Faith vs. Intellect

[Aubrey]

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

 

Most of the denominations I've been in have been this way, to a greater or lesser degree. I'm really not sure if it gets better. I'd have been a monk if only I'd been a Catholic man. :001_smile:

 

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.

Um...what? :lol: Maybe you left some words out? :D

 

I understand that your DH is completing seminary--but will his degree be denomination-specific?

 

No, he's leaving seminary w/out a degree. It would have been 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:

 

This is harder to answer. W/ regard to the issues in this thread...dh approaches these things...intellectually...genuinely open to the possibility that women should be silent, perhaps, or that they shouldn't...open to the possibility that intellect is directly opposed to faith & should be forsaken...or that it might be embraced in conjunction w/ faith. He's a personality that would be completely blissed out to spend his life contemplating w/out coming to a conclusion. And it's easy for him to sometimes miss how much this might matter to *me.*

 

But he's not callous, either. For a long time, he would not even tell me what he thought about these issues because they were "between you & God."

 

But I think being in such a conservative environment has made him forget who I am to an extent, because...to some degree...he's had to try to be somebody, too, I think. Anyway...lately he seems to be remembering. He thinks hs'ing is making me smarter, & he's afraid I'm leaving him in the dust. :001_smile::lol:

[Aubrey]

NFP really shouldn't be presented as "Catholic birth control." It is meant to be used if there are grave reasons why a couple should delay pregnancy, i.e. illness or the like. Properly used, a couple should evaluate at each fertile cycle WHY they wish to abstain. Otherwise, marriage is and should be about being open to children. Using NFP with merely a contraceptive mindset would be wrong. It's not a loophole.

 

My husband and I got married while we were still in graduate school. I was stressed all the time about teaching, writing my dissertation, etc., and we felt that the stress (I am a big worrier) would not be healthy for a pregnancy. We really, really wanted children, but we used NFP until I defended. We don't have any plans to go back to NFP ever again :)

 

The fact that these people were so misinformed about it goes back to the problem we touched on earlier. I can't really speak for other denominations, but Catholics should know these fundamental things about their faith. It makes me batty when Catholics tell me they disagree on birth control but haven't read Humanae Vitae and have no idea why the Church teaches what it teaches. Or they tell me something's okay because of Vatican II, but they've never read any of the documents from Vatican II. End rant.

 

I realize it's a misteaching...at least, I realize to a degree. Anyway, that was my (convoluted) point: there's a lot of misunderstanding to wade through. And...if I'm looking into someone's faith, trying to really understand it, I'd like to have mutual respect. Iow, while my methods of bc may not be acceptable in Catholic faith, it should not be equated w/ Romans killing their babies. It doesn't have to be condoned or accepted, but simply...well, dh & I were considered radical for even *questioning* bc.

 

Given the low % of effectiveness of the method of choice, I'd think dh & I were really *more* open to babies than someone practicing NFP. ;)

[Marylou]

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

 

 

But if someone has the "mind" of the supernatural than he is not judging by human standards.

[Aubrey]

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:

 

Oh my gosh, I laughed when I read this!

[Caitilin]

Most of the denominations I've been in have been this way, to a greater or lesser degree. I'm really not sure if it gets better. I'd have been a monk if only I'd been a Catholic man. Wow. I am flabbergasted. I have been going to church my entire life, and never felt this way. I am sorry it's been so hard. :(

 

Um...what? :lol: Maybe you left some words out?

 

No, I didn't! ;) I meant that it's great that you don't fit in, because it seems to me that the church is fundamentally flawed.

 

No, he's leaving seminary w/out a degree. It would have been denomination-specific.

 

oops. :blushing: I misunderstood where you were on your journey. I apologize.

 

This is harder to answer. W/ regard to the issues in this thread...dh approaches these things...intellectually...genuinely open to the possibility that women should be silent, perhaps, or that they shouldn't...open to the possibility that intellect is directly opposed to faith & should be forsaken...or that it might be embraced in conjunction w/ faith. He's a personality that would be completely blissed out to spend his life contemplating w/out coming to a conclusion. And it's easy for him to sometimes miss how much this might matter to *me.*

 

But he's not callous, either. For a long time, he would not even tell me what he thought about these issues because they were "between you & God."

 

But I think being in such a conservative environment has made him forget who I am to an extent, because...to some degree...he's had to try to be somebody, too, I think. Anyway...lately he seems to be remembering. He thinks hs'ing is making me smarter, & he's afraid I'm leaving him in the dust. :001_smile::lol:

 

 

Well, I hope he remembers both who he is, and who the wonderful woman he married is too.:grouphug:

Edited August 11, 2010 by Caitilin

[Onceuponatime]

.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Onceuponatime

[Lovedtodeath]

The apostle Paul exhorted Christians to use their "power of reason" and to "prove to [themselves] ..." (Romans 12:1, 2)

 

“Have you intelligently considered the broad spaces of the earth?†(Job 38:18)

 

"reasoned with them ... (Acts 17:1-3)

 

"... carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

[Spy Car]

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.

 

But.... on the last point first, according to the Bible story in Genesis God did not make man that way. Mankind was not created "smart" or possessing "Reason."

 

God, according to the story, withheld the fundamental gift upon which reason and intellect rests: The ability to distinguish right from wrong (good from evil).

 

According to the story we became more like God when we acquired the ability to distinguish good from evil. That is what God says in Genesis 3:22 (so it it not just the word of the serpent in the story).

 

To me the story is to be read as the greatest moment in mankind becoming human, while recognizing that with Reason comes some pain and guilt when we behave in ways that go against "goodness" and have nothing at all to do with "original sin." And that there is "mythical" value in the story, but that is isn't history.

 

As to the rest, I'm not sure I get your meaning. If Paul says:

 

The 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.

 

He is saying that people who don't believe (by Faith) will find things espoused by those who claim to know the word of God (and here Paul is really speaking for himself as the arbiter of God's word) to be "foolishness."

 

To say there are secret truths that can only be known by the spirit-filled might be an acceptable argument on the basis of Faith, but it has nothing to do with Reason. Such an argument is anti-Reason, since reason is built on human judgement (of the type rejected by Saul/Paul) and not secret or esoteric knowledge-claims to know the mind of a supernatural being that transform "foolishness" into wisdom. Yes?

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

But if someone has the "mind" of the supernatural than he is not judging by human standards.

 

If people are not making judgements based on human standards of morality they are not acting according to Reason. That's what Reason is.

 

If they are substituting their belief that they or some other authority knows the "mind" of a supernatural being for reason then they act according to Faith. But not according to Reason.

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

The apostle Paul exhorted Christians to use their "power of reason" and to "prove to [themselves] ..." (Romans 12:1, 2)

 

 

Huh? In this passage Saul/Paul specifically urges those who believe his claims to know the mind of God to reject the Rationality of the world ("be not conformed to this world") and to replace Reason with a mental transformation based on Faith (and essentially for his interpretation of the God's mind to supplant human reason).

