Are you walking in faith? - Page 2

Indeed, what does happen if I was born again?

Maybe I wouldn't have a problem, i'd be happy that i'd resolved my box.

Maybe i'd stop posting about the sun-god, and just tell people about Jesus, maybe i'd say he saved my life.

which is all very nice for my state of mind.

But, what if I told someone about Jesus, and they didn't quite understand the sentiment that he was a meme for an idea or philosophy, and they went off and met some Fundies, who radicalized them to be for everything im against.

Because then I implanted an idea in their heads which they failed to understand, or I didn't explain properly, and it developed into something nasty, an idea that wouldn't have had opportunity to be perverted if I had said nothing, or waxed on about the parallels between Jesus and the sun-god?

It would seem that in intending to do the right thing, many more unpleasant consequences could occur.

And i dont think we need any more of that in the world.

I don't think faith is universally important. Being a good human being does not require one to believe in anything as long as the acts of the individual are good. Unfortunately, I also realize that most people cannot find an intellectual grounding on which to build good acts, and so faith, in a lot of cases, is quite necessary for humanist behaviors. However, faith is equally or even more likely than lack of faith to misdirect a person's actions. More harm has been done to the world at large in the name of faith (or with perceived blessing of a deity) than has occurred without it...

I'm not really into that whole "born again" thing, I pretty much got it right the first time.

The answer, my friend, is to use a Mac.

Please don't put me in a box... I'm not dead yet.

But enough of that - let's not bring up Swindon again.....

Here's the thing...those aren't only three choices. There is a fourth and that is to appreciate that the universe is large, utterly complex, and mysterious and there are certain things that we may never know about it. I'm comfortable with that.

Choice D is to not have faith and accept you won't have an answer to everything. Strive for the answers but don't give up and revert back to faith.

What a fabulous post. The whole thing about Benzene's choices (read post above this one for the quote) is that they both give an answer, so you can make your choice and then be happy.
Benz gives us choices, but really they both assume that there is an ultimate truth somewhere within our grasp and that we can provide the answers or methods for getting there. Somehow science is too simple for him, so he chooses faith. He wants an answer, and wants to believe that he has it...not the answer to the universe, but the answer as to how to get to that answer.

BR, you do not claim to have any such answer or pathway to an answer, and that's why I liked your post.

As an aside, how is viewing the results of millions of man-hours of scientific labor as going in the right direction of learning more about our origins and our world a matter of faith? Isn't that a matter of logic?

I don't remember if I've ever gone into this much on these boards, but here goes:

I know I have mentioned that I am a recovering alcoholic. What that has meant for me is AA.

Without going into a lengthy post about what AA is, exactly, suffice to say that my efforts to quite drinking by application of will-power didn't work.

In fact, pretty much any AA meeting is a collection of people who, to varying degrees, tried with all their might to stop drinking and failed, over and over again. Generally this leads to a sense of being "a bad person" who would quite or moderate ones drinking if only one possessed sufficient reserves of character.

AA turns this failing on its head by urging its members to give up. To throw in the towel and admit what is blindingly obvious: that we couldn't stop drinking by application of our power alone. That we had failed to fix ourselves, and that there appeared to be little or no chance that that failure was going to magically reverse itself.

That is the first "step" of the infamous 12 steps: "Admitted we were powerless over alcohol and that our lives had become unmanagable".

For me and pretty much all the recovering drunks I've known over the years, that step is simply a statement of fact. By the time we get to AA we are sufficiently beat up to be willing to admit it.

From there AA is simply a pragmatic, one-step-at-a-time procedure for for finding, nurturing and making use of a source of power that is sufficient to keep us sober.

We can call it anything we like: God, higher power, Jesus, Buddha, the goddess and her cohorts, the other member of the group, the divine within, etc.

The important thing for me is just this: left to my own devices I make a wreck of my life and am overcome with negative emotions and behaviors, all of which put me at risk for drinking again.

Through AA I have made a connection with "a power greater than myself" that affords me relief. That power gives me context. That power saved my life.

I know it doesn't really square with the way I carry on around here, and sometimes I know I'm pretty far from my best self when I post some invective or another, but without me really "understanding" much about it, the answer to you're question, Fellows, is yeah, I do.

I am thankful every day of my life to have been delivered from a living hell. I did not do the delivering.

You did it by convincing yourself you didn't do it.

The long-term success rate for people trying to quit without outside help is a pretty sad 5%.

The long-term success rate for AA and other 12-step programs, however, turns out to be... 5%*.

I personally think you did do the work, with the help of social support, but "faith in a higher power" was the mental game you needed to play to finally get things to work for you.

