Faith vs. Intellect

[justamouse]

...scanning thread....darn it, I missed the good stuff again!

 

Christian Universalists. that is where intellect and faith meet. Emergent Church. There are SO MANY good blogs out there, written by brains that I cannot even comprehend, and they are amazing christians.

[Guest]

There are two very different books that discuss this question from a woman's point of view.

 

Carol Flinders: At the Root of This Longing: Reconciling a Spiritual Hunger and a Feminist Thirst-- a book that combines academic questioning with personal narrative and spiritual story

 

Jill Paton Walsh: Lapsing -- an exquisitely written novel about a British Catholic losing her faith at Oxford (OOP; look in libraries)

[Jean in Newcastle]

There are churches where deep conversation of Biblical topics is encouraged. But I would assume that many would do what we (my dh and I) do in these kinds of discussions - we establish a ground rule that we are going to the Bible as our final authority. That doesn't mean that we don't ask the tough questions but we make God's reasoning the final say, not our own finite reasoning. And yes, there are some discussions which end with us saying "We need to study some more on that" or "God has not chosen to give us enough information for us to be able to give a final answer about that".

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

what (if any) faith do you follow? How (if you care to share) did you come to that faith? Are these two parts of yourself in harmony or conflict?

 

 

OK, I'm going right back to question number one in post number one here, to tie it in to this...

 

There are churches where deep conversation of Biblical topics is encouraged. But I would assume that many would do what we (my dh and I) do in these kinds of discussions - we establish a ground rule that we are going to the Bible as our final authority. That doesn't mean that we don't ask the tough questions but we make God's reasoning the final say, not our own finite reasoning. And yes, there are some discussions which end with us saying "We need to study some more on that" or "God has not chosen to give us enough information for us to be able to give a final answer about that".

 

I completely get your ground rule; that's where you are in your faith. However, what of the questions for those who haven't arrived yet? For some of us, the Bible as God's literal word is a huge stumbling block.

 

Re: the question above, my intellect and faith are apparently in total conflict. Some of us have to go from A to B to C to D... I have tried to go from A to Z. Can't do it. I can't even make it to M. :lol:

 

So, I guess the real question is who in the church does the nitty-gritty work of this with non-believers or wanna-believers? Who handles these tough questions sensitively (i.e. without making the people posing them feel like narcissistic heathens)?

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I completely get your ground rule; that's where you are in your faith. However, what of the questions for those who haven't arrived yet? For some of us, the Bible as God's literal word is a huge stumbling block.

That is where you start then. You can break it down into steps... research the evidence that God exists... evidence that the scriptures as a whole are inspired by God, evidence that each book of the Bible belongs in the Canon, evidence that the verses within those books were translated correctly.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

That is where you start then. You can break it down into steps... research the evidence that God exists... evidence that the scriptures as a whole are inspired by God, evidence that each book of the Bible belongs in the Canon, evidence that the verses within those books were translated correctly.

 

I have done some of this. I think I would be happier and probably more successful with a (non-judgmental) guide. Plus, there's no guarantee I will arrive at a belief in the Bible as literal truth. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there many Christians who do not believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally? It seems to me scholars have argued for years over this.

 

Actually, anyone's journey could diverge just after the first step in your process; there is no guarantee I would arrive at a belief in in Christianity at all because, of course, we are talking about God and faith, not necessarily the Christian faith. If DH's Granny ever read that, I would be in some seriously hot water! :lol:

 

Thank you for laying out the process though. I think I should buy some books. I'll start with Mere Christianity. :001_smile:

[Jean in Newcastle]

OK, I'm going right back to question number one in post number one here, to tie it in to this...

 

 

 

I completely get your ground rule; that's where you are in your faith. However, what of the questions for those who haven't arrived yet? For some of us, the Bible as God's literal word is a huge stumbling block.

 

Re: the question above, my intellect and faith are apparently in total conflict. Some of us have to go from A to B to C to D... I have tried to go from A to Z. Can't do it. I can't even make it to M. :lol:

 

So, I guess the real question is who in the church does the nitty-gritty work of this with non-believers or wanna-believers? Who handles these tough questions sensitively (i.e. without making the people posing them feel like narcissistic heathens)?

 

My husband and I have in the past and want to do more in the future. One book that we like is called By This Name http://www.goodseed.com/products/btn-eng-book/ This book takes you through the storyline of the Bible. It doesn't assume that you share the same mindset that someone who accepts the Bible as the Word of God does. It is however written by people who do accept the Bible as the Word of God.

 

One thing that we talk about is what is truth? Can there be Truth? (see the capital letter there? that stands for an absolute). We go from there to talking about God and then eventually the Bible as a revelation of God.

[Gooblink]

I have done some of this. I think I would be happier and probably more successful with a (non-judgmental) guide. Plus, there's no guarantee I will arrive at a belief in the Bible as literal truth. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there many Christians who do not believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally? It seems to me scholars have argued for years over this.

 

Actually, anyone's journey could diverge just after the first step in your process; there is no guarantee I would arrive at a belief in in Christianity at all because, of course, we are talking about God and faith, not necessarily the Christian faith. If DH's Granny ever read that, I would be in some seriously hot water! :lol:

 

Thank you for laying out the process though. I think I should buy some books. I'll start with Mere Christianity. :001_smile:

 

One guideline I've been given is to take the Bible literally unless it contradicts God's character. OK, easier said than done. For example, some will argue that eternal hell fire is literal - God is holy and just, you know. But...where does the merciful, forgiving, loving God fit in with eternal suffering? Well, I don't take hell fire literally, but rather as a symbolism for eternal separation from God. Others believe it's a "cutting off" of life...that non-believers simply cease to exist. The bottom line is that nobody really knows. We have no way of really knowing - even if you take the Bible as God breathed...there is still a lot of room for dispute.

 

Not that going to the Bible first is a bad idea...it's a good idea -and with prayer. But be prepared to sometimes come out the other side with more questions than answers. :)

 

I used to allow many issues to stand in the way of my drawing near to God. So many things that didn't and still don't make sense to me. However, there are also some things which He has revealed to me in such a way as to convince me He is there, alive, well and caring about me. So...although I don't believe I've "suspended intellect," I have learned to be patient.

[lovemyboys]

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.

 

And this is why I don't often respond in these threads, Aubrey. Gather that this wasn't clear....you asked about us as individuals. I responded as an individual.

 

This has been my experience. Should've used the personal pronoun more. That said, I think it does extend to others .... faith and intellect are not mutually exclusive. Some of the "simplest" minds are the most profoundly spiritual and some of the most profound "thinkers" throughout time have also been deeply religious.

 

Most of the churches we've attended have welcomed the questioning, the exploring through Bible studies, small group, etc. I've been mentored by pastors and senior women church leaders formally and many others informally. I would say we've been comfortable with how our churches have been organized.

 

It sounds like you're wondering about roles within your church, Aubrey?

 

From altevista:

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.

 

 

Or maybe you've taken a leap of faith? I never said that you stop questioning and exploring. At some point, though, it is faith. And faith is different than some empirical study laid out nice and neat, kwim?

