Faith vs. Intellect

[Aubrey]

You and I would get along quite well, I think. :D I have many of the same questions and conversations with my DH (who is a pastor).

 

I'll tell you how I've solved some of those issues that I have in common with you. I told the nursery director and children's ministry person that I was no longer able to serve with children's ministries. I said a big resounding NO, and then I continued to say it over and over until they stopped asking. I love my kids, but kids ministry is definitely not my thing. Don't let them make you feel guilty about not doing it. God has obviously gifted you differently, and you need to find out what HE wants from you during those times. Maybe you need to start an Art ministry. Maybe you should do a real Passover Seder next year to educate people about the origins of the Lord's Supper. There are LOTS of ways to serve. Don't get stuck!

 

During Sunday School, I go sit in the church library where it is quiet. If someone comes in, I pretend to be praying. I read my Bible. I used to get comments from people wondering if I was "going to class" and I'd just say, "I need some time to pray today." No one can give you a hard time about praying! It's like homeschooling - if the right thing for you is outside the norm, you just do it until people get used to that being your norm.

 

The hardest part might be realizing that you understand God and his Word much differently than other people. For me, it's hard not to let that become a source of judgment against others who can only get to that top level of understanding and may never progress further than that. That doesn't stop me from getting together with them, and it doesn't always stop me from holding my tongue. But do not let other people's expectations get in the way of your relationship with God. (I tell myself that at least once a day - it's hard being a weirdo and a pastor's wife.)

 

I really didn't mean for this thread to get personal, but this is exactly what I needed to hear. I feel SO guilty not to help w/ children's stuff, but the truth is? I can't do it. And the problem is, I don't think people will understand. :tongue_smilie: And a dear friend runs the whole thing, & I know she never has enough people in the classrooms.

 

But, yeah, I've been sitting in the church library when I go, too. One day, I had a lady come and ask me about making a donation to the library, & when I didn't know, she got REALLY MAD. :001_huh: But yes, I'm quite happy when I can find a hole in which to sit & read or pray. I don't even mind if someone wants to sit w/ me, even if they want to talk. As long as they don't want to get mad at me!

 

It's very good to hear that that's ok w/ *somebody,* lol.

[Aubrey]

As for play dates, can you do that? I grew up thinking only men could administer it. That barrier is gone, but I guess I've assumed that only a minister or official church representative could do it. Off to think . . .

 

Well...it does say that we're all priests, ya know? When I was in college, though, we really pushed the limits: if someone (usually dh) forgot the grape juice, Sprite or Gatorade might suffice. And while we're a bit more orthodox than that now, there's a piece of me that still insists on knowing: why not?

[TKDmom]

I really didn't mean for this thread to get personal, but this is exactly what I needed to hear. I feel SO guilty not to help w/ children's stuff, but the truth is? I can't do it. And the problem is, I don't think people will understand. :tongue_smilie: And a dear friend runs the whole thing, & I know she never has enough people in the classrooms.

 

 

How could they NOT understand?? You're with kids, teaching kids every. single. day. It's only natural to want a little break from that on Sundays.

[Aubrey]

Lol...I suppose that means there's another puzzle box out there searching for its Aubrey because without her it's just not complete. :D

 

Hey! Now that's a really nice idea! :D

[Melinda in VT]

Well...it does say that we're all priests, ya know? When I was in college, though, we really pushed the limits: if someone (usually dh) forgot the grape juice, Sprite or Gatorade might suffice. And while we're a bit more orthodox than that now, there's a piece of me that still insists on knowing: why not?

 

I think it's a great question. I wonder if doing it that often would cheapen it? It would be interesting to try and see.

[Aubrey]

How could they NOT understand?? You're with kids, teaching kids every. single. day. It's only natural to want a little break from that on Sundays.

 

That must mean I like it. Esp combined w/ the fact that I *chose* to have double the "normal" # of dc. Plus, it's not really about whether you want to or not. As a woman w/ kids in the church, it's really just your duty. And you know, the last thing I want to be is a slacker. :001_huh:

[Aubrey]

I think it's a great question. I wonder if doing it that often would cheapen it? It would be interesting to try and see.

 

Well...now, I think this is in the Bible, but it might be Hebrew mythology, so bear w/ me--somewhere, God's quoted as saying He gave us the Sabbath *every* week *because* it's the most holy day, because he loves us, because he wants to give us rest.

 

Rather than cheapen it, I've always suspected that it would deepen the relationships that took it together. I mean...imagine the difference between 1/mo corporate consumption of teeny cups of grape juice & paper-tasting crackers vs two families, say, sitting around a table or scattered around a living rm, drinking grape jc (or whatever--I'm in favor of wine, lol) in the sense of communion, eating *bread*--for the sake of the image, let's say it's really good, homemade bread. Those two families, from then on--how could they help but be bound together in a deeper way than most of us usually experience?

 

That's how I imagine the early church, meeting from house to house. I don't think it was an organized weekly event that they posted on the church blog, so everybody would know what they were supposed to bring, what time, & whose house this week. I think Jenny went to borrow a cup of sugar from Sarah, & they took communion together--kind-of like sitting down for a quick cup of coffee, bagel, & chat--not nec more than 5-30 min--but a constant reminder that they were not their own, but Christ's, belonging to a body, owing their lives. Like shaking hands or hugging or kissing someone hello & good-bye.

 

I imagine communion to be something extremely mysterious & deeply intimate, & what we do on Sun mornings seems almost antiseptic by comparison. But except for a crazy yr or so in college, the antiseptic version is all I've ever known.

[Marylou]

That must mean I like it. Esp combined w/ the fact that I *chose* to have double the "normal" # of dc. Plus, it's not really about whether you want to or not. As a woman w/ kids in the church, it's really just your duty. And you know, the last thing I want to be is a slacker. :001_huh:

 

 

Having a Mary Heart in a Martha World might be a good read for you!

[Geek]

If you believe, ultimately the intellect must be suspended and faith embraced. For some believers this choice is made well outside of core issues; we'll call them Group One.

 

For others their intellect is where they remain until they reach the nuts and bolts, like whether or not god(s) exist(s) at all and what his/her/its/their basic nature is. It is at that point they choose to suspend their intellect and embrace belief. They have reasons to believe that lie outside of falsifiability, but they are reasons to them just the same. Let's call them Group Two.

