Let me try again......Faith

[EarnestBorg9]

"Mystical" theology has been the origin of the worst herecies of the modern era. JW (in the Millerites), LDS, etc, all claimed to be able to go beyond the Word based on private, mystical revelation. I am in favor of the "Mind of Christ" concept of faith moving us to greater understanding (I like faith as a form of epistemology) of what has been given us. However, relying on estatic pseudo-spritual moments is nonsense, and dangerous. Greeks used to get that through the use of wine, for goodness sake. I did have a great deal of emotions, powerful ones, at the beginning of my journey, but they fade as you mature. Those relying on them will drop away, as well.

I was attracted to epistemology, because I really do want to know; I enjoy seeking knowledge and there appears to be this underlying 'tickle' on the edges that there is some deep and hidden knowledge out 'there' Hidden because one has to seek to find, not based on faith so much as it's based on your willingness to learn. Sort of like the answer is in the question.
Relying on emotion is probably not a good idea and may be a sign of immaturity. No, I am not looking to feel something for the sake of feeling it, or otherwise I'll crack open a cold one (I don't drink, so it would not take much!). But, on many occasions, I receive some kind of knowledge, could be a little that allows me some insight into something realtivly insignifigant, and as a result, I do feel something. But the feeling is not the gola, the proof or the reason for such an experience.
I have used the word feeling several times, but that's because I am unable to think of a better word to convey what I am trying to express.

God wants an honest choice, made in a sober mind. I that is important.

I can think of no other way.

 

[Clete]

EB9,

I'm going to let much of what you said go by the wayside in an effort to focus on the central issue of our discussion. I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring what you said its just that we could spend tons of time on side issues and lose sight of the central point of the conversation. If there is some specific point that you would like me to respond too, just point it out and I will do so.

Good question. Depending the claim, I would research the it. I would go to the source, ask people that are involved in the claim, try to understand it the best that I could. I would not be dismissive and hand wave the claim away.

I like this answer. You've also spoken of reason and the fact that you have been unable to reconcile Christianity (a truth claim) with reason. Would you agree that all truth claims must be established via logic and reason? If not, please explain why not and by what means you personally might attempt to establish truth claims if not by logical reasoning.

I know that I am sitting in a chair, typing at a keyboard. I do not have faith that I am; I can rely on my sanity to know that I am not making it up, I can feel the keys (and see and hear them; Isuppose I could taste and smell them if I were so inclined) and I can feel the chair under my rear, I can also see it.
In no way was faith involved in coming to the conclusion that I am sitting in a chair, typing at a keyboard.

You're wrong but I want to wait to explain why until we make another step or two of progress with the questions I've asked. Trust me, I'll do everything I can to get you to see it. If I am successfull in doing so you won't believe how close you are to finding out the real nature of logic and how bankrupt your current worldview really is. The Bible couldn't have nailed it more perfectly when it says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

Incidentally you pointed out something about studying the Bible and presented some sort of circular reasoning argument. The argument was invalid but it doesn't matter. No such circularity is present in the Christian faith and any such circularity that anyone presents to you should be disregarded as irrational.

And finally, you said that if something is shown to be irrational it hasn't necessarily been shown to be false. This is not so. Something that is rational isn't necessarily true but that which is irrational is necessarily false. All truth must be rational by definition.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, faith is not actually something that should be gone into blindly. In fact, faith without reason is idiocy.

 

[PureX]

In this thread, http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=923156&postcount=94 (I am not sure how to truncate URL's on this board yet), Lovejoy suggested that I start a new one on the subject of faith.
My question is can faith and reason co-exist?
Of course, believers will say, "Absolutely!", so I would like to know how something can be believed intellectually (in other words, a great deal of research and thought goes into arriving at the conclusion) and believed with no evidence whatsoever (personal anecdotes aside).

