teevee + poll (yay!)

[wisdomeagle]

House MD: Okay, maybe I'm a little bit of a House/Wilson shipper. (Also, it took me to "Detox" to figure out that the Vicodin is a metaphor for Holmes's cocaine.)

VMars: Veronica + Keith: favorite relationship ever. Love even more than Beka + Ignatius. Even more than Sam + Cassie.

Poll:
[Poll #479075]

To clarify the poll a bit: do you/can you chose to believe in God?

Comments

[jennixen.livejournal.com]

I believe that our faith is sometimes opposed to whether or not we want to take the easy way or the hard way.
Like if we know deep down what's right to do but we choose to do something else because it's easier for us.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

If by "belief" one means "the belief that the entity 'God' exists in some ontological sense--i.e., not socially constructed or 'merely' a limit of some human activity such as cognition" then I don't think belief can be a choice, at least if one is intellectually honest. Either one believes this entity exists or not, just as one believes aliens from outer space exist or not. Of course, being bound by my own philosophical position, I'm not sure that such a belief could ever be rational (because God isn't an empirical entity like aliens, and thus can't be discussed in that way), which would require a choice--albeit possibly an illegitimate one--to ignore reason (if that's possible).

On the other hand, if by "belief" one means something closer to what I would call "faith"--the immersion of oneself in a particular religious symbology in order to identify oneself as a member of a community and commit oneself to a certain mode of discourse which structures the way empirical events are interpreted but is not in itself a claim about any empirical or metaphysical entity, past or present--than belief is, must be, and should be an act of choice.

Of course, as an act of choice, it thus becomes something which must be subject to ethical critique, in a way that the belief of those who believe in an objective religious Truth (Pope Benedict, for example) would not require being subject to.

And yeah, I whipped out all the philosophical language. I can't think of any way to explain my views using all one-syllable words, unfortunately.

[wisdomeagle]

No, I can dig the philosophy jargon. Not always at nine in the morning after an all nighter of House'n'VMars, but I'll do my best.

If by "belief" one means "the belief that the entity 'God' exists in some ontological sense--i.e., not socially constructed or 'merely' a limit of some human activity such as cognition" then I don't think belief can be a choice, at least if one is intellectually honest. (snip) I'm not sure that such a belief could ever be rational (snip), which would require a choice--albeit possibly an illegitimate one--to ignore reason (if that's possible).

Aiight, so you're saying essentially...

1) The statement "God exists (in some ontological, empirical sense)" is unprovable in a system of rational thought
2) Therefore, to make the truthful statement "(I believe that) God exists" implies an abandonment of said system of rational thought.
3) Such a choice may or may not be illegitimate but
4) it is indeed a choice
5) But if one is intellectually honest, one can't make that choice.

Am I close? My brain, it's melting!

Anyhow, to stop paraphrasing and start discussing, I think first that the choice to forsake rational argument at that point is a valid choice... but for me, "belief" as such precedes that choice. If one doesn't have belief to start with, then the God-question never becomes an issue, because there's no conflict between pre-existing belief and what the rational system informs you. It's only once both belief and faith in a rational system are established that the choice comes in.

On the other hand, if by "belief" one means something closer to what I would call "faith"--the immersion of oneself in a particular religious symbology in order to identify oneself as a member of a community and commit oneself to a certain mode of discourse which structures the way empirical events are interpreted but is not in itself a claim about any empirical or metaphysical entity, past or present--than belief is, must be, and should be an act of choice.

First, I think I'd take issue with that "not in itself a claim about any empirical or metaphysical entity." I have a very foggy understanding of what Christianity (assume, for the sake of discussion, that that's the belief system we're discussing, since it's the one I know best and the only one I could claim to speak on with any authority) means to any given believer, but I'd imagine most would say there's some metaphysical (in the technical sense) reality being affirmed by the Christian credo... if nothing else, the highly charged symbolic event of the Crucifixion/Resurrection must have some embodiment in history. Mustn't it? I mean... all right, I have at times identified as a cultural Protestant, in the sense that the story resonates with me but I don't necessarily hold it as true... but in some sense, it is true for me. Gah. I'm not expressing myself very articulately!