 

Then you have people who are like the second set of believers; they use their logic all the way to the core issues of faith. But they they do not choose to suspend their logic because they do not admit into evidence anything that lies outside of falsifiability. Let's call them Group Three.

 

I do not think that the parallels are airtight, but I do think there is a very strong trend. As IQ goes up, the odds of the person being in group two or three increases astronomically. IQ measures, among other things, logical bent. The greater your logical bent, the more you will require things to be logical in order to adhere to them.

 

This has been my experience throughout my entire life, within my own mind and as experienced in many relationships with other gifted individuals. I am now witnessing it in my own children, who are all questioners. Of the three, though, the higher the IQ, the earlier and more deeply they questioned. My 8yo daughter is in the process of rejecting a lot of religion and her logic is impeccable, and I did NOT discuss this with her at all; she has come to this all on her own. She started challenging her catechism instructor in kindergarten, and last year when she made her first communion she got into arguments with her instructors - I got phone calls and was told that she openly challenged doctrine being taught, said she didn't believe it and why. Of course this led to a lot of discussions with her at home on appropriate behavior in public, but I didn't chastise her for thinking.

 

I started doing the same thing at an early age but I was repeatedly shut down and told to "just believe". It didn't work; I just went underground. I will not parent that way, though, with children who were born with logic skills that showed up before age four. To tell them to "just believe" would be insulting.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Geek

[Melinda in VT]

Well...now, I think this is in the Bible, but it might be Hebrew mythology, so bear w/ me--somewhere, God's quoted as saying He gave us the Sabbath *every* week *because* it's the most holy day, because he loves us, because he wants to give us rest.

 

Rather than cheapen it, I've always suspected that it would deepen the relationships that took it together. I mean...imagine the difference between 1/mo corporate consumption of teeny cups of grape juice & paper-tasting crackers vs two families, say, sitting around a table or scattered around a living rm, drinking grape jc (or whatever--I'm in favor of wine, lol) in the sense of communion, eating *bread*--for the sake of the image, let's say it's really good, homemade bread. Those two families, from then on--how could they help but be bound together in a deeper way than most of us usually experience?

 

That's how I imagine the early church, meeting from house to house. I don't think it was an organized weekly event that they posted on the church blog, so everybody would know what they were supposed to bring, what time, & whose house this week. I think Jenny went to borrow a cup of sugar from Sarah, & they took communion together--kind-of like sitting down for a quick cup of coffee, bagel, & chat--not nec more than 5-30 min--but a constant reminder that they were not their own, but Christ's, belonging to a body, owing their lives. Like shaking hands or hugging or kissing someone hello & good-bye.

 

I imagine communion to be something extremely mysterious & deeply intimate, & what we do on Sun mornings seems almost antiseptic by comparison. But except for a crazy yr or so in college, the antiseptic version is all I've ever known.

 

I guess I was imagining a scenario I've lived in the past, where I saw a good friend of mine 3 or 4 days a week. What would it be like to take Communion that often? Would it deepen the experience? Or would it just become too commonplace?

 

Sort of like, would the Sabbath be as restful and restorative if we had two of them every week instead of just one?

 

One thing I do like about my current church is that we do Communion by intinction. I like having the personal connection with the minister or deacon as they call me by name during Communion.

[TKDmom]

That must mean I like it. Esp combined w/ the fact that I *chose* to have double the "normal" # of dc. Plus, it's not really about whether you want to or not. As a woman w/ kids in the church, it's really just your duty. And you know, the last thing I want to be is a slacker. :001_huh:

 

Ugh. I see what you're saying--I'd probably feel the same if I were in your situation. We're pretty good at making ourselves feel guilty, huh?

 

:grouphug:

[Spy Car]

According to standardized testing I'm "high-gifted." i've never taken that to mean much more than an indication that I'm good at test taking, and likely to do well at tasks that collate well with IQ and achievement test taking. But I don't confuse academic ability with "genius," which comes in all sorts of flavors.

 

I don't believe in supernatural beings including (but not limited to) gods or god-men, and never have.

 

i do believe in the idea of a "Moral Law," which is the product of human reason. We as a species understand the difference between right and wrong (good and evil) even if we are imperfect in acting according to the good.

 

Bill

[Aubrey]

If you believe, ultimately the intellect must be suspended and faith embraced. For some believers this choice is made well outside of core issues; we'll call them Group One.

 

For others their intellect is where they remain until they reach the nuts and bolts, like whether or not god(s) exist(s) at all and what his/her/its/their basic nature is. It is at that point they choose to suspend their intellect and embrace belief. They have reasons to believe that lie outside of falsifiability, but they are reasons to them just the same. Let's call them Group Two.

 

Then you have people who are like the second set of believers; they use their logic all the way to the core issues of faith. But they they do not choose to suspend their logic because they do not admit into evidence anything that lies outside of falsifiability. Let's call them Group Three.

 

I do not think that the parallels are airtight, but I do think there is a very strong trend. As IQ goes up, the odds of the person being in group two or three increases astronomically. IQ measures, among other things, logical bent. The greater your logical bent, the more you will require things to be logical in order to adhere to them.

 

This has been my experience throughout my entire life, within my own mind and as experienced in many relationships with other gifted individuals. I am now witnessing it in my own children, who are all questioners. Of the three, though, the higher the IQ, the earlier and more deeply they questioned. My 8yo daughter is in the process of rejecting a lot of religion and her logic is impeccable, and I did NOT discuss this with her at all; she has come to this all on her own. She started challenging her catechism instructor in kindergarten, and last year when she made her first communion she got into a very arguments with her instructors - I got phone calls.

 

That makes sense, but I see logic as another plane of existence, like time, height, depth--a tool for measurement & understanding, but also proof of our finiteness. God exists outside of time because he created it. Likewise logic. BUT because I cannot comprehend anything outside a logical sphere, by definition of what logic *is*--I find it very reassuring that Jesus is described by John as the Logos. I take that to mean that if nothing else, when all is said & done, he makes sense. :001_huh:

[Aubrey]

I guess I was imagining a scenario I've lived in the past, where I saw a good friend of mine 3 or 4 days a week. What would it be like to take Communion that often? Would it deepen the experience? Or would it just become too commonplace?

