Tenth Alliance Church has become a very good spiritual 'anchor' for us. Emily and I attend the second service almost every Sunday morning. At lunch, we will often critically analyse the sermon, checking for internal consistency and trying to better grasp it's meaning. As a deist I naturally emphasis logic and rational thinking, so I really enjoy these discussions. I feel that they can only strengthen Emily in her faith.
We have also joined a 'small group' as part of the church. A 'small group' is a collection of similarly-minded (ie. Christian) people who get together, once a week, to discuss issues of faith. Some small groups focus on 'worship', but thankfully our group's focus is on improved understanding of Christian faith and teachings.
We met for the first time last night. There were about 10 people in total, and we spent 2 hours discussing some surprisingly deep questions about faith. I heard a lot of very good arguments and some surprising points-of-view from everyone.
That said, Emily and I had to be careful to not dominate the discussion! We've spent a lot of time discussing 'faith', so our (sometimes opposing!) answers came to us very easily. There were some topics that I had to tiptoe around, such as whether non-Christians would go to heaven. Emily, of course, did not need to tiptoe and dove straight in. :)
At the end of the 2 hours, I spoke to the group and revealed that I was not in fact a Christian. I am primarily there to (a) stay in touch with Emily's faith and (b) to support Emily's journey by critically analysing and helping her reach conclusions. I similarly hoped to simply assist the group in their discussions. Indeed, an open and communicative group may help me reach some new conclusions of my own. I asked the group if they would be willing to accept my participation, and thankfully they all said yes.
We'll be committing to the group for Tuesday nights for the next 3 months. Small groups can be difficult sometimes, because they are much more intimate than a regular church setting. That said, I was very impressed with the people I met last night, and have a feeling this will be very good for Emily, and possibly for me. :)
P.S. I am very stuck in my deism. For those hoping that this experience will encourage me to become Christian, I am sorry but I will disappoint. ;)
9 comments:
Sorry to dampen the mood, but have you considered that faith is about believing without proof, and critical analysis might confuse the issue?
My understanding of deism is that the belief in God is based on reason. It seems completely contradictory and a perfect way to lead a Christian life without the stereotype that is sadly still attached to it.
For the purposes of the small groups, and for discussing with Emily, I simply *assume* that the guts of Christian teachings are correct. I certainly don't try to analyse any core beliefs.
It is conclusions like "only Christians can do good works" that require critical analysis. I avoid arguing such points directly, but simply check whether or not Christian teachings imply such a statement.
@bemused sibling: Of course faith is belief without proof. Believing with proof is obvious. Not believing with proof is ignorance. Not believing without proof is irrelevant.
@harves: I enjoyed your post. I can relate to your story since I'm not very religious myself but I like participation in conversations that you have described.
My only misfortune is that I feel discussions should be battles of contradiction. I prove you wrong and you prove me wrong until one of us prevails. Unfortunately, no one ever prevails and everyone is left dissatisfied. Check with Emily on how annoying those discussions are. :)
Very confusing idea. A demist tries to strengthen a Christian's faith which he doesn't believe. Does it sounds like a vegan trying to tell a meat-eater that meat is good and nurtient? How does it work?
LOL. Exactly!
Hehe. Looks like I'll have to write another post on this. Here's a quick preview:
* Assume that all birds fly.
* Assume that Jake is a bird.
* We can conclude that Jake can fly.
Here's another preview:
* Assume that God loves all frogs.
* Assume that Bill is a frog.
* We can conclude that God loves Bill.
I have never seen a bird called Jake, nor have I seen a frog called Bill. I may not even believe that all birds can fly (eg. kiwi, penguin). That does not prevent me from applying logic to the assumptions I am given, and reaching the natural conclusion.
Re Anonymous's comment:
Not very confusing at all - politicians and used car salesman do it all the time
RE: Old Man
That's why they are called them "politicians and used car salesman" who you don't trust at all. I dont' think Peter wanted his loves one treats him like a politician.
Can assuptions really find a true place in logic?
And I don't think logic is 'natural' at all. Hitler convinced thousands of soldiers that the logical thing to do with the Jews (who he had determined to be inferior) was to kill them. When asked afterwards, most of these soldiers still believed what they did was right - logical even.
Post a Comment