quote:

really--was useless if I couldn't reduce it to a fully understandable level.

Ariel,I said what you said.

Ariel,

If you keep holding on to the Operant Conditioning line of thought you will win a ticket to ride on the Predestination Carousel. That's a real merry-go-round. (The horses are quite well mannered though, even the ones that haven't been 'broken'). Lol.

I can see you really love horses. Nevertheless they aren't made in the image and likeness of God; and while they may respond to you they aren't truly capable of love.

I read your example above, and while God may maketh His Ariel to lie down in green pastures He doesn't do so by conditioning you.

Certainly you were obviously as a girl attracted to the first horse you ever set eyes on, but that horse hadn't conditioned you. Your desire to be with it and near it on first sight wasn't due to the horse having conditioned you. And over the many years since, your attraction and joy in horse-presence is still not due to the horses' having conditioned you. Am I making good horse sense?

Actually, in the beauty of the horse you experience the wonderful creative artistry of its maker. So beauty draws. (and I wouldn't say it conditions). In a certain sense, the horse had nothing to do with it. It hadn't created itself in all its beauty. And the horse probably had no real interest in you nor of conditioning you. Somehow it was and is all God's doing.

I don't think one can be conditioned in a single instant. But love at first sight is an interesting mystery -- interesting and wonderful. Conditioning at first sight???--pooh!



Brad: Hey, I really like what you've written. The two paras starting with 'Regarding religion'
and 'Truth, on the other hand' were well stated! On the money!

You should give some thought to becoming a Christian!

We'd love to have you with us. He'd love to have you with us. Kind of interesting your hanging out here. How can this be? Why do you suppose it is? Are you being conditioned? No. But, in some way attracted I'd conclude.

Maybe what was responsible for the horse having attracted Ariel is somehow responsible for Shalomplace having attraction for you. Lol! Wouldn't that be a kick?

Pop-pop

Ariel, Fr. Tom Dubay has a book titled the Evidential Power of Beauty. I've just started into it. Looks good so far -- in the mane (ooh did I spell that right?)

quote:

Originally posted by pop-pop:
Ariel,

I can see you really love horses. Nevertheless they aren't made in the image and likeness of God; and while they may respond to you they aren't truly capable of love.



Actually, in the beauty of the horse you experience the wonderful creative artistry of its maker. So beauty draws. (and I wouldn't say it conditions). In a certain sense, the horse had nothing to do with it. It hadn't created itself in all its beauty. And the horse probably had no real interest in you nor of conditioning you. Somehow it was and is all God's doing.



Ariel, Fr. Tom Dubay has a book titled the Evidential Power of Beauty. I've just started into it. Looks good so far -- in the mane (ooh did I spell that right?)

Dear Pop-pop--

You're "preaching to the choir" here!
Yes, absolutely yes, to what I've quoted here from you. I said exactly the same thing as your first quoted sentence either earlier in this thread, or on the other thread where this started. Animals are not capable of genuine love. I truly appreciate the caring you've put into talking with me about this. Yet at the same time, you are not hearing what I'm saying. And the misunderstanding is partly my fault, for not illustrating what I'm talking about, I think.

We still don't have the same thing in mind regarding "conditioning". Very briefly, I propose it can be put on a spectrum or continuum, from helpful or harmful classical conditioning, to a conscious, mindful kind of operant conditioning.

I've gotten a better idea (though still incomplete and imperfect) of what genuine love can be, and what God may be doing with us, by, as I said earlier, comparing and contrasting my interactions with horses--at best, they see me as a source of good things (needed food, water, and shelter) and good feelings (feelings of peace, stress reduction, companionship, fun and protection; and good scratches, brushing, and caresses.) But no, they do not love me. God, as I've learned, is doing something else with us--we are indeed made in His image, and, though slowly and sometimes painfully, we are capable of more than just loving how someone makes us feel.

And understanding operant conditioning has been one factor--among many--that has helped me see better what genuine love is.

I have to go, but thank you, Pop-pop, for your passionate heart in talking to people. I will say more when I can...but I'm an artist by profession and yes, I fully agree with what you've said about beauty. I've thought about beauty a great deal and gone pretty far in my curiousity and theories about its uses and misuses. So that book sounds interesting.

