quote:Now grant, for a moment, that the person involved is either not omniscient or not benevolent. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that justice is done?
That's why I am in favor of freedom of religion - because we can't rely on our interpretation as it effects people beyond our own being, except where others' interpretations cause tangible harm.
Why do you think that is? Do you think a person is born with "faith" encoded in their DNA? I wonder how that would evolve.
I'm not being flippant, really. I'm just wondering.
But I don't think someone just "has faith". I think it's something that you search for, if you're interested.
But, it's entirely possible that you are a believer in disguise. Maybe your time just hasn't come yet. What I mean is, every believer became one at a certain point, when they chose to believe. Maybe you have that point but you haven't come to it yet.
Just musing.
My personal belief is that if you are really interested in learning the truth, it will come to you one day. I know there are people on this forum who have testimony against that, but none of them have died yet.
posted
"If God wasn't benevolent, the priesthood wouldn't work."
Um....DOES the priesthood work? It seems odd to base an argument for God's benevolence on something that should be scientifically verifiable.
-----
"Do you think a person is born with 'faith' encoded in their DNA?"
Actually, there's some evidence that people with faith have different brain structures than people without, and that there's some genetic predisposition involved.
posted
Saxon, thanks so much for your thoughts on whether a person can or cannot have faith. I do like katarina's description. I don't think I can go from complete skeptic to firm believer just by wishing it so. I think that we all gravitate to beliefs that ressonate to us, that make sense to us, that seem to be proved time and time again to be true. Some of us feel that way about our religious faith. It makes sense to us. It appeals to us. It has been proven time and time again to be what we believe it to be.
It is not a simple matter of one decision.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sorry, Sax. I just have to disagree with you here. I think everyone CAN choose. You only believe you can't. I do believe you have the power to choose.
Again, I find this fascinating. So, likewise, you believe that, you being you and not some other hypothetical person, you could actually choose not to believe in God? Or is belief not a choice while disbelief is?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"We’re created as friends, and lovers, and because God enjoys stories."
Dana, you're operating here on a considerably different level than many of the Christians who've posted thus far, so I can't really apply other assumptions to your argument.
I find it hard to believe that a God who creates people for the sole purpose of having friends, lovers, and good anecdotes would also punish and "train" those people with the threat of Hell and agonizing "tests of faith" in life, much less send 'em all through the fires of Armageddon. Do you believe in none of those more punishing concepts?
------
As I understand Mormon theology, Dana, kat believes that God has no power except insofar as He uses it for good. Ergo, it can be assumed that anything God does is good because, were it not, He could not have done it. It's a circular argument of a slightly different nature.
posted
Tom asked what the checks are this omnipotent being, given the hypothetical situation that the omnipotent being isn't benevolent and/or omniscient.
The check is that the power of God only works when used with those qualities listed earlier. In other words, the power of God can ONLY be used for good - being used for evil (awesome) is not an option.
--
PSI, I do believe that no one can take you away from God, but you can take yourself away.
posted
Which is why I love Mormonism: it's clearly a later-era Christian faith, since it appears designed to resolve some of the more obvious theological paradoxes by simply removing omnipotence from Godhead and writing a few scriptures specifically targeted at ethically troubling passages in the Bible. It makes for fun conversations.
-----
Dana: I've got no problem with your God, but you wouldn't like me to say why. *cringe* And I WON'T say why, because the last time I said why at someone else's request, over my objections, that someone called me an asshole.
posted
Yeah, PSI, we do believe people can "fall from grace". I remember discussing this very issue with people I talked to as a missionary.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I think it's possible to turn away from God to a point where your life is no longer blessed, and you aren't building rewards, and Satan can get in and make you screw up and lead OTHERS astray, but that your fundamental salvation is still intact, you just won't have much when you get there.
But then, there's the argument that a person who was truly saved wouldn't make choices that extreme in the first place, he he. : )
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is a very interesting thread because we are trying to refine our doctrinal beliefs in my church right now. We're an independent church, and really had no clear statement of beliefs, which we feel we need - so we're working in small groups to talk out the various theologies.
I think all questions come back to the essential one: "Why did God create man?"