 

Sort of like, would the Sabbath be as restful and restorative if we had two of them every week instead of just one?

 

One thing I do like about my current church is that we do Communion by intinction. I like having the personal connection with the minister or deacon as they call me by name during Communion.

 

I think the early church *was* meeting far more than 1/wk, but I don't imagine that it was necessarily all "formal."

 

Marriage makes 2 people close more frequently w/out cheapening their cloesness. It makes it deeper.

[Aubrey]

According to standardized testing I'm "high-gifted." i've never taken that to mean much more than an indication that I'm good at test taking, and likely to do well at tasks that collate well with IQ and achievement test taking. But I don't confuse academic ability with "genius," which comes in all sorts of flavors.

 

I don't believe in supernatural beings including (but not limited to) gods or god-men, and never have.

 

i do believe in the idea of a "Moral Law," which is the product of human reason. We as a species understand the difference between right and wrong (good and evil) even if we are imperfect in acting according to the good.

 

Bill

 

Bill--I know what you mean about test-taking, but I think it's also abundantly clear to anyone who reads your posts that you simply think differently than others. I understand giftedness to be more of a process than an end result, & I consider you quite clearly gifted. :001_smile:

[Geek]

:iagree:

 

C.S. Lewis is a good source for thoughts on this topic. Mere Christianity, The Abolition of Man, Miracles, The Problem of Pain, are all good.

He has plenty of flaws in his logic according to many theologians.

 

That makes sense, but I see logic as another plane of existence, like time, height, depth--a tool for measurement & understanding, but also proof of our finiteness. God exists outside of time because he created it. Likewise logic. BUT because I cannot comprehend anything outside a logical sphere, by definition of what logic *is*--I find it very reassuring that Jesus is described by John as the Logos. I take that to mean that if nothing else, when all is said & done, he makes sense. :001_huh:

How can it be proof of our finiteness unless you are starting with the premise that god exists?

 

How can you logically conclude that God exists "outside of time because he created it" unless you start from the assumption that he exists?

 

My 8yo dd, when she was 7, said to me: "If God exists outside of time, then he exists outside of space. (Space and time are locked together.*) And to say that God exists outside of space is as stupid as saying infinity + one. How can anything exist outside of everything? If it does, it's not everything."

 

I agree with her.

 

*She doesn't understand that time is just the 4th dimension of space, hence it's called space-time. But she knows the term "space-time" and realizes it's ridiculous to separate them because of the countless science discussions we've had.

[TKDmom]

If you believe, ultimately the intellect must be suspended and faith embraced. For some believers this choice is made well outside of core issues; we'll call them Group One.

 

For others their intellect is where they remain until they reach the nuts and bolts, like whether or not god(s) exist(s) at all and what his/her/its/their basic nature is. It is at that point they choose to suspend their intellect and embrace belief. They have reasons to believe that lie outside of falsifiability, but they are reasons to them just the same. Let's call them Group Two.

 

Then you have people who are like the second set of believers; they use their logic all the way to the core issues of faith. But they they do not choose to suspend their logic because they do not admit into evidence anything that lies outside of falsifiability. Let's call them Group Three.

 

I do not think that the parallels are airtight, but I do think there is a very strong trend. As IQ goes up, the odds of the person being in group two or three increases astronomically. IQ measures, among other things, logical bent. The greater your logical bent, the more you will require things to be logical in order to adhere to them.

 

This has been my experience throughout my entire life, within my own mind and as experienced in many relationships with other gifted individuals. I am now witnessing it in my own children, who are all questioners. Of the three, though, the higher the IQ, the earlier and more deeply they questioned. My 8yo daughter is in the process of rejecting a lot of religion and her logic is impeccable, and I did NOT discuss this with her at all; she has come to this all on her own. She started challenging her catechism instructor in kindergarten, and last year when she made her first communion she got into arguments with her instructors - I got phone calls and was told that she openly challenged doctrine being taught, said she didn't believe it and why. Of course this led to a lot of discussions with her at home on appropriate behavior in public, but I didn't chastise her for thinking.

 

I started doing the same thing at an early age but I was repeatedly shut down and told to "just believe". It didn't work; I just went underground. I will not parent that way, though, with children who were born with logic skills that showed up before age four. To tell them to "just believe" would be insulting.

 

 

Natalie, I was wondering if you would join this discussion! :D I went through a brief phase where I spent time reading controversial religious threads on the SL forums, and I was always impressed with how thoughtfully some of you guys could discuss things.

[Geek]

 

Natalie, I was wondering if you would join this discussion! :D I went through a brief phase where I spent time reading controversial religious threads on the SL forums, and I was always impressed with how thoughtfully some of you guys could discuss things.

Hi! We're on another forum now and it's wonderful. If you're interested in joining us, pm me. :)

[Aubrey]

He has plenty of flaws in his logic according to many theologians.

 

How can it be proof of our finiteness unless you are starting with the premise that god exists?

 

How can you logically conclude that God exists "outside of time because he created it" unless you start from the assumption that he exists?

 

My 8yo dd, when she was 7, said to me: "If God exists outside of time, then he exists outside of space. (Space and time are locked together.*) And to say that God exists outside of space is as stupid as saying infinity + one. How can anything exist outside of everything? If it does, it's not everything."

 

I agree with her.

 

*She doesn't understand that time is just the 4th dimension of space, hence it's called space-time. But she knows the term "space-time" and realizes it's ridiculous to separate them because of the countless science discussions we've had.

 

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to prove the existence of a deity; I phrased it badly.

 

I do see space & time as finite. I see logic as a similar construct w/in which we exist. A creator, I imagine, would have created these constructs & thus exist outside of them.

 

What is the story of the 2-d being that sees a footprint appear & disappear & it seems to be magic because the being can't imagine a 3rd dimension? I imagine that if there's a god (& I do believe in one, but that isn't really the point here), he'd look look to us like the 3d creature looks to the 2d creature--we can only understand the parts we see.

 

I meant it in more of a theoretical, philosophical sense.