Category 1: Religious experience


My idea: << God can not affect on human meaningfully if God's affects are not direct and are not more intense than other factors that they have affect on human.>>

There are many religious people that they do religious practices, they pray purely, they are virtuous and…., but their lives don’t change. Why?

I: One of these has occurred:

1-They are not in direct relationship (face to face) with God

2-They are in direct relationship (face to face) with God but measure of its positive affects on them is lesser than measure of other positive affects by other factors in their every day life.


Whether we are in agreeing or disagreeing, it is reality. Therefore "if our relation with all of factors in our life doesn't change, measure of positive affects of God (in relation face to face) will not change."

"Other religious practices are not affective if direct relationship (face to face) with God is not affective. Because most determinative factor is direct relationship (face to face) with God, no religious practices without that factor."

Thanks, pop-pop. I think Fred brings up an interesting initial question: Why Religion? And one answer for that could be "Because nihilism is so distasteful." To look at reality and dismiss it because it is bigger than us, or even bigger than our ideas (religious or otherwise), is to be a nihilist (or at least a radical materialist). And although the inherent qualities of randomness and chance that do exist give our universe a certain flavor of nihilism, it's not the entire story by a long shot. The easiest thing in the world to do is to carve off some self-selected and self-ratifying bit of reality and form a religion out of it, even if that "religion" is the nihilism of atheism or secular-socialism.

quote:

Kind of interesting your hanging out here. How can this be? Why do you suppose it is? Are you being conditioned? No. But, in some way attracted I'd conclude.

Pop-pop, I'm inherently attracted to the political aspects of things. And the anti-religion crusade of the left makes me a natural ally of Christians. Our entire Western Civilization is under assault by the Smarty-Pants people who have the delusion that they, and only they, know best. If you want to grow a powerful central state you need to undermine three things:

1) Religion (because you can't have a collectivist, central state if people's allegiances are elsewhere)
2) Family (because if you depend on your family — as is the healthy thing to do — what need is there for a welfare state?)
3) Truth (any totalitarian regime must first subvert truth itself because their aims are not honest and their motivations are always greased by lies...and if you can't uncover the lies because your ability to know truth has been messed with, all the better for the state)

That is the battle we are facing. Holding to traditional American Judeo-Christian values is vital in order to beat back the left, maintain freedom, and maintain opportunity and prosperity for all. That may sound overly pragmatic regarding religion and allies because it's ignoring the actual theology, but I'm in agreement with Dennis Prager regarding: In politics values matter, not theology.

A very interesting aspect of religion as well is that today leftist values have replaced traditional religious values in many cases. This has happened to a great extend in Christianity and Judaism: Where Do Jews and Christians on the Left Get Their Values?. Here's a quote from that article:

quote:

Leftism, though secular, must be understood as a religion (which is why I have begun capitalizing it). The Leftist value system's hold on its adherents is as strong as the hold Christianity, Judaism and Islam have on their adherents. Nancy Pelosi's belief in expanding the government's role in American life, and therefore her passion for the health care bill, is as strong as a pro-life Christian's belief in the sanctity of the life of the unborn.


Given the religious nature and the emotional power of Leftist values, Jews and Christians on the Left often derive their values from the Left more than from their religion.


Now, of course, most Leftist Jews and Christians will counter that Leftist values cannot trump their religion's values because Leftist values are identical to their religion's values. But this argument only reinforces my argument that Leftism has conquered the Christianity and the Judaism of Leftist Christians and Jews. If there is no difference between Leftist moral values and those of Judaism or Christianity, then Christianity is little more than Leftism with "Jesus" rhetoric added, and Judaism is Leftism with Jewish terms — such as "Tikkun Olam" ("repairing the world") and "Prophetic values" — added.

But if Christianity is, morally speaking, really Leftism, why didn't Catholics or Protestants assert these values prior to 19th-century European Leftism? And, if Judaism is essentially a set of Left-wing values, does that mean that the Torah and the Talmud are Leftist documents? Or are the two pillars of Judaism generally wrong?

In a world being intentionally confused by various undeclared religions whose purpose is to eradicate freedom of conscience, it's absolutely vital we ask questions such as "Why Religion?" and understand religion in the context of those societies who have tried to stamp out peaceful religion. The political aspects — which are my specialty — are enormous.

