I have often been told that I am supposed to “try and have faith.” What the hell is that supposed to mean?
I have read the Bible and found it full of irreconcilable inconsistencies. I have looked for evidence of the presence of God, any god, and found said existence to be wholly speculative. I am not an atheist as a form of social protest or to try and act “intellectual.” I simply cannot convince myself otherwise with the evidence at hand. When people exhort me to have faith, what are they saying? “Ignore the evidence you see and believe what we say?” Is it a matter of sticking my fingers in my ears and drowning out the voices of doubt and reason in my head?
I’m afraid that this just isn’t the way I am put together. I don’t have the ability to “just believe” without evidence. It is part of my nature to doubt wild claims of every sort, from astrology to ghosts to angels and gods. I cannot simply agree to turn off my reason when a certain subject comes up. So, if you are correct, and faith is required to avoid roasting, yet God created me without the ability to believe without good evidence, how then can he be described as just? If I am to be consigned to damnation because he created me without a faith gland, then he has rigged the game against me from the get-go (even more than it is rigged already that is.)
I marvel at the people like FriendofGod who are so utterly locked into their hidebound worldview. There are plenty of theists who are thoughtful, who examine their beliefs critically, and yet manage to have faith in God, Buddha, or whomever they have chosen to worship. But the fundie crowd here refuses even to admit that their beliefs are beliefs. They fail to credit the religious experiences of others as being as authentic or valid as their own; fail to understand how anyone can possibly derive a different meaning than they from their book; and fail to address the logical fallacies inherent in their self-contradictory and mutually exclusive claims. I simply can’t understand how a person can elevate dogma (and that is exactly what Biblical inerrancy is) over reason.
Re the OP, (remember the OP?) tried it, and that relationship is about as “personal” as the love I find after dialing 1-900. Actually a little less, cause at least then someone talks back to me.
Was glad to find, however, after having slogged through much of this, the answer to my “Why the Christian God?” post concerning the virtuous hindi. Perserverance and the desire to avoid work pays off yet again! See ya in hell, Mahatma! I’ll bring the marshmallows.
David B - thank you very much for your response to 85car’s “What have you lost?” The enjoyment of this life, and the many good people out there, for what they are, rather than as an entry ticket for an artificial construct.
Dave Swaney - can’t say I agree with you, but you have my utmost respect for going through the effort to figure out a belief system that makes sense to you, instead of just swallowing someone else’s line.
Satan, you’re a real SOB. Don’t jump on me moderator man - I mean that as a compliment.
SuaSponte, thanks for opening up the opportunity for honest and open debate.
Regarding your first point about the distinction between sins in the Catholic Church, I’m afraid you know more about that than I do, as I’m not Catholic. But my belief is that those distinctions are man-made, not Scriptural. Any church is subject human error, as a quick read through the Book of Acts will verify. While I don’t believe in quantifying or qualifying sin (and I don’t believe God does, either), this doesn’t make me think that all church teachings should be discarded.
Your second point is a little stickier, and returns me to an argument (or point of view) that you will neither agree with nor find satisfactory. But, again, it’s what I believe. God is not accountable to us. The forty-first chapter of Job is pretty clear on that. Isaiah 55:8,9 also state, “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
Not fair? God holds a different standard for himself than he expects of us? That’s one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that we, as finite creations, have no right to question our infinite creator. We must let God be God.
As I said above, I doubt you’ll agree with this point of view or find it satisfactory.
Hmm. I must admit that I’ve never heard that as a Christian position before–probably because all the Christians I know personally who talk about the subject are the “believe it or burn” type. (My mother, for instance, would decide that you were not a “true Christian,” Bob. According to her beliefs, Heaven would have a total population of about the same as the State of Vermont.)
My next question–and I’m really not trying to be difficult here, though it may seem like it–is: this being the case, what was the point to the whole Jesus thing if good people are saved anyway? Aren’t we coming out in the same place?
(Note to the fundies and the “believe it or burn” types: Bob is gonna be more successful at getting people to listen to his views that you can even dream of being. It’s the whole “catch more flys with honey than with vinegar” thing. Think about it.)
Well, it’s a moot point now. We know that Gandhi is in Hell, because it showed him in Hell in the South Park: movie.
(“Oh my God, they killed Gandhi!” ‘You bastards!’)
Ok, this is from memory, so I might screw it up, but the basic theory goes: Since Man is tainted with original sin, and Christ is “the Way the Light and the Truth,” it is not possible to be a truly good person or be truly devout in any religion without Grace. The name (or lack of) is irrelevent and you don’t even have to know it. This also explains the “pygmies in Africa” and all the non-Jews before Jesus. However…the Church’s position is that while salvation is “possible” for everyone (including atheists) The Catholic Church is the best way to have a good relationship with God and achieve Heaven. CS Lewis actually touched on this in “The Last Battle” where the good Calormene got to be with Aslan even though he worshipped Tash. But I digress.
Heaven is also not considered a place. Heaven and Hell are considered states of being, and the conception of them as “places” is just allegorical.
This is a tough one, and I won’t do it justice. But the short answer is that if your only goal is to pass the entrance exam into the After-Life (a pretty good goal, so don’t get me wrong), anything that gets you there is enough. But some of us buy the notion that Jesus, in assuming a human form, brought a direct message to us in a manner that allowed an understanding of God’s will and His love for us that was not possible in any other way.
