quote:OK, do you think the other two stories I posted are fictional? Or at the very least plausible?
You mean the golden plates ones? I don't think they're fictional, per se; I believe that three people really did say they saw the plates. I don't have any reason to believe that they actually saw what they described, though.
Many, many people say they have communicated directly with God. I don't think all of them are lying, but neither do I think that any of them have.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You mean the golden plates ones? I don't think they're fictional, per se; I believe that three people really did say they saw the plates. I don't have any reason to believe that they actually saw what they described, though.
OK so you are convinced that if you had a comparable experience it would sustain your faith in God and be the foundation of a lifetime of faith and good works? Could God expect perfect obedience out of you the rest of your life should he visit you man to man?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which experience, specifically? If someone showed me some metal plates, then claimed as a consequence to be a prophet of God and demanded my obedience, I'd probably want significantly more proof. Plates aren't all that miraculous.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Which experience, specifically? If someone showed me some metal plates, then claimed as a consequence to be a prophet of God and demanded my obedience, I'd probably want significantly more proof. Plates aren't all that miraculous.
Well according to the witnesses the plates were on a table, along with several artifacts mentioned in the Book of Mormon. An angel presented everything, and a voice identifying itself as God, sounded from heaven, and told them that what they were looking at was authentic, and that they must bear record of it to everyone in the world, and that if they ever denied the truth of this occasion that there would be hell to pay.
posted
I don't think the problem is really where's the line to be crossed where it changes from an unusual, but still ever-day event, into a miraculous experience. The main question is, does that line exist? Certainly if a person doesn't want to believe something they wont. Even if you saw the face of God and heard the trumpets of heaven blow; a man could say it was nothing but a trick of the mind, a sleight of hand apparition made by a clever imposture. It's certainly also possible for a true fence sitter to see the lights of Heaven and witness the miracles of God and be impressed to believe in Him. But what would that do? Religion is about having personal experiences with God, not witnessing strange phenomena in the world around you. Watching a neat trick of physics in a demonstration doesn't draw me close to the MC, and I doubt that witnessing a river pile up on itself, however impressive and awe inspiring that would be, would help anyone develop a personal relationship with anyone. Having faith in a Christian sense, having religion in ones life means that you know God and His Son, that you feel comfortable talking with them and feel confident not just that they can give answers, but that they do. Confident enough to follow those answers, confident enough to change not just a few outward actions or go to a few services, but change who you are. A miracle doesn't do any of this, no matter how spectacular; you will be the same person after having witnessed it as before.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: You saw me interacting with two small children in Las Vegas, and I didn't even take a nibble. I think that should be sufficient. I didn't short-sheet Rivka's bed, either. That must have been someone else
Yup. And the small puncture marks on my neck have almost completely healed.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
No. Someone shows me the Great and Powerful OZ, I look for a curtain. My standard for "miracles" is fairly high.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God. Or that regular manifestations of God's power would make the world more willing to believe in God.
I believe that both of these things are absolutely true, and that believers are kidding themselves when they convince themselves otherwise.
Tom, what would be a good example of a miracle that would be magnificent enough to engender lasting faith in God?
What if it only happened once, and there were no further evidence in your life? Your miracle wouldn't be repeatable or controlable the way a scientific experiment is because it was wrought by a higher power you have no control over.
Might you question after awhile if the miracle really was so miraculous? Might you question your own perceptions and memory?
You cannot really know the answers to these questions, not unless you'd actually been through it. So many of our feelings, our passions are fleeting. We have so little real sense of perspective, we are so locked in the "now."
I believe God when He says that lasting faith is not engendered by miracles. (Except perhaps in the truly exceptional, faithful souls. King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon, for example. I think sincerity and humility were important elements there.)
Tom, I know that you believe that if the God of the Bible existed, you would not like Him and would view Him as an evil being. What use would it serve to convince you of His reality if it would result in you actively fighting against Him? You may be convinced of God's reality, but your loyalty would not be won. You would not listen to the crucial guidance only He can offer with His perspective. If we accept that God's counsel is for your own good, your newfound faith would not benefit you.
You want God to treat you as an equal. You want to understand the "why's" before trusting Him. "Because Father said so" isn't good enough for you--no matter what the miracle might have been.
I imagine you accept that your perspective is superior to your daughter's. You know you love her and want what is best for her, and you know reality and this world far better than she does. But no matter how you try, you can't get her to undertstand all of that right now. Luckily, your job is made easier by the fact that she is a trusting, loving soul, as all children tend to be.
But the day will come when she will question your wisdom and life's experience--especially when it clashes with her will and she doesn't like it. She will want to learn things for herself. She won't just take it at your word, and will experience pain because of it.
Some people are more naturally trusting the way children are, some are more naturally skeptical and questioning, like a teenager tends to be.
I believe that it is going through parenthood that helps us to understand a tiny iota of what it is like to be God. Many things about God, for me, do not make sense until you see them through that lens.