My answer: To glorify Him. We don't exist for our own sake - we exist because we were created. And we we were created for His purpose.
God didn't create man on a whim and then get surprised by the Fall and think "Oh wow, I've got to invent a way for these poor fallen creatures to get back into my presence. I know! I'll send a son of mine to die for them, that oughta do it."
Everything is part of a plan and has been since before time. We don't know the plan, we can only grasp small portions of the plan with our limited undersanding. Some if it doesn't make sense and it's not supposed to - we will never understand it in full while we are hindered by our mortality and our limited human understanding.
Is the God that ordered the slaughter of the Egyptian firstborn the same one that says "Love your neighbor as yourself?" Yes, He is. Do I have a hard time accepting that sometimes? Yup. That's why I have faith.
God can slaughter the firstborn, he has that authority and the power to do so. I do not. What he expects of me is obedience - I am to obey the new covenant that was instituted by Christ, which tells me to love my neighbor as myself. Because of that, I could never murder a human being. But it is not for me to judge what God does - if he should allow the wholesale murder of a group of people that doesn't make Him any less the God that I follow and obey. Because I accept that I don't have the ability to grasp His purposes.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(To PSI) There is a passage in The Book of Mormon that addresses the incorrect belief that we can do a little sin here or there, God will punish such with a few lashes, and they will at last be saved. LDS doctrine is that you have to endure to the end, continue faithful, in order for your salvation to be realized.
posted
*shrug* I would say that I'm hardly qualified to decide how likely any given sect is to hold "the Truth," given the number of sects out there and the passion and happiness exhibited by their believers. I DO find Mormonism less logically objectionable than most Christian alternatives, however, and regret that I find the histories of the Book of Mormon far too implausable to credit with truth.
-------
"But it is not for me to judge what God does - if he should allow the wholesale murder of a group of people that doesn't make Him any less the God that I follow and obey."
Belle, there is a solemn beauty in that philosophy. It is also a philosophy that scares the living crap out of me.
posted
No, I can see that. There is a passage in the Bible that orders us to "endure until the end, and you will be saved." I'll have to think about that some more.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:See, I think it's possible to turn away from God to a point where your life is no longer blessed, and you aren't building rewards, and Satan can get in and make you screw up and lead OTHERS astray, but that your fundamental salvation is still intact, you just won't have much when you get there.
But then, there's the argument that a person who was truly saved wouldn't make choices that extreme in the first place, he he. : )
I agree with this 100%, PSI, and thanks for summing up my feelings better than I could myself.
Edit: dratted HTML code
[ September 01, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: and regret that I find the histories of the Book of Mormon far too implausable to credit with truth.
That's cool. It is certainly a debatable topic. I find that the evidence for those histories is harder to refute than the evidence against, but then, I may be biased. Well, biased though I may be, I am ultimately a seeker of truth. I don't feel I am someone who just accepts things blindly and freely questions in spite of my faith.
It's kinda like evidence for or against God. While there isn't a truckload of evidence for, I feel there is more for than against. And the against is much easier to refute.
I would love to discuss this further with you, but I don't know if Hatrack would be an acceptable place to do so.
The Mods are like God--they reserve the right to kick out whatever or whoever isn't playing by the rules.
quote:Why do you think that is? Do you think a person is born with "faith" encoded in their DNA? I wonder how that would evolve.
I'm not entirely sure why I've come to my conclusions about faith. It came out of considering my own personal beliefs.
When I was younger, I used to be anti-religious, rather than areligious. I used to have conversations with my friends about why religion was a Bad Thing. I quit doing that after realizing that there are plenty of good and decent religious people out there as well as realizing the utter hypocrisy of bad-mouthing other people's beliefs while still resenting the fact that they bad-mouthed mine. But in any event, most of my statements on the reasons for my disbelief followed the pattern "I don't believe in God because I don't like such and such effect of religion." But on further reflection, despite the fact that I still didn't like certain things about organized religion, it became apparent that I didn't like those things because I didn't believe in God, not the other way around. So I did a lot of soul-searching and realized that there wasn't any reason why I didn't believe. I just didn't. I may like or dislike different aspects of faith and religion, but they really didn't affect whether or not I believed.
