Weak Belief in God

[aether]

This is a topic that has frustrated me for years on end. It's not a problem I find with most Mormons very often, but rather with nearlly all the rest of people I find. There could be the most religious person in the world (for sake of convenience let's name him Bob), but as soon as something tragic happens to him, he immediately comes to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. I don't get it. Tragedies happen all the time, everywhere. People are always in pain, always going through tough times, but that doesn't bother Bob until he gets hurt. That sort of belief irritates me just for its selfishness. What does he assume? That everyone but him must be less righteous, so God doesn't answer their prayers? And yet if his prayers aren't answered, it must be because God doesn't exist. I hate hearing phrases like, "God wouldn't let a tragedy like this happen," but he would before the tragedy happened? People wonder "OMG why did God let 9/11 happen?? He must not exist!" ignoring the mass slaughters of the past like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the holocaust, and several thousand terrorist attacks over the years.

I guess I really just don't understand. I've never been angry at God for allowing bad things to happen. Are people really that eager for needing someone to blame things on?

[stuckasamo]

I'm an athiest, but I've noticed the same thing. I think yes, people do need someone to blame things on, because it makes them feel more secure of the situation. For instance, the Mormons like to believe that when something bad happens to them, God is either testing them or they did something bad and are being punished, when really God has nothing to do with it - shit just happens. There are consequences for everything. If a little toddler gets killed by a drunk driver, that was just shit happening. So yeah, people need to be angry, it helps them feel better. And who better to blame than Almighty God, the only one with the power to stop the tragedy?

I didn't become an athiest due to a tragic event. In fact, I think a belief in God is great! Seriously, it lowers your blood pressure and all sorts of good stuff. I just can't believe in something I see no proof for. But when something bad happens, I don't blame anyone but myself or just on the fact that shit happens. But again, when something good happens, I take the credit. Works for me :)

[nate]

Are people really that eager for needing someone to blame things on?

Simple answer; Yes, they are!

This reminds me of an excellent movie I saw recently, The United States of Leland. In the movie, a young man is in juvenile detention for murder, having a conversation with a counselor. Up to this point in the movie, the young man has shown absolutely no emotion whatsoever. The counselor is trying to get him to express his feelings, and tells him, "It's ok, after all, you are only human."

The young man looks at the counselor and replies, "Isn't it funny how people only say that when something bad has happened?"

[free thinker]

John Shelby Spong postulates that although there is a higher power, what he refers to as " the ground of all being" , that it is benign. It just simply does not get involved. Bad people prosper, and the humble suffer. Benign. Not very comforting, but from the evidence I have seen, it rings true.

Free Thinker

[aether]

John Shelby Spong postulates that although there is a higher power, what he refers to as " the ground of all being" , that it is benign. It just simply does not get involved. Bad people prosper, and the humble suffer. Benign. Not very comforting, but from the evidence I have seen, it rings true.

Free Thinker

I completely agree with that. I guess the problem is that people believe in a God who answers prayers with physical evidence - miracles and such. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but that kind of belief will only lead to disappointment in the end.

[meinmachine]

I completely agree with that. I guess the problem is that people believe in a God who answers prayers with physical evidence - miracles and such. Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but that kind of belief will only lead to disappointment in the end.

Diesm is the belief that God or some all powerfull being set creation in motion, but that God is not involved after creation. Most consider this to be a pre-Darwinian form of Athiesm. Many of the founding fathers were Diests.

My experience has been that many people abandon a religious view point when confronted with a tragedy that they cannot justify within their view of how God is supposed to work.

Then there are those who turn to God in a tragedy because their world view gives them no security in a troubled world. This is why the fundementalist religious movements are on the up-swing in the West and Muslim world. They offer the belief in a final justice and the saftey that all believers are scurely nestled in the loving bossom of their diety.

I like Diests, but I prefer a good non-theist. At any rate if God does exist he is staunchly in the Diest camp. He is rolling his eyes and slapping his head over the actions of mankind. :duh :cool:

[peter_mary]

Aether,

Your question really strikes at the root of faith, in my opinion. I don't profess to understand faith very well, probably for lack of it most of my life (well, faith in the religious sense).

I can only speak from my own experience, which is rather limited. However, I know that all the years I believed, I did so because I trusted lots of other good, smart people who said THEY believed, and they had evidence to demonstrate they believed. I had no good, honest, first-hand experience with God, but if lots of people I trusted claimed to have, then that was good enough for me.

It took a lot of self-talk, a lot of rationalization, and frankly, a whole lot of disbelieving things I really DID believe in order to hold together any kind of faith. But it seemed necessary to hold that faith together because I worried about the consequences of letting that faith fall apart...I would be damned, of course, and that wasn't a pleasant thought.

At long last, I couldn't hold it together any longer, and it all fell apart. Only then could I see how much energy I had to put into the faith in order for it to exist. In other words, were it not for my hard work, God did not exist in my life.

Let me try a metaphore. Most of us enjoy a nicely landscaped yard. I have a nice, rolling lawn, beds of flowers and trees, a waterfall surrounded by boulders I collected myself, that tumbles into a pond. I like my yard. But what do you suppose happens to it when I don't put a lot of energy (and money! :duh ) into keeping it looking nice? It goes back to sagebrush and wild grass in a few short years, after going through the "weed" stage. If I don't put the effort into it, I don't have a yard. But I DO have what is natural, the way the land is WITHOUT my hard work and energy.

That's the way my testimony was, and my faith in God. When I let go, quit sweating and working so hard, my faith returned to it's "ground" state, i.e. a belief in life itself without the involvement of a high-energy God.

I wonder if lot's of people don't have similar experiences. In your hypothetical "Bob", he may have been holding on, but when tragedy befell, he realized his holding was all for naught...and let go. If that faith doesn't sustain you during the hard times, then what good is it? If it DOES sustain you, then you might have something worth hanging on to.

I don't know, that's just how it was for me...

Peter_Mary

[Born Free]

I see that beliefs in "God" take a few forms.

Belief in the Great Santa Clause in the Sky (who has a big ledger of good and bad deeds, dispenses goodies and nasties "according to the law upon which all blessings are predicated".

