My Spiritual Life

[Eric B]

We have frequent discussions on God and spirituality, and I set out to write my experience in the http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/philosophy-spirituality/23434-i-believe-god.html thread, and it was so long; I decided to put it here in my own space. It also figures well in the subject of type, because common misconceptions have Ti-favoring INTP's as not very big believers in God (because the universal principles Ti references seem to argue against it), and that a religious "belief system" is more in line with Fi-ethical beliefs. For me, my struggles with it clearly betray the same typical Ti-skepticism, but moderated with Ne (it's still a very real possibility), and perhaps a right brain alternative Fi borne of stress.

I believe in God, but it is, and has always been very difficult. I believed when I was young, and nearly all the adults of my grandparents' generation believed, and went to church and taught me the basics of God, Jesus and Satan. (I liked looking at Bibles because of the cool red text in half of it).

My father (agnostic, and pushed away by all the hypocrisy and racism in the old-time religious culture of the past; his mother had rejected it as well) stepped in, alarmed at what some of these people were teaching me (such as fighting always being wrong), and then indoctrinated me into scientific naturalism, via nature shows. Then, on my own, in teens, was put off by the politicized Christian Right (and all the attacks on evolution and premarital sex), I turned against religion.
A few years later, I turned back toward it, due to the fact that it kept bugging me so, and then I came across systems of prophecy that seemed to be proven in certain historical events (which the older type religion I knew did not get into). Thus, it seemed to offer some sort of hope in an often frustrating world.

But there were still a lot of unanswered questions, and people could pontificate so well on so many doctrines, and "Christian living" principles, but they would always run up on areas where they have nothing but "pat answers" or platitudes, or the old standby of "we'll understand when we get to Heaven/(the Kingdom)". (Which is what their forebears, who turned off my parents' generations, were known for).

So I struggled off and on with it for the past two decades. The biggest thing was "pray, and God will give you His 'Grace', and your problems will not matter as much". Yet if that is true, you would expect some sort of feeling from God when you pray. Yet there is none, and then, they tell you "faith, not feelings". To me, this basically meant "imagine God comforting you". Some teachers would even say "if you're lonely, imagine God putting His arms around you". (Actually, grace is the unmerited favor by which men are saved; not some coping power, which is based on a misunderstanding of one of Paul's scriptures).
Then, a few years ago, the assistant pastor who told us that the whole "relationship with God" is setting aside that time everyday to read the Bible and pray, and if we weren't doing that, God would spit us out of His mouth. (Which my wife interpreted as "no longer being used in His service" rather than losing salvation; but being this was penecostalism, which is derived from Methodism, and the context of the scripture this was taken from, I take it much more seriously than that). I felt double bound, because prayer seemed so futile. If you get what you want, you interpret it as God giving you a "yes" answer, and if you don't, then it is God saying "no" or "wait", for some unknown higher purpose. What I noticed was that the result usually just happened to correspond with natural chains of events, or things that were possible or not possible naturally. Even so-called "miracles" would turn for the worse, and people had to keep appealing to the "unknown higher purpose".

So at that time, she, already feeling she needed to get closer to God, moved towards more fervency, but then I began growing more disillusioned, especially entering the internet age, and participating in Christian debates, where I saw how people could twist the Bible to make it say anything they want, and then I got this current job, where I had to work every Sunday, and could only go to Church a few Sundays a year when I have vacation.

So sometimes, it is hard to believe that a world like this would continue for so long under a theistic paradigm. Of course, a lot of people who question God do so because of "all the evil and suffering in the world". The typical explanation is that this is not really the way God wants it, but because of "the Fall", which God will some day return and repair. The problem is, the scriptures this is based on said this would occur "soon"; meaning shortly after the AD60's when they were written. But now it has been stretched out for nearly 2000 years, with many false alarms over the centuries. One somewhat popular radio network owner is now saying May, 2011.

