posted
On reading a particular treatise on Faith, the following Q&A was included, and it actually made a lot of sense to me. I'll quote it, and then I'll give my commentary on what I think of it:
quote: ---------- How many things are necessary for us to understand, respecting the Deity and our relation to him, in order that we may exercise faith in him for life and salvation? Three.
What are they? First, that God does actually exist; secondly, correct ideas of his character, his perfections and attributes; and thirdly, that the course which we pursue is according to his mind and will.
Would the idea of any one or two of the above-mentioned things enable a person to exercise faith in God? It would not, for without the idea of them all faith would be imperfect and unproductive. ---------------
What this expresses to me is that no one can have Faith, unless they are first 'educated', and come to a, in many ways, 'logical' conclusion that the basic elements seem feasable:
a) Deity does exist b) You have apretty accurate understanding of the character and nature of that Deity c) That according to that knowledge of his will and nature, you have a desire for the same goals.
Other parts of the treatise discuss why the writer understands that there is plenty information available concerning the Biblical God that makes this sort of Faith possible.
The entire treatise is very in depth, and quite fascinating - but I wondered what the Hatrack response would be concerning this first element:
What exactly is required to have Faith?
There are too many people who thin kthat Faith is something that can just happen without any sort of frame of reference.
Example A, where the "Christian" is horrendously at fault for being a circular-reasoning goober:
CHRISTIAN: My life is good because I have God, and God is Good. FRIEND: How do you know that God is what makes your life good? CHRISTIAN: Because of Faith. FRIEND: Why do you have Faith? CHRISTIAN: Because God exists. And He'll make things better. FRIEND: I don't understand why you have faith in this being. CHRISTIAN: That's because you don't have Faith. FRIEND: Why should I have Faith that this exists? CHRISTIAN: Because God is good, and wants you to be Happy. FRIEND: How do you know God wants you to be happy? CHRISTIAN: Faith.
etc, etc, etc.
Faith, I believe, and as this treatise demonstrates, should be originally based on a formation of reason, and not JUST a 'feeling'. The 'feeling' should definitely be there, but I believe it should be in reaction to additional 'information', as well as additional witnesses. It doesn't come out of nothing. There should be credible reasons for you to have faith in something. In my personal opinion, I believe that the following are good examples of 'credible starting points' and progression for a development of Faith:
A) FRIEND "A" lives a life that is difficult, but they still don't seem to let it set them into a realm of depression. They seem to think that in the end, everything will be alright.
B) FRIEND "A" Claims that their calm and peace is due to their Faith in their respective Deity, and gives information about where one can find out more about those deity.
C) Ancient texts/scriptures are presented, which claim to be the records of individuals who have had first-hand encounters with said deity, and describe the results and words thereof, and presents a way and means to achieve a state of peace and joy.
D) Initial work is done to see where the texts came from, and the history thereof.
E) Others are observed who follow what the texts actually say.
F) If the result of D) appears even remotely possiblely credible, and the results of E) result in a people who live in a state of being that appears attractive, and in tune to what a cursory glance of the text appears to say the result of following it would be, then a personal study of the text itself would commence.
G) If the culmination results in a positive experience and 'feeling' at this point, leading to the thoughts that: ----a) The examples you have observed are honest trustworthy individuals ----b) The text is what it claims to be ----c) The text claims that following the instructions in the text would lead to a desirable result
Then Faith becomes the next 'logical' step, the additional 'leap' into following elements that may not have any additional 'founding'. Once source "A" is deemed reliable, then one can trust following what "A" states, even when there is no additional source to back it up - no 'double checking' is available.
This, I believe, is where Faith is in fact a step of logic, and in fact, the final step of 'pure' logic, leading into a completely different realm where now instead of jumping off from evidences, you now enter into the realm of 'things hoped for, and not seen', but promised.
In my opinion, many people reach the point of understanding and thought where Faith is the next 'logical' step, but choose not to take that step.
What do you think? Do you agree with the quoted treatise? My thoughts and conclusions based thereof?
posted
Actually, my conversion took a much more twisted and different path, for several reasons. This hyposthesis discusses what could be the bare bones of what is required for any sort of Faith in a Deity to exist at all.