 

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

 

You're right. This was my pov. That's what Aubrey asked about. You assume that I'm not or have not been open to other povs, which is not true. I just know what it's like to put all my eggs in the intellect basket. And then to grow beyond that.....

 

My use of the word hubris was for those who assume that anyone walking in faith is thereby lacking in intellect or putting that intellect off to the side as if the two are mutually exclusive, as if there is no further exploration within one's faith.

 

Some people have always had their faith and been aware of it, I've heard it referred to similar to breathing. Some others have to find their way to faith or their faith finds them. This is the intangible and this is beyond us. Much as we'd like to control it, we can't. That's what I meant by the simple statement, It's faith.

 

Kristina, I hope for you that you get to that point of true faith. It's an awesome and beautiful gift.

 

:001_smile:

[Lovedtodeath]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there many Christians who do not believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally?

I am not even sure what that means, to be honest.

 

I will be glad to provide a list of some of the books I used for my process if you are ever in need of it.

[MamaSheep]

I finally got back from the last thing on my list today and had time to catch up, and...um...please tell me it wasn't something I said?

[Caitilin]

Yeah, I was busy cleaning out the garage, and half the posts disappear...I hate it when I miss what's going on. :glare:

[lovemyboys]

The problem is...what if one is "talked down to" because one is assumed to be...less...able to discuss things? Even other women do this to ea other--iow, it's not *just* a male-female issue. It seems quite rude to look the person in the eye & tell them to quit it. If only Bob Newhart fit in a girl's purse. :lol:

 

ETA: The problem is, usually only one person in the conversation can see a discrepancy.

 

My nephew has an incredible gift. He is brilliant. He is highly educated. He has an amazing Christian faith.

 

His gift? The ability to talk with any one and everyone. You don't feel talked down to, he isn't wearing his credentials or his vast understanding of a subject on his forehead (!) -- he's approachable, conversant and truly caring. And interesting.

 

It's unfortunate, as I've read through this thread, that so many seem to feel that they can't raise topics in church, can't ask questions, get talked down to. How frustrating. I don't think I'd stay with a church that frowns on honest questions. Sorry, don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.

 

Fwiw, I think my nephew learns a lot by listening to people. He doesn't shut down the conversation with a regurgitation of what he already knows like some feel compelled to do, he listens.

 

And that's pretty darn smart.

 

 

eta: Bob Newhart :lol:

Edited August 12, 2010 by lovemyboys
eta: Bob Newhart

[FO4UR]

I'm just curious...have been thinking about this off & on for yrs...

 

If you (or someone you know) is intellectually...in the gifted range... for the sake of this conversation, not just smart, but really gifted...what (if any) faith do you follow? How (if you care to share) did you come to that faith? Are these two parts of yourself in harmony or conflict? Have you found others in your religion/denomination/lack of religion with similar "abilities"? (Sorry for the quotation marks. All of this is so...touchy...it's very hard to phrase. I've retyped several times.)

 

Finally, if you are a woman, does that have any impact on any of the above? For ex, many faiths have different roles assigned to men and women, so a gifted man might have one set of circumstances in said religion while a gifted woman could have a very different set of circumstances.

 

There. Hopefully I've been clear w/out insulting anyone. :001_huh: I'm *deeply* interested in hearing your experiences!

 

I got lost in this thread (fantastic conversation!) and want to speak to your OP. I do not claim to be gifted and have not been tested for giftedness so I'm just speaking as a person who finds this thread fascinating.

 

I've never left my childhood denomination. My dh graduated seminary last year and I understand what you are saying.

 

Within the realm of church members across the US (and I think I know your current denom...I'm guessing.) there is a striking lack of basic biblical literacy! It's an "I don't care what the Hebrew/Greek says...give me 3 ways to make my life better today and make me FEEL good, but don't make me think!" People say they want to know God, but aren't that interested in reading the Bible...or it's too difficult for a common mind to understand...(which makes me curious to know how the diminishing rates of literacy in our country effects *Biblical* literacy and thus Faith)

 

I don't think a person has to be gifted in order to feel isolated in a church that is grounded on rehashing the same 5 Bible stories every week...and I use the term Bible *stories* b/c detached from the actual reading of the Bible and it's context waters them down to mere stories. I have seen pastors raked over the coals for preaching "too much Bible"..."too much meat"...which really means that they don't want to think beyond the surface, they want the passage chewed up and spoon-fed to them, covered in sugar so as not to taste any unpleasant thoughts. It is too heavy to actually look at a passage, pull out the meaning of the words and examine them...and analyze how that applies to life. No, no...3 things...something I can do. Attatch it to a verse and call it good...now let's go to lunch.

 

I usually sing in the choir whatever church we are attending...so I notice funny things like the expressions on peoples' faces & mannerisms. There was once a church split...pastor preaching things that were not Biblically accurate. *Most* of the congregation never batted an eyelash (and I'm talking about members who have been "Bible-Believing" for more years than I've been alive so no excuses about being new believers). There was a direct correlation between the people who furrowed their brows and anxiously sifted through their Bibles and the people who left. The staunch supporters never even opened their Bibles during the sermons.:confused:

 

SO...while it's one thing to talk about how one *comes to* faith with a gifted mind, I think there is a whole 'nuther conversation on how one *grows* amidst a congregation that is content to stay mindless seedlings...and how one *grows* a congregation from seedlings to thriving plants when they are so resistant to growing. I think your discontent may lie somewhere in the frustration of being amidst people who truly don't want to think, and don't care to grow...yet may say they do. I think giftedness only produces degrees of frustration...if that makes sense.

 

Gender??? yes and no. It depends on which side of my denom you are talking to. At seminary, there were males and females getting MDIV's. There was a great divide of men specializing in pastoral degrees, while most women specialized in counseling, missions or music. (I was in the music dept for a short while...it was fairly even m/f.) In churches, some jobs may still be divided by gender somewhat (thinking of the kitchen and buildings & grounds committees LOL), the *roles* of teacher and leader are generally well mixed...though the vast majority of *senior* pastors are male. ime - gifted women gravitate towards those teaching/leading roles naturally...and are quite often just as influential (or even more so) than the senior pastor.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

SO...while it's one thing to talk about how one *comes to* faith with a gifted mind, I think there is a whole 'nuther conversation on how one *grows* amidst a congregation that is content to stay mindless seedlings...and how one *grows* a congregation from seedlings to thriving plants when they are so resistant to growing. I think your discontent may lie somewhere in the frustration of being amidst people who truly don't want to think, and don't care to grow...yet may say they do. I think giftedness only produces degrees of frustration...if that makes sense.

 

I think this is a brilliant point.

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

Or maybe you've taken a leap of faith? I never said that you stop questioning and exploring. At some point, though, it is faith. And faith is different than some empirical study laid out nice and neat, kwim?

 

You're right. This was my pov. That's what Aubrey asked about. You assume that I'm not or have not been open to other povs, which is not true. I just know what it's like to put all my eggs in the intellect basket. And then to grow beyond that.....

 

My use of the word hubris was for those who assume that anyone walking in faith is thereby lacking in intellect or putting that intellect off to the side as if the two are mutually exclusive, as if there is no further exploration within one's faith.