[Garga]

As far as I know there aren't any rules in the bible about how often or where to take communion.

 

So, next time you're with friends on a playdate, go for it! Seriously.

[Food4Thought]

I really didn't mean for this thread to get personal, but this is exactly what I needed to hear. I feel SO guilty not to help w/ children's stuff, but the truth is? I can't do it. And the problem is, I don't think people will understand. :tongue_smilie: And a dear friend runs the whole thing, & I know she never has enough people in the classrooms.

 

It's very good to hear that that's ok w/ *somebody,* lol.

 

I'm sure God thinks it's okay for you to be free to serve him in better ways too. ;)

 

And I know it's hard to say no. My MIL was the nursery director, and she was so mad at me she didn't talk to me for a month after I quit (it's really not her gift either :lol:). She got over it, and I've since helped her plan women's retreats and do all other sorts of things I consider fun instead of horrifying. I'm definitely not a slacker, and it doesn't sound like you will be either. I'm sure you've heard the 80/20 rule, right? Only 20% of the people in a church do 80% of the work. You need to free up some work for those 80% who do nothing but fill pews. :tongue_smilie:

[Aubrey]

As far as I know there aren't any rules in the bible about how often or where to take communion.

 

So, next time you're with friends on a playdate, go for it! Seriously.

 

That's exactly the kind of thing that I wouldn't dare to do. People who like me will like me anyway & tease me about it. Others would be pretty disturbed.

 

But maybe by the time I'm 40, I'll be brave enough to try it. :001_huh:

[Spy Car]

Bill--I know what you mean about test-taking, but I think it's also abundantly clear to anyone who reads your posts that you simply think differently than others. I understand giftedness to be more of a process than an end result, & I consider you quite clearly gifted. :001_smile:

 

Sweet of you to say, but (while humility is not my strong-suit) I've never failed to be impressed that "Genius" comes in all sorts of forms that allude me.

 

People who can paint or sculpt, play piano (or other instruments) so beautifully one is moved to tears, or sing or dance, or run like the wind, or take apart a transmission, or build with stone, or on and on.

 

There are many gifts people enjoy. And I'm often in awe of people who can "do things" (as opposed to being good at test taking). And that's for true!

 

Bill

[Ester Maria]

Still, there is some humility that comes from the reality that our fundamental beliefs are not provable. That was my main point. It takes some of the edge off of our intellectual arrogance when we realize that.

Yep, we agree. :)

Another issue is what counts as "credentials." My yp had a 2yr cert from a non-accredited Bible school & didn't know anything. But I was a 13 & 14yo kid, so I didn't *have* any credentials, kwim? There are guys getting seminary degrees here who, respectfully, are hot air balloons.

I shouldn't be tossing around the world "credentials" to prevent this type of confusion, I should have sticked to how I originally phrased it: formal OR INFORMAL EQUIVALENT of scholarship.

I also don't fall for diplomas nor consider it an ultimate proof that one is an expert - it just means that they got through a structured study of a field more or less successfully. That there is hot air and pseudo-intellectualism even in academia, it's true.

That process can be replicated outside of the formal university setting, using roughly the same resources, discussing with people, etc. :)

I have read a little bit about the historical position of Jewish women w/in the faith, but I don't know about the present interpretation. How frustrating!

The situation I describe is typical of RW, especially what's called "ultra-orthodoxy", and it's quite different in modern orthodoxy, especially LW. Some LW modern orthodoxy is quite feminist (women reading from the Torah and learning, women's religiosity not being defined by skirt lenghts and similar, etc.), actually, one can see an improvement; how much is that improvement halachically (=from the point of view of Jewish law) justified is an open question though. I'm afraid that I certainly know way, way too little about Judaism to discuss that particular issue. :)

 

Outside of the realm of orthodoxy, of course, things are quite different, but within the realm of orthodoxy, yes, even today there's usually a huge, huge discrepancy between boys' and girls' learning, and many think that's how it should be.

(Mind you, when I say "girls don't learn", what I mean by that still means that their learning far exceeds what's normal learning in other religions that I know of, for either gender. Everyone knows their Hebrew, complete Tanach with Rashi and usually one more commentary, relevant halachot and hashkafot, Jewish history etc., and everyone has an entire set of religious subjects at school. So really, it's not nearly as bad as I make it sound - not that women are held in ignorance! - and girls actually profit by being allowed to study more secular subjects while boys are often literally pushed into very, very serious religious learning at the expense of the secular curriculum. But the discrepancy still is there, since there are entire areas, particularly pertaining to law and mysticism, which girls traditionally don't and, according to some, shouldn't study. But I don't want to hijack your thread even more. :blushing: Sorry, weird day of doing nothing and thus talking too much here.)

[Food4Thought]

I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to prove the existence of a deity; I phrased it badly.

 

I do see space & time as finite. I see logic as a similar construct w/in which we exist. A creator, I imagine, would have created these constructs & thus exist outside of them.

 

What is the story of the 2-d being that sees a footprint appear & disappear & it seems to be magic because the being can't imagine a 3rd dimension? I imagine that if there's a god (& I do believe in one, but that isn't really the point here), he'd look look to us like the 3d creature looks to the 2d creature--we can only understand the parts we see.

 

I meant it in more of a theoretical, philosophical sense.

 

This is similar to my understanding. I think there is much more to our world and the spiritual realm than the simple 3 or 4 dimensions we currently recognize (and if you really want to sound crazy, String Theory allows for the possibility of 13 different co-existing dimensions). Modern-day science says that the universe is everything that is - that it has no boundaries, though it continues to grow - but that there is nothing beyond it. I think we have limited ourselves by saying we already know what is contained in that "everything" and that the only things that can have existence must be inside our currently understood time-space construct.

 

I wonder which of Geek's groups that gets me into? A few years ago, I would have hoped to be in the cool kids group. Now I'll probably be on a dunce chair somewhere and be perfectly satisfied with that.

[Aubrey]

Sweet of you to say, but (while humility is not my strong-suit) I've never failed to be impressed that "Genius" comes in all sorts of forms that allude me.

 

People who can paint or sculpt, play piano (or other instruments) so beautifully one is moved to tears, or sing or dance, or run like the wind, or take apart a transmission, or build with stone, or on and on.

