Lagniappe

Top 16. Mar 30, 2000 10:20 AM

» shiloh - on creativity

Dan, I like what Colette said about writing. Examine closely what is pleasing to you -- and examine even more closely that which you find abhorrent. This to me is the definition of creative writing. I cannot write but excise the wounds of having lived. It is a surgery, a process of self-mutilation. Robert Frost was not a poet; Sylvia Plath was a poet. Sure, Frost could rhyme words -- so could I when I was three years old. That's not poetry, that's not creativity in its deepest human capacity. Human beings are not pretty, tidy little creatures. We are full of blood, disease, turmoil, shame, and an inherently cannibalistic sense of propriety. Society's main objective is to make one as un-creative as possible, because people who acknowledge and explore what human beings are really like under the surface become a priori anti-social to one degree or another -- that is, they must reject society's indoctrination in order to find out who they, and we, really are at all levels. Lots of people know the verse which says "look to the plinter in thine own eye" -- but precious few people actually live it. Those who do are difficult to get along with to say the least, most especially for those who love them best.

Shiloh

-- posted by shiloh

Top 17. Apr 1, 2000 9:40 AM

» andimac - openness

Shiloh:

>>Don't get me wrong, I think about it, theorize about it. I feel it's good for the mind to grapple with questions which are inherently unanswerable, such as those dealing with religion. But have I ever had a religious experience which could not be described as a delusion? No, absolutely not.>>

Okay. I again ask, then, could you have had a religious experience which you could not absolutely rule out as coming from God? Are you preventing yourself from feeling close to God because of your negative past experiences?

My personal Experiences have not been of voices or of visions, but of gut-wrenching longing, a warm sense of comfort and peace, a weeping for the world and its loss. Very affective things; until recently I wasn't sure what to think of them and then my spritual director affirmed that this is Christ revealing himself to me. And I take it on faith that it is, because I have no other explanation for it.

>>Here's the thing: if God gave you legs so you could move yourself out of the way of a speeding car, that means God gives you what you need to get by.<<

Oh, God may give us enough to "get by" in the physical sense, and in that sense we may have to rely on ourselves. But do we want to merely "get by"? Or do we want to grow spiritually and emotionally? This is the ultimate choice: to choose God gives us strength and courage to face the abominable mess humans have made and must endure. To choose God allows us to bring healing to that mess.

>>Here's the question: if God doesn't actually act and do palpable things in your favor while you're here in this world, why would he act and do lpable
things in your favor after you die? If God doesn't reach down and pluck you from the path of a moving car, why he would reach down and pluck you up to heaven? <<

Can you honestly say God does not act palpably? God gives us legs and instincts, God gives us support in times of emotional and spiritual crisis. If your faith is dependent on lightning bolts and fingers from the sky plucking you from imminent danger, then I'm afraid you're in the wrong denominational discussion. We Episcopalians/Anglicans are not after such things. I believe in a subtle, practical God, and I know s/he is there for me in times of trouble -- I have observed and experienced it too often to doubt it is true.

>>Thus even if God exists, there's no reason to believe in him, no benefit to be derived from faith, not now or in death, which could not be derived from faith in oneself and cultivating one's talents and abilities; and the afterlife for everyone will be exactly the same, regardless.<<

You have already forgotten my story about the man whose voices where urging him to kill himself, but he refused medication because he wanted to continue his rapping unencumbered by psychotropics. In the end he hung himself, unable to overcome his psychosis. His talent did not keep him from killing himself. He was unable to envision a different form of expression when he was medicated. In your opinion, was he too weak a human being? What if he was able to be open to a loving presence which would give him patience and courage to continue his artistic expression and his life? Who knows what would happen. But there is definitely reason to seek that presence -- because, as I was saying in the beginning, we never have to go alone. We can choose to be open to God's intervention and love.

Peace,

Andi

-- posted by andimac

Top 18. Apr 1, 2000 8:17 PM

» shiloh - faith

>>Very affective things; until recently I wasn't sure what to think of them and then my spritual director affirmed that this is Christ revealing himself to me. And I take it on faith that it is, because I have no other explanation for it.<<

So you're saying that owing to a state of ignorance you believe in God?

Example: If you had been transported forward in time from 1000 A.D. you would have no explanation as to how electric lights work. You would therefore believe it was God's presence manifested, yes? That is, at least until someone more learned than yourself could explain the rational basis for electric light.