 

Some people have always had their faith and been aware of it, I've heard it referred to similar to breathing. Some others have to find their way to faith or their faith finds them. This is the intangible and this is beyond us. Much as we'd like to control it, we can't. That's what I meant by the simple statement, It's faith.

 

Kristina, I hope for you that you get to that point of true faith. It's an awesome and beautiful gift.

 

:001_smile:

 

Thank you. I apologize for what was probably a misunderstanding of the tone in your first post. :001_smile:

[lovemyboys]

Q & A 21

 

Q. What is true faith?

A. True faith is

not only a knowledge and conviction

that everything God reveals in his Word is true;^1

it is also a deep-rooted assurance,^2

created in me by the Holy Spirit^3 through the gospel,^4

that, out of sheer grace earned for us by Christ,^5

not only others, but I too,^6

have had my sins forgiven,

have been made forever right with God,

and have been granted salvation.^7

^1 John 17:3, 17; Heb. 11:1-3; James 2:19

^2 Rom. 4:18-21; 5:1; 10:10; Heb. 4:14-16

^3 Matt. 16:15-17; John 3:5; Acts 16:14

^4 Rom. 1:16; 10:17; 1 Cor. 1:21

^5 Rom. 3:21-26; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-10

^6 Gal. 2:20

^7 Rom. 1:17; Heb. 10:10

 

True faith has nothing to do with intellect.

 

:001_smile:

[Food4Thought]

I have done some of this. I think I would be happier and probably more successful with a (non-judgmental) guide. Plus, there's no guarantee I will arrive at a belief in the Bible as literal truth. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't there many Christians who do not believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally? It seems to me scholars have argued for years over this.

 

 

I'll raise my hand as one who struggles with a literal interpretation of the Bible. You can't interpret the Psalms literally. The Proverbs either - they are general wisdom. So when I get down to the nitty-gritty of Genesis, I get in a lot of trouble with my DH who believes that God functioned in 24 hours in our current time-space continuum and yada yada yada.

 

The Bible is meant to be read in context, with a mind to cultures, literary forms, etc. I get in trouble for this, which is why I'll only share it way deep down in the murky depths of this thread. But I still believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe that he was who he said he was. If I can't believe anything else, I trust the account of Luke, who had an orderly and scientific approach to writing his Gospel. I also enjoy the histories - I & II Samuel, Kings & Chronicles. And Leviticus. I can *get* that. (And really, if you don't read Leviticus, the whole sacrifice of Jesus seems pretty frivolous.) So the more I read the rest of it, the more it comes together for me. I suppose it just starts to soak in after a while - as long as I don't let the actions of others get in the way of the wisdom of the book, if you kwim.

[Rosie_0801]

I think it is interesting that so many people set out to believe something in particular, Christianity being the topic of conversation here. I can think of reasons why, but I still find it perplexing.

 

Rosie

[Melinda in VT]

But I'm not talking about doubt. I'm not talking about shaking people's faith. Faith, I imagine, for the gifted, will involve a whole-person, hands-on approach. One would worship by thinking, by asking, by discussing, painting, writing. And most of that doesn't *fit* w/in the traditions I've seen.

 

Aubrey, I was skimming through Finding Your Religion this morning, and I found this quote:

 

Therefore, your religion is something you not only think about but also dance, sing, eat, paint, and sculpt. To find your religion you must engage all of your senses. You should feel it as well as explain it, hear it as well as see it, taste it as well as smell it.

 

Is that what you're talking about?

[Guest Alte Veste Academy]

One guideline I've been given is to take the Bible literally unless it contradicts God's character. OK, easier said than done.

 

The bottom line is that nobody really knows. We have no way of really knowing - even if you take the Bible as God breathed...there is still a lot of room for dispute.

 

Not that going to the Bible first is a bad idea...it's a good idea -and with prayer. But be prepared to sometimes come out the other side with more questions than answers. :)

 

Thank you so much for this. I may be an oddball but I am significantly more comfortable with being told that my questions will lead to more questions than with being told to take a leap of faith. Maybe it's like trying to convince someone new around water to dip a toe in? I just can't bring myself to start with the high dive. :lol: I admire those who can take a leap of faith just as I admire those who start with that high dive.

 

I'll raise my hand as one who struggles with a literal interpretation of the Bible. You can't interpret the Psalms literally. The Proverbs either - they are general wisdom. So when I get down to the nitty-gritty of Genesis, I get in a lot of trouble with my DH who believes that God functioned in 24 hours in our current time-space continuum and yada yada yada.

 

The Bible is meant to be read in context, with a mind to cultures, literary forms, etc. I get in trouble for this, which is why I'll only share it way deep down in the murky depths of this thread. But I still believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe that he was who he said he was. If I can't believe anything else, I trust the account of Luke, who had an orderly and scientific approach to writing his Gospel. I also enjoy the histories - I & II Samuel, Kings & Chronicles. And Leviticus. I can *get* that. (And really, if you don't read Leviticus, the whole sacrifice of Jesus seems pretty frivolous.) So the more I read the rest of it, the more it comes together for me. I suppose it just starts to soak in after a while - as long as I don't let the actions of others get in the way of the wisdom of the book, if you kwim.

 

Thanks for this perspective! It really helps. I confess my ignorance about this subject but I have been around these boards (and, you know...human people irl :tongue_smilie:) long enough to know that there are endless ways of viewing the Bible within the larger Christian community. I imagine those who feel farthest off in left field are the least likely to speak up here. Again, I can't believe I'm even engaging in this conversation in a public forum!

 

I think it is interesting that so many people set out to believe something in particular, Christianity being the topic of conversation here. I can think of reasons why, but I still find it perplexing.

 

Rosie

 

Hey, Rosie. I hear you! See below (it was actually above)? I'll even quote myself in agreement. :D

 

The truth is that I already know I lean closest to Christianity but for those who read my post about DH and his Granny before I deleted the largest part of it, I have a major stumbling block besides the Bible as literal truth and that has to do with the feelings of Christians about the fate of those from other religions and even the faithless. That discussion is decidedly not for these boards! :lol:

 

Actually, anyone's journey could diverge just after the first step in your process; there is no guarantee I would arrive at a belief in in Christianity at all because, of course, we are talking about God and faith, not necessarily the Christian faith. If DH's Granny ever read that, I would be in some seriously hot water! :lol:

 

[Gooblink]

I think it is interesting that so many people set out to believe something in particular, Christianity being the topic of conversation here. I can think of reasons why, but I still find it perplexing.

 

Rosie

 

That's an interesting question, Rosie. I suppose one answer would be that God is pulling us toward Him. We stumble and get stuck in webs of spirit and flesh, but still feel Him goading us to press on.

 

Another reason might be that someone we hold in high esteem is a believer and we seek to learn what it is that motivates him/her.

 

Some people are raised in a faith (this may end up being my kids' experience) and accept it without question until the day comes when they are asked to defend their beliefs - then they will seek to understand it, or fall away from it.

 

In my case, I actually "lost" a friend to a Christian revival and set out to disprove Christianity to win her and other misguided folks back to reality.