 

There are many gifts people enjoy. And I'm often in awe of people who can "do things" (as opposed to being good at test taking). And that's for true!

 

Bill

 

I tend to be very blunt when I say things, whether they come across rude or kind. (One of the reasons I try not to say much.) On the upside, though, when I say things, people know that for better or worse, I mean it. I think it makes my compliments more valuable, because they're sincere, but it also makes them quite volatile, as they can come across backhanded.

 

That said, I still say it's a process w/ all of the types of giftedness you've described. Yes, if we merely relied on tests to assess people, we'd miss some, so the tests are fallible. That doesn't make them invalid.

 

One of my favorite experiences teaching was calling a kid's parents in for a parent-teacher meeting. The kid & his dad were both *certain* that he was in huge trouble. I told them that I thought he was gifted, told them why, & told them what it would take to get him moved to a more appropriate class.

 

One of the things I can do is see people, & I find it deeply gratifying to tell people about the good I see in them.

[Lovedtodeath]

While I grew up in a religious home with amazing parents, the bolded part above was true also. I didn't just need to know what the bible said, I needed to know where it came from. What proof do I have that the bible is historically accurate? What proof do I have that that these things occurred and why does it matter? Why does God tell us these parts of the story?

 

There is so much valid, worldy validation for so much of the historical evidences in the bible that it reinforced for me what I wanted to believe. Then, I start looking at the spiritual proofs in the bible. We're doing a study of the tabernacle right now and it is mind blowing to me the thread that follows from Genesis to Revelation about the dwelling place of God. Man isn't smart enough to put together all of those thread across thousands of years and make it all work together. It's another proof to me of the truth from beginning to end.

:iagree:Of Geek's groups, I believe I am in #3

[Onceuponatime]

Let's see...I'd like to talk about communion. Why do we do it? Why do we do it the way we do it? As often as we do it? Why not Passover instead--isn't that what Jesus was talking about? But Passover being bumped from once a yr to every time we see ea other seems SO cool. And if we're supposed to do it as often as we come together, why do we only do it Sun AMs or once a quarter or whatever? Why not on play dates in ea others' homes?

 

What about Logos? What's the significance? Why do we translate it "word" when classical Gr rarely treats it that way? Couldn't there be layers of meaning there? And what about using classical Gr AND Biblical to translate the Bible? Not randomly, but comparatively? I see overlap between Greek tragedies & parables in the Bible, but I'm told essentially that I just don't understand. But theologians have only (usually) studied the Biblical side of things, so I think maybe *they* don't understand the lit side.

 

Partly, I'd like it to be ok for me to show up & just do my own thing. While you've got my kids in SS, it'd be so nice if I could just read my Bible, think about things, instead of having to sit politely thr the SS class w/ the donuts or the one down the hall where everybody's talking about Bad People (murderers they read about in the paper, etc.) instead of confessing their OWN sins.

 

I usually sit w/in earshot of the latter class, & it's all I can do (even w/ my introverted shy self) not to go in there & rip my hair out & gripe at them. But then I'd be doing what they're doing, so how productive is that, really?

 

If I could just be left alone, even that would be good. But if I'm not at church, people call & worry. If I'm at church, then I have to serve in the nursery. If I'm in the nursery, then I get asked about serving in some other aspect of the children's ministry. Because, you know, I've got kids. And they're decently behaved. So I must *like* kids & be good at that. THAT must be my gifting!!! I know, why don't you start coming 4x/wk--you can work w/ babies on Sun AM, elem kids on Wed PM, toddlers during the weekday play date, & Sun PM, you can sit in the pew & squirm as they go over Basic Doctrine 101.

 

Mostly, though, it's not questions. I wish teaching weren't just for men in the pulpit. I wish music were not the only artform w/ which we are allowed to worship. I wish church were about God instead of people's expectations, & I wish not going were a better option. I wish what I do/think mattered less or more, lol.

 

 

Oh, I would love to explore the idea of Logos. I've pondered it off and on for years. I also have considered studying eastern religions because of Jesus's statment, recorded by John, that he is The Truth, The Life, and The Way. Of course, he is also called The Light. If I am not mistaken, each one of those titles has its counterpart in the ancient world of philosophy/religion. Is Jesus saying he is the fulfillment and embodiment of all of them, or is he just making a statement using terminology people will understand? If he is referring to the truth found in other parts of the world, shouldn't we be exploring those parts and comparing them to Jesus's teachings? But that is just too wierd for most people I know.

 

Guess what I've been doing for the last 3 years? Teaching the babies. :D

[Aubrey]

I shouldn't be tossing around the world "credentials" to prevent this type of confusion, I should have sticked to how I originally phrased it: formal OR INFORMAL EQUIVALENT of scholarship.

 

I also don't fall for diplomas nor consider it an ultimate proof that one is an expert - it just means that they got through a structured study of a field more or less successfully. That there is hot air and pseudo-intellectualism even in academia, it's true.

 

That process can be replicated outside of the formal university setting, using roughly the same resources, discussing with people, etc. :)

 

No, you were clear, but my point is the same: one does not tape this information to one's forehead. And really, w/ informal scholarship, it's even less likely to come up. Because, really, what are you going to say? "Yes, I've read about that." What would that even mean?

 

When my neighbor begins to give me a lecture on the Hebrew of a passage, well, he *has* had more Hebrew than I have. But I know enough to know he's full of it, too.

[Aubrey]

Oh, I would love to explore the idea of Logos. I've pondered it off and on for years. I also have considered studying eastern religions because of Jesus's statment, recorded by John, that he is The Truth, The Life, and The Way. Of course, he is also called The Light. If I am not mistaken, each one of those titles has its counterpart in the ancient world of philosophy/religion. Is Jesus saying he is the fulfillment and embodiment of all of them, or is he just making a statement using terminology people will understand? If he is referring to the truth found in other parts of the world, shouldn't we be exploring those parts and comparing them to Jesus's teachings? But that is just too wierd for most people I know.

 

Guess what I've been doing for the last 3 years? Teaching the babies. :D

 

:lol: Interesting thoughts, too.

