moral compass subservient to what we believe to be his word, especially in a world where lots of other people are receiving differing messages from God, and we rely on a religious infrastructure run by men to do a lot of the interpreting for us.

It's like we're throwing away one of the greatest gifts he gave us (reason), and allowing the other (an internal moral compass that values life and happiness of others) to be manipulated by a power structure that we're relying on having a closer connection to God than we do.  It just doesn't seem consistent to me , especially after all we've learned about subconscious human motivation, that he would ask us to submit to things as blindly as most churches ask us to, considering the much more obvious gifts he's given us as individuals, if he does truly exist.

I really, really don't think God would give us these things, and then expect us to turn them off or neuter them and submit ourselves to one person's take on how to get closer to God.  I just don't think it passes reasonable muster.  And I'm not talking about you in particular, but the way religion is so-often presented to people in general.

moda,

Reason (a tool) is a fantastic gift.  Hammers and saws and oscilloscopes and X-ray machines are also fantastic tools.  All tools should be used appropriately for the use they were designed for.  Reason is a wonderful tool to understand our physical surroundings; it is a crappy tool to try to understand God (the mind of God) but it is a wonderful tool to try to understand God's Word as He has given it to us in the Scriptures.  Believe me, I once was where you are now.  Maybe you could try praying for God to help your unbelief and to appropriately use the tools He has provided (Scripture, Pastors, Believers, and even knowledge of Satan or knowledge of competing religions for contrast).  Among the competing religions, only Christianity has a God that rose from the dead; only Christianity has a God of grace.  Other religions advise working out your own salvation or have a God of judgement without mercy.  If you really want to understand more and not attend a church for now, the 7 part series on Christianity by Tim Keller discussed in the religion thread would be a great starting point.  I truly hope you find what you are looking for.

... Mountaineer

[l82start]

merged religion discussion over from proving morality thread.. 

[Mountaineer]

Okay, here's a perceived internal inconsistency that doesn't make sense to me: if god is "just and loving", how can I account for his differing personalities in the old and new testaments, both of which Christians seem to refer to as "the Bible"?

The God of the old testament sure doesn't seem very kind or loving to me. He seems vengeful and capricious, and constantly frustrated that his creations don't seem to be doing what he wants them to. He picks sides in human conflicts and causes terrible death and destruction. He tells people to do things he told them not to do in other contexts. I find myself actively repelled by reading the old testament because of how much of a jerk God seems to be, or seems to have been. Where is the love in killing 90% of humanity deemed to be wicked? Where is the love in telling someone to murder his own child? Where is the love in hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he walks into a trap that God and Moses have set for him, causing his death and the deaths of thousands of his soldiers, all of this after he had already let Moses and the Jews go? That just seems vindictive to me.

PS,

Here are some of my presuppositions that I have when reading Scripture.  Perhaps they will help address your questions if you can put yourself in my head for a while 

1. God has always existed.
2. God exists outside of time and space.
3. God can do no evil; God's ways are not man's ways.
4. God created everything.
5. There is a difference between God's foreknowledge and predestination.
6. God is just.
7. God is merciful.
8. God created man perfectly in His image.
9. God did not create man to be His puppet.
10. God created man to be with God; recognize God (the Creator) and man (the creature) are not equal, God is sovereign and all actions are somehow to glorify God.
11. Man chose to trust in himself instead of God (Gn 3:6).
12. Behavior has consequences.
13. A just God cursed man and all of creation; death and sin entered creation (Gn 3:14-19).
14. A merciful God promised that ultimately evil (the Serpent) would be defeated but it would be a struggle all the way (Gn 3:15).  Note: God could have just wiped out all of creation at that point and started over; that is what we deserved, but He did not.
15. God tried several methods (various accounts in the OT - Noah, Abraham, 10 Commandments, Judges, Kings, Prophets, fall of Israel to Assyrians and Babylonians) to get his chosen people to trust in God's promises and glorify God and to point out the consequences of not trusting in God.  God chose Israel to bring Jesus in human form to us.  God ultimately determined that since man is inherently sinful after the fall, the only way to defeat death and sin was to send his Son to earth, assume bodily form in Jesus, perform many miracles to show He was God, tell many stories to further demonstrate how God wishes us to live, take on the sins of everyone from all time, die on the cross and take that sin and death to the grave, and then rise again.
16. God chose to document His plan of Salvation in the Scriptures and reveal His plan so that all may have eternal life.
17. Many will reject the gift of eternal life because it appears so illogical (rebelious man keeps going back to Gen 3:6 - i.e. mindset of I know what is best for me, not God).
18. Man will never be God, not even a little "god" in "heaven"; God will always be the one who is worshiped and glorified.