 

That didn't go the way I'd intended. :D

[TKDmom]

SO...while it's one thing to talk about how one *comes to* faith with a gifted mind, I think there is a whole 'nuther conversation on how one *grows* amidst a congregation that is content to stay mindless seedlings...and how one *grows* a congregation from seedlings to thriving plants when they are so resistant to growing. I think your discontent may lie somewhere in the frustration of being amidst people who truly don't want to think, and don't care to grow...yet may say they do. I think giftedness only produces degrees of frustration...if that makes sense.

 

:iagree:I have to agree with this.

 

I'll raise my hand as one who struggles with a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

The Bible is meant to be read in context, with a mind to cultures, literary forms, etc. I get in trouble for this, which is why I'll only share it way deep down in the murky depths of this thread. But I still believe in Jesus Christ, and I believe that he was who he said he was.

:iagree:And this.

 

I truly believe that God created us with our intellect. And that He purposely left some (a lot?) of things left unsaid so that we can have the joy of using our brains and of discovering new things. Haven't you ever watched your children's faces when they figure something out on their own? It's a joy to see. And it's so much more satisfying than just telling them the answer.

 

I know Bill said that Genesis seems to say that Adam and Eve were created without intellect. I disagree. I think it says that they were innocent, in the same way that children are innocent. My kids have plenty of intellect (sometimes more than I would like :glare:), but they are still pretty innocent b/c they lack experience.

 

In Mormon theology, Eve made a conscious choice to take the fruit. She knew what she was doing. She was dissatisfied with her current state. She knew that she was supposed to be learning and growing and having children (to satisfy God's first command that they multiply and replenish the earth). She knew that she couldn't do those things in her current state, so she took the fruit (whatever that means). Once she did, she went to Adam and said something along the lines of, "Hey, I know I shouldn't have done this, but I have. I'm going to get kicked out of the garden. You need to come with me. We'll learn and grow together."

 

If they hadn't partaken of that fruit, Adam and Eve would still be sitting in that garden, not learning, not growing. Personally, I prefer things the way they are now, even thought life is messy and difficult. And since the Fall did happen, we have a Savior to bring us back to God. We get the best of both worlds. We get have experiences that force us to stretch and grow, and we get to return to a paradisaical state some day. I bet we'll appreciate it a lot more for having experienced some of the rotten things that happen here every day.

 

Thanks for listening to my ramblings. I'll go back to hiding now.:leaving:

[Scarlett]

ETA: my brother is WAY gifted (though lacking in various ways). He has two beliefs regarding God which suggests he believes in God. One problem he has is due to falsehoods mainstream Christianity (as a whole) promotes despite what the Bible says and God's personality. Obviously, showing him the truth about God helps here. But then he has this other belief which isn't so easy to redirect. He believes religion is simply man's way of controlling one another both in harmful and helpful ways. That one would take many many hours of both systematic as well as specific study to work through....and it would require him to be open and honest-hearted. He's just not at this time.

 

Great post Pamela. I really appreciate reading about your journey...your comments about your brother remind me of the 3 H's required to learn the Truth. Honest, Humble and Hungry.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think it is interesting that so many people set out to believe something in particular, Christianity being the topic of conversation here. I can think of reasons why, but I still find it perplexing.

 

Well, I was raised a Christian and when I had questions I answered them. I wasn't really setting out to believe, as the answers involved could have gone either way.

[Gooblink]

I truly believe that God created us with our intellect. And that He purposely left some (a lot?) of things left unsaid so that we can have the joy of using our brains and of discovering new things.

 

:iagree:

 

 

If they hadn't partaken of that fruit, Adam and Eve would still be sitting in that garden, not learning, not growing. Personally, I prefer things the way they are now, even thought life is messy and difficult. And since the Fall did happen, we have a Savior to bring us back to God. We get the best of both worlds. We get have experiences that force us to stretch and grow, and we get to return to a paradisaical state some day. I bet we'll appreciate it a lot more for having experienced some of the rotten things that happen here every day.

 

Thanks for listening to my ramblings. I'll go back to hiding now.:leaving:

 

Interesting perspective. I'd not considered that they'd have wallowed in the garden for eternity had they not "eaten the fruit." That wouldn't fit into my understanding of who God is.

 

My take is that the fall had to do with a simple lack of trust. They disobeyed God and chose to put their trust in the serpent, who was intentionally deceiving Eve. Adam was right there with her, according to Genesis. Now, why did he partake as well? It could be that he saw she didn't die and didn't want her to be like God and and himself not. It could be that he knew she was going to die and didn't want to live without her, it could be that he didn't consider the consequences, but was just hungry. Whatever the reason, the trust they'd placed in God was now broken and, at the same time, their trust in each other.

 

I'd also guess that God would have allowed them to eat from the tree of knowledge in His timing...but they chose to disobey and take it in their own timing. God doesn't tempt...he wouldn't have put a stumbling block there just to sit back and wait for them to crash.

 

Example: I put the kids' Halloween candy up where it's out of reach and allow them a little at a time. I know it's better for them to wait. They believe they can, and should be allowed to, eat it all in one day. I'm not saying they can't have it all, it's just better for them to not have it all at once. kwim? :)

 

:) Of course, none of my comments are interpretations I'm willing to die for. Just different ways to look at things. And off topic, I suppose.

[Ester Maria]

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.

I find this very interesting - and such an opposite to what I'm used to! By "us", you can hardly get discredited for "intellectualism" in religion - on the contrary, its well and most welcome, unless paired with discrespectful and disdainful attitude towards those that are less knowledgeable (but I suppose most people would mark it just plain arrogance and attitude, not a special type of it, since people who hold themselves that way usually hold themselves that way in most or all areas of life).

 

Do you know who was the first "Jewish philosopher", albeit he himself not Jewish? Abraham. That's what we get taught, that Abraham started a chain of a specific type of thought that will result in much more elaborated Judaism later, based on the notion of monotheism. There's a really emphasized idea amongst most Jews - that Abraham came to monotheism and the notion of good by the means of intellect, thinking, and that that's not only one of possible ways of interacting with God and having a personal relationship with him - but in fact a commandment. Learning, to the extent of one's abilities, is a commandment for Jews, explicitly listed as such.

(Regarding God's wisdom as opposed to the wisdom of men, there's a whole notion that Torah is Godly, but written in the language of humans, i.e. learnable and approachable by the means of intellect as well - something along the lines of what one of the previous members whose username I can't recall right now tried to describe by representing a 3D object on a 2D surface.)

 

I find it very hard to fathom a system in which one is actively discouraged from learning about the most important thing you can learn more about - you very worldview, your very point from which you measure and consider everything else. I really feel for anyone with even slight capacities and interest for a deeper intellectual understanding amongst such crowd. :(

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.

I've noticed this too. I don't know if it's prevalent amongst all Christians (some of the Catholics I know, laity, tend to be pretty backed up in some serious theology, but maybe they're exceptions) or specific denominations only, but with many I really noticed this shift towards the emotional at the excusion of the intellectual component. To the point of Biblical illiteracy, unfortunately, which is where we get to this:

Within the realm of church members across the US (and I think I know your current denom...I'm guessing.) there is a striking lack of basic biblical literacy! It's an "I don't care what the Hebrew/Greek says...give me 3 ways to make my life better today and make me FEEL good, but don't make me think!" People say they want to know God, but aren't that interested in reading the Bible...or it's too difficult for a common mind to understand...(which makes me curious to know how the diminishing rates of literacy in our country effects *Biblical* literacy and thus Faith)

Personally, I don't consider the basic layer of the Biblical text to be difficult to grasp. At all, despite the Bible being rather thick.

