Kevin's Watch

aliantha wrote:Rus, how can you believe your thoughts are "better thought out" than the rest of us if you have to ask a priest where you stand on controversial issues? How, exactly, does that involve thoughtful examination?

"I have adopted X religion, therefore everything they believe, I believe" is not thinking. It's handing your power of discernment over to somebody else. Saying that you have done it because this particular religion preaches The Truth, period, end of paragraph, isn't an explanation for your decision -- it's a rationalization.

But chiding others for not doing what you have done -- for not ceding their power of discernment to somebody else -- is presumptuous. And absurd. *None* of us can know The Truth, not even the Orthodox Church, and even thousands of years of claiming so doesn't make it any more possible.

Hi, Ali,
I generally find it easier to respond to you quickly. With Fist, I have to take more time.
The response, in brief, is in what I said to Av on the abortion thread (I think). We consult priests regarding questions of moral complexity as we consult lawyers on questions of legal complexity. Both professions are professionally trained on the topics, while most of us are not. They may occasionally make mistakes, but are a lot less likely to do so than we are in those fields when the questions are difficult.

As to thinking things out, I was speaking of philosophies, not of knowing all the multifarious details of the universe. In my case, my philosophy has the enormous advantage of being corporate. That means that a great many people over a long period of time have poured an enormous amount of thought - and counter-thought into working out exactly what the philosophy is. What my mind discovers is that it is right, not only when I am right, but also when I am wrong, and this is an indicator of truth. Thus, I don't need to personally do all of the thinking out, or conversely, hand over my powers of discernment, as is commonly imagined. I consistently find that the philosophy confirms my discernment or that I am actually wrong on any given question (and am told why). From the other side, as truth, it is universal truth, not only truth for intellectuals. A complete idiot can cry "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!" and be (ultimately) saved (in the eternal, not Baptist sense). They can otherwise be Forrest Gumps. The Faith is for everybody, and speaks truth that is universal, not personal.

Your last statement is a mystical dogma, held on just as much of a faith as my choice to believe otherwise. If revelation IS possible, then it IS possible to know the truth, whether we personally ever discover it or not. Your statement assumes that revelation is not possible from the beginning of your thought. I don't accept the assumption.

rusmeister wrote:I generally find it easier to respond to you quickly. With Fist, I have to take more time.

Translation: Fist is so damned long-winded that it takes a loooong time to respond to him.

No -- rus has just given up on trying to convert me.

rusmeister wrote:The response, in brief, is in what I said to Av on the abortion thread (I think). We consult priests regarding questions of moral complexity as we consult lawyers on questions of legal complexity. Both professions are professionally trained on the topics, while most of us are not. They may occasionally make mistakes, but are a lot less likely to do so than we are in those fields when the questions are difficult.

Well, consulting a priest is certainly cheaper than consulting a lawyer. I see what you're saying. If you're that concerned about your afterlife being in jeopardy, you're not going to take a step without calling an expert.

(Luckily for me, my religion doesn't require anybody to go through a security screening at the gate. Hey, I wonder if St. Peter makes you take off your shoes and unpack your laptop... Okay, sorry, I'll stop now.)

rusmeister wrote:As to thinking things out, I was speaking of philosophies, not of knowing all the multifarious details of the universe. In my case, my philosophy has the enormous advantage of being corporate. That means that a great many people over a long period of time have poured an enormous amount of thought - and counter-thought into working out exactly what the philosophy is. What my mind discovers is that it is right, not only when I am right, but also when I am wrong, and this is an indicator of truth. Thus, I don't need to personally do all of the thinking out, or conversely, hand over my powers of discernment, as is commonly imagined. I consistently find that the philosophy confirms my discernment or that I am actually wrong on any given question (and am told why).

Or, from another angle, you have made a conscious (or maybe subconscious) decision to agree with everything your church tells you.

From my perspective, it looks like all the thought and counter-thought that has gone into church dogma over the centuries has been an attempt to work in all those "multifarious details of the universe" that kinda don't fit otherwise. In that sense, to me, church dogma is a pastiche. Which is one reason why reading Christian apologists doesn't appeal to me. Altho it *is* kind of fun to watch them become contortionists.

I know you put great store by the "corporate" thought that has gone into your church dogma. But I'm suspicious of *all* sorts of corporations, no matter how long they've been in business.

rusmeister wrote:Your last statement is a mystical dogma, held on just as much of a faith as my choice to believe otherwise. If revelation IS possible, then it IS possible to know the truth, whether we personally ever discover it or not. Your statement assumes that revelation is not possible from the beginning of your thought. I don't accept the assumption.

But I agree with you that revelation is possible. But I also believe that there's more than one road to the Truth, a belief that your church dogma forces you to reject. (I believe you've said that your church blames demons for non-Christian revelation.) This is where the presumption comes in -- that your church's truth is The Truth and so everybody else is wrong. Except the Roman Catholics. Maybe.

I don't fault you for your beliefs. Believe anything you want. But your church is making certain assumptions in its dogma and preaching them as Truth to keep the believers in line. It's when the believers figure that out that they break away from the church.

aliantha wrote: No -- rus has just given up on trying to convert me.

Perhaps both?

