Wrong view of faith

[Oats]

Let me say this very, very clearly: this is not just. This God, if he will indeed indict me and my fellow men for not believing that which cannot be seen, heard, known or at all scientifically observed, instead requiring a fleeting faith, is not a just God.

And for the record, sanity is not statistical. I will not know, nor will I indeed accept, that he is God simply because every knee is bowing and every tongue is confessing that he is. 1.5 billion or so people are currently doing this for Allah, and I became an apostate when I was 15.


Seeing "the invisible" seems a bit of a paradox doesn't it? Why does the Earth and the sky, and everything God has made, point to your God and not the gods of the Greeks or the Hindus?


Then why must non-believers "suffer" in their perpetual ignorance? Clearly, it is not enough: it is not enough to expect me to believe because a series of translated writings written thousands of years ago tell me of this God; it is not enough to expect me to believe because his existence is somehow self-evident; it is especially not enough to expect me to believe because everyone else does.


That is exactly what he needs to do. To sit on his throne in plain view so we can worship him or not accordingly.


I would not call one who could rise from the dead a God, no. Is one of God's special properties rising from the dead? One would think that a special property of God is that he does not die (please, spare me the half-man, half-God; I'm well versed in it from my Christian days).

A God would know how to prove to me that he is God, all things considered (him being omniscient and omnipotent). Rising from the dead is certainly an amazing feat (if he did really rise from the dead), but neither does it demonstrate any supernatural power nor does it demonstrate absolute divinity.


The only reliable evidence we have of a historical Jesus is a passing remark made by Tacitus. I continue to believe that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Caesar's existence as a Roman Emperor is historically valid and reliable.

This is the same reason as to why I am conflicted in believing that Socrates existed as a historical figure, rather than as a literary of Plato, and why I see no compelling reason to believe that Laozi existed.


I don't consider ontological arguments to be valid evidence.

In any case: if the universe was created by God, because all things must have been created, then what created God, and what created whatever created God? Why can we not, according to your logic, cut out the middleman? - why did a God have to create the universe


So I assume you're a deist then?


If he is knowable and "possible to experience," then he is observable and within the realm of scientific observation. God is not somehow exempt from this.


That was the most magnificent cop out I've seen on an internet forum for a long time.


There's no such thing.


Because you assume the bible is right. This is circular logic in its finest form.


That's fair. "Serious error," which can result in grievous misinterpretation, is probably a better term than perversion, because it may not have been translated incorrectly on purpose, and any evidence that it was is merely circumstantial ("the RCC translated it to fulfill their agenda" and so forth).


Sure, but I am not an antitheist - presented with evidence for a God, I would certainly believe in his existence. Results for a test which try to prove the existence of something unseen do not come back with "it doesn't exist" but "inconclusive," meaning that we have no substantial reason to believe that it does exist, but at the same time, it very well might. The aether as a theory related to relativity was never formally "disproven," but Einstein rendered it superfluous - it might exist, but we've no reason to believe that it does when we have an explanation that better explains the observed phenomena, namely special relativity (this was before we flew space shuttles to the moon and beyond; the physics tends to disagree with the aether now).

God bless you

 

[kenan]

God bless you

Appreciated, I guess :D

I hope that you critically analyse your beliefs from time to time. I rarely hold an opinion for very long, because I constantly come by better ones.

I hope that a day will come for me when, after years of exhaustive experimentation and searching, I'll be able to make an integral contribution to society through my ideals and beliefs.

 

[Drew]

Let me say this very, very clearly: this is not just. This God, if he will indeed indict me and my fellow men for not believing that which cannot be seen, heard, known or at all scientifically observed, instead requiring a fleeting faith, is not a just God.

I politely suggest that this is not quite correct. I agree that, for almost everyone, God can indeed be neither "felt". And I agree that God cannot be "scientifically observed". But that does not exhaust the modes for recognizing the reality of God. When you suggest that Christian belief is grounded in "pure faith", you are, I suggest, mistaken. Now let it be said: you may have this view based on things some Christians have told you. But either way, the Christian life is not grounded in the kind of simple faith you seem to be suggesting.