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Those "presuppositions" seem more like "conclusions" to me. I have to assume that when you started down the path of Christianity, those weren't always obvious to you, in which case they were either revealed to you over time (revelation) or you figured them out as you learned more (reason).

I don't see how they are relevant to me, a non-believer. In order to evaluate the Bible under the terms of those presuppositions, I think I would already need to have gained the wisdom, knowledge or understanding that reading it in the first place is supposed to give me. Right?

Or perhaps God needs to reveal these things to me. You say that it is not up to me to find God, and that God finds me. Why has he not found me yet? If there is something I need to do to hear what he is saying (such as attend church), that would seem to contradict your statement that it's about God finding me rather than the reverse. So do I just wait?

[ns3]

Okay, here's a perceived internal inconsistency that doesn't make sense to me: if god is "just and loving", how can I account for his differing personalities in the old and new testaments, both of which Christians seem to refer to as "the Bible"?

Personally, I don't think you CAN account for these inconsistencies and still honestly hold on to the belief that the Bible is the authoritative and infallible word of God. At least I couldn't without a good deal of psychic distress which is why I no longer hold that belief.

[Mountaineer]

Those "presuppositions" seem more like "conclusions" to me. I have to assume that when you started down the path of Christianity, those weren't always obvious to you, in which case they were either revealed to you over time (revelation) or you figured them out as you learned more (reason).

I don't see how they are relevant to me, a non-believer. In order to evaluate the Bible under the terms of those presuppositions, I think I would already need to have gained the wisdom, knowledge or understanding that reading it in the first place is supposed to give me. Right?

Or perhaps God needs to reveal these things to me. You say that it is not up to me to find God, and that God finds me. Why has he not found me yet? If there is something I need to do to hear what he is saying (such as attend church), that would seem to contradict your statement that it's about God finding me rather than the reverse. So do I just wait?

Good point, and on rereading what I wrote, I agree they are mainly conclusions!  My intent was to say that the lens through which we view the world shapes what we see; we just need to be cognizant of that. 

I would offer this for you to think about:  Faith is strengthened by hearing the Word.  I don't know about you, but I found it very helpful to learn about chemistry, physics, civics, history, etc. from a knowlegable teacher; I do not think learning about God's Word is all that different, thus my recommendation for participating in a "good" church as well as by reading the Bible and having discussions with others - if you are interested in strengthening your faith.  Romans, Chapter 10 is useful in understanding this.

... Mountaineer

Romans 10
English Standard Version (ESV)

1 Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.

The Message of Salvation to All

5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’”? (that is, to bring Christ down) 7 “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’”? (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”? (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. 11 For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”? 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”?

14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?[c] And how are they to hear without someone preaching? 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”? 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”? 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

“Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
    and their words to the ends of the world.”?
19 But I ask, did Israel not understand? First Moses says,

“I will make you jealous of those who are not a nation;
    with a foolish nation I will make you angry.”?
20 Then Isaiah is so bold as to say,

“I have been found by those who did not seek me;
    I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me.”?
21 But of Israel he says, “All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.”?

[Pointedstick]

Mountaineer, I don't think that quoting scripture is really going to help here. You're asking me to accept documents whose truth and value are conditionalized on the belief in that which we have already established I don't believe. As such, that passage just reads as a bunch of gibberish to me.

It would be like handing me a book of football rules if I were to ask you why I should play football. The rules (scripture) are important and interesting to people who already enjoy football (believe in God) but are of no use to others.

To put it in a scientific context, if I were to ask you why I should use a computer instead of a typewriter and a filing cabinet, explaining the boot process or talking about logic gates and non-volatile memory wouldn't have any meaning to me, no matter how many times I heard the "word" of the technical details of computers. My mind wouldn't be able to contextualize them so they would be nothing but meaningless numbers and acronyms.

[Pointedstick]

Again, I come at this from the perspective of having rationally convinced myself that belief is psychologically healthier in the aggregate than nihilistic rationalism, yet am unable to believe. I'm trying to join your world but it doesn't make any sense to me.

It all seems to boil down to faith in God. With it, everything you say makes perfect sense; without it, nothing does. You have previously explained that I don't go looking for God; He finds me. So, if I am to harmonize this with the facts that 1. I don't think I hear Him and 2) I feel open to the possibility, there are a few conclusions I can think of:

1. He doesn't actually exist
2. He hasn't contacted me yet
3. I am insufficiently open-minded or open-hearted to God
4. I am hearing God but actively rejecting Him

Assuming God exists and you are correct, then #1 and #2 are false, so it must be on me somehow. But if I need to open my mind or heart more, that violates your explanation that there's nothing I need to do, so #3 must be false too. You've previously said that we are capable of rejecting God; it seems that the only logical possibility is that rather than not hearing God, I am actually rejecting Him. But how can that be? I don't think I'm rejecting God.