The parallel is far from perfect, but the similarities are there. The point is, God's proving to you that He exists won't get you to follow His will, not if you don't understand it, don't trust Him, don't even believe He is good. God isn't interested in us knowing beyond doubt that He exists, because it doesn't benefit us in the long run. Trusting and following Him does.
This is why I believe faith is good for faith's own sake. I believe that faith isn't just about "Does God exist?" I believe it addresses more crucial questions, "Who is God? Is He good? Can He be trusted?" That is why I believe that the "little" problem of skepticism in God's existance will be worked out just fine in the long run. In the meantime, what sorts of ideologies do we embrace? How do they measure up with Truth and Goodness? I believe we will all have a chance to accept God in our own due time and see Him for who He truly is.
Am I certain that God exists? Quite frankly, no. I haven't seen Him. Am I certain that the teachings I put my faith in are good? Yes. And through many, many subtle experiences throughout my life as I strive to ponder and adhere to them, this trust transfers over to a trust in a Divine Being and that Being begins to take clearer and clearer shape to me.
This is the part that is difficult to explain, the part that people like KoM will always try to poke holes in, though to no effect. It is beyond the reach of science, and beyond the reach of mocking. It is sacred. It is the revelation of who I truly wish to be and what I hold most dear.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I may not be Tom, but is it okay if I answer for myself here, as I'm of a similar mind of Tom as for the rest of his statements?
" what would be a good example of a miracle that would be magnificent enough to engender lasting faith in God? "
For me, (not Tom, but he can answer later) something incontravertibly from God. That is to say, if Jesus appeared to me as clearly as he supposedly appeared to Thomas.
Of course, I don't know Jesus' face, so it would have to be rather more clear than just some person with bad scars in the right place appearing, even if they're glowing.
How about God addressing the entire planet, so that all of us, say, hear his voice, all at once? Proclaiming Himself to be God, pointing out that the Bible (or whichever book) was accurate, performing multiple miracles, perhaps having a conversation with some people, and, best of all, being recorded while doing this. At the very least, having his voice recorded, allowing the recording to work, and allowing it in multiple places at once.
Such a thing shouldn't be hard for an omnipotent deity. It would certainly be preferable to, say, sending people to eternal torment because they use the faculties He gave them, and refusing to believe on no evidence.
Oh, and him randomly picking a group of people out from the planet, in front of others, and making them materialize in a centralized location to speak to him, all while this is being recorded, while his responses could be recorded as well. And answering their questions, not vaguely, but with the gusto and clarity he seems to give in the Old Testament.
Perhaps some miracles, and allowing them to be observed by scientists, and shown to break known laws of physics.
That would be rather damn convincing.
After all, if God does desire our praise, all he needs is to make himself unambiguously clear.
Oh, having a billion people dissapear all at once would work the deed too.
Basically, God acting with the power he used without a problem during the Old Testament. Huge actions, booming voice.
Maybe not something that big, perhaps... but that'd definitely be adaquete to get everyone to believe in his existence. Scientists too.
"What if it only happened once, and there were no further evidence in your life? Your miracle wouldn't be repeatable or controlable the way a scientific experiment is because it was wrought by a higher power you have no control over."
Well, this huge address would be rather pervasive and convincing. Especially with it being recorded, and especially with God allowing people to record it vigorously.
"Might you question after awhile if the miracle really was so miraculous? Might you question your own perceptions and memory? "
Not if it had that unambiguous clarity.
Of course, it depends on Him asking the questions, and doing those impossible, basic laws of physics defying things, and allowing them to be recorded by reliable witnesses in multiple independant locations.
"I believe God when He says that lasting faith is not engendered by miracles. (Except perhaps in the truly exceptional, faithful souls. King Lamoni in the Book of Mormon, for example. I think sincerity and humility were important elements there.)"
The people in the faith I used to believe felt differently. Which of you is right, again?
"Tom, I know that you believe that if the God of the Bible existed, you would not like Him and would view Him as an evil being. What use would it serve to convince you of His reality if it would result in you actively fighting against Him? You may be convinced of God's reality, but your loyalty would not be won. You would not listen to the crucial guidance only He can offer with His perspective. If we accept that God's counsel is for your own good, your newfound faith would not benefit you."
While I'm not Tom, I do feel also that God as presented in the Old Testament is rather evil, what with all the genocide, murdering of children, needless slaughter, love of pain of those people who happen to not be the ones he arbitrarily chose as His people, etc.
However, during God's unambiguous presentation of himself, I mentioned having people, including atheists, being allowed to ask him questions.
My faith, at least, would depend on his answers. Why should I care if he's wishy washy on it? Why should I follow a being with ultimate power, just because of strength? If his reasons for allowing injustice in the world weren't good enough, or showed disregard for it, I'd not follow such an entity. But if his reasons were valid, such as, say, it being physically the only way for a good world to exist (which would bring new questions, which hopefully would be answered by Him) or whatever, fine.
