Narcissism and theology (CC)

[J-rap]

Or maybe, our interpretation of sin is unprepared.

 

How do you know what claims of your faith you can trust if something as basic as "sin" can be misunderstood and misrepresented? 

 

That's kind of what I was getting at.  Our understanding of faith evolves.

 

 

 

Exactly.  How can we possibly know what we do not know? 

 

By asking questions and exploring the answers in a systematic, objective way that works to eliminate superfluous variables and personal bias. 

 

I was simply reaffirming what you said:  

 

"If we recognize the possibility that people with genuine NPD are incapable of recognizing their offenses (and comment after comment here attest to this idea), then how can they be expected to repent?"

 

 

 

Agreed.

 

[EmseB]

Not quite. Brain chemistry tells us more about the human condition than any ancient, religious texts. If these ancient religious texts were accurate about the human condition, it wouldn't be so far off the mark with regard to mental health issues.

How do you think it's off the mark? In what ways? The Bible says the human condition is one of brokenness. I'm not sure how that doesn't also encompasses mental illness. I still get the sense that you're saying ancient texts should say something about specific brain issues that wouldn't or couldn't be understood given the circumstances of the times (no mri's, no blood tests, etc).

[albeto.]

How do you think it's off the mark? In what ways? The Bible says the human condition is one of brokenness. I'm not sure how that doesn't also encompasses mental illness. I still get the sense that you're saying ancient texts should say something about specific brain issues that wouldn't or couldn't be understood given the circumstances of the times (no mri's, no blood tests, etc).

 

There exists no evidence of any broken state of nature, or the pre-broken state of nature from which to compare. There exists no evidence for living multiple lives, the force called "karma," or the power of the evil eye, yet one of these beliefs is more likely to be held to a standard of excellence that is taken for granted and systematically ignored when proven false by people in this community. For the same reason you might not accept the personal appeals of members on a forum that are sure Karma is a viable force that can affect your next life, I have no reason to accept your personal appeals. It's simply personal belief, and it increasingly goes against what we do know.

 

The more we understand mental illness, the more we see biology, the process of evolution, at work, not a vague, unidentified, undefined sense of "brokenness." We address mental illnesses with information gained from methodical study, not reading ancient texts or ancient scholars explaining their interpretations of the texts. Information gleanebible stories and science are incompatible with each other. The only way to make them seem compatible is to render religious stories to allegories and symbolism. The god of the gaps gets smaller and smaller, and now he's hiding behind synapses in the brain. Churches will no doubt figure out how to keep up, or else they will lose their membership base, but if the bible actually had the answer, mental health would have been addressed two millenia ago. 

 

If the ancient texts are what they claim to be - divine revelation - then the information revealed shouldn't be found false when put to the test. As it is, there's not a single claim of divine revelation in those texts that stand up to scrutiny. At best the claims can't be confirmed or denied by science, but logically and historically, they're... problematic at best. As a whole, it's a terribly unreliable source with regard to understanding the human condition. It's off the mark in any way that that can be held accountable to reality. 

[EmseB]

 

 

The more we understand mental illness, the more we see biology, the process of evolution, at work, not a vague, unidentified, undefined sense of "brokenness." We address mental illnesses with information gained from methodical study, not reading ancient texts or ancient scholars explaining their interpretations of the texts.

 

 

Of course we don't use theology or philosophy texts to address the biological aspects of mental illness.  I have agreed with this point over and over again.  But, you continue to conflate the three disciplines of study as if one negates the other two.

 

There does have to be some moral standard of how to treat (not as in treat medically, but treat as in how do we interact with them socially) people that are "socially difficult" beyond the medical science, though.  So, in those instances you must appeal to some kind of philosophy or theology (which is what this thread is about -- how do we treat those who treat us poorly because of biological problems with the brain?).  Medical science cannot make those moral judgements.

Edited January 9, 2016 by JodiSue

[albeto.]

Of course we don't use theology or philosophy texts to address the biological aspects of mental illness.  I have agreed with this point over and over again.  But, you continue to conflate the three disciplines of study as if one negates the other two.

 

I'm not talking about the biological aspects of mental illness. The founding documents of the xian religion don't mention mental health at all. Instead, it mentions "sin" and "demons" as causes to inappropriate behavior. There is zero evidence either of these are actual things. It didn't just miss the mark here, it steered it in a completely useless direction.

 

One does negate the other. The both are competing forms of discovery and knowledge. One has a track record of being increasingly relegated to philosophy while the other has a track record of producing reliable information that can be used in practical ways. 

 

There does have to be some moral standard of how to treat people that are "socially difficult" beyond the medical science, though.  So, in those instances you must appeal to some kind of philosophy or theology (which is what this thread is about -- how do we treat those who treat us poorly because of biological problems with the brain?).  Medical science cannot make those moral judgements.

 

Medical science doesn't provide moral standards of any kind, but it does provide information. I maintain that our society develops its moral code increasingly outside the parameters of religion precisely because information is more appropriate than religion, and it gives us the opportunity to extend our desired, natural sympathy more. Science tells us a person's behavior is due to a specific condition, a condition that precludes the application of any demonology. Condition treated, behavior reduced. Demons exorcised, behavior unchanged.

 

This is the basis of our moral code - what helps the well-being of others? What decreases unjustified and avoidable pain and suffering? Religious texts are not only unnecessary, they're increasingly rejected as being immoral. For example, we don't generally encourage parents to exorcise children with behavioral problems. Instead we encourage them to take their children to scientists for advice. Consequently, we are decreasingly supportive of physical means to "encourage" a child to "make a better choice," even as the bible promotes the idea that behavior is inspired by the strength of righteousness or sin inspiring the "will," and claims physical punishment may spare the child's eternal soul (which in turn results in more compliant child). Science not only dismisses this as stuff and nonsense, it offers alternatives that provide a more practical, consistent, morally acceptable approach. 

[EmseB]

I'm not talking about the biological aspects of mental illness. The founding documents of the xian religion don't mention mental health at all. Instead, it mentions "sin" and "demons" as causes to inappropriate behavior. There is zero evidence either of these are actual things. It didn't just miss the mark here, it steered it in a completely useless direction.

 

One does negate the other. The both are competing forms of discovery and knowledge. One has a track record of being increasingly relegated to philosophy while the other has a track record of producing reliable information that can be used in practical ways. 

