Spiritual but not Religious

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Instead of addressing the 22% who are religious but not spiritual (a much more curious and interesting figure/problem to explore and address, I think)

I guess that's the people who attend church but are non-believers. Like some of the posters here who seem to be "active" members but come here to rant against it in safety. A "safe space" of sorts.

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I guess that's the people who attend church but are non-believers. Like some of the posters here who seem to be "active" members but come here to rant against it in safety. A "safe space" of sorts.

I'm not sure who you are talking about specifically (I hope this isn't a passive-aggressive dig at me).  I can't think of any active members who come here to rant against the church.  I wouldn't necessarily question the spirituality of those who have problems with the church.   One can maintain their faith in Christ, seek for (and have) spiritual experiences, without even believing in the church, believe it or not.   In fact, I almost guarantee that is true of some who are even antagonistic towards the church . 

Edited January 2, 2024 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

On 12/29/2023 at 3:40 PM, pogi said:

There is some interesting data here about this group (which is further subdivided into different categories).

It appears that around half of spiritual but not religious (SBNR) people view religion as harmful.  Some of it may be in terms of perceived harms that come from meta-narratives and what they may view as "oppressive" definitions and outlines of "reality" and they seek autonomy from religious authority.   These might be those inclined to post-modern philosophies, for example, who eschew meta-narratives and adopt more relative views vs "absolute truth" preached from the pulpit.   They may not join a church because they tend to "shirk definition" and "boundaries", "for them, there is truth in all religions, and they refuse to believe any single religion has a monopoly on ultimate reality."

An interesting note from the article:

 

 

  

And we could take in those folks if we understood the importance of a personal testimony coupled with a postmodern view of reality.

It works well for me.

Thinking in terms of "absolute TRUTH" often appears to conflict with seeking one's own "testimony",- yet I maintain that, using logic, and careful understanding of the problems of language in expressing spiritual truths, one sees different possible interpretations of scripture, and those interpretations may "click" for those who understand symbolic language.

Jesus is The Word, the messenger.

All the DISCUSSION and Interpretation, and social construction of ALL CREATION depends on what?

WORDS. 

Perhaps we should spend some time in hermeneutics?

And that means postmodernism. 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure who you are talking about specifically (I hope this isn't a passive-aggressive dig at me).  I can't think of any active members who come here to rant against the church.  I wouldn't necessarily question the spirituality of those who have problems with the church.   One can maintain their faith in Christ, seek for (and have) spiritual experiences, without even believing in the church, believe it or not.   In fact, I almost guarantee that is true of some who are even antagonistic towards the church . 

A good example of this is the spiritual experience.

Is it just some fantasy in your head, or is it possibly an external stimulation not unlike colors which we EXPERIENCE and are "real" yet ALSO  produced and interpreted in our minds/spirit/ brains?

How does our conscience know good from evil?  What CAUSES that "prompting" externally?

Even Atheists admit some sort of natural instinct.

But even seeing it as "evolutionary" does not deny that the instinct is there.

The problem in that case becomes: does the WORD "instinct" include the meanings of " spiritual"?

Again, WORDS create reality AS WE KNOW IT.

ALL WE KNOW is represented by words.  Words create all things,

...in postmodernism.

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, I know, but I like to point out the obvious verbal contradiction in terms. Yes, I know, I am a pedant.

But at the same time, a lot of this being "spiritual" seems to mean a kind of useless, airy, "the mountains and trees are my church" kind of spiritual. And the claim seems to serve as an excuse for just going about their own business without concern for what truly matters.

My personal definition of spiritual is doing those things that help you feel the Holy Spirit. I suspect that many, if not most people define it in that way in their hearts if not in their heads - meaning you can feel the Spirit even if you don't all describe the Spirit under the same definition.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Like those "religious" orders that withdraw from the world in order to pray, ponder, sing, and contemplate God every livelong day. 

Christ withdrew to ponder and pray. Church leaders teach people to do these actions. This teaches those specific actions are not a wrong way to go about feeling the Spirit.  I would guess that your only disagreement with these actions is how much to do them.

But who decides that?  Where is the manual that says an hour a day is good, but 2 weeks a year is bad. It really has to come down between you and God.  No one else can decide that for you.