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:The response, in brief, is in what I said to Av on the abortion thread (I think). We consult priests regarding questions of moral complexity as we consult lawyers on questions of legal complexity. Both professions are professionally trained on the topics, while most of us are not. They may occasionally make mistakes, but are a lot less likely to do so than we are in those fields when the questions are difficult.

Well, consulting a priest is certainly cheaper than consulting a lawyer. I see what you're saying. If you're that concerned about your afterlife being in jeopardy, you're not going to take a step without calling an expert.

(Luckily for me, my religion doesn't require anybody to go through a security screening at the gate. Hey, I wonder if St. Peter makes you take off your shoes and unpack your laptop... Okay, sorry, I'll stop now.)

If you're that concerned about your legal life here, you might consult a lawyer if you're afraid of losing your house or being sued or whatever, too. It's unreasonable to cast the act of consulting a priest as unreasonable. I am showing that it is reasonable. If the claims of the religion are believed - true or not - it is only logical to act as if they were true.
The references to St Peter are extremely Catholic - or rather, based on an unreasonable prejudice against Catholicism based on extensive cultural exposure to Catholicism without adult examination of Catholic doctrine (=teaching=dogma - the terms are interchangeable, although people have pre-programmed emotional reactions to one and not to the others) and really far from what I believe.
That said, I just don't get your comment about security screening. I can guess, but guessing does not lead to useful communication.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:As to thinking things out, I was speaking of philosophies, not of knowing all the multifarious details of the universe. In my case, my philosophy has the enormous advantage of being corporate. That means that a great many people over a long period of time have poured an enormous amount of thought - and counter-thought into working out exactly what the philosophy is. What my mind discovers is that it is right, not only when I am right, but also when I am wrong, and this is an indicator of truth. Thus, I don't need to personally do all of the thinking out, or conversely, hand over my powers of discernment, as is commonly imagined. I consistently find that the philosophy confirms my discernment or that I am actually wrong on any given question (and am told why).

Or, from another angle, you have made a conscious (or maybe subconscious) decision to agree with everything your church tells you.

From my perspective, it looks like all the thought and counter-thought that has gone into church dogma over the centuries has been an attempt to work in all those "multifarious details of the universe" that kinda don't fit otherwise. In that sense, to me, church dogma is a pastiche. Which is one reason why reading Christian apologists doesn't appeal to me. Altho it *is* kind of fun to watch them become contortionists.

I know you put great store by the "corporate" thought that has gone into your church dogma. But I'm suspicious of *all* sorts of corporations, no matter how long they've been in business.

What I am saying is that your perspective is limited, and not as informed even as much as mine (also limited) is. I already see that it is not a pastiche. Church teaching (to avoid the reaction to "dogma", something that I believe we all have) has always attempted to keep things as simple as possible. Dogma has generally arisen only in response to heresy (zing! another automatic pre-programmed knee-jerk reaction!). If we strip the words of their emotional content and clearly defined them (you'd have to read quotes - if you'll read them, I'll post them) it would translate as dogma being that which has been thoroughly examined and found to be true with no need of constant doubt and skepticism, and heresy would translate as a fatal error that would cause the system to crash.

To say that you are suspicious is understandable, Indeed, it is extraordinarily likely that human organizations will be self-serving, or rather, serving of the selves that run it. Logically, the exception would be one that is actually telling the truth (note the standard English use of the definite article "the" with "truth"). Furthermore, longevity is a clear indicator that the organization really does have some truth. A religion cannot survive for centuries, let alone millenia, unless it has a handle on a significant portion of truth. Or to put it another way, "you can fool all of the people some of the time..." Thus, the major world religions (or their sects /denominations, etc that are old enough) bear more serious consideration than a sect or religion that appeared recently.

Also, when I use the word "corporate", I make no connection to modern business practices. I use the word in the ancient sense, that existed long before capitalism.

Now I have made a conscious - and informed - decision to trust the Church more than myself. The basis for this - as I indicated in my previous post is

What my mind discovers is that it is right, not only when I am right, but also when I am wrong, and this is an indicator of truth. Thus, I don't need to personally do all of the thinking out, or conversely, hand over my powers of discernment, as is commonly imagined. I consistently find that the philosophy confirms my discernment or that I am actually wrong on any given question (and am told why).

What concerns you is clearly that idea of handing over your power of discernment. It is false, and any intelligent Orthodox or Catholic Christian will laugh if you suggest that that is what they have done. If I find an authority that is consistently more right than I am, then it is logical to accept that authority.

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Your last statement is a mystical dogma, held on just as much of a faith as my choice to believe otherwise. If revelation IS possible, then it IS possible to know the truth, whether we personally ever discover it or not. Your statement assumes that revelation is not possible from the beginning of your thought. I don't accept the assumption.

But I agree with you that revelation is possible. But I also believe that there's more than one road to the Truth, a belief that your church dogma forces you to reject. (I believe you've said that your church blames demons for non-Christian revelation.) This is where the presumption comes in -- that your church's truth is The Truth and so everybody else is wrong. Except the Roman Catholics. Maybe.

I don't fault you for your beliefs. Believe anything you want. But your church is making certain assumptions in its dogma and preaching them as Truth to keep the believers in line. It's when the believers figure that out that they break away from the church.