But power alone is not enough to make something worthy of praise. He'd need some damn good reasons.
"You want God to treat you as an equal. You want to understand the "why's" before trusting Him. "Because Father said so" isn't good enough for you--no matter what the miracle might have been."
To think otherwise is obviously foolish. Take Hitler, Stalin, Moussulini, etc, as examples.
Why should we trust someone with MORE power intrinsically, just because He says he's good? That's just stupid!
Hasn't history shown that trusting leaders is kind of unwise?
"The parallel is far from perfect, but the similarities are there. The point is, God's proving to you that He exists won't get you to follow His will, not if you don't understand it, don't trust Him, don't even believe He is good. God isn't interested in us knowing beyond doubt that He exists, because it doesn't benefit us in the long run. Trusting and following Him does."
Then God did a doubly cruel thing to me. By giving me the powers to ask questions, the kind of mind that will not take things just as they are, and asks for evidence, a mind that sees the evils that come from trusting without proof, he has then, if your view is right, doomed me to be unable to trust Him as he desires it. I cannot be otherwise. I will not lie to myself, decieve myself, brainwash myself to believe something that there's no evidence for.
And, naturally, if your worldview includes a hell, He will punish me for it.
What sort of monster would do such a thing?
"This is why I believe faith is good for faith's own sake."
Because father knows best, and since you've seen the father (through faith, natch) you know it's good?
Your description of Tom being a parent is one thing.
But why should a daughter trust a parent who she has never seen?
Why should my friend Michelle, for example, trust a father she hasn't seen since he divorced her mother when she was five, and believe his words?
To expect that is perverse. But that's what you demand in this case.
" I believe that faith isn't just about "Does God exist?" I believe it addresses more crucial questions, "Who is God? Is He good? Can He be trusted?" That is why I believe that the "little" problem of skepticism in God's existance will be worked out just fine in the long run. In the meantime, what sorts of ideologies do we embrace? How do they measure up with Truth and Goodness?"
Do you suggest by listening to a book that gives suggestions on how to care for your slaves,orders you to literally kill your friends if they feel doubt, and gleefully describes genocides ordered by the God you worship?
By listening to a New Testament which states "God deems it jus to repay with affliction those who afflict you... when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might..." 2 Thesalonians 1:6-9?
For using the faculties God gave me, for using the powers he imprinted within me, that shall be my reward. Eternal destruction and exclusion. At least, that's what the New Testament proclaims!
For asking these questions, for not denying my own nature, for my observations of the world, I am to be destroyed, because I didn't just "trust" that this particular religion was right.
Hell, the chances that you'd have believed in one form of Christianity or another if you hadn't been born into it are actually really low! Most people born into Muslim families stay Muslim throughout their lives. Most Christians stay Christians. That doesn't speak well of the strength of your creed over theirs, you know.
You'd have been, say, a Muslim or a Hindu, or something else, and most likely never have converted. Adn you would have believed with the same strong faith in Allah or Krishu, and stated that faith in one of those entities that contradict the one you believe in, is the one you should have faith in, and faith in whom is good for faith's own sake.
I can't say that with certainty, but the odds are vastly on the side of the religion you were born into, and spend most of your time around.
If faith is so great, why faith in this particular entity? Other people use faith of equal strength of yours, for contradictory entities. And they use their books, and claim them to be inerrent, and claim yours to be faulty.
Why should a neutral observer of your contradictory views assume yours is correct, again?
" I believe we will all have a chance to accept God in our own due time and see Him for who He truly is."
If He appeared in the conclusive way I stated above, then we could speak.
Heck, if he appeared in any unambiguous manner, which could be recorded, we could talk.
But if this silent God that's never spoken to me no matter how hard I tried, who has never been shown to me to have appeared to anyone in a way any more convincing than a person claiming to have visitations from aliens (which used to come from Venus and Mars before people learned that they were utterly uninhabited. Now people claim they come from other galaxies, as their knowledge of the universe grows little by little), and who has also never shown any primacy over the thousands of other gods which other people believe in, which they create when they are isolated from any contact from the Jewish people (if you think otherwise, ask those people who believe in the other gods! They'll beg to differ), whose miracles in the modern day are in fact no better than the miracles of those other contradictory religions just so happens to be the real one, it's going to be an interesting afterlife, without a doubt.
"Am I certain that the teachings I put my faith in are good? Yes."
I dunno about you specifically, but many Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, and that homosexuals themselves are sinners, for their actions.
This is nothing but harmful, to millions of people, who must suffer both persecution from people who believe them wrong, and the terrible guilt that can come from being taught that falling in love with someone of the same sex makes you a bad person.
This is evil. This belief is nothing but harmful to millions of people.
Many, many christians believe that this is a good, just belief, and that homosexuality is a sin. I don't know your view on it, but many hold that one.
Many Christians, in the past, believed in slavery. And used the teachings of the Bible to support it, for nowhere in the Bible does it teach slavery as wrong.