 

These are the same tactics used by cult-leaders around the world. They say don't believe what you see, believe what I tell you because I know the mind of God. That is not Reason, it is the opposite of reason.

 

Bill

[Lovedtodeath]

"This is what I continue praying, that your love may abound yet more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment." (Philippians 1:9)

 

Job 38:36 Who put wisdom in the cloud layers,

Or who gave understanding to the sky phenomenon?

 

 

“If any one of you is lacking in wisdom, let him keep on asking God, for he gives generously to all and without reproaching.â€â€”James 1:5.

[Aubrey]

But.... on the last point first, according to the Bible story in Genesis God did not make man that way. Mankind was not created "smart" or possessing "Reason."

 

God, according to the story, withheld the fundamental gift upon which reason and intellect rests: The ability to distinguish right from wrong (good from evil).

 

According to the story we became more like God when we acquired the ability to distinguish good from evil. That is what God says in Genesis 3:22 (so it it not just the word of the serpent in the story).

 

Well, that is one way to read it, & many do read it that way. I think, though...they were told that they would "know good & evil." Maybe the emphasis (& they missed this, too) was on the AND. If God = Good, they *already* knew him. The only knowledge they gained was the knowledge of evil.

 

To me the story is to be read as the greatest moment in mankind becoming human, while recognizing that with Reason comes some pain and guilt when we behave in ways that go against "goodness" and have nothing at all to do with "original sin." And that there is "mythical" value in the story, but that is isn't history.

 

That would be a really depressing way to read it, but I see what you mean.

 

As to the rest, I'm not sure I get your meaning. If Paul says:

 

The 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.

 

He is saying that people who don't believe (by Faith) will find things espoused by those who claim to know the word of God (and here Paul is really speaking for himself as the arbiter of God's word) to be "foolishness."

 

But I don't think he necessarily means it's an either/or situation. It's more like...looking at a 3d image w/out your 3d glasses just gives you a slightly fuzzy version of a normal movie. Viewing the film thr the 3d lenses does not violate the first image you saw; it merely adds a dimension (literally, lol).

 

Lots of things in life are foolish w/out the proper lens. Love doesn't make any sense at all. Even charity is pretty silly w/out *a* lens thr which we understand its meaning--& I realize there are a myriad of lenses for viewing charitable acts.

 

To say there are secret truths that can only be known by the spirit-filled might be an acceptable argument on the basis of Faith, but it has nothing to do with Reason. Such an argument is anti-Reason, since reason is built on human judgement (of the type rejected by Saul/Paul) and not secret or esoteric knowledge-claims to know the mind of a supernatural being that transform "foolishness" into wisdom. Yes?

 

Bill

 

But couldn't we also read that as something similar to literary analysis? Dh gets all bent out of shape over some of Eliot's poetry because he thinks it's downright snobbish of him to make his stuff so hard to understand. Faulkner, too.

 

Otoh, I think the layers of meaning are brilliant. Using the form of a Shakespearean sonnet to express the emptiness of a banal love affair is ironic, thought-provoking. I think understanding things "with the spirit" is a similar experience.

 

I have been annoyed at times at the esoteric nature of Jesus' parables. Really. Why be all cloak & dagger? But maybe...maybe the parables were actually ways of making things easier for us? Maybe the story of the sower & the seed is much easier for a farmer to carry around & remember than some of the theological mumbo jumbo that we come up w/?

 

And then...instead of thinking of the Holy Spirit as a kind of cipher for a code that only the faithful can understand, I think of him more as the life of the text. Not the literal words, but the ideas--if those ideas live, then carrying them around in our heads/hearts...well, I guess it really could be seen like a seed. If the layers can be unpacked as we're milling around, grocery shopping, vacuuming, then...well...it really makes it *more* accessible, not less so.

 

But I also don't really accept the idea that faith is something *we* can *do.* Maybe it's more like the result of the seed growing inside us? But I believe that if salvation is a free gift, it must be *truly* free--& having to do gymnastics of intellect to believe does not count as free, imo. In fact, I consider that requirement to be degrading, humiliating, & entirely out of character w/ Christ & his sacrifice.

[Aubrey]

If people are not making judgements based on human standards of morality they are not acting according to Reason. That's what Reason is.

 

If they are substituting their belief that they or some other authority knows the "mind" of a supernatural being for reason then they act according to Faith. But not according to Reason.

 

Bill

 

First, this is why I think it's important that Christians address the word Logos. It drives me *nuts* to simply say "Word."

 

Second, "human standards of morality" would be like revenge instead of mercy. Forgiveness isn't really "reasonable." Don't you think?

 

Finally--THIS is exactly the kind of conversation I'd like to see happening in the church. This is what is *so* missing.

 

Thanks! ;)

[Aubrey]

Huh? In this passage Saul/Paul specifically urges those who believe his claims to know the mind of God to reject the Rationality of the world ("be not conformed to this world") and to replace Reason with a mental transformation based on Faith (and essentially for his interpretation of the God's mind to supplant human reason).

 

These are the same tactics used by cult-leaders around the world. They say don't believe what you see, believe what I tell you because I know the mind of God. That is not Reason, it is the opposite of reason.

 

Bill

 

Why does "be not conformed to this world" have to mean "reject rationality"? The ideas expressed here are really not peculiar to Christianity. Basically, don't do bad stuff. Think about good stuff, look at good stuff, read good stuff, & you're more likely to *do* good stuff.

[Tea Time]

To say there are secret truths that can only be known by the spirit-filled might be an acceptable argument on the basis of Faith, but it has nothing to do with Reason. Such an argument is anti-Reason, since reason is built on human judgement (of the type rejected by Saul/Paul) and not secret or esoteric knowledge-claims to know the mind of a supernatural being that transform "foolishness" into wisdom. Yes?

 

Bill

 

Knowledge of good and evil as the ultimate gift and the key factor in gaining Reason. Hummm.... Sounds like Bill's interpretation of Genesis. That's cool. I like to ponder Bill's interpretation of Genesis. Did you ever read C.S. Lewis's idea of paradisial man found in The Problem of Pain? I really think you'd find it very interesting.

 

I don't think Paul is referring to any "secret truth" that can only be known by the spirit-filled. I think he is speaking more about how people can see important truths through the part of them that is spiritual (their conscience and that part of their mind usually referred to as the "heart" where God's law is written), and it is assumed that everyone has a spiritual side if they choose to "tune into it." It is only this complete package that can fully be Reasonable as without that spiritual side people will reason themselves into very evil positions.

 

I could be mistaken, but it kind of seems like you make the assumption that there are human beings that are purely "reasonable" and have no spiritual side. I don't think that anyone like that really exists. They may like to think so, but perfect Reason doesn't exist in our world. It is muddled up with emotion and all manner of subconscious influence, and of course there is also the simple fact that no matter how powerful reason my be, it is limited by knowledge. And there is an awful lot we don't know.

 

I think a very clever cult leader might just as easily appeal to people to use "only reason" to influence them to follow him. Of course then the real "reasoning" going on would be a bunch of baloney, but it would still be quite effective (it may even be going on around us right now). It isn't that easy to reason, and we are pretty limited in how much and how well we do it.