*I got this info from a Penn & Teller Bullshit episode. I tend to think they had good research -- the success rate for AA is supposed to come from AA's own interal polling -- but googling for back-up is turning up lots of quoting of these figures but no primary data, at least in the amount of time I'm patient to hunt for it now.

Yeah, I know it must appear that way.

Believe me, I'm not particularly religious, and my efforts to build a relationship with a higher power have been hindered by the atavistic strains of roughly Amish Christianity that run through my family and which I grew up with.

Nevertheless, and call it what you will, it is simply a fact that my life is enormously better when I maintain an attitude of "surrender"-- an awareness that trying to overpower my problems and control outcomes just leads to conflict and isolation and that I might try asking for help and receiving guidance. From what isn't actually of much interest to me.

In some ways I feel fortunate to have been a drunk, because it forced me to allow this larger sense of possibility in, and the contrast with my prior life is so stark as to be undeniable.

As I say, I'm loath to name things because of the experience of my upbringing, but at a completely simple, pragmatic level, faith in a power greater than myself and a willingness to listen to whatever that is allows me to live with some degree of comfort with myself and others, whereas before I was on a collision course with the entire world.

This is my experience and the experience of literally millions of alcoholics whose lives have been transformed-- I know lots and lots of them.

If it's a mass delusion I'm perfectly fine with that, as long as it works.

Yeah, I think I've come across those figures. I have no idea. AA is a barely organized semi-anarchy, with all autonomy devolving to the individual groups and just enough large scale organization to attend to some business.

Again, I can only speak for myself, and, to a lesser extent, the many people I have known and loved whose lives were transformed while sitting in endless smokey rooms and trying to learn to tell the truth and make themselves useful.

That's interesting, because to most of us, faith means "belief without evidence." But that's not what you're describing, and I don't think it's what most religious people mean when they talk about faith. Belief without evidence just means a sort of gullibility. But what you're talking about is more of a humility than a gullible belief in anything in particular. That's always been a stumbling block for me as well, because often people use the terms 'faith' and 'religion' interchangeably, and although the idea of faith - meaning belief without evidence goes strongly against the grain for me and so many other people, I doubt the idea of faith - as in "smallness" and humility - has the same negative connotation.

This is what I was trying to get at earlier in the distinction between faith and knowledge.

Put it this way: did Jesus have faith? Or Moses or Muhammad?

The orthodox in each religion would say not but qualify this by giving these people special status such as 'Son of God' or 'Prophet'. These labels may be indicative of a reality but in orthodox terms they serve to 'cut off' access to that state by postulating an elitist view that it is for 'special' or 'chosen' people to have knowledge and that the rest of us have to make do with 'faith'.

I dispute this - I think the teachings of Muhammad, jesus, buddha et al were designed specifically to bring a person into the exact state of Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad et al.

Faith is something that serves (is designed) to prevent us gaining that state. As do the 'blasphemy' dogmas which will condemn the theory I outlined as heretical.

I think Addabox has stumbled on this method and that 'surrender' as he puts it is the key. It is a key motif in Islam and Buddhism and also Christianity but there it has been adjusted to mean surrender to authority rather than surrender to one's own inner 'fate' for want of a better word.

yes, i think to sell my idea, boxes are too dull in this day and age. I think we need something modern, that really captures the power of the metaphor...

I think "Super-Hypercube-Influence-Theory"

And as the originator of my philosophy, I pronounce myself "Lord S.H.I.T"

Actually, i almost never watch tele. The last time I turned it on was to watch the WC final. No this insanity is all of my own making.

Q: Are you walking in faith in your life?

Yes. Not as you might expect by your question. It is not in any supernatural religious construct.

No, because it hurts my feet.

Did you try alternating between hind feet and front feet?

If you install an Ozone generator in your faith wading pool you can save a bunch on chemicals.

I have faith god will kill everyone with faith. He seems to get off on that.

I didn't know they had devolved to the point of broadcasting toilet races.

Thanks Fellows - but even you must admit that at some point (in the hereafter, if you live to see Jesus's return) then faith will be superseded by knowledge?

Or maybe we are talking of different things it just occurred to me ......

I believe in certainty born out through direct experience, not faith. I take nothing on faith; but will do my best to seek answers to questions I might have.

I also believe Deus est Homo.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will."

Crowley was a bore.

Well, who says you shouldn't take credit when you accomplish something and who said you shouldn't pass on your thanks to the actual people who helped you? The point of religion is to do that, and not forget to thank the One who made it all possible in the first place, who gave you the brain, the body/muscles/health, the spirit...

The other point of religions is of course to use whatever God gave you, be it intelligence, financial fortunes or whatever else to help others that weren't given these by God already.