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, absolutely. And there are persons who act according to that definition who do a lot of good in the world outside of the remit of a church institution. And seemingly ironically they are obeying one of God's "religious" commandments, perhaps one they are unaware of:

DC 58:27 - "Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;"

But of course that isn't sufficient for salvation. 

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Yes, absolutely. And there are persons who act according to that definition who do a lot of good in the world outside of the remit of a church institution. And seemingly ironically they are obeying one of God's "religious" commandments, perhaps one they are unaware of:

DC 58:27 - "Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;"

But of course that isn't sufficient for salvation. 

This is exactly the way I see it, until that last line, which I bolded here.

I have no idea why you think that it isn't sufficient for salvation. Such a person who has lived a good life, but does not know Christ, could end up exalted, I believe, before any of us who know about Christ but do not do what he taught.

They will have a certain opportunity on the other side to finish the great puzzle of our existence.  

And that is what the church teaches, and the New Testament in numerous places including we church goers who are "whitened sepulchers "

[blackstrap]

The scriptures are very clear as to how to be saved. ( that was sarcasm for the impaired ) 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, blackstrap said:

The scriptures are very clear as to how to be saved. ( that was sarcasm for the impaired ) 

Ah, but I am paired.

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure who you are talking about specifically (I hope this isn't a passive-aggressive dig at me). 

A dig at you?! Of course not.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

 I can't think of any active members who come here to rant against the church. 

From the postings of some, it sounds like they attend church more-or-less regularly but are nonbelievers, and in order to not disrupt church meetings are quite decorous there, but to blow off steam safely they come here. I think that's a perfectly good reason to come here, by the way. If it's true of them I hope they stay in both places and contribute!

And of course I could be entirely wrong, and there are no active members who come here to rant against the church in confidence.

16 hours ago, pogi said:

I wouldn't necessarily question the spirituality of those who have problems with the church.   One can maintain their faith in Christ, seek for (and have) spiritual experiences, without even believing in the church, believe it or not.   In fact, I almost guarantee that is true of some who are even antagonistic towards the church . 

 Oh, I wouldn't question their spirituality either! I entirely agree with you. 

 

 

 

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Rain said:

My personal definition of spiritual is doing those things that help you feel the Holy Spirit. 

That's a good definition.

13 hours ago, Rain said:

Christ withdrew to ponder and pray. Church leaders teach people to do these actions. This teaches those specific actions are not a wrong way to go about feeling the Spirit.  I would guess that your only disagreement with these actions is how much to do them.

Some of my most spiritual and uplifting moments was when I withdrew to ponder and pray. After my first marriage went awry, I was kind of "down" for several months. I took a week off from the US Army, and alone with my tactical camping gear went to visit Mount Rainier National Park. I packed up Eagle Peak there, and spent a couple of days in sight of the big volcano. Praying and reading scriptures it seemed like the peace of the mountains entered my soul. When I came down I was a new man, who would occasionally be just going about his business when that experience on the peak would come to mind, and a huge peaceful smile would result. 

But the point is, I came down from the mountain. As did Jesus, and as did Moses. 

13 hours ago, Rain said:

But who decides that?  Where is the manual that says an hour a day is good, but 2 weeks a year is bad. It really has to come down between you and God.  No one else can decide that for you.

True enough. But the manual is in the scriptures. Nowhere in there does it recommend withdrawing from the world permanently. Jesus was very clear about this, and made it extremely clear in the Parable of the Talents. The man who buried his talent was called an unprofitable servant who was then cast into outer darkness. 

What I was criticizing was those religious orders whose practitioners withdraw from the world and spend all day every day in their cell, year upon year, serving no-one except their own supposed spirituality, relying upon handouts given by others who assume that these hermits are "godly" or "holy" when they are nothing of the kind. These are they who make their lives into a "sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal," as Paul writes in 1 Cor. 13:1. The "charity" that Paul writes about in 1 Cor. 13 is the pure love of Jesus Christ, who gave His life in the service of others, who only withdrew from the world when He needed to reconnect with God. And then re-entered the world with even greater power than before.

 

[Stargazer]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is exactly the way I see it, until that last line, which I bolded here.