 

I think we should eliminate youth group & train the teens to be adults by letting them do the child care. :D One of the many reasons dh couldn't do youth ministry. :001_huh:

[Onceuponatime]

.

 

What is the story of the 2-d being that sees a footprint appear & disappear & it seems to be magic because the being can't imagine a 3rd dimension? I imagine that if there's a god (& I do believe in one, but that isn't really the point here), he'd look look to us like the 3d creature looks to the 2d creature--we can only understand the parts we see.

 

I meant it in more of a theoretical, philosophical sense.

 

Flatland.

[Onceuponatime]

He has plenty of flaws in his logic according to many theologians.

 

How can it be proof of our finiteness unless you are starting with the premise that god exists?

 

How can you logically conclude that God exists "outside of time because he created it" unless you start from the assumption that he exists?

 

My 8yo dd, when she was 7, said to me: "If God exists outside of time, then he exists outside of space. (Space and time are locked together.*) And to say that God exists outside of space is as stupid as saying infinity + one. How can anything exist outside of everything? If it does, it's not everything."

 

I agree with her.

 

*She doesn't understand that time is just the 4th dimension of space, hence it's called space-time. But she knows the term "space-time" and realizes it's ridiculous to separate them because of the countless science discussions we've had.

 

But aren't you assuming that time and space are everything?

[Ester Maria]

No, you were clear, but my point is the same: one does not tape this information to one's forehead. And really, w/ informal scholarship, it's even less likely to come up. Because, really, what are you going to say? "Yes, I've read about that." What would that even mean?

I don't know, personally I try to be very precise when I say I've read about something: books, authors, people, passages, references to what. It usually leads a conversation somewhere. I don't know, maybe it's, again, a "Jewish thing", but we're REALLY used to referencing where we get our information from in theological discussions: which commentary, which modern authors, in relationship to which messages in written/oral Torah, etc. It just comes "naturally" in a conversation, then, to "scan" your interlocutor's scholarship. Very often from the sole way of speaking you can totally "locate" their education on the scale: Hebrew school? MO yeshiva with dual curriculum? Chareidi sector? (Okay, the latter ones are usually instantly recognizable anyway by the outfit.)

Weird to explain, when we talk about religion we usually talk this English/Italian/whatever "spiced" with Hebrew expressions, sometimes something as ephemeral as a pronunciation tells you a lot about where and from whom this person is likely to have studied, or the way they word something. Or dressing, or the form of kippah. Sure, you can be fooled too, it certainly happens, but generally speaking, one can locate one's interlocutor quite soon without any blatant cross-examining of "where did you study, what did you read", etc. For example, the moment somebody mentions Tanya or presents an argumentation that's clearly from Tanya or sequent Chassidic writings, it's 99% the person is associated with Lubavitchers. (I don't know anything about those, btw, just bringing up a random example.) And that information itself tells me a lot about what they're likely to know, and what their stances on something might be, etc.

 

Isn't there a similar way of "recognition" amongst Christians? :confused: I would never say, "Sure, I've read about it." or something as general as that. I would be more likely to say, "Yes, I've read about it in Luzzatto, in Daat Tevunot, in the part where the soul asks X... But see, what really puzzled me, when reading this I thought of this problem I had with Kuzari originally, which expands on the parshat Yithro, and traditionally we know that...", etc., etc., and the conversation will naturally start to flow, kwim? So all it takes is that you GET into a situation in which a "recognition" might occur. I don't know what are ways of GETTING into such situations in other religions, though.

 

So that's why I emphasized the need of pretty much "equal" or better-equipped interlocutor to profit from the conversation - if you get such a "flow", you will get to pretty much "scan" each other's knowledge and interest areas, and there's so much scholarship, but also relatively clear organization of what's "expected" to be known and read, and what not. I just don't know, at all, what are the ways of discussing these things in various Christian denominations, how does the religious study actually work, etc. So I don't know, maybe I'm reading our context into yours. Just a suggestion anyway. I wish I could help you somehow.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

But aren't you assuming that time and space are everything?

 

:iagree:

 

And logic is all well and good but we all know that there are many things in this world (and so potentially outside of it) that defy it. I believe the most intelligent people are those who know they don't know everything. ;)

[Aubrey]

I don't know, personally I try to be very precise when I say I've read about something: books, authors, people, passages, references to what. It usually leads a conversation somewhere. I don't know, maybe it's, again, a "Jewish thing", but we're REALLY used to referencing where we get our information from in theological discussions: which commentary, which modern authors, in relationship to which messages in written/oral Torah, etc. It just comes "naturally" in a conversation, then, to "scan" your interlocutor's scholarship. Very often from the sole way of speaking you can totally "locate" their education on the scale: Hebrew school? MO yeshiva with dual curriculum? Chareidi sector? (Okay, the latter ones are usually instantly recognizable anyway by the outfit.)

Weird to explain, when we talk about religion we usually talk this English/Italian/whatever "spiced" with Hebrew expressions, sometimes something as ephemeral as a pronunciation tells you a lot about where and from whom this person is likely to have studied, or the way they word something. Or dressing, or the form of kippah. Sure, you can be fooled too, it certainly happens, but generally speaking, one can locate one's interlocutor quite soon without any blatant cross-examining of "where did you study, what did you read", etc. For example, the moment somebody mentions Tanya or presents an argumentation that's clearly from Tanya or sequent Chassidic writings, it's 99% the person is associated with Lubavitchers. (I don't know anything about those, btw, just bringing up a random example.) And that information itself tells me a lot about what they're likely to know, and what their stances on something might be, etc.

 

Isn't there a similar way of "recognition" amongst Christians? :confused: I would never say, "Sure, I've read about it." or something as general as that. I would be more likely to say, "Yes, I've read about it in Luzzatto, in Daat Tevunot, in the part where the soul asks X... But see, what really puzzled me, when reading this I thought of this problem I had with Kuzari originally, which expands on the parshat Yithro, and traditionally we know that...", etc., etc., and the conversation will naturally start to flow, kwim? So all it takes is that you GET into a situation in which a "recognition" might occur. I don't know what are ways of GETTING into such situations in other religions, though.

