Painful.

So's a paper cut. What sort of pain is it?

If you have never had a crisis of faith, meaning faith has never failed in you and thus you have never experienced what faith is not, how can you be sure what faith is and further how can you be sure that you are faithful?

To be sure can one who has never experienced doubt truly experience faith?

And if there was ever a time in your life when you did not believe or if you predate your own belief, why not call your entire life after you became a believer, a crises of faith in the view you held BEFORE you "saw the light" so to speak?

Sry... but one more thing.

In asking about what it's like to experience a crisis of faith you may already be experiencing one. Why would you want to know unless you fear that either you are susceptible to it or that one day you will run into someone who is suffering from it.

If it's the former then are you not experiencing a crises of faith IN your faith?

If it's the latter are you not experiencing a crises of faith in your fellow man, and unless you see yourself as above your fellow man, are you not in turn experiencing a crises of faith in yourself?

I'm too short on time to decipher your first two posts Beckett, but as for the third...

...There is such a thing as mere curiosity, and in this case it is not in any way instrumental. I'm just interested in something I've never experienced and doubt I will ever experience. I promise you, there's no profound motivation behind my question. Well, maybe there is, but I'm not aware of it.

There is such a thing as mere curiosity

What is curiosity but the hunger for new knowledge. What is the hunger for new knowledge but a lack of faith in the sufficiency of the knowledge you already possess?

It was worse than a paper cut.

What is curiosity but the hunger for new knowledge. What is the hunger for new knowledge but a lack of faith in the sufficiency of the knowledge you already possess?

I agree with the first sentence. But the second suggests that knowledge must always be instrumental. I thought you were a philosopher Beckett. A 'Lover of Wisdom' doesn't seek knowledge for instrumental purposes, but for its own sake. I'd just like to know. Nothing more.

It was worse than a paper cut.

Bloody painful then. But could you explain it?

How did you discover the existence of knowledge that exists for its own sake? Such knowledge does anything to or for you, including teach you of it's existence. So how can you suggest it exists?

Such knowledge does anything to or for you, including teach you of it's existence.

Such knowledge doesn't do anything to or for you, including teach you of it's own existence.

'Knowledge for its own sake' isn't a type of knowledge, but resides in the approach of the individual to knowledge.

I felt it... It wasn't painful it was just... fear... Like being trapped in a forest surround on all sides by a sea of naked, old people and flesh eating scarabs radiating from the centrality.

Like that dude from Saw that got hooked up and chained with a bomb like five feet away so he had to rip his flesh apart or let the bomb explode.

'Knowledge for its own sake' isn't a type of knowledge, but resides in the approach of the individual to knowledge.

How can you love for its own sake, a knowledge that exists only in an for the sake of others? The individuality of knowledge cannot be known to us because it has no desire to make itself known to us, and in this way none can truly love knowledge for its own sake, and in the same way you could not be curious for the sheer sake of knowledge alone.

It isn't painful for me, just aggravating, frustrating, and I feel like my head is going to burst with too much going on inside.

I think I am entitled to personal privicy.

Or you can't articulate it, but whatever.

Yes. Well done. That is why I am not intimating every part of my personal life to a faceless forum full of people who hate everything I believe in.