The Infinite Mercy of God

[anthriel]

Practically anything you read about NFs paints them as naturally "mystical". The NF description often sound to me like reading a stereotype of a New Age hippe.

Yeah, that's me. I'm also a Pisces, for cryin' out loud. All Pisceans are supposed to be a bunch of dreamers, who like the instinctual rather than the intellectual.

Bah humbug.

I LOVE trying to take systems apart. I am almost relentless in pursuing the logic trail back into the foundations of an idea; I get kind of single-minded, actually, and find that, to my utter bewilderment, I have managed to annoy people with my questions. (That poor research nurse for the cancer institute comes to mind, when I asked her if the RNA- based testing she was talking about was done with PCA... she kinda got that glazed look, poor thing... )

It's natural to try to analyze how God works. I understand what narya is saying about getting focused on the details-- she's a systems analyst type of person, being an engineer, and all.

But if you really start trying to analyze an infinite mind armed only with a finite one, you are going to find problems that you can't figure out. Is that a surprise, really?




(yov, btw?: )

[truehobbit]

yov, don't worry, I like what you brought up for discussion.

I'm not sure whether this is something that is developing over time - I'd be more inclined to say that both ways exist at the same time, we just might find the one more accessible to us than the other at different times in our lives. Or we might grow up with one and later find that the other suits our temperament better.
Though, on the other hand, there might also be a trend, I really couldn't tell.

Personally, I would say that I need both ways. If I meet someone whose faith is very "mystical", I find myself having doubts about their sense - words like "rapturous" and "enthusiastic" come to mind, which are not very positive words for me. Faith, for me, needs to be reasonable as well as emotional. It is only if it is only one of them that I doubt the believer.

Maybe that's why I pointed out earlier that I wouldn't see "reason" and "mystery" as a dichotomy.
I'm also reminded of the Pope's stress on the rationality of faith.

Thinking with hard lines and clear rules and structures. More like "This is what God is, this is what God has done, this is what God wants, and this is what God doesn't want." IE. an attempt to understand God and religion from the perspective of logic.

[...]

In short, perhaps, being able to say "I don't understand" like Rice does and finding...beauty...in that.

Yes, the first one is definitely more analytical - and, like I said, it expects Man to understand everything and be in control.

What, IMO, distinguishes the second approach can be summed up in one word: love!

With love comes trust and deference and feeling safe in spite of having given up control.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

What, IMO, distinguishes the second approach can be summed up in one word: love!

With love comes trust and deference and feeling safe in spite of having given up control.

[MithLuin]

Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been swings back and forth between two "poles" - the incarnational and the transcendental. Both are truths of the faith, but they have been emphasized in different ways by different people at different times. "Transcendental" means that God is God and we are Man, and he is ineffable, and we really can't understand him - but it also leads to the scary-Jesus artwork, God-in-judgement, fall on your knees kind of worship. I imagine that isn't the "style" of anyone here, even if they sympathize very much with the transcendental viewpoint. This was how it worked in the early Middle Ages, anyway. The incarnational pole, on the other hand, stresses the fact that God became a human being. Jesus is our brother. As such, we can understand him, because he was like us (and God too, but it's hard to be scared of a crying baby!) To be true, both truths must be held. You can't ignore either pole, so you have to keep a tension between them. There are pitfalls in going too far either way; forgetting either the humanity or divinity of Jesus.

I do think it funny that the incarnational pole is being blamed for being too narrow, while the transcendental pole is being lauded as open-minded. Historically, it was very different. It's probably a good thing that both are being challenged and reclaimed; stagnation is the one sure thing to kill faith. And it is dangerous to become complacent and 'comfortable' with God, thinking we know 'enough' about him.

God is just and merciful. It is easy to distrust that mercy, and think that God's justice is merely lurking in the background, behind the niceties, waiting to pounce. At least, people seem to fall into that. To speak of God's infinite mercy, to refer to him as a fount of mercy (or an ocean of Mercy) is just too good to be true, or so it seems. The Sunday after Easter is now (officially) known as Divine Mercy Sunday. That name was added to the calendar by JPII, who died on the eve of that feast. It was named after Saint Faustina, a Polish nun who introduced devotions to the Divine Mercy. The prayers end with a simple phrase: "Jesus, I trust in you!"

I understand what Anne Rice meant when she said that all that stuff didn't matter. It's not that such questions don't matter (as in, shouldn't be asked). It's that they aren't the core of what is important - they are incidental. In one sense, we are only responsible for the questions that pertain to our own relationship with God. Cardinal Arinze (a Nigerian cardinal who works at the Vatican, running the group responsible for Liturgy) was fielding questions from teens and young adults about morality. Someone stood up and started asking about stem cell research or something like that. He (very gently) pointed out that the question didn't matter. Morality is about what is right and what is wrong, and he said that we know in our hearts which is which - it is just a matter of doing it. It is really quite simple, and we really shouldn't get all bent out of shape by such technical questions. (If he were fielding questions from people who actually worked in the field of medical research, I imagine he would have answered differently.) I was surprised by his answer, but mostly because it was such an un-American thing to say! We always have to have the answer to everything, it's just a matter of looking it up or talking to the right person....so to be told "don't worry about it" was....different. But he was right - what did that matter to the questioner or to him? It is important for someone to answer the question, and it does matter...but it isn't what I need to be focused on. I need to make sure my attention is on how I am interacting with the people around me, and how I am living out my faith here.

[narya]

Mith: How did you get to be so wise at your tender age?

[Primula Baggins]

I need to make sure my attention is on how I am interacting with the people around me, and how I am living out my faith here.

Words to live by.

I mean that literally.

[Frelga]

God is just and merciful. It is easy to distrust that mercy, and think that God's justice is merely lurking in the background, behind the niceties, waiting to pounce. At least, people seem to fall into that.

Highlights mine.

That's a very important point in Judaism - that the Creator is just as well as merciful. The tradition goes that if the God were only just, metting out punishment and reward based on who deserves what, the humanity would have been wiped out long ago. It is only through the infinite divine love that delights in our human imperfections that we survive.

I need to make sure my attention is on how I am interacting with the people around me, and how I am living out my faith here.