The interaction of faith and imagination in christianity
Well Peter, the problem with that is - it's a self fulfilling prophecy (if that's the correct way to describe it) If you believe, you will see.
For me, faith and imagination are two mutually exclusive ideas. Here's my reasoning:
Faith, as I understand it, the dictionary describes it, and as it pertains to religious beliefs is:
"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
This is limiting. It relies upon itself. i.e a belief in something - because you believe it, it is, rather than because you have measured it in some way.
Imagination on the other hand is unlimited in it's scope. Depending solely on the person doing the imagining
I can imagine all sorts of things that can be "real" according to Descartes. Although, it's worth bearing in mind that many of his opinions were colored by a desire not to end up strapped to a stake and burned for his opinion.
I can imagine that there is no God. I can imagine that Dinosaurs existed, I can imagine that the human race was seeded by aliens. I can imagine all sorts of possibilities.
But - the only way I can convert that into a belief in a God - Is if I already believe. Therefore that belief will over ride whatever i can imagine. And I have no interest in limiting my imaginations to what I already "Know to be true."
And despite my various arguments with the OP, and my personal distaste for her, I think this is an interesting discussion that bears further consideration on my part.Mark Knowles wrote:
And despite my various arguments with the OP, and my personal distaste for her, I think this is an interesting discussion that bears further consideration on my part.
OP? Are you referring to Politico? I thought Politico was a he, is he a she?
I wasn't really making a criticism.
I agree there is a difference between those that believe because they believe they have had an experience or encounter and those that believe because they think they aught to believe. And they are easy to differentiate between
The point of a prophecy is to predict the future. When I say self fulfilling, as regards this conversation i.e. the interaction of faith and imagination, the way it goes is - I believe therefore I see, therefore I believe. Self fulfilling, based on an existing belief. I don't see any imagination in this.
I cannot assume that there is a God. And what the "evidence," of Moses, Abraham et al suggests to me is that some one is telling porkys. Their faith was based on an actual experience with meeting God face to face. But - I haven't been able to do that. And neither have you (in the same way they are reported to have done.) Therefore - your faith does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." Unless you count hearsay handed down through the ages. This is called "Chinese whispers," as far as I am concerned.
This is back to the crux of what I was trying to say. You already believe. Now you use your imagination to imagine that there is no God. But, this is always going to be adjusted by the fact that you do not believe there is no God. So, there is no room for imagination in faith. It requires that you completely disregard any other possibility - there can be no room to imagine that humans were seeded by an alien race. Because you believe in God. Zero room for imagining.
"Seeing is believing is seeing." There we go with the self fulfilling thing again. You believe, therefore you see what you wish to see, therefore you believe you see more evidence that you are correct in your belief.
What I meant to say(and did badly) earlier is this -
Imagination has no place in faith as I described it - i.e. "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or evidence."
And as I understand it, this is a requirement of the Christian religion - the whole point is that you are supposed to believe without proof and if you need proof, therefore you are unworthy and therefore are not a true believer. A true believer will not and cannot be swayed by logical arguments or empirical evidence. You have to prove to your God that you believe even if there is no evidence.
This is one of the tenets of both the Christian and Muslim religion that makes them so pervasive and dangerous to each other. You don't need evidence, do you?
Faith and Imagination cannot live side by side for Christians - Unless they already believe and then limit their imagination to what they already believe.
My imagination allows me to consider the possibility that there is a God, or that aliens seeded the earth or that dinosaurs roamed the earth - and then I make a valued judgment while I am awake as to which is more likely based on the evidence I see before me.
I do take some things on faith - for instance - I have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow morning - but this faith is based on the fact that I have seen it come up every morning for the past 45 years. Not because someone got paid to write a book 2,000 years ago. And make no mistake, the illiterate peasants who were supposed to be the original writers of the book were unlikely to be able to write - unless God gave then special powers. Except the tax collector maybe
Misha said it was a girl. Not so?
Oh, and one of us left a tag out of the quote box so we are shrinking LOL
Looking forward to 1 and 3
2 - what's the point otherwise? 
Maybe Peter will have some ideas on that - At least you can have a rational discussion with Peter.
I am always up for rational discussion. However, I must confess, in my experience, God is not rational in terms of human rationality. I realize this puts me in somewhat of a precarious position in "rational" discussions.
In terms of coming to faith, I cannot say whether one would come to faith without exposure, but I do know that it was the exposure that turned me off, as I'm sure it has many others. I think it's actually easier to imagine the universe without God. Admittedly, I often fall back into the trap of telling God something doesn't make sense. I've yet once to change his mind.