 

 

Medical science doesn't provide moral standards of any kind, but it does provide information. I maintain that our society develops its moral code increasingly outside the parameters of religion precisely because information is more appropriate than religion, and it gives us the opportunity to extend our desired, natural sympathy more. Science tells us a person's behavior is due to a specific condition, a condition that precludes the application of any demonology. Condition treated, behavior reduced. Demons exorcised, behavior unchanged.

 

This is the basis of our moral code - what helps the well-being of others? What decreases unjustified and avoidable pain and suffering? Religious texts are not only unnecessary, they're increasingly rejected as being immoral. For example, we don't generally encourage parents to exorcise children with behavioral problems. Instead we encourage them to take their children to scientists for advice. Consequently, we are decreasingly supportive of physical means to "encourage" a child to "make a better choice," even as the bible promotes the idea that behavior is inspired by the strength of righteousness or sin inspiring the "will," and claims physical punishment may spare the child's eternal soul (which in turn results in more compliant child). Science not only dismisses this as stuff and nonsense, it offers alternatives that provide a more practical, consistent, morally acceptable approach. 

 

 

Sin does cause mental illness.  And physical illness.  And every physical and emotional grievance anyone has on this earth.  That doesn't negate the fact that mental illness can be biologically caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.  That physical problem is a result of sin.  Sin isn't confined to some type of behavioral issue (as Carol said above) that all of us have control over.  The Bible doesn't teach that at all.  It doesn't teach that behavior is a strength of righteousness from any given individual.  It teaches sin has afflicted all of creation, physically and spiritually.  I get that you disagree with that premise, but it is helpful to get the premise correct if you're going to discuss it.

 

No, the Bible doesn't talk specifically about mental health.  It does talk about how to treat people who treat you poorly.  It talks about how to deal with difficult people, how to love others, and how to walk away when necessary.  I'm sure you already know that.

 

Philosophy/theology are not competing forms of knowledge discovery.  Science is knowledge discovery.  Philosophy/theology apply the abstract concepts to the information discovered.  I am really starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

 

To the bolded: science does nothing of the kind.  I agreed with that sentence until you got to the last point.  If you are doing science and it's telling you if stuff is morally acceptable, you're doing it wrong.

 

Related, the basis of everyone's moral code is not "what helps the well-being of others".  I can cite specific people groups that exist right now in the world, entire societies, that do not believe in this moral code.  Who are you speaking of when you say "our"?  How do you determine if something helps or hinders someone's well being?  What if you do something that helps person A's well-being, but comes at the expense of person B?  What if it helps persons A, B, C, D, E, F, and G's well-being but comes at the expense of person H?  How do you weigh the benefits person A receives against the detractors from person B's well-being?  How do you weigh the benefits of doing something to person H that will help A-G, but hurts person H?  How do you determine justified or unjustified?  What's justified to you maybe entirely unjust to someone else.  You can't reject a religious philosophy as being immoral without supplanting it with another moral standard or philosophy (as you've clearly done, given your assertions of such here).  Moral standards as abstract concepts must come from outside the realms of science.

 

Matter, chemistry and physics cannot be moral or immoral on their own.  Matter, which simply reacts to physical forces in the universe is completely amoral.  Science simply tells us what is happening.  It cannot pass judgement on if what is happening is good.

 

You have to have a philosophical definition for all the abstract terms you are using, then you have to make a philosophical, theological, or moral argument that any of it can be termed "good" or "bad".  Pain is simply a nerve response in the body.  It cannot be judged, without an outside standard of morality, as good or bad.  It may cause someone pain to, for example, tell them that they cannot live in your house anymore because they are being abusive.  Most people would say that is not immoral, but some people would say it is immoral to cause someone that sort of pain.  Science can't supply an answer to whether those specific decisions are right or wrong, bad or good, moral or immoral.  It can't even tell us definitively that such a consequence would help a mentally ill person.  Science does not deal in the abstract.  It tells us how pain is caused, how we perceive it, what biological and chemical mechanisms are in place, but it does not say "good" or "bad".  We humans have to appeal to something outside the physical in order to determine that.  Clearly you have done so in order to form a moral framework.  So has everyone else.  But your argument falls apart then, when you say that science negates philosophy or theology.  You have to have the latter in order to make the kind of judgements you make about religion.  You have judged religion to be immoral based on your own philosophical standards.  But that's not performing scientific study.  It's simply your opinion based on a philosophy you hold to be true, based on information you have gleaned from what pain is, what happens when x is done, etc.  Not to mention, through all of this, science hasn't led to much morality anyway.  Shock therapy?  Lobotomies?  Scopolamine?  Those are not religiously based treatments for mental illness, although they do, frighteningly enough come from your perspective of "condition treated, behavior reduced".  But, again, you have to have the abstract to say that those things are morally wrong, because morality is an abstract concept.

 

It's funny, though, that given what I've seen of your position on all of this that you continue to design arguments over and over again as if you are more than simply matter reacting with and upon itself.  It's almost as if you post as if these things are somehow eternally or otherwise significant in the grand scheme of the universe.  You post as if these arguments come from a point of intelligent design.  As if somehow we are all more than our simple physical selves and morality (specifically your moral standard) does, somehow, make a difference in the long term sense.  You must have thought to pull back and apply your argument to the meta, which includes you yourself making these very arguments?

Edited January 9, 2016 by JodiSue

[TranquilMind]

I think Pharoah in Moses' day is the example of NPD. His heart was hardened and could not receive grace. Not that God didn't offer...

 

Lisa mentioned missionaries, and I'll add that the pastorate is the perfect position for the NPD. Total power over a mini-kingdom, and if anyone questions him he can claim God told him so.  Who can trump God, right?

 

These people are false prophets, and I do believe there is a special fiery spot in he## for the ohsospecial who use their position for spiritual abuse (not to mention the other kinds of abuse).

 

Repentance is required for forgiveness. NPD's cannot even admit they did anything wrong, let alone repent.  They have set themselves up as some sort of god in their own eyes, and you cannot argue with a god.

 

 

ETA: This is a timely piece of work.  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/05/listen-to-the-reasons-these-two-televangelists-give-for-needing-their-own-private-jets-weve-got-to-have-this/

If God said it, He said it to multiple witnesses, not just the pastor.  He will tell me.  He won't tell the Pastor to tell me to do something (not talking about general sermons that we should be kind, not sin, etc).  I mean specifically.  God will never tell the Pastor to tell me that I am supposed to fill a position or give a bunch of money or lead something without telling me also.  He confirms His Word with two or three witnesses. 

