The still small voice

C

cavalier

Well-Known Member
Messages
720
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Taiwan
When my grandfather writes to me, he always encloses a number of tracts from his church. Normally I don't read them, but having a bit of extra time today, I picked one up. There was a line in it that I wanted to share and ask people's opinions on.

"There are two voices in your head today, one shouting promises of pleasure and amusement and trying to drown the other, 'a still small voice,' that repeats tenderly 'Come unto ME, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"

Until its overtly Christian conclusion, it was an idea that I identified and agreed with. It seems I feel this way about many Christian messages. I agree with the core idea, but feel that whenever the idea of a "personal" God or Savior is introduced the message is then taken to a point where I don't feel comfortable, and cannot fully agree.

I suppose it is my reaction, rather than the extract itself, that I would appreciate your opinions on.

Thanks
 
MY opinion is that the ME factor is off putting for me as well. I have a strong belief in our selves. By that I mean, is that we have to take responsibility for the good and bad in our lives. Only we can change it. Leaving it up to someone or something else to fix has been a major flaw I only just realised I had for my entire life. I'm not totally blaming my catholic upbringing abut it has played a big part of it. If I was in a mess, I would secretly hope that someone would come and save me. Eventually i worked out that I had to do it if it was to be done. ( I hope I am amaking sense.) Maybe I am taking the reading too literally, I dont know, but thats my opinion.
 
Hi cav :)

I'd say that if the core idea appeals to you, then just go with that. The rest will follow. It may be that you will not see things in exactly the same way they are described in the rest of the literature your dad sends. But I imagine he sends it because he cares about you, so if there is something there which speaks to you, perhaps it is love. Why not focus on that? Just my thoughts. (Nice to see you around.)

InPeace,
InLove
 
cav,

I feel Inlove has expressed it truly.................go with what you can. For each of us the "Me" will always contain the echoes of all that has
been expressed by a million others, yet there is a "me" that is yours, and yours alone, the "light which lights everyone who comes into the world". This a light beyond all division............

:)
 
greymare said:
MY opinion is that the ME factor is off putting for me as well. I have a strong belief in our selves. By that I mean, is that we have to take responsibility for the good and bad in our lives. Only we can change it. Leaving it up to someone or something else to fix has been a major flaw I only just realised I had for my entire life. I'm not totally blaming my catholic upbringing abut it has played a big part of it. If I was in a mess, I would secretly hope that someone would come and save me. Eventually i worked out that I had to do it if it was to be done. ( I hope I am amaking sense.) Maybe I am taking the reading too literally, I dont know, but thats my opinion.
Click to expand...


But Christianity isn't just about leaving it up to someone else to "fix" up our lives. We still have a moral obligation to God and to do right and love our neighbor as ourselves. Salvation isn't just about a "get out of hell free card", but the whole purpose of salvation is to conform us into the image of Christ. That takes work and a willingness to submit to God's ways and rules. The difference is that the Bible teaches that we can draw upon God's Power and Love as an Unlimited Source so that we may accomplish that, and we are not left to solely our own devices, which too often fall short.
 
cavalier said:
When my grandfather writes to me, he always encloses a number of tracts from his church. Normally I don't read them, but having a bit of extra time today, I picked one up. There was a line in it that I wanted to share and ask people's opinions on.

"There are two voices in your head today, one shouting promises of pleasure and amusement and trying to drown the other, 'a still small voice,' that repeats tenderly 'Come unto ME, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.'"

Until its overtly Christian conclusion, it was an idea that I identified and agreed with. It seems I feel this way about many Christian messages. I agree with the core idea, but feel that whenever the idea of a "personal" God or Savior is introduced the message is then taken to a point where I don't feel comfortable, and cannot fully agree.

I suppose it is my reaction, rather than the extract itself, that I would appreciate your opinions on.

Thanks
Click to expand...


That still small voice is the voice of God through the conscience. It is often opposed to our base nature for which we all too quickly cling to. It often runs counter to our natural tendencies, for it recognizes dangers of excess. Scripture teaches that conscience can be seared as a hot iron and thus no longer effective. But the more we rely on God, pray to God, read His Word, obey His moral law, are led by the Spirit, our conscience will strengthen. God helps us in our weakness, to help us live our lives worthily.
 