As to how people acquire faith or non-belief, I don't know if I can completely articulate it. I think that the "I" is something that is a product of both certain inner qualities with which we are born and the experiences that we gain through living. Some parts change over time (nurture), some don't (nature). It may be that some people are predisposed at birth to want to believe in things, though I have a hard time buying that completely. However it is acquired, faith is something basic and automatic. This is not to say that faith precludes doubt, but as far as I can tell, doubt is something that lays on top of a pretty solid core. It's not an immutable core, just solid. I think the beginnings of that core are molded when we are too young to really think about it, and the rest of our experiences in life build on that in one way or another.
quote:But, it's entirely possible that you are a believer in disguise. Maybe your time just hasn't come yet. What I mean is, every believer became one at a certain point, when they chose to believe. Maybe you have that point but you haven't come to it yet.
I will admit that this is possible, but I think it unlikely. When I acknowledged that there was no reason for my disbelief, it actually made me even more sure of myself.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dana, you're operating here on a considerably different level than many of the Christians who've posted thus far, so I can't really apply other assumptions to your argument.
I find it hard to believe that a God who creates people for the sole purpose of having friends, lovers,
We are? So far, I am in total agreement with everything Dana has posted so far, so I'm not sure why you think we are on a different level.
quote: So, likewise, you believe that, you being you and not some other hypothetical person, you could actually choose not to believe in God? Or is belief not a choice while disbelief is?
Saxon, you ask a good question here, and perhaps I should re-examine the way I said it the first time. I am meaning you can choose to open your mind to the possibility and ask God to help you believe -- not that it is an instantaneous thing that just suddenly happens.
quote: This is not to say that faith precludes doubt, but as far as I can tell, doubt is something that lays on top of a pretty solid core.
Depending on how much evidence there is, it is easier to doubt something than to believe. Especially since there are different levels of doubt. You see, for me I always accept the possibility that I might be wrong. But I don't think I am. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have faith.
I know that some athiests and agnostics have found faith. I imagine their stories are among the most fascinating. I don't know what the process is, but I imagine for them in particular, it involves things "fitting together" and "making sense".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I imagine their stories are among the most fascinating."
Oh, I wish. In general, they tend to be of two sorts (and I'll try to be fair, here):
1) I did a lot of research, and found this one flaw in a scientific theory that didn't make any sense to my then unhappily atheist mind. I kept doing more research, and research into that scientific flaw led me to the inescapable conclusion that God must exist in order to account for this flaw. I believe other scientists know this in their hearts, but lie to themselves about it. I will someday write a book.
2) I knew a person who was of X faith. That person was good and happy and full of joy and radiant light. I was intrigued, and even though I'd looked into other religions, I asked this person to tell me more about hers. Something about it rubbed me the right way, and either I was instantly transformed into a believer and sank to my knees at the power of God's word or went away skeptical but determined to, through dint of constant repetition, convince myself of the truth of her testimony. I have since directly experienced the power of God in my life.
posted
I respect and admire Dana, but we have major theological differences. But we both know that, so it's cool.
Beverly, I agree that Hatrack is probably not the place to discuss the historicity of the Book of Mormon, but like Tom, I have a very hard time accepting it - I'd be interested in a friendly email discussion if you are.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So far, I am in total agreement with everything Dana has posted so far...."
Farmgirl, you've called yourself a fundamentalist before, and I thought you were doing so in the classical sense. Do you not believe in the literal truth of the Flood and Tribulation? Do you believe these are both metaphors?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Depending on how much evidence there is, it is easier to doubt something than to believe. Especially since there are different levels of doubt. You see, for me I always accept the possibility that I might be wrong. But I don't think I am. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't have faith.
I disagree that it is easier to doubt something than to believe. I think the two things are not really the same. Belief is positive. You believe there is a God. I believe there is not. Those are both positive statements. Doubt is negative. It only exists in relation to a positive belief. For me doubt is not a question of there being no God. When I doubt, I think that maybe there might be a God. See what I mean? But it is no more difficult to have my core belief than it is to doubt my belief. The difficult thing is to believe something to the point where doubt is completely eliminated.
quote:I know that some athiests and agnostics have found faith. I imagine their stories are among the most fascinating. I don't know what the process is, but I imagine for them in particular, it involves things "fitting together" and "making sense".