 

So I agree.  False prophets do this. 

 

I'm still uncomfortable hurling around diagnoses for mean-spirited people.  Some people are just plain mean, for various reasons.

[TranquilMind]

Sin does cause mental illness.  And physical illness.  And every physical and emotional grievance anyone has on this earth.  That doesn't negate the fact that mental illness can be biologically caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.  That physical problem is a result of sin.  Sin isn't confined to some type of behavioral issue (as Carol said above) that all of us have control over.  The Bible doesn't teach that at all.  It doesn't teach that behavior is a strength of righteousness from any given individual.  It teaches sin has afflicted all of creation, physically and spiritually.  I get that you disagree with that premise, but it is helpful to get the premise correct if you're going to discuss it.

 

No, the Bible doesn't talk specifically about mental health.  It does talk about how to treat people who treat you poorly.  It talks about how to deal with difficult people, how to love others, and how to walk away when necessary.  I'm sure you already know that.

 

Philosophy/theology are not competing forms of knowledge discovery.  Science is knowledge discovery.  Philosophy/theology apply the abstract concepts to the information discovered.  I am really starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

 

To the bolded: science does nothing of the kind.  I agreed with that sentence until you got to the last point.  If you are doing science and it's telling you if stuff is morally acceptable, you're doing it wrong.  (snip)

 

Related, the basis of everyone's moral code is not "what helps the well-being of others".  I can cite specific people groups that exist right now in the world, entire societies, that do not believe in this moral code.  Who are you speaking of when you say "our"?  How do you determine if something helps or hinders someone's well being?  What if you do something that helps person A's well-being, but comes at the expense of person B?  What if it helps persons A, B, C, D, E, F, and G's well-being but comes at the expense of person H?  How do you weigh the benefits person A receives against the detractors from person B's well-being?  How do you weigh the benefits of doing something to person H that will help A-G, but hurts person H?  How do you determine justified or unjustified?  What's justified to you maybe entirely unjust to someone else.  You can't reject a religious philosophy as being immoral without supplanting it with another moral standard or philosophy (as you've clearly done, given your assertions of such here).  Moral standards as abstract concepts must come from outside the realms of science.

 

Matter, chemistry and physics cannot be moral or immoral on their own.  Matter, which simply reacts to physical forces in the universe is completely amoral.  Science simply tells us what is happening.  It cannot pass judgement on if what is happening is good.

 

You have to have a philosophical definition for all the abstract terms you are using, then you have to make a philosophical, theological, or moral argument that any of it can be termed "good" or "bad".  Pain is simply a nerve response in the body.  It cannot be judged, without an outside standard of morality, as good or bad.  It may cause someone pain to, for example, tell them that they cannot live in your house anymore because they are being abusive.  Most people would say that is not immoral, but some people would say it is immoral to cause someone that sort of pain.  Science can't supply an answer to whether those specific decisions are right or wrong, bad or good, moral or immoral.  It can't even tell us definitively that such a consequence would help a mentally ill person.  Science does not deal in the abstract.  It tells us how pain is caused, how we perceive it, what biological and chemical mechanisms are in place, but it does not say "good" or "bad".  We humans have to appeal to something outside the physical in order to determine that.  Clearly you have done so in order to form a moral framework.  So has everyone else.  But your argument falls apart then, when you say that science negates philosophy or theology.  You have to have the latter in order to make the kind of judgements you make about religion.  You have judged religion to be immoral based on your own philosophical standards.  But that's not performing scientific study.  It's simply your opinion based on a philosophy you hold to be true, based on information you have gleaned from what pain is, what happens when x is done, etc.  Not to mention, through all of this, science hasn't led to much morality anyway.  Shock therapy?  Lobotomies?  Scopolamine?  Those are not religiously based treatments for mental illness, although they do, frighteningly enough come from your perspective of "condition treated, behavior reduced".  But, again, you have to have the abstract to say that those things are morally wrong, because morality is an abstract concept.

 

It's funny, though, that given what I've seen of your position on all of this that you continue to design arguments over and over again as if you are more than simply matter reacting with and upon itself.  It's almost as if you post as if these things are somehow eternally or otherwise significant in the grand scheme of the universe.  You post as if these arguments come from a point of intelligent design.  As if somehow we are all more than our simple physical selves and morality (specifically your moral standard) does, somehow, make a difference in the long term sense.  You must have thought to pull back and apply your argument to the meta, which includes you yourself making these very arguments?

Excellent post.  Absolutely. 

[albeto.]

Sin does cause mental illness.  And physical illness.  And every physical and emotional grievance anyone has on this earth. 

 

There is no evidence for this. The evidence we have for the causes of illnesses, mental and physical, are easily verified. Unless you're suggesting "sin" is a kind of virus or bacteria or gut fauna or chemical reaction, your premise makes no sense. Your personal belief that it's true despite the evidence to the contrary is simply awkward. I don't know what to do with it. It's no different from having a discussion with a Scientologist who assures me mental health illnesses are due to untapped past experiences, influenced by thetans that are wreaking havoc with our minds. Or a Buddhist assuring me mental health illness is a matter of karma due to offenses made in past lives.

 

I honestly don't know what to do with this. It's awfully weird. From my perspective, you've announced that you disregard information and reason and any rational approach to understanding anything insofar as it disagrees with what you want to be true. What am I supposed to do with this? 

 

By the logic of your claim "physical problem is a result of sin," we must conclude sin causes chemical imbalances, (including, like you said, those that create mental health challenges). That would be unbelievably easy to confirm. A 5th grade science fair project could set up a control group for sin with regard to chemical reactions. The entire laws of physics would be illuminated as mistakes, illusions at best. Chemistry, physics, goodness, even the mathematical explanation for all science would need to be scrapped, as "sin" would become the Most Important Variable, with the ability to negate the laws of physics at any given moment. Certain passages in the bible would be interpreted without question, there would be an end to all denominations, and One True Xian Religion would survive. Passages that state the one who is born again is impervious to temptation and does not sin, would be the criteria for all medical staff all over the world. It would be a means by which medical science would be rendered nothing more than an interesting hobby, for controlling sin (which the bible says is possible), would be the solution to problems. That is, if we took this claim seriously and actually applied the logic.