A non-theistic God.

The awesome randomness of Life, happiness and s#itfulness of chance.

I personally have real problems with the Divine Santa Clause, am increasingly OK with the awesome randomness of life, but with some openness to the possibility of some overriding preference in Creation for growth, structure and order (Love), in tension with decay, and disorder.

Philosophy is a great place to explore that.

Daryl

PS: As usual, I am in awe of the wisdom of Peter_Mary's contribution to this thread and find myself substantially in alignment with his thinking, and wishing I could glean his accumulated wisdom quickly, rather than taking the lieftime he has invested to accumulate it. (Shucks! :duh )

[Born Free]

The following is an extract from an essay by Roy Jackson

'The reign of beasts has begun.'
-Albert Camus, 1939

At the beginning of Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas admitted that the existence of evil is the best argument against the existence of God. A tension exists between the beliefs about evil and the characteristics of the classical, theistic view of God:

Omnipotence. God is perceived doctrinally as 'all-powerful', but immediately we can see problems with this. Are we to say, as Descartes suggests, that God can do anything? Can he square a circle, or commit suicide? Can he create a being greater than himself? If so, why cannot God prevent evil?

Omniscience. God is 'all-knowing.' Does this mean he knows what has happened, is happening, and is going to happen everywhere (therefore, also omnipresent) and to every body? If this is the case, why did he not foresee the rise of Hitler and do something about it?

Omnibenevolence. In a narrow sense, God as 'all-good' refers to his moral character (as opposed to the wider definition of 'perfection'). If God is creator of all things, how could he have allowed the existence of evil?

Bearing these characteristics in mind, we seem to come to one of either the following conclusions:

Either
a. The 'Theistic God' exists
& Evil does not exist.

Or
b. The 'Theistic God' does not exist
& Evil does exist.

This logic helped me clarify some of my unexamined beliefs re "God".

Daryl

[miss taken]

Aether, I am with you on this one.

It's interesting, because I am not quite sure of the churches position on this one. You get the stories of Job and so forth, with God playing a direct role in both his challenges and his triumphs.

However, I have heard varying accounts on just how much God intervenes in the church, from not at all (benign) to all the time.

I don't know the answers. But I came to hate the 'puppet' mentality that some members shared. If all is going well, God is blessing them, ie by paying tithing, keeping the law of chastity and so forth. If they have challenges, then God is punishing them. They need to do MORE. And I think that is the mentality that would cause people to reject the idea of a God altogether???

Actually, I think there are certain benefits that come from living certain lifestyles whether you are religious or not.

My mum smokes. Goodness I wish she didn't. Lung Cancer isn't the only disease related to smoking, it also carries with it greater risk of getting heart disease and colon cancer.

I suppose the church would call them natural laws if I remember rightly. If you dont smoke, you reap the benefits health wise.

But, aside from this, if God is blessing you, then he is also cursing you when things go wrong. 'What did I do to deserve this' well....maybe nothing.....

I don't see God as Santa Claus. I can't explain everything that happens here, but I think most if not pretty much all the time, if there is a god, he leaves us to get on with it. Surely, from a mormon perspective that is the whole point anyway.???

So, so far in my life, I havn't rejected the idea of a God because things have gone wrong. I don't walk in other people's shoes however so appreciate that other people might come to a different conclusion.

Mary

[Born Free]

A post-mo friend of mine made this observation.

"When my TBM sister has a difficulty occuring in her life, God is testing her. When the same or a similar thing is happening in my life, then I am being punished. Go figure!"

That is the sort of inconsistent drivel about how "God" works that drives me nuts (OK. I choose to let it drive me nuts!) IMHO, this says nothing about the nature of God at all. It is a comment about man, and his potential for extremely childish "Us/them" thinking, without any concerns about intellectual inconsistency.

If God is worth honouring as of any worth at all, surely He/She has some measure of consistency. There is not one rulebook for the goodies and another for the baddies.

Any discussion about the nature of "God" surely starts with some consideration of the immaturity of man, and the human attributes we are prone to project onto this thing we label "God".

Daryl

[why me]

Lately I have been thinkng why would God want to be concerned with my life when there are so many other lives that need more healing than mine. Who I am that god would care about me? With all the tragedies in this world, does it really matter if I stray away from the commandments. I don't blame God for my pains but I have seen my inner pain as being a punishment for not having a righteous life. But then I try to understand that in life there are inner joys and inner pains and likewise there are beautiful moments and there are tragic moments in each human life that is living and has lived on this earth. But maybe I am not making any sense right now...because I am alittle confused about it all. I look up at the sky and see beautiful blue or pale grey in the daytime depending on the weather and at night I see darkness with stars...

[aether]

Peter_mary, I LOVE your yard analogy. My goodness. I'm going to have to remember that one.

And Daryl, I get that argument all the time about my atheist friends who want to convince me there is no God. They say if God is so benevolent, the world wouldn't be such a screwed up place. But I believe in a God that is "good," for any number of reasons.

First of all, our definitions of "good" and "evil" keep changing. I have no idea what really is good and what really is evil. In ancient Japan, Greece, Rome, and China, killing someone else was not viewed as an evil thing, and now it is. If I had grown up back then, I have no doubt that I would have shared the views of everyone around me. So who am I to say?

Second of all, the idea of a benevolent God who produces miracles and makes good people prosper and evil people fail, takes away the idea of liberty in individual choices. If you look at everything bad that happens, nearly everything can come down to an individual choice (or choices) that someone made (exceptions being weather and such). So for God to intervene with the consequences of those choices is to deny the free agency he bestowed upon all of us at the beginning of existence. That's why I've never much liked the common Mormon idea that God answers prayers with physical results. I believe in emotional miracles, not physical. This of course conflicts with tons of scriptures, especially Job, which was mentioned, Sodom and Gomorrah, countless wars, turning water into wine, diverting arrows from their path, etc etc. So it's probably impossible for Mormons (especially TBM's) to believe in a God that doesn't interfere with everyday life.