An agnostic and a Christian can be vital allies in the fight for freedom, justice (not "social justice," mind you), and true tolerance (not faux PC tolerance, by the way). The theology is one aspect, the politics is another. And the politics of it won't take care of itself. It needs special attention. We live among a society of people and nations, many who have been taught that religion by definition makes one an ignorant knuckle-dragger who should give way to the Obama types who, of course, are a higher form of human being. Peaceful religion is being marginalized while other not-so-peaceful religions are being promoted or actively apologized for.

I'm a big fan of St. Francis for a variety of reasons, but certainly a major reason is that he is the antithesis of the kind of person who feels superior to others and feels it right to therefore run and direct other people's lives. He exemplified the Christian idea of kenosis, of lowering oneself. God knows we are inundated right now with conceit, ego, and the machinations of the self-proclaimed know-it-alls. And, Pop-pop, however one slices it, it's an inherently religious idea to believe that all men are created equal. Whatever more cosmic realties exist over and above that, I don't know.

Bradnelson

Thanks for sharing.

Fred W---

Keep going. I'm listening. Though I won't agree with everything, and I'm not sure I always understand what you mean, keep going.

Hey there Pop-pop--

I'm heading out on errands this evening, (after I warm up!--today was wet and chilly here) but please bear with me and keep your good humor towards my efforts to continue our friendly discussion when time permits. And how about a book review of Fr. Dubay's book later?

Hey Brad, glad to see you here again.
- pop pop, he really is something of an "anonymous Christian," to quote Rahner -- just don't ask him to sing "Just a Closer Walk with Thee" or some cheesy devotional. I do recall him singing Christmas carols to us long ago, however. Ahem . . .
- https://shalomplace.org/eve/for...?r=93010275#93010275

I'm enjoying the discussion, though I'm not exactly sure where it's going, at times. But carry on, all . . .

Ariel, milady,

Did you ever burn pudding?

I was always amazed at how the tiniest little burn spot could ruin the entire pudding. The burnt taste permeated the entire batch and tasted just awful. The burn spot could be no larger than a poppy seed and still if you tasted a spoonful three inches up and 5 inches over it still was intolerable. Pour it in a pie shell and cover it with whipped cream -- still UGH! Couldn’t be disguised even.

So, when you speak of explaining a Spectrum from classic operant conditioning to some lesser and wondrously benevolent mindful conditioning you are burning my pudding. The issue is not analog for me. It’s digital. The whole notion of being conditioned is an affront to the very nature of the human person (to this one for sure) and it is an affront to the nature of God in whose image and likeness we are made. If God is love He cannot manipulate us in service to the relationship He desires.

We are made in the image and likeness of Love. We are made with the power of free will which a love relationship necessitates. God shows us His beauty, His majesty and goodness, but He doesn’t compel by cunning or force. He does not override the un - overridable free will He has given us. (Indeed that is why there is a judgment that will come. We will be in hell when we realize we have freely chosen not to choose love). JN 3:19 -- ‘The judgment of condemnation is this: The light came into the world but men loved darkness rather than light.’

Operant conditioning by its definition is manipulation. There is no mutual gifting at play when conditioning is involved.

Now, if you want to use a different word, one to describe a different reality, fine. We can use love, attract, woo -- dynamite. I can like being wooed.

Someday, if I ever get to 7th mansion growth I may surrender totally to God my will. It will be mutual gifting, mutual loving -- but it will not have been achieved via conditioning. God may tame the shrew in me, but the taming will involve no force, no cunning on God‘s part.

Hey, I thought you ladies had this down more pat than we Martians even. Do you not want to gift your spouse with yourself. If you detected even the slightest signal of being used or tricked would you not feel violated somehow? Does it not fail to be heavenly in that moment? Would not love seem to have left the building?

Pop-pop

p.s. what are those song lyrics ? -- ‘You can’t make someone love you if they don’t’.

Brad,

You've explained a lot of your thoughts and motives regarding values and politics and more;and I like where you're coming from, of course, but I still don't know why it came to pass that you decided to double-click onto a Christian Spirituality site.

How did you find your way here the first time?

Pop-pop

Fred,

There's a scripture: "He gives a kiss on the lips, who gives an honest reply". Honestly, I don't know how to respond to you (just yet, anyway).

Pop-pop---

I have to smile at your passionate and eloquent defenses of God's guileless nature and our free will---and I agree with you!