 

But again, this is just plain awkward. Is this really the conversation you're proposing? Narcissism is a direct result of sin? If that's the case, why not simply exorcise the demons who negatively influence the individual with NPD, and persuade him or her to repent and be born again. Again and again, if necessary? 

 

No, the Bible doesn't talk specifically about mental health.  It does talk about how to treat people who treat you poorly.  It talks about how to deal with difficult people, how to love others, and how to walk away when necessary.  I'm sure you already know that.

 

I do know it. I also know xians increasingly reject certain parts of the bible as they are increasingly understood to advocate treating people in an immoral and socially unacceptable way. Some examples include human trafficking, slavery, beating children, systematic oppression of women and LGBTQ. This shows xians have a moral code that not only develops apart from the faith, but actually affects the faith.

 

Philosophy/theology are not competing forms of knowledge discovery.  Science is knowledge discovery.  Philosophy/theology apply the abstract concepts to the information discovered.  I am really starting to think you're being deliberately obtuse here.

 

Religion claims to extract new information via divine revelation.

 

Science, on the other hand, is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work [more here].

 

One claims divine revelation (god says so), the other is a systematic approach that relies on objective observation, formulating hypotheses, experimentation, collection and analysis of data, peer review of conclusions of experimentation, etc. The first is a matter of belief, the second is a matter of information. They are not compatible. In the event they are both accepted, one capitulates to the other. In time, xians generally continue to accept science by demoting divine revelation to allegory. The age of the earth is an example. Understanding mental illness is another. 

 

I'm not being obtuse, I'm simply not pretending that a religious person accepting a scientific claim means the two are compatible methods of understanding the world. One has to be silenced for the other to be accepted.

 

For the sake of clarification, I didn't suggest science "tell you stuff is morally acceptable." I am saying science tells you stuff, a moral code (I guess philosophy?) tells you if it's acceptable to apply this stuff in that way.

 

I'm saying that moral code exists outside of, and despite, the bible (or any religion or its documents). 

 

Related, the basis of everyone's moral code is not "what helps the well-being of others".  I can cite specific people groups that exist right now in the world, entire societies, that do not believe in this moral code.  Who are you speaking of when you say "our"?  How do you determine if something helps or hinders someone's well being?  What if you do something that helps person A's well-being, but comes at the expense of person B?  What if it helps persons A, B, C, D, E, F, and G's well-being but comes at the expense of person H?  How do you weigh the benefits person A receives against the detractors from person B's well-being?  How do you weigh the benefits of doing something to person H that will help A-G, but hurts person H?  How do you determine justified or unjustified?  What's justified to you maybe entirely unjust to someone else.  You can't reject a religious philosophy as being immoral without supplanting it with another moral standard or philosophy (as you've clearly done, given your assertions of such here).  Moral standards as abstract concepts must come from outside the realms of science.

 

I would be interested in knowing specific groups of people that exist right now in the world that lack empathy or social bonds (simplified as "helping the well-being of others"). Empathy is a natural product of our evolution, and while some people may lack these elements (ie, psychopaths), entire societies do not. It would be like suggesting entire societies lack the ability to walk because some people are paralyzed. This "selfish gene" of ours is as natural as walking on two legs, or communication through speech, and refers to protecting the interests of our kin and community with the same effort with which we protect our own interests. I suspect if you provide such a group, you will attribute their behavior as immoral, and conclude they do not have morality, rather than concluding their moral code looks differently from yours. But it's quite a claim to make, an entire society lacks morality. I'd be interested in hearing who you think lacks morality, empathy, and a desire to protect the self interests of their group.

 

As far as your other questions, some people refer to a net sum approach. Some may include individuals, some include the needs of the community, some exclude emotional consideration, some assume an eternal time frame, assuming a mind that is cognizant of it's well-being long after its body dies. We all do the same thing, more or less, but apply different variables in place. We see may identify different people as victims, or pain as being justified or not, but we approach this in the same way. Your bible didn't invent morality, it simply gave it new vocabulary (such as, "love thy neighbor as thyself" which is the selfish gene, only translated through ancient Hebrew). Your religious community moved on and evolved its moral code over the years, which is why your church community looks very different from a church community 1000 years ago on a different continent altogether, and why it looks different from other church communities today, within 100 miles of your home. 

 

I've shared it before, but I think it's always worth reviewing. Sam Harris, neurologist and philosopher, addresses the question about science and morality here:

 

 

 

We humans have to appeal to something outside the physical in order to determine that.  Clearly you have done so in order to form a moral framework.  So has everyone else.  But your argument falls apart then, when you say that science negates philosophy or theology.  You have to have the latter in order to make the kind of judgements you make about religion.  You have judged religion to be immoral based on your own philosophical standards.  But that's not performing scientific study.  It's simply your opinion based on a philosophy you hold to be true, based on information you have gleaned from what pain is, what happens when x is done, etc.  Not to mention, through all of this, science hasn't led to much morality anyway.  Shock therapy?  Lobotomies?  Scopolamine?  Those are not religiously based treatments for mental illness, although they do, frighteningly enough come from your perspective of "condition treated, behavior reduced".  But, again, you have to have the abstract to say that those things are morally wrong, because morality is an abstract concept.

 

Thus far there is no evidence for anything "outside the physical." Actually, how could there be? All our methods of exploring the world rely on observing and measuring and analyzing information through physical tools. If there's something "outside the physical," we wouldn't know. We might speculate, but then any speculation would be held accountable to reality anyway, which requires physical tools. I disagree that it's "clear" that I've appealed to something "outside the physical." If you're talking more demons, then what can I do at this point but shrug my shoulders and say, "huh"? Surely I'm not appealing to the god of your bible. I find that character to be wholly  devoid of moral fiber. 

 

I'm not suggesting I've performed a scientific study to conclude religion is immoral. That's an odd turn of a phrase anyway. Religion is a means by which one tries to understand the world. Its claims have been notoriously discredited throughout time, from the idea that tsunamis and hurricanes are the product of an angry Neptune, to lightning being cast down by the Mighty Hammer of Thor, to the idea Jews made a grand exodus out of Egypt, these ideas have been replaced with factual information that renders these claims to be nothing more than insightful allegories, when convenient. Scientific explanations render religious claims useless, and I think logic and reason render them immoral.