Of course, as an act of choice, it thus becomes something which must be subject to ethical critique, in a way that the belief of those who believe in an objective religious Truth (Pope Benedict, for example) would not require being subject to.

Okay, here you lost me. If, as you argue in the first part of your argument, belief in objective religious Truth is a choice to abandon logical thought, then that choice itself is subject to ethical critique, non?

laynamarya once told me that I was a fidiest -- I believe because I believe. (In response to me saying something very similar to what I'm about to say now.)

I believe and I don't believe because of any logical or rational argument. And I don't think any logical argument could alter my belief-status. There have been times in my life when I wanted to believe, wanted desperately to, and didn't. Now, I'm at a time in my life where I am a believer (of some sort, to some extent, which varies with the tide) and that makes me generally more content religiously but... I don't think I could have chosen belief. I don't think it's that kind of intellectual decision.

Meh. My articulation is not happening today.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

No, I can dig the philosophy jargon.

I had no doubts that you could understand me; I still wasn’t (and am not) sure how polite it was to pull it out. I'm also wondering if what I'm saying needs to be this complicated, what precisely the implications of that fact are.

The statement "God exists (in some ontological, empirical sense)" is unprovable in a system of rational thought

The claim that an ontological God exists is meaningless, I would argue. Rationality (pick your poison: Kantian categories, Chomskyan deep-structures, or just plain old language in the tradition of Wittgenstein or Derrida) makes it so that we cannot form coherent thoughts about transcendental beings. To claim that an empirical God exists, on the other hand, is meaningful and even potentially provable, but not all that interesting: we don’t get the metaphysical characteristics of God which make God God, merely a list of miracles. While I do think that a gestalt shift in the categories of thought—a move to a new rationality, so to speak—is not only possible and valid but also necessary (joining with feminist critiques of Kantian foundationalism), such a shift has not yet happened (at least not fully) and is not represented (I would argue) by mainstream religion as it exists in the world today, which is a rooted in a metaphysical vision which is at least as foundationalist.

I'd imagine most would say there's some metaphysical (in the technical sense) reality being affirmed by the Christian credo... if nothing else, the highly charged symbolic event of the Crucifixion/Resurrection must have some embodiment in history.

I’d agree that this is the dominant conception of Christianity both in America and throughout the world. Certainly this is the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, with which I am the most familiar.

Mustn't it?

I don’t see why this has to be case. As a purely phenomenological issue, there are Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc. who self-identify as Christian, recite the Creed in good faith, and don’t believe in a literal resurrection. They’re in the vast minority, of course. (Many are clergy, though.)

If, as you argue in the first part of your argument, belief in objective religious Truth is a choice to abandon logical thought, then that choice itself is subject to ethical critique, non?

That’s true, from my perspective—and believe me, I’m quick to supply such critiques as to how their neo-Platonic metaphysics result in what I perceive as regressive ethical stances on, say, sexuality. But I was trying to see it from the other side and expressed how they would understand their “choice.”

There are plenty of people who disagree with my claim that the limits of our language make talk of an ontological God (or an ontological anything) meaningless. To them, the existence of an objective Truth negates any need to make a choice as to what to believe, as one is called to believe the Truth. This has been the position of the Catholic Church (again, because I understand it best) under Jean Paul II; since much of that position was verbalized by Cardinal Ratzinger, there’s no reason to believe Benedict XVI would change it. I find their position nonsensical; they think I’m a dangerous relativist.

[wisdomeagle]

I'm actually ashamed that I don't have the vocabulary to discuss this on the level you're trying to, which just makes me very angry at how phil/rel has been taught at this school. But I'll try!