But wait a minute; what about me? Don't I believe in reincarnation, Emergence, Theosophy, etc? For the time being, but I the great thing is, I have been examining my beliefs as of late (which is why I posted here in the first place), and I am at a crossroads:
I CANNOT reconcile my intellect with my "faith". I've tried, but the more I try to more I am drawn toward reasoning and faith is being pushed out.

So, how do you do it?

I don't know that gravity will be in effect tomorrow.

However, gravity has been in effect every other day that I have existed, and I am told that it has been in effect for a very long time before that. So I believe that it would be reasonable for me to have faith in the idea that gravity will remain in effect, tomorrow, even though I can't actually know this to be the case.

It is reasonable for me to do so, because in choosing to live "as if" gravity will be in effect tomorrow, when tomorrow comes, I will be ready for it, and I will be able to act in accordance with gravity being in effect.

Does this make any sense?

Because we human beings have only limited knowledge regarding the nature and purpose of our own existence, we have to have faith in the idea that the unknown will not destroy us in the next moment, to keep living our lives. In the way, faith is not only necessary, it's also logical and reasonable.

As the question of faith relates to the idea of "God", I think the answer can be found in a similar scenario. Is it reasonable to have faith in an idea of God, regardless of the fact the we can't actually know if God exists or not? I think that for most people the answer to that question is "yes". Most people benefit from a faith in a God, and those benefits justify their having that faith even though they can't know that God as they conceive of God, exists.

But we'll each have to answer that question for ourselves, and we'll each have to decide what concept of God we want to hold to, if any.

 

[PureX]

***

 

[EarnestBorg9]

EB9,

I'm going to let much of what you said go by the wayside in an effort to focus on the central issue of our discussion. I don't want you to think that I'm ignoring what you said its just that we could spend tons of time on side issues and lose sight of the central point of the conversation. If there is some specific point that you would like me to respond too, just point it out and I will do so.

Not at all, and I thank you for keeping me focused. It's easy for me to wander off the intended point.

I like this answer. You've also spoken of reason and the fact that you have been unable to reconcile Christianity (a truth claim) with reason. Would you agree that all truth claims must be established via logic and reason? If not, please explain why not and by what means you personally might attempt to establish truth claims if not by logical reasoning.

The problem is, (and it may appear that I using a diversionary tactic) semantics.
Truth regarding the supernatural, as I mentioned before I think in another thread, seems to me to be relative. I hope that it is not, but so far that's how I understand it. Now, when discussing a claim made someone and how I would go about testing the veracity of said claim, I would examine the evidence and base my conclusion on the accumlated evidence.However; I COULD still be decieved! In science, there are no facts; there is only evidence and a position is tested, tested again and tested some more. In the example of gravity, it *could* be that there is a giant invisible hand hold all of us down to prevent us from spinning off the Earth; but there appears to be no evidence for it. So, gravity is the best explanation so far.

You're wrong but I want to wait to explain why until we make another step or two of progress with the questions I've asked. Trust me, I'll do everything I can to get you to see it. If I am successfull in doing so you won't believe how close you are to finding out the real nature of logic and how bankrupt your current worldview really is. The Bible couldn't have nailed it more perfectly when it says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

It's difficult to debate words in the bible because I don't know Hebrew or Greek. But the word 'fear' in that verse the same 'fear' that appears in 1 John 4:18 -

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."

I know, how can I quote the bible, I don't even believe in its validity; that's correct, I do not. But is this a contradiction of the verse you quoted or am I misunderstanding it?
I happen to believe that if you fear someone, you cannot love them. It's like an abused wife, she stays with her abusive husband because she fears he will kill her if she leaves.
I mean no offense in this anology, I just wanted you to know what I thought.

Incidentally you pointed out something about studying the Bible and presented some sort of circular reasoning argument. The argument was invalid but it doesn't matter. No such circularity is present in the Christian faith and any such circularity that anyone presents to you should be disregarded as irrational.

But see, that statement in itself appears to be circular; to paraphrase:
"The bible (and Christianity) is true, so if someone says it is irrational, they are wrong. They are wrong because the bible (and Christianity) is true."