 

The argument that science inspired lobotomies and other bad practices isn't an argument against science, and it certainly isn't an argument for religion. It's a logical fallacy, actually, but it is an illustration of practical application of knowledge, good or bad, and shows the value of increasing knowledge, as well as the value of making sure we apply knowledge carefully and considerately. But again, we agree that science doesn't make any claims to morality, so this is another awkward example.

 

It's funny, though, that given what I've seen of your position on all of this that you continue to design arguments over and over again as if you are more than simply matter reacting with and upon itself.  It's almost as if you post as if these things are somehow eternally or otherwise significant in the grand scheme of the universe.  You post as if these arguments come from a point of intelligent design.  As if somehow we are all more than our simple physical selves and morality (specifically your moral standard) does, somehow, make a difference in the long term sense.  You must have thought to pull back and apply your argument to the meta, which includes you yourself making these very arguments?

 

How do I suggest I am more than simply matter reacting with and upon itself? Can you give me some examples? Things are as significant as we determent them to be. A burqa is significant to a woman who genuinely desires to express her faith in a public manner, but it is of a different significance to me. There is no external source that defines the significance of things, like it's our job to find it out. Or, if there is, it certainly cannot be found with any reliability, and so anyone's guess is as good as anthers', only so far as it confirms with reality. Once a claim loses credibility by denying reality, then there's no need to continue promoting it.

 

I believe there is utmost significance in humanity, I guess. I think the human experience is simply too awesome (as in, creates a feeling of awe) and is such a spectacular lottery of chance to be taken for granted, oppressed, or denied unjustly. I think there are certain ideas that support humanity more than others, such as free speech, free education, freedom to participate in government, and freedom from religious indoctrination, to name a few. These are ideas, open to criticism and change as benefits humanity (individually and collectively). I suppose that's the "greater scheme of things" for me, insofar as it extends beyond me and my family and immediate access. I don't think that's indicative of intelligent design though, as these concepts have been developed through the process of logical and reasonable arguments, rational thinking, and information.

Edited January 9, 2016 by albeto.

[EmseB]

Ok, have a good day, albeto. It was a good discussion while it lasted. :)

[albeto.]

better?

[EmseB]

Yes, but honestly I feel like we're going around in circles at this point. I do appreciate the gesture, though.

[albeto.]

I don't agree these are circles. They're claims made, claims challenged, then... silence.

 

One piece of evidence would make a world of difference. 

[Carol in Cal.]

There is a lot of evidence and reasonable argumentation in this thread.  You simply refuse to ever acknowledge any of it, and when you are bested you drop that line of argument without acknowledging any opposing points, even when proven wrong, and assert a different one, at great length.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Circles indeed.

 

Ironically, this quote from John Morley applies:  "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."

 

 

Edited January 10, 2016 by Carol in Cal.

[Liz CA]

If these two are extremes, I waffle between them.  I have had very firm boundaries with this person, because she wasn't my first experience with a personality disorder.  But I've wondered, in the midst of recent family drama where I have struggled to stay out of it and keep my mouth shut, if God condemns her.  I would assume based on the Bible that the answer is yes, but I don't like that answer.  I suppose it's impossible for me to know if she can control herself and is therefore evil or if she's simply an inevitable result of a combination of genetics and similar behavior from her mother, so it's impossible for me to judge her.  All I can do is keep her away from my family. Sorry the question was so inarticulate.

 

Chiming in late here...but one can be non-judgmental yet protect oneself or family from physical, verbal or emotional abuse. What God "does" with her is entirely up to Him. You, however, have every right to protect yourself and perhaps even an obligation to protect your children, especially if they are young. Not sure I understand all the undercurrents here but you mentioned one person who is dear to you and rather affected by this. Encourage and affirm this person and let her know that your love and support will always be there for her.

[albeto.]

There is a lot of evidence and reasonable argumentation in this thread.  You simply refuse to ever acknowledge any of it, and when you are bested you drop that line of argument without acknowledging any opposing points, even when proven wrong, and assert a different one, at great length.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  Circles indeed.

 

Ironically, this quote from John Morley applies:  "You have not converted a man because you have silenced him."

 

I asked for evidence for the soul. It was ignored.

 

I asked for evidence that our world is "fallen," or compatibility between science and religion. The response was an appeal to incredulity at best, but basically boiled down to "it works for me." Surely we can agree "it works for me" isn't evidence in any other situation. We don't consider astrology to be an accurate science because it "works for me." Xians don't consider Islam to be a true representation of "the one true god" even though it "works" for Muslims. This isn't evidence, it's another appeal to trust. Can you imagine how awful that would be if all evidence worked that way? "Trust me, I know how to operate on your son." "Trust me, I know how to turn on this nuclear reactor." "Trust me, I've been to the future and have come back to tell you how to get rich, for a nominal fee of course."

 

Eventually, I was told I was trying to apply evidence to a theological viewpoint. That's not sharing evidence, it's excusing the need for evidence!

 

I asked for evidence for a "broken state" in nature, and my appeal was ignored.

 

I said there is no evidence for the claim that "sin" causes mental illness (a claim I've come to expect most xians to deny, any more than "sin" causes cancer, birth defects, or cataracts). I also reminded JodiSue there is no evidence for anything existing "outside the physical," and the reply to that was, "have a good day."

 

Are you suggesting "it works for me" is a superior argument to evidence when supporting a claim?

 

I'm showing you there was no evidence in this thread, and the reasons boiled down to "it works for me," which xians themselves don't accept from others. If there has been evidence and I didn't acknowledge it, kindly provide it again. I'm taking the time to do this in hopes someone will take these questions seriously. It seems as soon as these claims are put on the spot, either "trust me" is the most valuable piece of evidence there is, or evidence is suddenly completely unnecessary. These questions are of utmost importance if mental health is a problem for the church, and we see it is. If the answer is as JodiSue suggests ("sin" is the cause), the solution would be clear. It would also be effective, and mental health issues would have been eradicated by now.

 

I'm not sure why the quote is relevant. No one has been silenced.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I'm not sure why the quote is relevant. No one has been silenced.

The only answer you ever accept is silence.  Again, when you are bested you fail to acknowledge this and simply switch aggressively to another line of argumentation.  People have engaged with you in detail, and at length on this thread.  You have mischaracterized and belittled them and they have responded kindly.  There is no obvious alternative to agreeing to disagree when that happens over and over again, circularly.  To characterize that as unresponsive silence is profoundly inaccurate and quite unkind.