 

It can be very flattering to think one's self as "reasonable." It also can be very flattering to think of one's self as "spirit-filled." When not sincere, these things can be dangerous extremes, and it seems to me that Paul was advocating, as well as he could, that we avoid those extremes by exercising, to the best of our ability, both parts of our being. Then we end up with things that are wonderful but somewhat unreasonable like "forgiveness" - as Aubrey pointed out.

[Marylou]

I must go to bed now, but this thread once again reminds me that the word "faith" used in everyday language, and the Biblical meaning of "faith" are not equal.

 

See article if you want.

[Aubrey]

Knowledge of good and evil as the ultimate gift and the key factor in gaining Reason. Hummm.... Sounds like Bill's interpretation of Genesis. That's cool. I like to ponder Bill's interpretation of Genesis. Did you ever read C.S. Lewis's idea of paradisial man found in The Problem of Pain? I really think you'd find it very interesting.

 

Isn't that all any of us really has is our own understanding & interpretation of things?

 

I don't think Paul is referring to any "secret truth" that can only be known by the spirit-filled. I think he is speaking more about how people can see important truths through the part of them that is spiritual (their conscience and that part of their mind usually referred to as the "heart" where God's law is written), and it is assumed that everyone has a spiritual side if they choose to "tune into it." It is only this complete package that can fully be Reasonable as without that spiritual side people will reason themselves into very evil positions.

 

I could be mistaken, but it kind of seems like you make the assumption that there are human beings that are purely "reasonable" and have no spiritual side. I don't think that anyone like that really exists. They may like to think so, but perfect Reason doesn't exist in our world. It is muddled up with emotion and all manner of subconscious influence, and of course there is also the simple fact that no matter how powerful reason my be, it is limited by knowledge. And there is an awful lot we don't know.

 

I think a very clever cult leader might just as easily appeal to people to use "only reason" to influence them to follow him. Of course then the real "reasoning" going on would be a bunch of baloney, but it would still be quite effective (it may even be going on around us right now). It isn't that easy to reason, and we are pretty limited in how much and how well we do it.

 

It can be very flattering to think one's self as "reasonable." It also can be very flattering to think of one's self as "spirit-filled." When not sincere, these things can be dangerous extremes, and it seems to me that Paul was advocating, as well as he could, that we avoid those extremes by exercising, to the best of our ability, both parts of our being. Then we end up with things that are wonderful but somewhat unreasonable like "forgiveness" - as Aubrey pointed out.

 

*Gently*--I did ask for people's perspectives, specifically hoping to get the pov of a wide range of people. This last paragraph in particular seems kind-of harsh. These are such personal issues--hard to be honest about in a group of homogeneous faith, much more so in mixed faith. I'd like for people to continue to feel comfortable sharing their perspective w/out being told that they're wrong or arrogant.

[Lovedtodeath]

Knowledge of good and evil as the ultimate gift and the key factor in gaining Reason. Hummm.... Sounds like Bill's interpretation of Genesis. That's cool. I like to ponder Bill's interpretation of Genesis. Did you ever read C.S. Lewis's idea of paradisial man found in The Problem of Pain? I really think you'd find it very interesting.

 

I don't think Paul is referring to any "secret truth" that can only be known by the spirit-filled. I think he is speaking more about how people can see important truths through the part of them that is spiritual (their conscience and that part of their mind usually referred to as the "heart" where God's law is written), and it is assumed that everyone has a spiritual side if they choose to "tune into it." It is only this complete package that can fully be Reasonable as without that spiritual side people will reason themselves into very evil positions.

 

I could be mistaken, but it kind of seems like you make the assumption that there are human beings that are purely "reasonable" and have no spiritual side. I don't think that anyone like that really exists. They may like to think so, but perfect Reason doesn't exist in our world. It is muddled up with emotion and all manner of subconscious influence, and of course there is also the simple fact that no matter how powerful reason my be, it is limited by knowledge. And there is an awful lot we don't know.

 

I think a very clever cult leader might just as easily appeal to people to use "only reason" to influence them to follow him. Of course then the real "reasoning" going on would be a bunch of baloney, but it would still be quite effective (it may even be going on around us right now). It isn't that easy to reason, and we are pretty limited in how much and how well we do it.

 

It can be very flattering to think one's self as "reasonable." It also can be very flattering to think of one's self as "spirit-filled." When not sincere, these things can be dangerous extremes, and it seems to me that Paul was advocating, as well as he could, that we avoid those extremes by exercising, to the best of our ability, both parts of our being. Then we end up with things that are wonderful but somewhat unreasonable like "forgiveness" - as Aubrey pointed out.

:thumbup1:

 

I must go to bed now, but this thread once again reminds me that the word "faith" used in everyday language, and the Biblical meaning of "faith" are not equal.

 

See article if you want.

Excellent article! I like it where it says that Peter tells us to make a defense for our faith. That wouldn't be possible if it were expected to be blind faith, void of reason.

 

Thank you!

[Lovedtodeath]

*Gently*--I did ask for people's perspectives, specifically hoping to get the pov of a wide range of people. This last paragraph in particular seems kind-of harsh. These are such personal issues--hard to be honest about in a group of homogeneous faith, much more so in mixed faith. I'd like for people to continue to feel comfortable sharing their perspective w/out being told that they're wrong or arrogant.

HUH? Harsh toward whom? I applied it to myself of course. I am always pointing out how reasonable I am.:tongue_smilie:Good point, Tea Time, good point.

[Tea Time]

Isn't that all any of us really has is our own understanding & interpretation of things?

You know, I deleted the next line I wrote which said exactly that because I was trying to be more brief (not exactly my strong point).

Edited August 11, 2010 by Tea Time

[Lovedtodeath]

Well, that is one way to read it, & many do read it that way. I think, though...they were told that they would "know good & evil." Maybe the emphasis (& they missed this, too) was on the AND. If God = Good, they *already* knew him. The only knowledge they gained was the knowledge of evil.

I think that this verse is very hard to understand, especially the "like us" part. I am actually bothered by that wording a bit. Here is an explanation from the 1951 Watchtower: If anyone has any more articles pertaining to this verse I would love to see them.

What was the “knowledge of good and evil” mentioned at Genesis 2:17, and is it the same as that referred to at Genesis 3:5 and 3:22?—G. G., South Africa.

 

The “good and evil” in the three texts seems to refer to the one thing. Adam and Eve knew something about evil before eating the fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. (Gen. 2:17) They knew it would be wrong for them to eat that fruit, and they knew that death was an evil to be shunned. To “be as gods, knowing good and evil” seems to mean more than just helpful knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. (Gen. 3:5) The word gods could mean just Jehovah God, since the Hebrew word here is Elohim and can mean either God (Jehovah) or gods. If it means gods, then it could refer to Jehovah God and his co-creator and only-begotten Son, the Logos. It was to that one that Jehovah said, at Genesis 3:22: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.”