I'd imagine most would say there's some metaphysical (in the technical sense) reality being affirmed by the Christian credo... if nothing else, the highly charged symbolic event of the Crucifixion/Resurrection must have some embodiment in history.

I’d agree that this is the dominant conception of Christianity both in America and throughout the world. Certainly this is the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, with which I am the most familiar.

Mustn't it?

I don’t see why this has to be case. As a purely phenomenological issue, there are Methodists, Episcopalians, Unitarians, etc. who self-identify as Christian, recite the Creed in good faith, and don’t believe in a literal resurrection. They’re in the vast minority, of course. (Many are clergy, though.)


Interesting... I'm certain that's true; I suspect the vast majority of people who self-identify as Christian would say they believed in the Resurrection but not question what the means and whether it's in a literal sense or not; it's those who have spent lots of time and thought questioning its meaning who can arrive at the myth-level understanding of the Resurrection as a true but ahistorical event (or whatever), which I kind of suspect is difficult to grok in an empiricist culture.

To them, the existence of an objective Truth negates any need to make a choice as to what to believe, as one is called to believe the Truth. This has been the position of the Catholic Church

Again, though, the language implies a choice. There might not be a choice about the content of the belief, since there's only one morally acceptable choice, but there's still the possiblity of making the other choice. I think.

Which seems to be the position of a couple of people who've replied, that God offers you the possiblity of belief and then you have the free will to say yes or no, which is actually a concept I had never really confronted in those terms before.

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Fideism.

I think most religious Americans today are fideists. I’d have no problem with my children, say, growing up believing in a literal resurrection—but if we define “faith” as holding a belief without evidence I think there are serious questions one has to ask oneself about where faith comes from and whether its something one should really desire. And when one comes to a crisis of that type of faith, so many people abandon religion altogether, thinking it’s the only type there is.

the story resonates with me but I don't necessarily hold it as true... but in some sense, it is true for me.

This sounds suspiciously like what I've been trying to say the whole time.

Meh. My articulation is not happening today.

See comments above about the limits of our language re: ontology.

Thank you for your response; I could discuss this sort of thing all day long. Can't take the poll, though.

*goes back to reading Wittgenstein so isn't too behind for class which starts in 20 minutes*

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Hmm, maybe I can take the poll...as you pointed out, those without metaphysical content to their faith (as in my case) make a very conscious choice, and those with metaphysical content choose to not make sense. (Only it doesn't sound that value-loaded in my head.) But I doubt that many of them believe they're not making sense (you could be the exception), which means it's not really a conscious choice . . . so no, can't take the poll. Oh, the temptation of false dichotomies. . . .

*runs off to class*

[wisdomeagle]

ut if we define "faith" as holding a belief without evidence I think there are serious questions one has to ask oneself about where faith comes from and whether its something one should really desire. And when one comes to a crisis of that type of faith, so many people abandon religion altogether, thinking it’s the only type there is.

But see, I wouldn't define faith that way. For the sake of the discussion, it's probably wise to lay out how I tentatively define all these concepts, huh?

I would define belief as something you hold to be true, sort of the sum of all the knowledge and opinions you possess. Taking out the conotation of uncertainty, your beliefs at any given moment are all those operating assumptions you're using to live by. I'm sort of using it in a value-neutral sense, but then I am referring explicitly to those beliefs that aren't grounded in, say, reason/science/objectivity, which is also tenuous at best but at least a vaguely recognizable category...

Faith on the other hand I'd say is that "personal relationship with God" aspect, the leap, the decision... to me faith is active and Kierkegaardian but I suppose I think you need to have a place to leap from, and that's the belief. Maybe even the belief that God could exist, but some starting place. And then you can take the leap of faith. At least, that's been my experience.

Of course, I suspect my own experience is not only limited but a really terrible place to start any kind of discussion like this since it's so very different from most other people's, at least based on anecdotal evidence.