Obviously, you can also state your dogmas - such as the idea of multiple paths to the Truth - one specifically denied by Christianity. We will only disagree in our dogmas. But to say what "my" Church is doing, when you haven't done any investigation whatsoever, is the assumption and presumption. You believe it - but you don't know what's going on from the inside. I'd suggest Men' to you, too www.alexandermen.com/Main_Page
to begin considering what the Church actually says and what we really believe. Since I already know that the body of believers voluntarily submits to the Church, the idea that we are "being kept in line" is absurd. The experience of my life has led me to see that there is much that I don't know - and therefore, I know that I can't simply "pick up the Bible" and understand things that actually involve complex theology. I know that I am going to die, and, like nearly all humans throughout history, I am not OK with that. My mind demands explanations. I find the very best ones - ones that make sense of the world that I see, and far more sense than anyone else's propositions - in the Orthodox Church. To suggest that I am being controlled, that I have lost or surrendered my free will, or that I no longer think, is silly, and the opposite of the truth.
CS Lewis put it quite well when he said that people are generally not reasoned out of faith. When they do stop believing it is usually because they "drift away" - they gradually stop practicing their faith.

What I know about your church is what you have posted here, rus. You have posted fairly extensively about it for many months. You have posted a boatload of links to additional information about it, some of which I have read. And the last time we had a conversation about non-Christian revelation, you suggested these people might have been visited by demons. That's what I was referring to.

I also know that, far from most Christians *voluntarily* joining a church, typically they are raised in it. Yes, it teaches children about God and Jesus at an early age. But it also indoctrinates them into the church's worldview. And some, when they are exposed to other worldviews later, begin to question their childhood faith, and to break away from it.

You know this. You also know that C.S. Lewis was writing in the 1940s and '50s, when church membership and belief in the Christian God was a whole lot more prevalent than it is today. Yes, a lot of folks simply drift away and quit going to church -- but those aren't the folks who stop believing. The ones who stop believing are the ones who question.

As for my use of "corporate" -- I don't see a whole lot of difference between the structure of the church and the structure of a modern-day business corporation. One pursues money and the other pursues spiritual enlightenment/salvation. But in terms of layers of decision-making and management, there are a lot of similarities.

You can feel free to continue to believe that my power of discernment is false. (Anyhow, I believe that's what you said; your antecedent to "it" was somewhat unclear.)

I knew I was pandering to a stereotype with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. It just struck me that St. Peter with his book has some similarities to an airport security screener -- they both strip you bare, to a degree, and ask you a bunch of uncomfortable questions.

And -- dude, I'm *agreeing* with you about consulting a priest. I work for a law firm. I thought your comparison was apt.

I have a question for you, rus. I know that you put a lot of store by the longevity of your religion. But I don't believe you ever answered my question of several months back: if you had lived when Christianity was new, when Jesus was still alive or just after his death, would you have been a Christian? It would have been an untested faith then. No Christian Church would have existed to guide you. There certainly would not have been millennia of scholarly commentaries. There hardly would have been written material at all. There was just this guy whose followers proclaimed him the Son of God. Would you have been among them?

rusmeister wrote:I think, in your judgement of what you understand to be Christian, you have left Orthodox (and probably some important mainline heterodox Christian as well) teaching out of the account.

Of course I have. My judgment of Christianity is on a level above its individual doctrines or teachings. I'm talking about the bare minimum facts of the Creator myth.

rusmeister wrote:It is essential to understand that we believe that God created the world GOOD - that it was, in all its beginnings, good.

This is the super-secret Christian teaching of which I'm unaware? Seriously?

I think you fail to see that this is exactly what I was talking about in my criticism: you only believe the world to be good in as much as it is a creation of God. In other words, it's not good in and of itself, but only by reference to something "outside" or otherwise "beyond" it. That was exactly my point. That devalues the world in itself, and places the full weight of its value in a "level of being" that is otherworldly.

rusmeister wrote:This is the first denial of the idea that we devalue the world. We state that it is fallen from what it should be, and of greater importance regarding your idea, that food, drink, sex, the material world, etc, are all good things

When did I say these are all good things? If you don't like them, then don't. I don't care.

rusmeister wrote:

2 a : a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility

I'd say that not only Orthodoxy, but all mainline traditional forms of Christianity qualify as opposite to that.

Does Orthodoxy not believe in the Flood? Sodom and Gomorrah? The Bible is full of stories where god thinks that "conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for is own sake independent of any constructive program or possibility." God had no intention of saving or rehabilitating these people. It was all about destruction.

rusmeister wrote:Saying that we should be able to determine value subjectively is about as far from any scientific proposal as any I've ever heard. It is the kind of mentality that, in economics, leads to collapsed markets. And it is a self-collapsing philosophy.

Of course it's far from a scientific proposal. I wasn't making a scientific proposal. There is nothing scientific about value. Value is always subjective. Especially in economics. Something is only worth what someone else will pay. That "will pay" is a choice, a subjective determination of value. Have you never thought, "that price is too high?" Have you never shopped for a better deal? If value (in economics) isn't subjective, then why bother trying to get a better deal? Shouldn't objects of a particular class all have the same price if value is objective?

rusmeister wrote:The assumptions that a religion is necessarily mythology, and that mythology is necessarily falsehood - active untruth, rather than a metaphorical expression of actual truth - are huge assumptions, with an enormous mass of apologetics to refute such claims.

