Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[HansMustermann]

However, Dostoevsky places the state of blessedness at the end. At least in "Memories of the Dead House". This man was original even in that.

I can't say I've read that one, but other accounts from or about him place it clearly before the actual grand mal. E.g., Strakhov wrote, "Fyodor Mikhailovich often told me that before the onset of an attack there were minutes in which he was in rapture. “For several moments,” he said, “I would experience such joy as would be inconceivable in ordinary life – such joy that no one else could have any notion of. I would feel the most complete harmony in myself and in the whole world and this feeling was so strong and sweet that for a few seconds of such bliss I would give ten or more years of my life, even my whole life perhaps."

The character in The Idiot, who is almost certainly autobiographic, also clearly states that it happens right before an attack.

That said, by the end he was sometimes having two epilepsy attacks in a row, so basically it would go: aura, attack, aura, attack. So he could technically have an aura after an attack, but really it was part of the second attack.

 

[David Mo]

I can't say I've read that one, but other accounts from or about him place it clearly before the actual grand mal. E.g., Strakhov wrote, "Fyodor Mikhailovich often told me that before the onset of an attack there were minutes in which he was in rapture. “For several moments,” he said, “I would experience such joy as would be inconceivable in ordinary life – such joy that no one else could have any notion of. I would feel the most complete harmony in myself and in the whole world and this feeling was so strong and sweet that for a few seconds of such bliss I would give ten or more years of my life, even my whole life perhaps."

The character in The Idiot, who is almost certainly autobiographic, also clearly states that it happens right before an attack.

That said, by the end he was sometimes having two epilepsy attacks in a row, so basically it would go: aura, attack, aura, attack. So he could technically have an aura after an attack, but really it was part of the second attack.

You're right. I didn't remember The Idiot when I wrote the comment .

 

[8enotto]

Normal and weird are relative. Visions and talking in tongues was not part of a Midwest Catholic experience.

Get down into Kentucky and still christians but snakes and dancing during the services can be normal. I cannot participate as it just strays too far into my weird zone.
The ex boss had his local leader bless me which totally creeped me out but made the three others present very happy.

Way too much and pointless to me as I keep my free will sacred, the gave theirs to the church. He once had to ask the religious leader to judge a decision, I had seen that before in my dad. He traded his bike in on a Chrysler van under orders. The bike was too unsafe and he unable to choose his own transport.

Is that weird or am I off my rocker insisting to choose for myself?

 

[arthwollipot]

No, we are applying "weird" to different things.

People do understand what goes on (at least to a reasonable degree) and think that what goes on is weird. It's weird that you think they don't understand.

Here's ten weird religious practices. These practices are probably completely normal to those that practice them, are they completely normal to you, or are they weird?

Put a trigger warning on that link. We're getting into cultural relativity territory here - are you sure you really want to continue this derail?

 

[ynot]

Put a trigger warning on that link. We're getting into cultural relativity territory here - are you sure you really want to continue this derail?

Or you could debate honestly and answer the question.

 

[arthwollipot]

Or you could debate honestly and answer the question.

Does my subjective opinion really matter? I don't understand why you're so focused on the fact that I don't find weird something that you find weird.

Since you asked so nicely, yeah, I find stuff like you linked to weird. Even more, I find it profoundly disturbing, which is why you should put a trigger warning on it. So what? Do you think I don't recognise that different people have different perspectives? Why then would I have mentioned that I have a different perspective? Do you think I don't believe that you think speaking in tongues is weird? I do believe that. Do I think you are lying? No, I don't. Do you think I am lying? What's your stake in this subject anyway?

 

[Thor 2]

Does my subjective opinion really matter? I don't understand why you're so focused on the fact that I don't find weird something that you find weird.

Since you asked so nicely, yeah, I find stuff like you linked to weird. Even more, I find it profoundly disturbing, which is why you should put a trigger warning on it. So what? Do you think I don't recognise that different people have different perspectives? Why then would I have mentioned that I have a different perspective? Do you think I don't believe that you think speaking in tongues is weird? I do believe that. Do I think you are lying? No, I don't. Do you think I am lying? What's your stake in this subject anyway?

Weird pair of sentences that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Weird pair of sentences that.

It's a complex thought, but it parses.

 

[ynot]

I don't understand why you're so focused on the fact that I don't find weird something that you find weird.

Well . . .

That's not an extreme cult behaviour. I witnessed and participated in this sort of thing in my suburban Canberra church in the 90s. Why does everyone think this is weird?

It's you that's so focused on - "I don't find it weird so why does everyone think it's weird?".

 

[arthwollipot]

Well . . .