As per my earlier post, I assert that the reality of the Christian God can be discerned from an analysis of the narrative that the Bible presents. In short, the narrative has great coherence, explains the human condition so well, and is remarkable in other ways. All of these things add up to make up a compelling case that this narrative might indeed capture the reality of the world.

Now I am no fool - I know full well that even if my claims are correct (that the narrative is so rich and compelling), this is not "hard proof" that it is correct. But we rarely get "proof" anyway.

It is hard for me to communicate the compelling nature of the Biblical story in a short post, and I may not have the time to get into all the details over many posts.

 

[Drew]

Hello kenan:

Are you open to the possibility that things can be "true" without being demonstrably so in a specifically scientific sense? I suggest that empirical observation is not necessarily the only path to truth.

Consider the task of the historian. Can s/he "do an experiment" to verify that Columbus arrived in America in 1492? Of course not. Yet many reasonable people believe this, and many other items of "history" to be true nonetheless.

Let me give you a sense of what I am getting at in respect to the Biblical narrative:

1. The Old Testament presents a narrative view of what God is doing in the world and where history is going. This does not make this view correct, of course, but it is a "theory" about the world;

2. Jesus comes along and "completes" the Old Testament narrative.

3. Now if it were the case that the way Jesus fulfilled the story was "predictable", a powerful case could be made that the Jesus story was fabricated. But, I will assert, the way Jesus completes the story is remarkably unusual.

4. And yet, it turns out that the way Jesus completes the story, while surprising, is still a "legitimate" completion of the story - it can be seen in hindsight as comprising an appropriate completion that does not violate the Old Testament narrative.

I suggest that this is the way historians work - to the extent that some event is "predictable", and where there are motivations at play to fabricate the event, the historicity of the event is indeed suspect. But if the event is a surprising, yet otherwise plausible, part of the bigger historical picture, the likelihood that the event actually took place goes up. Now despite what you may think, I suggest that there was no "motivation" to see Jesus as God in the flesh coming to fulfill Israel's history.

So while I have not even begun to make a "historical" case for the reality of the Christain worldview, I hope I have given a sense of an "historical" method for evaluating the likelihood that the whole thing was a fabrication or the factual truth.

 

[kenan]

Are you open to the possibility that things can be "true" without being demonstrably so in a specifically scientific sense? I suggest that empirical observation is not necessarily the only path to truth.

No, not at all. But please elaborate: Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Consider the task of the historian. Can s/he "do an experiment" to verify that Columbus arrived in America in 1492? Of course not. Yet many reasonable people believe this, and many other items of "history" to be true nonetheless.

That's because the sources we have to go off are reliable and valid. I do not consider, for example, Socrates to be a historical figure, because of the lack of evidence pointing to his existence; while at the same time, I consider Plato and Aristotle to both be very real figures in history.

4. And yet, it turns out that the way Jesus completes the story, while surprising, is still a "legitimate" completion of the story - it can be seen in hindsight as comprising an appropriate completion that does not violate the Old Testament narrative.

You mean the way that Paul completes the story (I dare not dwell on this any further, lest I receive another inexplicable infraction). Let us not forget that the Gospel of Mark ends with the empty tomb, with Luke (and for some reason Matthew) offering an "extended" explanation, and John, as usual (but strangely adhering to Matt. and Luke to some degree), going on a tangent; of course, the epistles then give their own explanations and what have you.

So while I have not even begun to make a "historical" case for the reality of the Christain worldview, I hope I have given a sense of an "historical" method for evaluating the likelihood that the whole thing was a fabrication or the factual truth.

Well, as a Marxist and historical materialist, I would disagree with this.

I will come back for this debate tomorrow or the day after. I'm more inebriated than I like to be for arguments on Christian forums no less - I promise, I had a great argument relating to Paul's position in respect to gentiles v. Jews as it were, but I can't remember or properly articulate it :D - so I'll talk to you then.


EDIT:
For the record, your politeness isn't going unrecognised; it's disarming to say the least (which is an unfortunate thing to say on a Christian forum).