And finally, you said that if something is shown to be irrational it hasn't necessarily been shown to be false. This is not so. Something that is rational isn't necessarily true but that which is irrational is necessarily false. All truth must be rational by definition.

I will concede on this point, because I think I see what you are saying. There are examples to the contrary, but they are nitpicky (like the flying bumblebee, certain amphibians that spontaneoulsy change sexuality for the purposes of reproduction and many others); but within the context of the current discussion, you are right.

 

[EarnestBorg9]

Well, faith is not actually something that should be gone into blindly. In fact, faith without reason is idiocy.

To you it is, but many people of many different faiths have their reasons, although they may appear to be unreasonable to you. Who is the final arbitrator? I know, the biblical God and his word, right?

You sig:
Sodom & Gommorah: The original flaming homos.
Is probably laughed at by the readers of this forum, snickered at and thought of as clever. Would you care to try and explain to me how this in any way conveys the love and acceptance of ALL that would desire to know Him that you call Lord?
Hey, by all means, think what you want, but what if a person stumbles onto this forum and wants to really, honestly know about Jesus. Oh, and he's gay as well. Doesn't know that it's a sin (if it even is), but he also doesn't know that being LOST is a sin, either.
So he comes in and sees your sig.
Well, that's the Christian love that he has experienced all his life. "Hey homo, burn in Hell!" "God Hates Fags!" "Die Homo!"
Did your sig state any of the things I just wrote? No, but please convince me that your sig was a message of HOPE and LOVE to the lost.
You know what? Forget this.
I really wanted to learn (and as it stands, allsmiles has led me toward what I am convinced is the right path for me), but I think that says it all.
Homos should fry; nice. Real nice.
Hey, God bless you, ok?

See ya all (probably not).

No, I'm not gay. Not that it matters if I were, I was still offended. If anyone wants to call me a gutless coward, go for it. Here's my email if you want hurl some loving abuse my way. tim_foust@hotmail.com

 

[Granite]

"Mystical" theology has been the origin of the worst herecies of the modern era. JW (in the Millerites), LDS, etc, all claimed to be able to go beyond the Word based on private, mystical revelation. I am in favor of the "Mind of Christ" concept of faith moving us to greater understanding (I like faith as a form of epistemology) of what has been given us. However, relying on estatic pseudo-spritual moments is nonsense, and dangerous. Greeks used to get that through the use of wine, for goodness sake. I did have a great deal of emotions, powerful ones, at the beginning of my journey, but they fade as you mature. Those relying on them will drop away, as well.

God wants an honest choice, made in a sober mind. I think that is important.

Writing off mysticism as "heresy" was a good way for the church to ostracize its competition but I don't understand the hysteria that accompanies it. (Or maybe I do.) Even mainstream Christianity embraces a "mystery," as Paul himself said. Private revelation is what Christians encourage non-believers to pursue: ask God yourself, personally, to reveal himself and see what happens.

 

[Clete]

The problem is, (and it may appear that I using a diversionary tactic) semantics.
Truth regarding the supernatural, as I mentioned before I think in another thread, seems to me to be relative. I hope that it is not, but so far that's how I understand it. Now, when discussing a claim made someone and how I would go about testing the veracity of said claim, I would examine the evidence and base my conclusion on the accumlated evidence.However; I COULD still be decieved! In science, there are no facts; there is only evidence and a position is tested, tested again and tested some more. In the example of gravity, it *could* be that there is a giant invisible hand hold all of us down to prevent us from spinning off the Earth; but there appears to be no evidence for it. So, gravity is the best explanation so far.

This is why I am going intentionally slow with this discussion. In the past I think I've tried to go too quickly and ended up sabotaging the whole discussion. Thank you for bringing this up because we have to get past this before we can make any progress at all anywhere else.

This sounds to me like you are saying that nothing can be known for certain. Is that what you are saying?

It's difficult to debate words in the bible because I don't know Hebrew or Greek. But the word 'fear' in that verse the same 'fear' that appears in 1 John 4:18 -

"There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."