Please, don't bow out. I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
posted
My main point being, what do you believe, apart from a Personal Blinding Appearance of Deity in front of an individual (which would make Faith moot - at this point it would be Knowledge), would be the minimum to make Faith a next "logical" step?
posted
My own thoughts, based on a lifetime of doing almost exactly what you've described, are these:
If anyone says they've done enough research to complete any of the steps above, they're lying. Because I have spent years, actual years of my life, doing this, and I have YET to find a religion that exclusively meets any of the above criteria, much less all of the above criteria. I've found lots of religions with happy, satisfied members and miserable, unsatisfied members. I've found lots of religions peppered with occasionally plausible historical claims, along with lots of highly implausible historical claims. I have yet to find a religion founded by someone who, when his or her life is examined closely, doesn't appear to be a raging hypocrite -- except for Buddhism, and there you have to cope with all the Buddhist fringe sects that inserted their own hypocrisy after the fact.
And I haven't even looked that HARD. I'm not even thirty years old yet.
So if somebody thinks that they've done enough research before, say, the age of seventy, I'd like to see it.
----
But let's say that they've done "enough" research, and send out a tendril of hope on wings of faith to see if the dove of divine inspiration comes back to roost on their nose of inquisitiveness.
Lots of people do this. Lots of people get a metaphorical dove back. And lots of lots of lots of these people do not agree. Ergo, at least some of them -- at least MOST of them -- are lying to themselves. And there's absolutely no way for an outside observer to determine which ones are and which ones are not, meaning that it's far easier to just assume -- based on your own logic earlier, in which you state that people living according to the laws of God should in fact be happier and more prosperous and more contented, or whatever -- that none of them are in fact in contact with God, or at the very least are understanding what God is saying.
And then you remember how easy it is to fool oneself when one really, really wants to believe something. How when you were a kid, you were convinced that you could fly, or move your shadow independently of your body, or had an invisible dragon friend, or could control fish with your mind. How you KNEW these things were true. And you remember how you used to have this dream, over and over again, where God would come meet you on this green hill and tell you secrets and ask you to fix things, and it always seemed so real and so pure -- but, hey, that wasn't God, right? It couldn't be God, because what "He" was saying wasn't anything like what people say God says. And you remember the time you were in Israel for a pilgrimage and were six feet away from a little boy around the age of four when the top of his head got blown off in a firefight, all while you were cowering behind a stone wall watching it happen and praying as hard as you could to God to give you the courage to make things right.
And you realize that, hey, you really WANT to believe. And you COULD believe. In anything. ANYTHING could give you that warm, fuzzy, hopeful, right feeling, as long as you'd done just enough research to give yourself some reason to believe it and not enough research to discover its failings.
quote:What are they? First, that God does actually exist; secondly, correct ideas of his character, his perfections and attributes; and thirdly, that the course which we pursue is according to his mind and will.
Personally, I would need a fourth step: That the course which God pursue is according to my understanding of what is good and moral. If God advocated things that I consider to be immoral, either he is a false god or an unjust one unworthy of my worship.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
vwiggen, I think your fourth step is "assumed" in the second step for most faiths. That is, a correct understanding would include a decision that he is good.
posted
Isn't that in many ways a rewording of the Third point? Not as much as finding if your way of understanding can merge in with how the Deity works, as much as how the Deity's mind can work with how you think.
EDIT: Dag made a point. The Second Step points out 'perfections'. Another article in the treatise goes in depth on each of these questions, and expresses why one must have the understanding that the Deity is a benevelent being of Mercy, Justice, and Truth before one can possibly desire to have Faith in it.
quote: Personally, I would need a fourth step: That the course which God pursue is according to my understanding of what is good and moral. If God advocated things that I consider to be immoral, either he is a false god or an unjust one unworthy of my worship.
posted
That's true. But there are fundamental moral principles that I would not forsake even if it runs contrary to the decrees of a seemingly almighty being.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's some additional commentary from the treatise:
quote:Let us here observe, that three things are necessary in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation.
First, the idea that he actually exists.
Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections, and attributes.
Thirdly, an actual knowledge that the course of life which he is pursuing is according to his will. For without an acquaintance with these three important facts, the faith of every rational being must be imperfect and unproductive; but with this understanding it can become perfect and fruitful...