I never said that religion didn't have metaphorical truths to relate to people. But the existence of God is literal, not metaphorical (even in your religion, right?). It is not *huge* assumption to start out believing that a particular, purported "god" isn't real. As I've said before, with regard to the vast number of "gods" in our cultural history, you and I are both atheists, except for that one you happen to believe in. Don't you assume from the beginning that Zeus is just a fictional character? Or you do you assume from the beginning that he is real until proven otherwise?

aliantha wrote:What I know about your church is what you have posted here, rus. You have posted fairly extensively about it for many months. You have posted a boatload of links to additional information about it, some of which I have read. And the last time we had a conversation about non-Christian revelation, you suggested these people might have been visited by demons. That's what I was referring to.

I also know that, far from most Christians *voluntarily* joining a church, typically they are raised in it. Yes, it teaches children about God and Jesus at an early age. But it also indoctrinates them into the church's worldview. And some, when they are exposed to other worldviews later, begin to question their childhood faith, and to break away from it.

You know this. You also know that C.S. Lewis was writing in the 1940s and '50s, when church membership and belief in the Christian God was a whole lot more prevalent than it is today. Yes, a lot of folks simply drift away and quit going to church -- but those aren't the folks who stop believing. The ones who stop believing are the ones who question.

As for my use of "corporate" -- I don't see a whole lot of difference between the structure of the church and the structure of a modern-day business corporation. One pursues money and the other pursues spiritual enlightenment/salvation. But in terms of layers of decision-making and management, there are a lot of similarities.

You can feel free to continue to believe that my power of discernment is false. (Anyhow, I believe that's what you said; your antecedent to "it" was somewhat unclear.)

I knew I was pandering to a stereotype with St. Peter at the Pearly Gates. It just struck me that St. Peter with his book has some similarities to an airport security screener -- they both strip you bare, to a degree, and ask you a bunch of uncomfortable questions.

And -- dude, I'm *agreeing* with you about consulting a priest. I work for a law firm. I thought your comparison was apt.

I have a question for you, rus. I know that you put a lot of store by the longevity of your religion. But I don't believe you ever answered my question of several months back: if you had lived when Christianity was new, when Jesus was still alive or just after his death, would you have been a Christian? It would have been an untested faith then. No Christian Church would have existed to guide you. There certainly would not have been millennia of scholarly commentaries. There hardly would have been written material at all. There was just this guy whose followers proclaimed him the Son of God. Would you have been among them?

Sorry I missed the bit about 'prelest'.
It logically follows that if there is spiritual warfare, and demons exist, and they have power to not only suggest, but even possess and control, then prelest is possible. If the worldview is accepted then the concepts no longer seem silly, as they commonly do to the outsider, but logically follow.

Thus, the only revelation that can be accepted is that which is accepted by the Church; logically, it must conform to existing doctrine. Thus, a great deal of human experience with the spirit world would be dangerous and false; literally, enemy attack. Therefore, being "spiritual" is no virtue in and of itself, and can be extremely dangerous. Revelation is handled very carefully; one of the most famous cases of the last millennium ("toll houses"), in the Orthodox Church, is still not accepted as dogma, but only as a pious report, which may or may not be what people experience after death. (Side note: The idea of "toll houses" IS an intense prsonal examination of your life from an objective standpoint - that of truth - including most especially the things we don't want to acknowledge about ourselves, and that might, after a fashion, be taken to compare with your idea of 'security screening'. I think the idea, that few consider today - that anything unholy is incompatible with God.)

On voluntary accepting faith: Of course we are speaking in generalities; certainly there are people whose use of reason, combined with experience, lead them away from faith. I contend that they are an overwhelming minority - certainly speaking of adults who seriously examine their faith as an adult, especially regarding traditional forms of Christianity - as opposed to modern and recent sects, who really do have next to no history or tradition. I'd say that by far the most common case is the flocks of young people raised in a faith, escaping the parental nest, who do not usually leave their faith because they have carefully examined their faith and applied serious adult reasoning to determine that their faith is false, but because of laziness and a desire to "do what one wants" and "be free".

Also, the issue of adult converts is left out of your exposition. They come to the faith and sometimes specifically because of reason - and while I think reason is not the major factor in turning towards or away from faith for most people - I think personal experience does that - I think more people can be shown who have serious arguments as to why they turned to faith than those who had serious arguments for abandoning faith that thoroughly examined their faith from an adult perspective. It's difficult to prove such things, of course. but taking the bodies of people I have known both inside and outside of faith, I find that to be the case. I believe it would be difficult to muster up a significant number of people even here at KW (which ought to have the heaviest concentration of such people, imo), who could really have been shown, as adults, to have abandoned faith (as I believe you have) via careful adult deliberation, and with full knowledge of the history and tradition that they were abandoning. So as a general rule,

The ones who stop believing are the ones who question.

I deny this. I accept that there are exceptions who do, and insist that they are exceptional.

As to your use of the word corporate, my sense was that it was precisely the negative senses of modern corporations that was being employed in the comparison, the very things I deny - the goal of seeking any advancement of self or even personal agenda. I only mean corporate in the sense of a united body, not the twisted capitalist conception.