Can you help me out here?

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer, I don't think that quoting scripture is really going to help here. You're asking me to accept documents whose truth and value are conditionalized on the belief in that which we have already established I don't believe. As such, that passage just reads as a bunch of gibberish to me.

It would be like handing me a book of football rules if I were to ask you why I should play football. The rules (scripture) are important and interesting to people who already enjoy football (believe in God) but are of no use to others.

To put it in a scientific context, if I were to ask you why I should use a computer instead of a typewriter and a filing cabinet, explaining the boot process or talking about logic gates and non-volatile memory wouldn't have any meaning to me, no matter how many times I heard the "word" of the technical details of computers. My mind wouldn't be able to contextualize them so they would be nothing but meaningless numbers and acronyms.

PS,

That is EXACTLY why you need to participate in a "good" church and have a knowlegable Pastor who can help with whatever your questions and doubts are - if you are truly interested in learning.  You will have to put much effort into the subject to learn it, just as with most anything.  A long distance internet forum has many good points, but it also has very definite limits - especially for one who is as intelligent as you.  A baby may receive faith at baptism as a gift from God, but if he never attends a church to strengthen that faith, I expect it would fade away to nothing, even though God gave the gift of faith initially.  God also has to nurture that faith, and I believe His method is for one to hear His Word proclaimed and taught and for one to receive Him in the Sacraments.

... Mountaineer

Edited to include a devotion for today's date that I just read in Portals of Prayer (Coincidence?, I think not.):

The Beautiful Feet
And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!”? Romans 10:15

Playing with a baby’s toes, counting “this little piggy went to market,”? reminds us how rapidly our bodies change and grow. Soon come corns, calluses, and bunions. Rarely do we look at feet and toes and consider them beautiful. But the Bible says in Romans 10 that the feet of those who carry His Word are beautiful. Why? We daily offend God with our thoughts and actions. We stray from His Law. We despise His Word. How lost we would be without the beautiful feet that lead us back to His loving arms. Christ alone can offer hope and salvation to those who hear. But how will they hear if there is no one to speak of Christ’s love and His salvation? God’s chosen messengers offer peace and forgiveness and point us to the cross. Through the Spirit, we acknowledge our sin. The feet of all whom God sends into our lives proclaiming His great love and mercy are beautiful. Our pastors, parents, godparents, fellow Christians, and all who speak the Word of Good News are indeed to be praised and thanked. Into whose life can you walk today with “beautiful feet,”? bringing the Good News they need to hear?

Dear God, thank You for pastors who tell us Your Word and give us Your forgiveness. Amen.

[Mountaineer]

PS,

I am not going to ignore you or your questions, but I have to go out for a few hours.  Maybe someone else will pitch in, if not, I'll be back ..........

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Again, I come at this from the perspective of having rationally convinced myself that belief is psychologically healthier in the aggregate than nihilistic rationalism, yet am unable to believe. I'm trying to join your world but it doesn't make any sense to me.

It all seems to boil down to faith in God. With it, everything you say makes perfect sense; without it, nothing does. You have previously explained that I don't go looking for God; He finds me. So, if I am to harmonize this with the facts that 1. I don't think I hear Him and 2) I feel open to the possibility, there are a few conclusions I can think of:

1. He doesn't actually exist
2. He hasn't contacted me yet
3. I am insufficiently open-minded or open-hearted to God
4. I am hearing God but actively rejecting Him

Assuming God exists and you are correct, then #1 and #2 are false, so it must be on me somehow. But if I need to open my mind or heart more, that violates your explanation that there's nothing I need to do, so #3 must be false too. You've previously said that we are capable of rejecting God; it seems that the only logical possibility is that rather than not hearing God, I am actually rejecting Him. But how can that be? I don't think I'm rejecting God.

Can you help me out here?

PS,

I would have replied sooner, but I had really severe forum logon issues for a couple of hours.  This evening has been about as bad as it has been in the last week.

Faith: there is an ongoing debate about 1. Is it faith in God, or 2. Is it the faith of God that is most important? My take is "both" with a slight leaning toward faith of God, i.e. the perfect faith of Jesus saves us.  That more clearly illustrates that God is in charge, not man. 

Regardless of which way you ponder is correct, my suggestion is to go to where God has promised to meet you - in his Word (read and study Scripture and hear it preached and taught) and Sacraments (if you have not been baptized, do so, and at the Lord's Table, a.k.a. Eucharist or Communion, in the bread and wine).  Grace is the free, underserved gift of God.  The "Means of Grace" are Word and Sacrament.  Go to where God has promised to be.  It is that simple, but that is the problem.  It is so simple that we humans refuse to think that something so valuable can be so easy to receive; the smarter we are, the more inclined we are to try to tell the physician to do a MRI scan to diagnose a hangnail rather than to trust that the physician knows what he is doing.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Again, I come at this from the perspective of having rationally convinced myself that belief is psychologically healthier in the aggregate than nihilistic rationalism, yet am unable to believe. I'm trying to join your world but it doesn't make any sense to me.

It all seems to boil down to faith in God. With it, everything you say makes perfect sense; without it, nothing does. You have previously explained that I don't go looking for God; He finds me. So, if I am to harmonize this with the facts that 1. I don't think I hear Him and 2) I feel open to the possibility, there are a few conclusions I can think of:

1. He doesn't actually exist
2. He hasn't contacted me yet
3. I am insufficiently open-minded or open-hearted to God
4. I am hearing God but actively rejecting Him

Assuming God exists and you are correct, then #1 and #2 are false, so it must be on me somehow. But if I need to open my mind or heart more, that violates your explanation that there's nothing I need to do, so #3 must be false too. You've previously said that we are capable of rejecting God; it seems that the only logical possibility is that rather than not hearing God, I am actually rejecting Him. But how can that be? I don't think I'm rejecting God.

Can you help me out here?

PS,

Perhaps another way to think about all this is to not focus so hard on trying to acquire faith but to just examine the Christian worldview vs. other worldviews.  Then compare the worldviews and think about which relates best or explains best the way things have been in history, the way things are now, and the way you wish them to be for your and/or your family's future in this life and beyond.  What are the key doctrines (teachings) of the various world views?

Then pick some key items to compare, such as:
What is evil?  Why does it exist?
Why does man do evil?
Why does man do good?
Why do people, animals, plants die?  How does the worldview define death?  What happens to people after death?
What would be the consequences of everyone living out the selected worldview?  How would things be?
Does the worldview have a living god/God that chose to join humanity?
Does the worldview have a god/God that remains isolated from humanity?
If the worldview has a god/God, is it dependable and reliable?  How do you know?
and so forth.  You can determine your own list of key questions that would be meaningful for you.

I don't know if this would help you or not.  Just some of my additional thoughts after sleeping on your request "Can you help me out here?" 

And for what it is worth, I agree with you.  It also does not sound to me like you are rejecting God ... just searching for a way to have it all make sense.

... Mountaineer

[Ad Orientem]

Lazarus Saturday services commemorating the faithful departed from Optina Monastery...
http://youtu.be/OK6fEmjDnJw

[Mountaineer]

Fellow Christians,

R E J O I C E ! ! !

This is our week.  Holy week from Palm Sunday, to Maundy Thursday, to Good Friday and culminating with Easter Sunday when Christ rose from the dead to assure our gift of eternal life.  Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever.  Amen.

... Mountaineer

[edsanville]

Without religion, what is one's motivation to value service to others over the pursuit of money and self-gratification? Young minds are impressionable, and if you don't train them in the ways of proper morality at an early age, they instinctively focus on self.

I don't believe in any religion, and yet I would say that I have a strong sense of morality.  I actually agree with the second sentence you wrote above, but training young people in the ways of proper morality does not necessarily have to involve religion.  This is a false dichotomy.

Sorry, it just really bothers me that so many religious people imply that all morality stems from religion.  I do agree with you that a lot of non-religious people needlessly attack and criticize religion in a disrespectful, over-the-top way.  Even though I'm an atheist, I acknowledge that many good things have been done as a result of religion.  I also believe freedom of religion is one of the most important human rights in modern civilization.

[MachineGhost]

I don't believe in any religion, and yet I would say that I have a strong sense of morality.  I actually agree with the second sentence you wrote above, but training young people in the ways of proper morality does not necessarily have to involve religion.  This is a false dichotomy.

Sorry, it just really bothers me that so many religious people imply that all morality stems from religion.  I do agree with you that a lot of non-religious people needlessly attack and criticize religion in a disrespectful, over-the-top way.  Even though I'm an atheist, I acknowledge that many good things have been done as a result of religion.  I also believe freedom of religion is one of the most important human rights in modern civilization.

My thoughts exactly.  Conflating religion with morality is delusional.  Especially when the Catholic Church is the largest protectorate of pedophilia the world has ever known.  Morality has been decreasing systemically, including in religion.  Eventually, some enterprising social entrepreneur will take advantage of the vacuum and rectify the situation.