 

To know “good and evil” as Jehovah and his only-begotten Son know it would seem to mean to know good and evil for yourself, that is, you make the decision of what is good and what is evil, you judge what is right and what is wrong. Adam and Eve were no longer theocratic, no longer looked to God as the Universal Sovereign over all creatures, no longer accepted him as the one to determine right and wrong. They were going to determine for themselves what they were going to do on the earth, and not let God be the Supreme Arbiter.

 

Hence to the more responsible man, the woman’s head, Jehovah said in substance: ‘All right, Adam, if you want to be non-theocratic you go your own way. Decide for yourself what is good and evil from your viewpoint. You have no place in the garden of Eden. This garden is for theocratic people who are subject to me. Now get out.’ This view of the matter harmonizes with the fact that God does not assign the committing of sin as the reason for ousting Adam from Eden, but says it was because “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” and therefore should have no opportunity to eat of the tree of life.

That bolded part really reminded me of what Bill said about it.

[Spy Car]

Well, that is one way to read it, & many do read it that way. I think, though...they were told that they would "know good & evil." Maybe the emphasis (& they missed this, too) was on the AND. If God = Good, they *already* knew him. The only knowledge they gained was the knowledge of evil.

 

Well the story make it transformational moment. That man has become more god-like, yes?

 

And in the English translations I've read (making no claims to knowing the biblical Hebrew) the "knowing" is present tense. Man has gained rationality and moral discernment that he lacked previously..."he has become...."

 

To say one knows good without knowing good from evil makes such a being amoral. Only when one has the capacity to know right from wrong, and chooses to act according to the good is one a moral being. Only knowing "good" (if that's possible) carries no moral weight for choosing good over evil. KWIM?

 

That would be a really depressing way to read it, but I see what you mean.

 

Not depressing. What is depressing is to believe we could have lived like the other animals we presume have no moral discretion, and who can't judge right from wrong. Why be depressed to share a moral sense that is like that of the gods?

 

Well, that is one way to read it, & many do read it that way. I think, though...they were told that they would "know good & evil." Maybe the emphasis (& they missed this, too) was on the AND. If God = Good, they *already* knew him. The only knowledge they gained was the knowledge of evil.

 

Well the story make it transformational moment. That man has become more god-like, yes?

 

And in the English translations I've read (making no claims to knowing the biblical Hebrew) the "knowing" is present tense. Man has gained rationality and moral discernment that he lacked previously..."he has become...."

 

To say one knows good without knowing good from evil makes such a being amoral. Only when one has the capacity to know right from wrong, and chooses to act according to the good is one a moral being. Only knowing "good" (if that's possible) carries no moral weight for choosing good over evil. KWIM?

 

But I don't think he necessarily means it's an either/or situation. It's more like...looking at a 3d image w/out your 3d glasses just gives you a slightly fuzzy version of a normal movie. Viewing the film thr the 3d lenses does not violate the first image you saw; it merely adds a dimension (literally, lol).

 

But Saul/Paul is not arguing for clarity (or slight fuzziness) that is made more clear with god-glasses. He says what is seen as "foolishness" by those without Faith (meaning those who don't buy his revelation of "God's mind) transforms itself into "truth" due to spiritual belief. Big difference.

 

Lots of things in life are foolish w/out the proper lens. Love doesn't make any sense at all. Even charity is pretty silly w/out *a* lens thr which we understand its meaning--& I realize there are a myriad of lenses for viewing charitable acts.

 

I disagree. I think on 99% of the time people of good-will around the world share the same moral code irrespective of their religion (or lack of religion). There are certainly people who are not of good-will, people who my choice have no connection to the Moral Law and/or who have fallen under the sway of anti-rational ideologies or religious beliefs, but most people understand (and share) general notions of right and wrong. There are no 3D glasses required for that.

 

But couldn't we also read that as something similar to literary analysis? Dh gets all bent out of shape over some of Eliot's poetry because he thinks it's downright snobbish of him to make his stuff so hard to understand. Faulkner, too.

 

Two of my favorite authors BTW :001_smile:

 

Otoh, I think the layers of meaning are brilliant. Using the form of a Shakespearean sonnet to express the emptiness of a banal love affair is ironic, thought-provoking. I think understanding things "with the spirit" is a similar experience.

 

Yes, but people approach literary analysis from all sort of perspectives and though all sorts of "lenses." Goodness knows how many Marxian of Feminist analyses literary works are subjected to (to name only two). Do they add "layers" of meaning? Probably. Do they reveal the truth of an author's intent? Maybe, maybe not. i don't mind it as an intellectual exercise. When I read Moby Dick I'm certainly conscious of Melville's commentary on religion and his use of religious themes and references. It makes the work richer...but again--it does not transform foolishness into wisdom.

 

 

I have been annoyed at times at the esoteric nature of Jesus' parables. Really. Why be all cloak & dagger? But maybe...maybe the parables were actually ways of making things easier for us? Maybe the story of the sower & the seed is much easier for a farmer to carry around & remember than some of the theological mumbo jumbo that we come up w/?

 

I can't say.

 

And then...instead of thinking of the Holy Spirit as a kind of cipher for a code that only the faithful can understand, I think of him more as the life of the text. Not the literal words, but the ideas--if those ideas live, then carrying them around in our heads/hearts...well, I guess it really could be seen like a seed. If the layers can be unpacked as we're milling around, grocery shopping, vacuuming, then...well...it really makes it *more* accessible, not less so.

 

i like the way toy think, but (to my mind) it has little to do with the kind of thinking advanced by Saul/Paul (whose attitudes I find impossible to reconcile with the teachings of Jesus). I think you are closer to "the spirt of things", but who am I to say?

 

But I also don't really accept the idea that faith is something *we* can *do.* Maybe it's more like the result of the seed growing inside us? But I believe that if salvation is a free gift, it must be *truly* free--& having to do gymnastics of intellect to believe does not count as free, imo. In fact, I consider that requirement to be degrading, humiliating, & entirely out of character w/ Christ & his sacrifice.

 

i'm not sure I understand your point.

 

Bill

[Heidi]

If people are not making judgements based on human standards of morality they are not acting according to Reason. That's what Reason is.

 

If they are substituting their belief that they or some other authority knows the "mind" of a supernatural being for reason then they act according to Faith. But not according to Reason.

 

Bill

 

You have to initially step away from reason to have faith. BUT faith isn't the end of reason. Faith eventually begets evidence (if that faith is in something that is actually true and IF there actually is a God).

 

Then your faith becomes dormant and your knowledge perfect in that thing. If you have knowledge, you can act on reason, correct?

 

If you have knowledge of something that first required faith to obtain it, then it would make sense for Paul to say that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14

 

I'm not living on faith alone. I have evidence of my faith, given to me of God, so that I can say I KNOW what I know to be true. That evidence given of God is more sure than anything physical that I can see with my eyes.