Hi Cav...miss talking with you.

I'd go with what has been said here regarding hedonism vs. working on self responsibility via religious channels. But I also believe that this quandry reflects the age old arguments regarding succumbing to the dualistic view of existence as opposed to promoting within the self a unified vision of "being" brought about through acts of love.

flow....:)
 
Hey Cav. Good to see you around.

I think that sometimes there are ideas that come to us either from the past or from within ourselves we seem to find some value and meaning in that don't sit with us well. When that happens I don't think it means that the idea is bad but that the way it's being expressed doesn't entirely work for us. For me all that usually requires is a degree of translation, changing the wording so that it's more affirming of our values while still maintaining the same pearl.

Dauer
 
flowperson said:
I'd go with what has been said here regarding hedonism vs. working on self responsibility via religious channels. But I also believe that this quandry reflects the age old arguments regarding succumbing to the dualistic view of existence as opposed to promoting within the self a unified vision of "being" brought about through acts of love.

flow....:)
Click to expand...

Flow,
And I love what you're saying here, there is so much beauty in being a natural human being, without seperation based on high roads and low roads. One earth made of many worlds, unified by the inner light.....giving and seeking towards the light of others.

- c -
 
Kinda reminds me of this old story:

Native Wisdom​
A Grandfather from the Cherokee Nation was talking with his grandson.
"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves."
"One wolf is evil and ugly: He is anger, envy, war, greed, self-pity, sorrow, regret, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, selfishness and arrogance."
"The other wolf is beautiful and good: He is friendly, joyful, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, justice, fairness, empathy, generosity, true, compassion, gratitude, and deep VISION."
"This same fight is going on inside you, and inside every other human as well."
The grandson paused in deep reflection because of what his grandfather had just said. Then he finally cried out; "Oyee! Grandfather, which wolf will win?"
The elder Cherokee replied, "The wolf that you feed."
 
Paladin, I am so happy that you are posting again. Wisdom is very good medicine. ;)

cav, sorry about my error. I see that it is your grandfather who sends you the tracks, not your dad like I wrote. But grandfathers can be very wise sometimes. :)

InPeace,
InLove
 
Thank you all for your replies, there are some very interesting things in there.

As I begin my reply, the thing that immediately comes to mind is Ciel's comment/question that the still small voice is the inner light itself. This idea strikes a chord within me.

Paladin's story of the Cherokee grandfather, especially the ending. It's a strange thing, the idea that the one who wins is the one that you feed is kinda obvious, and yet it's also very revealing because it's something that I easily forget and don't think about.
I have a question about the story. I never really thought about the good side as being a wolf, I always thought of the dark side as being more powerful, or could this just be because the evil wolf will leap at and snatch any food even half-offered, while the good wolf needs more encouragement?

Flow, would you say a little more about your idea that this problem comes out of a dualistic view of things.

Dauer thanks, with my upbringing I always wonder whether the message should be changed to suit my point of view, or whether it is my point of view that should change to suit the message. Maybe I know your answer, but I'd to hear your thinking.

Dondi, I think I completely agree with what you're saying, yet I also feel sure that we have a different idea of what that God is that you write about. I wonder how you would feel about that, that I agree with your idea but not with your ideas about God.

InLove, yes I know it's love that makes him send me these tracts (interesting that this is the one, out of so many, that I would read) and it's also love that makes him fill half his letters with sermons about the love of Christ. I know he worries about my salvation and I wish there was more I could do to make him feel better.

Tariki thanks, those are encouraging words

Greymere, it's possible I didn't fully understand but I don't think I agree with you. I would have to agree with Dondi's reply to you.

Again, thanks to all for your replies. I hope I didn't miss anyone:eek::)
 
Cav,

I don't think the answer is always clear but I find it helps to look at people whom I admire and to consider what matters most for me and what I would like the world to become and go from there. Generally for me that means thinking in a bigger picture beyond myself or my local community. But also trying to take into account any groups that become minoritized (I don't think that's a word...) by my decisions. I think a lot of that only relates to issues with an ethical tinge though.