This argument, that because I have no other explanation for something it must be evidence of God, simply doesn't hold water. In order for that to truly be evidence of God's existence you must A. reasonably be able to claim that scientific knowledge has advanced as far as it ever will do so long as mankind exists, and B. reasonably claim that you yourself enjoy an expertise in every branch of this all-encompasing knowledge.

>>But do we want to merely "get by"? Or do we want to grow spiritually and emotionally?<<

You are neglecting one possibility, it seems, by strong implication at least. That is the possibility that your belief, for which you can offer no real evidence, may be holding you back from emotional growth rather than aiding emotional growth.

Let us say you are standing in a roadway. You believe, without any evidence, that there is a wall blocking your path. You therefore decide it is of no use to continue on your journey and turn around. Now, had you rejected belief in anything for which there was no real, physical, immediate evidence, you would've continued down the road and seen what was there. It was only your belief that something was there, even though you could not see it or touch it, even though you could not, by means of your "God given" senses, prove logically that it was in fact there at all, which kept you from seeing what lay in plain view beyond your present condition. It was your faith which blocked the pathway to growth and new experiences which would otherwise have been open to you.

This is the danger of unfounded faith. This is the danger of "giving something to God" when you have no evidence that God exists at all. For without faith you could give every experience to something real.

Another anecdote. When I was a kid I had some toys I didn't want anymore. My dad suggested I should go down the street where my grandparents lived, where there were some very poor children who didn't have toys like the ones I no longer wanted and would've loved my toys. My dad suggested I go down, introduce myself to these people I didn't know, and ask if they wanted to play with my toys.

What I ended up doing was pretending to go down the street and do that, but what I actually did was go down the street then throw the toys in a trash can. It was easier for me to dump my toys into oblivion than to give them to someone real. It's frightening to explore new things when they are real -- quite easy to give something away into thin air.

I would've grown much more as a person had I gone ahead and introduced myself to the kids down the street and let them play with my toys. But I chose the easy way out, giving into the ease offered by absence rather than forcing myself to confront something new, and real.

Shiloh

-- posted by shiloh

Top 19. Apr 2, 2000 3:30 PM

» andimac - avoidance

Shiloh, I note that you avoided my questions I posed to you, perhaps because of this telling reason you state at the end of your post:

>>But I chose the easy way out, giving into the ease offered by absence rather than forcing myself to confront something new, and real.<<

From my perspective, you avoided a relationship with those kids. Relationships are very real; a relationship with God is Real. Interdependence is necessary for survival on all planes of existence. From my perspective, your solitary existence in which you so pride yourself separates you from the ultimate reality (a loving relationship with God); by dumping your efforts and gifts (in your words, talents) into empty things, you are not investing them into a relationship with God.

I could go on and on with my personal tesitmonial of why God exists, why I do not require scientific explanations and why faith is so paradoxical and yet true. I could tell my entire life story of how faith has pushed me into situations in which I did not feel comfortable, and I came out a far better person for those experiences. If you wish me to tell you about these things, then e-mail me. I would suppose, however, that this site, a site devoted to a particular Christian denomination's expressions of faith, presumes at least an openness to God's existence, since the topical articles discuss our relationship to God. I don't see the purpose of having to go back over and over again to a proof of God's existence in order to have a discussion. (I have been reading these pages for some time, but this is the first interactive posting discussion in which I have engaged.)

However, I don't mean to speak for the others here; if they wish to continue this thread, then I have no problem continuing. Mike's new article, though, leads us very smoothly from the Lagniappe concept to how God acts in the world through the holy spirit... I look forward to that discussion, too. smile

Peace,

Andi
---,---'--{@

-- posted by andimac

Top 20. Apr 3, 2000 11:40 AM

» shiloh - avoidance

There are some questions and statements of yours, Andi, that I typed out answers to but deleted before I posted. The reasons were several, but did not include avoidance.

As for dumping myself or my gifts into emptiness, I live with my husband and our girlfriend. I hardly think polyamory is parallel with emptiness. I have very little privacy, even by comparison with most married people, and I feel I accept it well. So no, I do not consider my marriage or my relationship with my girlfriend to be isolationist or empty. They are very real.

As to questioning whether God is A. real, or B. is likely to act in the ways others would have it that he acts, if that isn't relevant to every religious discussion regardless of demonination I don't know what is. I come to Mike's page because I find him intelligent and rewarding to interact with, not because I'm Anglican. If I challenge someone else's views there are two possible outcomes: they will become more suspect of their own experiences, or they will be strengthened in their own views because my statements make them realize more clearly why they do believe what they believe by making them realize more clearly what they do not agree with and why. Neither is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned, as both can lead to better personal understanding of oneself. That also has everything to do with religion, regardless of which religion it is.