[Lovedtodeath]

I have been annoyed at times at the esoteric nature of Jesus' parables. Really. Why be all cloak & dagger? But maybe...maybe the parables were actually ways of making things easier for us? Maybe the story of the sower & the seed is much easier for a farmer to carry around & remember than some of the theological mumbo jumbo that we come up w/?

The Bible gives two important reasons why Jesus used illustrations. First, his doing so fulfilled prophecy. At Matthew 13:34, 35, we read: “Jesus spoke to the crowds by illustrations. Indeed, without an illustration he would not speak to them; that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet who said: ‘I will open my mouth with illustrations.’” The prophet mentioned by Matthew was the writer of Psalm 78:2. ...

 

Second, Jesus explained that he used illustrations to sift out those whose hearts had “grown unreceptive.” (Matthew 13:10-15; Isaiah 6:9, 10) What was it about his illustrations that exposed the motives of people? In some cases, he wanted his listeners to ask for an explanation in order to get the full meaning of his words. Humble individuals were willing to ask, whereas haughty or indifferent ones were not. (Matthew 13:36; Mark 4:34) Jesus’ illustrations, then, revealed truth to those whose hearts hungered for it; at the same time, his illustrations concealed truth from those with proud hearts. ...

 

Jesus’ illustrations served a number of other beneficial purposes. They aroused interest, compelling people to listen. They painted mental images that were easy to grasp. As noted at the outset, Jesus’ illustrations helped his listeners to remember his words. ... -- "Come be My Follower" Published by Jehovah's Witnesses

 

You have to initially step away from reason to have faith. BUT faith isn't the end of reason. Faith eventually begets evidence (if that faith is in something that is actually true and IF there actually is a God).

 

Then your faith becomes dormant and your knowledge perfect in that thing. If you have knowledge, you can act on reason, correct?

 

If you have knowledge of something that first required faith to obtain it, then it would make sense for Paul to say that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14

 

I'm not living on faith alone. I have evidence of my faith, given to me of God, so that I can say I KNOW what I know to be true. That evidence given of God is more sure than anything physical that I can see with my eyes.

Yes. This really makes sense to me. Thank you.

[Spy Car]

First, this is why I think it's important that Christians address the word Logos. It drives me *nuts* to simply say "Word."

 

Second, "human standards of morality" would be like revenge instead of mercy. Forgiveness isn't really "reasonable." Don't you think?

 

Finally--THIS is exactly the kind of conversation I'd like to see happening in the church. This is what is *so* missing.

 

Thanks! ;)

 

How would revenge be an expression of human reason? When we act according to our highest understanding of the Moral Law we act according to Reason.

 

Acting according to base motives, a category in which "revenge" falls, is not Reason. it is "human" to the extent we humans have the capacity to act badly (and I'm not arguing otherwise) but those who think philosophically and reasonably reach the conclusion that revenge is a downward spiral. one need not be religious to understand that.

 

Bill

[happygrrl]

I am also drawn to the EO church, but wonder about the role of women there--isn't it just as limited as most Protestant denom. and moreso than others (in which they can serve as pastors or deacons etc.)? In what capacity can women serve in leadership positions within the EO Church?

 

I am fairly new to the church, but here is my understanding. The only role not open to women is the Priesthood. However, the priesthood is seen quite differently than the pastorate in a Protestant church (my dad is a Protestant pastor, if that gives me some street cred!). The role of leadership in the church is not attached only to the priesthood, so one does not have to be a priest to be in a leadership role.

 

(I wrestled with this quite a bit as it took me a while to understand what the Church was saying... Western girl brings Western mind to Eastern church.... it is a sitcom! There are some huge huge fundamental differences in world view that take time and patience to understand. I am slowly getting it, and loving it. The changeling realizes she has a home! Just trying to say that I am horrible at summarizing it into a few sentences and am most likely quite shallow in my understanding at present. Do come over to the Exploring Orthodoxy social group and open this up- you will likely get better responses.)

 

I don't know how women are viewed, but if the women there tend to be more "intellectual"--not quite the word I want, but it will have to do--at least there would be a chance at meeting someone who didn't think one was...um...something.

 

In our church there seems to be the usual mix of simple and intellectual and all in between. I wouldn't say the proportions are unusual. What *is* unusual is that we are all met *where we are*.... not asked to be less of ourselves so that we fit into a neat strata. All of me is welcome. Finally.

 

I don't know about the word you want but I personally want "open to discussing the hard questions."

 

Yes!

 

Right. But...w/ a sense of humor & not taking themselves too seriously & not pretending everything is always good or always makes sense.

 

And...I like to ask questions that come across as *very* basic. Dh & my mom understand what I'm asking, but other people rarely do.

 

Totally get you. If you ever wanna chat EO or anything else PM me.

[Ester Maria]

And in the English translations I've read (making no claims to knowing the biblical Hebrew) the "knowing" is present tense. Man has gained rationality and moral discernment that he lacked previously..."he has become...."

(Chiming in because I can't sleep and I've been here all day anyway. :D)

 

I'm not sure I get which verse you're referring to, but if you go here you can see the original alongside the translation. If it's the verse 5 you're speaking of, "knowing good and evil", grammatically it's what you would call "present participle", exactly as it's translated - technically Hebrew present tense is actually a present participle equivalent in other languages (yodea is the-one-that-knows, the-knowing-one more than he-knows), and that's the form used in both instances in the verse. It's translated properly.

 

If you're referring to the verse 22 ("Man has become one of us, to know good and evil"), again, it's an ideal translation for both verbs. Ladaat, from the original text, is indeed the infinitive form.

 

Always check Jewish translations of the "Old Testament", they're usually the most linguistically accurate ones.

 

Aubrey: The emphasis, in verse 5, cannot possibly be on "and". You cannot know it from the English translation, but there IS NO "and" in the original text in the way you read it in translation. The vav (letter vav, which also happens to mean "and" when put in front of the world) that's put there is so called "vav hachifuch" ("the vav of shift", for the lack of better translation) which alters the tense: it says va-hayitem, which would literally be "and you were", BUT, according to the various complications in old Hebrew grammar, such construction actually means "you will be". All of those va-yomer, va-yikra, you name it, are actually "and + past/future tense" grammatical construction, which then makes it future/past respectively. So, the text cannot possibly be read to emphasize to word which might not even BE there! ;) The devil's in the details... of the original text.

Edited August 11, 2010 by Ester Maria

[Lovedtodeath]

Ester Maria, how do you understand that verse then?

[Geo]

My Christian faith is based on what I believe to be reality. So I trust the empirical evidence of those who wrote about their first hand experiences. My intellect cannot comprehend all things related to my faith because I have a faith in a God that is bigger than my intellect can totally comprehend. But my intellect is more than satisfied with how the Bible really explains life better than any other faith system (or non-faith system) that I've seen.

 

My dh has a similar feeling toward his own faith and intellect.

 

(And yes, both of us are gifted.)

 

Simple and succinct. Beautiful.

 

Geo

[Rosie_0801]

So my thoughts as I dig through. I just want to feel like part of the conversation, ya know ;) coz I had a really boring time at playgroup.