[cdeacon.livejournal.com]

Gosh, I don't think I can vote in that poll, because my answer is definitely both yes and no. I think that belief is something that happens to you *and* something you choose to accept--I mean, if I didn't already believe in God but decided to just tell myself that I did, it wouldn't do me much good. But at the same time, I think you can ignore God if you really want to, so in that way, you do have to choose to believe.

That didn't make a great deal of sense. Sorry!

[wisdomeagle]

Like in Dogma! (Oh, how I love that movie. Mostly for the theology.)

I totally dig your yes-and-no answer. I voted 'no' mostly because I agree with your first point -- belief 'just happens to you' and you can't force it to happen if it isn't there. But I think your second point is also a good one. Hmm. Thanks for commenting, in any event!

[rosewildeirish.livejournal.com]

*basically shares that and didn't answer poll because of it*

You need a third option, one that is more...nebulous (sp)?

[wisdomeagle]

Yes, but as someone, don't remember who, pointed out when I polled the Jossverse, if you give people a middle option, they will chose it, and I wanted to see generally where people fell. And I am seeing that. Plus, I sparked discussion! Yay. :)

[cdeacon.livejournal.com]

I think I'm the only person left in America and possibly the world who hasn't seen Dogma yet. I really need to get on that.

Have you heard of a book called Blue Like Jazz, by Don Miller? I read it in a time when most overtly Christian books gave me hives, and really liked it even then. He talks quite a bit about this issue.

[wisdomeagle]

Hmm, I've never heard of that book. Shall add it to the list. :)

And you should see Dogma. IMHO. :p

[missambs.livejournal.com]

I said yes, though I don't think it's as easy as waking up one day and deciding you're going to believe in God or not.

A lot of environmental issues and life experience can sway person in one way or another, but I think each person makes the choice early on whether to reject or accept God, or a god-like being.

As far as I can tell, most people remain in a sort of neutral limbo, neither believing or disbelieving, simply because for whatever reason they're really bad at making decisions, or perhaps afraid of making decisions - this includes people that call themselves members of various religions, and even those that count themselves as athiests.

Which isn't to say there aren't people who just believe and people who just don't, because there's obviously a large amount in both groups.

I'm sorry if none of this makes sense, I've been up all night!

[wisdomeagle]

I'm sorry if none of this makes sense, I've been up all night!

Me too! (But part of it was spent watching VMars, so that should make you happy!)

I think each person makes the choice early on whether to reject or accept God, or a god-like being.

Innnteresting.

simply because for whatever reason they're really bad at making decisions, or perhaps afraid of making decisions

I'm not seeking; I'm just bad at making decisions! Which I am. Totally. And I wonder if that might be it. Because I don't see belief as a decision per se, I never thought of it in those terms...

Whee. Man, I'm far too tired to think straight.

[missambs.livejournal.com]

Wheee, VMars is awesome, isn't it? :D

Let me fill you in a little bit on my religion background! My early childhood was spent with my mother, who never mentioned God or religion or anything spiritual. Still, I was completely 100% sure there was a higher power. Later on, my mother married my stepdad, who is a very religious Greek Orthodox man. I attended church with him, but I didn't understand a word they were saying (because it was in Greek...) Eventually, I stopped going with him. Around the age of ten, for whatever reason, I began to research non-Christian religions. Wicca, Buddhism, etc. Yeah, I was kind of weirdly advanced for my age. Anyway, I found it endlessly fascinating but in the way a good fiction book is. At the age of thirteen, I attended a very, very conservative Baptist school. I rejected everything they said, other than the basic belief in God. Not only did I not believe in a lot of the things they taught me, I was morally opposed to it. (Disclaimer: I am not saying that Baptists are teh suk or anything like that, just that I very, very strongly disagree.) After I stopped going to that school, I continued to read up on Christianity (various forms of it), and various other religions. Nothing took. While some appealed to my sense of "ooh, that'd be cool!" I couldn't believe. Still, through all this, I am 100% sure there is a God, or higher being. Don't know what it is, but I don't think any of the religions have gotten it entirely right, OR if they have, they spend too much time focusing on other things (that I disagree with) and completely missing the point. (Everything I have just said is purely my opinion, and I do not mean to offend with any of it! And I certainly respect people who have differing opinions!)