I'm sure there are many atheists who have become religious. Likewise, there are many theists who have lost their belief. I don't know exactly what the process is for change, but I think that it has to do with the parts of you that change with experience.
Let me put it a different way. I've asked people before if they could choose not to believe in God, and one answer I've heard is that they could choose not to believe but they choose not to do so. Now, while it may be true that they choose not to do so, I think that, they being who they are, could not make any other choice. If you can choose, but will always make the same choice, if there is no choice in the choice, that's not really choosing. If a person really could choose whether or not to believe, or even choose whether or not to "open their mind" to the opposite belief, then to me that sounds like the faith is not really that strong at all. But I don't think most people are really like that. I think most people would be unable to bring themself to make the other choice, and if that's the case, they really don't have much, if any, control over the decision.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: The difficult thing is to believe something to the point where doubt is completely eliminated.
I am not to that point.
saxon, your description of it not being a choice reminds me of predestination--the idea that because of who we are and our circumstances, there is only one choice we can make on any given issue. I'm not so sure I believe that. It may be so, I don't know.
I think I could choose to refute every piece of evidence that I have for God's existance if I wanted to. It would probably involve being dishonest with myself or just leaving certain items alone--not dealing with them. After all, I don't have much "hard" evidence. It is mostly "soft" evidence, the kind that can be dismissed. I don' know why, but I am thinking of the X files right now, with Fox as the believer and Scully as the skeptic.
But I would have to want to, I would have to have motivation. I don't have that motivation at this time.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: Perhaps you have done more research than I on the conversions of these people. I just assumed that atheists and agnostics are such because they need things to make sense to them. So I assumed that their finding of faith would invovle things making sense. Your examples seem to describe the act of believing as a choice, as saxon believes it is not. Saxon, do you feel that these people are "latent believers" and the ones who lose their faith are "latent agnostics"?
Belle: I would be happy to discuss it with you via email. My email is in my profile--feel free to ask anything you wish.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Your examples seem to describe the act of believing as a choice, as saxon believes it is not."
Well, I'm not sure about that. Most of the people I've seen who fall under these two categories were either born into areligious families, or left a childhood religion soon after high school but, sensing a void, kept looking for something to fill the gap. These people seem to me like exactly the kind of people who are predisposed to faith, but simply didn't have the opportunity to practice it.
(Note: I think this site has a few agnostics who converted, right? They're probably better sources of info than my second-hand observations.)
posted
I believed in God when I was younger. Interestingly, what has driven me from religion to agnosticism and has been driving me toward atheism (to the point, now, where I self-identify as a member of the latter group) is my study of religion and my interactions with (some) religious people. I will not believe in the Christian God who did the things described in the Old Testament. Period. Christianity and Judaism are thus elimiated. I see no reason to accept that Muhammad heard the voice of God in his head and was not simply schizophrenic. And I have not attained satori-enlightenment, thus I am not a Buddhist.
Though I must say that of all of the religions I have studied, Zen Buddhism is the only one that resonates with me in any way. (Edit: It's the only one that doesn't have that hint of "I know better than you, because I have the TRUTH," since it makes no explanatory claims.)
One other thing has struck me through this thread. Dagonee, I can't shake the feeling that you are being intentionally obtuse. You know what Tom means, but you have yet to actually address his point that funamentalism in general is a dangerous thing. If you don't like his definition, then offer your own, for f*#@'s sake, instead of offering snappy one-liners.
posted
I'm curious - Farmgirl, Dana, everyone that is Christian how do you classify yourself?
Right now we have a vigorous (but civil ) discussion in our church between the Arminians and the Covenant Theologists. I was raised southern Baptist but am married to a Presbyterian who is a strong Covenant (aka Reformed) theologist. I'm not sure what to call myself, exactly! Still reading and studying and praying about it. I know that I feel like I understand and agree with the Reformed view in most cases.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:saxon, your description of it not being a choice reminds me of predestination--the idea that because of who we are and our circumstances, there is only one choice we can make on any given issue. I'm not so sure I believe that. It may be so, I don't know.