If you read the text with hints, allegories and mystic considerations, then it gets difficult (and impossible to approach outside of its original linguistic context), but your basic literal level of the text is what's usually considered Biblical literacy and I fail to understand - I'm sorry for sounding harsh - but I fail to understand how can somebody not have repeatedly read the book they consider their holy text, truth per excellence and life guide. It just totally escapes me, this daunting lack of Biblical literacy, I was in situations of literally explaining to people basics such as "Jewish nation doesn't really exist before Sinai" or "the Sinai revelation isn't exactly about God talking to Moses exclusively and totally not as depicted in films you're familiar with" due to the lack of familiarity with the basic level of the text. It means that they either don't read, either don't read well - and both of these situations, in the context of the book that's holy for you, are totally incomprehensible for me.

 

But I do think you're hitting an important point with overall levels of literacy. I just disagree with you that they're falling down: I would venture to say, actually, that there's a relatively stable ratio of people who nurture literacy (read, think about what they read, write, etc.) and those who don't, in spite of the majority of people nowadays being literate in the literate sense of the world (able to read and write). Nothing I can use as a proof of this claim, it's just a personal impression and comparing my experiences with those of the past generations in my family: the number of people changes, the accessibility of education changes, but the ratio of those "actively literate" remains pretty much the same, and they tend to be grouped in rather insular communities (whether academic ones or religious ones). Your average Joe has never actually known his Bible, not in the past and not now, and your average religious community has never actually been more intellectual in the past than is nowadays, and religion has always had more of a cohesive use and an emotional one than an intellectual one with most people and communities. I believe, not only in Aubrey's case, that it pretty much comes down to finding people who aren't that silent illiterate majority, rather than tilting at windmills of your current setting. Unfortunately, but if we aren't going to be PC, the majority of people have never been, aren't, and will never be literate in the sense of the word we're considering now. It's that circumstances are changing, but regarding the actual state of things, there is nothing new under the sun... as was written already a few millenia ago.

 

So I suppose that I actually shouldn't be surprised by the state of things and what you go on describing in the rest of your post (Bible being "too meaty" etc.)... but I still am.

[Lovedtodeath]

Ester Maria, the clergy has a history of discouraging the laity from reading the Bible. It likely goes back to that.

[Gooblink]

Ester Maria, the clergy has a history of discouraging the laity from reading the Bible. It likely goes back to that.

 

:) Our neighbors were seeking a church home - they thought they should start going to church since they'd adopted a baby :confused:. Anyway, they'd discounted one they'd visited because the priest "stood up there and read from the Bible."

 

I can't imagine accepting any religion without spending the rest of my life trying to understand it.

 

Ester Maria - Boy, would I love to sit down and chat with you over a cup of tea or coffee. You'd probably be bored and annoyed by me, but I could pick your brain for a really long time. :D

[melmichigan]

Ester Maria, the clergy has a history of discouraging the laity from reading the Bible. It likely goes back to that.

 

:iagree: That was my experience as a child.

[MamaSheep]

Interesting perspective. I'd not considered that they'd have wallowed in the garden for eternity had they not "eaten the fruit." That wouldn't fit into my understanding of who God is.

 

My take is that the fall had to do with a simple lack of trust. They disobeyed God and chose to put their trust in the serpent, who was intentionally deceiving Eve. Adam was right there with her, according to Genesis. Now, why did he partake as well? It could be that he saw she didn't die and didn't want her to be like God and and himself not. It could be that he knew she was going to die and didn't want to live without her, it could be that he didn't consider the consequences, but was just hungry. Whatever the reason, the trust they'd placed in God was now broken and, at the same time, their trust in each other.

 

I'd also guess that God would have allowed them to eat from the tree of knowledge in His timing...but they chose to disobey and take it in their own timing. God doesn't tempt...he wouldn't have put a stumbling block there just to sit back and wait for them to crash.

 

Example: I put the kids' Halloween candy up where it's out of reach and allow them a little at a time. I know it's better for them to wait. They believe they can, and should be allowed to, eat it all in one day. I'm not saying they can't have it all, it's just better for them to not have it all at once. kwim? :)

 

:) Of course, none of my comments are interpretations I'm willing to die for. Just different ways to look at things. And off topic, I suppose.

 

I think Adam ate too because he had been commanded to cleave unto his wife. If she was getting kicked out he was going with her. After she ate he couldn't keep both the commandment not to eat and the commandment to cleave unto his wife, he had to pick one.

 

I also think that Adam and Eve were never intended to stay in the garden forever. We are told in the Bible (1 Peter 1:20 for example) that Jesus was chosen as the Redeemer "before the foundation of the world". No Redemption is needed if there is no Fall. I think the Fall was part of the plan all along, otherwise why provide a Redeemer before even creating the world? Christ was not a stop-gap emergency back-up plan when things went wrong, Christ WAS the plan--from the very, very beginning before the world was.

 

I've always been intrigued by the tree in the garden. And by Satan's presence there. Obviously an all-knowing, all-powerful God could have kept Satan out. So why didn't he? I think God used Satan to move God's plan forward. He gave Adam and Eve commandments, but He also gave them the ability to choose for themselves (obviously, because they DID choose--had they lacked the capacity to choose they would not have been able to make a choice; they chose, therefore they had the ability to choose). Only, they needed something to choose between. I think that's why that tree was there, to give them something to make choices about. And Satan was allowed to up the ante. I think Satan thought he was messing things up for God, but God turned it around on him and used Satan's scheming to forward God's own agenda. I think God does that a lot, actually. I do wonder sometimes whether God would have commanded them to eat from the tree at some point if they hadn't decided to break the rules.

 