I cannot speak on your subtle experiences. However, I had many subtle experiences too. But then I realized them for what they were, wishful thinking, thinking there was a cause to random coincidence, selection bias, and other mental tricks to make things seem to point towards a god.
When even my own mind can be tricked, and I've seen other people believe ridiculous things because of subtle personal things, from aura crystals to psychic phenomena to weirder things... why should I trust your personal experiences any more than that of one who believes in psychics?
"This is the part that is difficult to explain, the part that people like KoM will always try to poke holes in, though to no effect. It is beyond the reach of science, and beyond the reach of mocking. It is sacred. It is the revelation of who I truly wish to be and what I hold most dear. "
Of course there's no effect, if you will yourself to believe something. That's why no Muslim will listen to either of us, for example. They dont' want to.
Anyway. Forgive my argumentation. I debate for debate's sake, honestly, and don't expect to change your views. I respect the strength of your feelings, and the positive effects it has on your heart. I don't want to see your heart be hurt, or to see anyone hurt.
But god damn, I love debating things...
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll answer more simply: I think the analogy between religion and parenting is a false one. I understand why it appeals, especially to Western religion, but I don't think it applies.
Central to the problem with this analogy is the question of existence -- which is what miracles directly address, after all. For all that my daughter sometimes -- and very rarely, I might add, exposing another problem with this analogy -- may not understand my rules or behavior, there's never any reason for her to doubt that I exist. She will of course draw her own conclusions as to my wisdom and benevolence, but those conclusions are based on direct experience of and conversations with me.
If we were going to compare religion to parenting, here's the analogy:
You live in a house with twelve siblings. You have never seen your father, but four of your sisters claim to speak with him regularly and occasionally relay his commands to the family. They all give a different description of him, and their commands occasionally contradict. Three of them agree that obedience to your father's commands is paramount; he's threatened to "whup" anyone who disobeys. It is said that he protects the family, but there doesn't seem to be any connection between the siblings who obey his edicts and the ones who come to bed with split lips and skinned knees. Your two oldest brothers say that he used to insist that everyone in the house wear '80s fashions and get unflattering haircuts; they beat up anyone who dares to do otherwise. You've attempted to find him to speak with him directly, but he seems to spend most of his time evading any kind of direct contact; sometimes you'll hear what might be his voice, but upon running into the next room you'll find everything just as you left it. A lot of the advice your siblings say he's left them is good stuff: eat sensibly, stay in school, that sort of thing. It's nothing that you probably couldn't've come up with on your own, but now and then it surprises you -- like that time your sister said he wanted you to take an umbrella to school on a sunny day, and it was raining when you walked home. That you've had to take the umbrella to school about six or seven times so far without any rain isn't really a problem. Sometimes, when your brothers and sisters are pulling each other's hair out over a confused interpretation of something he's said to have said, you wonder why he doesn't just pop his head into the room to clear it up. But clearly he loves you; after all, he hasn't whupped you yet.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If we were going to compare religion to parenting, here's the analogy:
You live in a house with twelve siblings. You have never seen your father, but four of your sisters claim to speak with him regularly and occasionally relay his commands to the family. They all give a different description of him, and their commands occasionally contradict. Three of them agree that obedience to your father's commands is paramount; he's threatened to "whup" anyone who disobeys. It is said that he protects the family, but there doesn't seem to be any connection between the siblings who obey his edicts and the ones who come to bed with split lips and skinned knees. Your two oldest brothers say that he used to insist that everyone in the house wear '80s fashions and get unflattering haircuts; they beat up anyone who dares to do otherwise. You've attempted to find him to speak with him directly, but he seems to spend most of his time evading any kind of direct contact; sometimes you'll hear what might be his voice, but upon running into the next room you'll find everything just as you left it. A lot of the advice your siblings say he's left them is good stuff: eat sensibly, stay in school, that sort of thing. It's nothing that you probably couldn't've come up with on your own, but now and then it surprises you -- like that time your sister said he wanted you to take an umbrella to school on a sunny day, and it was raining when you walked home. That you've had to take the umbrella to school about six or seven times so far without any rain isn't really a problem. Sometimes, when your brothers and sisters are pulling each other's hair out over a confused interpretation of something he's said to have said, you wonder why he doesn't just pop his head into the room to clear it up. But clearly he loves you; after all, he hasn't whupped you yet.
That is awesome. I am tempted to steal it for my own. Instead, I think I'll just quote you from time to time. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I'd like to see the slander of Mother Theresa backed up.
Ic, did you see my post near the top of page 3? It links to an article in Time that gives more detail about what's being discussed with regard to Mother Theresa.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the slander Ic is refering to is KoM's contention that "she did not help people, she helped herself to other people's money." The Time article is not slander.
Edited for idiotic double posting. Stupid quote button.
posted
Ah, okay, I missed KoM's post. I didn't think that he thought that the Time article was slander; I thought that he thought that the initial mention of her in this thread was slander.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Time article was quite moving. I am glad that I read it. Thank you, Noemon, for sharing it.