 

 

 

[albeto.]

The only answer you ever accept is silence.

 

This answer confuses me because the silence is what I'm offered. I have to accept it because I cannot compel someone to answer, but it's not at all what I'm looking for. Even now, I laid out very specifically the claims for which I was asking for evidence, and rather than address it, you address my posting style. 

 

Again, when you are bested you fail to acknowledge this and simply switch aggressively to another line of argumentation.  People have engaged with you in detail, and at length on this thread.  You have mischaracterized and belittled them and they have responded kindly.  There is no obvious alternative to agreeing to disagree when that happens over and over again, circularly.  To characterize that as unresponsive silence is profoundly inaccurate and quite unkind.

 

Bested how? I asked for evidence for claims offered and have been ignored when "it works for me" is challenged. Granted, "it works for me" is not an accurate quote, but a summary of the argument. Is that what you mean by mischaracterizing and belittling people? I mean it only as a succinct expression. Perhaps there is a logical fallacy here, the term of which I'm forgetting. I'll use that instead if I can recall it (assuming there is one, which I'm sure there is). It's not meant unkindly, and really, evidence is neither kind nor unkind. It just is. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Let me suggest that rather than considering what you have requested, you consider what others have said already.

Your answers seem like you have failed to thoroughly digest much of it, a point that has been made several times by several different posters.  I don't see any particular point in rehashing what others have already said well until there is at least some evidence that that has taken place.

[albeto.]

Let me suggest that rather than considering what you have requested, you consider what others have said already.

Your answers seem like you have failed to thoroughly digest much of it, a point that has been made several times by several different posters.  I don't see any particular point in rehashing what others have already said well until there is at least some evidence that that has taken place.

 

 

If I ask very clearly and concisely, would you answer?

 

What is the evidence for the existence of a soul?

What is the evidence for the existence of a "broken world"?

What is the evidence that physical health is affected by "sin"?

 

If you'd rather link to a post that answers these, that would be fine. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Read through the discussion again slowly and demonstrate that you actually understand what has been said very clearly there, and I'll consider it. No one has said or even implied 'It works for me,' for instance.  Otherwise I can only assume that for some reason you can't follow the lines of commentary that I also would provide.  I think that you just haven't been able to take the time to read carefully here, and I don't want to beat a dead horse.  I don't really have time for that right now.  And if you don't either, I entirely understand.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Personally, I think the assertion that physical illness is caused by sin is both extraordinary and offensive, and if someone is going to assert that, I'd hope they were prepared to provide some evidence of what is quite a horrible thing to say otherwise.

 

If there is no evidence, or no mechanism by which sin causes physical illness, people shouldn't be running around asserting it. 

When people say that, Sadie, they do not mean that illness is caused by the specific personal 'misbehavior' of the stricken person, which would offend me greatly as well. Rather we mean that the presence of imperfection like that is caused by the general sinful state of nature.  It's broad and nonspecific, and does not really have any bearing on treatment options or anything like that.  

[albeto.]

Read through the discussion again slowly and demonstrate that you actually understand what has been said very clearly there, and I'll consider it. No one has said or even implied 'It works for me,' for instance.  Otherwise I can only assume that for some reason you can't follow the lines of commentary that I also would provide.  I think that you just haven't been able to take the time to read carefully here, and I don't want to beat a dead horse.  I don't really have time for that right now.  And if you don't either, I entirely understand.

 

I find this fascinating. Rather than answer my questions, even with one word answers or links to evidence, you present a condition I must meet before you will consider answering my question. 

 

You suggest JodiSue answered my questions about evidence for the existence of the soul or medical conditions being caused by "sin," but I am incapable of understanding. I find that fascinating as these questions were met with the "have a good day" reply. 

 

For the sake of clarification, JodiSue replied to one of my posts with the comment, "It may be for you, but for me it actually informs how I respond and what any of it actually means in the long term." I interpret that to mean relying on the bible works for her, it informs her and guides her responses. This was her reply to my comment that [the claim of a "fallen world is"] irrelevant to the study of human behavior, neurology, and biology in general.

 

In other words, What is the evidence for a "fallen world"? "It works for me."  

 

Do you think anecdotal accounts of relying on the bible for personal guidance counts as evidence for the claim that the world is fallen? Is that where our disconnect is? I don't, for the record, as I am using the conventional meaning of evidence to include facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Anecdotal assurances are not fact, regardless of how sincerely held a belief is. 

 

Should churches approach mental health issues based on anecdotal accounts of members relying on the bible for personal guidance in opposition to the body of evidence that suggests this guidance might be detrimental to them? Is evidence superfluous to church communities in general? Should it be? 

 

These are new questions. They haven't been asked before. 

[EmseB]

Personally, I think the assertion that physical illness is caused by sin is both extraordinary and offensive, and if someone is going to assert that, I'd hope they were prepared to provide some evidence of what is quite a horrible thing to say otherwise.

 

If there is no evidence, or no mechanism by which sin causes physical illness, people shouldn't be running around asserting it.

You're interpreting my post incorrectly. You're interpreting my use of the word sin to mean a person doing something wrong to cause them to be mentally ill. That is not how I was using the the term. Using the term to refer to a theological belief about the state of the world generally is not the same as using it to say that someone committed a specific sin. I don't think people commit specific sins which cause them to be mentally ill.

 

Albeto cut off the next sentence of my post about mental illness having a biological cause and then started taking about demons, which I never brought up.

Edited January 10, 2016 by JodiSue

[Carol in Cal.]

 As a chronically ill person, the idea that my illness is part of my general fallen nature is just horrible to me. 

 

Honestly, I appreciate your reply and clarification but it doesn't make the idea less offensive. 

Not YOUR general fallen nature.

 

Rather, fallen nature IN GENERAL.

[Carol in Cal.]

Albeto, if you can't follow and accurately summarize what others have said here, you're not going to be able to understand what I say either.  And you're really smart, so I think if you just slowed down and read what has been written already and thought about it you would understand it and you wouldn't have those specific questions.  I don't really see how I can be any clearer than anyone else has been.

[Carol in Cal.]

Hmm...should I drive you crazy and ask for what the difference is between my fallen nature and fallen nature in general ?

 

Or will I give us both a break and not ?

 

How 'bout I give us both a break ? :)

Ha, I'll bet you know anyway!  So I will gladly take that break!  