 

So that's why I emphasized the need of pretty much "equal" or better-equipped interlocutor to profit from the conversation - if you get such a "flow", you will get to pretty much "scan" each other's knowledge and interest areas, and there's so much scholarship, but also relatively clear organization of what's "expected" to be known and read, and what not. I just don't know, at all, what are the ways of discussing these things in various Christian denominations, how does the religious study actually work, etc. So I don't know, maybe I'm reading our context into yours. Just a suggestion anyway. I wish I could help you somehow.

 

No, conversations w/in churches I've attended would *never* go this way, lol. To even say, "I've read about that," could be seen as intellectual snobbery. The pastor, in a formal sermon, probably has to be careful not to cite too much for that reason. I think it probably comes from some kind of tradition of wanting to prefer "God's wisdom" to man's wisdom & at some point erroneously rejecting all formal education, or at least holding it suspect.

 

Broadly speaking, I'd classify our conversations as *much* more emotional than intellectual. I don't think that's necessarily bad--I think either extreme is probably not as productive as a good blend.

 

But if someone started talking to me the way you're describing, I'd probably think I was in the Twilight Zone. It's that different! (Isn't that interesting? I'm SO glad we're having this conversation!)

[Crimson Wife]

If you believe, ultimately the intellect must be suspended and faith embraced...

 

This has been my experience throughout my entire life, within my own mind and as experienced in many relationships with other gifted individuals. I am now witnessing it in my own children, who are all questioners. Of the three, though, the higher the IQ, the earlier and more deeply they questioned. My 8yo daughter is in the process of rejecting a lot of religion and her logic is impeccable, and I did NOT discuss this with her at all; she has come to this all on her own. She started challenging her catechism instructor in kindergarten, and last year when she made her first communion she got into arguments with her instructors - I got phone calls and was told that she openly challenged doctrine being taught, said she didn't believe it and why. Of course this led to a lot of discussions with her at home on appropriate behavior in public, but I didn't chastise her for thinking.

 

I started doing the same thing at an early age but I was repeatedly shut down and told to "just believe". It didn't work; I just went underground. I will not parent that way, though, with children who were born with logic skills that showed up before age four. To tell them to "just believe" would be insulting.

 

I honestly think your experience speaks to nothing more than poor catechesis for both you and your DD (sadly not unusual an experience for Catholics growing up in the post-Vatican II era). Those who question the Church's teachings should be given explanations of the reasoning behind the doctrine rather than being told "that's the way it is so shut up and just toe the line". :glare: It's a real shame that the majority of those being brought up in the faith today aren't being made aware of the amazing intellectual tradition of the Church :(

 

You don't have to "suspend" your intellect to have faith in God. Faith and reason answer different types of questions. To use an example from Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Owen Gingerich's excellent book God's Universe the question: Why is the water boiling? has two different answers. #1 is the scientific explanation that water boils because it has been heated to 100 degress Celsius. #2 is that the water is boiling because I want to make a pot of tea. One answer isn't better or more true that then other- they are complementary because they are answering different questions. Faith and reason is like that :)

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

You don't have to "suspend" your intellect to have faith in God. Faith and reason answer different types of questions. To use an example from Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Owen Gingerich's excellent book God's Universe the question: Why is the water boiling? has two different answers. #1 is the scientific explanation that water boils because it has been heated to 100 degress Celsius. #2 is that the water is boiling because I want to make a pot of tea. One answer isn't better or more true that then other- they are complementary because they are answering different questions. Faith and reason is like that :)

 

This is lovely. Thank you. It is wonderful to hear this perspective, as I'm a person who would never be able to suspend my intellect. I have to find a point where the two paths of intellect and faith meet.

[Marylou]

To even say, "I've read about that," could be seen as intellectual snobbery. The pastor, in a formal sermon, probably has to be careful not to cite too much for that reason. I think it probably comes from some kind of tradition of wanting to prefer "God's wisdom" to man's wisdom & at some point erroneously rejecting all formal education, or at least holding it suspect.

 

 

Or maybe he wants to emulate Paul and preach only Christ :001_smile:

 

1When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.a 2For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. 4My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5so that your faith might not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power.

 

6We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7No, we speak of God’s secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9However, as it is written:

“No eye has seen,

no ear has heard,

no mind has conceived

what God has prepared for those who love himâ€b—

10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.c 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

16“For who has known the mind of the Lord

that he may instruct him?â€d I

 

But we have the mind of Christ.

 

 

from I Corinthians 2

[tearose]

.

[Lovedtodeath]

You don't have to "suspend" your intellect to have faith in God. Faith and reason answer different types of questions. To use an example from Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Owen Gingerich's excellent book God's Universe the question: Why is the water boiling? has two different answers. #1 is the scientific explanation that water boils because it has been heated to 100 degress Celsius. #2 is that the water is boiling because I want to make a pot of tea. One answer isn't better or more true that then other- they are complementary because they are answering different questions. Faith and reason is like that :)

Should Faith Be Based on Reason? - Jehovah's Witnesses Official Web Site

"There are too many 'religious' people who become religious precisely to avoid having to think," writes the dean of a theological seminary in the United States. "They simply want to accept everything 'on faith,'" he adds.

[Garga]

That's exactly the kind of thing that I wouldn't dare to do. People who like me will like me anyway & tease me about it. Others would be pretty disturbed.

 

But maybe by the time I'm 40, I'll be brave enough to try it. :001_huh:

 

Then I guess this is why I don't completely understand this thread (in a way). I've never been in a church where I couldn't find like-minded people who would find nothing odd about having communion together, outside of an "official" church setting. In fact, I can't think of anyone who would refuse me or make fun of me if I called them and asked them to join me in communion. And we're just a pretty normal group of people.

 

The only thing I have noticed, is the lack of female leadership in churches. In my tiny church in another state, the women could do anything the men could do. But in my larger church, there is a lack of women in positions of authority. And it bugs me. A lot.

 

But as for the hard questions--I know a lot of people in my church who would be comfortable with having a woman ask them, and would be more than happy to give real, thoughtful answers. And would not be alarmed if someone didn't just "shut up and believe." I'm sure in such a large church that there would be people who would be upset, but it's not the basic culture of the church. And the leadership would be ok with the questions. (I suppose some guy in the back row would get his panties in a wad if a woman asked a difficult question, but it's not the norm.)