You can feel free to continue to believe that my power of discernment is false. (Anyhow, I believe that's what you said; your antecedent to "it" was somewhat unclear.)

Major misunderstanding! "It" was the idea that we hand over our power of discernment. Sorry that that was not more obvious.

On your final question, it's really impossible to answer. I don't know, because I developed to be who I am in the light of a developed Christendom. I would hope that I would have had the sense to accept and believe - certainly I think the problems GKC outlined in TEM - the general failure of the philosophies and religions, would have left me, like so many others, unsatisfied and concerned with the question of the meaning of life and death, and hopefully, open to hear the news of the Resurrection with open ears.

rusmeister wrote:Sorry I missed the bit about 'prelest'.
It logically follows that if there is spiritual warfare, and demons exist, and they have power to not only suggest, but even possess and control, then prelest is possible. If the worldview is accepted then the concepts no longer seem silly, as they commonly do to the outsider, but logically follow.

Thus, the only revelation that can be accepted is that which is accepted by the Church; logically, it must conform to existing doctrine. Thus, a great deal of human experience with the spirit world would be dangerous and false; literally, enemy attack. Therefore, being "spiritual" is no virtue in and of itself, and can be extremely dangerous.

Just wanted to emphasize again for the peanut gallery that you are basing all of your comments on a big, big assumption: that everyone -- or most, anyhow -- have accepted the Christian worldview.

For someone outside of that worldview, though, it looks very much like the church is instilling fear in its members in order to keep them in the flock. I'm just saying what I see as an outsider.

I'm going to have to look up this idea of "toll houses." That's kind of intriguing.

rusmeister wrote:I believe it would be difficult to muster up a significant number of people even here at KW (which ought to have the heaviest concentration of such people, imo), who could really have been shown, as adults, to have abandoned faith (as I believe you have) via careful adult deliberation, and with full knowledge of the history and tradition that they were abandoning. So as a general rule,

The ones who stop believing are the ones who question.

I deny this.

Show of hands -- who here was raised in the Christian faith and rejected it as an adult? (Happy to start a poll question, if need be.)

rusmeister wrote:As to your use of the word corporate, my sense was that it was precisely the negative senses of modern corporations that was being employed in the comparison, the very things I deny - the goal of seeking any advancement of self or even personal agenda. I only mean corporate in the sense of a united body, not the twisted capitalist conception.

My observation is that, in *any* structured group, the larger it gets, the farther afield it gets from its original mission. I've seen it with for-profits and with nonprofits, with schools and clubs and government entities and, yes, with religion. The bigger it gets, the more unwieldy it becomes and the less able the guys at the top are to control everything and everybody. (See the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal, and just about everything bad that's happened on Wall Street over the past year and a half.) So for me, my suspicion has almost nothing to do with capitalism and a whole lot to do with the institution's size. (Which I had never really thought through before. So thanks!)

rusmeister wrote:

You can feel free to continue to believe that my power of discernment is false. (Anyhow, I believe that's what you said; your antecedent to "it" was somewhat unclear.)

Major misunderstanding! "It" was the idea that we hand over our power of discernment. Sorry that that was not more obvious.

No worries -- glad I asked.

rusmeister wrote:On your final question, it's really impossible to answer. I don't know, because I developed to be who I am in the light of a developed Christendom. I would hope that I would have had the sense to accept and believe - certainly I think the problems GKC outlined in TEM - the general failure of the philosophies and religions, would have left me, like so many others, unsatisfied and concerned with the question of the meaning of life and death, and hopefully, open to hear the news of the Resurrection with open ears.

Good answer. Thank you.

Rusmeister wrote:I believe it would be difficult to muster up a significant number of people even here at KW (which ought to have the heaviest concentration of such people, imo), who could really have been shown, as adults, to have abandoned faith (as I believe you have) via careful adult deliberation, and with full knowledge of the history and tradition that they were abandoning.

I abandoned faith gradually, starting at about 13. By the time I was in college, I was an agnostic. In my 30s, I became an atheist. The more I study and think and experience, the farther I get from faith in God.

If God is real, then the lack of "full knowledge of the history and tradition that they were abandoning" shouldn't be an issue. I reached out to Him. I felt nothing reaching back. God was simply not real, in my experience. Surely it doesn't take "full knowledge of the history and tradition" to make contact with a real, living God?? If your religion is nothing more than a state of conviction based on careful study of a few books, then all you've got is a convincing (at least to you) argument. What about the experience of God? Is He a real presence to you? Or are you basing your entire faith upon stuff you've read? Surely god is bigger than that (if he exists). Surely there are other ways to reach him besides reading the correct books, and having the right people tell you how to interpret them. That grounds salvation on a purely pedantic foundation. Doesn't God reveal himself to people who don't read Chesterton and C.S. Lewis?

aliantha wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Sorry I missed the bit about 'prelest'.
It logically follows that if there is spiritual warfare, and demons exist, and they have power to not only suggest, but even possess and control, then prelest is possible. If the worldview is accepted then the concepts no longer seem silly, as they commonly do to the outsider, but logically follow.

