Faith and modernity

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

Parodite wrote:I don't know MG... I really don't ;)
Apologies to an Unbeliever by Thomas Merton
This is not going to be an easy tune to sing. To begin with, it is not one of the currently popular numbers. Still less one of the older and more timeworn routines. But I see you are already suspicious. I do not dispute your perfect right to be so. You should be suspicious. That is the first thing I have to say. Not that you need me to say it. But perhaps I need myself to say it.

However, if you distrust the word "apologies" and if you think that I am trying to afflict you with apologetics, please set your mind at rest. By "apologies" I mean simply what the word says. I recognize that I have been standing on your foot, and I am now at last getting off it, with these few mumbled sentences. But you say, "Who is behind that pronoun when you say'!'? Do you mean 'the Believer'? Do you mean your Church? Do you mean the clergy? Do you mean your monastic Order? Or do you just mean yourself?”

Well, in the first place, I am not entitled to speak in anybody's name but my own. I am quite sure that what I want to say will not be endorsed by many of the clergy, and it certainly is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, I take my own faith seriously and am not a priest for nothing. I would not say these things if I thought they were not in the deepest sense true to what I believe. At the same time I am conscious of the futility of being a
mere respectable and secure "Believer" with a capital "B."

I am apologizing to you for the inadequacy and impertinence of so much that has been inflicted on you in the name of religion, not only because it has embarrassed me, and others like me, but also because it seems to me to be a falsification of religious truth. At this point, let us get clear about your identity. You are, they say, an Unbeliever. On the other hand you are not a professional and militant Unbeliever. The militant Unbeliever is, in fact, a Believer-though perhaps a Believer-in-reverse. I will take care not to patronize you by seeming to doubt your unbelief-though technically it would be more accurate to say that you are a Non-Believer rather than an Unbeliever.

You are one who neither rejects belief nor accepts it. In fact you have given up thinking about it because the message of faith does not reach you, does not interest you, and seems to have nothing to do with you at all. Or if it does reach you and does seem somehow relevant to you, yet you do not believe that faith can be the acceptance of a divine revelation. The concept of revelation is, to you, meaningless. It is to you that I now say, with all the honesty at my command that I consider you a sorely affronted person. Believers have for centuries made a habit out of reviling and disparaging you.

Have they perhaps done this in order to fortify themselves against their own secret doubts? Do all these Believers believe in God, or are they more intent upon believing that they themselves are Believers? Are you-the Unbeliever more useful to them in this devout exercise than God himself? They not only claim to know all about you, they take it upon themselves to expose the hidden sins which (according to them) explain your unbelief. They exert themselves to make you insecure, to tell you how unhappy you are-as if you needed them to tell you, and as if they were any happier themselves! They weave a thousand myths about you, and having covered you with shame and discredit, they wonder why you do not run to them for comfort. Seeing their failure they try a different approach. Currently they are playing a game called "God Is Dead." But do not take this too seriously. This is only another deal in an ideological card game, and what they want, in the end, is the same thing as before: to get you into their churches. I confess I myself fail to see how the claim that "God is dead" is an argument for going to church.

At this point I am making a public renunciation, in my own name at least, of all tactical, clerical, apologetic designs upon the sincerity of your non-belief. I am not trying to tamper with your conscience. I am not insinuating that you have "spiritual problems" that I can detect and you cannot. On the contrary, I am writing this for one purpose only: to apologize for the fact that this kind of affront has been, and still is, daily and hourly perpetrated on you by a variety of Believers, some fanatical some reasonable, some clerical some lay, some religious some irreligious, some futuristic and some antique.

I think this apology is demanded by the respect I have for my own faith. If I, as a Christian, believe that my first duty is to love and respect my fellowman in his personal frailty and perplexity, in his unique hazard and his need for trust, then I think that the refusal to let him alone, the inability to entrust him to God and to his own conscience, and the insistence on rejecting him as a person until he agrees with me, is simply a sign that my own faith is inadequate.

Of course I believe in the importance of the Christian apostolate-as distinct from the itch to impose our own ideas on others. But let me be quite frank about it: the current fuss and shouting about whether or not God is dead, whether or not the Church (or Churches) can make the grade in twentieth-century society, whether or not the Church can regain the attention of modern man (either by guitar playing or liturgical gamesmanship), all seem to me to be rather
trivial and beside the point. Where authentic religious concern degenerates into salesmanship it becomes an affront to the honest perplexities of the vast majority of men. I think, frankly, that you are entitled to be left unbothered by the sheer triviality of so much image making and vaudeville.