So, my point is (because there is one!) that I made the decision to reject all the religions I studied, but decided to still believe in God. Of course, I think I made this decision at a VERY early age, and I couldn't change it now if I tried.

Of course, there's always the possibility that my own personal issues of having control conspire to make me see it as choice, instead of just something that happened to me, or found me. I am like, the most fallible of all people. ;)

Damn, I hope that makes sense out of my own head.

[wisdomeagle]

Yeah, that makes sense to me. I started questioning early too and continued for a long time -- still am, I hope! I sort of feel that the environment I grew up predetermined that I'd turn out Christian, but then again, lots of people growing up in that environment might've turned away -- or become Wiccan or Jewish or Unitarian or any of the other religions I considered. That I ended up believing just about exactly what my parents believed is hardly a coincidence, right?

But that's not the point I wanted to make at all! Since saying it's just environmental is hardly all that... insightful. It's odd because sometimes I ID as queer-by-choice, with my point being that I chose to follow up on all those clever clues the universe dropped in my lap, like mad love-ons for womenfolk, but at the same time I feel like my Christianity is not a choice, because I couldn't choose not to believe! Ah! It's so confusing!

VMars=sex.

[meyerlemon.livejournal.com]

This always troubles me! Because I think that, to an extent, you can choose to be open or closed-off to the possibility that God is at work in your life- what about people who truly don't sense that He is?

Yes, faith is the belief in things unseen, but-- what if you don't *feel* them, either? What if you've had, for instance, a tremendous set of dreadful experiences, with no end in sight? What about people who lost their faith because they tried to lean on God during horrible times, and met only emptiness?

I think of my faith as a gift, mostly. I'm grateful for it. I thank God that I am able to thank God- you know?

It's one of the many reasons I have a really rough time with a lot of Christians- the "Believe in Jesus or go to Hell!" thing pisses me off. If it were that easy, don't you think everyone would do it? It's like... weight-loss pills. If they worked, we'd all be skinny.

These are hard questions for me, not least because somewhere in there is the implication that God gives some people faith, and others, not so much. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT, man?

[wisdomeagle]

Man, I love you. Never stop asking the hard questions, yo.

I think of my faith as a gift, mostly. I'm grateful for it. I thank God that I am able to thank God- you know?

Yes. Exactly. Faith is a gift and it's a totally squee-worthy gift.

If it were that easy, don't you think everyone would do it? It's like... weight-loss pills. If they worked, we'd all be skinny.

Yeah. And I know a lot of people, they don't believe because, well... because they don't, ultimately, and they don't want to either, and they're happy like that, but there are other people for whom leaving the church is a really hard decision and they want to believe but simply can't because it violates their empiricism or whatever. And that makes me sad. Because I love being a Christian a lot. And I know not everyone does or would... but it still makes me sad.

Also, House is sex. Just sayin'.

[meyerlemon.livejournal.com]

HOUSE!

I wonder if it would be weird to include thanks for TV shows in ones prayers. Hmmm.

[wisdomeagle]

Why weird? TV shows a blessing, yo. If we can thank God for sports victories, then why not for TV shows? I'm sure God's heard weirder. :)

[brightbeak.livejournal.com]

i FREQUENTLY pray for the actors/actresses who are in my fave shows, AND their families... they are in a business that is brutal on a person and their lives, they NEED prayer for simple protection from evil things like stalkers & weird shite, not to mention health, stress, whatever...
plus, i pray that they continue to find the place in themselves that made me like their performances, AND that they keep their spirit true to being THEMSELVES not what someone else (even if that is me) would like them to be...
maybe that's a bit whacky, but i figure no one is above needing a bit of 'assistance', ya know?