[Rosie_0801]

Not YOUR general fallen nature.

 

Rather, fallen nature IN GENERAL.

 

What does in general mean? Are you talking about humanity or the whole of creation?

 

Like is a volcano an example of nature being fallen?

[Carol in Cal.]

What does in general mean? Are you talking about humanity or the whole of creation?

 

Like is a volcano an example of nature being fallen?

The whole of creation, but not necessarily a volcano in and of itself, but a volcano killing things and causing pain, yes.

 

Weeds choking out fruitful plants.

 

Death.

 

Disease.

 

Misery.

 

Etc.

 

That kind of stuff.

 

I also love wild nature, and am very nourished by it.  Being fallen does not mean being without value or utterly bad or anything like that, right?

[8circles]

Albeto - i will give you *my* answer. You know that I am a Xian. & you know that I like you, quite a bit, actually. I agree with many of your posts, I think you ask some really good questions that are worth pondering.

 

The answer is, there is no answer. I am OK with there being no answer, I know that not everyone is.

 

I find this fascinating. Rather than answer my questions, even with one word answers or links to evidence, you present a condition I must meet before you will consider answering my question.

 

You suggest JodiSue answered my questions about evidence for the existence of the soul or medical conditions being caused by "sin," but I am incapable of understanding. I find that fascinating as these questions were met with the "have a good day" reply.

 

For the sake of clarification, JodiSue replied to one of my posts with the comment, "It may be for you, but for me it actually informs how I respond and what any of it actually means in the long term." I interpret that to mean relying on the bible works for her, it informs her and guides her responses. This was her reply to my comment that [the claim of a "fallen world is"] irrelevant to the study of human behavior, neurology, and biology in general.

 

In other words, What is the evidence for a "fallen world"? "It works for me."

 

Do you think anecdotal accounts of relying on the bible for personal guidance counts as evidence for the claim that the world is fallen? Is that where our disconnect is? I don't, for the record, as I am using the conventional meaning of evidence to include facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Anecdotal assurances are not fact, regardless of how sincerely held a belief is.

 

Should churches approach mental health issues based on anecdotal accounts of members relying on the bible for personal guidance in opposition to the body of evidence that suggests this guidance might be detrimental to them? Is evidence superfluous to church communities in general? Should it be?

 

These are new questions. They haven't been asked before.

[Rosie_0801]

 Being fallen does not mean being without value or utterly bad or anything like that, right?

 

I wouldn't know, Love.  :laugh:

 

I can barely wrap my head around the concept of fallenness when not applied to humans.

 

Is your definition of nature being fallen fairly standard? I've only really heard it used to refer to humans. Or at least that's what I assumed people meant because I didn't have a reason to suspect otherwise.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Rosie_0801

[EmseB]

The idea that sin (general) has a remedy and has been redeemed and conquered gives me hope when I am at my lowest points. I can't imagine suffering through it without that hope. I can't imagine dealing with death and disease or abuse and thinking this is all there is. I'm not saying that to be melodramatic or emotional, I really can't see the logic in it. Either all of this makes some coherent sense, or none of it does. But I doubt I'm making sense to anyone but myself at this point.

[Rosie_0801]

The idea that sin (general) has a remedy and has been redeemed and conquered gives me hope when I am at my lowest points. I can't imagine suffering through it without that hope. I can't imagine dealing with death and disease or abuse and thinking this is all there is. I'm not saying that to be melodramatic or emotional, I really can't see the logic in it. Either all of this makes some coherent sense, or none of it does. But I doubt I'm making sense to anyone but myself at this point.

 

I would think this post makes sense to everybody, even if sin isn't a concept they use.

Edited January 10, 2016 by Rosie_0801

[EmseB]

I wouldn't know, Love. :laugh:

 

I can barely wrap my head around the concept of fallenness when not applied to humans.

 

Is your definition of nature being fallen fairly standard? I've only really heard it used to refer to humans. Or at least that's what I assumed people meant because I didn't have a reason to suspect otherwise.

It's the curse in Genesis which applies to all of nature -- thorns and thistles and creation groaning and all that. There wasn't disease or death prior to the fall.

[MercyA]

I can barely wrap my head around the concept of fallenness when not applied to humans.

 

Is your definition of nature being fallen fairly standard? I've only really heard it used to refer to humans. Or at least that's what I assumed people meant because I didn't have a reason to suspect otherwise.

 

It's fairly standard. See Romans 8:18-25. 

 

Hope you had a good birthday, Rosie.  :)

[Carol in Cal.]

 

Is your definition of nature being fallen fairly standard? I've only really heard it used to refer to humans. Or at least that's what I assumed people meant because I didn't have a reason to suspect otherwise.

Yes, it is standard, but humans are included in fallen nature as well, but as a group.  So it's not like I am nearsighted because I have committed some specific sin, but that my eyes are not as perfect as they might be because I reside in a fallen world that is suffering the results of sin/iperfection in general.

 

So it's not some cosmic tit for tat.  It's a universally experienced fallenness throughout nature that permeates all of it--the cosmos, us, the animals, everything--but doesn't completely define it and doesn't take away all beauty or good, but rather brings pollutants into it so to speak.

[Tanaqui]

It's the curse in Genesis which applies to all of nature -- thorns and thistles and creation groaning and all that. There wasn't disease or death prior to the fall.

 

So did God engage in new creation after that point? Making new plants and animals (and other species that are neither) that he hadn't made prior to this? Like the Guinea worm or the bacteria that causes strep throat? Or did they spontaneously spring up?

[Carol in Cal.]

What was the mechanism for the introduction of disease after the fall ? Did God then invent bacteria and viruses, or did he mess about with the human immune system or what ?

 

I don't know, Sadie, but I think that in fighting sin and death and disease and entropy itself we are doing good things that God is glad about.

[gardenmom5]

Well, idk. I guess medical research cheers me up ? 

 

I'm not being flippant. It's nice to belong to a species that has, among its less savory characteristics, the ability to try to heal each other's illnesses. 

 

I don't  think that would ever qualify as one of the less savory characteristics.  I think it is a higher characteristic  of compassion and empathy to try to help/prevent something that doesn't affect yourself.  whether that be as simple as a kind word - or doing in depth scientific genetic manipulation to prevent a defective gene from being passed down to a child.

 

eta: or did you mean more savory?  in which case - never mind.