[why me]

Peter_mary, I LOVE your yard analogy. My goodness. I'm going to have to remember that one.

And Daryl, I get that argument all the time about my atheist friends who want to convince me there is no God. They say if God is so benevolent, the world wouldn't be such a screwed up place. But I believe in a God that is "good," for any number of reasons.

First of all, our definitions of "good" and "evil" keep changing. I have no idea what really is good and what really is evil. In ancient Japan, Greece, Rome, and China, killing someone else was not viewed as an evil thing, and now it is. If I had grown up back then, I have no doubt that I would have shared the views of everyone around me. So who am I to say?

Second of all, the idea of a benevolent God who produces miracles and makes good people prosper and evil people fail, takes away the idea of liberty in individual choices. If you look at everything bad that happens, nearly everything can come down to an individual choice (or choices) that someone made (exceptions being weather and such). So for God to intervene with the consequences of those choices is to deny the free agency he bestowed upon all of us at the beginning of existence. That's why I've never much liked the common Mormon idea that God answers prayers with physical results. I believe in emotional miracles, not physical. This of course conflicts with tons of scriptures, especially Job, which was mentioned, Sodom and Gomorrah, countless wars, turning water into wine, diverting arrows from their path, etc etc. So it's probably impossible for Mormons (especially TBM's) to believe in a God that doesn't interfere with everyday life.

Maybe miracles can be both physical and emotional. But aether, you seem to have a strong belief in god...if so, what makes you have such faith that god exists...? I think that a weak belief in god is when a person questions god existence because he or she doesn't feel god in the world nor in the heavens. Perhaps what you are getting at is a person's weakened trust in god. And does good and evil ever really change or is it that people change the definitions of just what good and evil are?
:) ---a smile because it is a beautiful spring day in my neck of the woods...

[bigeddy]

Let's go back to your original question (because I want to share a paradigm that may help answer it). I watch life and people and continue to look for underlying reasons for what I see (again, I guess I believe in the consistency of people). It has taken me a long old time (well into geezerhood) to understand the underlying patterns. I think I see some of it.

This one is fascinating for me. What we know cognitively is just one piece of our knowing. So, Bob knows in his head that God is good, God cares, She is constantly watching us and answering our prayers, etc. etc. He also knows that shit happens, that tradgedy is a part of it all. He can sit back and watch as the world falls apart for some other poor dumb schmuck and cognitively he has it figured. He cruises along feeling very good with is store of cognitive knowing.

Then, he becomes the dumb schmuck who's world falls apart and it is no longer a cognitive exercize. Now he must deal with it affectively--emotionally. He may, as his world rains down, not have much in the way of affective knowledge to handle this and he may not have the emotional skills to go along with what he knows cognitively. So, he is angry, hurt, rebellious, resentful, bitter and cannot cope with it in a manner consistent with his cognitive knowledge store. THen, because he cannot do (emotionally) what his head (cognitive) says is "right" he often just feels shame along with his anger and bitterness.

In therapy I faced this every day. People knew things in their heads but their heart knew other things. So I had to come up with a theory of affective knowing that helps explain and deal with it. Then, I had to come up with a way to understand emotional skills.

Let's say that a person is hired to design a bridge. To do so she will need all kinds of cognitive skill to accomplish the task. She was taught these various cognitve skills so she could do the massive work that is required to yield a finished design. We teach these cognitive skills every day and we are getting good at it.

Then, let's say that after designing the bridge, using all her cognitive skills and being very pleased with herself, she becomes the dumb schmuck whose world falls apart. Let's say that her 3 year old son is hit by a car and lies in a coma with doctors and etc. asking her whether to turn off the machines. Now she has a huge piece of emotional work to do. But, has she been taught the needed emotional skills to accomplish each emotional task. She will need to have many skills and will need to apply them in a particular order so she can make it through this terrible ordeal.

Just like when she designed the bridge and needed to apply her cognitive skills in a certain order to accomplish each task and get the overall "work" done, she will need to do the same with her affective work. But, who taught her the emotional skills needed? How do we teach emotional skills?

What I see is that we just kind of hope that she will pick them up along the way. It would be like not teaching cognitive skills and just hoping that kids figured out math, science and etc. on their own. After all, other people picked them up and are functioning. Why do we trust that people will pick up needed emotional skills on their own?

So, I can see how Bob did the Bob thing. Cognitively he thought he had answers until it became an affective verity for him. Now he needed affective skills and had them not. (another yodaism)

Also, as for good and evil, right and wrong, etc. The complexities and everything mentioned on this thread are the reasons I choose not to even use the words. They do not aid us in comprehension. There is no evil! There is no good or bad. There are things that are illegal, hurtful, beneficial, etc. But using these more specific terms helps in understanding. Life is too complex for such generalized terms. (except in the teaching of small children who cannot handle the complexity----YET. But we cannot keep them children. This is what the pulpit idiots try to do, IMO.)

Ed

[dancinfree]

The whole idea of the "blame game" given to god, whether it be positive or negative was one of my first appearances of niggles or is it nuggles or nigglies?..(hehehe) that are talked about in the "stages" thread. I couldn't quite figure out how to give god the credit for the positive and yet not blame the almightly for the negative. (which being a good momo, I didn't want to do..oh my!!) Thus began my descent into the dark side....LUUUKE, I AM your MOTHER!! Sorry, I got distracted.

My husband's beliefs have always been a form of theism but for many years I denied that form for him...holding out that one day he would come around and know the TRUTH...like me...hee,hee :Puking But seriously, I felt a deep sense of sadness and abandonment when I put myself in his belief path..it was only when I was ready to let go of the fear and doubt that I could stand on my own two feet, spiritually speaking. I could feel the empowerment from within myself and not some confusing, check-off the worthiness list, holy ghost, that would abandon me at the drop of a hat or a sin. (ooh!)

I tend to believe that my God is interwoven in all things. There is a mention of a God in the temple that says something to the effect like: "Do I believe in a God that is so large, that can encompass the earth, yet is so small, can dwell inside my heart?" and I thought to myself....YES! That is the God that I always believed in....but then they said NO!! That is not the true God and I was sad. That HE/SHE is in all and all BEING is the only way for me to describe my belief thus far.

