darkchylde

If I can wade in, and not knowing really which side of the argument I fall on, except perhaps to quote Le Carre's summation/justification from "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy", and I paraphrase, '....as much a matter of aesthetics as anything else'. We are all on journeys, and some will make the rational decision to move towards atheism, others perhaps rationally towards agnosticism, or from those rationally to one of the forms of theism or vice versa. My faith experience was a move from an inherited roman catholicism, to a rebellious atheism, and then to an extreme reformed protestantism. Now, more as a result of my MI perhaps, and not being able to sift through my own history and properly contextualise much of that faith experience (manic religiosity, depressed spiritual melancholy), I am left with the rational embers of that theology. I think in that perhaps Emettman had a profound observation "internally self-consistent". From what I understand of your meaning, this is an internal consistency that flows from an a priori set of assumptions, in this case about God and the nature of the universe. I think we can all agree that to a large degree those initial assumptions are the determinant of the direction we proceed in this question. Certainly I have wrestled in both depression and in mania, with belief and with unbelief, but in my less - for want of a better word - 'impinged' moments, there are several questions (some scientific, some theological) and unique features about the Bible (and specifically the Christ story) that remain with me, regardless of the residual state I have been left in by the most recent MI episode. As time goes on, and I have accepted that that wrestling is both a feature of my illness as it presents itself, and that also the answer to my questioning will probably not be found, at least not in this life, I become more comfortable with where I am positioned, and with the beliefs I do hold. Allowing the wrestling to exist, but not being defined by it, also gives an openness, I can be more comfortable with other's beliefs, and their spiritual journeys and experiences. Often we are asking the exact same question, expressing the exact same doubt, the difference perhaps that we fall on a different side of the fence with regard to the answer we find acceptable in the present moment. Shalom.

I found I couldn't possibly select a single one of those options, it would be either all or none. Like so many, following Camus, I am seeking to answer the fundamental question (no trigger!) - and thus finding I had MI was initially a real stumbling block to spiritual experience. I was a late teens/early 20's convert from a lukewarm 'sort-of' roman catholicism to a more extreme form of reformed protestanism [for those unfamiliar, a form of Christianity based around the primary tenets of the Protestant Reformation, leading with Luther, but primarily following Calvin, and essentially distilled to the 'SOLAs': Sola Scriptura - by Scripture i.e. the Bible alone; Sola fide - by faith alone; Sola gratia - by grace alone; Sola Christos - by Christ Alone]. That conversion was based both upon personal experience and logical underpinnings in light of that that supported a rational move towards Christianity. However, what MI forced me to confront (when I became aware of it in my mid-to-late 20's), especially in light of manic episodes, was the question of the 'reality' of my belief. Was it something genuinely held and experienced? Or a vessel for my manic energy to pour into and animate? My blog details some of that questioning, particularly in the early stages, and gives some idea of the kind of energy that was propelling it. I don't know that I have ever satisfactorily answered this conundrum. However, I think with time, with therapy, with reading, with meditiation, I have come to accept the space I am presently in. I think a lot of the more anxious moments of my faith experience, that I guess I would characterise as manifesting in a sort of rabid religiosity, have been able to be jettisoned, without diminishing my core beliefs. At the same time, I think I have opened up in relation to my own personal dialogue with many religions. I think that I have a more honest spiritual experience as a result. So perhaps not the 'having' of MI has influenced my religious beliefs, but the work I have done in light of it, as a result of the awareness, may have. As an addendum. Recently I have found much joy in the comedy podcast "You Made It Weird", from Pete Holmes on the Nerdist Network. He comes from a posture of doubt, having experienced what he describes as a 'regular' sort of American evangelical christianity. His last formal question in every episode is to do with his guest's religious beliefs. One of the most entertaining episodes as it pertains to that is an interview with fellow comedian Duncan Tressel (whose own podcast Duncan Tressell's family hour deals more explicitly with this area), and whose own beliefs seem, well almost to be undefinable, or at least 'unboxable', but I have certainly experienced the "vampires" he rails against. I have also been enjoying the live dialogues between Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla, which involve some discussion of both Prager's Jewish faith and Carolla's Athiesm. Although I think those might need to be purchased via iTunes. From a purely Christian perspective, I listen to Mark Driscoll's Mars Hill Church podcast fairly regularly also, he is one of the most well-known current proponents of that aforementioned reformed protestantism.