Shiloh

-- posted by shiloh

Top 21. Apr 3, 2000 12:49 PM

» Dan_Ellsworth - Aside from context, ...

Shiloh, I found your last paragraph to be a good description of why I follow and sometimes join conversations like this, time permitting. I'm not prepared to comment on the entire interaction so far, but the opportunity to confirm or improve my beliefs seems a very important reason to keep up a variety of contacts. You expressed that well, even eloquently. I know this is a side comment, but I wanted to recognize the your statement while the moment is still fresh.

-- posted by Dan_Ellsworth

Top 22. Apr 3, 2000 5:01 PM

» andimac - re: avoidance

I hear you, Shiloh and Dan; and I see your reasoning behing having such discussions on this site. Maybe a better way to have put my question on this kind of defensive discussion is this: we could discuss on the level of whether the article at hand is, in itelf, accurate in each of our own views; or we could expound on our own experiences in relation to that article and move outward from there. If that makes sense. smile

If the discussion keeps coming back to such a basic premise of God's existence, then it seems to me we are missing out on what we could be exploring if we just simply agreed to be open on that one point (God's existence).

Anyway, I do not shy away from explaining my faith, but I'm not sure I can do it briefly. God acts in my life on a daily basis. If I ask him to be with me from the beginning of the day, my attitude and confidence are improved, and I feel I perform well at my work and in my relationships. God's spirit helps me endure the very emotionally and spiritually taxing work that I do. The Spirit has urged me to take on tasks I did not feel prepared to do, but I was strengthened and I did them -- and did them well, even. God just recently made it plainly clear what my next educational/career step should be; I was not prepared to listen to it, but with the help of my spiritual director, I finally saw all the signs and realized I was trying to make something happen which I wasn't ready to have happen right now. God helps me daily with my grief over my broken family. God blesses my husband and myself with a beautiful, lasting and strong relationship. God urges me to take time to be with him in prayer, and to take care of myself physically and spiritually. God is in every facet of my life, and blesses every facet of my life. I'm still finding that it's not easy to let God in some of those places, especially those over which we want the most control (and I'm discovering I'm a control freak). It's an ongoing process.

So what further proof do I need, not only knowing my own experiences, but having been in many individual faith communities, and in a larger one overall (the church) where people share similar, life-altering, beneficial experiences? What kind of science could be used, and what kind of proof would that science be when God wrote all the rules to begin with? smile

I'm sure, Shiloh, that your personal relationships are close and require you to learn how to live with others peaceably and lovingly. I didn't mean that you don't have such relationships here; what I meant was that it seems you don't have a relationship with God, which to me is the ultimate relationship. What does it mean to have such a thing with an entity that created us (from the scratchest of scratch) and loves us beyond death, regardless of how criminal or nasty or crusty or flaky or disgusting or ordinary we are? It's a very, very different thing to trust such a God.

Anyway, I'm gonna now move over to the other discussion, since I think this thread melds nicely with that one... thanks for listening. smile

Andi

-- posted by andimac

Top 23. Apr 7, 2000 12:58 PM

» shiloh - I agree

>>If the discussion keeps coming back to such a basic premise of God's existence, then it seems to me we are missing out on what we could be exploring if we just simply agreed to be open on that one point (God's existence).<<

This makes sense.

To me what all these discussions boil down to is not the fact that I can prove God doesn't exist, but the fact that no one's version of God has yet made sense to me. Still, I keep coming back for more, as it were.

I personally don't think any two people have the same God. And if they did, they'd have nothing to talk about. It seems to me the way of finding God, if there is a way, is through finding out all the things you just don't agree with. What's left may be what you're looking for.

Shiloh

-- posted by shiloh

Top 24. Aug 10, 2000 11:57 AM

» H2O - about Lagniappe

On an e-mail lists serv I'm on, a gentleman calls himself "Lagniappe." I asked if that was his mother's maiden name or something (he also gives his full name in posts). No, he reponded, it's French for giving more than what the recipient intended.

How like grace! What do we expect? Damnation for sins. What does God give? Salvation from our sins! We expect that if we try hard, maybe God will recognise our efforts; God says, "believe in my son's sacrifice and you are my child!"

Lagniappe Lutheran Church. Has a nice ring to it.

-- posted by H2O