Megabyte, your example of what would convince you would not convince me at all. And I am sorry that you have had such (if you'll forgive me) crappy examples of religion in your life.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seemed to be saying that a miracle of sufficient magnitude would be a good mechanism for creating lasting faith in God.
Christ's miraculous appearance to Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus seemed enough to make a believer out of him. Granted, that in itself may not have created for Paul a lasting faith in God, but it obviously created a little faith, and a little faith would seem to be better than no faith at all.
Personally, I'd rather have the opportunity to experience a miracle and decide for myself how it will affect my faith instead of merely being told that I'm going to become a stalwart supporter of the faith or the vilest of sinners. After all, if God knows me so well*, surely He could think up a miracle that would be sufficient enough for me to believe he exists.
* Psalms 139:1-6: “O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar. You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways. Before a word is on my tongue you know it completely. O Lord. You hem me in –behind and before; you have laid your hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, lofty for me attain.”
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there is a Great Deceiver, such as the Devil, wouldn't it be just his thing to try to get people to follow rules without question?
Christianity postulates its own best argument against blind faith. Worse than blindly following a harsh and absent God is blindly following his enemy without question because you've been convinced that questioning is wrong and that evidence would somehow work against you.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Question everything...or shut up and be a victim of authority"
"Everything that's treated dogmatically, is dangerous."
"Well, the truth may come in strange disguises...send the message to your mind"
My apologies if this post seems to veer off course, but to my mind these expressions - especially when combined - hold a deep meaning (at least to me). With regards to the second quote, I have to admit that I had to paraphrase it, since I do not have the original source at hand right now.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Questioning has always been part of my faith. I do not think that it could be otherwise for me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Questioning has always been part of my faith. I do not think that it could be otherwise for me.
^^ What she said.
I don't know where this blind faith argument is coming from.
1Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Tom: That was a very interesting analogy, I liked it alot. I don't have a ready answer for you just now, I need some time to think about it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Questioning has always been part of my faith. I do not think that it could be otherwise for me.
Where is it you get your answers? Because I think that might be the key difference between believers and non-believers.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I get answers from all sorts of sources. Books, people, inspiration, study, observation, experience, tradition, history, reason, scripture, teachings...
But the "test" of the answers I get is whether or not it seems right to me, whether it makes sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I get answers from all sorts of sources. Books, people, inspiration, study, observation, experience, tradition, history, reason, scripture, teachings...
But the "test" of the answers I get is whether or not it seems right to me, whether it makes sense.
My list would be almost exactly the same, except perhaps I wouldn't include scripture. Rather, I would include scripture with books.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I thought about just including scripture with books. I decided it does fit into its own category, though. And it needs special interpretation.
Which is where we disagree. I knew I'd find something!
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know where this blind faith argument is coming from.
The part where you follow the rules of an invisible man in the sky who embodies a host of contradictions.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The interpretation part? I think that it is important to understand that scripture is, among other things, translated from several different languages, often uses literary conventions that are unfamiliar, was written by and for people from different cultures, and was often meant to address specific issues or problems that those people were experiencing.
Most of the books I read don't require quite as much knowledge to understand them.
edit to add: MightyCow, haven't we addressd the "invisible man in the sky" thing?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, it's worth noting that one of the reasons your "religion" is indistinguishable from most people's "philosophy" is that you use a philosophic epistemology rather than a religious one.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The interpretation part? I think that it is important to understand that scripture is, among other things, translated from several different languages, often uses literary conventions that are unfamiliar, was written by and for people from different cultures, and was often meant to address specific issues or problems that those people were experiencing.
If that's what you mean then I agree with you. However, I would use that same form of interpretation on any book I read, which is why scripture is not separate in my mind.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Javert, I would also (with some need hesitation or at least need for clarification) put scripture in its own category because it is specifically an inspired record of a people's relationship with the Divine. Also, particularly the New Testament are a record of a specific person, who I believe was so in relationship to the Divine that He was, himself fully God.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't know where this blind faith argument is coming from.
The part where you follow the rules of an invisible man in the sky who embodies a host of contradictions.
Why would any of those, or all of them taken together, make faith in such a being blind faith?
(Note that I don't accept that as an accurate description of God, but for this purposes of this question, it doesn't matter.)
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MightyCow, you are arguing that people have "blind faith" in something (the invisible man in the sky) that doesn't seem to most of us to be an accurate description of the thing in which we have faith (blind or otherwise).
So I'm not really sure what you hope to achieve.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, there are many subtle things in your post that I disagree with. For example, I reject the idea of a God that punishes arbitrarily (except, perhaps, in rare circumstances.) I realize that such things have certainly been taught, and that this is a common problem for those who take issue with religion.