I'm off to my sons' piano recitals...thanks for everyone's input. I just LOVE this safe haven!!

[Born Free]

<snip>

So, I can see how Bob did the Bob thing. Cognitively he thought he had answers until it became an affective verity for him. Now he needed affective skills and had them not. (another yodaism)
<snip>

Ed

I have learnt something valuable in this Ed. Thanks.

Daryl

[miss taken]

Dancinfree said

holy ghost, that would abandon me at the drop of a hat or a sin

Dancinfree I agree with you here, why on earth would God and his messengers (the holy ghost if you like) abandon you/me at a time when we need them most, including when we are on a path that is destructive for us. It doesn't make sense. If we are to believe that Jesus (again if he has been quoted correctly) said that he came to heal the sick not the well, then this would not make sense.




Ed said

This one is fascinating for me. What we know cognitively is just one piece of our knowing. So, Bob knows in his head that God is good, God cares, She is constantly watching us and answering our prayers, etc. etc. He also knows that shit happens, that tradgedy is a part of it all. He can sit back and watch as the world falls apart for some other poor dumb schmuck and cognitively he has it figured. He cruises along feeling very good with is store of cognitive knowing.

Then, he becomes the dumb schmuck who's world falls apart and it is no longer a cognitive exercize. Now he must deal with it affectively--emotionally. He may, as his world rains down, not have much in the way of affective knowledge to handle this and he may not have the emotional skills to go along with what he knows cognitively. So, he is angry, hurt, rebellious, resentful, bitter and cannot cope with it in a manner consistent with his cognitive knowledge store. THen, because he cannot do (emotionally) what his head (cognitive) says is "right" he often just feels shame along with his anger and bitterness.
I really like the way you have separated cognitive and affective reasoning and behaviour here Ed. One question though...can we easily separate our cognitive and emotional existence. Much of what I learn cognitively, I do so with an emotional backdrop to it. I just wonder if it is so easy to separate the two. Just a thought???

Mary

[aether]

But aether, you seem to have a strong belief in god...if so, what makes you have such faith that god exists...?

Well actually my belief in God was confirmed by science classes I was taking last year at college. I took biology and astronomy.. and by the time those classes were over, I had no doubt of a god's existence. I take back my previous statement; God has performed a physical miracle: creation. Words cannot describe how beautiful and complex it is. You can study any small thing (it was DNA for me) and the sheer complexity and efficiency of it makes it impossible for me to even think that it was not designed that way.

So I guess my certainty with it is cognitive.. and that's enough for me, I guess, because my affective experiences keep changing. I get glimmers of intuition sometimes, but I think they're from me rather than from God.. and then there's my tremendously emotional experiences whenever I go into the mountains that I can't explain - I think those might be from God, but I'm not sure. But I still believe that it exists.

EDIT: I was thinking about it.. and there isn't much a separation with me between cognitive and affective belief, I think. Because in that biology class, talking about DNA, the knowledge of its beauty sparked an emotional reaction in me. Especially in astronomy talking about the Origin. That one might have brought me to tears. So I think they're very closely tied with me.

And does good and evil ever really change or is it that people change the definitions of just what good and evil are?

Oh well that's what I meant... that the definitions keep changing. And really I think that since they are opinions, the very ideas of good and evil are relative. Just like Ed, I do not believe in evil. (That can get you in trouble with LOTS of people. My boyfriend hated that about me. :( I'm not going out with him anymore.) And if there is no evil, cognitively I know there is no true good either. I don't think my psyche wants me to believe that though.. for some reason. But I don't see God as an ultimate good. I see it as an ultimate completeness. Kind of a peace within the imbalances of the world. Maybe. I don't even know what I see God as.

[silverfox]

A post-mo friend of mine made this observation.

"When my TBM sister has a difficulty occuring in her life, God is testing her. When the same or a similar thing is happening in my life, then I am being punished. Go figure!"

Daryl

This drives me nuts. If there is a God and if people are being punished while here on earth then why do some people get away scott free with lots of things including abuse, murder, etc, etc, etc.

None of it makes sense. I remember a family in my ward years ago who were critically injured in an auto accident on a Sunday. They were one the border of being inactive. Sheesh - the members went crazy thinking they were being punished....traveling on a Sunday (on a camping trip, if I remember correctly), being inactive, etc, etc, etc.

This is one thing as a member and as a Baptist prior to my Mo'ism that I never bought into. I can't see a God picking on us for little stupid things like not saying our prayers or missing church. I cant' see this image of a God allowing a child to suffer or another innocent person to suffer to punish someone else.

There were many times I had to stifle my own creation of these kinds of negative feelings.

I don't get it. I don't want to get it either so please, lurkers, don't send any Christian related PMs to me. There is nothing TO get, IMO.

[bigeddy]

Mary,

You asked about the ease of seperating the cognitive and affective in our existence. I see lots of variations of this. I see some people who do it very well (I don't think it is healthy). Some folks live from the neck up. They have such fear of emotion that they quash it whenever it arises and deny and bind it. It is too scary. I see these folks as "engineering life" rather than living it.

I see others who live impulsive emotional lives. They don't think about what they feel, and cognition is reserved for remembering the way to a destination, the spelling of a word, etc. but when it comes to problem solving they revert to pure emotion.

I see others who, while not understanding how the two are relating and working together, do mingle them.

For me, the ideal is to be able to feel about what I think and to be able to think about what I feel; to keep them in balance. I also believe it is very healthy to understand and own what I know affectively. Some one talked once about humans walking through life with a tail that is 2 miles long and that the tail wags us. The tail contains all the affective experiences and etc. that we are subconsciously responding to all the time (kinda Freudian.) So, if we know what lies in our store of affective knowing and we own it as our own, taking responsibility for dealing with it we can be more healthy. Such things as "you made me so mad" are not possible then because my anger and what is behind it belongs to me, you cannot make me angry, I AM angry, etc.

Does this answer it?