This of course requires much more explanation than I can give it here. For instance, I do not intend to call into question the really serious attempts at religious renewal. If I doubted for a moment that Christianity was alive and developing I would not bother my head with it all. Yet at the same time I think a great deal of the fuss, argument, and publicity in which the renewal seeks to express itself, is at best ambiguous. Are the Believers trying to convince themselves of their singular importance by selling a new image of themselves?

I certainly do not feel that the question of religious renewal is as relevant to you as Church news releases imply. I appreciate your sometimes sympathetic curiosity, your cautious gestures of approval. Yet I think too many churchmen are still toying with the vain hope that-their various institutions are going to continue to play dominant roles in society. I rather doubt it! I think the existence of the Christian in the modern world is going to be more and more marginal. We are going to be "Diaspora" Christians in a frankly secular and non-believing society.

As you see, I am apologizing because you have to suffer from our illusions. This does not make life very comfortable for you, particularly when, as may happen, you are yourself serious enough about "beliefs" to think twice about adopting one. You hesitate to believe without motives that seem to you to be really worthy of such a perilous commitment. Others are less scrupulous about it. They can have the luxury of peaceful consciences, at very low cost, and they can look down on you into the bargain. (What makes them so sure that they are God's good friends and you are not? Some theologians I know are beginning to speak differently. They are saying that you others may be closer to God and potentially more "believing" than many of us. This is not new either. Paul had something of the sort to say to the Athenians!)

Faith comes by hearing, says Saint Paul; but by hearing what? The cries of snake-handlers? The platitudes of the religious operator? One must first be able to listen to the inscrutable ground of his own being, and who am I to say that your reservations about religious commitment do not protect, in you, this kind of listening? The "absence of God" and the "silence of God" in the modern world are not only evident; they are facts of profound religious significance. What do these metaphorical expressions mean? They refer obviously to another metaphorical concept, that of "communication" between man and God. To say that "God is absent" and "God is silent" is to say that the familiar concept of "communication" between man and God has broken down. And if you are an Unbeliever it is often enough because such communication is, to you, incredible. We, on the other hand, have insisted more and more that communication with God was credible and was in fact taking place: when we spoke, God spoke. Unfortunately, the terms in which we have continued to say this did little to make the idea acceptable, or even conceivable, to you. We Believers keep insisting that we and God deal with each other morning, noon, and night over closed-circuit TV. These pious metaphors are permissible with certain reservations, but to try to force them on you can, sometimes border on blasphemous idiocy. Thus our very language itself (to many of us still adequate) has tended to become an important element in the "absence" and the "silence" of God. Does it occur to us that instead of revealing him we are hiding him? As a matter of fact, Vatican Council II formally admitted this. In the Constitution on the Church in the World we read that "Believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism" when by their deficiencies “they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion."

Whatever one may choose to make of this absence and this silence of God, they have to be accepted as primary religious facts of our time. There is no use trying to ignore them, to act as if they could not possibly have happened, or to blame them all on somebody else. Much as I might wish that all men shared my faith and I wish they did-there is no point in my sitting and dreaming about it, when in fact I live in a world in which God is silent, from which he is apparently absent, in which some of the latest routines designed to celebrate his presence only make the spiritual void all the more embarrassing.

To admit that this is a world to which God seems not to be speaking is not a renunciation of faith; it is a simple acceptance of an existential religious fact. It should not disconcert anyone who knows, from the Bible and from the mystics, that the silences of God are also messages with a definite import of their own. And this import is not necessarily reassuring.

One thing it may imply, for instance, is a judgment on the self-righteousness of those who trust in themselves because they are fully respectable and "established." It may imply a severe judgment of their complacent affirmations, and suggest that a great deal is instead being "said by God" in language that nobody can decode. Perhaps things that we badly need to know are being told us in new and disconcerting ways. Perhaps they are staring us in the face, and we
cannot see them. It is in such situations that the language of prophets speaks of the "silence of God."

To turn to such a world, in which every other voice but the voice of God is heard and merely to add one more voice to the general din-one's own is to neglect the ominous reality of a crisis that has perhaps become apocalyptic. In "turning to" this kind of world, I think the Catholic Church intends to respect the gravity of its predicament, and to do a little listening. There is certainly an enormous difference between the solemn anathemas of Vatican I and the more temperate and sympathetic appeals of Vatican II for dialogue.