Still, I will say again, what you think I mean when I talk about operant conditioning is not what I mean. I wrote in passing of "classical conditioning" in a previous post, and you now used the words "classic operant conditioning" to interpret what you thought I said. I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to explain this better, but, classical conditioning and operant conditioning are two different things; in your replies, I'm guessing you are thinking of classical conditioning...and again, I'm sorry I haven't explained the differences. In an earlier post you gave the dictionary definition of "operant", but operant here simply refers to its sense from Latin=the one doing something.

I'll try to illustrate some forms of operant conditioning throughout today as I take breaks. And yes, some forms are manipulative. I'll show you some that I believe are not. Then (of course with our free will ) we can choose a degree of agreement or a friendly agreement to disagree...either way, I think you're pretty cool. And the world can always use more defenses of free will, in my opinion, so I'm glad to read yours!

quote:

but I still don't know why it came to pass that you decided to double-click onto a Christian Spirituality site.

Pop-pop, Phil and I are cyberfriends from way back regarding computer interests and politics. I like coming here every once in a while. Maybe I'm a closet Christian or "anonymous Christian." (Hadn't heard that term before.) To me (and I don't expect anyone to agree...just stating my point of view) religion is an interface to the deeper questions and realities of life. Ignoring them and simply punting to radical materialism and/or atheism makes little sense to me.

I don't share the interface or the liturgy of Catholicism, for example, but hopefully our largest ideas and ideals point toward the same thing. Given the human mind's limited nature compared to reality-in-total, it's not surprising that there are various approaches. I've read tons of Catholic authors and, again, while I don't share that liturgical and doctrinal interface (if you will), the ideas expressed in general are interesting to me. There is no secular equivalent to Henri Nouwen or Thomas Merton, for example, (unless you count Paul Krugman and Keith Olbermann, but that's another story).

Why religion? In part because anti-religion hasn't proved to be the answer to much of anything.

My friends

Please one by one answer to this question:

Have you established the relationship with God in the privacy? If yes, what was the result? If none, Why?

If you do not answer me, i will go from here.

Hi Fred W---

Please don't be in a hurry to get responses---I'm reading your posts, but hoping for more information from you to be more sure I understand your line of thought. I'm reading, thinking, and looking for more from you, because I don't want to assume I know what you mean.

Regarding your question now, can you describe more what you mean by "in the privacy"?

Pop-pop---

For some reason my dial-up internet connection is very slow today ---it's something that happens sometimes, for those you who can't remember having dial up . While petting my dinosaur and tapping out letters on my stone keyboard this afternoon, I lost a post here ( it must have been stolen by Neanderthals) and this evening my computer is even slower...so I'll try again tomorrow.

quote:

If you do not answer me, i will go from here.

Fred W., that's not how things work on this board. Discussions here are more relaxed and easy-going, with occasional vigorous exchanges, but without expectation that anyone owes anyone a response about anything. Responses are something of a gift, not a duty of participants.

You asked: Have you established the relationship with God in the privacy? If yes, what was the result? If none, Why?

For me, relationship with God is ongoing, both in private prayer and outside. The "result" would take a lot of writing on my part to express, but could be boiled down to: inner peace, sense of true identity, sense of a direction for life, sense of belonging to God and all of creation, being gifted to serve. I'm just scratching the surface, here, for my life doesn't make sense without a relationship with God. I'd be just another Ego howling in the wind, attempting to be self-sufficient and virtuous at the same time -- an untenable situation, at best.

Fred,

My answer to your one question is: I have established my relationship with God BOTH publicly and privately. I am a member of a church and it was because of membership in the church that I learned of God. What would we know of Him if not for her. And it was via baptism (a public sacrament administered by a communal body)that I was introduced to the Trinity and thereby God's indwelling life was initiated in me; and through which initiation I subsequenty came to know and respond to God in a way that is personal and therefore is private as well as is public. Actually anything one does whether religion related or not is one's personal act and therefore one could say has some inner and thereby private motivating factor. I pray in community (non-privately) when I pray to God in church with others, and I pray to God in the privacy of my room. I have personal experiences in both places. My mind and heart are engaged in both venues. My voice and body can be engaged in both venues. The sacramental life can only happen in a public venue i. e. in community. I am a member of the BODY of Christ.

Non-Catholic Christians are not always participants in a sacramental life. That depends on the particular communion in question.

