rusmeister wrote:Fist and Faith wrote:Oh, I quite agree about that last stuff. Don't remember if it's this thread or another, but I recently said the same thing. Seeing my attitude of tolerance in their early years can't help but imprint the same attitude on my children to some degree.
And, obviously, I'm thrilled with whatever degree of success I see. Not only because I believe this is the best way to live, but because, if everyone had the same attitude as me, the world would be a wonderfully peaceful, loving place.
If seemed you meant something else by "force," though. Why would you have to "go underground"?? If you lose the vote, you'll feel the need to not just stop trying to spread the Word of God, but to hide your beliefs? Your beliefs are much more welcome in my world than mine are in yours. Stick around! Express your beliefs all you want. I'd rather you did that than constantly tell the rest of us that our beliefs are wrong. I don't remember ever seeing you post about the aspects of God and your beliefs that fill you with joy. Things that people might be attracted to. Things that would make me smile for you, the way I smile for many people whose beliefs are far different than mine.
Still, if your beliefs do not rule the world, and mine do, the stuff you've been posting all along is still perfectly acceptable.
(Negations first:)
Ask Sindatur if it's perfectly acceptable.
I can't say I've seen enough of Sundatur's posts to answer for him one way or another. But I'd be surprised if he could not accept a world where people don't like what every other person in the world is doing, or even if they
say they don't like what every other person in the world is doing. The difference is that you want to
force everyone to not do what you don't like.
I started to reply to the other things before your Lewis quote. But it was turning into a book, and an unnecessary one, at that. The bottom line about education is the same as what I just said. You want to force your views onto everyone. The want the public school system to teach your beliefs as facts. I want it to teach verifiable, reproducable, predictable things as facts, and to teach what your beliefs are. Along with what my beliefs are. And the Dalai Lama's; Ramakrishna; and on and on. I think we should all have a better knowledge of the world's religions, since religion is such a gigantic part of the world.
rusmeister wrote:As to "underground", we already see what is happening. If you remember, I posted actual cases of lawsuits, pending or already won, when the new morality forces people of traditional morality to act in contradiction to their faith or to shut their business down. From that Arizona photographer to Catholic Charities in Massachusetts, the demands to conform are real - and they are intolerable. I already know that as a public school teacher, I would not be able to stay in my job long - if a kid comes to me for advice about homosexual feelings, I am going to have to tell him/her what I believe - and put my job on the line, because what I believe is not tolerated by the public ideology. I MUST guide children away from sin; I may not pretend that it is "normal" or "all right" - and this is exactly what public employees are expected to do. So we are already discriminated against (to use your language in the way you usually mean it) in public life. It is not difficult for me to see two or three steps down the road to where what we teach is not tolerated in public at all - where it is equated to the new concept of "hate crime", and to where first things like land permits or whatever are denied, leading to the final illegality of what the Faith teaches. This would not be the first time that believers have had to go underground - but the Faith has always survived.
So sorry, Fist, your pluralism and my faith are incompatible.
No.
Some versions of pluralism, but not mine. Just as
some forms of Christianity would have all homosexuals executed, although yours would not. I'm not objecting to your beliefs in the same way I would object to those of Phelps or the KKK, and I'd like it if you gave me the same consideration. My pluralism would never say that what you teach will not be tolerated in public at all, and it certainly wouldn't make what the Faith teaches illegal. If you say, "But you can't prevent another form of pluralism from gaining power, and doing that even though
you wouldn't like it", I will say, "But you can't prevent another version of Christianity from gaining power, and executing all homosexuals." Nobody can guarantee their view would lead to a perfect future, even by its
own standards. So let's just talk to each other, ok?
rusmeister wrote:I do agree with you, though, that I have probably been talking about the wrong things. That I should be posting about things that do bring joy and comfort. I've said to read writers that are better than me; that I don't hold a candle to. You refuse.
Again, this is nonsense. I've read many things you've posted. And I've read much more Lewis than you've posted. In addition, I've read about things that are
far removed from my beliefs (some much closer to yours than to mine), and taken great joy in them. Some of them are wonders of human thought and expression.
But you insist that only by reading everything of Chesterton can I be said to have given your writers a chance. That's rubbish, as well as insulting. I don't like Chesterton's writing. I often can't understand what he's saying. When I do, he's often wrong, and sometimes hypocritical. I don't remember
ever seeing joy, and the only humor I've seen is the kind that's intended to put others down. SO SUE ME. I can't usually understand him, and I don't like him when I can. That's not anywhere close to the same thing as refusing to read writers that are better than you.
For that matter, I'm not always going to agree with everything
anyone you recommend says. I don't
agree with everything the deeply religious writers whose works I
do love said. Your problem is that you find insult in disagreement. If you want me to read something just to know what it is, then we're fine. If you want me to read something so that I will come to embrace your beliefs, then you are very like going to be disappointed, and angry, and say I didn't give them a chance. Or that I misunderstood. But I
can still disagree with something I
do understand. Such things happen, you know. Present something as something you think is great, and has great meaning to you - cool. Present it while we're debating some point as a trump card that I
must be convinced by, and tell me why my feelings about it are wrong - bad.
rusmeister wrote:As for me, the question is not whether Faith magically makes people ideally joyful - that is a gift, and it's never something that one should rely on for faith - but what would a person be like if they did not hold the faith? Or why is it that I do not have Tracie's gift of radiating joy? (To reference something you have experience of, and also to underscore that I believe that on one of the most important questions, she was very very right.)