 

[Drew]

No, not at all. But please elaborate: Carl Sagan - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.".

Well "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder. I suggest that Mr. Sagan would demand "extraordinary" claims for the reality of the Christian God precisely because he is a priori committed to an alternative worldview. So, from the perspective of the worldview that Mr. Sagan has adopted, the Christian claims are indeed extraordinary. But, of course, we cannot simply presume that Mr. Sagan's "worldview" is the correct one.

Whether we will admit or not, each of us looks at the world "through" a worldview - a set of unexamined presumptions about the world. Rare is the person who is both able and willing to extricate him/herself from their default view and then critically examine the content of their hitherto unexamined worldview.

I actually met Carl Sagan (just for a few seconds at Cornell) back in the mid to late 1980s.

I am aware, of course, of the arguments that "Paul invented Christianity". I am more than happy to engage in discussion about all this stuff. However, as I am sure you agree, the relevant arguments (on both sides) are complex and would be time-consuming to elaborate.

 

[WIP]

That is exactly what he needs to do. To sit on his throne in plain view so we can worship him or not accordingly.

So, what you're saying is that unless God lowers himself down to your level, you will not believe. He did, in Jesus Christ and you still refuse to believe. That's too bad. Some day you will know Him. I just hope and pray that day comes before you stand in judgment.

 

[Alabaster]

Do you have scripture to back this up?

Would it make a difference to you?

 

[Deavonreye]

Let me say this very, very clearly: this is not just. This God, if he will indeed indict me and my fellow men for not believing that which cannot be seen, heard, known or at all scientifically observed, instead requiring a fleeting faith, is not a just God.

I think this is an important point. For me, . . . if I just "believed in god, by faith", I would not be doing so without a level of lying and deceit. IF this god is actually true, he would see past my deception and judge me as a "sinner bound for hell" anyway. "Faith" is only valid if it is an absolute. Not everyone can fall into this mold.

What's more important is the point that was made about how "if you don't do this before you die, it will be too late for you." In other words, if a person [such as myself] dies, and stands before god [for the sake of argument, agreeing that the chrisian god was the true god], even if I look at him and discover that "he really IS wonderful and worthy to be praised" and believe it whole heartedly, . . . then that will just be too bad for me. No remorse, . . . no second chance. . . . all this god will care about is whether or not I was able to "believe in something that I was unable to when alive [due to lack of NECESSARY evidence]." It is NOT true "justice".

As I step out of "for the sake of argument", I have no reason to believe what christianity wants me to believe and I'd be lying if I even made an attempt to "believe by faith". Sucks to be me?? Perhaps. But if I go down, at least I go down honest.

 

[whitney]

I think this is an important point. For me, . . . if I just "believed in god, by faith", I would not be doing so without a level of lying and deceit. IF this god is actually true, he would see past my deception and judge me as a "sinner bound for hell" anyway. "Faith" is only valid if it is an absolute. Not everyone can fall into this mold.

What's more important is the point that was made about how "if you don't do this before you die, it will be too late for you." In other words, if a person [such as myself] dies, and stands before god [for the sake of argument, agreeing that the chrisian god was the true god], even if I look at him and discover that "he really IS wonderful and worthy to be praised" and believe it whole heartedly, . . . then that will just be too bad for me. No remorse, . . . no second chance. . . . all this god will care about is whether or not I was able to "believe in something that I was unable to when alive [due to lack of NECESSARY evidence]." It is NOT true "justice".

.

Well, yes, because it wouldn't be faith! Faith is believing without seeing as I am sure you already know.

I do agree that if you have a false faith, that is not faith at all, you might fool some people, but you would not fool God.

Many times people try to use human senses to know if there is a God and that is not what God said to do - He said have faith, just believe. We can not use our carnal knowledge and wisdom and then try to figure out if there is a God or not, you will not find Him that way.

 

[Deavonreye]

Well, yes, because it wouldn't be faith! Faith is believing without seeing as I am sure you already know.