I know, how can I quote the bible, I don't even believe in its validity; that's correct, I do not. But is this a contradiction of the verse you quoted or am I misunderstanding it?
I happen to believe that if you fear someone, you cannot love them. It's like an abused wife, she stays with her abusive husband because she fears he will kill her if she leaves.
I mean no offense in this anology, I just wanted you to know what I thought.

The Bible is using fear in the sense of a healthy respect not in the sense of being scared. Although if you are evil then it is a healthy thing to be scared of the God who can send both body and soul to an eternal Hell.
Either way though the central thing to point out is the the fear of God is only the BEGINNING of wisdom not all of it. Fear in whatever sense if it does not grow into love is disfunctional at best.

But see, that statement in itself appears to be circular; to paraphrase:
"The bible (and Christianity) is true, so if someone says it is irrational, they are wrong. They are wrong because the bible (and Christianity) is true."

If that were what I was saying then you would be right, it would be both circular and wrong but that isn't what I am saying at all. Christianity must be true because of the rational impossibility of the contrary. I have not yet established that but I will if you'll bear with me.

I will concede on this point, because I think I see what you are saying. There are examples to the contrary, but they are nitpicky (like the flying bumblebee, certain amphibians that spontaneoulsy change sexuality for the purposes of reproduction and many others); but within the context of the current discussion, you are right.

Well even though you've conceded the point I think it is important to clarify that there are no such examples to the contrary. Something cannot be both A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. Bumble Bees can either fly or they cannot. Newts can either change their sex or not. Our ignorance of how these processes work does not mean that they somehow defy the laws of logic and reason of which there are three...

1. The law of identity states that if any statement is true, then it is true; or, every proposition implies itself: A implies A.

2. The law of excluded middle states that everything must either be or not be; or, everything is A or not-A.

3. The law of contradiction states that no statement can be both true and false; or, A and not-A is a contradiction and always false: thus, not both A and not-A.

"The laws of logic are universal, irrefutable, and true. By "universal," we mean allows for no exception. "Irrefutable" means that any attempt to refute them, makes use of them; thus, establishing them as necessary for argument. "True" means not only "not-false," but not-false because they are grounded in the Logos of God, the source and determiner of all truth. Moreover, the laws stand together as a trinity; to fault one, is to fault all, and to uphold one, upholds the others. Together, these laws establish and clarify the meaning of necessary inference for logic and all intelligible discourse." Source

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

To you it is, but many people of many different faiths have their reasons, although they may appear to be unreasonable to you. Who is the final arbitrator? I know, the biblical God and his word, right?

If I'm going to call myself a Christian then I should go with the definitions I find in the Bible, correct? And the definition I see of faith is not blind. Children don't have blind faith, and Jesus said our faith should be like a childs, didn't He?

You sig:
Sodom & Gommorah: The original flaming homos.
Is probably laughed at by the readers of this forum, snickered at and thought of as clever. Would you care to try and explain to me how this in any way conveys the love and acceptance of ALL that would desire to know Him that you call Lord?

It conveys a truth. And that truth is that homosexuality is a sin. God is against the perversion that is homosexuality.

Hey, by all means, think what you want, but what if a person stumbles onto this forum and wants to really, honestly know about Jesus. Oh, and he's gay as well. Doesn't know that it's a sin (if it even is), but he also doesn't know that being LOST is a sin, either.

Well, now they know that homosexuality is a sin, don't they? And being lost is not a sin.:doh:

So he comes in and sees your sig.
Well, that's the Christian love that he has experienced all his life. "Hey homo, burn in Hell!" "God Hates Fags!" "Die Homo!"

My signature isn't about burning in hell. It's about God raining fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gommorah.

Did your sig state any of the things I just wrote? No, but please convince me that your sig was a message of HOPE and LOVE to the lost.

It is a message of love. If I didn't love them, I would let them think they weren't sinning, and let them go to hell.