Thus, the only revelation that can be accepted is that which is accepted by the Church; logically, it must conform to existing doctrine. Thus, a great deal of human experience with the spirit world would be dangerous and false; literally, enemy attack. Therefore, being "spiritual" is no virtue in and of itself, and can be extremely dangerous.

Just wanted to emphasize again for the peanut gallery that you are basing all of your comments on a big, big assumption: that everyone -- or most, anyhow -- have accepted the Christian worldview.

For someone outside of that worldview, though, it looks very much like the church is instilling fear in its members in order to keep them in the flock. I'm just saying what I see as an outsider.

I'm going to have to look up this idea of "toll houses." That's kind of intriguing.

rusmeister wrote:I believe it would be difficult to muster up a significant number of people even here at KW (which ought to have the heaviest concentration of such people, imo), who could really have been shown, as adults, to have abandoned faith (as I believe you have) via careful adult deliberation, and with full knowledge of the history and tradition that they were abandoning. So as a general rule,

The ones who stop believing are the ones who question.

I deny this.

Show of hands -- who here was raised in the Christian faith and rejected it as an adult? (Happy to start a poll question, if need be.)

rusmeister wrote:As to your use of the word corporate, my sense was that it was precisely the negative senses of modern corporations that was being employed in the comparison, the very things I deny - the goal of seeking any advancement of self or even personal agenda. I only mean corporate in the sense of a united body, not the twisted capitalist conception.

My observation is that, in *any* structured group, the larger it gets, the farther afield it gets from its original mission. I've seen it with for-profits and with nonprofits, with schools and clubs and government entities and, yes, with religion. The bigger it gets, the more unwieldy it becomes and the less able the guys at the top are to control everything and everybody. (See the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal, and just about everything bad that's happened on Wall Street over the past year and a half.) So for me, my suspicion has almost nothing to do with capitalism and a whole lot to do with the institution's size. (Which I had never really thought through before. So thanks!)

rusmeister wrote:

You can feel free to continue to believe that my power of discernment is false. (Anyhow, I believe that's what you said; your antecedent to "it" was somewhat unclear.)

Major misunderstanding! "It" was the idea that we hand over our power of discernment. Sorry that that was not more obvious.

No worries -- glad I asked.

rusmeister wrote:On your final question, it's really impossible to answer. I don't know, because I developed to be who I am in the light of a developed Christendom. I would hope that I would have had the sense to accept and believe - certainly I think the problems GKC outlined in TEM - the general failure of the philosophies and religions, would have left me, like so many others, unsatisfied and concerned with the question of the meaning of life and death, and hopefully, open to hear the news of the Resurrection with open ears.

Good answer. Thank you.

Just a couple of quick notes:
One, I'm not assuming people accept my beliefs - I am describing them from the other side, having been on both sides of the fence. I am explaining that if the big assumptions are accepted, what seems illogical to the outsider suddenly becomes logical.

On your proposed poll, I have to insist that it be people who, as I said, have abandoned faith (as I believe you have) via careful adult deliberation, and with full knowledge of the history and tradition that they were abandoning.
I think most who have abandoned faith will wind up holding or having held what I call "a second-grader's version of Christianity", meaning an immature view and limited knowledge of theology and doctrine.
I still remember how much an atheist friend (and former boss) of mine recommended Bertrand Russell, and when I read his famous "Why I Am Not a Christian", I was struck by the incredible primitiveness of the religion he was bashing - which was most certainly not something that I myself subscribed to. But the single most important factor is lack of adult knowledge and experience of the faith. Most naysayers on faith lack said knowledge and experience. They started, sometimes at 13, sometimes at 18, to reject the faith - as they understood it - and never went back to find out if there was anything more. (My personal two-cent addition is that the faith they abandoned was most likely one that itself had abandoned ages of tradition, and as a result, was rather or quite primitive.)

Also, I see the Orthodox Church (and the other significant Churches) as not at all being about "controlling" people. I don't know how that keeps creeping in, unless it is a prejudice. There is no way in which my priest, or the Bishop over him, get any kind of "control" of me or benefit of any sort, other than any personal one I may choose to impart.

aliantha wrote:Show of hands -- who here was raised in the Christian faith and rejected it as an adult?

Not me. I would guess I was 9-11. I heard someone say, "The only reason people believe in God is because they're afraid of going to Hell if they don't." I knew even then that that was a stupid thing to say. But the important part was that it was the first time I'd ever heard of atheism. That there were people who did not believe in God. I was raised Presbyterian, and, although I knew there were other Christian denominations, and I assume I knew of other religions, I didn't know there was such a thing as not having any belief. The concept was quite a surprise. And I also knew, right then, that I didn't. I had been to Sunday School for a few years, and church now and then. I knew the general story of the Bible, and could quote a passage here and there. But, when I heard of atheism, I realized I didn't feel anything I had been taught. I didn't believe it.

So here I am, 30+ years later.

Fist and Faith wrote:

aliantha wrote:Show of hands -- who here was raised in the Christian faith and rejected it as an adult?