[alixtii.livejournal.com]

Yes. Exactly. Faith is a gift and it's a totally squee-worthy gift.

I don't know. My mind immediately went to a pseudo-Calvinist place upon reading this: no one deserves grace, some people are just lucky enough to be God's elect, and one doesn't have to like it but one does have to live with it. I know that's not what you meant (for one thing, you never equated faith with any concept of salvation), but still, I find it somewhat troubling.

[wisdomeagle]

Salvation-wise, I'm a universalist and couldn't be anything else.

I guess I sort of understand the evangelical position in most generic terms that faith/church makes me happy, generally, that it's a really deeply important and fulfilling part of my life, and I want other people to feel that same sense of grace/goodness/joy-of-faith, but I know that they don't, and I don't know what to do with that knowledge, you know? Because my ecumenicism and my universalism leave me deeply suspicious of evangelism, and most of the people I'm closest friends with fall more into the atheist/agnostic category and you know, I do respect that, and don't really go around pitying my "poor unsaved friends" or anything. And find that kind of language deeply disturbing.

Actually, I think the way I deal fannishly might be really relevent. (Although a really hideously irreverent analogy!) Because like, if someone says Buffy is just shite TV and whatever, that offends me and I'll say it. And if someone loves it, it makes me so happy, because I get to share my Buffyish joy with other people. But then there are those people who give it a good faith effort and go "ehh, not for me." And that's sort of problematic for me. Because God knows there are fandoms I just don't get, and I don't want to be pimped into (*coughanimecough*), and yet somehow the belief that Buffy is GOOD, and if just they'd try hard enough, they'd like it...

But I think you can't choose to like Buffy if you just don't, and you can't choose to believe in God or to have faith.

I'd definitely be disturbed by the idea that God grants faith to some and not to others... which is why what cdeacon upthread and brightbeak downthread said about God offering the possibility of belief to everyone seems so inherently right... but then there's the tricksy free will issue, and then I'm at a standstill again.

[cdeacon.livejournal.com]

This is so interesting to me, especially the idea of people calling on God during the worst times in their lives and not finding Him. It's something I've thought a lot about. I'd like to try to respond to that idea, and I hope that neither you nor wisdomeagle will mind if I use a weird personal story to try to illustrate my point.

As you might know from my journal, someone in my family was diagnosed with a serious illness last year. This was probably the hardest thing I've had to live with so far, and in some of the worst moments, when I was begging God to help me at 4 in the morning or whatever, I would not have a strong sense of His presence.

As I tried to figure out why, I read something in C.S. Lewis's A Grief Observed that helped me a lot. He basically said that when you're asking God for help, you need to have *a capacity to receive*, and people who are completely frantic and miserable often don't have that capacity. The only quotation I remember right now is something like "Yes, 'knock and it shall be opened,' but does knocking mean kicking and hammering at the door like a maniac?"

This is way too long so I'm going to stop, but thanks for bringing this up.

[meyerlemon.livejournal.com]

That's fascinating, and I'd never heard that perspective before! If I weren't half-asleep and about to be late to work, I'd try to think up something more clever to say, but alas.

Also, I didn't know about your family member- I'm very sorry to hear that. :(

[malnpudl.livejournal.com]

Fascinating poll and question. I'm responding very early (for me) in the morning, and I haven't even had my second shot of caffeine yet, so this may or may not be entirely coherent.

I answered "no" strictly based on my own personal experience, not on what I believe is true for others since I don't believe that I can answer it for anyone but myself.

I vividly remember lying in bed late one night when I was quite young -- maybe seven or so? -- and concluding that I was unable to believe in God. Since at that time as far as I knew everybody else in the world believed in God, this was kind of scary. But I just couldn't.