My own peculiar task in my Church and in my world has been that of the solitary explorer who, instead of jumping on all the latest bandwagons at once, is bound to search the existential
depths of faith in its silences, in its ambiguities, and in those certainties which lie deeper than the bottom of anxiety. In these depths there are no easy answers, no pat solutions to anything.

Here one lives a kind of submarine life in which faith sometimes mysteriously takes on the aspect of doubt when, in fact, one has to doubt and reject conventional and superstitious surrogates that have taken the place of faith. On this level, the division between Believer and Unbeliever ceases to be so crystal clear. It is not that some are all right and others are
all wrong; all are bound to seek in honest perplexity. Everybody is an Unbeliever more or less!

Only when this fact is fully experienced, accepted, and lived with, does one become fit to hear the simple message of the Gospel-or of any other religious teaching. The religious problem of the twentieth century is not understandable if we regard it only as a problem of Unbelievers and of atheists. It is also and perhaps chiefly a problem of Believers. The faith that has grown cold is not only the faith that the Unbeliever has lost but the faith that the Believer has kept.

This faith has too often become rigid, or complex, sentimental, foolish, or impertinent. It has lost itself in imaginings and unrealities, dispersed itself in pontifical and organizational routines, or evaporated in activism and loose talk.

The most hopeful sign of religious renewal is the authentic sincerity and openness with which some Believers are beginning to recognize this. At the very moment when it would seem that they ought to gather for a fanatical last-ditch stand, these Believers are dropping their defensiveness, their defiance, and their mistrust. They are realizing that a faith that is afraid of other people is no faith at all. A faith that supports itself by condemning others is itself condemned by the Gospel.
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

kmich wrote:Apologies to an Unbeliever by Thomas Merton
This faith has too often become rigid, or complex, sentimental, foolish, or impertinent. It has lost itself in imaginings and unrealities, dispersed itself in pontifical and organizational routines, or evaporated in activism and loose talk.
I could not agree more . . .
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

kmich wrote:
Parodite wrote:I don't know MG... I really don't ;)
Apologies to an Unbeliever by Thomas Merton
Apologies accepted ;) The difficulty is that some truths become lies when you write them down.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

v_UYMcAR1PU

A particular question after watching this documentary was: why did they make the anti-Christ look like a handsome young businessman?
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

cTPEeptb3jY
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27267
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Typhoon »

Nonc Hilaire wrote: . . .
I have a BA in Biblical Studies and a M.Div., . . .
And a Hon. Ph.D. in Punning.

[I first wrote "Punery" but a check of the Urban Dic informed me of another meaning altogether . . .]
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

Well, I read the interview . .

I think Caputo is simply describing an inexorable aspect of history:
"In its most condensed formulation, deconstruction is affirmation, a 'yes, yes, come' to the future and also to the past, since the authentic past is also ahead of us. It leads to, it is led by, a 'yes' to the transforming surprise, to the promise of what is to come in whatever we have inherited — in politics, art, science, law, reason and so on. The bottom line is 'yes, come.'" . .

". . maybe a lot of these people wake up in the middle of the night feeling the same disturbance, disturbed by a more religionless religion going on in the religion meant to give them comfort. Even for people who are content with the contents of the traditions they inherit, deconstruction is a life-giving force, forcing them to reinvent what has been inherited and to give it a future. But religion for Derrida is not a way to link up with saving supernatural powers; it is a mode of being-in-the-world, of being faithful to the promise of the world."
"New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future’s portal with the Past’s blood-rusted key."

—James Russell Lowell
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers.
- U.G. Krishnamurti
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:
You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers.
- U.G. Krishnamurti

And you know this how? . . . . :?
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:
You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers.
- U.G. Krishnamurti

And you know this how? . . . . :?
Revelation!
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

Parodite wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:
You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers.
- U.G. Krishnamurti
And you know this how? . . . . :?
Revelation!
Who knew . . ? . . and here I thought it was by faith . . :shock:
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:
Marcus wrote:
Parodite wrote:
You have to be saved from the very idea that you have to be saved. You must be saved from the saviors, redeemed from the redeemers.
- U.G. Krishnamurti
And you know this how? . . . . :?
Revelation!
Who knew . . ? . . and here I thought it was by faith . . :shock:
It is all about marketing and sales... holy books, saints, saviors, stories, claims, carrots and sticks from the craddle to the grave...