Not me. I would guess I was 9-11. I heard someone say, "The only reason people believe in God is because they're afraid of going to Hell if they don't." I knew even then that that was a stupid thing to say. But the important part was that it was the first time I'd ever heard of atheism. That there were people who did not believe in God. I was raised Presbyterian, and, although I knew there were other Christian denominations, and I assume I knew of other religions, I didn't know there was such a thing as not having any belief. The concept was quite a surprise. And I also knew, right then, that I didn't. I had been to Sunday School for a few years, and church now and then. I knew the general story of the Bible, and could quote a passage here and there. But, when I heard of atheism, I realized I didn't feel anything I had been taught. I didn't believe it.

So here I am, 30+ years later.

Thanks, Fist. That's unusually early, but it still makes my point, which comes down to it being awfully hard to find a person who seriously practiced and studied their faith (for a significant period of time) as an adult and then to be reasoned out of it, and that most people who object to faith - esp. Christianity - simply don't have that adult perspective on Christianity, including history and theology. They quit before really learning anything, but in our culture, they think they know what the faith is anyway because they were raised in it, and I'm saying that's not enough. (I'll call it "Christianity.2gv" for shorthand.)

rusmeister wrote:Thanks, Fist. That's unusually early, but it still makes my point, which comes down to it being awfully hard to find a person who seriously practiced and studied their faith (for a significant period of time) as an adult and then to be reasoned out of it,

True enough in my case.

rusmeister wrote:and that most people who object to faith - esp. Christianity - simply don't have that adult perspective on Christianity, including history and theology. They quit before really learning anything, but in our culture, they think they know what the faith is anyway because they were raised in it, and I'm saying that's not enough. (I'll call it "Christianity.2gv" for shorthand.)

This one is not true in my case. I don't object to faith, Christianity or otherwise. I just don't have any.

rusmeister wrote: ... it still makes my point, which comes down to it being awfully hard to find a person who seriously practiced and studied their faith (for a significant period of time) as an adult and then to be reasoned out of it, ...

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that people who give up on religion are either childish, ignorant, or uneducated? Maybe people just become more set in their ways and more dogmatic as they grow older. I'm not sure how this is a point in your favor.

Besides, didn't the Bible have something to say about the "faith of a child"?

God wrote:Mark 10:15 (New King James Version)

15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

Does the Bible say anything about reading Chesterton and C.S. Lewis in order to assure one's faith?

Rusmeister wrote:Most people who object to faith - esp. Christianity - simply don't have that adult perspective on Christianity, including history and theology. They quit before really learning anything, but in our culture, they think they know what the faith is anyway because they were raised in it, and I'm saying that's not enough. (I'll call it "Christianity.2gv" for shorthand.)

I'll repeat my point from above: what difference could history and theology possibly make to someone who is earnestly and sincerely seeking God for years, but doesn't find Him? If God is real, why does he make the path to Him run through a perspective on Christianity which includes history and theology? What did people do before this history and theology were established? Were they just screwed? Where in the Bible does it say that salvation or relationship with God rests upon history and theology? Why would god make people jump through such arcane hoops?

This is very elitist view of religion. But it's not too surprising. It's your standard response in religious discussions.

Honestly, there is nothing inspiring or even "spiritual" in this constant criticism that we're all too ignorant to have faith because we haven't read the books you've read. If this is all there is to faith, no wonder so many people simply don't care. If salvation and faith are this boring, I'll take damnation.

Ali wrote:Show of hands -- who here was raised in the Christian faith and rejected it as an adult? (Happy to start a poll question, if need be.)

Me. I was raised a catholic. By 16 I was seriously questioning the idea, (so much so that I never bothered with confirmation), by 17 I was pretty much an aetheist. I spent the next few years studying as much of other religions as I could, and temporarily dabbling in some of them, but like Fist, it just turned out that I have no faith in anything.

--A

Ali wrote:Show of hands -- who here was raised in the Christian faith and rejected it as an adult? (Happy to start a poll question, if need be.)

Not sure if I've rejected it completely or not... I guess it all boils down to how one defines Christian faith. As far as being adult about it or understanding the doctrines and the history and theological development, well... I'd say I go most of you beat (not to sound arrogant). Aside from having read the Bible and other scriptures several times in a couple of languages (English and Spanish), I have studied Josephus, Eusebius, and some Tertullian, Nicolas de Cusa, a very little of Anselem, Origin, Clement of Rome, and have read various Apocryphal texts, both Jewish and Christian. I had prayed often, had several "spiritual" experiences, and was a missionary for a bit.

What really disturbed me was the believer's unwillingness to test their faith. To me, if something is objectively true, it's always true, and no amount of testing of faith ought to change that. What's funny is that I had always turned a blind eye to the analysis that I allegedly supported. Well, the time came when my beliefs did clash with my reason. When what I viewed as morally reasonable seemed to go against my religious sensibilities. Reviewing these, I found that I was not being consistent with myself, and neither was religion. I found my fellow believers making something much more complicated then it needed to be and inventing sophisms to address problematic doctrine. Ultimately, everyone (including myself) was afraid to find out whether or not their belief was true.

Once I viewed things in this light, I realized a lot that I had believed in was erroneous. Scripture passages that I had always interpreted in light of my sect's beliefs became different in meaning once I stopped reading outside ideas into them... further understanding was gained when I quit trying to apologize for barbaric acts sanctioned by the biblical text. And the spiritual experiences? Well, it would seem they had more in common with a group mentality then a personal divine witness of Christ (unless the Holy Ghost was testifying that Iron Maiden rocked... the feelings are about the same).