A system of prophecy I have discovered in the last few years provides an alternative for this. It is called "preterism", while the well-known dispensational, evangelical view is called "futurism".
Preterism takes the statements saying "the end" would be soon (i.e. the "clear time statements") seriously, and recognizes them as being fulfilled in the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD70, a few years after those prophecies were made. The much hyped "Antichrist" was likely the leader of the Jewish rebellion. Another "antichrist" figure, "the Beast", was of course the Roman emperor. The Harlot was the Temple system itself, which was corrupt and persecuted Christians by denying them the immunity to emperor worship the Jews were granted. This put them at the mercy of the bloody Roman soldiers who killed them for Christ.

It was this event that supposedly ended the period of Law, which is where all the condemnation to Hell came from. One version of the theory says that the bodily Rapture occurred then, and another has quoted Josephus as saying there may have been a visible appearance of Christ in the clouds as well. Most other preterists take these symbolically, which I could not buy, hence I opposed preterism until I found these other versions of it.

Yet another version is called "Pantelism", which teaches that when the sytem of Law was destroyed, all condemnation on every man also passed along with it. (Most of the other preterists would not dare go this far). The reason there was still warnings of sin and condemnation in the New Testament, is because in that period, the two covenants were overlapping, and you had to choose which one you would align with, and hold fast to the right one ("run the race") until the other one was destroyed; else you would perish with the old system. The later Church failed to recognize this, and hence continued looking for a future end, and eventually built itself into a political and cultural institution that was often corrupt.
This I find makes more sense, and gives much more hope than believing everyone is going to Hell, and having to convince them that our way is right, when meanwhile, we are not perfect, and there are so many questions we cannot answer. The basic premise is that in reality, everyone knows the truth of their need for a savior, but suppresses this knowledge. God has "shown" everyone through "general revelation" (design in nature) as well as conscience. However, the conscience argument, while seeming true when doing something wrong, sure did nothing when trying to pray, and wanting to receive a sense of this "presence" and "comfort" from God all the teachers said was would help us cope. The general revelation argument we are losing badly, as evolutionists have gotten very aggressive in recent years (they seemed so silent when preachers were bashing them left and right decades ago), and have embarrassed us in the Intelligent Design controversy exposing a lot of the flimsy reasoning we thought was so infallible. Hence, even if we have proven design, it still does not prove a particular designer, and thus everything else that goes along with it ("Flying Spaghetti Monster" argument).

Hence, pantelism offers a potential explanation of why God seems so uninvolved compared to all of the supernaturalism seen in the Bible. His plan is finished, and there is no need for any further revelation, or guidance of the Church. He is no longer reliant on us to save everyone else. I would say that takes quite a load off us us and our expectations.
Like some Christians would say I should not even be "wasting" all of this time mingling with unbelievers; (let alone in dicussions of "humanistic" psychology and especially pagan Jung!) but should only be "witnessing" to everyone to save you from Hell.

It still is not totally satisfying an explanation of why God has seemed totally uninvolved, and even allowed knowledge of this supposed "fulfillment" to go unrecognized for all those centuries, and the Church to spiral out of control. So the doctrine sounds like just another new invention like all the other sects. So while this doctrine relieves some of the problems, it still does not provide any absolute proof or make everything make sense.

So I have to admit, that none of us really know. (Even as much as some may insist you can know. They will always eventually come up to some question they can't answer and then say it can't be known). I used to hate the pressure and double-bind feeling of having my father and others tell me no one can know, and I'm approaching them as "witness" (another term that better fits those who actually SAW Christ, back in that time; you know; witness--see), and I guess I was supposed to tell them that they do know, and are just making excuses for their sin. But I never could muster the gall to say that, as I knew I couldn't prove it, and struggled with knowing it myself.

 

[jenocyde]

Half of my family is very religious (Seventh Day Adventist - SDA) and I know a lot about the different Christian faiths and doctrines, as well as other religions - but the more I read, the less faith I have in all of it. Some things just make no sense to me, or they were written long before the biblical age which makes the bible stories seem like retellings. How do you resolve these inconsistencies? People tell me to just have faith. But is faith enough to quiet your Ti?

Have you ever read anything from Ellen G. White - the woman who founded the SDA church?