You know what? Forget this.
I really wanted to learn (and as it stands, allsmiles has led me toward what I am convinced is the right path for me), but I think that says it all.
Homos should fry; nice. Real nice.
Hey, God bless you, ok?

See ya all (probably not).

No, I'm not gay. Not that it matters if I were, I was still offended. If anyone wants to call me a gutless coward, go for it. Here's my email if you want hurl some loving abuse my way. tim_foust@hotmail.com

Well, I hope you stuck around long enough to read my response.

 

[Clete]

To you it is, but many people of many different faiths have their reasons, although they may appear to be unreasonable to you. Who is the final arbitrator? I know, the biblical God and his word, right?

You sig:
Sodom & Gommorah: The original flaming homos.
Is probably laughed at by the readers of this forum, snickered at and thought of as clever. Would you care to try and explain to me how this in any way conveys the love and acceptance of ALL that would desire to know Him that you call Lord?
Hey, by all means, think what you want, but what if a person stumbles onto this forum and wants to really, honestly know about Jesus. Oh, and he's gay as well. Doesn't know that it's a sin (if it even is), but he also doesn't know that being LOST is a sin, either.
So he comes in and sees your sig.
Well, that's the Christian love that he has experienced all his life. "Hey homo, burn in Hell!" "God Hates Fags!" "Die Homo!"
Did your sig state any of the things I just wrote? No, but please convince me that your sig was a message of HOPE and LOVE to the lost.
You know what? Forget this.
I really wanted to learn (and as it stands, allsmiles has led me toward what I am convinced is the right path for me), but I think that says it all.
Homos should fry; nice. Real nice.
Hey, God bless you, ok?

See ya all (probably not).

No, I'm not gay. Not that it matters if I were, I was still offended. If anyone wants to call me a gutless coward, go for it. Here's my email if you want hurl some loving abuse my way. tim_foust@hotmail.com

Another pervert gets his poor feelings hurt. :baby:

Typical. :loser:

:wave2:

 

[Lovejoy]

To you it is, but many people of many different faiths have their reasons, although they may appear to be unreasonable to you. Who is the final arbitrator? I know, the biblical God and his word, right?

You sig:
Sodom & Gommorah: The original flaming homos.
Is probably laughed at by the readers of this forum, snickered at and thought of as clever. Would you care to try and explain to me how this in any way conveys the love and acceptance of ALL that would desire to know Him that you call Lord?
Hey, by all means, think what you want, but what if a person stumbles onto this forum and wants to really, honestly know about Jesus. Oh, and he's gay as well. Doesn't know that it's a sin (if it even is), but he also doesn't know that being LOST is a sin, either.
So he comes in and sees your sig.
Well, that's the Christian love that he has experienced all his life. "Hey homo, burn in Hell!" "God Hates Fags!" "Die Homo!"
Did your sig state any of the things I just wrote? No, but please convince me that your sig was a message of HOPE and LOVE to the lost.
You know what? Forget this.
I really wanted to learn (and as it stands, allsmiles has led me toward what I am convinced is the right path for me), but I think that says it all.
Homos should fry; nice. Real nice.
Hey, God bless you, ok?

See ya all (probably not).

No, I'm not gay. Not that it matters if I were, I was still offended. If anyone wants to call me a gutless coward, go for it. Here's my email if you want hurl some loving abuse my way. tim_foust@hotmail.com

For all that enormous work that Clete went to in this discussion (and myself, to some extent) you are going to suspend your involvement for this? Because you object to single Christian's approach to a specific state of sin? Is that the real reason, or did you just find what appealed to you and left with that, for fear of being dissuaded from it?

Man, that just seems, dishonest, some how. Good luck, though, on your search.

 

[Granite]

For all that enormous work that Clete went to in this discussion (and myself, to some extent) you are going to suspend your involvement for this? Because you object to single Christian's approach to a specific state of sin? Is that the real reason, or did you just find what appealed to you and left with that, for fear of being dissuaded from it?

Man, that just seems, dishonest, some how. Good luck, though, on your search.