But, as I mentioned to Mark earlier, left to my own imagination I had explained God away. My faith came from a personal encounter which I can't rationally expect others to believe. However, I faithfully believe those such encounters are available to all who earnestly search them out. Actually, one of the hardest and most fearful confessions I had to make had nothing to do with sin at all, it was relinquishing the idea that I had to understand, "Okay, God, I don't have to understand it all, but I do need to know if you are there." It's funny, but God will take you through a very thorough deprogramming, one you have to be willing to undergo, and I simply wasn't for so long. Paul describes this as a renewing of the mind, and I don't think I can describe this better than Paul.
I will add, this wasn't the first such attempt I had made, but this was the only one that was sincere on my part. I will never and can never prove that God exists, absolute proof would do away with the one requirement God imposes, faith. However, as I mentioned, it's not blind faith, it's faith in God's own faithfulness. A lot of people have tons of faith that there is a God, few actually have the faith that God is faithful, i.e. Drop everything, you and your whole family take off in that direction, and trust that I will guide you (Abraham). That kind of faith is powerless and it's not true faith.
One last thing, I do not believe we are all born atheists. I do believe we are born separated from God. This was a concept that was terribly difficult for me to grasp because of its apparent unfairness. I opposed on principle the notion that I was in any way effected by the actions of anyone that came before me. Actually, it wasn't until I came to grips with the idea of righteousness through faith that this separation idea made more sense. It's a small price, and the return on the investment is well worth it. The parable of the talents does not merely apply to finances or spiritual gifts. If you exercise a little faith, God is faithful to give you what you need to increase your faith, and on and on.
P.S. "...At least you can have a rational discussion with Peter." Thanks, Mark. That is high praise coming from you.
Well, it's true. I love discussing religion with a believer who speaks the way you do. As opposed to telling me that they know the TRUTH
But, this point is interesting and relevant - what do you think about the notion Thom mentioned? That we are all born atheists and it is only outside information that makes people believe in God? Not our imagination.
If you were left to your own devices and there was no such thing as Christianity - or any of the others - Do you think this is what you would "imagine"?
Interesting . I missed this box earlier. Probably because you were shrinking. Lol.
For myself, ever since I was born I held certain beliefs. None of my family are Buddhist. I was raised in a Western Christian society, yet I never believed or felt that this was the truth of the universe for me. I searched for twenty years from childhood onward to find where my beliefs fit. When I was in primary school my Mother had to keep writing letters saying we had converted so I could attend all the different religion classes that were held. All of these were monotheistic based faiths. I studied all the major religions and science and it wasn't till I picked up books on Buddhism that I found where my beliefs came from.
No outside influence taught me Buddhist philosophy. My parents aren't religious or anti-religious. My Mother is very scientific and the rest of her family believe in psychic phenomena, astrology and the like. My Father has never discussed whether he believes in God with me. His parents were Seventh Day Adventists and my Father was excommunicated from the church for being a non-believer. Actually was sent an official letter and everything. He wanted to have it framed. Lol. (He only told me this once I was an adult and had formed my own opinion on religion.)
So my question is: If we are all born atheist and it is because of outside influences that we choose religion. How do you explain my experience?
I'm sure I am not alone in my experience either.
Or, someone needs too imagine they are part of God, because they are unable to accept that they are an insignificant speck in the cosmos, and this some how gives them the belief that they are more important than they are. And if they could accept their part in the scheme of things, they wouldn't need to imagine a God in the first place.
Yes, Mark...but all who are on the earth today still have something to learn about that Oneness or they would have no reason to be here...so what is your reason(s)?
Love ya,
SparklingJewel
Love you too
I had no choice in the matter - like everyone else
What you choose do do with your 15 minutes of fame is another story altogether.
And yes - where is Thom, the other non-believer when I need him ?
He's probably musing over Peter's posts... 
I must have converted him. He's probably in church as we speak.
More likely - he's down the pub
Are pubs still open? 
We can open them 'till midnight now.
Hey have either of you guys experienced doing long chants ( for a long period of time) of eastern bija mantras or bhajans? It makes you feel happier than alcohol, with no hang over!
but still gah! gah! and a bit loopy!
Yes.
And various other alternatives. Sweat lodge, several months of constant martial arts practice at a time living on nothing but brown rice and water, yoga, cycling 100 miles a day for weeks on end, connecting to my past lives... The list is endless.
And they are all the same. Jack Daniels works just fine
Peter and Misha - See? Down the pub.
Thom - I think that is a rational way to look at things, but religion is often not a "rational" topic
RFox - Why is it scaring you when we agree? LOL
But Buddhist philosophy and religion are two entirely different things. You may have come to certain beliefs on your own, which may have included some Buddhist philosophies, but I doubt you imagined the Buddha ?
