Callin it quits

  • Thread starter Thread starter The_Exodus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is not a suicide note. Indeed it is quite the opposite.
 
The_Exodus said:
"Two men had to cross a dangerous bridge. The first convinced himself that it would bear them, and called this conviction Faith. The second said, “Whether it breaks or holds, whether I die here or somewhere else, I am equally in God’s good hands.” And the bridge did break and they were both killed: and the second man’s faith was not disappointed and the first man’s was.”
Click to expand...
If “*Philosophy *… is the believer’s attempt to convince himself that he is the first man,” then why does the first man call his conviction Faith?

I still don’t see how that makes any sense. Is the answer simply that of the second man: “Whether it breaks or holds, whether I make sense or not, I am equally in God’s good hands”?

So in reality, the first man is the second man! Whoa, dude, that’s deep. 😃
 
The_Exodus said:
This is not a suicide note. Indeed it is quite the opposite.
Click to expand...
Lot’s of people are freaked out and worried. What do you mean by “quite the opposite”?

I ask, only, because when I first read your post I didn’t think suicide, but terminal illness.

Hopefully, everything’s okay with you, however your post led people to think otherwise. Hey, either way, at least you know people genuinely care. :grouphug:
 
grasscutter said:
Lot’s of people are freaked out and worried. What do you mean by “quite the opposite”?
Click to expand...
I would agree that an explanation would be nice. There were more than a few who were very concerned, and at a minimum it would be charitable to at least give more of a response than “quite the opposite”.
 
JRKH said:
I totally disagree with this since one who (properly) places all of his trust in God is assured salvation.
Click to expand...
“Therefore whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall” (1 Cor 10:12).
JRKH said:
And I certainly don’t think that there is a suggestion of free will being ignored…
Click to expand...
“whether I die here or somewhere else, I am equally in God’s good hands.” I took these words to mean that it makes no difference if I die in one condition versus another condition (in other words, my free will is irrelevant - ignored). Hence, my thought that it makes a great deal of difference if one is in a condition of grace or mortal sin (depending on whether one has gone to confession as necessary). We should not forget that it is the good hands of God that direct people both to heaven and to hell.
 
The_Exodus said:
"Two men had to cross a dangerous bridge. The first convinced himself that it would bear them, and called this conviction Faith. The second said, “Whether it breaks or holds, whether I die here or somewhere else, I am equally in God’s good hands.” And the bridge did break and they were both killed: and the second man’s faith was not disappointed and the first man’s was.”

Philosophy, I think I’ve come to realize, is the believer’s attempt to convince himself that he is the first man. But I suppose it’s time for me to admit to myself that I’m the second.

And I’m ok with that now. I’ve made peace with that.

I appreciate everyone on these forums who I’ve conversed with - whether we’ve been in agreement or disagreement.

If you feel moved to, listen to old Waylon one time for me. And if the song hits you then I suppose we have a sort of kinship. And if there is a heaven, maybe if we get there we can talk about how little we knew down here on earth.

youtube.com/watch?v=E2OYuDWbtqw

So long everyone.
Click to expand...
So long to you, my friend. You will be missed. I can only hope that your reasons for leaving us are better than the reasons for staying. 🙂

God bless,
jd
 
oneplustwo said:
“Therefore whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall” (1 Cor 10:12).
Click to expand...
Amen
“whether I die here or somewhere else, I am equally in God’s good hands.” I took these words to mean that it makes no difference if I die in one condition versus another condition (in other words, my free will is irrelevant - ignored). Hence, my thought that it makes a great deal of difference if one is in a condition of grace or mortal sin (depending on whether one has gone to confession as necessary). We should not forget that it is the good hands of God that direct people both to heaven and to hell.
Click to expand...
I took the words “here or somewhere else” as a physical location, not the state of his soul (condition). When a person properly trusts in God, then their location or time of death is of no consequence.

From our exchanges it seems that you read quite a bit more into the piece than was actually written…

Peace
James
 
Your “So long everyone” is a great success! It has received more than thirty replies and a variety of interpretations in less than two days… 🙂
 
Exodus, it is a shame. You are awesome. I hope you still keep in touch.
 
JRKH said:
From our exchanges it seems that you read quite a bit more into the piece than was actually written…
Click to expand...
It seemed to me to be a pretty meaningless writing if it was to be taken completely literally, without analogy. But I think we read it differently for the same reason that I question the following:
JRKH said:
When a person properly trusts in God, then their location or time of death is of no consequence.
Click to expand...
I do not disagree with this statement, because I know what you mean by properly trusting in God. You mean taking care to not commit mortal sins, for example, and going to confession if you do, and otherwise participating in all the life that we are called by God to live. In other words, this statement assumes a lot of knowledge is in place. What I take issue with is that to say things like this in front of other people might mislead them if they do not have this knowledge.