This is somewhat similar to my parenting style. I don't do a lot of punishing in general, and I don't protect my children from many of the natural consequences around them. I let my children fall down. I didn't particularly freak out when my daughter burned herself this morning on the griddle she got too close to. I believe that often the natural consequences teach better than I ever could. I'm glad the burn was minor, and I will continue to take action to ensure that cascades of boiling substances never fall down upon her head.
I feel strongly about allowing in-the-short-run-harmless natural consequences, because I feel that my parents were too protective growing up, trying to sheild us so much from the natural pains that occur in life, that I didn't learn much of the wisdom I could have.
Of course, there are some natural consequences that are completely unacceptable, and I can be downright bitchy when it comes to those. But because I choose my battles so selectively, my kids know that "Crud, Mom really means business about this one!" They are more likely to work with me on those.
I am grateful, to the point of tears, for the experiences of my life and what they have taught me. If I had been sheilded from all pain and sorrow, I would be so much less than I am. Not that I welcome tribulation. But I trust that the tribulations that do come my way are known to God, and that He will help me get through them. I trust that if I approach tribulation with faith and humility, the experience can be consecrated for my growth and perhaps the growth of others.
As for whether or not God causes tribulation, I think the cause and effect relationship are far more complex than we can appreciate. It is funny, my goats aren't sufficiently intelligent to assign blame to anyone. Even if I am the one that causes their suffering, they are only capable of association. Because most of their associations with me are pleasant, they don't associate me with pain or discomfort, even if I've caused it. We humans are very concerned with blame, and I think we tend to twist things as a result. We can get so caught up in blame that we embitter our own souls.
Also, going back to your analogy, my belief in a pre-mortal existance with God is pretty important. It doesn't change the perception of the main character in your analogy one iota, but it certainly (for me) changes the tones of foreboding in your example. Certainly, with all you've given there, it is easy to doubt the Father's love and goodwill. But if you knew that all these children once lived with him and had a perfect knowledge of him and his goodness, it changes things greatly--at least for me.
As one leader of my church put it, we are in Act II of a three act play. We don't have memory of Act I, and we don't know much about Act III. We were sent away from God's presence both to be tested and to learn wisdom. For reasons not completely within our grasp, this could not be accomplished when we were in God's presence.
Tom, I know that part of the problem that you have with God is that if He exists, He by default allows terrible suffering. We have discussed this in the past, and you reject the idea that suffering in this life is "just a blip" in the eternal life of a child of God. Just an unpleasant trip to the dentist. Certainly, much of the suffering seems unnecessary. Much is caused by the evil or simply poor choices of others. But if God softened the horror of the effects of the choices of others, if the universe wore kid-gloves, had no real teeth to it, this whole mortal test would be far less real, less effective.
How would the sinner learn of the effects of their wrongdoing if no one ever suffered as a result? It is not God's arbitrary punishment that will damn the sinner, it is the sinner's own conscience when they become fully aware of the effects of their actions.
Other suffering is caused by no one. But can we know the effect on those who are touched by the suffering of another? Has not suffering brought people together in love many times? Does it not provide us an opportunity to show what kind of people we are, do we sacrifice to ease suffering in others?
By God stepping back and letting things take their natural course, we are able to step in and show what kind of beings we are.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots, you're right, I was being flippant. It does seem like blind faith when someone makes the case that a deity refuses to produce miracles, because evidence would somehow weaken people's belief. It just seems like such a cop out, and I think the mentions of mentalist being unable to reproduce their powers under controlled tests is very apt.
From the perspective of someone who doesn't consider holy books to be authoritative based on their own self-referential claims of authority, much of religious belief seems like blind faith.
The comparison has been made in this thread of having faith in our senses, or faith in what we've learned by science. I would make the distinction between faith in something which you can repeat, and which multiple observers can all experience in the same way to faith in something which is untestable, and further for which the claim has been made in this thread that it cannot possibly be shown to someone who doesn't already believe it to be true.
The reason illusionists don't repeat their tricks is that if you watch long enough, you might see how they do it. The reason mentalists can't do their voodoo under controlled experiment is because they are using trickery to produce their results. One has to wonder about a creator who follows in their footsteps.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I understand why it appeals, especially to Western religion, but I don't think it applies.
I'm a bit curious as to how you would explain why it appeals in Western religion.
To relate it back to the topic a little, I wonder why a creation myth with a specific Creator that creates the universe/world is so central and controversial in Western religion.
Looking through this, it seems like a few religions do not necessarily have a Creator figure and perhaps more interestingly, they do not really seem to care/concern themselves with the question.
As examples in the list, it seems that Taoism describes a universe that can exist with nothing in it before matter (rather than a specific deity) appears. If you follow the link for Pangu, you see that a different Chinese myth added a "creator" that did not create the universe, but instead was created by the universe and dies during the creation of Earth. It is also interesting that if the article is correct, they did not really have creation myths before 200AD which is amazingly late considering the sheer number of creation myths that came before Christianity's, let alone 200 years after.