 

But here's the question: if someone is intellectually gifted, & let's say they don't go around saying so or anything obnoxious like that--*still*--how would they be open about themselves, their opinions, questions, etc, & *not* come across as arrogant?

 

I'm not sure I'm making sense...

 

Perfect sense. If I'm intellectually gifted, it's not by much :D, but I do think far more globally than most people I know. I don't have proper conversations with many people, IRL. Why do you think I'm here so much? :lol:

 

So then the other part of my question is, what about the gifted person who comes to a conclusion other than atheism? How does that work out for Muslims, Buddhists, Protestants, Catholics? I'm not asking if their intellect makes them question their faith but, esp for women, does their intellect alienate them w/in their faith? And for one who *still* believes, how does she deal w/ that?

 

I think it would be different for Buddhists than the others you described, because, as I understand it, their focus is not on a god who must be believed in and served in a specific way. But I don't and can't know much about Buddhism so that might be incorrect. Besides, when you add in all the cultural elements to worship, stakes become higher.

 

Basically, it works out to the fact that w/in this setting, it's NOT ok to be who/what you are. Ethically, morally, philosophically--WHY is this acceptable? Whether one is gifted or not, how can we see a population, however minority, be completely not accepted unless they're willing to play chameleon?

 

*sigh* I know nobody can really answer this.

 

Ask anyone in the Western World and they'll tell you it's not ok, which may or may not match up with their actions. If we look to cultures that place more value on the collective than the individual, and they'd probably think we were asking silly questions. For myself, I play chameleon game here and IRL in certain circumstances because I have manners. (And IRL because I can't be bothered to deal with the fall out ;) )

 

 

I don't know about other religions, but doesn't this make it ironic that Jesus is called the Logos? But, yeah, we're not supposed to talk about that. :glare:

 

I started reading something that mentioned the writings of St Thomas. I think he was talking about this sort of thing. No wonder he didn't make it into the Bible, huh. I would have liked to read more, but this book was so chocked full of intellectual arrogance I couldn't handle it. How's this? "If your life isn't changed by what you read in my book here, you haven't understood it." Urgh. I'd like to read a less nauseating commentary if anyone has suggestions.

 

Why do people think that being an "at home" sort of gal means you have to give up every other aspect of your being?

 

Duh! If you have time for marathon running, you have time to be earning money. So stop being so self indulgent. (A pox on that line of thinking, which drives people to mental health issues.)

 

You have to initially step away from reason to have faith. .

 

Methinks that depends how your brain works, and what you are trying to/wanting to/expecting to (and states of being like that) have faith in.

 

Groovy, I feel so much better now. Thanks for letting me play :lol:

 

Rosie

[Ester Maria]

Ester Maria, how do you understand that verse then?

Short answer? I don't. :)

 

Long answer: I take Rashi as a usual starting point, but see that he doesn't say anything particular pertaining this issue, actually; just went to check - for v. 5 he cites one midrash and explains why angels are brought up (as creators of worlds), and for v. 22 he points out the uniqueness of man amongst the Earthly creatures, also helping by a midrash. The reference he's using is actually Genesis Rabba (not an integral text here).

Anything more complex than Rashi and Genesis Rabba is not for this hour, as I'd actually have to sit and learn a bit first, check a few other commentators and sources to understand it more. I'll ask my husband if he knows more on this particular story.

 

A nice and quite straightforward explanation that sums up many things would be here, I really recommend it, the article raises a few interesting questions (and there are also articles that come after it in a row discussing this question) and I personally tend to reason in that direction when I think about that story.

[Irene Lynn]

My dh and I are on the bright side, but we have some friends, who are brilliant. I have never met anyone in the same league. He is a professor of Philosophy and Logic. They attend an Anglican church. Part of the reason is that it consists mostly of readings and thoughtful songs and not so much pontificating and sharing of ignorance. I don't know how women are treated, but the wife is an equal to her husband and they are always working on articles or studying. Their faith is strong and their Biblical knowledge and knowledge pertaining to it is ever expanding. We all met at a Bible college, but would not send our own children there. I am thankful that I was able to meet such wonderful people in a college like we attended. Those times had the most stimulating conversations and freedom to ask questions that I have experienced. My dh and I have often been in leadership in the churches we have attended and that helps a lot.

[milovany]

Oh my gosh, I laughed when I read this!

 

I'm glad you found it funny. It was spoken with my tongue in my cheek. Although, now that I think about it, I did used to say that if there was going to be a test before we could be baptized, my standard answer would probably be be "Father, it's a mystery." It was a joke -- but in a way, it's true, too. There's a lot of mystery in the Orthodox church, which is very different from the western approach (and especially the American approach) to faith. Not that there can't be questions, or a seeking for answers, but at the same time in eastern Orthodoxy we're all about doing "the work of the Lord" (which is what the root word that "liturgy" comes from means). Our services aren't about understanding and "getting" things, or even about those things making sense and feeling right emotionally, but about meeting Christ through prayer, through Holy Tradition (of which the Scriptures are a part), and through receiving His body and His blood through the Eucharist.

 

ETA - I have an example regarding the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) if you'd like to PM me. I really don't want to derail the thread, and it's personal as well, so have chosen not to post it here.

Edited August 11, 2010 by milovaný

[Melinda in VT]

Au contraire, revenge can be a perfectly logical act in certain circumstances. What prevents us from engaging in revenge is morality. That morality may or may not consciously derive from religious belief but it's not coming from pure logic either. It's coming from a belief that even though logic says to take revenge, it's wrong for us to do so.

 

I don't know if I agree with this.

 

Personally, I find that despite the strength of my belief at any given moment, many of my actions are determined more by "does this behavior help create the kind of world I want to live in" than by whether it is right or wrong.

[Onceuponatime]

I don't know if this will make any sense, but these are some thoughts I have had on the Genesis story of man. First of all these are purely my own thoughts and certainly flawed, but they help me carry around a kind of understanding that I can deal with.

 

In my mind, I have drawn a parallel to events in history that have played out multiple times in multiple places.

 

Once upon a time, there was a primitive tribe of people cut off from all contact with the outside world. It developed a way of living that included right (rules for living and working) and wrong (taboos), and it lived closely with nature and it's God(s). This way of living worked well for these people and they had very few, if any social problems. Theywere not embarrassed by things that people in the outside world find embarrassing or wrong, because those concepts were foreign to them. They would not consider living any other way than they have lived through the ages.

 

Then comes the outsider. He says, "Look, folks. There are things your God(s) have not told you. There is a whole world of knowledge out there. And by the way, those rules of society and taboos of yours, you don't really have to follow them, if you don't want to. Nothing bad will happen to you if you decide to do what you want. Why don't you put it to the test? Oh, one more thing, some of the stuff you think is ok, well out in the real world, it would not be acceptable."