 

I hate to say, "Well, you're in the wrong church," because that's a lame response to your post, but that might be part of it. There are churches out there where questioning and seeking are not squashed down.

 

I belong to a Pentecostal church.

 

P.S. I think God gave gifted people their brains just so they CAN ask the hard questions and seek out the hard-to-understand answers.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Garga

[milovany]

Faith and reason answer different types of questions. To use an example from Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Owen Gingerich's excellent book God's Universe the question: Why is the water boiling? has two different answers. #1 is the scientific explanation that water boils because it has been heated to 100 degress Celsius. #2 is that the water is boiling because I want to make a pot of tea. One answer isn't better or more true that then other- they are complementary because they are answering different questions. Faith and reason is like that :)

 

In eastern Orthodoxy, there is a third option:

 

#3: "We don't know why the water is boiling, it's a mystery. Lord have mercy on us all. Now let's serve the Liturgy."

 

:lol:

[Aubrey]

:iagree:

Crimson Wife, I completely agree with you about the unfortunate state of religious education at so many parishes. Geek, I had the exact same experience as you and your daughter, and I did not return to my faith until my early twenties. I, too, was told to "just believe," even though we wasted a lot of time on silly art projects and learned very little about catechism. As an adult, I found that engaging in theology helped strengthen my faith immensely, and I was able to accept beliefs with which I'd previously had difficulty. Personally, I think that a lot of the catechism textbooks used today are just terrible. If you look at something like the old Baltimore Catechism, it is so much more theologically deep than the watered down stuff that so many parishes use. I definitely think that homeschooling is the way to go when it comes to catechism--unless I knew that the curriculum was solid and the people teaching were very qualified.

 

Dh & I were reading/thinking about Catholicism a few yrs ago (when dear friends converted). I met w/ the lady at our local parish who was in charge of RIC, & it was just awful. She wouldn't answer anything. When I asked about bc--I told her I could totally see the Catholic doctrine--broadly, but the details bugged me. To me...it seems that if NFP is ok, nonabortificent methods like condoms should be ok, too. I was willing to accept that neither was ok or that both were, but instead of addressing the issue, she said, "Romans were good at drowning their unwanted babies." :confused: That was one of my last questions, & at that point, I really just gave up.

 

So apparently I have trouble across the board w/ upsetting people w/ my thoughts/questions. :tongue_smilie:

[Spy Car]

Faith can't be based on reason if we are to accept the point of Saul/Paul that the secrets of God look like foolishness to those whose thinking isn't caught up in "Spirit" rather than in Reason.

 

Reason means foolishness looks like foolishness when judged by human standards, and that foolishness isn't transformed to truth because someone presumes to know the mind of a supernatural being.

 

The ideas are in inherent conflict.

 

Bill

[Aubrey]

Faith can't be based on reason if we are to accept the point of Saul/Paul that the secrets of God look like foolishness to those whose thinking isn't caught up in "Spirit" rather than in Reason.

 

Reason means foolishness looks like foolishness when judged by human standards, and that foolishness isn't transformed to truth because someone presumes to know the mind of a supernatural being.

 

The ideas are in inherent conflict.

 

Bill

 

Well...I don't think that Paul meant that it's a perfectly inverse relationship--wouldn't that make it *very* simple to figure out? And that would make God seem...like one of those annoying teachers who doesn't like smart students just because they're smart, as if they chose to be that way. Which would be *really* bad for Him, if he made them that way.

[tearose]

.

[Aubrey]

If you never got an answer to your NFP question, I can answer it. NFP is acceptable because it uses knowledge about God's design for procreation but does not interfere with it. Condoms deliberately mess with the natural course of procreation. If you really want the nitty-gritty details, the encyclical to read is Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae (which is really where this woman should have directed you if she were halfway competent.):

 

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

 

But NFP *does* mess w/ the natural course of procreation, & it violates scripture. Mildly, but it still sits unwell w/ me. Like...it seems like an attempt to find a loophole. And really, that's exactly how it was used in this parish. The lady turned her nose up & talked about how some people have too many kids. A friend there was criticized for having 4. People told her that they "stopped" after x # of dc. I asked her HOW? She said she didn't have the guts to ask them, lol.

 

If it were "We think it's better if you do it this way" that would be one thing. But joining the Catholic church felt more like a marriage than a membership, & I wouldn't do that w/out being really 100% certain that I could at least accept the tenets, even if I had to work on believing.

[Food4Thought]

Faith can't be based on reason if we are to accept the point of Saul/Paul that the secrets of God look like foolishness to those whose thinking isn't caught up in "Spirit" rather than in Reason.

 

Reason means foolishness looks like foolishness when judged by human standards, and that foolishness isn't transformed to truth because someone presumes to know the mind of a supernatural being.

 

The ideas are in inherent conflict.

 

Bill

 

The Wisdom of God to which Paul referred (in I Corinthians 1:18-24) was that Christ was crucified. If he was to be a Savior, shouldn't he be all powerful (the wisdom of the Greeks)? Or shouldn't he vanquish the Romans and establish the kingdom of Israel (the thinking of the Jews)? No. He came to die. That looks like foolishness to those who don't see the final picture. That verse is not about our inherent inability to know or understand God, though there may be other verses that would get your point across better.

[Caitilin]

Aubrey,

 

I have read every word of this thread, and the conclusion that I keep coming to is that you have somehow landed a denomination for which you are profoundly and fundamentally unsuited and unsuitable. :D I think that's wonderful--your church as you have described it here sounds stifling at best, and not only to the gifted, but to women generally. I understand that your DH is completing seminary--but will his degree be denomination-specific? Can you look into a more thoughtful and inquiring church/denomination? Also, what is DH's response to these issues you're forced to confront in church, day after day after week after week? It seems to me that the man you used to sit and discuss theology with by the hour ought to care that the church he wants to serve wants you to sit down and shut up.

 

I don't know whether or not I am gifted in the sense you mean, but I can tell you that there's no way I would ever submit my intellect and curiosity to a church that told me I shouldn't use them. I would leave. Full stop. I hope that you can find your way. :grouphug:

[tearose]

.