I'd been brought up in what I refer to as "indifferent Protestantism". Dad played golf on Sunday mornings, but Mom and my brother and I dutifully went to church and Sunday school. Beyond that, though, nobody seemed to be particularly invested in religion and it never made an appearance in the rest of our lives. We were an intellectual family (Dad was a zoology professor, Mom a former teacher), and I learned to most value that which could be proven.

In high school, around age 16, I made another attempt to believe. Two of my closest friends became deeply involved in Christianity and declared themselves saved and born again. In retrospect, I was so lonely and desperate not to be left behind that I really threw myself into it and tried my damnedest to follow them. I went to church, I read the entire Bible, I prayed (or tried to), but after a year or so I finally gave up. I was not capable of believing in God as they did, nor in Christianity as more than a profoundly beautiful and powerful mythos.

Since then I've considered myself an agnostic -- I do not know; I cannot know. I have a deep respect for other people's religious beliefs, and am interested in religion and faith even though I seem to be unable to believe myself.

My favorite uncle Robert is a retired minister and theologian -- both an intellectual and a man of deep faith -- and I love talking with him and my aunt about Christianity and religion. One of my favorite things about visiting them, as I do a few times a year, is the post-breakfast Bible reading because Robert will make frequent digressions into explanations and discussions of the text and its history and meaning, even etymology of some of the words (he has the advantage of having studied Latin and Greek). I've learned more about Christianity in a couple of dozen breakfasts with him than I did in all my years of going to church and Sunday school. Sometimes I wonder whether I might have been able to grow up believing if I'd been raised in an environment like that, led into religion via paths that didn't require me to check my intellect at the door. *shrug*

I'm content, though, with my own current perspective. I believe that there are things (tangible or otherwise) that are sacred, but only because humans invest that meaning in them. I find my path to the sacred through nature, and it is deeply fulfilling for me; gardening is my spiritual practice.

I do not believe in the divine. But I respect those who do, and once in a while I envy them just a bit.

[wisdomeagle]

led into religion via paths that didn't require me to check my intellect at the door

That's certainly what I feel happened to me. My parents always encouraged me to question, and the leaders in the churches I attended were smart and creative people who made religion vital and interesting... I've been questioning constantly since I first realized questioning was possible, but it wasn't a rebellion against anything; it was just a part of the process of growing up.

Thanks for sharing your story... it makes a lot of sense to me and coincides in a lot of was with some of my own experiences.

[brightbeak.livejournal.com]

free will IS one of God's greatest gifts, and He does allow us the choice to believe or not (whether in Him or something/someone else)
:)

[laynamarya.livejournal.com]

That is a really hard question! I have more to say about this but not right now.

[wisdomeagle]

I'll look forward to hearing what you have to say. :)

[hermionesviolin.livejournal.com]

I answered this poll a while back but never did leave a comment. (Definitely haven't had time to read the multiplicity of threads that have been left so far.)

I really really want there to be an Omnipotent Omniscient Omnibenevolent Creator. I understand my friends who can't stand to believe in a God who would let the horrors of the world happen, but for my own sanity i choose to believe in the God i believe in. I'm really rationally oriented in my faith (as in my everything) and need to do a lot more reading of the New Testament and of what people have to say about Jesus and what he did and who he was and who he said he was and the historicity of the Gospels and all that and eventually will decide what feels truest to me (with a substantial dose of what feels right to me about what i want Truth to be). I believe in the existence of lots of things i've never persnally encountered (Africa, Pluto, etc.) because i trust the evidence i've been given (often just at the level of trusting the people who say things or the institutions of argument/knowledge they come from or whatever when it comes to things i'm not interested in actually interrogating evidence for). The God-leap is probably the closest i will ever come to a faith-leap, and i very much acknowledge that my God is very much a personal creation of what i want to exist. How convinced i am by Scripture and the writings thereon, are and will be heavily influenced by what i want to be true. And i think i'm on the verge of losing the thread of coherence, so i'm gonna go back to my homework now.