 

Then what happens? Someone adventurous tries breaking a taboo to see what will happen. Nothing does, of course. He spreads the word. But what that person does not see is the future. Soon his orderly society is in chaos, life is no longer pleasant. Harmony is gone. Selfishness reigns. It is no longer possible to live the way they once did, so they must leave their isolation and enter another world, one that is harsher and crueler, in spite of the vast amounts of knowledge (good and bad) available. Many of them become grief stricken and ashamed and try to retain some vestige of the past way of life while learning to live in the new world. Many others embrace the new world so wholeheartedly that they completely forget what was, and couldn't care less about the past.

 

The two groups become known as The Sons of God and the Sons of Man.

 

 

I've never put that in writing before. :D It is not meant to be a statement of belief, just the way I make sense of Genesis.

[Aubrey]

Well...Thomas Jefferson called Paul the first corrupter of the message of Jesus and he did just what you suggest. Jefferson physically cut out the portions of the Bible he felt were morally objectionable (including writings of Paul) and made his own compilation that has come to be known as the Jefferson Bible. So it is not like the idea is without precedent in the actions of a leading intellectual light in the founding of our Republic.

 

Personally, I'm not for a cut-and-paste job, but I don't look at Saul/Paul's writings as a source of morality or decency.

 

Bill

 

Oh my gosh! It's SO irreverent of me, but...this story makes me HAPPY!

 

Poor dh is walking out the door, & I'm like--GET THIS! He already knew, though, & non-heretical man that he is, he only says, "This is NOT a conversation for when I'm walking out the door." :lol:

[Gooblink]

Well...Thomas Jefferson called Paul the first corrupter of the message of Jesus and he did just what you suggest. Jefferson physically cut out the portions of the Bible he felt were morally objectionable (including writings of Paul) and made his own compilation that has come to be known as the Jefferson Bible. So it is not like the idea is without precedent in the actions of a leading intellectual light in the founding of our Republic.

 

Personally, I'm not for a cut-and-paste job, but I don't look at Saul/Paul's writings as a source of morality or decency.

 

Bill

 

:) This is true, but Jefferson is certainly not one to cast stones. I've spent a great deal of time studying his writings and various biographies because I find the man fascinating. For all his thinking and philosophizing and love of "reason," he remained a man of weak character. He was, it seems, a "do as I say, not as I do" kind of thinker.

 

Paul, on the other hand, whose writings are sometimes hard to reconcile to Jesus's teachings (though can you really read the book of Romans and not see Jesus?), Paul's character was true to his beliefs: when he was a Pharisee, no other Pharisee could top him. When he was converted - he remained faithful unto suffering and martyrdom.

 

No, I wouldn't place much stock in Jefferson's disapproval of the Apostle Paul.

[Gooblink]

I don't know if this will make any sense, but these are some thoughts I have had on the Genesis story of man. First of all these are purely my own thoughts and certainly flawed, but they help me carry around a kind of understanding that I can deal with.

 

In my mind, I have drawn a parallel to events in history that have played out multiple times in multiple places.

 

Once upon a time, there was a primitive tribe of people cut off from all contact with the outside world. It developed a way of living that included right (rules for living and working) and wrong (taboos), and it lived closely with nature and it's God(s). This way of living worked well for these people and they had very few, if any social problems. Theywere not embarrassed by things that people in the outside world find embarrassing or wrong, because those concepts were foreign to them. They would not consider living any other way than they have lived through the ages.

 

Then comes the outsider. He says, "Look, folks. There are things your God(s) have not told you. There is a whole world of knowledge out there. And by the way, those rules of society and taboos of yours, you don't really have to follow them, if you don't want to. Nothing bad will happen to you if you decide to do what you want. Why don't you put it to the test? Oh, one more thing, some of the stuff you think is ok, well out in the real world, it would not be acceptable."

 

Then what happens? Someone adventurous tries breaking a taboo to see what will happen. Nothing does, of course. He spreads the word. But what that person does not see is the future. Soon his orderly society is in chaos, life is no longer pleasant. Harmony is gone. Selfishness reigns. It is no longer possible to live the way they once did, so they must leave their isolation and enter another world, one that is harsher and crueler, in spite of the vast amounts of knowledge (good and bad) available. Many of them become grief stricken and ashamed and try to retain some vestige of the past way of life while learning to live in the new world. Many others embrace the new world so wholeheartedly that they completely forget what was, and couldn't care less about the past.

 

The two groups become known as The Sons of God and the Sons of Man.

 

 

I've never put that in writing before. :D It is not meant to be a statement of belief, just the way I make sense of Genesis.

 

:) I can see this. Have you ever seen the movie "The Gods Must Be Crazy"?

 

Someone (Spycar?) in an earlier post mentioned the Genisis account and interpreted that man had been created without ability to reason - to be like any other animal. I'm curious how that conclusion was drawn when Scripture says man was created in "God's image" which would indicate he was created to be set apart from other animals by his ability to reason, ponder and recognize right from wrong.

 

Curious.

[Gooblink]

I don't mean this as pessimistically as it sounds; on the contrary, I have a deep hope that there is something better than the best that our moral code can muster. A mercy, a justice, a forgiveness that runs deeper than our imaginations can fathom, & much, much deeper than what even the holiest of us can bear to offer.

 

It's not pessimistic, Aubrey. :) Isn't this, in essence, the hope we're clinging to by faith?

 

I'm a naturally meloncholoy, easily depressed kind of person. Whether my faith is founded on fact (and I believe God has proven Himself to me time and time again) or is, indeed, a delusion - sometimes by faith is the only way I can get myself out of bed in the morning and face the rat race.

[MamaSheep]

Oh! You people WOULD save the INTERESTING threads for the days when I am too busy to even be here much. I've been catching up on this thread with my McDonald's cheeseburger in hand--the one I picked up on the way home from swim lessons so I could eat quickly without dealing with lunch prep and clean up, and dive right into the school room organization and lesson prep which has GOT to be done this week as we're starting school next week. I have to cram as much of that as I can into today because I have an autism group meeting in a few hours and a thing over at the church this evening. Grrr....I would so love to chuck it all and just sit here in this discussion. So many interesting tangenty trails. But I can't. A couple of things I can't help but comment on, though. I'll try to make sense, but no guarantees as I will not really have time to go back and proofread myself today.

 

For one thing, I am intrigued by the discussion of foolishness versus wisdom. I have always understood it to mean that once you truly understand things from a spiritual perspective the things that may have seemed "wise" from a standpoint derived solely from human reason will then seem "foolish", and some things that seemed "foolish" from that merely human point of view will be revealed to you as the only truly rational approach.