It does sound a bit like predestination, doesn't it? The reason I don't think of it as being actual predestination is because people are not a self-contained universe. We are affected by things outside of ourselves. Despite the fact that I can't think of what it would take, I have to admit that there is a possibility that something could happen to me that would make me believe in God. But something would have to happen, and when it did, I wouldn't be the same me anymore. And I also think that there's enough real randomness to the universe that there's no way to know what the final outcome will be. So, no, not really predestination.
quote:Saxon, do you feel that these people are "latent believers" and the ones who lose their faith are "latent agnostics"?
The way Tom describes them certainly makes them sound that way to me. And I've known people who seem to fit that mold. But I think there must be other people who make that type of change who aren't necessarily just acting out their latent desires.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I’m a Wesleyan theologian, with Tillichian leanings. Which puts me closer to Arminian than Reformed. But I also have a passion for 4th century theology that makes me think I might have been Eastern Orthodox in another life. (Except, of course, that I don’t believe in reincarnation. )
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In Essentials, Unity In Non-Essentials, Liberty In All Things, Charity
What we're doing right now, is making certain we all know what the essentials are! But, we have such a loving, accepting environment, that the Arminians and the Reformed theologists have thus far been able to co-exist happily.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's easier to doubt than to believe why is it that religion seems to be the only thing in the world where the majority takes the hard road?
Not saying that belief is easy. I'm more along the lines of not comparing the two since I can't think of any reliable way to make the comparison.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Farmgirl, you've called yourself a fundamentalist before, and I thought you were doing so in the classical sense. Do you not believe in the literal truth of the Flood and Tribulation? Do you believe these are both metaphors?
Tom, yes I am a fundamentalist, and I do believe in the literal translation, and I know that dkw does not, but that she believes that these are metaphors. I'm not saying she and I agree on all aspects of our Christianity.
To me, whether they are metaphors or literal is not fundamental to Salvation -- I believe dkw and I both believe pretty much the same thing when it comes to the basics of what salvation is.
posted
"To me, whether they are metaphors or literal is not fundamental to Salvation."
Ah. But the thread wasn't about whether certain things are essential to Salvation. The thread was about whether certain things are EVIL.
Dana, who does not believe that the Flood or Tribulation are meant to be taken literally, does not have to justify the extermination of the human race. You, however, do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm curious - Farmgirl, Dana, everyone that is Christian how do you classify yourself?
Right now we have a vigorous (but civil [Big Grin] ) discussion in our church between the Arminians and the Covenant Theologists. I was raised southern Baptist but am married to a Presbyterian who is a strong Covenant (aka Reformed) theologist. I'm not sure what to call myself, exactly! Still reading and studying and praying about it. I know that I feel like I understand and agree with the Reformed view in most cases.
Belle, I have not read up on church "labeling" history enough to know how I would wish to "label" myself. Meaning, I don't know which pigeonhole other Christians would choose to put me in.
I go to a Bible Church. In some ways, I see a lot of similarities between them and the Baptists, but there are discrepancies. Pretty much, though, I just take the Bible at its word.
posted
I'll tell you what -- our pastor is a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary and probably holds pretty closely to their statement of belief (which is what I just linked to). Perhaps dkw can scan through this and let you (and me) know which pigeonhole of Christianity I am in...
quote: If it's easier to doubt than to believe why is it that religion seems to be the only thing in the world where the majority takes the hard road?
Not saying that belief is easy. I'm more along the lines of not comparing the two since I can't think of any reliable way to make the comparison.
Perhaps. I find for myself that doubts are easy, while faith takes, well, faith. That leap into the darkness. But I have been one to choose to take that leap, and I feel that I have benefited from it.
I look at faith as a sort of work. But I define faith differently than belief. For me, faith requires actions that align with belief. It denotes confidence.
Here is an example: I believe that I should pray often. I believe that doing so will bless my life and bring me closer to God. But my faith is not as strong as it could be, considering the times I "forget" to pray regularly. If I had strong faith in the power of prayer in my life, I would pray a lot more frequently than I do.
As things are now, it is more something I "make" myself do (and try to do with sincerity) because I believe in it. In doing so, I am "exercising faith". I have to constantly "work" at it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |