Afterlife

[rusmeister]

First of all, TLC was a great movie! Maybe not theologically, but, I mean, come on!! What fun!!

However, Indy most certainly did not have faith without reason; without evidence. With nothing else to try before his father died, he figured he'd see if he could get through three trials, and see if there was, indeed, this miracle at the other end.

The first trial had him in a panic. At the last instant, and because of his finely honed reflexes, he figured it out and made it through. At which point, he realized there were very worldly things behind these trials. Despite an error on his part, he made it through the second trial.

Then the crazy third trial. How can this be??? By doing exactly what the clues said to do in the first two, he found mundane things were behind it all. Stepping off the edge was not without a good degree of expectation that he would not fall to his death. Yes, it went against what his senses were telling him. But it did not go against his past experiences with this set of tests. He had logic on his side, and had reason to believe that, despite the instinctive fear, he would survive. (Just as we, with all our movie-going experience, had reason to believe he would survive.)

The first film was much more fun.
Still it seems like you're trying to sidestep my point there (not deliberately). And referencing the viewer? C'mon - that's waaay out of line!

[Avatar]

It is certainly authoritative about rejecting the idea that it is definitely wrong!

That I might grant. But then, it does not insist that it is definitely right either.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

The first film was much more fun.

Yeah, it is the masterpiece. But I love TLC too.

Still it seems like you're trying to sidestep my point there (not deliberately).

It seems to me you're saying I should simply choose to believe, as Indy chose to believe. But he had absolute proof that mundane mechanisms were giving a huge advantage - a life or death advantage - to those who did what the ancient, sacred writings said to do. He had every reason to expect to survive when he took his leap of faith, even if instinct and his senses told him he was doing something that should kill him. He knew that this terrifying thing he was about to do was supposed to work out somehow.

I, otoh, do not even have evidence that makes me think I should believe, much less proof.

Perhaps you could reword your position, so I'll see how my situation and his are the same?

And referencing the viewer? C'mon - that's waaay out of line!

Heh. Just kidding. Parenthetical, and all.

[Prebe]

What is this movie, "Indiana Jones and Thin Layer Chromatography????"

[rusmeister]

What is this movie, "Indiana Jones and Thin Layer Chromatography????"

I think it was actually "Indiana Jones and the Tender Loving Care" that he showed in the 2nd and 3rd films after being an out-for-himself mercenary-type hero in the original. Throw in that RotLA supposedly takes place between ToD and TLC and hia character shift from gooey good-guy to selfish b****** to gooey good-guy (ggg?) makes even less sense. TLC especially for Marcus Brody, who you could kind of respect in the original, but who turned into a comedy-relief clown in TLC.

[rusmeister]

The first film was much more fun.

Yeah, it is the masterpiece. But I love TLC too.

Still it seems like you're trying to sidestep my point there (not deliberately).

It seems to me you're saying I should simply choose to believe, as Indy chose to believe. But he had absolute proof that mundane mechanisms were giving a huge advantage - a life or death advantage - to those who did what the ancient, sacred writings said to do. He had every reason to expect to survive when he took his leap of faith, even if instinct and his senses told him he was doing something that should kill him. He knew that this terrifying thing he was about to do was supposed to work out somehow.

I, otoh, do not even have evidence that makes me think I should believe, much less proof.

Perhaps you could reword your position, so I'll see how my situation and his are the same?

And referencing the viewer? C'mon - that's waaay out of line!

Heh. Just kidding. Parenthetical, and all.

Look, the point is that a blind man can choose to make a leap in the dark. It is a matter of will. if there is nothing from any side at all - reason, heart, trusted authority, or need, then of course the rational blind man won't do it. But you DO have a choice. You are not deterministically forbidden to choose to jump.

Another description (that you are likely not familiar with) is from Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress", where John is given the choice - to jump in the water or not. Or Star Trek: TNG, if you like, "The Best of Both Worlds", where Councilor Troi says to Riker: "It all comes down to a simple question. What do you want, Will Riker?" Now none of the analogies are perfect, you can peck holes in them if you want to, but on the whole they point to our freedom to choose.

So I'd say, given what you've said, that your current position is justified by your experience. I believe that something will happen at some point in your life to open a window of possibility, just as something will undoubtedly test my faith to the limit. It ain't over till the fat lady sings!

[Fist and Faith]

Look, the point is that a blind man can choose to make a leap in the dark. It is a matter of will. if there is nothing from any side at all - reason, heart, trusted authority, or need, then of course the rational blind man won't do it. But you DO have a choice. You are not deterministically forbidden to choose to jump.

Well, Loremaster would, I think, disagree. I might, too. But, for the moment, rather than approach it that way, I'll agree with you. For the sake of argument. My overriding point through all this is - Nobody makes that choice without cause. I have no logical, empirical, or personal reason to do so. Just as you have no reason to choose to embrace, say, Hinduism, or whatever other religion would best make my point. Why would you do so? Why would I simply choose to believe?

Another description (that you are likely not familiar with) is from Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress", where John is given the choice - to jump in the water or not. Or Star Trek: TNG, if you like, "The Best of Both Worlds", where Councilor Troi says to Riker: "It all comes down to a simple question. What do you want, Will Riker?" Now none of the analogies are perfect, you can peck holes in them if you want to, but on the whole they point to our freedom to choose.

Yes. We all (I believe) have many choices. I was simply objecting to you saying, "Indy was in the same boat you are, and he chose to believe. You can make the same choice." Because he was not in the same boat I'm in. He had rock-solid proof that such a choice came with great benefit.

So I'd say, given what you've said, that your current position is justified by your experience. I believe that something will happen at some point in your life to open a window of possibility, just as something will undoubtedly test my faith to the limit. It ain't over till the fat lady sings!

Now that I can accept. That's different from what you said some pages ago; basically, that, when tragedy strikes me - as, in one way or another, it strikes all people - I would embrace God.

[rusmeister]

So I'd say, given what you've said, that your current position is justified by your experience. I believe that something will happen at some point in your life to open a window of possibility, just as something will undoubtedly test my faith to the limit. It ain't over till the fat lady sings!

Now that I can accept. That's different from what you said some pages ago; basically, that, when tragedy strikes me - as, in one way or another, it strikes all people - I would embrace God.

There's evidently a narrow line here that I just haven't properly described. I do believe that a catastrophic event opens a window of possibility that does not now exist - when the philosophy you have built your life on frequently proves unable to bear the loss inflicted.
The same event to me will test my faith to the limit. I have no guarantees that I will survive with my faith intact - my only hope is to train the habit of faith so that when emotions really overwhelm, I will hold to what I found when my mind was "clear", so to speak. And if I do, I will again be able to see the hope that my faith offers.

Lewis's diary (not originally intended for publication), "A Grief Observed", is a 90-odd page book about his experiences on the death of his wife, and the testing his faith underwent. He went all the way - to anger at God, ready to deny God...well, it ought to be read, not paraphrased, much like Stephen's story (of which I've managed to read only one page so far).

Anyway, I do not think that a catastrophe is a guarantee of your finding God, but it breaks through the defenses and webs of the mind, most especially sophistry, which becomes unbearable. We want to know what's REALLY true, and not write it off as meaningless and hopeless - although some do, and despair. And then... to take from Tolkien: Denethor. Or not. It depends upon our choices at that point.