Curious that people seem to think Earnest was the one with the problem.

Unfreakin believable.

 

[Clete]

Curious that people seem to think Earnest was the one with the problem.

Unfreakin believable.

And you sticking up for him is supposed to convince us otherwise, right! :rotfl:

 

[Granite]

And you sticking up for him is supposed to convince us otherwise, right! :rotfl:

I'm not trying to convince anyone of a thing, but it's unfortunate he's split.

 

[Lovejoy]

Curious that people seem to think Earnest was the one with the problem.

Unfreakin believable.

What do you mean? He was the one who came here and asked questions. We were answering them. I went to great lengths to carry on this conversation, and gave him my best efforts. And his election to leave seems to be over his offense at a single (not previously involved) Christian's stand on homosexuality. And that from his signature!

What am I too think, Granite? He said he got what he needed from allsmiles, but that he is leaving because of Lighthouse (I guess). Does that seem like the complete truth? Does the nature and content of his previous posting to myself, Aimiel, and Clete seem consistent with his leaving over one offense?

 

[Granite]

What do you mean? He was the one who came here and asked questions. We were answering them. I went to great lengths to carry on this conversation, and gave him my best efforts. And his election to leave seems to be over his offense at a single (not previously involved) Christian's stand on homosexuality. And that from his signature!

What am I too think, Granite? He said he got what he needed from allsmiles, but that he is leaving because of Lighthouse (I guess). Does that seem like the complete truth? Does the nature and content of his previous posting to myself, Aimiel, and Clete seem consistent with his leaving over one offense?

Maybe the signature disgusted him that much, I don't know. Not a mind reader. On the other hand not a single one of you people have described Brandon's signature as what it is: distasteful and grotesque.

A woman here can't have a saucy avatar but a puerile signature is okay so long as it takes a potshot at homosexuals. Cute.

 

[Lovejoy]

Maybe the signature disgusted him that much, I don't know. Not a mind reader. On the other hand not a single one of you people have described Brandon's signature as what it is: distasteful and grotesque.

A woman here can't have a saucy avatar but a puerile signature is okay so long as it takes a potshot at homosexuals. Cute.

I have not taken a position on either of those things. I merely wished to talk to EB9, and I gladly leave signatures and avatars to the moderators.

A significant number of my posts here at TOL have been spent in an effort to create a civil and forgiving dialogue both between groups and within them, and it is frustrating when people leave without offering some of that same effort in return. It is, also, a frustration for me that a "gentle" conversation is unlikely to be had here in reality, and I have had to substitute effort towards that gentleness in place of it. That sort of appeasement gets tiresome after awhile. However, the fact that I desire gentleness does not make it "right" as it is not always appropriate for a situation. It is merely what suits me, and what makes me comfortable. As it stands, I don't have control over how other Christians approach people, and I don't want it.

 

[Granite]

I have not taken a position on either of those things. I merely wished to talk to EB9, and I gladly leave signatures and avatars to the moderators.

A significant number of my posts here at TOL have been spent in an effort to create a civil and forgiving dialogue both between groups and within them, and it is frustrating when people leave without offering some of that same effort in return. It is, also, a frustration for me that a "gentle" conversation is unlikely to be had here in reality, and I have had to substitute effort towards that gentleness in place of it. That sort of appeasement gets tiresome after awhile. However, the fact that I desire gentleness does not make it "right" as it is not always appropriate for a situation. It is merely what suits me, and what makes me comfortable. As it stands, I don't have control over how other Christians approach people, and I don't want it.

I do appreciate your civility--kind of a rare commodity around here. I tend to think Earnest will be back and even if not, I agree that the sig was probably not his only reason for taking off.

 

[erinmarie]

A woman here can't have a saucy avatar but a puerile signature is okay so long as it takes a potshot at homosexuals. Cute.

Wait a minute! I think that a woman did have a saucy avatar, and she was complaining about some random remarks generated by it, and so a moderator suggested she take it down and then the remarks would stop....