One thing that intrigues me about the tree (and I hope nobody will take this as official doctrine of any sort, this is totally my own train of thought) has to do with some things I've learned about human development. Having a child who is NOT developing "typically" has opened up a whole new field of inquiry for me that I would likely not otherwise have ever really delved into. When we were first pursuing a diagnosis and the evaluation process included reams of papers full of questions with little dots to blacken, and lots of interviews with various professionals, two questions kept coming up that rather puzzled me at first. One was along the lines of, "Does he ever just out and defy you? Does he stick his chin out and say 'NO!' and flatly refuse to do whatever it is you asked him?" When I would respond that he could be the most defiant little booger you ever saw and it was incredibly frustrating they would say, "Whew! Well that's a relief anyway!" The other question was, "Is he better behaved for other people than he is for you? Does he mind a babysitter or his grandma, for example, and then scream and yell and defy you?" When I replied in the affirmative, and often to the extreme, again the reply was, "Excellent! We're so glad to hear that!" In relation to these questions I was asked in detail about the rules at our house. Did we have rules? Did we enforce the rules? How did we enforce the rules? When I asked about these particular lines of questions I was told something that's really stuck with me. Children NEED rules in order for their minds to develop properly. They need rules partly so that they have something to say "no" to. That annoying stage when they're about two and they start saying "no" to everything you tell them to do is a critical developmental milestone. If they never break the rules, never say "no", and are always compliant, that is a HUGE red flag developmentally. The fact that my son was aggravatingly defiant at age 5 was evidence that he had at least reached that milestone and it meant a much happier prognosis for the future than otherwise expected. The fact that he was a horrific little brat for me, but could behave himself for other people, at least in some approximation, was also an extremely positive sign developmentally and an indicator of a strong mother-child relationship. Evidently children do this when their mental capacity is developed to a particular degree (again, it's a milestone they look for) AND when they have a high level of trust for their primary caregiver. They are "good" for other people because they fear what might happen if they're not, whereas with their caregiver they know there will be negative consequences for their naughty behavior but they ALSO have come to trust that the caregiver loves them and has their best interest at heart, will still love them even if they're "bad", and will keep them ultimately safe, even within the parameters of the negative consequences. In other words, the "trust" aspect of the relationship gives them the confidence to explore their emerging self-identity. The defiance is in some ways an exploration of where does Mom, and Mom's will stop, and me and my own will begin? And they have to play with that a bit to discover who they are and how they operate. But in order for that developmental stage to happen, there has to be something for them to say "no" about, and there has to be somebody they feel safe saying "no" to. Apparently some parents, when they find out that their child is developmentally disabled, will just drop all rules and expectations for that child because they're "broken" and won't be able to obey anyway. So the developmental folks we were working with at the time made a really big point of making sure we understood that if a child is in an environment where there are NO rules or expectations, it interferes with his mental development and messes with his ability to develop a self-identity. Rules should be clear and developmentally appropriate, but are absolutely essential to development.

 

This has made me really wonder about that tree in the garden. God knew about human development. God CREATED humans. I can't help but wonder if that tree was there so that Adam and Eve had a "rule" to help them develop to the point where they could say, "no" within a relationship of trust. And yes, the negative consequences they were warned about did happen--they became mortal, able to die, and had to leave the garden. But even that was within the parameters of ultimate safety, as God had already provided a Savior for them.

 

Dunno...things that are interesting to muse about.

[TKDmom]

This has made me really wonder about that tree in the garden. God knew about human development. God CREATED humans. I can't help but wonder if that tree was there so that Adam and Eve had a "rule" to help them develop to the point where they could say, "no" within a relationship of trust. And yes, the negative consequences they were warned about did happen--they became mortal, able to die, and had to leave the garden. But even that was within the parameters of ultimate safety, as God had already provided a Savior for them.

 

Dunno...things that are interesting to muse about.

 

Now I think that's really an interesting idea. All of the sudden the Garden of Eden looks to me like it can be an allegory for childhood. But the real question is, can you say things like that in Sunday School? Or do people look at you cross-eyed for "over-thinking"?

[MamaSheep]

Now I think that's really an interesting idea. All of the sudden the Garden of Eden looks to me like it can be an allegory for childhood. But the real question is, can you say things like that in Sunday School? Or do people look at you cross-eyed for "over-thinking"?

 

Hahahaa.....both. I can and HAVE said this very thing in Sunday School before. And other equally "out there" ponderings. Some people there thought it was quite an interesting notion and asked follow-up questions. Some people looked at me cross-eyed for "over-thinking". Nobody told me to keep my blasphemous nonsense to myself, though. But I am always careful to clarify that I am only sharing my own musings when I offer thoughts like this, not teaching official church doctrine and not asking anyone else to agree with me, just floating it out there as something interesting to think over. And I'm not the only one who does this sort of thing there.

 

Then again, this particular line of thinking is not nearly as far a stretch in the context of LDS teachings as it would be in a more "traditional" Christian context. I feel like I'm going out on a limb more to say it here than I would feel saying it at church.

[Marylou]

It means that they either don't read, either don't read well - and both of these situations, in the context of the book that's holy for you, are totally incomprehensible for me.

 

 

 

ITA.

 

Seems more people can name more "American Idols" and their runners-up over the past 10 years than can name even one false (idol) god mentioned in the OT. Very sad.

 

I thank God I belong to a church (URCNA) that encourages all members to learn, grow and ask many questions all through life, whether male or female.

Edited August 12, 2010 by dmmosher

[mcconnellboys]

"...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."

 

I often wonder at our intellectual arrogance when we make hard and fast statements in areas of science where we just don't have enough information to make them. It's fine for us to make a working theory of how things are based on the evidence of the moment, but all too often in the past 50 years, the scientific community has begun to lean on anyone who diverges from the status quo of the moment. That's just not good science.

 

But to respond to Aubrey's original question a little ('cause I have to run in a moment), I have been very impressed with the intellects of both Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku in the past few years. I guess I'd have to characterize them as Deists, like many earlier scientific pioneers, but I tend to think that these people are so very wrapped up in their work that they don't open themselves to a personal relationship with a loving God. Still, they do not deny a creator God, either. Einstein regularly wrestled with the idea of God.

 

I think for those who are very intellectual, the idea of God is also much more complex and so they may not fit into more traditional religion circles. In the end, I think God does have to be personal for each individual person on earth. I think we miss out by not being in fellowship with other believers, but I don't think God abandons us because of any lack in this area.

 

I have also always been impressed with C. S. Lewis' discovery of God as an adult. He was no mental slouch, either (just take a look at his circle of regular buddies, the Inklings). He wrote many profound musings about both God and religion for years afterward.

 

All these people (and there are lots of others I can think of) were/are highly intellectual ("gifted", if you will, although I don't really think that "intellect" in terms of a measure of how one does on an IQ test is really of value, necessarily, in determining "giftedness"); all had/have their own personal responses to the idea of God; all have pretty non-traditional responses to God. That's not to say that plenty of folks who are intellectual don't also manage to embrace a more traditional take on religion, because many do. Lewis was part of the Church of England (I think; don't have time to check right now).

 

I'm beginning to think that being part of any kind of church family is meant as a tremendous, long-term exercise for us all in agape love. Most don't do too well with it. But if we did, we'd be in paradise, not on earth, so I guess it's a good thing to keep trying to perfect ourselves....

 

Gotta go!

Edited August 12, 2010 by mcconnellboys

[OnTheBrink]

Yes, in my perfect world, probing questions would be encouraged in church.

 

You should come to my church. Not only are questions allowed and encouraged during Bible study time, the pastor has set aside one afternoon and evening a week solely for the purpose of answering questions, or discussing anything someone has on their mind. One of the things I LOVE about my pastor is his willingness to be open to questions, even hard ones.

[MissKNG]

At my church, we have plenty of highly intelligent people who have put their faith in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

[Scarlett]

Aubrey, your threads always blow me away....by the time I read much of this thread I was totally lost on what you were wanting to know...I think YOU have a different sort of brain than most people....that is very interesting to me.

 

Anyway, I came back and read your first post here...I know I'm not gifted and not sure I know anyone who really is. :glare: There seems to be an unusually large number of gifted people on this board....I guess that is not surprising given it is a classical education homeschooling board.