That's where Lewis's "Mere Christianity, ch 10 "Nice People or New Men" helps me. The most relevant part:
I think this is the right moment to consider a question which is often
asked: If Christianity is true why are not all Christians obviously nicer
than all non-Christians? What lies behind that question is partly something
very reasonable and partly something that is not reasonable at all. The
reasonable part is this. If conversion to Christianity makes no improvement
in a man's outward actions -if he continues to be just as snobbish or
spiteful or envious or ambitious as he was before-then I think we must
suspect that his "conversion" was largely imaginary; and after one's
original conversion, every time one thinks one has made an advance, that is
the test to apply. Fine feelings, new insights, greater interest in
"religion" mean nothing unless they make our actual behaviour better; just
as in an illness "feeling better" is not much good if the thermometer shows
that your temperature is still going up. In that sense the outer world is
quite right to judge Christianity by its results. Christ told us to judge by
results. A tree is known by its fruit; or, as we say, the proof of the
pudding is in the eating. When we Christians behave badly, or fail to behave
well, we are making Christianity unbelievable to the outside world. The
wartime posters told us that Careless Talk costs Lives. It is equally true
that Careless Lives cost Talk. Our careless lives set the outer world
talking; and we give them grounds for talking in a way that throws doubt on
the truth of Christianity itself.
But there is another way of demanding results in which the outer world
may be quite illogical. They may demand not merely that each man's life
should improve if he becomes a Christian: they may also demand before they
believe in Christianity that they should see the whole world neatly divided
into two camps -Christian and non-Christian-and that all the people in the
first camp at any given moment should be obviously nicer than all the people
in the second. This is unreasonable on several grounds.
(1) In the first place the situation in the actual world is much more
complicated than that. The world does not consist of 100 per cent Christians
and 100 per cent non-Christians. There are people (a great many of them) who
are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still call themselves by that
name: some of them are clergymen. There are other people who are slowly
becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are
people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who
are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense
than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are
being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their
religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to
Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led
to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to
leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist
teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before
Christ's birth may have been in this position. And always, of course, there
are a great many people who are just confused in mind and have a lot of
inconsistent beliefs all jumbled up together. Consequently, it is not much
use trying to make judgments about Christians and non-Christians in the
mass. It is some use comparing cats and dogs, or even men and women, in the
mass, because there one knows definitely which is which. Also, an animal
does not turn (either slowly or suddenly) from a dog into a cat. But when we
are comparing Christians in general with non-Christians in general, we are
usually not thinking about real people whom we know at all, but only about
two vague ideas which we have got from novels and newspapers. If you want to
compare the bad Christian and the good Atheist, you must think about two
real specimens whom you have actually met. Unless we come down to brass
tacks in that way, we shall only be wasting time.
(2) Suppose we have come down to brass tacks and are now talking not
about an imaginary Christian and an imaginary non-Christian, but about two
real people in our own neighbourhood. Even then we must be careful to ask
the right question. If Christianity is true then it ought to follow (a) That
any Christian will be nicer than the same person would be if he were not a
Christian. (b) That any man who becomes a Christian will be nicer than he
was before. Just in the same way, if the advertisements of White-smile's
toothpaste are true it ought to follow (a) That anyone who uses it will have
better teeth than the same person would have if he did not use it. (b) That
if anyone begins to use it his teeth will improve. But to point out that I,
who use Whitesmile's (and also have inherited bad teeth from both my
parents), have not got as fine a set as some healthy young Negro who never
used toothpaste at all, does not, by itself, prove that the advertisements
are untrue. Christian Miss Bates may have an unkinder tongue than
unbelieving Dick Firkin. That, by itself, does not tell us whether
Christianity works. The question is what Miss Bates's tongue would be like
if she were not a Christian and what Dick's would be like if he became one.
Miss Bates and Dick, as a result of natural causes and early upbringing,
have certain temperaments: Christianity professes to put both temperaments
under new management if they will allow it to do so. What you have a right
to ask is whether that management, if allowed to take over, improves the
concern. Everyone knows that what is being managed in Dick Firkin's case is
much "nicer" than what is being managed in Miss Bates's. That is not the
point. To judge the management of a factory, you must consider not only the
output but the plant. Considering the plant at Factory A it may be a wonder
that it turns out anything at all; considering the first-class outfit at
Factory B its output, though high, may be a great deal lower than it ought
to be. No doubt the good manager at Factory A is going to put in new
machinery as soon as he can, but that takes time. In the meantime low output
does not prove that he is a failure.