Ed

[miss taken]

Mary,

You asked about the ease of seperating the cognitive and affective in our existence. I see lots of variations of this. I see some people who do it very well (I don't think it is healthy). Some folks live from the neck up. They have such fear of emotion that they quash it whenever it arises and deny and bind it. It is too scary. I see these folks as "engineering life" rather than living it.

I see others who live impulsive emotional lives. They don't think about what they feel, and cognition is reserved for remembering the way to a destination, the spelling of a word, etc. but when it comes to problem solving they revert to pure emotion.

I see others who, while not understanding how the two are relating and working together, do mingle them.

For me, the ideal is to be able to feel about what I think and to be able to think about what I feel; to keep them in balance. I also believe it is very healthy to understand and own what I know affectively. Some one talked once about humans walking through life with a tail that is 2 miles long and that the tail wags us. The tail contains all the affective experiences and etc. that we are subconsciously responding to all the time (kinda Freudian.) So, if we know what lies in our store of affective knowing and we own it as our own, taking responsibility for dealing with it we can be more healthy. Such things as "you made me so mad" are not possible then because my anger and what is behind it belongs to me, you cannot make me angry, I AM angry, etc.

Does this answer it?

Ed

Thanks Ed. This answers it very well. I like the 'tail' analogy. (I have never heard of it before). Yes, what you write makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

Mary

[elder_nomo]

Well actually my belief in God was confirmed by science classes I was taking last year at college. I took biology and astronomy.. and by the time those classes were over, I had no doubt of a god's existence. I take back my previous statement; God has performed a physical miracle: creation. Words cannot describe how beautiful and complex it is. You can study any small thing (it was DNA for me) and the sheer complexity and efficiency of it makes it impossible for me to even think that it was not designed that way.

Aether - I am fascinated by how science confirms your belief in God. I don't believe in god, or at least I feel it is unknowable (if there is a god). But there are times when I really wonder and it is also science that gives me the thought, like DNA for you, only for me it is a solar eclipse. The sun and the moon are millions of miles apart. One is enormous and the other relatively small. And yet the perspective from earth is such that one exactly covers the other. How extraordinary is that!

[rainangel]

Let me try a metaphore. Most of us enjoy a nicely landscaped yard. I have a nice, rolling lawn, beds of flowers and trees, a waterfall surrounded by boulders I collected myself, that tumbles into a pond. I like my yard. But what do you suppose happens to it when I don't put a lot of energy (and money! :duh ) into keeping it looking nice? It goes back to sagebrush and wild grass in a few short years, after going through the "weed" stage. If I don't put the effort into it, I don't have a yard. But I DO have what is natural, the way the land is WITHOUT my hard work and energy.

That's the way my testimony was, and my faith in God. When I let go, quit sweating and working so hard, my faith returned to it's "ground" state, i.e. a belief in life itself without the involvement of a high-energy God.



Peter_Mary


Peter_Mary,

I really enjoyed your metaphor, mostly because you have put into words how I basically feel. I stopped "pulling my weeds" and "maintaining my garden" so I could see what would happen. Guess what? I like what I see now and am so very happy being in a "ground" state. Thanks for your always-enlightening comments.

rainangel

[miss taken]

Peter_Mary,

I really enjoyed your metaphor, mostly because you have put into words how I basically feel. I stopped "pulling my weeds" and "maintaining my garden" so I could see what would happen. Guess what? I like what I see now and am so very happy being in a "ground" state. Thanks for your always-enlightening comments.

rainangel

This is a tiny bit off subject, but you have reminded me of how I keep my back garden.

I used to take out all the weeds and everything that was dying or dying off.

Now I don't. I leave it all there, a few weeds, a few snails, dying plants have a beauty all of their own, especially in the winter when the frost bathes them in its caresses.

I just love it. I love my much more natural garden, rather than the pristine, everything has to be controlled, not a thing out of place, kind of mentality.

Maybe, that too is a metaphor for my own life. A different attitude to the weeds and to death in general, which I now embrace as a normal rite of passage, sad as it is.

Or maybe I am just writing a crock of bull!!!!!

Mary

[why me]

This is a tiny bit off subject, but you have reminded me of how I keep my back garden.

I used to take out all the weeds and everything that was dying or dying off.

Now I don't. I leave it all there, a few weeds, a few snails, dying plants have a beauty all of their own, especially in the winter when the frost bathes them in its caresses.

I just love it. I love my much more natural garden, rather than the pristine, everything has to be controlled, not a thing out of place, kind of mentality.

Maybe, that too is a metaphor for my own life. A different attitude to the weeds and to death in general, which I now embrace as a normal rite of passage, sad as it is.

Or maybe I am just writing a crock of bull!!!!!

Mary

Can life be compared with a garden? Perhaps it can. But what are weeds and how do they impact a garden? I am certainly no gardener but I am sure that some weeds can be beautiful with a natural bloom of color but of course there are other weeds which can choke the life out of other beautiful plants and flowers. I think that this is with life also. Some weeds can perhaps stay but the more harmful weeds will need to be weeded out to maintain a healthy life garden. Certainly, drugs and an over indulgence of alcohol among other personal weeds could be considered life threatening weeds...but I think that most of us have life weeds...we either accept them or remove them...what is best is often determined by the individual but some people no longer have the strength to pull out the weeds they no longer want...too many weeds and not enough life energy because the weeds have been too overwhelming in their own garden...I think that life (for many) has too many life weeds at the moment...IMO, we need a more natural and healthy kind of beauty...to live and grow...which allows our baby sprouts (children) to breathe freely...and which allows are own beautiful garden to bloom in harmony with the other elements of nature... :)

[dancinfree]

Can life be compared with a garden? Perhaps it can. But what are weeds and how do they impact a garden? I am certainly no gardener but I am sure that some weeds can be beautiful with a natural bloom of color but of course there are other weeds which can choke the life out of other beautiful plants and flowers. I think that this is with life also. Some weeds can perhaps stay but the more harmful weeds will need to be weeded out to maintain a healthy life garden. Certainly, drugs and an over indulgence of alcohol among other personal weeds could be considered life threatening weeds...but I think that most of us have life weeds...we either accept them or remove them...what is best is often determined by the individual but some people no longer have the strength to pull out the weeds they no longer want...too many weeds and not enough life energy because the weeds have been too overwhelming in their own garden...I think that life (for many) has too many life weeds at the moment...IMO, we need a more natural and healthy kind of beauty...to live and grow...which allows our baby sprouts (children) to breathe freely...and which allows are own beautiful garden to bloom in harmony with the other elements of nature... :)

Hi Why me,

Your take on the garden is fascinating to me and sparked my interest. I also agree that too many weeds can start to choke and destroy the beautiful blossoms around and I also see now that my garden also gets to have weeds to balance out the blossoms..it adds completeness to my garden.