Buddhism seems to ignore the question and indeed, it seems that Buddha is something close to a strong agnostic:
quote: Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it."AN IV.77, and in regard to ignoring the question of the origin of life the Buddha has said "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
I wonder why creation in particular is so contentious in Christianity/Judaism.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, there are many subtle things in your post that I disagree with. For example, I reject the idea of a God that punishes arbitrarily (except, perhaps, in rare circumstances.)
It's worth noting that I never claimed the "father" in that analogy punished arbitrarily. Rather, I said that some siblings said he punished in ways which evidence appeared to contradict, and others promised indefinite future whuppings.
The nature of God is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists, except insofar as specific claims about God appear internally inconsistent (or the reverse).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For me, (not Tom, but he can answer later) something incontravertibly from God. That is to say, if Jesus appeared to me as clearly as he supposedly appeared to Thomas.
I love the story of Thomas. I believe many, many people will find themselves in the same position when the time comes.
quote:How about God addressing the entire planet, so that all of us, say, hear his voice, all at once? Proclaiming Himself to be God, pointing out that the Bible (or whichever book) was accurate, performing multiple miracles, perhaps having a conversation with some people, and, best of all, being recorded while doing this. At the very least, having his voice recorded, allowing the recording to work, and allowing it in multiple places at once.
Sounds a lot like the second coming of Christ. So maybe this is coming and is inevitable? Once it happens, it will certainly change our ability to live by faith. When our doubt is removed, it changes our ability to "prove" what sort of people we are when we are "in the dark."
quote:It would certainly be preferable to, say, sending people to eternal torment because they use the faculties He gave them, and refusing to believe on no evidence.
I reject your implied assumption here.
quote:After all, if God does desire our praise, all he needs is to make himself unambiguously clear.
I reject this assumption as well.
quote:The people in the faith I used to believe felt differently. Which of you is right, again?
Ours of course! ^_^ j/k
quote:But power alone is not enough to make something worthy of praise.
Oh, aye.
quote:Hasn't history shown that trusting leaders is kind of unwise?
Do you trust your parents? Do you believe they love you? What evidence do you have, is it provable? Or do you trust from thousands of individually seeming insignificant parts? (Of course, many adolescents even question this.)
Do you accept that there have been benevolent leaders as well as the monsterous?
Perhaps if you were to someday have a conversation with God (on the assumption He exists, of course) you might find him understanding of your reservations, understanding of hurt trust in the history of betrayal. After all, Thomas was not chastized for his unbelief. I imagine being willing to trust in goodness and be good yourself matters more in the long run.
quote:Then God did a doubly cruel thing to me. By giving me the powers to ask questions, the kind of mind that will not take things just as they are, and asks for evidence, a mind that sees the evils that come from trusting without proof, he has then, if your view is right, doomed me to be unable to trust Him as he desires it. I cannot be otherwise. I will not lie to myself, decieve myself, brainwash myself to believe something that there's no evidence for.
And, naturally, if your worldview includes a hell, He will punish me for it.
What sort of monster would do such a thing?
Again, I do think you are functioning under some incorrect assumptions.
quote:But why should a daughter trust a parent who she has never seen?
I have addressed this somewhat in my post to Tom.
a) The idea that we were with God and had a perfect knowledge of Him before this life.
b) It isn't easy to trust. But as I said, perhaps our adherance to goodness is more important in the long-run. Seeking God and trying to find out His will counts for something, I think.
quote: Do you suggest by listening to a book that gives suggestions on how to care for your slaves,orders you to literally kill your friends if they feel doubt, and gleefully describes genocides ordered by the God you worship?
I don't believe the Bible is flawless. I can't trust every word in it to be absolutely 100% true and correct. I believe in modern prophets and modern revelation. We don't know the circumstances under which past instructions were given. The New Testament tells us that Moses allowed divorce "because of the hardness of your hearts" but that "from the beginning it was not so." How many other of the Old Testaments teachings might be the same?
What is needed is an authority today, for our own time, to tell us what *we* need to know from God *now*. The past scriptures are important for context, but sometimes the context is not relevant.
(Incidentally, a leader of our church less than 6 months ago addressed this. He said that divorce is allowed now because of "the hardness of our hearts" but that the higher law that we should strive to live by is to treat marriage like a living thing--just as we wouldn't give up on trying to recussitate a human, we shouldn't give up on trying to recussitate a marriage until it is dead beyond hope.)
Anyway, I know that people hate for a believer to "pick and choose" what they like or don't like from the Bible. But honestly, that is *why* we need prophets today.
quote: By listening to a New Testament which states "God deems it jus to repay with affliction those who afflict you... when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might..." 2 Thesalonians 1:6-9?
I take something like this in context with many other scriptures, and come to the conclusion that the intent and motivations of this scripture as written may be misleading.
I can understand your concern, though.
