Runtu wrote:wenglund wrote:For the most part, I do understand why members want to believe--because it makes sense to them to want to believe. But not in cases, like yours, where the one constant was "the church finally made sense to me when I admitted it was false". Why would you want to believe something that make sense to you to understand as false?
Oh, I don't know, maybe I wanted my life back the way it was. I wanted my faith back, but I had to admit that I couldn't get it back, although I wanted it. It's kind of like realizing that I'll never be 6 feet tall. I can resignedly accept that reality, but it doesn't mean it wouldn't have been nice just the same.
Isn't there a difference between "resignedly accepting that reality" and "I was trying to convince myself that it all made sense, that it was true"? The latter can be a source of peace and contentment, whereas the former could be a source of frustration and perhaps, in some people like you, a source of anger. Could your CHOOSING to try and make sense as true something you could only make sense of as false, have been a cause of your frustration and anger, at the expense of peace and contentment in resignedly accepting the perceieved "reality"? In other words, could YOUR COGNITION in this seemingly distorted way have been the cause of your frustration and anger, which you may have inadvertantly projected onto the Church?
My intent wasn't to suggest that it was an either/or situation. My intent was to address your vocalized emotions--which presumably were the most pronounced and significant to you at the time, and that are not necessarily experienced (or at least not to a proponderance like you--initially or otherwise) by everyone undergoing a paradigm shift.
Then why did you set it up as an either/or? You said I was angry, and others weren't as though I made a choice not to be content or liberated. That's a false dichotomy.
I set it up that way for practical purposes. And, it is not a false dichotomy. By your own admission, you were angry. There are those who haven't been angry. The fact that you may also have later felt at peace, and the fact that there may be a broad range of emotions--from angry and peaceful that one may experience, and divers emotions experienced at different times and for different reasons, does not negate what I said, nor does it render what I said as a false dichotomy. It would have were I to have suggested those were the only two options. But simply mentioning those two options (as a pragmatic attempt at drawing an important distinction) does not mean those are the only two options. They are simply the two options that I thought important to mention at the time.
Not everyone gets angry because they aren't allowed to just walk away and live their life. People can CHOOSE, and have CHOSEN, to be perfectly understanding of the fact that their paradigm shift isn't just obout them, but may also significantly and negatively affect others, and have been a peace with working out ways to minimize the negative impact to others, while still honoring their own paradigm shift. Why do you suppose you were angry and others in similar situations to yours weren't?
Granted, I understand how frustrating it is to be accused of all sorts of things (my faith is under considerable assault from vile and diverse accusations and threats on moment-to-moment and daily basis in some quarters), but one need not react in anger. There are other, often far more mutually productive, ways of responding (such as humor, or calmly reasoning with those leveling the accusations and threats). Why did you choose to be angry, rather reacting in a more productive manner?
I'm glad you understand the frustration. I would assume that you also understand that you chose, for example, to react with anger toward GIMR. Frustration often leads to anger, and it's best to dispense with the anger as well as you can. For me, that was venting on RfM. For you, apparently, that's railing on GIMR.
Nice attempt at deflection, but for your sake, I am not going to let you sluff off this very important point. I am not asking about why YOU CHOSE to be angry at RFM (in other words, I am not asking about the venue for venting your anger), nor am I asking YOU why I CHOSE to be allegedly angry at GIMR (I wasn't). I am asking you: "Why do you suppose you were angry and others in similar situations to yours weren't?" and "Why did you choose to be angry, rather reacting in a more productive manner?"
Given how many members have left the Church calmly, peaceably, and with great ease, I am not sure that your generalization is correct--though it appears to be at least in your specific situation. But, might that be, in part, a matter of your perception and how you CHOOSE to view things?
It was and is nigh unto impossible for me to leave, as it is for many others. For some odd reason, people quietly go inactive, but when a previously active believer leaves, that's an entirely different story. Why do you suppose that is?
Again, nice bit of deflection. But, it won't work. For your benefit, I think it critical that you understand that whether it is nigh unto impossible or not to leave, each of us CHOOSE how we let that presumably nigh impossible leaving emotionally affect us. In other words, we may CHOOSE to cognitively perceive it in a way that arouses anger, or we can CHOOSE to cognitively perceive it in a way where we don't arouse anger, and where we may even feel peace and contentment and understanding. Do you understand that and agree with it?
Besides, even if you are correct in general that it is a complex paradigm shift when leaving the Church, does that complexity necessitate anger? Are there not other ways that may be CHOSEN to more productively deal with the complexity?
No, Wade, the complexity doesn't necessitate anger. The frustration led to anger, just as it does in most people. As I said, you seem to have a problem with the way I worked out the anger. So be it. It worked for me.
But, it is not just about whether it worked for YOU in THIS situation, but whether it will work for you when you get frustrated in whatever complex situation, and whether it works for those towards whom your anger was or will be directed.
The problem I have isn't so much the way you worked out your anger as it is the fact that you were angry and needed to work it out, when you really didn't need to be angry--at least not for the reasons you suppose. I am convinced that your anger was an unnecessary function of cognitive distortions. And, the way you worked out the unnecessary anger was also dysfunctional--it not only masked the real cause behind your anger, but it added to the cycle of hurt and suffering and loss (both to you and to those in the line of your angry fire) whether you were able to shield your wife and family from it or not.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-