It's you that's so focused on - "I don't find it weird so why does everyone think it's weird?".

I'm not focused on it. I made a remark, which you jumped on and continued to press me about. I'm all for completely dropping the subject, but you won't let me.

 

[ynot]

I'm not focused on it. I made a remark, which you jumped on and continued to press me about. I'm all for completely dropping the subject, but you won't let me.

And I was questioning/challenging your remark, which is what this forum is all about.

I'm happy to drop it, and even "let you" as well. So it's all done with no baggage then?

 

[arthwollipot]

And I was questioning/challenging your remark, which is what this forum is all about.

I'm happy to drop it, and even "let you" as well. So it's all done with no baggage then?

Yeah, absolutely. Any longer and I probably would have just stopped responding.

 

[llwyd]

I thought I would voice that in hopes there are others here who have a similar experience and would like to discuss it. Thanks.

I'm not sure if I really qualify. But I was raised in a very liberal (Finnish Pietist) version of Christianity which also has been a tremendously positive experience, lots of kindness, warmth, tolerance and a kind of mystical approach to being in the world. So, I am a Finnish Pietist and a weak atheist at the same time. I don't take religion literally at all and don't believe in the existence of God but at the same time I think that some (very few) versions of religion are extremely relevant and serious approaches to our human experience. I don't really feel that there is much logical contradiction at all. (Of course I realize that most Christians and most sceptics have hard time accepting me being a Christian but that's so not relevant or interesting to me.)

 

[Thor 2]

I'm not sure if I really qualify. But I was raised in a very liberal (Finnish Pietist) version of Christianity which also has been a tremendously positive experience, lots of kindness, warmth, tolerance and a kind of mystical approach to being in the world. So, I am a Finnish Pietist and a weak atheist at the same time. I don't take religion literally at all and don't believe in the existence of God but at the same time I think that some (very few) versions of religion are extremely relevant and serious approaches to our human experience. I don't really feel that there is much logical contradiction at all. (Of course I realize that most Christians and most sceptics have hard time accepting me being a Christian but that's so not relevant or interesting to me.)

The concept of being a Christian but not believing in God I find difficult to comprehend. Mind you the Anglican Bishop Sponge fits into this category and is an embarrassment to the Church of England.

 

[llwyd]

The concept of being a Christian but not believing in God I find difficult to comprehend. Mind you the Anglican Bishop Sponge fits into this category and is an embarrassment to the Church of England.

Well, the Christian God is an idea of perfection. We can aim for that - though of course never absolutely attaining it - even without some mythical empirical creature. I don't find such a being's existence as very central for religion, fundamentally it's more a metaphor than a decription of reality. Obviously most believers (and sceptics) disagree, but they don't own any universal copyright of interpretation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The concept of being a Christian but not believing in God I find difficult to comprehend.

I don't. "Okay but what about if we removed the actual defining characteristic of the thing in questions as it used in literally every real world usage of the term? Would you be okay with it then?" is a time honored tradition in religious debates.

This is like that God that no body actually believes in over in all the God threads that is this vague, vague, vaguey vague nothing doing vaguey vaugue things off in some separate walled off pocket universe we can never and will never interact with that keeps being the version of God we're expected to argue against because it is easier for the other side.

 

[Bikewer]

The idea of identifying as Christian but not believing in God.... Sort of the “Jesus was a really nice guy” sort of thing.

But we don’t have any evidence of that, really... What we have is an invention of Jesus as put together by his followers long after his death.

The best notion of a historical Jesus is an Apocalyptic preaching the imminent arrival of the Son Of Man who was to restore the Kingdom of Israel, make him king, and kick out the Romans. (Which is why the Romans mocked him as “king of the Jews”.

 

[mattobrien85]

Good religion questions its core beliefs.

 

[ynot]

Good religion questions its core beliefs.

That's why there's no good religions (except dead ones).

 

[Thor 2]

Well, the Christian God is an idea of perfection.

Well that's a new one. Have you read any of the stuff written about this god in his special book?

We can aim for that - though of course never absolutely attaining it - even without some mythical empirical creature. I don't find such a being's existence as very central for religion, fundamentally it's more a metaphor than a decription of reality. Obviously most believers (and sceptics) disagree, but they don't own any universal copyright of interpretation.

Society as a whole owns the right to describe something or someone, with a term the accurately reflects what that thing or person is. Otherwise you will get people calling a bicycle a bus or a ditch digger a doctor. How useful is that?

This is ground that has been covered many times already. The central theme of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of and part of God. You can't throw that out and call yourself a Christian. Well you can but you can't expect others to recognise you as such.