I do agree that if you have a false faith, that is not faith at all, you might fool some people, but you would not fool God.

Many times people try to use human senses to know if there is a God and that is not what God said to do - He said have faith, just believe. We can not use our carnal knowledge and wisdom and then try to figure out if there is a God or not, you will not find Him that way.

Um, . . .actually, and more percisely, a book makes this claim. There isn't any evidence that anyone other than a human wrote those word that are found in the biblical canon. Again, "faith" is an illogical practice, since Muslims have equal, or perhaps sometimes even MORE "faith" in Allah. Judaism has faith in their beliefs. Hindus, theirs. It is only a matter of "what a person personally believes".

 

[Alabaster]

The faith of a Christian is a living faith. It has great power when released, and a HUGE GOD that honours it. The faith of other religions and in other gods is a dead faith, because there is no power , no life behind it. it is merely wishful thinking.

Matthew 17:20 Amplified
He said to them, Because of the littleness of your faith [that is, your lack of firmly relying trust]. For truly I say to you, if you have faith [that is living] like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, Move from here to yonder place, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

 

[Deavonreye]

The faith of a Christian is a living faith. It has great power when released, and a HUGE GOD that honours it. The faith of other religions and in other gods is a dead faith, because there is no power , no life behind it. it is merely wishful thinking.

Matthew 17:20 Amplified
He said to them, Because of the littleness of your faith [that is, your lack of firmly relying trust]. For truly I say to you, if you have faith [that is living] like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, Move from here to yonder place, and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

I saw no power or life in christianity that wasn't all about the people and their fervency. Muslims are just as fervent. I see nothing "dead" there . . . . . .other than the infidels! hehehehe

 

[Alabaster]

I saw no power or life in christianity that wasn't all about the people and their fervency. Muslims are just as fervent. I see nothing "dead" there . . . . . .other than the infidels! hehehehe

What you experienced is not what true believers see. I see power everywhere around me because of my faith and the faith of those around me! Healings and release from bondages, and answers to prayer and blessings poured down when most needed! Miracles! All due to faith.

God's Word is true, and His promises are to be counted on--all the time! WHY? Mostly because HE LOVES US, whereas no other god claims to love anyone, least of all be alive.

 

[Deavonreye]

What you experienced is not what true believers see. I see power everywhere around me because of my faith and the faith of those around me! Healings and release from bondages, and answers to prayer and blessings poured down when most needed! Miracles! All due to faith.

God's Word is true, and His promises are to be counted on--all the time! WHY? Mostly because HE LOVES US, whereas no other god claims to love anyone, least of all be alive.

I understand that, in the height of a service, people can "feel" a lot of things. It is similar to why a crowd's joy or anger increases. . . people feed off of eachother. In these settings, "bondages" CAN be overcome, . . . but that doesn't mean many don't go back to them. Why? Because the moments "at the alter" heighten brain activity and can make a person believe just about anything. . . . . . even that they had "been healed".

Similarly, why do two people, at the beginning of a love, have such strong feelings towards each other? Brain chemistry. Why does it eventually go away? Brain chemistry.

As for "god's love for me", . . . I find that hard to believe, considering my past . . . and present obvious disconnect with what you believe can be "counted on". I don't see it at all. So yes, I cannot go by what another person may feel about this topic. Unless I experience it for myself, AND can be assured that it wasn't due to how brain chemistry works, . . . I cannot believe it. Again, as I stated before, if I'm wrong, at least I'm honest.

 

[Alabaster]

I understand that, in the height of a service, people can "feel" a lot of things. It is similar to why a crowd's joy or anger increases. . . people feed off of eachother. In these settings, "bondages" CAN be overcome, . . . but that doesn't mean many don't go back to them. Why? Because the moments "at the alter" heighten brain activity and can make a person believe just about anything. . . . . . even that they had "been healed".

Similarly, why do two people, at the beginning of a love, have such strong feelings towards each other? Brain chemistry. Why does it eventually go away? Brain chemistry.