 

[Totenkindly]

I think basically you will feel more at peace if you accept that going to your dad and others as part of a "witness" on your part is something you will need to do without proof. You are doing it because you have accepted a revelation as true, because you want to believe it; if you feel embarrassment or shame over not being able to support it and justify it to them, then you're not really believing in it yourself solidly.

My experiences closely match yours for the first half of your post. I eventually reached a point (having gotten enough life experience) where I saw a lot of the proof of God to be subjective spin on personal anecdotes. Things were attributed to God that weren't necessarily proof of anything whatsoever; this has been a constant source of distress for me when dealing with religious loved ones, since I cannot intellectually accede to their interpretations but have no real desire to infringe on them by trying to dismantle their faith, yet they have less restraint that way.

Pantelism seems sort of funny in the way you describe, if it suggesting God would no longer have plans or is finished with everything. I'm not sure of the value of believing in an absent or irrelevant deity even if he could be shown to be true; it's like making a commitment to a father who abandoned you when you were five, what's the point?

The doctrine of sin is sort of funny. For so long Christians have demanded that we are all sinners and view life that way, or otherwise there is no need for a savior; and Christianity without a savior is not a religion. But without some verifiable proof that "sin" in that sense exists (we are all born corrupt, we will spend eternity in hell unless sin is cured, we cannot cure it on our own), I still see it as a form of control. A lot of Christian theological problems are created internally, but if you shift your framework they go away.

What I see: We are born imperfect in knowledge and behavior. We have tendencies to be selfish, yet often we want to be good and be loved. Sometimes the two bleed together. As we grow and learn, we hopefully start to value positive qualities that lead to health and life rather than choosing negative attitudes and behaviors that hurt others for our benefit and even hurt ourselves, often for short-term gain. The goal is for us to become other-centered and also to keep learning and growing. We do not claim we will ever be perfect, but we are not asked to be perfect, we are merely required to stay on the growth path. Realistically, that is all we can do... but that's all people do ANYWAY, even Christians, if you step back, ditch the theology for a minute, and just look at them and their life arcs and behaviors... you will see a bunch of imperfect people, and the "good" ones are the ones who are growing in self and community and the "bad" ones are destroying themselves and community by their choices. In this case, we don't need "saved" by praying some prayer, being 'saved' is a process.

CHristianity instead takes a step backward: It decides to label everyone as BAD, then says they can be saved if they pray a prayer and "believe in Jesus" and then basically subject people to a checklist of moral scrutiny for the rest of their lives. Legalism. "better" Christianity starts to veer more towards the growth process I already described, by trying to say somehow God hates sin but loves people, we are filthy sinners so now we need to be made pure in Christ, etc.; but those are all artifacts meant to explain inconsistencies in the philosophy. It creates its own issues and then resolves them by trying to layer new junk overtop.

What really reflects reality is that we are both programmed AND free, we are both good AND bad, we are both knowledgeable AND ignorant, and life often is a muddled journey where we struggle for and desire the light while often wondering why we have so much grime on us and like that too. That seems to be a "better fit" for the data, and stepping back into a binary black/white good/bad mindset seems less accurate but seems also to instill possibility for more control over behavior, it turns muddy abstract good/evil into tangible morality and a checklist, the gray is removed.

It's sort of funny to see Christianity today trying to add more gray back in to better reflect the actual journey, but the conservatives of course fight that as a degrading of their liturgical faith.

I'm mostly thinking out loud here and I'm sure would offend some, but I have to think outside the box, things become more clear as I become older and also as I become a better more well-rounded person. I think religion has got to be a faith issue, not a proof issue; because otherwise the proof seems to be leading elsewhere if anywhere at all.

 

[Eric B]

JenO-

I basically entered the faith through the SDA. I never joined, but was trying to find more information on the sabbatarian interpretation of prophecy. I leaned towards sabbatarianism, because I realized one of the Ten Comandments said the seventh day, not the first. That then became another "inconsistency" I would defiantly hit "traditional Christianity" with. It was the Plain Truth magazine and writings of Herbert W. Armstrong of the Worldwide Church of God (a distant offshoot of the Adventist movement) I was really drawn in by, but they were very elusive; only hosting occasional public lectures; but otherwise, their meetings, in rented auditoriums and not churches, were private. So I then turned to the next best thing, the SDA's, who had a Reading Room right next to the main NYC library. Yet a street evangelist who preached in Times Square used to go there, and he showed me where sabbatarianism was not accurate.