I'll repeat myself with some expansion then: If all you have is good works, but you omit Jesus Christ, you cannot inherit even the Terrestrial Kingdom, and you cannot be saved. "Saved" in the sense of having Christ's atonement save you from eternal punishment (see DC 19:6-12). And without salvation, you are shut out from exaltation as well.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I have no idea why you think that it isn't sufficient for salvation. Such a person who has lived a good life, but does not know Christ, could end up exalted, I believe, before any of us who know about Christ but do not do what he taught.

I'm quite puzzled by your misunderstanding. Do I look like a Protestant who thinks if you don't accept Jesus in this life you're going to hell?

And I will remind you that salvation is not exaltation.

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

They will have a certain opportunity on the other side to finish the great puzzle of our existence.  

And that is what the church teaches, and the New Testament in numerous places including we church goers who are "whitened sepulchers "

When I said that doing good works was insufficient for salvation, perhaps I should have said that "doing good works in itself" is insufficient. Or in other words, "good works are required, but insufficient."

I was not limiting it to this life. There are billions of people who could never hear of Christ in this life, because circumstances made it impossible. But they will hear of Christ in the Spirit World, be offered the chance to accept Him there, and yes, could end up exalted. But even if they did nothing but good works all their lives long, without accepting Christ and baptism they cannot be saved. Good works, without Christ, cannot save you.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Stargazer said:

serving no-one except their own supposed spirituality, relying upon handouts given by others who assume that these hermits are "godly" or "holy" when they are nothing of the kind

They in many cases were doing this to not serve themselves or their own spirituality, but to serve God as I understood the explanations I have read of their experiences (which I admit has been minimal).

My guess is they saw themselves doing much what they believed mankind will be doing for eternity, worshipping God as the center of our existence.  They were fulfilling what they believed was the ultimate purpose of humanity, to give glory to God. In essence they were bringing heaven to earth.  There were believers who saw a benefit to this, someone was making a sacred space on earth….much like how some might view temples when they themselves never get to enter them, but see value in just the presence. 
 

You may not see any charity in such efforts, but others do from what I have seen. They serve man when they serve God. 

Edited January 3, 2024 by Calm

[pogi]

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And we could take in those folks if we understood the importance of a personal testimony coupled with a postmodern view of reality.

I know it can be done - you are living proof.  I think that people will have difficulty feeling like they need to keep their postmodern or relativist views hidden in order to be accepted at church though.  I feel like they will always feel like they are trying to fit in, but never fully settle into feeling like they belong socially, culturally, intellectually, and even spiritually.  Honestly, how do you do it?  Doesn't it get unbearably lonely?

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thinking in terms of "absolute TRUTH" often appears to conflict with seeking one's own "testimony",- yet I maintain that, using logic, and careful understanding of the problems of language in expressing spiritual truths, one sees different possible interpretations of scripture, and those interpretations may "click" for those who understand symbolic language.

Jesus is The Word, the messenger.

23 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All the DISCUSSION and Interpretation, and social construction of ALL CREATION depends on what?

WORDS. 

Perhaps we should spend some time in hermeneutics?

And that means postmodernism. 

What do you do when the words being used aren't working for you and don't fit within a postmodern view of reality?

 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Stargazer said:

From the postings of some, it sounds like they attend church more-or-less regularly but are nonbelievers, and in order to not disrupt church meetings are quite decorous there, but to blow off steam safely they come here.

I resent that. I am in no way decorous.

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

What do you do when the words being used aren't working for you and don't fit within a postmodern view of reality?

I am not sure I understand, but I'm really happy you asked.  Please explain a bit more.

Like perhaps where the author is taking things literally, and I am not?

[Tacenda]

On 1/2/2024 at 2:26 PM, Stargazer said:

I guess that's the people who attend church but are non-believers. Like some of the posters here who seem to be "active" members but come here to rant against it in safety. A "safe space" of sorts.

I think there's a better word than "rant" here. 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

I feel like they will always feel like they are trying to fit in, but never fully settle into feeling like they belong socially, culturally, intellectually, and even spiritually.  Honestly, how do you do it?  Doesn't it get unbearably lonely?

Not at all, I just feel that there is another paradigm they don't know that I DO know. It's like I read different books than they did, so my reality is different for me than for them.