Those are my dibs in response to your question.
Others will have differing answers because unfortunately there is not yet full unity among the believers in Christ. We are of one heart in most ways, but not as yet of one mind. In the Acts of The Apostles it states that the community of believers were of one mind and one heart. The Holy Spirit I am sure would have us be so again.

Pop-pop

Fred W---

Likewise, my response to your question would be similar to the other responses.

If by "result" you mean changes in how I act and how I see things, and the choices I make, then a lasting result is that I have a realization that what I don't own myself--both in relationship to people and to God. Sort of like the poet John Donne's "No man is an island, entire unto himself..." kind of thing. I think both Phil and Pop-pop have said something similar.

If by result you also mean how I've seen God respond to me...then that would be a very long answer. I'll post this now because my computer is still being weird, and say more in another post...

Part two--how I've seen God respond to me---

Well, overall, I can say that I believe I've seen God's hand at work to make me both more "me", and more like Him. To detail why I see things that way would take forever. In a narrower sense, besides "religious experiences" that are privately experienced, I have prayed some very specific prayers and seen physical answers within a few days in ways that were very specific and highly improbable. In other words, they were unlikely to be coincidences.

But it's not those "experiences" or answered prayers that form the basis of keeping me a Christian. I used to have a pastor who now is a Ph.D marriage and family therapist connected with a church not in my area. I remember a long time ago he gave this model as a partial explanation of why some marriages are good and long-lasting:

1--the sweetness (or rewarding nature) of the relationship

2--the character of the two participants

3--the lack of outside opportunities to be unfaithful

In my experience of a relationship with God and friends, the sweetness (#1) is great, but it comes and goes. And sometimes the relationship is downright painful.

As for #3, I think we live in a time of unusual degrees of "outside opportunities" to stray from God--sexual addictions, drug addictions, materialism...you name it, the opportunities are all around us.

For me, "Why religion?" comes down to #2--character...being honest, learning to consider another, being thankful, etc. And even more than my character, it's about growing reliance on God's character.

My friends

Thanks to your responses.But i am waiting for Bradnelson and maybe Mary.

quote:

Have you established the relationship with God in the privacy? If yes, what was the result? If none, Why?

People are going to differ widely on what that means. Trusting to me that I know many of the half-baked creepy Dawkinsian cop-outs and half-truths, I believe there is the unconscious or intuitive experience of God. Some do it while involved in their art. Some do it while looking at the deepest physical aspects of nature via science. Some surely do it explicitly through various liturgy. And some would insist that only via formal liturgy is it real and everything else is a bit of a bastardized approach on par with paganism or worse.

My relationship to God is an inquiring mind. Glenn Beck is fond of this quote by Thomas Jefferson: "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."

Life is inherently experiential. In fact, that might be the deepest understanding of reality (as far as we can ever understanding it), thus religion itself is a formalized relationship to reality itself. But just experiencing life and being aware of the experience — perhaps appreciative sometimes, perhaps even cursing it at other times — is to have a liturgy of being, if you will. To be aware of the wonders of the universe instead of going ahead rote and robotic I think is a sort of "unconscious competence" regarding god.

Again, some would insist that only a strict holding to specific doctrine is the proper way. But I view God as larger than our religions. I see our religions as potential tools for approaching and understanding the deepest questions and yearnings we have. Whatever relationship I have with reality-in-total (aka "God") is ongoing, changing, and not so easily summed up by saying "I have a relationship with God." Frankly, I'm not quite sure what that would mean.

I hope that's a good answer!

My friends

I found that you have not had any types of religious experiences yet and I think that you are satisfied in your current life and you are not interested for changing your life or for considering verity of your religiosity and you are in confident about everything.
I had some moments very good with you and I am very busy in my works.I will read occasionally your posts but I stop writing my ideas here.


Bye to all

quote:

If you do not answer me, i will go from here.

I read that as meaning “If no one answers, I’ll just take the discussion from here.” I guess I was wrong.