Image

Good source for standup comedy though ;)

f4wAlCBcACU
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

HAMO9c0NX9M
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

IYsR-ewHA28
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
kmich
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 11:46 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by kmich »

Belief in what? And why should I believe in what that is?

One of the parts of the services I have attended inconsistently over the years is the recitation of the Nicene Creed in the Liturgy of the Faithful. After attending services recently, I paused in the middle of the recitation with the thought: “Why am I saying I believe in all this? I don’t even know what all this stuff means much less know how to ‘believe’ in it?”

I had a Christian friend who recently asked me, “Do you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior?” I answered with a question, “What do you mean by all that?” She tried, but she was really unable to answer other than providing more abstruse verbal formulae as possible explanations.

I then realized that saying “I believe” in the above contexts has nothing to do with whether or not I understand what I supposedly believe in. These are essentially verbal codes and formulae that one assents to as the admission ticket for inclusion within a religious community. It is deference to the ecclesiastical or scriptural authority of that community; an assent to the supremacy of that jurisdiction over my doubts and critical thinking as the price of belonging.

To be fair, such deference to authority has for centuries been an essential part of maintaining religious communities and the integrity of their related catechisms. Without these processes, the gifts of these traditions would not have remained intact to enrich my life today.

Still, for better or worse, I am conditioned by the Age of Enlightenment, and while I grew up deeply involved in an Orthodox Church community, I really cannot assent to what I do not understand as a cost of my continued participation without being gravely dishonest. I cannot see that as being helpful to my spiritual life which continues to be of the greatest importance to me. As Galileo wrote to the Grand Duchess, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”

Maybe there is a difference between “faith” and “belief?” Without faith, my recovery from alcohol dependence over the past 25 years, my periodic trips to Africa on medical missions, as well as my years of medical practice would not have been possible.

I really do not seek answers from what is incomprehensible to me. I do not wish to hide away the random cruelties of life and their apparent meaninglessness. I only need the courage to stand squarely before my own brokenness and that of the world around me with some dignity and without fear. I need the strength to be present to the mystery of life, suffering, love, and death without a closed mind and heart. I suppose, for what it is worth, that is my faith and my prayer.
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Maybe there is a difference between “faith” and “belief?”
Huge difference. Pistis is the Greek word translated as faith and it means trust, not belief. Belief is but a seed from which faith may grow.

From Matthew 7:
21“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22“Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ 23“And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

To have faith/trust without reason and against all odds seems a good thing.
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:To have faith/trust without reason and against all odds seems a good thing.
Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend certainly thought so. They called it faith/love/trust/bonding.

The grizzlies called it a two course self-delivering lunch!

The importance of perspective. ;)

Apparently, even God believes in Darwin. :)
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Simple Minded wrote:
Parodite wrote:To have faith/trust without reason and against all odds seems a good thing.
Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend certainly thought so. They called it faith/love/trust/bonding.

The grizzlies called it a two course self-delivering lunch!

The importance of perspective. ;)

Apparently, even God believes in Darwin. :)
I just had my lunch.. gawd I feel peaceful now.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

Simple Minded wrote:Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend certainly thought so. They called it faith/love/trust/bonding.

The grizzlies called it a two course self-delivering lunch!

The importance of perspective. ;)

Apparently, even God believes in Darwin. :)


Some years before Timothy Treadwell and Amie Huguenard met their unfortunate end, my wife and I watched a PBS/National Geographic special on TV about Treadwell's antics among the grizzlies of Katmai National Park.

When it was over, I turned to my wife and said, "There's a walking dead man."
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

Parodite wrote:To have faith/trust without reason and against all odds seems a good thing.
Not really. Read kmitch's post again and you will see his faith is based on experience and reason. Without reason and experience (against all odds) you are talking about belief.

Belief and non-belief are both universal. Belief without reason and experience costs one nothing, but it does place one in the mental position to observe certain unique and unrepeatable events. Lack of belief is actually a strong belief of a different type - one which dismisses unprecedented or anecdotal events.

Belief/unbelief are conceptual configurations. Faith is the willingness to act upon belief.