Another point of religions is of course to prepare for your afterlife, to prepare for your ressurection and return to God, to prepare for judgment day, where everyone will see what he/she did during his/her life, and after which for some waits an eternal life in bliss and for others an eternal life in pain.

It's like preparing for retirement, every good deed is worth gold, and every prayer to God for forgivance, after truly feeling remorse will be heard and granted, and every thanking/praising of God will be rewarded...

Nightcrawler

I believe very strongly in my faith. My faith is founded on the values of the golden rule, and the idea that all people should be respected for their different views. I also believe very strongly that we should strive most of all for happiness, and for the happiness of others, drop the ridiculous competitive bullshit (I work harder than you, so I deserve more More MORE!!!!) and start loving our fellow man (and woman). I have a strong faith that recreational sex is healthy and necessary to establish a well-balanced life, and that some people are born monogamous and some are not (I am). I don't believe in Confucianesque concepts of respecting people simply because of their position. I think we all have something to say and it should be heard. I believe strongly in open and frank communication, and I think keeping secrets is almost always harmful in the long run.

This is my faith.

Why thank something I don't believe in? I'd rather thank the chair I sit in. And I love it when sports stars thank Jesus for helping them win. I really want to see someone blame Jesus for making him fumble.

Amen brother. Except for the faith part. Call them your rules for living or something other than faith and I'm 100% on board.

There is no reason why you shouldn't believe in God, you are existing aren't you, and you surely don't believe that you came into existence out of nothing, do you?

You see the universe governed by universal laws, you see the wonders on this planet every day and in myriad situations, you see a baby developing from sperms and eggs, from cells to a complex organism and you see the baby coming to life and growing, learming new things, crying, drinking without having anyone to teach it to him/her, then eventually crawling around, then walking around, and eventually posting on Apple-insider-forum: "Why thank something I don't believe in?".

Nightcrawler

I'm an atheist. For me, theres no reason to believe in god. I have a strong faith in science [almost irrationally strong], and I think someday science will be able to explain everything. I, personally, didn't blink into existence; I'm reformed atoms that morphed from a sperm & egg (& beer and other stuff) into one of the most beautiful creatures to walk the earth.

But on the subject of the first existence, that, to me, is one of the stronger thought experiments against a god. Assuming there was a period when there was absolute vacuum, why would the next step be god (or gods)? Why is it easier to blink an all powerful deity into existence, presumably with intelligence, than some hydrogen atoms? I'm not sure how the universe went from absolute nothing to absolutely something; maybe it was never that dramatic.

if god created me, i'd like a word with him about my absurdly poor vision, back problems, and my busted appendix that almost killed me. and no, the word is not, 'holy.' okay, maybe it starts with 'holy'

(and ends with 'crap what were you thinking?')

it's late and i'll say another general god/universe thing that i think sometimes...yeah there is perhaps some logical order and great truth(s) underlying things, but why do we, as humans, most humans anyhow, believe that after we die we will be privy to and deserve to have this information, or be a part of it. a bit egotistical, no?

i think if we were comfortable with never knowing, even in death, than that would let us clear our minds and hunker down on the great problems in our societies.

That is really funny as any rigorous Judeo-Christian belief is based upon the idea that god created everything out of nothing.

So if you are truly to follow your question to its logical conclusion, you shouldn't believe in god (at least not a Judeo-Christian god) simply because you exist and have the congnitive capacity to realize you can't just come from nothing...

to be fair, he didn't mention any particular religion/belief system. still, either god came from nothing or the universe came from nothing. why not just call the universe god and be through with it?

Nightcrawler, as you may know is of the Judeo-Christian persuation...

As my answer to the question, I'd answer "almost, yes".

I was raised Christian, but in a liberal context. I was taught to respect others and the ideas of others. As I grew, I found I not only was interested in the Bible, but also a lot of Buddhist/Taoist philosophy.
One interesting book I've read was Living Buddha, Living Christ, by Thich Nhat Hanh. It compares Christian and Buddhist philosophies, their similarities and differences.

Nightcrawler is a Muslim and it is a key Muslim belief that there is only one existent reality: ie God.

Islamic philosophers (and the main formulator of this idea, ibn Arabi, is regarded by academics of all types as one of the greatest philosophers ever to have lived) m have defined this belief since the inception of Islam as meaning that nothing exists except God. There is much more to it than that and I am being necessarily simplistic for brevity's sake but the point is that there is nothing in Islam to contradict the view that the universe and God are the same thing as Progmac suggests.

In Islamic philosophy, from one pov, everything is God and that which appears not to be God has no reality. The problem would be if one were to set up another thing which existed alongside God - this would be the error.