 

One analogy that comes to mind (probably because my training is in art) is that of a perspective drawing of a cube. In reality, all the edges of the planes on a cube join together at right angles. ALL of the angles on a cube are right angles. That's what makes it a cube. If you want to draw a cube so that it LOOKS like a cube, so that it is a reasonable visual representation of the cube, however, you draw it in perspective and the shape you put on the paper has NO right angles. In many ways it SOUNDS rather paradoxical, if not outright foolish, to say that in order to draw a shape that LOOKS like it has all right angles, you have to make sure none of the angles you draw are actually right angles. It might seem more rational to say that if you want to draw a shape having all right angles, you should draw a shape that has all right angles. If you use a protractor, and make all the angles on the drawing match the angles on the object, you should have an accurate representation. To complicate matters, on the cube all of the sides are the same length, but when you draw a cube, if you want it to LOOK like a cube, the sides cannot all be the same length. Again, this may seem rather foolish IF one does not understand how perspective works. If, however, one DOES understand perspective, then the only rational way to draw a cube, so that it will look like a cube, is by using unequal sides and non-right angles. To me, spiritual perspective is much the same. Things that may seem perfectly rational without it seem foolish once the spiritual perspective is understood, and things that seem paradoxical or even silly without it suddenly make rather a lot of sense. It does not make things that truly ARE foolish suddenly become wise, or things that truly ARE wise suddenly become foolish. It only alters our perspective to a more accurate one. Assuming it is accurate spiritual perspective, of course. If what one has is NOT truly accurate spiritual perspective, then the warp in the "lens" can turn things rather funhouse-ish and very little makes sense. At any rate, that's my 2 cents.

 

 

The other thing is regarding Adam and Eve. Bill, you'd better be careful here, you are coming perilously close to preaching Mormonism...lol. We reject the idea of "original sin", believe that opposition is necessary for morality to exist, and hold that God wants us to become more like Him. Your comments made me grin. :D

[ScoutTN]

My intellect cannot comprehend all things related to my faith because I have a faith in a God that is bigger than my intellect can totally comprehend. But my intellect is more than satisfied with how the Bible really explains life better than any other faith system (or non-faith system) that I've seen.

 

 

 

:iagree:

I can't say it any better!

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

--

Edited August 11, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[lovemyboys]

No, but you have made it quite clear why these people would feel misunderstood & rejected by others in a religious setting.

 

Actually, I think our intellect can get in our own way within our faith. Over-thinking and demanding empirical evidence and other manifestations of a gifted intelligence are missing the point. It's faith. Demanding things on our terms because we are so "smart" is trying to put ourselves in the power position, it prolongs the process and can create walls in our own individual faith journeys. Can't say that I've ever felt rejected by others for being intelligent and yet faithful.

 

And this brilliant point from Jean in Newcastle:

 

My intellect cannot comprehend all things related to my faith because I have a faith in a God that is bigger than my intellect can totally comprehend. But my intellect is more than satisfied with how the Bible really explains life better than any other faith system (or non-faith system) that I've seen.

 

When you dig deeper and search for more, it's there.

 

Unfortunately if you don't get it, you don't get it. Not to say that *you* never will, that's not mine to know.

 

If we believe in God, we have to also acknowledge that God is more than we can fathom. We can explore, we can dig, we can read, we can learn. Other than that is hubris.

 

I know that veers a bit from the OP. Our intellect can help us explore and find incredible truths, we just have to be careful not to let it get in our way.

 

:001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

Gooblink, as always I enjoyed your posts.:)

 

Thank you for answering me Ester Maria.:)

[Rosie_0801]

Hmm. Now this is reminding me of Heather in NC's thread from ages ago about whether we'd change our religions if there was suddenly indisputable proof that our religious convictions were wrong.

 

My dh tells me that it really matters how the world began because that determines how people live their lives. That seems really weird to me. The world did begin, and surely that is the important bit. But he has always been the navel gazing type, and I've never met anyone else with my religious convictions, so I guess my priorities are different to other people's. Or I just don't get out enough. :)

 

Rosie- who thinks "so smart" is something to aim for and need not come with intellectual arrogance in it's baggage.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Rosie_0801

[Aubrey]

Actually, I think our intellect can get in our own way within our faith. Over-thinking and demanding empirical evidence and other manifestations of a gifted intelligence are missing the point. It's faith. Demanding things on our terms because we are so "smart" is trying to put ourselves in the power position, it prolongs the process and can create walls in our own individual faith journeys. Can't say that I've ever felt rejected by others for being intelligent and yet faithful.

 

When you dig deeper and search for more, it's there.

 

Unfortunately if you don't get it, you don't get it. Not to say that *you* never will, that's not mine to know.

 

If we believe in God, we have to also acknowledge that God is more than we can fathom. We can explore, we can dig, we can read, we can learn. Other than that is hubris.

 

I know that veers a bit from the OP. Our intellect can help us explore and find incredible truths, we just have to be careful not to let it get in our way.

 

:001_smile:

 

You have profoundly misunderstood me. But your answer illustrates why I have never asked this before--it's exactly the kind of response I have expected.

[Impish]

I figured it out.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Actually, I think our intellect can get in our own way within our faith. Over-thinking and demanding empirical evidence and other manifestations of a gifted intelligence are missing the point. It's faith. Demanding things on our terms because we are so "smart" is trying to put ourselves in the power position, it prolongs the process and can create walls in our own individual faith journeys.

 

Unfortunately if you don't get it, you don't get it. Not to say that *you* never will, that's not mine to know.

 

If we believe in God, we have to also acknowledge that God is more than we can fathom. We can explore, we can dig, we can read, we can learn. Other than that is hubris.

 

I know that veers a bit from the OP. Our intellect can help us explore and find incredible truths, we just have to be careful not to let it get in our way.

 

Well, the first thing that occurs to me is that it is equally possible for faith to get in the way of intellect. In my mind, when you have stopped asking questions, you have left yourself open to any number of troubles in life.

 

The problem with this is that it represents where you are, entirely from your point of view. You have to be open to the fact that there are different points of view (10 degrees, 30 degrees, 90 degrees...). Telling those who are trying to move from pure intellect to true faith via questions about God and the very tenets of religion that, "It's faith" as if that is all there should be to it in our own minds is not something that is going to speed people along in their journey, to say the least.

 

As I said in an earlier post, I'm envious of those who have true faith. I'm not there yet on my journey and you're right, maybe I never will be. But to accuse those like me of hubris and saying we just don't get it is not helpful. I'm acutely aware of the fact that I don't get it. That's kind of the point.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Alte Veste Academy

[justamouse]

In my experience, talking with both women and men who have stayed in my denomination of origin, they keep pretty quiet in Sunday School and do not raise any intellectually challenging subjects. I know one woman who went so far as to keep certain books in her bedroom so people visiting from church wouldn't see them.

 

You've been in my bedroom? I hide what institutional christians would call the rebellious christian books.

 

...interesting conversation. I'm loving it.

 

(Matter of fact, I'm listening to a podcast right now of Ann Rice and why she left the church). That's what I had to do to mesh the two, I had to leave the *church*. I had to find my faith on my own, and it felt like jumping off a cliff. Like there would be nothing to hold me. I was wrong. I found my faith, and others who, like me, couldn't mesh intellect and faith, but now do. And they are my mentors. They are amazing, kind, humble...broad faithed. Liberal. I found God.

Edited August 12, 2010 by justamouse

[Lovedtodeath]

You've been in my bedroom?

 

...interesting conversation. I'm loving it.

Oh, your bedroom.