...unless [The Deity] was merciful and gracious, slow to anger, long-suffering and full of goodness, such is the weakness of human nature, and so great the frailties and imperfections of men, that unless they believed that these excellencies existed in the divine character, the faith necessary to salvation could not exist; for doubt would take the place of faith, and those who know their weakness and liability to sin would be in constant doubt of salvation if it were not for the idea which they have of the excellency of the character of God, that he is slow to anger and long-suffering, and of a forgiving disposition, and does forgive iniquity, transgression, and sin. An idea of these facts does away doubt, and makes faith exceedingly strong.
But it is equally as necessary that men should have the idea that he is a God who changes not, in order to have faith in him, as it is to have the idea that he is gracious and long-suffering; for without the idea of unchangeableness in the character of the Deity, doubt would take the place of faith. But with the idea that he changes not, faith lays hold upon the excellencies in his character with unshaken confidence, believing he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever, and that his course is one eternal round.
And again, the idea that he is a God of truth and cannot lie, is equally as necessary to the exercise of faith in him as the idea of his unchangeableness. For without the idea that he was a God of truth and could not lie, the confidence necessary to be placed in his word in order to the exercise of faith in him could not exist. But having the idea that he is not man, that he cannot lie, it gives power to the minds of men to exercise faith in him.
But it is also necessary that men should have an idea that he is no respecter of persons, for with the idea of all the other excellencies in his character, and this one wanting, men could not exercise faith in him; because if he were a respecter of persons, they could not tell what their privileges were, nor how far they were authorized to exercise faith in him, or whether they were authorized to do it at all, but all must be confusion; but no sooner are the minds of men made acquainted with the truth on this point, that he is no respecter of persons, than they see that they have authority by faith to lay hold on eternal life, the richest boon of heaven, because God is no respecter of persons, and that every man in every nation has an equal privilege.
And lastly, but not less important to the exercise of faith in God, is the idea that he is love; for with all the other excellencies in his character, without this one to influence them, they could not have such powerful dominion over the minds of men; but when the idea is planted in the mind that he is love, who cannot see the just ground that men of every nation, kindred, and tongue, have to exercise faith in God so as to obtain eternal life?
quote: And then you remember how easy it is to fool oneself when one really, really wants to believe something.
What if one kind of doesn't want to believe something, but through their research and following the above model (for the reasons of understanding the individuals), it brings them to the point where Faith is the next step?
I guess a 4th Step would be:
4) While plausibility and understandings of the final outcomes mesh with what one understands, the means of reaching said goal in the texts and teachings are precepts one is willing to abide by.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I think the expanded quotes from the treatise make complete sense.
If one isn't able to believe the statements made within , then what would be the purpose of having Faith in such a being?
An understanding and reconciliation of one's understanding and that of the Deity's is, I think, an incredibly important step. Faith can't, and shouldn't, come before that, as I see it.
Which is why I find 'aggressive' missionary tactics, or the "Hellfire and Damnation" sermons to be extremely counterproductive, if the end result is intended to be the development of true Faith. - Fear in the Deity doesn't lead one to Faith - TRUST does.
Does anyone disagree with that? I'm really interested in seeing what either additional, or fewer caveats one would need have before they'd find Faith to be a next proper step to make?
posted
Hm. The idea that a god needs to be perfect to inspire belief would seem to ignore the fact that many, many religions -- including almost all polytheistic ones -- do not believe in perfect gods, and yet believe in them. In fact, Taal, it seems that the essay is devoted not to proving that people have to believe certain attributes of God, but rather attempting a circular argument: "we know God is good, because no God we could believe in would not be good."
This ignores the fact, of course, that many cultures believe in gods which are not good, love, or any of the things called essential attributes of a god by that essay.
-----
"What if one kind of doesn't want to believe something, but through their research and following the above model (for the reasons of understanding the individuals), it brings them to the point where Faith is the next step?"
A belief you don't want to believe is not a belief. A belief you hold based on evidence you would rather not believe is in fact called knowledge.
In other words: if someone has done such poor research that they've fooled themselves into thinking that they found a religion worth investigating with a little feeler of hope, either the feeler of hope -- and, natch, the desire to believe -- exists, or else the person has actually stumbled upon genuine knowledge and no longer needs belief of any kind.
You cannot believe something without wanting to believe it.
posted
This is very true - but I thik the treatise above is discussing discussing Faith in the Deity, not mere belief that it exists.