 

I do know a set of twins who are probably gifted. They are now in their early 30s....I've known them since they were in diapers...I am very close to the wife of one of them. We were all raised in the same religion...both of these twins have left the religion. One for sure claiming he now doesn't believe in God. This has devastated my friend, his wife as you can imagine. We have discussed this issue at length and MY opinion on him is that he is arrogant. Intellectually arrogant. So I don't think the intelligence level really has anything to do with whether or not people embrace faith and/or religion. I think it has to do with an arrogance which I believe to be a character flaw.

 

I've had conversations with him that have nothing to do with religion and he exibits the same arrogance. Dismissive of me when my opinion differs. I'm thinking of the Dave Ramsey conversation we had. Dave Ramsey doesn't believe you should go in debt to go to college. He practically swatted at me like I was a fly that annoying him with that dribble. And he LIKES me. He likes me a lot. I don't much like him though. I believe he is arrogant and I don't like that trait.

 

So that is my two cents about the 'smartest' person I know. (IRL)

[justamouse]

 

SO...while it's one thing to talk about how one *comes to* faith with a gifted mind, I think there is a whole 'nuther conversation on how one *grows* amidst a congregation that is content to stay mindless seedlings...and how one *grows* a congregation from seedlings to thriving plants when they are so resistant to growing. I think your discontent may lie somewhere in the frustration of being amidst people who truly don't want to think, and don't care to grow...yet may say they do. I think giftedness only produces degrees of frustration...if that makes sense.

 

 

 

GOLD.

[Geek]

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. ;)

I think you are misunderstanding what logic is.

 

It's a tool, nothing more. But it's the best one we have if objectivity is our goal. It shows if things are falsifiable or not and allows you to make your best guess based on all available, verifiable information. That is how science works: Only falsifiable data is brought to the table, and it is sifted through to see what makes the most sense. No proclamations of *knowing* are made, unlike religion, which makes *knowing* about the unknown a regular occurrence. Not all religious people live this out, but plenty of them do.

 

If you really admire "people who know they don't know everything", look to those who are most neutral, the most objective. In my experience they are those who make decisions based on the odds extrapolated from available evidence, not those who start with assumptions and then say "If you don't have an answer, then my assumption must be true."

[Geek]

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 :(

I wasn't raised in the Catholic church but as an evangelical protestant. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

 

As for my daughter being given the reasons behind the Church's teachings, they do have an end, you know. You can ask, follow up on that lead, which leads to another...well, you know. Eventually it all boils down to some tough questions which, quite frankly, the RCC cannot answer despite the fact that it pretends it can.

 

You don't have to "suspend" your intellect to have faith in God. Faith and reason answer different types of questions.

 

Huh? They are mutually exclusive constructs. I have to suspect my intellect if I am to believe that a god definitively exists. Have you seen him/her/it? Seeing what someone calls "evidence of God's handiwork" isn't the same thing as seeing god.

 

If the five senses cannot be satisfied, then yes, logic most definitely must be suspended eventually in order to believe.

 

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 :)

Sorry, but I'm not following this.

 

I understand the mystery schtick. I really do. And I honestly have no problems with people basing their lives upon mystery! But it's all of the doctrines that are based on MYSTERY that leave me scratching my head. How can one take something rather shaky to begin with and then draw conclusions on down the line from that?*

 

You can't. It becomes a matter of placing one's trust in the Magesterium and its interpretations of the "evidence", which are really metaphysical ideas not physical evidence, word-of-mouth stories and not data.

 

 

*It's like the telephone game or photocopies made from photocopies of photocopies.

[Lovedtodeath]

If the five senses cannot be satisfied, then yes, logic most definitely must be suspended eventually in order to believe.

When I find a Pepsi can in the middle of the wilderness I assume that the object was designed and placed there by someone. I don't see the factory making the Pepsi cans, or the person who designed the soft drink, nor do I see the person who left it there... but I know that they all exist.

 

Really there are some things that we can't fathom or completely understand, or have all of the answers, but it comes down to balance. Some things we can.

 

I don't know if the JW explanation of the Garden of Eden is correct, or if Amy's is, but I understand enough. I don't know how it is possible for God to not have a beginning... but I also don't understand how He could have a beginning... anyway, just showing the way my mind balances these things. I hope that makes sense.

[justamouse]

I think you are misunderstanding what logic is.

 

It's a tool, nothing more. But it's the best one we have if objectivity is our goal. It shows if things are falsifiable or not and allows you to make your best guess based on all available, verifiable information. That is how science works: Only falsifiable data is brought to the table, and it is sifted through to see what makes the most sense. No proclamations of *knowing* are made, unlike religion, which makes *knowing* about the unknown a regular occurrence. Not all religious people live this out, but plenty of them do.

 

If you really admire "people who know they don't know everything", look to those who are most neutral, the most objective. In my experience they are those who make decisions based on the odds extrapolated from available evidence, not those who start with assumptions and then say "If you don't have an answer, then my assumption must be true."

 

Exactly.

 

When I find a Pepsi can in the middle of the wilderness I assume that the object was designed and placed there by someone. I don't see the factory making the Pepsi cans, or the person who designed the soft drink, nor do I see the person who left it there... but I know that they all exist.

 

Really there are some things that we can't fathom or completely understand, or have all of the answers, but it comes down to balance. Some things we can.

 

I don't know if the JW explanation of the Garden of Eden is correct, or if Amy's is, but I understand enough. I don't know how it is possible for God to not have a beginning... but I also don't understand how He could have a beginning... anyway, just showing the way my mind balances these things. I hope that makes sense.

 

People are not pepsi cans in the middle of the forest. Because I exist as a person does not mean I was placed here by God (that is what YOUR doctrine of belief says). I am a Christian and I believe in the big bang, and theistic evolution. But, just because I believe in theistic evolution doesn't mean that I *assume* (or logically conclude) that God is the beginning of it all. It is FOR ME, because that is the point of my spiritual (and logical) suspension of disbelief.

 

No proclamations of *knowing* are made, unlike religion, which makes *knowing* about the unknown a regular occurrence. Not all religious people live this out, but plenty of them do.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head here. Which is kind of funny when you think about it- how the ones who just want you to accept that you don't know it all and therefore should believe in God, but they know without proof that God is. And when there's questions that can't be answered, you should just accept it by faith.

 

It's OK to have faith and NOT accept everything out of hand because some Priest said so. That tension, the space between is OK. It's OK to say my faith goes to This line in the sand and no more. Churches need to be able to let those questions be asked. Otherwise they are going to loose people at a faster rate.

 

The Barna group studies church growth and statistics all things church. I can't find it this minute, but it's reported in there that church attendance is declining so rapidly that soon the amount of churches will be minimal BUT spirituality in America is increasing interest in spirituality. http://www.barna.org/faith-spirituality/325-barna-studies-the-research-offers-a-year-in-review-perspective

Edited August 13, 2010 by justamouse

[hmdavis02]

I had a response typed up for pm, but it was a bit too long... Difficult to be thorough in my answer and yet brief. I'll try to abbrieviate, or I can send it in two sections. PM me if you are interested--I don't want to fill your box and I see that you have had several replies already!