As for "god's love for me", . . . I find that hard to believe, considering my past . . . and present obvious disconnect with what you believe can be "counted on". I don't see it at all. So yes, I cannot go by what another person may feel about this topic. Unless I experience it for myself, AND can be assured that it wasn't due to how brain chemistry works, . . . I cannot believe it. Again, as I stated before, if I'm wrong, at least I'm honest.

Who said anything about being at the altar? I am talking about bona fide healings. They happen everywhere by the power of God through faith.

Despite how you FEEL, God loves you. He doesn't consider your lack of belief. His love is undeterred by it. It is your choice. Being wrong, yet honest doesn't give you one moment's reprieve from His Judgment, however, as along with being Love, He is also Justice.

 

[Deavonreye]

Who said anything about being at the altar? I am talking about bona fide healings. They happen everywhere by the power of God through faith.

Despite how you FEEL, God loves you. He doesn't consider your lack of belief. His love is undeterred by it. It is your choice. Being wrong, yet honest doesn't give you one moment's reprieve from His Judgment, however, as along with being Love, He is also Justice.

I am not convinced by stories of "bona fide healings". You first have to know the background of the person, if they had a legitimate doctor exam and tests to determine if the person actually had a medical problem, . . . then after the "healing" having the same doctor re-examine and test the person to determine their current state. Medical records would be evidence that SOMETHING happened. However, even if there was a positive medical test of a documented medical condition, you would still have to give evidence beyond all reasonable doubts that YOUR god caused it to happen. You are dealing with the unknown, unseen, and unheard. You cannot be certain of exactly what happened, only making an assumption based upon a religious belief.

Even so, what I would like to see is a webpage that has documented [from a credible medical professional] medical conditions and an "after healing" documentation.

IF actual healings can be documented, then you would have to ask other questions. What about healings in NON-christian religions? Why aren't serious disorders healed, such as amputations or severe mental retardation?

It isn't a cut and dry, "hear it and believe it" topic.

As for "his love" and me not being drawn to it [because it is undetermined], . . . stating that "I will suffer an eternity for not embracing this love". . . and empty "love", in my opinion, . . . isn't going to cause me to be attracted to it out of fear of a SUPPOSED afterlife. I need something FAR more relevant than that.

 

[Pizzaguy]

IF actual healings can be documented, then you would have to ask other questions. What about healings in NON-christian religions? Why aren't serious disorders healed, such as amputations or severe mental retardation?

Good question. And since my sister is dying of M.S. and my son is "developmentally disabled" and paranoid schizophrenic, I'd like to see some healings happen as well.

I want to believe, but I have never seen someone grow a leg in a healing service. The only "healings" I have ever seen were the kind that you could not verify.

I want to believe.

I will say that I was prayed for during a service in the early 90's. I had a serve back pain attack happen and my back was all "curved". They prayed for me, but not to be healed, the Pastor decided that Satan was attacking me.

My pain went away and my back went strait in about 10 seconds. The video camera showed it, even.

Oddly, the Pastor was not a big "healing" promoter. He held that IF the condition was a demonic attack, that he could rebuke Satan and it would go away - which it did.

Strange. I'll never forget it. I guess my sister and son are not under demonic attack.

 

[Alabaster]

Good question. And since my sister is dying of M.S. and my son is "developmentally disabled" and paranoid schizophrenic, I'd like to see some healings happen as well.

I want to believe, but I have never seen someone grow a leg in a healing service. The only "healings" I have ever seen were the kind that you could not verify.

I want to believe.

I will say that I was prayed for during a service in the early 90's. I had a serve back pain attack happen and my back was all "curved". They prayed for me, but not to be healed, the Pastor decided that Satan was attacking me.

My pain went away and my back went strait in about 10 seconds. The video camera showed it, even.

Oddly, the Pastor was not a big "healing" promoter. He held that IF the condition was a demonic attack, that he could rebuke Satan and it would go away - which it did.

Strange. I'll never forget it. I guess my sister and son are not under demonic attack.

Who do you think is the author of disease?

 

[Alabaster]

Psalm 103:3 NLT
He forgives all my sins
and heals all my diseases.