The Gospels relate several times that Jesus performed miracles so that people would convert their belief to trust based on reason and experience. A faith contrary to reason and experience is dangerous, and not always a good thing. There are plenty of dangerous people of faith causing mischief and waiving flags with crosses, crescent moons and triangley stars to attest to that.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5643
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Parodite »

Nonc Hilaire wrote:
Parodite wrote:To have faith/trust without reason and against all odds seems a good thing.
Not really. Read kmitch's post again and you will see his faith is based on experience and reason. Without reason and experience (against all odds) you are talking about belief.
I think your use of religious faith and belief as the context and reference disables you in understanding what I mean. Of course you can always shove aside what I say because the way I use faith/trust and belief does not conform to how you insist using it - for which of course there is no real reasonable reason. ;)

Kmich can speak for himself though and did it quite eloquently. But let me try summarize at least how I understood it. During difficult times in his life, faith in the sense of trust and hope.. pulled him through. That "against all odds" one can still keep walking towards a resolve in the future, in good faith and with courage. It just means not giving up, even when everything seems to have conspired against you. Such trust and faith can also extend beyond the grave; for which there is no reason.. but one can trust and have faith still and all the same.
Belief and non-belief are both universal. Belief without reason and experience costs one nothing, but it does place one in the mental position to observe certain unique and unrepeatable events.
I don't think belief without experience is possible. Experience is what informs and gets feedback from belief, always. Negation and re-inforcement of belief and disbelief are in constant motion and part of the experiential process. Part of how perception is shaped.
Lack of belief is actually a strong belief of a different type - one which dismisses unprecedented or anecdotal events.
I would say lack of belief represents a situation where belief and disbelief are temporarily suspended. For instance during drinking coffee without much conceptual hobadoo going on in the background.
Belief/unbelief are conceptual configurations. Faith is the willingness to act upon belief.
I think this is what usually creates a lot of stress for many believers who start to doubt and feel paralyzed, when it is hard to believe something to be true... but required according to authorities of sorts to believe, have a faith and a willingness to act. Not seldom a source of serious depression, of self-loathing and self-doubt. "What's wrong with me... now that I can't believe this no matter how hard I try.. Help me Maaaa!! It all seems so stange, wrong even, full of contradictions :cry:. Help me oh God.. believe in you... you make so little sense!! "
The Gospels relate several times that Jesus performed miracles so that people would convert their belief to trust based on reason and experience.
But more times the demand for miracles and signs ("proof") is rejected; an important theme and "rule" in Judaism.
A faith contrary to reason and experience is dangerous, and not always a good thing. There are plenty of dangerous people of faith causing mischief and waiving flags with crosses, crescent moons and triangley stars to attest to that.
Faith in the sense of trust and hope is always good, especially in hopeless situations. It helps people not fall victim to despair and wanting to give up.

Beliefs however that do not rest on experience and reason.. that are pulled out of thin air or a magic hat instead, pushed through human throats because holy book x y or z says so... are the dangerous ones. But maybe that was your point.
Deep down I'm very superficial
User avatar
Marcus
Posts: 2409
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 2:23 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Marcus »

kmich wrote:. . I grew up deeply involved in an Orthodox Church community, I really cannot assent to what I do not understand as a cost of my continued participation without being gravely dishonest. . .
As one who grew up an Evangelical and, in later years, had a brief skirmish with Orthodoxy and without the slightest bit of rancor, I can totally understand your frustration.
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
******************
"I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels."
—John Calvin
User avatar
Nonc Hilaire
Posts: 6168
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 1:28 am

Re: Faith and modernity

Post by Nonc Hilaire »

I'm losing the direction of your conversation here, but admit that Christianity is integral to my existence and will be be confounding at some point. Considering the subject, I pray that will enlighten rather than obfuscate.
I think this is what usually creates a lot of stress for many believers who start to doubt and feel paralyzed, when it is hard to believe something to be true... but required according to authorities of sorts to believe, have a faith and a willingness to act. Not seldom a source of serious depression, of self-loathing and self-doubt. "What's wrong with me... now that I can't believe this no matter how hard I try.. Help me Maaaa!! It all seems so stange, wrong even, full of contradictions . Help me oh God.. believe in you... you make so little sense!! "
What you describe is commonly called 'blind faith', and it is like teaching a young musician to hold a violin bow correctly or for a dancer to walk on chalk marks. To try to remain at that infantile stage of development is fatal, but mastery of that stage is essential before one can progress.

The development of Christian faith is similar. Faith requires action. Movement. A dialectic between belief and disbelief. Faith requires growth and engagement in a process of development.

James 2:14-26 ¶ What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. ¶ But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
“Christ has no body now but yours. Yours are the eyes through which he looks with compassion on this world. Yours are the feet with which he walks among His people to do good. Yours are the hands through which he blesses His creation.”

Teresa of Ávila
Post Reply