Which, now that I think of it, are two completely different elements.
I guess one can believe that a deity exists without having faith in it. From my understanding, which is wide open for correction if needed, many of those with wide pantheons of imperfect gods don't generally as much have faith in their deity to help them, but as much a belief that they do different things, and often times use ritual to appease them.
In reading about Japanese Kami spirits, it was stated that prayers addressed towards Kami were not generally intended to ask miraculous favors, but rather to appease an anger or temperment.
But yes, it's still faith. But I think you make a great point in showing that there is an important distinction between having faith in a deity, and having faith that there exists deity.
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Personal experience has shown me definitively that this is not 100% true."
Forgive me, Dave, but I suspect that what it really showed you is that you wanted to believe more than you thought you did.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, if that's what you think. Perhaps the idea of making a change that could potentially cause large amount of grief from my family, especially my father and grandfather who are ministers of a different faith, as well as alienation and fear from others towards me, and new and sudden attempts that would come to 're-convert me' and 'show me the truth' and be told that I'm now in an evil cult were something that appeared attractive to me.
What do I know what I thought? I'm just me.
--
But I don't want to debate this with you, and I know you don't want to either. I'm not going to question your statements of what you believe, and what you've found to work for you.
If you say you believe something, Tom, I believe you. If you say you've tried hard to find something to believe in and have come up flat, you know what, Tom? I believe you.
posted
What I do want to discuss in this thread is what people think is a sufficient amount of material to be presented to an individual before "Faith" isn't considered a 'stupid step' - or do some believe that the whole concept of faith is stupid to begin with, and nothing should be acted on without hard 100% evidence?
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taalcon, you asked him to remain in this thread, when he was afraid that by doing so he would offend you. I think you owe it to him to be a little more thick-skinned when it comes to his responses to you. And yes, it's possible that, despite all of the hardships that it caused, you had some yearning for the truth that you feel you discovered . . . like maybe deep down inside you were dissatisfied with your prior faith. So is what he is saying truly that offensive to you? I don't think he's calling you a liar; rather, he is psychoanalyzing you. But, hell, if he can't do that, then it's really a conversation killer, isn't it? You offer yourself as evidence, and then get offended when someone questions it. Kind of an instant "I win" strategy, neh?
I am finding this to be a very interesting thread, so far.
In any case, it seems to me you aren't describing how you came to have faith, then, but how you switched from one variation of faith to another. It doesn't seem like the same thing to me.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI is saying that parents who lose children have to believe something (that they're children are dead) without wanting to at all.
quote:Forgive me, Dave, but I suspect that what it really showed you is that you wanted to believe more than you thought you did.
This IS a conversation ender, no matter what the motivation, because there's no way to refute it. It's like saying, "You're just in denial." It might be true; it might not. But the person is left with no way to respond.
Edit: I dont' think it's necessarily a bad thing, it just demarks the point of a currently insurmountable belief gap between the two.
quote:PSI is saying that parents who lose children have to believe something (that they're children are dead) without wanting to at all.
The parents don't believe their children are dead, they know so. Perhaps she meant that they choose to believe that God is good in spite of their not wanting to anymore and in the face of their personal evidence to the contrary?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This IS a conversation ender, no matter what the motivation, because there's no way to refute it. It's like saying, "You're just in denial." It might be true; it might not. But the person is left with no way to respond.
Good point.
But then what we have is an impasse, not a reason to get pissed.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Taalcon, you asked him to remain in this thread, when he was afraid that by doing so he would offend you.
Well, I still think there's a specific difference than discussing a theory and a concept than flat out stating that they believe what someone else says about their own life is false.
But yea. I do want him to stay, which is why I immediately followed up my initial reaction with an attempt to return to the question at hand.
..and is also why I wanted to keep my particular individual conversion story out of it, and will continue to do, because I don't want to change the direction of the thread, as I know it totally would.
And yes - it was a switch from one faith to another, but it also required having some faith in things that didn't exist before.
I guess I can also give some slack, because I haven't specifically discussed the events leading to my conversion publicly on the board. I've done so with many privately, but I didn't go out and landmark it.
So really, Tom doesn't know the circumstances, and maybe his idea of what he thought the circumstances were are quite differant than the reality thereof.