I very much disagree with the premise that Christians should be nicer than non-Christians. There's nothing about non-Christianity that insists on non being nice. Or happy. Or good. Even if niceness, happiness, and goodness
are particularly important teachings of Christianity, there's no reason to think those things can
only be achieved by Christianity. Why wouldn't we expect a non-Christian to be generous? Or friendly? Or helpful? Or whatever? Just because I don't think God tells me I should be that way, I won't be that way? Maybe I would, just because it's my nature. Or maybe I would because some
other faith instilled those things in me. All Christians are expected to be nicer than all non-Christians? Not only arrogant, but not a remotely clear interpretation of the history of the world. Plenty of people of other faiths have been every bit as nice as any Christian.
So maybe it's no surprise that I think Christianity's success at making people be nicer could only be judged on a case-by-case basis.
rusmeister wrote:Lewis wrote:(3) And now, let us go a little deeper. The manager is going to put in
new machinery: before Christ has finished with Miss Bates, she is going to
be very "nice" indeed. But if we left it at that, it would sound as though
Christ's only aim was to pull Miss Bates up to the same level on which Dick
had been all along. We have been talking, in fact, as if Dick were all
right; as if Christianity was something nasty people needed and nice ones
could afford to do without; and as if niceness was all that God demanded.
But this would be a fatal mistake. The truth is that in God's eyes Dick
Firkin needs "saving" every bit as much as Miss Bates. In one sense (I will
explain what sense in a moment) niceness hardly comes into the question.
You cannot expect God to look at Dick's placid temper and friendly
disposition exactly as we do. They result from natural causes which God
Himself creates. Being merely temperamental, they will all disappear if
Dick's digestion alters. The niceness, in fact, is God's gift to Dick, not
Dick's gift to God. In the same way, God has allowed natural causes, working
in a world spoiled by centuries of sin, to produce in Miss Bates the narrow
mind and jangled nerves which account for most of her nastiness. He intends,
in His own good time, to set that part of her right. But that is not, for
God, the critical part of the business. It presents no difficulties. It is
not what He is anxious about. What He is watching and waiting and working
for is something that is not easy even for God, because, from the nature of
the case, even He cannot produce it by a mere act of power. He is waiting
and watching for it both in Miss Bates and in Dick Firkin. It is something
they can freely give Him or freely refuse to Him. Will they, or will they
not, turn to Him and thus fulfil the only purpose for which they were
created? Their free will is trembling inside them like the needle of a
compass. But this is a needle that can choose. It can point to its true
North; but it need not. Will the needle swing round, and settle, and point
to God?
I think that I really am messed up like Miss Bates (I think most of us are, in one way or another). Maybe I have some mild form of Asperger's. I don't know. But I do know that I am unfinished material, and I have seen that what I have found can give that to me, even though I don't have it in and of myself. Once in a while, I actually experience it. But most of the time, I'm left with just me, and an awareness that I need to improve, that I need to be more full of joy and gratitude. I figure that's an advance over the person who figures they don't need that, at least.
That's why I say to read amazing people like Lewis and Chesterton. Especially GKC, whose humor and joy just bubble over, and of which I am quite envious. If they don't work for you, try Schmemann or Men' for more discussion of spiritual experience. I am the least worthy of reading.
I myself would like to die the way Schmemann or Fr Victor Sokolov en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Sokolov died - expressing joy and gratitude for their lives.
I think I mentioned that it was my conversation with Fr Victor that convinced me to become Orthodox, and despite the things I have failed to achieve, I have no regrets - I know I have done the right thing, and that longing for emotional charges may be fine, but that I am personally called to live without them.
If you check out the page, you'll be able to corroborate a few things. I saw him when he was already dying and being treated - he was crossing the street and his wife, "matushka" Barbara - who later died of something similar -was jealously hurrying him along, but he stopped and came over to my car and just wanted to know about us. No thought for himself, none of the usual stories of diseases and treatment. THAT'S who I want to be like - and to be jovial, like Chesterton, and radiating joy, like Tracie.
Ah! Now
this is all
great!
"This is what I believe. This is what my beliefs do for me." No matter what you think, reason and logic will never make a non-believer into a believer. Never has. Same with making a non-believer out of a believer. We all feel something. Some specific, some vague. Not everyone does, but some of us, in whatever camp we're in, use reason and logic to validate what we feel. It's easy for each of us to make our beliefs seem like the most obvious, logical view possible. But it doesn't seem to convince anyone else, does it.
And there's the danger that telling the other that they're views are
illogical will make them even
less likely to consider our view.
But
this stuff...!
This is what inspires people to try to understand your faith. If someone else sees joy, humor, compassion, and kindness in someone, I just might check the person out. (That attitude from you is why I bought TEM in the first place. Alas, not all people see someone in the same way. We're not all identical. Don't sweat it.)
In my opinion, you should start a thread called "The Joy of rusmeister's Faith". Nobody ever debated in the Stephen C thread. Nobody's fighting in the Kabbalah thread. Or in "What is it you believe?" And nobody would in such a thread by you. We'd all celebrate your faith with you. And reading the things you often quote might hit us differently than when you're trying to use them to knock some sense into us.