I feel like we are in the 15 hundreds and I stumbled on the works of Galileo and Copernicus and my world has changed, but others think these views are weird, relativistic, and of the devil.

So what do I do?

I try to explain it all to them, how "everything they know is wrong!" 😱🤫

   

So I can be a jerk about it, which is my tendency unfortunately, or you can kindly explain your position.

One issue I think is how confident you are that "Copernicus" (Postmodernism) was right.

For me, the question doesn't even really exist. For me it is so obvious that I want to get the word out.

It's Wittgenstein who really changed me.  He doesn't teach what to think, but HOW to think.

Maybe I should quote him more.

Edited January 4, 2024 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not sure I understand, but I'm really happy you asked.  Please explain a bit more.

Like perhaps where the author is taking things literally, and I am not?

I am speaking more about the Church's overall narrative.  The narrative itself is a hyper-meta-narrative that extends eternally in both directions.  It is taught as an absolute truth.  Everything seems to be taught as absolute.   Relativism is attacked.  There is one true gate, one true path, one true church, one true authority, etc. etc.  It seems that postmodernists would have a very hard time swallowing these pills, but that is the foundation and fundamental narrative of the church.  That is the purpose of its existence, to get literally everyone to fall in the same meta-narrative because it is all objectively true whether other people believe it or not.    

Yes, there is also the literal vs metaphor issue as well.  While the church doesn't currently take a stance on evolution and the age of the earth, the church's narrative is that the garden story is literal.  Adam and Eve, Noah, the great flood, Nephi, the Book of Mormon, it is all literal.  

As a postmodernist, it seems that one has to hide a lot at church.  It is not safe to be and express your authentic self.  It is not a place of belonging, it is a place of fitting in.   I don't want to feel like I fit in, I want to feel like I belong, like I am accepted fully for who I am and what I believe and am free to express myself as such with equal tolerance and love for each other's views.  

For example, your views that there is just one God is pretty radical within Mormonism and outside the doctrinal/scriptural/revelatory narrative.  Your idea that it doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not is practically heretical within the meta-narrative of the church.   How does one maintain authenticity and feel like they belong in such a church?  Does it simply require one to shut up, keep your hands down, don't say or teach what you really believe.  If you are called as a teacher, you must teach things in the lessons that you may not believe, but are expected to push their narrative over your own core beliefs?  I feel like that is the only possible way to make it work - Stay quiet and step in line of the meta-narrative. 

I don't personally identify as a postmodernist, but I there are several ideas that speak to me.  I only bring up postmodernism because I know that you have identified as such.   My paradigm, in many ways, doesn't fit. 

Edited January 4, 2024 by pogi

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think there's a better word than "rant" here. 

Those who mostly rant don’t usually last too long. 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

How does one maintain authenticity and feel like they belong in such a church? 

Speaking as someone whose ideas don’t match what people say is the narrative the Church teaches…though my view is I am hearing each person’s interpretation anyway so there is little actual official belief in my view beyond what God is intending for us (his work and glory) and my narrative fits with that as well as more traditional ones in my view…

You learn to accept people and the Church for being where they are and don’t care about the raised eyebrows and those who avoid you if you have chosen to share your ideas with them. Let the excitement you feel in the grandeur of the prospect and the love you feel from God who is allowing all this to happen to you (eventually) be the feeling you focus on rather than what people think about you.  

But also don’t feel the need to be actively proselytizing your ideas, just live the life you find the best for you and if people are interested, maybe they will ask how you do it and if not, that is okay too.  God reached them where they are just the same as he is reaching you. 

Edited January 5, 2024 by Calm

[pogi]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Not at all, I just feel that there is another paradigm they don't know that I DO know. It's like I read different books than they did, so my reality is different for me than for them.

I feel like we are in the 15 hundreds and I stumbled on the works of Galileo and Copernicus and my world has changed, but others think these views are weird, relativistic, and of the devil.

So what do I do?

I try to explain it all to them, how "everything they know is wrong!" 😱🤫

   

So I can be a jerk about it, which is my tendency unfortunately, or you can kindly explain your position.

One issue I think is how confident you are that "Copernicus" (Postmodernism) was right.

For me, the question doesn't even really exist. For me it is so obvious that I want to get the word out.