I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially when they haven't given me reason to distrust them before.
I'm leaving my previous gut-reply because it was truthful and in the moment, and in direct personal reply to my own personal statement of how I felt, and not a general concept or idea.
But yes - as I said, it was different, and this thread's discussion was focused on the reasons for an initial belief, or specifically faith in, a deity.
Tom believes you can't believe in something you don't want to believe in.
I believe you can.
...but the question at hand is, what would it take for you (using the generic Plural you, directed at Hatrack entire, and the poster reading this at the moment in specific) to feel like Faith is a next logical step, or is the idea of faith something that can never, ever, be logically led up it?
posted
Part of Tom's point remains: a person can believe in anything - up to and including the Great Pumpkin.
You are, of course, welcome to believe in what you like - I cannot prove, nor can I disprove, the existence of the Great Pumpkin rising out of the pumpkin patch on all Hallow's Eve.
--
Just because I believe in the Great Pumpkin doesn't mean he/she/it actually exists. Of course, the fact I don't believe doesn't disprove his/her/its existence, either.
--
Edit: I think Tom's statement about "You cannot believe something without wanting to believe it. " (paraphrased) is best applied to non-factual data that cannot be verified and confirmed to the satisfaction of third parties.
When discussing hypothetical, mythological or religious elements that depend on Faith, his statement does hold tue.
posted
It sounds like a tautology to me, though. "You only believe that because you want to."
"How do you know I want to?"
"Because you believe it."
"But I didn't want to believe it."
"You only think you didn't want to believe it. You really did."
The problem is that the premise, "People can only believe in what they want to believe" is the exact kind of "non-factual data that cannot be verified and confirmed to the satisfaction of third parties" under discussion.
posted
I'm not sure how to better explain the concept:
If we are discussing something that has no relatively undeniable elements - no corpses, nothing we can or could test for, evaluate or otherwise analyze, we are now dealing with something that lies outside the realm of fact.
In order to believe in something that lacks undeniable or irrefutable evidence, something well within "beyond a reasonable doubt", a person must be willing to believe in something with no discernable proof.
It is possible that God is the one thing that exists outside the logical realm and therefore denies the standard of logic we apply to everything else.
But, in order for me to believe God, Satan or The Great Pumpkin exists, I must first want to believe they exist because otherwise I would not have reason or grounds for that belief.
Sorry, I'm rambling.
-Trevor
Edit: If I don't want to believe, then the miracle s or acts of Divine Intervention are simply coincidences, happenstance or even luck rather than acts of the Divine.
If I wanted to believe, then coincidence, happenstance and luck are actually signs of the Divine and His intervention on my behalf.
Edit 2: Damnit, still rambling. I hated this feeling in philosophy class - feeling like I can grasp this concept, but it's just this far outside my reach and it keeps slipping through my fingers just when I think I have a grip.
posted
Trevor, you're looking at this as if there's only two choices.
quote:If we are discussing something that has no relatively undeniable elements - no corpses, nothing we can or could test for, evaluate or otherwise analyze, we are now dealing with something that lies outside the realm of fact.
This is not true. A fact is something that is true, or in a more general sense, is possible to accurately designate true or false if all information is known.
You're confusing the nature of truth with the nature of proof. The proving of a supernatural fact is difficult - even impossible to - when limited to the information that can be acquired through our senses.
quote:But, in order for me to believe God, Satan or The Great Pumpkin exists, I must first want to believe they exist because otherwise I would not have reason or grounds for that belief.
Why? Saying so doesn't make it so. If you're reducing this to, "People only do what they want to do" then you're right, but I don't think that's what you're saying. What is it about belief, as distinct from all other activities, that makes it impossible to do without wanting to do?
Believe in the context with which we have been using the word involves an active effort lacking evidence to the contrary.
I walk outside on a bright, sunny day and I don't believe it's raining. Ok, easy.
I walk outside on a bright, sunny day and I believe it's raining. I'm wrong and, barring disagreements on what constitutes "raining", in defiance of available fact.
I walk outside on a bright, sunny day and I believe it's raining Martians.
posted
Right, but what does that have to do with desire?
You (and Tom) are saying that no one can believe without desiring to believe.
Either belief is somehow different from every other mental activity in that it can only be done when one wants to, or it is the same, in which case all we're doing is playing games with what "want" means.