I'm trying to understand this being a world away; and thus not up on the news (I only heard a quote from a news report on the story on a podcast); has the CEO actually done anything defamatory or discriminatory? or is this protest actually a response to him exercising his freedom of speech (something that unlike us, you actually have a right to)? or is this 'kiss-in' in response to the fact there was an appreciation day; and not so much in response to what he said?

Miron, kudos; that is an evolved perspective, and well stated. There's nothing pathetic about it. Virginity is a thing. Like any other things. It either is or it isn't. If it is, it is. If it isn't, it isn't.

pardon me..... but i had to lol..... well said jazz

oh and i'd wade in on jaym......... but to be honest.......... it just makes me sad......... because really....... all we have for sure in this short time betwixt the stars that we live on this planet....... is the opportunity to show some care and concern for other people...... and maybe to be open enough and exposed enough........ that others will share that back with us....... and there might be some joy there...... its not a formula.......... or a process........ or a right or a wrong........ there's just so much where you wish you could open yourself up........ to let the common love or common pain you feel for/with all people out..... and the sharing above of tales of beauty in love and and sex as we age....... they're stories of hope...... and they make me smile (and maybe cry just a little)

this is my take....... and I don't know the answer...... however, as someone who is maybe in that 'in-between' zone (32)...... i'm finding there is a difference between dating a woman in the (and again generalising here) but; 30-40 age range; and in the 20-30; and the 40+.... in a sense it seems the latter two have more in common with each other, and it is a similar experience dating them, as opposed to the 30-40 range...... i don't know if the commonality is my messed up self..... or if it is something societal or biological i am noticing.....

welcome.... and hope things get better for you!!!!!!!

what you guys in the states need to realise........ particularly the people on the borderlines; more centrist etc who might vote democrat or vote republican depending on policy; is that the rest of us in the rest of the world are watching you guys; of course....... like hawks; nearly every newspaper in the world gives significant coverage to the US. We'll know almost as much about your elections as you do by the time the vote actually rolls around. We're watching; and we're RELYING on you guys. Don't drop the ball...... VE is right...... vote, vote and vote. I'm socially conservative (at least in the ways that might mystify some here)..... but economically (and socially to tell the truth) I'm miles away from these folks...... because getting the US economy righted has huge ramifications across the whole GLOBE. And raising taxes is going to be part of that; like it or not; Warren Buffett's op-ed piece should be a new manifesto for your nation....... contrast that to a movement that wants to default on debt (???) and cut spending AND taxes....... that is a recipe for global DISASTER...... you have to fight their rhetoric and their rallying, with a considered and reasoned vote..... i wish you all the very best in fighting for what's best for America....... and the world..... DC

I think the thing to remember, at least for Europeans; is that the European UNION is a UNION in name only. Most of these countries (or at least their peoples) were at loggerheads for most of the past 1000+ years and still have disagreements and stereotypes that they apply to each other. Anti-americanism is one of the few topics that ALL of these nations (yes, EVEN the french) can agree upon, and is thus a non-controversial discussion point when they gather together, even in a college dorm in America. In your specific case Withing, it IS difficult to deal with. I would find living in America difficult to deal with, much as I find my present lifestyle in my own country to be difficult, due in part to my awareness that my privileged economic/material position is based upon the subjugation of resources and people - at least in an economic sense, if no longer in an apparent colonial one - in countries where the living standards are far lower than mine. But at the same time, I think it is appropriate to at least explain that these lines of discussion make you uncomfortable and that you feel ganged up on, and it is not something you care to subject yourself to. Especially around Germans, French and Chinese, whose own national records of colonisation (France), war (Germany - holocaust anyone?) and wholesale human rights abuses (China) should leave their own patriotic consciences far from spotless. If it was within you, on a certain level I would suggest to respond in kind, however, from the tone of your message I gather you wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. dc

Recluse, thank you for this post. It is a really interesting concept, one that I can relate to on so many levels. From the difficulty I had with the fictions I spun as a child, that turned into lies, to make my life seem more 'interesting'; to even now, the urge to embellish, even slightly, on an account or story that requires no augmentation to hold peoples interest or attention. It is amazing how it takes root so deep, to becomes a substitute personality in many ways. And sadly, like most substitutes - coke zero; equal; margarine - its just not the same as the real thing. Which is why the personality seems so unfulfilled, so incomplete. I hope a lot of people end up reading this. dc