Re: anEvilAtheist’s quotes of PJM in post 60:
It is a continuous concern for me that despite the utter sincerity of devotees of the christianist faiths, there are matters of discernment that, though they are generally applicable to all areas of life, have not *in particular *been applied by them in the one area that ought by rights be the one of most and greatest concern. That area is, of course, the matter of “salvation.” Of all areas that ought attract the most exacting of scrutinies, given the alleged stakes, I maintain that it is the one given the least attention in terms of actual analytical thought. In fact, the very arguments that confirm for the believer the axiomatic veracity of their stance are the ones that are most prophylactic in view of even being aware of what factors might actually have bearing on their staunch and adamantine adherence to what, in the last analysis, is a belief.
The staunch and adamantine adherence to these beliefs bears great significance in terms of the dynamic the has them purporting their faiths to be “fact.” Am I to correctly understand that what is in fact faith is acted on by believers as palpable fact? And if so, what are the distinguishing characteristics in the minds and hearts of believers between what is a premise accepted by faith, and one known by practical experience to be more trustworthy as empirical actuality? eg, what is the difference, if any, in a believer’s mind between, say, the experience of gravity and the assertion that Jesus said and did any particular thing?
My contention here is that though there may very well have been a Jesus, and that He might indeed have been the Son of God, what constitutes the understanding in the minds of believers that the particular way that they believe this to be true is in fact the one and only way that the alleged scenario can be interpreted and understood, despite allegations of “spiritual” guidance? Mind, I’m not discounting any of this, I’m simply curious as to how the line of “reasoning” works.
I’m asking this despite having experienced in my own life a deep and complete adherence to said beliefs. Yet I was graced with the further experience of being mentally yanked out of my Catholic context and being forced to re-examine my belief from a rather radical perspective. Please keep in mind here that “radical” means “root” and is only politically taken to mean “revolutionary” in a disruptive way.
This radical taking out of context gave me a dispassion of observation that I feel that as a cradle Catholic I had no chance of attaining on my own. Neither would I have attained it from a strictly academic review of my faith, and certainly not through any procedures reliant on faith. I suspect that an intense mystical regimen might have accomplished this, but then that being still within the intellectual cannons of the Church, I might have overlooked significant data relevant to the root of my experience.
So, bluntly put, my experience nominally includes that of faithful Catholics, yet theirs does not include mine. Given that I have, as far as I can tell, significant experiential data that bears on the matters of faith and the perception and practice thereof, on what grounds do those of faith reject even the serious consideration of elements I now know to be crucial and pivotal in the matter of salvation. These matters, it is important to note, do not destroy the structure of the Catholic exegesis, they merely put it on a practical grounds of significance in terms of a personal transformation relative to the Jesus story in particular and the Bible in general.
Given that, the difference inherent in a more inclusive basis for understanding the teachings of the Church bears a transformative value capable of dissolving the artificial differences between the seemingly different religious stances of christainist and most Abarahamic faiths on a practical experiential ground.
In all of the above, the one feature I have found most glaringly outstanding is this: we are abysmally ignorant of the actual scope of our ignorance. We necessarily mistake the contents of our awareness to be fully representational on a one-to-one ratio with actuality. Emphatically, it is not. We will to believe the stories we accept as being the reality of existence even unto death and in the face of proof otherwise. The last thing we will do is methodically look at our world view as a construct. The utmost last part of that negligence is to deliberately understand the roots of our religious experience, despite that one area being the single doorway to a rebirth in a New Land.
I promise you that the understanding you think you have is paltry compared to the actuality of the immensity you are blinded from, that you see “through a glass, darkly.” Yet you believe that your understanding is full, because that is the way of the mind and the way of faith. It is the structure and seduction of the mind to convince you that what it contains is all there is. I stand before you knowing that though the quotes above are true, they are misunderstood and therefor mislead believers into false security.
“But lack of understanding is driven by and through ones pride. It is therefore the favorite tool of Satan, who takes advantage of one who is willing to accept that they may know more and know better.” Better than what? A faith unexamined in other than its own questionable internal validity? Lack of understanding of one’s faith IS Satan, otherwise known as the Deceiver. That is why it is of interest to note that on awakening to the dynamic I speak of, it is not unusual to hear from the newborn that “I have not been deceived!”