It's Wittgenstein who really changed me.  He doesn't teach what to think, but HOW to think.

Maybe I should quote him more.

I posted my reply before reading this.  Thanks for sharing. 

[CV75]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

I know it can be done - you are living proof.  I think that people will have difficulty feeling like they need to keep their postmodern or relativist views hidden in order to be accepted at church though.  I feel like they will always feel like they are trying to fit in, but never fully settle into feeling like they belong socially, culturally, intellectually, and even spiritually.  Honestly, how do you do it?  Doesn't it get unbearably lonely?

What do you do when the words being used aren't working for you and don't fit within a postmodern view of reality?

 

Hi, I caught this on @mfbukowski's post. On the matter of unbearable loneliness arising from a minority paradigm: I have found when I find myself in the "cultural" minority among any particular gathering of Church members, and I'm not saying that every group of members is alike or that I've been unbearably lonely, my secure companionship with the Lord sees me through. The kinds of "rub" that I typically experience may seem trivial, such as my views on the importance of material gain, BYU sports and what I consider to be "folk" exegesis. But I have certainly had experiences where I have had to hold to my views as a disciple of Christ quite alone, among members and non-members alike (except for Him), and it does work. Whenever it does work, I find a greater peace and confidence, and see others as God does.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

I am speaking more about the Church's overall narrative.  The narrative itself is a hyper-meta-narrative that extends eternally in both directions.  It is taught as an absolute truth.  Everything seems to be taught as absolute.   Relativism is attacked.  There is one true gate, one true path, one true church, one true authority, etc. etc.  It seems that postmodernists would have a very hard time swallowing these pills, but that is the foundation and fundamental narrative of the church.  That is the purpose of its existence, to get literally everyone to fall in the same meta-narrative because it is all objectively true whether other people believe it or not.    

Yes, there is also the literal vs metaphor issue as well.  While the church doesn't currently take a stance on evolution and the age of the earth, the church's narrative is that the garden story is literal.  Adam and Eve, Noah, the great flood, Nephi, the Book of Mormon, it is all literal.  

As a postmodernist, it seems that one has to hide a lot at church.  It is not safe to be and express your authentic self.  It is not a place of belonging, it is a place of fitting in.   I don't want to feel like I fit in, I want to feel like I belong, like I am accepted fully for who I am and what I believe and am free to express myself as such with equal tolerance and love for each other's views.  

For example, your views that there is just one God is pretty radical within Mormonism and outside the doctrinal/scriptural/revelatory narrative.  Your idea that it doesn't matter if Jesus was real or not is practically heretical within the meta-narrative of the church.   How does one maintain authenticity and feel like they belong in such a church?  Does it simply require one to shut up, keep your hands down, don't say or teach what you really believe.  If you are called as a teacher, you must teach things in the lessons that you may not believe, but are expected to push their narrative over your own core beliefs?  I feel like that is the only possible way to make it work - Stay quiet and step in line of the meta-narrative. 

I don't personally identify as a postmodernist, but I there are several ideas that speak to me.  I only bring up postmodernism because I know that you have identified as such.   My paradigm, in many ways, doesn't fit. 

Excellent post, thanks. Now clear as a bell, and this gets down to the basics.  

It's an important point for many.

Maybe I should start a new thread about this, but first let me post a quote from Ludwig Wittgenstein, AND VERY briefly answer your questions directly one at a time

Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Culture and Value"  Translated by Peter Winch  University of Chicago Press  1980 P. 32e

Some punctuation altered due to transmission errors

Quote

" Clear as it sounds the historical accounts in the gospels might historically speaking, be the demonstrably false and yet belief would lose nothing by this: not however because it concerns 'universal truth of reason'!  Rather because historical proof (the historical proof game) is irrelevant to belief. This message ( the Gospels) is seized on by men believingly (ie lovingly).  That is the certainty characterizing this particular acceptance-as- true not something else".

To make a very long story a LITTLE shorter

I believe that certain paradigms work better for others than they work for me, and I also believe absolutely in Moroni 10: 4-5 AND James 1:5, and all the admonitions we receive to get our own testimonies, that we are all "prophets" in our own lives etc.   The only thing absolutely "true" is that the truth changes for us according to our personal and social human understanding of the nature of "reality" as we know it.  I have never seen a better definition than that.

