Concerning the mind and repentance

[Naivetry]

...No?   

Jesus told those who wanted legalism from him that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath - and in my mind, that holds true for the rest of the law as well.  We are not slaves to the law - we are students of it.  Like the rest of Scripture, we hold it to be God-breathed and useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training... to be taken seriously by all means, but because it is so darn useful and astonishingly correct, not for any other reason.

Probably the biggest growth I've experienced in my faith was the realization that there's a difference between taking something seriously, and taking it literally.  You generally get more out of any writing when you actually try thinking about it, rather than assuming your first impression of the text is correct.  There's so much more to it than the "literal" meaning on the page, and you miss out on the deeper meanings when you stop at the literal.  The Bible is no different from any other great work of literature in that respect.  The problem is that it is very easy to skew one's personal interpretation to fit one's own agenda, if you're not careful.  And that is why tradition, as well as reason, is so important.  It's like having a ready-made debate opponent at every turn. 

So the whole point isn't to obey some funny set of rules as strictly as possible without any clue why.  We're meant to learn from the rules given... meant to stop and take a closer look before doing something stupid.  Because following God's rules is, when you get right down to it, often just the thoughtful thing to do.

[Solnath]

I think the bottom line is, why should someone have faith in someone else's teachings instead of listening to their own hearts? Wouldn't that also enable a more direct link to God and not the shape we have placed It in, which is the Trinity or Allah or YHWH or whatever?

[Talmann]

Quite agreed, Soly. Part of the reason why I see no true reason for churches (or variants of such). If you pray regulary, do everything you need to, and are reverant, wouldn't that, and shouldn't that get you passage to heaven? You're doing the same things, just by yourself. Plus, I agree with ^ in the sense that one's own heart would be closer to God than listening to someone else's heart, or some dumb old book written thousands of years ago.

[Naivetry]

Ideally, Soly, you should do both.

I don't know about you two, but I find my heart is not the easiest thing to listen to.  It's small, it's selfish, and it's continually changing.  That "dumb old book" broadens it; makes me look past myself and my own silly prejudices; gives my heart words that I can latch onto.  And it's such a wonder to listen to my heart and find that, across the millenia separating us, someone else's heart has resonated with mine.  Those thousands of years are the book's very strength and beauty.  Those years allow us to share the wisdom and the heartache and the joy of people who laughed and loved as we do - could we concede that the rest of humanity might have gotten something right?  Or do we prefer to make all the same mistakes, and relearn all the same lessons, over, and over, and over, out of some perverse pride in doing it all by ourselves?  We mess up enough even knowing the consequences ahead of time.

If you've never experienced the Church as a community, I don't blame you for thinking it's dispensable for your personal salvation.  Because the formal structure of it certainly is dispensable. 

The people are not.   How are you going to learn to love and to forgive others, and to be forgiven, if you're never around them?  How are you going to be effective at doing any good in this world, if you're too self-absorbed to look for help?  It's just a matter of practical sense to know that 2, or 10, or 200 people working together are going to feed more children and shelter more refugees than you all by your lonesome.  And how do you expect to learn anything true about God on your own?  Wouldn't you just be worshiping the product of your own imagination?  If God is real, you're not going to have exclusive access to him.  Like it or not, other people's ideas about him may be just as valid as yours, and need to be taken into account.  You have a right to think those other people are wrong and to argue why, but you can't ignore what they have to say.  That would be religious bigotry, my friends, and of the worst order.

Finally, you're not doing the same thing when you're by yourself as when you're with another person or persons - and that goes for every activity.  To use an analogy we'll all understand, it's like NS.  You can play NationStates all by yourself, answering the issues you get sent and never bothering to join the UN or reply to telegrams.  Or you can come someplace like Taijitu, and get on the forums, and find a whole different level to what was supposedly a simplistic game.  That's the difference between going it on your own and being part of something bigger than just you... and believe me, you still have to listen to your heart either way.

[Solnath]

If you stop trying to let your heart find its own way, when push comes to shove, it'll be lost. Alternatively, if you settle for the feelings of bliss and salvation, you might very well be missing something even better.

[Naivetry]

you still have to listen to your heart

So we agree, then?

And I don't see the smiley I require.  Where is it...?  Aha.



Your second sentence is nonsensical in two ways.  First, one does not "settle for... feelings of bliss and salvation" - or anything else, for that matter.  I do not wake up in the morning and browse through the list of available emotions for the day: "Ooh, petulance... nah... how about cynicism? ...meh, overdone... well, bliss is on sale, I guess I can settle for that." 

Second, it's like saying, "If you settle for bread and water, you might very well be missing something even better."  True?  Yes, but I'd rather eat bread than starve.  Show me you have a solid alternative; do not threaten me with hypotheticals.

[Solnath]

A solid emotional alternative? Oxymoronic at best.

Have you considered that perchance your comparison between bread and starvation is invalid? What if you are starving?

[Naivetry]

A solid emotional alternative? Oxymoronic at best.

No more so than "settling for" feelings.  We can at least name the emotions of bliss and the joy of salvation - do you have so much as names for your hypothetical alternatives?

Have you considered that perchance your comparison between bread and starvation is invalid? What if you are starving?

If I'm starving by eating bread, give me something else to eat.  Propose an alternative.  All you've done thus far is suggest that bliss isn't good enough, which is a statement I'm perfectly willing to accept, if you can tell me why you think there's something better, and what you think that something is.  Until then, the something I've got is better than the nothing you're offering.

[Solnath]

Because I believe it is so?

[Talmann]

Which doesn't apply to us. You've cornered yourself, Soly-san.

[Solnath]

Why doesn't it? Faith is as reliable a measure as anything. You believe in science, don't you?

[Talmann]

Faith is not science. Because you believe it, doesn't mean it either exists, nor would it necessarily apply to us.

[Solnath]

It would apply to you if it exists and if you want to find out whether it exists, there's only one way to do so.

[Allama]

Faith is not science. Because you believe it, doesn't mean it either exists, nor would it necessarily apply to us.

Faith is not science, but science IS faith.  Empirical science operates on the unprovable assumption that the universe is governed by a set of "universal", observable laws that we can, over time, discover and refine our knowledge and understanding thereof.  Unfortunately, as it is impossible to observe every single possible instance of a phenomenon throughout time and space, you are making a leap of faith by stating "A + B was C in every one of the 437 times we tested it, so it will be every other time."

It is a very reasonable leap of faith, in my opinion, and one that I would make myself, but it is, nonetheless, a matter of belief as opposed to provable fact.

[Eientei]

It would apply to you if it exists and if you want to find out whether it exists, there's only one way to do so.

We'll all find out eventually, so no need to rush it.  After all, if the Bible really is correct: "It's a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."