So yes, I did did get exposed to some of Ellen G. White's stuff. A lot of The Great Controversy is rehashed in many of their books and magazines. Like those "National Sunday Laws" booklets you can sometimes find laying around the subway. It was exciting reading, on how it would all develop (like the false Christ who sways everyone), but now, it seem totally ridiculous that Sunday worship is going to be the issue of the End Times; especially in a secular world (as they complain) rejecting everything associated with Church). But I guess, it's supposed to be cataclysmic events coming up that will push everyone back to religion, and then Sunday will be what ties them together. Even today, they point to the pope trying to get everyone to "return to their roots", and then, of course, the European Union is supposed to become the final "Beast".
They also used to annoy me with their constant attacks on evolution. They are even said to be the originators of the rigid "Young Earth" (6000 years) interpretation the Sunday-keeping fundies grabbed hold of. That's because all of this is tied with the whole "Creation Sabbath" concept.

Again; to me, it's "parental" Ne that keeps me going in it. It could be true; despite all of the stuff we can't explain. So that informs the Ti. Hence, as my wife always complained "it's just an idea or argument wth you". That's really the best I can do at this point.
　

 

[Eric B]

JenI-

I think basically you will feel more at peace if you accept that going to your dad and others as part of a "witness" on your part is something you will need to do without proof. You are doing it because you have accepted a revelation as true, because you want to believe it;

I always cringed at that notion. Just "believe" something with no proof? Why, then? What's the basis of believing it? Here's where the Ti comes out strongly, and Fi (which would be connected with wanting to believe) I really do not trust. (Again, it now seems so ridiculous that I ever wondered between Ti and Fi all that time. That "expert" had really bewitched me with the skewed information on the processes).
"Well, I believe..." is exactly what people like my father want to hear. Because then all they'll say is "That's your belief; and it's good for you, but not for me". So to me, that was basically a de-facto admission of their side; that all is relative, and there is no "one Way". totally counterproductive to this "witnessing" we were supposed to be doing, to prove to them "the Truth".

Pantelism seems sort of funny in the way you describe, if it suggesting God would no longer have plans or is finished with everything. I'm not sure of the value of believing in an absent or irrelevant deity even if he could be shown to be true; it's like making a commitment to a father who abandoned you when you were five, what's the point?

OK, maybe I should not have stressed that so much, because that's just my take on it, or how it works for my issues and questions. Other pantelists (such as on talk-grace.com, pantelism.com, etc) would not say God is totally uninvolved; they would say that we are experiencing His grace today (hence, not irrelevant, as the much dreaded condemnation to Hell has been removed), and all the other stuff, like what you said below, that were are to grow, become others-centered, etc. All the stuff the skeptics would say religion is "supposed" to be!
But because I am unsure of even this interpretation, it just comes off as an quick explanation of why there are no longer any supernatural miracles, or appearances, visions or even feelings of God, and it's hard to convince anyone that they're going to Hell and need a savior.
That's what I tend to focus on. A way I have recenly begun to term it is that religion is no longer validated by God. Science seems to point away from it and the world is following their lead, our own behavior and schism argues against it, and experience just jibes with the rest of natural human life. And we are (as it feels to me) left "out there" on our own in this world to try to prove God against all of this insurmountable evidence. So people cite "I'll never leave you nor forsake you", but the only way that seems to make sense today, is if it refers to those people in that time (the first century), and that we are already in the Kingdom they were being promised. Hence, divine validation is no longer needed.

if you feel embarrassment or shame over not being able to support it and justify it to them, then you're not really believing in it yourself solidly.

