Eric Boyd wrote:
>
> Hi,
Howdy.
>
> From: KMO <kmo@c-realm.com>
> <<
> Someone can present me with a iron-clad logical argument to the (effect) that
> working counter to the expansion of consciousness will get me more
> money, pussy, fame, power, rhetorical finesse, and health, but that
> would, for me, be no argument in favor abandoning my axiom. Valuing
> consciousness, for me, is not a means to an end. There's no point in
> evaluating whether it's the best way to get me where I want to go.
> It's not where I'm going; it's who I am.
> >>
>
> This is a profoundly important point, I think -- and really at the
> core of the discussion. Faith isn't about rational assent to a
> proposition; faith is about internalizing, about *embodying* the
> principle, and bringing it to life, as it were.
>
> An exposition of faith is an incarnational narrative, a story about
> how the present you came to be.
>
> Right?
Wow. I had never thought to put it that way, but I'm glad you did.
My one reservation with what you said is the "Faith isn't x, faith is y," statement. The lable "faith" gets applied to a variety of things including both x and y. My faith is mostly y, but I think Carl (and Dave Pate when he was part of the discussion) are right to be skeptical of and resistant to people who base their agendas on faith x. Where Carl and I disagree is that he claims that all faith is of the variety which he sees as being destructive, controlling, and incompatable with the tools of rational thought.
-KMO
-KMO