As I grew up, I tried and tried to keep pulling the weeds away and have a pristine garden, based on what I was taught within the church and what I accepted as my truth. Their definition of a beautiful garden that I thought was the only true garden to have. No matter all my effort, those damn weeds kept popping up! I couldn't look upon them as useful, only bad, BAD weeds that don't belong in MY garden.

As I've been able to accept and grow and acknowledge my "weeds", I see that I get to create balance within my creation of a garden. What is truly beautiful is now up to me...what weeds I thin out and flowers that I choose to thin out is up to me...What a joy it is and a challenge to keep my garden balanced with all the glorious parts of my garden. Yes, there are some weeds, spiders, snails, worms, blossoms, even yucky tasting veggies and sweet tasting fruits. It all brings me a complete garden, not someone's idea of their beauty and the right kind of garden. It is mine! The more I am aware of what works and doesn't work in my garden, the more I learn about me and growth is acknowledged.

I don't feel the need to pull out weeds anymore or the worms...I embrace all the parts of my garden and as I look upon it each day, I ask myself, Is there balance here today? What part do I need to thin today or add to today? What a beautiful journey...no more condemning weeds or condemning myself...just asking myself, What are you learning?

[miss taken]

Hi Why me,

Your take on the garden is fascinating to me and sparked my interest. I also agree that too many weeds can start to choke and destroy the beautiful blossoms around and I also see now that my garden also gets to have weeds to balance out the blossoms..it adds completeness to my garden.

As I grew up, I tried and tried to keep pulling the weeds away and have a pristine garden, based on what I was taught within the church and what I accepted as my truth. Their definition of a beautiful garden that I thought was the only true garden to have. No matter all my effort, those damn weeds kept popping up! I couldn't look upon them as useful, only bad, BAD weeds that don't belong in MY garden.

As I've been able to accept and grow and acknowledge my "weeds", I see that I get to create balance within my creation of a garden. What is truly beautiful is now up to me...what weeds I thin out and flowers that I choose to thin out is up to me...What a joy it is and a challenge to keep my garden balanced with all the glorious parts of my garden. Yes, there are some weeds, spiders, snails, worms, blossoms, even yucky tasting veggies and sweet tasting fruits. It all brings me a complete garden, not someone's idea of their beauty and the right kind of garden. It is mine! The more I am aware of what works and doesn't work in my garden, the more I learn about me and growth is acknowledged.

I don't feel the need to pull out weeds anymore or the worms...I embrace all the parts of my garden and as I look upon it each day, I ask myself, Is there balance here today? What part do I need to thin today or add to today? What a beautiful journey...no more condemning weeds or condemning myself...just asking myself, What are you learning?


Thanks Dancinfree that was exactly what I was trying to write! That's how I feel too!!!!!

Mary :)

[aether]

Aether - I am fascinated by how science confirms your belief in God. I don't believe in god, or at least I feel it is unknowable (if there is a god). But there are times when I really wonder and it is also science that gives me the thought, like DNA for you, only for me it is a solar eclipse. The sun and the moon are millions of miles apart. One is enormous and the other relatively small. And yet the perspective from earth is such that one exactly covers the other. How extraordinary is that!

And there are so many wonders out there just like it! There was a show on Nature, I think, that my parents were watchign, about a tree that dropped seed pods. The shell to these seed pods was so thick, that no animal could ever crush it in its jaws. The only, only way that the seeds would ever get out is when a certain type of mouse that had the right sort of teeth would chew through the seed pod, take the seeds out and bury them, and then forget where they were buried. The tree's procreation depends entirely on a completely independent mammal! How is that coincidence? I think there's gotta be at least something there... call it the Tao, or God, or what you will... there just has to be something.

[miss taken]

And there are so many wonders out there just like it! There was a show on Nature, I think, that my parents were watchign, about a tree that dropped seed pods. The shell to these seed pods was so thick, that no animal could ever crush it in its jaws. The only, only way that the seeds would ever get out is when a certain type of mouse that had the right sort of teeth would chew through the seed pod, take the seeds out and bury them, and then forget where they were buried. The tree's procreation depends entirely on a completely independent mammal! How is that coincidence? I think there's gotta be at least something there... call it the Tao, or God, or what you will... there just has to be something.


THis reminds me of one of the books in the Philip Pullman trilogy 'His Dark Materials'.

There are some creatures in one of the worlds that Pullman explores that have the equivalent intelligence of humans, and whose survival relies totally on the seed pods of a certain tree. They use them as wheels for the volcanic roads which are smooth, and then the seeds can go on to develop into a tree. A perfect symbiotic? relationship.

It emphasised the delicate balance of life.

Mary

[peter_mary]

Can life be compared with a garden? Perhaps it can. But what are weeds and how do they impact a garden?

Let's think about this for a moment in light of a particularly well-known garden, supposedly once located in Jackson County, Missouri, USA. :duh

What is a garden but a man-made attempt to replicate the beauty of nature? Truly, how many real gardeners wander through a field of wild flowers, or an old-growth forest, or sit beside a tumbling mountain stream, and think to themselves, "I can do better than this!"

If they do, they are deluded narcicists of the first order.

A garden is a person's attempt at capturing...and controlling...what nature has already achieved...uncongrolled. Nature does it without effort. When you pass through a field of wildflowers, nothing is a weed...it all belongs. Even a dandelion is native to fields of flowers somewhere.