For example, you said, “From this I gather that he is willing to accept death at any time, placing his trust in God and God’s mercy, and therefore is not in a state of Mortal sin - whether he has had a chance to go to confession or not.” Someone might very easily take this statement to mean that you don’t really have to go to confession if you’ve commited a mortal sin. And in any case, it is not technically correct to say that he is not in a state of mortal sin because he places his trust in God. He is or is not in a state of mortal sin based on his own choices to commit (or not to commit) such sins…and on his effort to get to confession if he did commit them. (This is why I was saying free will cannot be left out of the equation, because it does make a difference).

I wish you well. I may not be able to respond in the next day or so.
 
oneplustwo said:
It seemed to me to be a pretty meaningless writing if it was to be taken completely literally, without analogy.
Click to expand...
That depends on what is trying to be conveyed by what he wrote.
To me it was that the first man placed his faith in himself - judging whether the bridge woud hold and he would/would not die physically. The Second man places his faith and his fate entirely in God’s hands and therefore is entirely unconcerned about when or how he meets physical death. This reading requires no real “analogies”.
I do not disagree with this statement, because I know what you mean by properly trusting in God. You mean taking care to not commit mortal sins, for example, and going to confession if you do, and otherwise participating in all the life that we are called by God to live. In other words, this statement assumes a lot of knowledge is in place. What I take issue with is that to say things like this in front of other people might mislead them if they do not have this knowledge.
Click to expand...
Yes the statement assumes certain knowledge on what “proprer trust” is. Or at least that a person seeing the term “proper trust” and not being sure would ask.
For example, you said, “From this I gather that he is willing to accept death at any time, placing his trust in God and God’s mercy, and therefore is not in a state of Mortal sin - whether he has had a chance to go to confession or not.” Someone might very easily take this statement to mean that you don’t really have to go to confession if you’ve commited a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
Yes - I see your point. It took me a couple of times reading over the quoted statement, but yes, I see what you mean. A perfect example of how careful we must be in writing things.
And in any case, it is not technically correct to say that he is not in a state of mortal sin because he places his trust in God. He is or is not in a state of mortal sin based on his own choices to commit (or not to commit) such sins…and on his effort to get to confession if he did commit them. (This is why I was saying free will cannot be left out of the equation, because it does make a difference).
Click to expand...
Well - given the brevity of the OP’s scenerio, and the fact that the second man has placed himself in “God’s good hands”, is saw no reason to assume mortal sin for a couple of reasons.
  1. The person Trusting in (and Loving) God, does not commit mortal sin…They just don’t do it.
  2. IF he commits mortal sin and repents, he desires to get to confession as soon as possible.
  3. If step two has occurred and If this scenerio occurs before he is able to get to confession, then by everything I have read, his repentance and desire to confess is sufficient for forgiveness - Thus his trusting himself to “God’s good hands” is still justified .
Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Well - given the brevity of the OP’s scenerio, and the fact that the second man has placed himself in “God’s good hands”, is saw no reason to assume mortal sin for a couple of reasons.
  1. The person Trusting in (and Loving) God, does not commit mortal sin…They just don’t do it.
  2. IF he commits mortal sin and repents, he desires to get to confession as soon as possible.
  3. If step two has occurred and If this scenerio occurs before he is able to get to confession, then by everything I have read, his repentance and desire to confess is sufficient for forgiveness - Thus his trusting himself to “God’s good hands” is still justified .
Click to expand...
I understand your reasoning now about the second man’s belief, and it makes sense to me, although I do not read it that way myself. But that is ok.

What is still of concern for me is the first man’s “faith.” I think I already said that I took this man’s belief (that the bridge would not break) as representing faith in God. The fact that the bridge breaks does not lead me to think that my understanding of the meaning of the story is wrong, but rather it leads me to think that the story came out of an aetheist’s heart* in an attempt to persuade himself that God does not exist and faith is useless. From this, then, came my interpretation of the second man - that the aetheist author thinks that the second man was “smarter” because he did not place his faith in something that might fail. This line of reasoning, I suppose, says that it is better to place one’s faith in nothing rather than in something that might fail.

*I am not saying that the OP is an aetheist, just that this story struck me as though it was written by one.

To boil it down really simply, I guess I would say that the story reminds me of, maybe, a baby bird that is afraid of falling to it’s death and so never takes the leap to learn to fly - except in the spiritual realm.

Of course, all of this is undone and irrelevant if the story is not taken allegorically as I read it. 🤷

Take care
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top