[Lovedtodeath]

People are not pepsi cans in the middle of the forest. Because I exist as a person does not mean I was placed here by God (that is what YOUR doctrine of belief says). I am a Christian and I believe in the big bang, and theistic evolution. But, just because I believe in theistic evolution doesn't mean that I *assume* (or logically conclude) that God is the beginning of it all. It is FOR ME, because that is the point of my spiritual (and logical) suspension of disbelief.

:001_huh: lol (at myself, not you)

 

What I am saying is that with origins, logic has to be hung up at some point, whether we believe God was the beginning or not.

 

I also don't know how the world was created... whether it was thousands of years or 144 hours... but I do find that studying it has strengthened my faith even though I still don't have a conclusive answer, and I have more respect for those who believe differently as a result as well.

Edited August 13, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[justamouse]

 

What I am saying is that with origins, logic has to be hung up at some point, whether we believe God was the beginning or not.

 

 

If you are going to believe in God, very true. But it's ok to have those questions remain. It's ok to carry that tension of not quite believing. I believe God is big enough to handle the questions and the tension.

[Mejane]

I think it is interesting that so many people set out to believe something in particular, Christianity being the topic of conversation here. I can think of reasons why, but I still find it perplexing.

 

Rosie

 

I, too, find it interesting. My beliefs arise out of my reality, not the other way around.

[Lovedtodeath]

If you are going to believe in God, very true. But it's ok to have those questions remain. It's ok to carry that tension of not quite believing. I believe God is big enough to handle the questions and the tension.

Yes. :cheers2: I agree.

[simka2]

I think Adam ate too because he had been commanded to cleave unto his wife. If she was getting kicked out he was going with her. After she ate he couldn't keep both the commandment not to eat and the commandment to cleave unto his wife, he had to pick one.

 

I also think that Adam and Eve were never intended to stay in the garden forever. We are told in the Bible (1 Peter 1:20 for example) that Jesus was chosen as the Redeemer "before the foundation of the world". No Redemption is needed if there is no Fall. I think the Fall was part of the plan all along, otherwise why provide a Redeemer before even creating the world? Christ was not a stop-gap emergency back-up plan when things went wrong, Christ WAS the plan--from the very, very beginning before the world was.

 

I've always been intrigued by the tree in the garden. And by Satan's presence there. Obviously an all-knowing, all-powerful God could have kept Satan out. So why didn't he? I think God used Satan to move God's plan forward. He gave Adam and Eve commandments, but He also gave them the ability to choose for themselves (obviously, because they DID choose--had they lacked the capacity to choose they would not have been able to make a choice; they chose, therefore they had the ability to choose). Only, they needed something to choose between. I think that's why that tree was there, to give them something to make choices about. And Satan was allowed to up the ante. I think Satan thought he was messing things up for God, but God turned it around on him and used Satan's scheming to forward God's own agenda. I think God does that a lot, actually. I do wonder sometimes whether God would have commanded them to eat from the tree at some point if they hadn't decided to break the rules.

 

One thing that intrigues me about the tree (and I hope nobody will take this as official doctrine of any sort, this is totally my own train of thought) has to do with some things I've learned about human development. Having a child who is NOT developing "typically" has opened up a whole new field of inquiry for me that I would likely not otherwise have ever really delved into. When we were first pursuing a diagnosis and the evaluation process included reams of papers full of questions with little dots to blacken, and lots of interviews with various professionals, two questions kept coming up that rather puzzled me at first. One was along the lines of, "Does he ever just out and defy you? Does he stick his chin out and say 'NO!' and flatly refuse to do whatever it is you asked him?" When I would respond that he could be the most defiant little booger you ever saw and it was incredibly frustrating they would say, "Whew! Well that's a relief anyway!" The other question was, "Is he better behaved for other people than he is for you? Does he mind a babysitter or his grandma, for example, and then scream and yell and defy you?" When I replied in the affirmative, and often to the extreme, again the reply was, "Excellent! We're so glad to hear that!" In relation to these questions I was asked in detail about the rules at our house. Did we have rules? Did we enforce the rules? How did we enforce the rules? When I asked about these particular lines of questions I was told something that's really stuck with me. Children NEED rules in order for their minds to develop properly. They need rules partly so that they have something to say "no" to. That annoying stage when they're about two and they start saying "no" to everything you tell them to do is a critical developmental milestone. If they never break the rules, never say "no", and are always compliant, that is a HUGE red flag developmentally. The fact that my son was aggravatingly defiant at age 5 was evidence that he had at least reached that milestone and it meant a much happier prognosis for the future than otherwise expected. The fact that he was a horrific little brat for me, but could behave himself for other people, at least in some approximation, was also an extremely positive sign developmentally and an indicator of a strong mother-child relationship. Evidently children do this when their mental capacity is developed to a particular degree (again, it's a milestone they look for) AND when they have a high level of trust for their primary caregiver. They are "good" for other people because they fear what might happen if they're not, whereas with their caregiver they know there will be negative consequences for their naughty behavior but they ALSO have come to trust that the caregiver loves them and has their best interest at heart, will still love them even if they're "bad", and will keep them ultimately safe, even within the parameters of the negative consequences. In other words, the "trust" aspect of the relationship gives them the confidence to explore their emerging self-identity. The defiance is in some ways an exploration of where does Mom, and Mom's will stop, and me and my own will begin? And they have to play with that a bit to discover who they are and how they operate. But in order for that developmental stage to happen, there has to be something for them to say "no" about, and there has to be somebody they feel safe saying "no" to. Apparently some parents, when they find out that their child is developmentally disabled, will just drop all rules and expectations for that child because they're "broken" and won't be able to obey anyway. So the developmental folks we were working with at the time made a really big point of making sure we understood that if a child is in an environment where there are NO rules or expectations, it interferes with his mental development and messes with his ability to develop a self-identity. Rules should be clear and developmentally appropriate, but are absolutely essential to development.

 

This has made me really wonder about that tree in the garden. God knew about human development. God CREATED humans. I can't help but wonder if that tree was there so that Adam and Eve had a "rule" to help them develop to the point where they could say, "no" within a relationship of trust. And yes, the negative consequences they were warned about did happen--they became mortal, able to die, and had to leave the garden. But even that was within the parameters of ultimate safety, as God had already provided a Savior for them.

 

Dunno...things that are interesting to muse about.

 

Just wanted to say that I loved this post!!!! I have been thinking a lot about the tree lately myself. I realized that I really struggled with the idea that a loving Father God could put a potentially eternally harmful substance near his kiddos, with a simple warning of "Do not eat!"

 

As a staff pastors wife I did ask this ? of our senior pastor and his response was similar to yours. First, he smiled and said..."So, you won't be satisfied with the old stand by...if there isn't a choice then it not real love?" :D Then he basically said what you just did...and reminded me that it is great to question things, and we don't always know what God's long term plan was for them in the Garden.

 

Anyway, thanks for the great post!

[Rosie_0801]

I, too, find it interesting. My beliefs arise out of my reality, not the other way around.

 

Uh huh :) It was a nice surprise when I learned there was a name for what I already thought. (And I don't need to be told that some religious people do the same. I'm talking about the ones who are trying to believe something they know they don't believe. Maybe I'm just lazy, but I'd have given up already.)

 

:)

Rosie