For example, you may have decided on your own, that killing another human being is not "right" this is a basic tenet of both Buddhist philosophy and Christian teachings. But it doesn't mean you "imagined" either of those religions as well.
We are born knowing some things and some things are just "right," but they don't need an organized religion or a God to still be right.
Andrew - That one was so important you had to say it twice?
I agree you don't need organized religion for things to be 'right'. I declare myself a Buddhist because everything I believe happens to be exactly what the Buddha taught. The Dharma path makes sense to me.
However, like many other Buddhists before me I have not committed to a particular lineage or organized group. I choose to study alone and visit many temples and monasteries. This is because I too have an issue with a lot of the organizational side of religion. A lot of times supposed 'religious leaders' have personal agendas and sway their followers to follow them instead of their own path. And I firmly believe we must each find our own path in life.
Teachers are suppose to be guides not dictators.
Now as for the imagination side of things. I completely see your point however, didn't I imagine a religion when I believed Buddhist philosophies before I read any Buddhist doctrine?
I didn't just feel that killing was wrong. I believed in karma. I did not believe my life was controlled by a God. I believed I had a great measure of control over my life and future. I believed in past lives. I believed in interdependent origination (although I didn't imagine it would be called this. Lol)
After all, the Buddha was a man. A real historical figure. Did he not imagine religion?
I think imagination in Christianity is different because God is an intangible being, open to interpretation. God has been interpreted in many forms over the centuries. However, weren't the first people who talked about a God using a combination of their imagination and beliefs in how they saw the universe to create what we now call religion?
And I'm only scared about agreeing with you so much because you are a Nikon-ite. And as members of opposite 'faiths' we shouldn't have anything in common.
Have you seen these economists, philosophers, politicians, etc. debate on CNN, CSPAN, etc.
Yes, I agree, many of my comrades in the faith take way too personally any kind of challenges to their faith, and they should not. Point conceded. I would add, though, that we are having a meaningful, non-emotional discussion, so, as much as I lament other Christians violating a tenet of Christianity, I still don't think this issue is all that relevant to the discussion we are having.
Yes, others respond this way, it is a fair criticism, but it is a generality that does not apply in this discussion...so far
Not in my opinion, we were given free will and at the same time a responsibility to subdue the earth, a responsibility which was abdicated, but which Christ restored. True, it is fair to say that the buck stops with management and not the workers, but, vis-a-vis God, it assumes that somehow things are not on track. I do not make such an assumption. I can see where it is fairly made given the state of affairs, but I don't see how God is responsbile for humans misrepresenting him, in light of free will. Absent free will, then perhaps. The God I know is a gentleman, not a tyrant. He loves the both of you as much as He loves me (see what I mean about God not being rational? LOL).Have you seen these economists, philosophers, politicians, etc. debate on CNN, CSPAN, etc.
Yes, I agree, many of my comrades in the faith take way too personally any kind of challenges to their faith, and they should not. Point conceded. I would add, though, that we are having a meaningful, non-emotional discussion, so, as much as I lament other Christians violating a tenet of Christianity, I still don't think this issue is all that relevant to the discussion we are having.
Yes, others respond this way, it is a fair criticism, but it is a generality that does not apply in this discussion...so far
Yes - you appear to be the exception, Peter. It's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you. Much appreciated.
LOL
There is a big difference between what you have just done and starting a new thread to discuss it. Plus you are active and helpful to other people.
And I like you
I like you too
All my friends are atheist now. My law partner, Thom, you.
...and you think there's no God. Pretty good evidence if you me.
Oh, I don't think there's no God - I BELIEVE
Not going to argue with you.
Which makes a nice change, some would say
And Peter - that is one awesome hub. The one thing you didn't mention, which is not widely talked about - is the HUGE amount of money Saddam Hussein owed the French government. They had their own vested interests at heart when they opposed the war.
LOL - I thought it was for Misha's .
Although I live in France, I have a love/hate relationship with the French as a people. We ex-pats like to say France is a great place except for the fact that it's full of French people. - Lovingly, of course.
And I must admit, my respect for the American people as a whole took a major dip when the whole "Freedom Fries," issue came about.
Just ask any Belgian who invented pommes frites.
It's all connected.
And it is only since I have lived here on a permanent basis that some of the shortcomings come out. For instance, I have a 50/50 chance of going shopping only to discover that the shop I want to buy something from is shut because they are "tired," from a long weekend LOL
It sounds funny, but that hand written "fermeture exceptionelle," sign in the window gets annoying after a while - especially when you see it as often as I do
As for Tony Blair - I fart in his general direction and... Censored.
Thom - that's the one
Peter - Unlikely to be that detailed. More like "Fermeture exceptionelle. Open later when less tired."