Consider, could following the gospel of our Lord Jesus be more about what is in our hearts (goodness) rather than our outward rituals? Could this vengence refer to people who sin agains their own conscience, commiting horrible atrocaties? Certainly such people exist, neh? You assume it referrs to you and your lack of faith because of your questioning mind. Remember the unchastized Thomas.
quote:Hell, the chances that you'd have believed in one form of Christianity or another if you hadn't been born into it are actually really low! Most people born into Muslim families stay Muslim throughout their lives. Most Christians stay Christians. That doesn't speak well of the strength of your creed over theirs, you know.
And what do you know of my creeds? It is doctrine in my church that people can accept the gospel after death, that missionary work goes on after this life, that Christ Himself organized that effort when He visited the world of spirits after His death on the cross. I can give you the pertinent scriptures, if you are interested.
In our church, we perform ordinances, like baptism, oh behalf of those who have died, in temples. This practice is found deeply insulting by many, but it is our way of doing our small the gospel to all people. We believe that the corresponding efforts of teaching and explaining, are done on the other side by the dead who believe in Christ, and that the baptism done for them on earth may or may not be accepted by their free choice.
The New Testament talks about baptism for the dead.
quote:But if this silent God that's never spoken to me no matter how hard I tried, who has never been shown to me to have appeared to anyone in a way any more convincing than a person claiming to have visitations from aliens (which used to come from Venus and Mars before people learned that they were utterly uninhabited. Now people claim they come from other galaxies, as their knowledge of the universe grows little by little), and who has also never shown any primacy over the thousands of other gods which other people believe in, which they create when they are isolated from any contact from the Jewish people (if you think otherwise, ask those people who believe in the other gods! They'll beg to differ), whose miracles in the modern day are in fact no better than the miracles of those other contradictory religions just so happens to be the real one, it's going to be an interesting afterlife, without a doubt.
I am patient. Maybe when I die that will be the end and I will never know it. Things will be as they will be. For me, now I will choose to have faith.
quote:I dunno about you specifically, but many Christians believe homosexuality is wrong, and that homosexuals themselves are sinners, for their actions.
Yes, we believe that homosexual sex is not something that is sanctioned by God. (Nor, indeed, any sex outside of marriage.) I understand that you and many others believe that is harmful and causes more evil in the world. I don't expect you to easily understand the reasons for this belief.
I try my best to maintain my belief in a way that causes as little pain to others as possible. I have often pondered what would happen if one of my children found themselves attracted only to their same sex. I would teach them my beliefs, but would totally understand them falling in love with someone of their gender and wanting the fulfillment that comes from a complete union with that person. It would be difficult to say the least, for them to choose not to. I would love and respect them with either choice they made. But it is true that I would not sanction such a union. Yes, I would be causing them pain because of my beliefs, no matter how kind I was.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's worth noting that I never claimed the "father" in that analogy punished arbitrarily. Rather, I said that some siblings said he punished in ways which evidence appeared to contradict, and others promised indefinite future whuppings.
The nature of God is completely irrelevant to the issue of whether God exists, except insofar as specific claims about God appear internally inconsistent (or the reverse).
quote:Sounds a lot like the second coming of Christ. So maybe this is coming and is inevitable? Once it happens, it will certainly change our ability to live by faith. When our doubt is removed, it changes our ability to "prove" what sort of people we are when we are "in the dark."
Why is living by faith supposed to be a good thing?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Gee, it seem to work for religion, though!
Javert, I would also (with some need hesitation or at least need for clarification) put scripture in its own category because it is specifically an inspired record of a people's relationship with the Divine. Also, particularly the New Testament are a record of a specific person, who I believe was so in relationship to the Divine that He was, himself fully God.
There. That's probably different!
That would be different, yes.
Of course, I would be fine with putting scripture in a subcategory within books. But my category would encompass all scriptures, and taken with the appropriate grains of sodium.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is living by faith supposed to be a good thing?
Short answer: I don't know, but I have some theories.
Long answer: If we accept that an important part of living by faith is not as much a certainty in the existance of God but what kind of ideologies we strive to adhere to, then this life is a test to see if we will choose goodness on our own with a limited understanding.
The teachings of God are "out there." They can be found in the scriptures (though sometimes incomplete or altered). The same truths can be found in many places in the world around us, often in the inspiration of our fellow men.
But if we accept the idea that the only source of pure, unadulterated truth and goodness comes from God, then a belief in God and a correct understanding of His teachings and attributes can lead to a more correct understanding of the sort of person we are to become.
Since scripture can at times be fallible and even modern prophets might fail, we each are responsible to seek personal revelation, and to listen to the divine spark within us.
At the risk of suggesting that we each create and worship our own "god", I think that the sort of beliefs that we develop about God (or Goodness, if you are an atheist) speak a lot to the sort of person that we are.
Edit: Forgot to conclude! So, if having a perfect knowledge of God removes some of our agency in "seeing what we will do" in struggling to find our own sense of truth and goodness, the "test" is messed up when God pulls back the curtain and says, "Peekaboo!"
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