I found the church because of Moroni 10.  Listen to your own testimony.   Why would I contradict that???

I believe that God can tell us all things, and Postmodernism is what He taught me- I am on this path because of this point.

Should the church change, I still must follow my own personal revelations just as I did to FIND the church in the first place!!  If the church teaches us to find our own testimonies then says "Nope- follow ME instead of your own understanding, they are self-contradictory and therefore irrational.

Yes I believe that God's "true" church MUST be "Rational"- whatever that means- AS REVEALED to me by my conscience.

BUT others may not find MY paradigm to fit their needs.   OK with me!!!  They are as much believing THEIR own paradigm as I am following mine.

YET I believe that BOTH AND NEITHER of these two somewhat opposing positions are by definition, humanly designed "truths" AND that GOD IS A HUMAN Exalted beyond our ability to understand.

The issue about the "Trinity/Godhead" is just my opinion, which I believe is not a fully formed paradigm.  I only know ONE BEING when I pray,yet I believe that if we can be "exalted" we become like God- so the boundaries between "Persons" and "Gods" at that stange is IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND NOW ANYWAY.   So I know that the BEING I address in prayer APPEARS TO ME  to be ONE AND THE SAME BEING- but who "knows"?

Lastly, if the church decides I cannot have a temple recommend with my beliefs about the philosophy of language- A- it would be very strange that they care, and B again I would see that as a logical inconsistency and I have left other religions over logical inconsistencies before.

I ABSOLUTELY MUST FOLLOW MY OWN CONSCIENCE- I never signed up to be a cult of absolute obedience to principles that are self-contradictory.

Mysteries?  No problem!  Stuff we still don't know?  No problem!

But if you bar me from the temple?  For not believing inconsistent paradigms?   Sorry - that would be a hard one BUT ....?

Incidentally I speak in church a LOT.

I am usually the go-to- 5 minute guy when someone does not show up for a sacrament talk or Lesson.   I don't exactly think I am on the edges of being MAINSTREAM because I am not.

I can speak MORMONESE as well as PHILOSOPHESE because BOTH are simply paradigms, and I can see it all from both sides- AND my view is there ARE absolute truths- and those truths are those GOD HAS TOLD ME HE WANTS TO BELIEVE.

I was baptized in 1979 and NOT before the Priesthood of Black folks was resolved.  

AND I am not much of a social person- I typically don't care much about what others think of me.  I am certainly not afraid of expressing unpopular opinions- in the '60's nobody was gonna tell ME how long my hair had to be, OR that it was OK to kill College students on their own campus, because of their political opinions.

I mean I used to be a Commie- Pinko!

Does that answer it?

NOTICE in the Wittgenstein piece the idea of "Acceptence -as- True" regardless of historicity.

As paradigms, I honestly do not CARE if the BOM is historically "accurate"- whatever that means, since all history would not be admissible in court because it is "hearsay" evidence- OR NOT!.

It "really happened"?  OK no problem.   It's all made up?  OK no problem!  WHAT IS IMPORTANT is the MEANING behind the stories and how those meanings affect people's lives.

And so I can speak both language-games, because I don't KNOW that either one "represents the truth" because I don't even know what that means!!

 

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Hi, I caught this on @mfbukowski's post. On the matter of unbearable loneliness arising from a minority paradigm: I have found when I find myself in the "cultural" minority among any particular gathering of Church members, and I'm not saying that every group of members is alike or that I've been unbearably lonely, my secure companionship with the Lord sees me through. The kinds of "rub" that I typically experience may seem trivial, such as my views on the importance of material gain, BYU sports and what I consider to be "folk" exegesis. But I have certainly had experiences where I have had to hold to my views as a disciple of Christ quite alone, among members and non-members alike (except for Him), and it does work. Whenever it does work, I find a greater peace and confidence, and see others as God does.

There is a song out there- not a great song, but one that reminds me of MANY times in my life when I have been completely alone in the world.   Meh!   I survived!

"Alone again- Naturally"

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a song out there- not a great song, but one that reminds me of MANY times in my life when I have been completely alone in the world.   Meh!   I survived!

"Alone again- Naturally"

I thought you were going to say Tony Clifton's cover of "I Will Survive"!