Still, I think Fred initially asked a very meaningful question. Something Phil said quite eloquently goes to the heart of it:

quote:

The reason we find religion in all cultures is because we have this innate sense that there is a higher meaning to life that we ought to consider in living our lives. There is a sociological dimension to all this, but it doesn't follow that religion can be reduced to a "sociological phenomenon" that can be accounted for using the usual analytical tools of sociology. One can go through the exercise, of course, but the consequence will be a reductionism akin to scientific materialists' attempts to explain our thoughts and emotions in terms of brain chemistry. Sure, brain chemistry matters, but it's concomitant to psycho-spiritual activity rather than causative. Same goes for the sociological dimension of religion, it seems to me. It's there, all right, along with our cultures, language, clothing, and DNA, but it doesn't adequately account for the "role of religion in everyday life" (thread topic). The role of religion in every day life surely does have a sociological dimension, but the proper understanding of this role must cannot be had unless one takes into account the spiritual dimension of human nature and experience. These are the primary concerns of religion.

No, religion certainly can’t be reduced to a sociological phenomenon. In fact, most of my problems with organized religion have to do with the conscious or unconscious sociological manipulative aspects. But such aspects are about the workings of man with man and occur in all areas of society.

But what about the fact that anything can work (or be) at all? That is the religious aspect. It's slightly more than just philosophy because religion asks not just the intellectual or impersonally "What is?" but also "Why?” and “Who?”

I agree that there is no point to religion or being religious if it doesn’t make one a better person. We could argue about what “better” is, but clearly there is a difference between Mother Teresa and Jeffrey Dahmer.

But beyond the gain-fulfillment aspects (requests via prayer, the pursuit of eternal life, becoming a better person, etc), there is that aspect of religion that is inherent to reality. Whether one had an innate sense of higher purpose or not (and I agree that most do), the facts of our existence inside of reality presents us inherently which such questions and considerations. Where I differ mostly with organized religion is that I have more open questions than resolved answers. But the pursuit is theoretically the same, at least the non-gain-fulfillment aspects.

You can’t look up at the sky on a cold, clear winter night and not wonder. And whether some people’s sense of wonder takes them beyond what can reasonably be established as scientific fact (and by no means is all that is true restricted to the realm of science), or whether some people downgrade their wonder with stifling reductionistic tendencies, that wonder is there regardless. Wonder, fear, hope, love, and more – they all are inherent aspects of our existence that necessarily are not constrained to the strictly material.

My short answer regarding religion is that when it does little more than allow us to be stuck inside ourselves and nary a harsh question must be faced, that’s not life-affirming. But when it asks tough question of us and does not make us particularly comfortable in habit, then I think it is life-affirming. Should religion comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable? I think both in their time.

quote:

My friends

I found that you have not had any types of religious experiences yet. . .

Hard to believe you read the posts several of us shared, Fred W.

Bye! Better luck getting the data you're looking for on another board.

- - -

Nice post, Brad. But what about the fact that anything can work (or be) at all? That is the religious aspect. It's slightly more than just philosophy because religion asks not just the intellectual or impersonally "What is?" but also "Why?” and “Who?” Yes, those are questions that move one beyond the concerns of both science and philosophy, and they are very natural and valid questions that human beings wonder about.

quote:

I found that you have not had any types of religious experiences yet and I think that you are satisfied in your current life and you are not interested for changing your life or for considering verity of your religiosity and you are in confident about everything.

One of the knocks on religion (and it's certainly true of some cults or some people) is that everyone thinks alike, that religion either attracts, or turns everyone into, a mindless drone. Thanks to my interaction with many quite unreligious people, I can't think of any one group in particular that holds a monopoly on droneness. In fact, when I look at leftwing politics in particularly, I find an abundance of droneness.

That's all a way of saying, Fred, "different strokes for different folks." What l know of Catholicism, for example, is that there are a ton of ways to do it, a ton of paths to walk. Throw in the dozens of Protestant denominations — with each church having a slightly different character of its own — and "diversity" isn't just a word heard in the hallways of MS-NBC.

I've had intimate contact with contemplatives as well as boisterous Pentacostals. I think it's only human nature to look for others to be like ourselves. But when they are not, that isn't necessarily because of a lack of effort or motivation. One can take a left turn and walk off a mountain or a right turn and find safety. But the act itself can be subtle and far from energetic. I think that's true of much of life. Our lives might be peppered here and there with truly transformative experiences, but mostly it's the small stuff that doesn't shout, isn't showy, or come with a rocket's red glare. It's living in the mundane moments — like this — that make up the majority of our time, when we have expectations less grand than mighty spiritual experiences or heavenly contact with god.

And we're all so different. Still waters do run deep. Outward experiences can be deceiving. You might be surprised who has had religious experiences. They're not all on the floor shaking around talking in tongues.

Just sayin'...