His message guides us and enriches us and makes our enjoyment of His glory that much more possible while we’re on earth (it’s difficult to answer this one without sounding preachy). If you also buy the thought that this process of human discovery pleases God (I do), it makes sense at least in that regard. MysterEcks, this probably won’t convince you, but it’s the best I can do on short notice (I’ll give it some more thought!)…
MysterEcks, that’s why the “believe it or burn” message is fairly popular. It’s simple and straightforward, and many people don’t want to confront their doubts or try to gain a better understanding of mysteries.
If you’ve followed this thread, you know I’ve tried to explain my beliefs and touch on things I don’t fully understand. It ain’t easy, and I hope I’ve acquitted myself well. I am constantly struggling with my faith and my beliefs, but I come out strengthened every time (a subjective evidence, to me, of the reality of God and his faithfulness to his promises, BTW).
No growth is possible without some pain and anxiety. I won’t presume to judge anyone else, but for a Christian not to delve more deeply into these issues is akin to getting married and never speaking another word to your spouse from that point on. Marriage and religious faith are both processes.
This niggling thought kept bubbling up last night.
my85car (what make and model, btw?) said:
I did not write the Bible–God did through the various writers of His choosing. And since God is perfect in every way and we mortal humans are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, HE gets to make the rules, which He has done.
So, the adherents view man as ranging somewhere between imperfect and downright evil in his “natural state.” What reason does a believer have for believing “the various writers” were not either simply mistaken or misguided, or purposely misleading? The only basis for believing that God instructed them to write, is because they wrote those words. Why are they any more credible than Mr. Smith or L. Ron?
But the Bible is the true Word Of God.
It says so right there in the Bible.
I am the rightful heir to the throne of France.
It says so right here in this post.
So many folk in these posts discuss these matters so eloquently, and in great detail. While I generally consider myself a pretty bright guy, on this issue I keep getting hung up on this simple type of question that gave me trouble when I was in grade school. Along the Occam’s razor line, if history can be explained in ways that are consistent with political and social behavior, why toss in a deity? And if tossing in a deity, why a particular manifestation?
I guess religion should not be an exception to my overall approach – miles wide but inches deep!
DAVEW0071: I think you have acquitted yourself well, you and others–you are willing to explain and debate rather than threaten. I appreciate that, because what I usually hear it the threatening method–a function of the type of Christian I myself have personal contact with, rather than a reflection on Christians as a whole. I’m not likely to change my own views–I’m a hard-headed cuss–but I’m going to listen to you. People who just present everything as “because it says so,” and then threaten me with Hell if I don’t believe it (as if they had some say in the matter) turn me off immediately–they may as well save any actual good points they have, because I’m going to ignore them on general principles. Your way is a lot more productive.
my85car said: “I did not write the Bible–God did through the various writers of His choosing. And since God is perfect in every way and we mortal humans are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination…”
So if God is perfect, but Man is not, what is to say that Man misinterpeted the words that God gave to write in the Bible, therefor making the Bible an inaccurate depection of what God wanted? Could Man write such a large collection of words and not make a mistake anywhere?
Uh, no. It is the intervention of Christ that provides access to the Father. And yes, I am 100% agreed on the value of a personal relationship with Christ, myself. And have had one for nearly two decades now, and have spoken freely about it on this board. But be careful not to substitute for the Word of God your personal theology about what it means. He never said that He was planning to damn all who did not enter into a personal relationship with Him; to the contrary, the parable of the two sons (not the prodigal, but the one where one son said “sure” to his father’s instructions and goofed off, and the other said, “no way” but then went and did his father’s will) pretty well says the opposite.
Android209 observed:
Well, “make mine vanilla.”
Zev? Mordechai and Esther? Hadassah and whatsisname didn’t even mention God in their book. And here they acted out the old Aramaean myth of Marduk and Ishtar, and even borrowed their names. And killing off all those Persians? Of course they’re in Hell!
More seriously, you’ve probably seen my song and dance about Jesus’s two commandments (love God/love your neighbor), and I’m perfectly well aware they’re both Torah, and that Hillel or Gamaliel beat Jesus to the punch by several decades with them as summary of the Law. I’m curious about what the Jewish take on them as “the only generic moral course of action” might be. Care to comment?
Uh, most of my work is deemed confidential. But I feel it is quite legitimate to say that after several months of market research and detailed thought, we advised a man named Pascal as to the appropriate way to invest his company’s money. So I will thank you not to make any further references as to the validity of his gamble.
And may I compliment everybody on the civility of page 3 of this thread. Serious discussion about an important topic without flaming. Wow. Who’da thunk it!?
No offense, Poly, but I can sort of see Rescher’s point about people ripping Pascal’s Wager out of its epistemological context. You wonder whether they ever actually read The Pensees.
Thanks, Myster Ecks. I have to agree that anyone who tries to convince me of their point of view by getting in my face totally turns me off to their message as well. I’m so contrary I have a tendence to argue with them out of pure cussedness even if I agree with them!
I guess you and I are kindred souls on that matter.
I’ve enjoyed participating in this debate, and in others. At no time have I felt personally attacked because of my beliefs, even though I do share many of the beliefs of people like College Student and My#Car.
As an observation, therefore, let me point out that this proves the majority of posters to this thread, nay, to this MB, are not down on Christianity or any system of beliefs, really. They are most tolerant of any mode of thinking. What they do not tolerate is pedanticism in the presentation of those ideas.
And no one should feel personally attacked by someone who asks questions about their creed. It’s only those who are insecure who feel attacked by legitimate questions.
While I don’t have all the answers re: Christian beliefs and theology, I’m willing to share what I do know, what I think I understand, and what I’ve experienced.