I can give a recent example from my own life. It's a practice, not a belief, but the issues connected to it had to do with understanding my ideals and values while honoring those things I hold sacred. I just ordered three pairs of neatzit tzitzit katan. It's the type of tzitzit worn attached to an undergarment. Neatzit makes it in sort of a T-shirt. I've wanted to have them for a few years now and with a thread of one of the modern researched suggestions for techelet, which is the blue dye made today of either the common cuttlefish or murex trunculus. Now that I'm vegan that doesn't really work for me, to bring back a practice that vanished which only harms more life. I'm not so bothered by existing ritual items made from animals (though I'd be interested in a papyrus (used to be used for Jewish sacred texts) Torah and would rather own a used shofar and tefillin than new ones.) I placed the concept of tsaar baalei chaim first which is the understanding of the paind and suffering of living creatures. And yet I'm still driven to have a thread of blue in my tzitzit and I wanted to honor that.

I found that indigo has been compared to the color of techelet. May have even been used to make fake techelet but people looking to make more money. Karaim use indigo for techelet. And according to some research it's a possible candidate for the original techelet. Halachically it's forbidden to use it. But the blue thread is more important for me than that. And it's unlikely many people will know the difference to see it besides me. For me though, it becomes a thread of compassion that I notice every time I look down or have my hands around my sides (which for someone who has difficulty with eye contact is fairly often :D ) without losing its more traditional reference to the Divine imperative for arbitrary, ethical and mythical actions that help one become aware of G!d's presence. And a reminder then of not just compassion for non-humans but for humans too.

To give an example where I'm more conservative, there's a lot of G!d language in Judaism that says King or Lord. I can't really relate to those things on a literal level. When I'm with a group of other people, depending on the community, I generally just say Lord and King, Adonai and Melech. If I'm in a community that says Yah instead of Adonai I'll do that but I'm not going to violate the comfort level of a given community. It's just not important enough. When I'm on my own my practice is a bit more varied. I still use those terms sometimes when that's the interface I relate best to. Sometimes I need Avinu Shebashamayim, our Father who art in heaven. Sometimes that's the way I relate to the Divine. And it's also my default language because it's what I was brought up with. But at other times I'll embrace other relationships and in general when I'm really in a need to connect with G!d I'll usually speak in terms of the Divine feminine. But that's in private practice. I think the only time I use feminine G!d language in shul is when there are references to the shechinah (G!d's indwelling presence, the Divine feminine) in the siddur (like the lecha dodi prayer) or for avinu malkeinu (Our Father Our King) where I'll say Imenu Malkateinu (Our Mother Our Queen) and I'll only do that there because it's the practice for that community and thus tolerated. Sometimes I'll test the boundaries of certain communities, but only if I'm invested in them and it's just a little stretch, a little at a time. There's a wonderful teaching from a school I went to, "No confrontation without investment" that I try, not always successfully, to keep in my mind.

I also try when making a decision that goes against the norm, not to leave G!d out of it, to make G!d a part of the decision-making process either by meditating on it, talking to G!d and always consulting earlier answers to the question to see what I can learn and what makes sense for me. The other thing that for me is very true is that it's okay to experience something non-rational that on an intellectual level I may have objections to. On an intellectual level I take issue with, for example, some of the stuff that happens with the Exodus from Egypt, and I don't beleive in its historicity. But I feel it as a living history, as a meaningful story my people have told about themselves that contains many truths. When I'm not on the experiential level I can let my intellect come up with lots of criticisms and judgements. At Pesach (for example) I don't entertain that stuff so much because it's time to submerge in the experience and try and lift my feet from the ground so it reaches every inch of my body (inadvertent mikveh reference.) In that way I can keep both of those aspects of myself happy and my intellect is okay knowing that the experiential is just one perspective. I get into a lot of arguments with theists sometimes when they ask me questions about belief in G!d (not so much arguing here.) But if instead they asked about experience of G!d or trust in G!d, if G!d's a part of my life they'd get a very different answer. I like a little dissonance. Keeps me from getting too set in an overly rational or overly non-rational approach.

Dauer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top