It is only when we take it upon ourselves to attempt to replicate and improve upon that which nature has already perfected that we create "gardens." And gardens, being unnatural, require an incredible amount of energy, chemical, nematodes (that's for you, Nancy...) lady bugs (for dogzilla) etc. just to keep nature at arm's length. Nature TRIES to reclaim, to return balance to the natural order, but we fight it. We control entropy by the addition of energy. Lots and lots of energy. Yet how much human energy goes into making a forest a forest? If we just leave 'em alone, they do it all by themselves, and all we have to do is reverantly tip-toe inside and enjoy it.

If weeds are "choking the garden," then what does it say of the garden? That it is out of balance already, and that the creatures placed therein would not be there on their own accord...they don't belong...and thus can't compete with the hardier creatures who invade. In the survival game of nature, the weak are removed by their inability to compete. In a sense, weeds make the world stronger, because that which learns to compete survives and passes on their genes. That which doesn't wasn't strong enough. Oh well...

(Someone is going to point out to me that some non-native weeds, like the kudzu in the south, are killing native species who can't compete because they didn't evolve with the invaders and lack the defenses. But remember, it was PEOPLE who brought those weeds into environments that they didn't already occupy. Once again, the operator, the Gardener, was us.)

Weeds, it seems, are a matter of perspective. What are weeds, but highly successful, very hardy, "natural" creatures? So what REALLY are the weeds in our lives? What are the hardy tendencies that we pluck out and burn?

How many times do we tell little boys not to cry? Is feeling emotion an attribute of hardiness, or weakness? I would suggest that it is a sign of strength, but we call it a "weed" and pluck it out.

What about "strength" in a woman? For centuries, we called that a weed, and tried to keep the women in our society "ladies," who knew their place, kept their mouth shut, their womb occupied, and their feet unshod. If a woman asserted her strength, she was called a "bitch" (as dogzilla pointed out in another thread), and often it was her own sisters who pulled her aside and chastised her for behavior unbecoming of a lady. Strength was a weed.

In the Church, thinking for yourself was a weed. In order to keep the pretty little "forget-me-nots" of Church dogmatism healthy, they actively yanked the weeds of historical inquiry, philosophical study, scientific research, etc.

Yet clearly, the ability for a man to feel, for a woman to be strong, and for all of us to think for ouselves are attributes of the hardy, natural human being.

They were simply DEFINED as weeds by some Gardener who thought they had a better way of designing what God (or the universe) had actually already created beautiful. And in so doing, they messed it up.

Now think about the power of the story of the Garden of Eden. Here we claim that God, the creative life force of the universe, IS the Master Gardener, the very one who claimed that we are not acceptable in our natural state. In fact, we are "ugly, weed-like" in our natural state. Only when we put enormous amounts of energy into making us what we are NOT originally, or naturally, are we acceptable to the Master Gardener.

We have sold ourselves a horrible, horrible bill of goods.

Weeds are only weeds if we decide we don't like them. We can also change the way we see them, and suddenly they become as beautiful as the flowers we were trying to protect. They're just different, strong in their own respect, but threatening to the order we have imposed on nature. How arrogant of us, to decide what in nature is good and what is bad...

I'm going out now to roll in a field of yellow dandelions...

Peter_Mary

[why me]

[QUOTE=aether
Oh well that's what I meant... that the definitions keep changing. And really I think that since they are opinions, the very ideas of good and evil are relative. Just like Ed, I do not believe in evil. (That can get you in trouble with LOTS of people. My boyfriend hated that about me. :( I'm not going out with him anymore.) And if there is no evil, cognitively I know there is no true good either. I don't think my psyche wants me to believe that though.. for some reason. But I don't see God as an ultimate good. I see it as an ultimate completeness. Kind of a peace within the imbalances of the world. Maybe. I don't even know what I see God as.[/QUOTE]

Aether, I will soon have a simple question for you or I will be starting a thread about something you wrote...maybe a new thread will be better...I want to get you take on something about what you wrote above...have a good day... :)

[peter_mary]

And there are so many wonders out there just like it! There was a show on Nature, I think, that my parents were watchign, about a tree that dropped seed pods. The shell to these seed pods was so thick, that no animal could ever crush it in its jaws. The only, only way that the seeds would ever get out is when a certain type of mouse that had the right sort of teeth would chew through the seed pod, take the seeds out and bury them, and then forget where they were buried. The tree's procreation depends entirely on a completely independent mammal! How is that coincidence? I think there's gotta be at least something there... call it the Tao, or God, or what you will... there just has to be something.

These are wonders...but only miraculous if you can't see the difference between "where we are now" and "the long road to get here."

Consider the possibility that the tree and the mouse, living in close proximity for millions of years, evolved together. A once common relationship between that which makes seeds and that which eats seeds becomes specialized over a long, long time.

See, the problem I have with intelligent design is that it only looks BACKWARD and says, "Wow! How improbible that we could ever get here." What you have to do in order to make sense out of it is to go back to the beginning, and think about the infinity of possibility that exists at EVERY PASSING MOMENT for the past 4.5 billion years...and your realize that a virtual infinity of highly probable, tiny moments with their tiny, associated events can result in a HUGE difference between where we began, and where we are today.

Think of it this way (in the most simplistic of ways). If you are in an airplane headed in a compass direction of 90 degrees (due east), and fly for 10 hours, you will end up at point "x". Now, if you could fly a parallel plane, at the same time, but pointed at 90.5 degrees, the first part of the journey would look pretty much the same. But at some point, the divergent trajectory starts having a greater and greater impact, until 10 hours later, you land on an entirely different continent. In other words, those tiny, almost imperceptible differences add up ENORMOUSLY over enough time. Now imagine flying those planse for 4.5 billion years. Wow. It's staggering.