Edited January 10, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Rosie_0801]

It's the curse in Genesis which applies to all of nature -- thorns and thistles and creation groaning and all that. There wasn't disease or death prior to the fall.

 

Eh? Thistles weren't in the Garden of Eden? That seems a shame, really. They have magnificent flowers. Some are edible and the sap of some can be used to coagulate milk for cheese making.

 

 

Um. Well. I'll stop there because there's no use in my protesting that thistles should be allowed in the Garden of Eden. :leaving:

[Carol in Cal.]

So is being sick part of the general 'groaning in childbirth of the spirit' along with the trees and volcanoes and stuff ?

 

I tell you, the things you don't learn in a Catholic education...

Yes, and this is in Catholic theology; my daughter attended a Catholic high school and it was taught there as well.  

 

So trees are good, and a tree falling on you because it died and hence killing you is part of the groaning.  Volcanoes are good, but the part where they spew lava all over you and you die screaming is part of the groaning.  Being a human is good, and getting illnesses is part of the groaning.

 

When God created the world, He pronounced it 'good'.  And when He created people He pronounced us 'very good'.  Nature does not completely lose that in the fall.  

[gardenmom5]

No, i said it wasn't one of the less savory characteristics, it's one of the nice things about humans. 

 

you said

 

It's nice to belong to a species that has, among its less savory characteristics

 

 

you did not say "wasn't".  (you may have thought it - but your fingers did not type it.)

Edited January 10, 2016 by gardenmom5

[Carol in Cal.]

 I swear I am not baiting you but you keep saying things in a way that brings up new questions for me. Again, don't feel like you have to answer...but can we even fight entropy ? 

 

I understand very little physics but does it/can it work like that ?

 

We can't really fight death either, given that it comes to us all. 

 

I agree that fighting disease is a good thing :)

Well, speaking as someone who regularly gives up on housework, I'm not sure entropy CAN be fought, LOL, but stupid me, I keep going back and fighting it anyway.

 

I think we fight death in fighting disease.  People are always trying to figure out how be healthier and live longer.  

[Carol in Cal.]

So in a perfect, unfallen world - idk - is this heaven ? - trees won't fall on anyone, or there won't be any trees or ???

 

I think I got one of the less - ahem - academic - Catholic educations. It was mostly about how much Jesus loves you and wants you to go out and set up soup kitchens for the poor.

Sure, there would be trees, but they wouldn't hurt anyone.

 

Soup kitchens are good, too!  Fighting death through soup kitchens is awesome!  :)

[Carol in Cal.]

 

 

Yeah, I actually figure the soup kitchen advice was good, because it works even when you lapse!

Lots of things are like that, it's nice actually!

[MercyA]

If I believed in heaven, it would totally be full of trees that never fall on people's heads and birds that never poop on people's heads, and it would be lovely :)

 

:)  :)  :)

 

Here you go, trees not falling on people's heads and lots of animals, lovely indeed.

 

I know I'm not contributing much here, but I appreciate you all having such an interesting discussion while I'm up with medication-induced insomnia.

[MercyA]

I'm liking the trees bit. Nice image. 

 

Insomnia is awful - hope you get some sleep soon!

 

Thanks so much, Sadie. Heading to bed now, after two glasses of wine.  :)

[gardenmom5]

 I seriously don't understand why a loving God would deliberately introduce pollutants into his creation as a kind of curse designed to bring us to Him, I really don't. 

 

 

I'm going to wade in here and *please* be patient with me, as articulateness is NOT my forte!

 

not specifically referring to curse above, etc.  I believe in the principle of opposition is necessary part of mortality - so that people may develop the ability to choose.  you can't fully comprehend sweet without bitter, cold without heat, joy without pain. etc.  I do know NONreligious people who refer to such as "depth". if everything was peachy keen and hunky dory, how would we know what wasn't?  and how would we know what we would do, how we would respond, etc. when faced with a choice?

 

I believe the mortal condition could even be compared to boarding school - we're here to get an education, and this is the curriculum.  and some of it sucks.  big time. (re: hopefully developing the wisdom to make good choices - because we WANT to make good choices. that can only happen in an environment where choices are possible. (I never advise seeking out bad things - with mortality bad things tend to find people without any help.)

 

I also believe everyone has/will-have varying degrees of 'bad" stuff in their lives.  that's just life.  why they have what they do?  I don't know.   some is visible - and some isn't. some is early in life, and some late. some is "socially acceptable", and some isn't. etc. etc.   

 

back to the topic of narcissists . . . I have reached the point in my life, I cherish the education I got by dealing with my grandmother.  I've reached the point - I wouldn't give back what I've learned *even to have had things easier!*  (i know, I'm nuts.  fools rush in where angels fear to tread and all that . . . )  I beleive in the end - I'm a better person than I would have been had I had an easier childhood. (as hard as it was.)  in the grand scheme of things FOR ME, it really doesn't matter why she made the choices she did. that's between her and God. I strived to be the kind of person I wanted to be; even in the face of her treatment of me. and I'm accountable for God for how I did. (or didn't.)

[gardenmom5]

So is your patience with my questions, when you know I'm a committed heathen!

 

Seriously, I do find the type of answer given by 8 circles - we don't know but we're OK with not knowing - to be relatively easy to live with on an individual to individual level. Not so much on a societal level...

 

If I believed in heaven, it would totally be full of trees that never fall on people's heads and birds that never poop on people's heads, and it would be lovely :)

 

Yeah, I actually figure the soup kitchen advice was good, because it works even when you lapse!

 

and no dust . . . .

[EmseB]

I seriously don't understand why a loving God would deliberately introduce pollutants into his creation as a kind of curse designed to bring us to Him, I really don't.

 

No need to reply. I'm having some serious trouble with this whole disease/nature as fallen thing. I'll deal with it!

You can feel free to ignore my reply since you weren't requesting them, but I thought I'd say: why does any good author introduce any element of darkness into a story? For it to be beaten, conquered, triumphed over. To show the glory of goodness over evil. That is what I see when I look at the story as a whole. We can see darkness in a lot of places, but as a meaningless or senseless aspect of life, it would undo me. But in a larger story of triumph and redemption, meted out by a just God for my sanctification and redemption it is at least bearable.

 

Spurgeon said "If I thought there was a circumstance on earth, which Christ did not over-rule, I should fear that that circumstance would ruin me" and that is what I've come to rely on, particularly in reading Romans chapter 8.