I do not deny the existence of a divinity... I guess that kinda makes me an agnostic of sorts. I have no ill-feeling towards religion... just to specific practitioners of it. I don't even think faith is a bad thing... I think everyone accepts some postulate without proof. But I'd rather limit that number of postulates to a minimum, and that there is a considerable (almost perfect) consistency in my morals. Of course, that's a work in progress

Also, for the record, I do respect Rus, Fist, and Aliantha for their views... hell, I might even accept all of it completely...

Orlion wrote:And the spiritual experiences? Well, it would seem they had more in common with a group mentality then a personal divine witness of Christ (unless the Holy Ghost was testifying that Iron Maiden rocked... the feelings are about the same).

Try a Phish concert. (Are they still around?) Very much a group/family/spiritual feeling. Those nasty hippies know how to party.

I've been closer to God on 'shrooms than in any church. If God is not an experience, God is dead. Nothing will ever convince me that the path to enlightenment and salvation is through a theology course. Surely God is able to reveal Himself through other means.

Iron Maiden did rock.

I don't get "spiritual" experiences with hallucinogens. None of that "one with the universe" kinda stuff. Might be down to expectation...I tend more toward the "cause and effect" revelations, or ones of isolation or uniqueness. (Everything's uniqueness that is.)

--A

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:Thanks, Fist. That's unusually early, but it still makes my point, which comes down to it being awfully hard to find a person who seriously practiced and studied their faith (for a significant period of time) as an adult and then to be reasoned out of it,

True enough in my case.

rusmeister wrote:and that most people who object to faith - esp. Christianity - simply don't have that adult perspective on Christianity, including history and theology. They quit before really learning anything, but in our culture, they think they know what the faith is anyway because they were raised in it, and I'm saying that's not enough. (I'll call it "Christianity.2gv" for shorthand.)

This one is not true in my case. I don't object to faith, Christianity or otherwise. I just don't have any.

Sorry.
I should have said "reject faith", not "object to faith".
Once it's established that most (I say "most") people who reject faith do NOT have an educated adult understanding of that faith, it immediately follows that they (said most) do not know what it is they are rejecting - AND that many of the common arguments trotted out are mere straw men.

Zarathustra wrote:

rusmeister wrote: ... it still makes my point, which comes down to it being awfully hard to find a person who seriously practiced and studied their faith (for a significant period of time) as an adult and then to be reasoned out of it, ...

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that people who give up on religion are either childish, ignorant, or uneducated? Maybe people just become more set in their ways and more dogmatic as they grow older. I'm not sure how this is a point in your favor.

Besides, didn't the Bible have something to say about the "faith of a child"?

God wrote:Mark 10:15 (New King James Version)

15 Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it."

Does the Bible say anything about reading Chesterton and C.S. Lewis in order to assure one's faith?

Rusmeister wrote:Most people who object to faith - esp. Christianity - simply don't have that adult perspective on Christianity, including history and theology. They quit before really learning anything, but in our culture, they think they know what the faith is anyway because they were raised in it, and I'm saying that's not enough. (I'll call it "Christianity.2gv" for shorthand.)

I'll repeat my point from above: what difference could history and theology possibly make to someone who is earnestly and sincerely seeking God for years, but doesn't find Him? If God is real, why does he make the path to Him run through a perspective on Christianity which includes history and theology? What did people do before this history and theology were established? Were they just screwed? Where in the Bible does it say that salvation or relationship with God rests upon history and theology? Why would god make people jump through such arcane hoops?

This is very elitist view of religion. But it's not too surprising. It's your standard response in religious discussions.

Honestly, there is nothing inspiring or even "spiritual" in this constant criticism that we're all too ignorant to have faith because we haven't read the books you've read. If this is all there is to faith, no wonder so many people simply don't care. If salvation and faith are this boring, I'll take damnation.

Hi, M/Z!
You're digging yourself a hole here. For example, your reference to "what the Bible says" proves my point. You don't know how we see the Bible, and you're coming from assumptions of exposure to what I would tell you are primitive modern versions of faith that I myself abandoned.

I AM saying that if they don't know, they ARE ignorant and uneducated on the topic, no matter what degrees they may hold or other formal education they may have. I'll admit that I'm not educated in physics, despite my considerable education in certain other fields. I'm ignorant about particle accelerators, even though I've read a little in the news, just as you are evidently ignorant about Orthodox or Catholic theology on any serious level of understanding, even though you no doubt have read a little about issues regarding that in the news or elsewhere.

History and theology are not essential to have faith, and I did not say that they were. However, they provide an awful lot of understanding of this thing you see that you call Christianity, and all of its divisions. People who are ignorant of them may choose to have faith anyway - but if they reject faith, they cannot simultaneously pride themselves on how intelligent they are and how much they know about what they are rejecting.

I do not say that faith resides in books or even necessary for faith. I do say that books can be helpful for people to understand how faith and reason are compatible, and to learn the difference between informed objection/rejection and uninformed rejection - and to see that we are most often uninformed - or informed about something that IS inferior/primitive and not about anything higher than that.