Additionally, one of the fallacies of intelligent design thinking (from my perspective, and I'm afraid I'm probably stepping on toes here...sorry), is the belief in the "inevitability of me." In other words, we begin with the assumption that human beings are, in fact, the pinacle of creation. We are what it's all about. The ultimate. We were "inevitable." Well, that's a matter of faith, not science. It is unknowable that human's, or anything were "inevitable" from the moment of the big bang, or rather just the product of one moment leading to the next, and the result feeding back into the system, over and over and over virtually an infinite number of times. I don't believe in the "inevitability of me." It's true that the probability of getting what we got is infinitesmal. But that doesn't matter one twit if you don't have an inevitable outcome in mind from the beginning. Chaos and complexity sum up, over billions of years of history, to remarkable, complex and improbable things...but think of the infinity of other improbable things that haven't come into being. See, if you are going to play the "improbable game," you have to keep what DID happen in perspective with eveything that didn't happen...and that's when infinite possibility really hits you square between the eyes.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their belief in intelligent design, but only encouraging the possibilities of other perspectives.

Peter_Mary

[aether]

These are wonders...but only miraculous if you can't see the difference between "where we are now" and "the long road to get here."


Well I have considered that, and I recognize it as reason for people's cynicism.. but it just seems to me that even though existence kind of grew up the way it is, what are the chances that everything would work out just right? What rare event triggered the Cambrian explosion, something that never happened again on Earth? Why would life exist in the first place? It seems too much to me that everything in the solar system was leading up to life on Earth (i.e. our tidal moon which keeps Earth's core warm, the presence of Jupiter which directs nearly all large meteors away from Earth, the sun exactly at the right distance to be not too cool and not too warm, etc. etc.).

Maybe it all boils down to the fundamental "why," that no one can answer.

[flotsam]

This is a tiny bit off subject, but you have reminded me of how I keep my back garden.

I used to take out all the weeds and everything that was dying or dying off.

Now I don't. I leave it all there, a few weeds, a few snails, dying plants have a beauty all of their own, especially in the winter when the frost bathes them in its caresses.

I just love it. I love my much more natural garden, rather than the pristine, everything has to be controlled, not a thing out of place, kind of mentality.

Maybe, that too is a metaphor for my own life. A different attitude to the weeds and to death in general, which I now embrace as a normal rite of passage, sad as it is.

Or maybe I am just writing a crock of bull!!!!!

Mary

While I was on my mission in Belleville, Ontario, there was this guy the mishies found before I arrived who had just started some ivy growths next to his house. The mishies taught him the discussions and asked him to be baptized. At that point, he brought them out to his ivy starts and pointed them. "These will be my spiritual growth plants. Right now they're pretty small. Let's wait and see what happens."

So that night the mishies went out and bought some fertilizer.

Any morals you want to draw out of that one?

[elder_nomo]

These are wonders...but only miraculous if you can't see the difference between "where we are now" and "the long road to get here."

Consider the possibility that the tree and the mouse, living in close proximity for millions of years, evolved together. A once common relationship between that which makes seeds and that which eats seeds becomes specialized over a long, long time.

See, the problem I have with intelligent design is that it only looks BACKWARD and says, "Wow! How improbible that we could ever get here." What you have to do in order to make sense out of it is to go back to the beginning, and think about the infinity of possibility that exists at EVERY PASSING MOMENT for the past 4.5 billion years...and your realize that a virtual infinity of highly probable, tiny moments with their tiny, associated events can result in a HUGE difference between where we began, and where we are today.

Think of it this way (in the most simplistic of ways). If you are in an airplane headed in a compass direction of 90 degrees (due east), and fly for 10 hours, you will end up at point "x". Now, if you could fly a parallel plane, at the same time, but pointed at 90.5 degrees, the first part of the journey would look pretty much the same. But at some point, the divergent trajectory starts having a greater and greater impact, until 10 hours later, you land on an entirely different continent. In other words, those tiny, almost imperceptible differences add up ENORMOUSLY over enough time. Now imagine flying those planse for 4.5 billion years. Wow. It's staggering.

Additionally, one of the fallacies of intelligent design thinking (from my perspective, and I'm afraid I'm probably stepping on toes here...sorry), is the belief in the "inevitability of me." In other words, we begin with the assumption that human beings are, in fact, the pinacle of creation. We are what it's all about. The ultimate. We were "inevitable." Well, that's a matter of faith, not science. It is unknowable that human's, or anything were "inevitable" from the moment of the big bang, or rather just the product of one moment leading to the next, and the result feeding back into the system, over and over and over virtually an infinite number of times. I don't believe in the "inevitability of me." It's true that the probability of getting what we got is infinitesmal. But that doesn't matter one twit if you don't have an inevitable outcome in mind from the beginning. Chaos and complexity sum up, over billions of years of history, to remarkable, complex and improbable things...but think of the infinity of other improbable things that haven't come into being. See, if you are going to play the "improbable game," you have to keep what DID happen in perspective with eveything that didn't happen...and that's when infinite possibility really hits you square between the eyes.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their belief in intelligent design, but only encouraging the possibilities of other perspectives.

Peter_Mary

Peter_Mary, I think the reason the solar eclipse engrosses me the way it does is because, unlike DNA or the interdependent trees and mice, I can't see an evolutionary purpose or a natural benefit. It seems almost too coincidental for the alignment and perspective to be precisely the way it is. Oh, it's not enough to make me believe there is a god, but it helps keep me from being too sure of myself that there isn't one. I like that.

[elder_nomo]

While I was on my mission in Belleville, Ontario, there was this guy the mishies found before I arrived who had just started some ivy growths next to his house. The mishies taught him the discussions and asked him to be baptized. At that point, he brought them out to his ivy starts and pointed them. "These will be my spiritual growth plants. Right now they're pretty small. Let's wait and see what happens."

So that night the mishies went out and bought some fertilizer.

Any morals you want to draw out of that one?
Forgive me for going for the obvious, but I just can't resist it.....
The moral of the story is......
The mishies were full of $#it.

[miss taken]

Forgive me for going for the obvious, but I just can't resist it.....
The moral of the story is......
The mishies were full of $#it.

I don't disagree! But.....good tactic don't you think...

Made me chuckle!!!! (I knew quite a few missionaries like that!!!!Lovely really)

Mary