Forager's Foray
rant archives
Home
rant archives
2 witnesses
2 thieves
real Jesus
the third person
belief
confidence
faith
Abram
cosmology
free will
converted
God
love
perceptions
created objects
"do unto others"
connectivity
contention
the Word
the Bible
fairness
readings and fortune telling
10 virgins
forgiving
religion
righteousness
sin
hardening of the heart
after you're dead
warrior
war
freedom
gayness
conspiracies
possessed
channeling
angels and miracles
devil
hell
the Beast
the Mark
the lost
brotherhood response
tolerance
judging
afterlife
israel
assorted attacks
Politics
Local Sights
home
links
Poems
The Confession of St. Patrick
Enoch
antichrist

belief

I really can´t tell you, the tales of Krishna, the laughing Buddha, even Osiris, are similar.
I suppose it´s like the Book says, it calls and appeals to some, and not others.
Why it should make sense to me, and not others, could be in the things that you feel are lacking in your life.
Like the cliché of having a God shaped hole, that only God could fill.

I don´t want this to sound as if I have an unexamined life or belief, I think often and long of what and why I believe. It´s just not something I can articulate. Just as I´m a subtractive artist rather than a constructive one (I can whittle away from a block of clay to make a sculpture far easier than I can take bits of clay and stick them together to make something.); I find I can say what I am not, easier than delineate what I am.
And BTW, I don´t have a christian background or upbringing, and I can smell a cult a mile away. My Independence and critical thinking probably kept me away from considering the Bible for quite a few decades.
All I can say is that it found me, and made a home in my heart. (Wow, reading that, it does sound corny).
Let me reflect awhile, and bounce off your comments and questions.

 

and BTW, I didn't have to abandon the critical thinking, just the independence.

If you've read my posts, you've seen my synopisis of what the Story is.

I suppose the crux of that story is the historical yes-he-actually-was-here reality of the God/Man fixing things so that the intimate friendship of God and Man is restored.

Sigh...I get no warm and fuzzy feelings like some (I'm just not an emotional type -- passionate about what I feel and believe--just not demonstrative with emotions, and not swayed by them much. My lack, but I suppose I'm compensated in other ways.) And as for feeling His presence, I find that very subjective, so I defer that for the time when I'm face to face with Him.

And as for converting someone....

No one converted me. I looked and I found. Or more correctly: I asked, and He answered.

No man coverts another.

A man decides to convert from what he is, and God does the converting work in him.

And why would I anyway?

It's a personal thing between you and Him.

I say what I say in defense of what I believe. Why I bother to defend, I don't know, but I suspect it's something He builds in. I've believed in many things in my time, and never bothered to mention them to others, much less defend those viewpoints. Maybe the very core importance of this belief makes it different, that I take the energy to explain.

Maybe it's that I get a spiritual charge from discussing the things of God.

I guess it's related to the compulsion to organize chaos into structure.

I think the way to look at the Story is to see the meaning of the conclusion, and work your way back to the beginning with that in mind, to explain the whyfors with the outcome already known. The Answer to a problem casts its light all the way back to the beginning of the Question. Knowing the Answer, makes all elements of the Question make sence.

But here's the critical, almost catch-22 part of it. To believe in the Story, you first need Faith. But you'll only get Faith, by believing in the Story. The solution is to believe enough to ask for the Faith, which since this resides outside of human wisdom, has to come from and be a gift of God. You have to be disgusted enough with things as they are, to want to seek for a correct way of looking at things. Honest desire to know God is always answered.

And does He always put that honest desire in a human's heart? I don't know, but in my case, He did. It's obvious in others, either He didn't, or they rejected that desire as unneccessary.

 

 

God, by definition, is the Originator of everything, including Faith.

What He says pleases Him, is Faith in Him. He cares enough for us to give us that Faith if we ask for it. We only need the desire to really know, to start the relationship off.

And no, the book is not the central element.
Faith in the Bible is like faith that the universe exists. It´s necessary, but not essential. It´s more for those who believe, who want to explore the who´s and whys and hows of their belief.

That´s why you don´t see me use quotes much, the central point is a created object, and the one who created that object. The operating manual is important, but not absolutely essential.


...repeating something I posted before--Jesus didn´t preach from the Bible. He did quote scripture, but usually when He was confronted by the ´religious´ elements in the crowd. He told of the human condition. He told of what God was like. He told stories of what God was looking for in how we act. His discussions were of the human heart and God´s heart.

 

The central issue of the Bible, and what it was leading up to, was all about the resurrection, and its necessity.
Amazing how the ones who disavow the message still keep using the vehicle of the message to dispute it.


If you´re christian, tell your story from the point of view of the Gospels.
If you´re wiccan, use your Earth wisdom.
If you´re Hindu, use the Vedas.
Etc.

If you don´t believe what the Bible has to say, fine. Get over it. Use something else to make your point, something you understand.
Hashing fine points attacking the source, is useful in dismantling cults---is that what you´re trying to do? Bucking 2000 years of history is tough.

well put laura.
I´m reading Tao´s post and I see his frustration with other people´s way of saying things. I hope he doesn´t assume that everyone thinks on being on "levels", or "advanced", or whatever strange cosmic scorecard he has in mind. I´ve noticed those with strong opinions (like Black Frier) tend to sound egotistical, but I think he´s talking from what he considers a firm foundation. So it comes across that way. Like you say, extract the info, and don´t worry so much on how they say it.
(although I´m not real keen on those who practice smooth sayings without any solid content.) Humility....no problem; just think how godlike you are next time you´re on the toilet doubled over and constipated.
Strong opinions evoke strong responses, and most people don´t suffer fools gladly, so react by defending strongly.
Well we all learn from each other. God forbid if my teachers ever worried about how dogmatic they may have sounded, they never would have evoked the ability to think critically in me. They would have dumbed things down and just dwelt on how we ´felt´ about stuff.


Infinite things would require an infinite brain. My Win 3.11 brain with 200MB and 75hz, will contain and work on only so much. The birds I live with show as much (nah, probibly more) understanding of life as I do, and their brains are marble sized. So the point must not be what or how much you accumulate, but in figuring out the utterly simple. So, to reduce it to the most simple, I (in my most humble, non-offensive PC, gee-I-hope-nobody´s-offended way) think it all boils down to Creator and created. All ramifications and implications and complications spin off of that. (I could be wrong...but if I was, I´d have no foundation and no faith. So at the risk of sounding exclusive and polarized, to believe in my view of cosmology I must stick to certain axiomatic concepts.) Everyone´s opinions, views, experiences, and knowledge has to be shoe-horned into that world view; and some just are too mutually exclusive by nature to fit. To not offend anyone I would have to agree that black is white, and white is black; and that leaves a universal acceptence of All, that leaves me no foundation except that All is True. Semantics aside, if I ask someone the date, and he tells me its 843BC, I know he´s lying or delusional. There are some things that are true and some that are not. (see how dogmatic this sounds...how can you not be and yet decribe a position?)
Don´t mistake my opinion offerings as trying to persuade to think as I do. Just simply think. Examine everything. Clues abound.