Again, I ask, why is it the case that one can only believe what one wants to believe?
posted
I would argue that belief in spite of desire is in fact knowledge. Ignorance WITHOUT desire is just ignorance; ignorance WITH desire is faith. Once you eliminate that ignorance -- once you have reason to suppose something -- you are no longer "believing."
And, yes, it is possible for people to face facts without wanting to do so. I might not, for example, want to believe that people can be cruel to each other -- but I have to accept that they can, because I have observed this behavior. In the same way, perhaps someone does not want to believe in the Christian God, but does anyway because he was struck down on the road to Damascus.
I don't mean to harp on Dave's example, but it seems to me that the things he lists as reasons to NOT want to believe are not in fact relevant factors in that desire. Things like "I felt like the church was completely baseless," or "I hated its tenets," or "I simply couldn't get past the fact that it called for us to flay dogs alive" would in fact be reasons not to want to believe; I submit that "my family would disapprove" is in fact, for amny people, exactly the kind of psychological factor that would ENCOURAGE a conversion.
I suggest that there are very few people who have come to believe in a church whose tenets they hate and despise without having had some experience that, to them, constitutes knowledge -- which in turn defeats the point of belief.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To believe in something unavailable to our senses requires action or desire on behalf of the perceiver in order to exist.
We see an empty room. You see an empty room. I see the Great Pumpkin.
The Great Pumpkin would seem to exist outside the realm of our physical senses (none of which precludes the idea I can see something you can't), however, since we lack the capability to physically perceive the Great Pumpkin, I must make an active, conscious effort to believe.
Therefore I desire to believe in something that I would otherwise have no basis for believing - would it ever occur to you that the Great Pumpkin is present in the empty room?
-Trevor
Edit: Unless you wanted to see or were desirous of seeing the Great Pumpkin?
quote:I would argue that belief in spite of desire is in fact knowledge.
So if I don't desire to believe something but I do, I know it, even absent proof?
quote:I suggest that there are very few people who have come to believe in a church whose tenets they hate and despise without having had some experience that, to them, constitutes knowledge -- which in turn defeats the point of belief.
Tom, why do you think not wanting to believe something requires hating and despising the tenets of that belief?
quote:I must make an active, conscious effort to believe.
Are you equating choosing to do something with wanting to do something? In other words, does choosing to do something you don't have to automatically prove you wanted to do it?
I'm just trying to get a sense of how you're using the word "want."
posted
"So if I don't desire to believe something but I do, I know it, even absent proof?"
I would argue, again, that it not POSSIBLE to believe something you don't want to believe.
"In other words, does choosing to do something you don't have to automatically prove you wanted to do it?"
Yes. No one makes choices they don't want to make. Even when choosing between two bad choices, people choose the one they think is less bad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. No one makes choices they don't want to make. Even when choosing between two bad choices, people choose the one they think is less bad.
Then we don't really disagree about anything except what "want" means.
Of course, this makes the statement "it is not POSSIBLE to believe something you don't want to believe" basically meaningless, because any verb could be substituted for believe.
quote:I must make an active, conscious effort to believe.
Are you equating choosing to do something with wanting to do something? In other words, does choosing to do something you don't have to automatically prove you wanted to do it?
I'm just trying to get a sense of how you're using the word "want."
Yes. You may not like what you're doing, but you want something to happen. If only to avoid negative ramifications.
posted
Not possible, kat. No one can be converted against his will -- barring, of course, the presence of actual knowledge, which apparently denies faith.
------
Dag, do you honestly believe that people can choose to do things they do NOT want to do?
posted
He stopped looking when he realized what was happening, and when events seemed to point him that direction again he stopped ignoring it, but he defintely, definitely didn't set out to become converted.
---
Motivations are more complex than want to/don't want to. Someone may not want to join the church, but they do want to follow where the Lord leads them and they want to embrace truth. You could make an argument that there's nothing out there that a part of everyone doesn't want to do. I don't want to be a soldier, but I do want to have a definite purpose and wear the boots - that doesn't mean that if get drafted, it's what I secretly always wanted.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But, hell, if he can't do that, then it's really a conversation killer, isn't it? You offer yourself as evidence, and then get offended when someone questions it. Kind of an instant "I win" strategy, neh?![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