This I realize; hence, over the past 20 years this struggle. Then, you had the scriptures "If you are ashamed of Me/Him, I/He will be ashamed of you" looking down over you. It felt like such a double-bind.
That's another evidence to me of Comprehensive Grace (another term for pantelism). That's my only hope, regarding God and judgment. But then, that is precisely the attitude Christ said would lead to justification (Pharisee vs Publican). Salvation cannot be on my own "choices"; ether to do good works, or even to "believe". Traditional Protestantism (and its "gospel tracts") argues the first part, but substitutes the second, yet it is basically the same thing, and just as hard. Debates even go on and on about the role of choice (Calvinism vs Arminianism) or works (evangelicals vs Catholics and various sects), and it never ends, and just shows that this "absolute truth" they all claim, is really not as "obvious" as they insist.

What I see: We are born imperfect in knowledge and behavior. We have tendencies to be selfish, yet often we want to be good and be loved. Sometimes the two bleed together. As we grow and learn, we hopefully start to value positive qualities that lead to health and life rather than choosing negative attitudes and behaviors that hurt others for our benefit and even hurt ourselves, often for short-term gain. The goal is for us to become other-centered and also to keep learning and growing. We do not claim we will ever be perfect, but we are not asked to be perfect, we are merely required to stay on the growth path. Realistically, that is all we can do... but that's all people do ANYWAY, even Christians, if you step back, ditch the theology for a minute, and just look at them and their life arcs and behaviors... you will see a bunch of imperfect people, and the "good" ones are the ones who are growing in self and community and the "bad" ones are destroying themselves and community by their choices. In this case, we don't need "saved" by praying some prayer, being 'saved' is a process.

This is basically the same thing the pantelists I discuss with would say.
Funny, I first entered temperament theory through Tim LaHaye's Why You Act the Way You Do (which outlines the four Galenic temperaments), and in the midst of describing temperament "weaknesses" then goes into all of that "Christian victory" stuff where "God" brings hardships ("tests", "trials", etc) to make you grow (everything from having a driver cut in front of you at the intersection, to personal or family tragedy), and you must strive and resist the temptations to negative thinking, and it's a slow lifelong "process" of "sanctification". This sounded so much like what my agnostic father used to say; minus God and sanctification. Yet LaHaye is calling this "the power of God" and even saying you are "grieving the Spirit" if you don't excercise this; and then my wife had Joyce Myers and these other TV people going, the "Purpose Driven" books and others, and remembering all the other stuff I had read on my own years earlier; and it's all the same "self-help" stuff. What's the difference, then?
And if it's really the Power of God; then why isn't it more quick and easy, then? Of course, the answer, the pain and discomfort is what is good for us! I recently realized that this is the whole framework of Christianity. God's main tool in dealing with us is discomfort. You either go through the discomfort of "denying the flesh" now (resisting sin, and stuff like sacrificing "time for God"), plus the additional discomfort God sends to make us "grow", or you suffer eternal discomfort in Hell. Why is God all about "discomfort"? It's like "has anyone ever thought about this"? No one would dare; because then you're "falling outside the pale of orthodoxy"). It's obviously part of a control mechanism.
　

CHristianity instead takes a step backward: It decides to label everyone as BAD, then says they can be saved if they pray a prayer and "believe in Jesus" and then basically subject people to a checklist of moral scrutiny for the rest of their lives. Legalism. "better" Christianity starts to veer more towards the growth process I already described, by trying to say somehow God hates sin but loves people, we are filthy sinners so now we need to be made pure in Christ, etc.; but those are all artifacts meant to explain inconsistencies in the philosophy. It creates its own issues and then resolves them by trying to layer new junk overtop.

Again, what I'm seeing is that what they're doing simply reflects the transition period from the Old Covenant to the New. I forgot to add in the OP that after the Church failed to recognize "the end", and kept looking for a future "end", they perpetuated this "turn or burn" concept (and even still, I'm hearing that there was a lot of universalism in the church before the Creeds of the 4th-7th centures wiped it out), and it became useful as a control tool.
　

It's sort of funny to see Christianity today trying to add more gray back in to better reflect the actual journey, but the conservatives of course fight that as a degrading of their liturgical faith.

Which the moderates think will finally show the world something; that "we've changed"; but all it shows the world is how it is all relative just as they argued. (Like my father would complain about Christianity, and I tell him "it's not really like that", and then he would claim "Well, you're a new kind. Religions should be updated, just like the Constitution should be updated, to keep with the current situation".