I don't see it. I really don't. I've asked this question in threads before and no one has put forward their view point. I'm not asking why faith is important for Christians, God says you've got to have faith, so you've got to have it. OK. Why does God say you have to have faith? Why is it 'good' to believe and 'wrong' to doubt the existence of God? Why won't God reveal himself to someone who lacks faith? Why does God choose to reward people who willingly believe without question? Bear in mind that I'm talking about willingly believing humans who say 'this is what God said', 'this is what God's like', 'these are God's laws'. Why is it wrong to think that humans, who are so flawed in their nature, might be mistaken, or lying for their own benefit? Why doesn't he reward those of us who desperately seek him, anywhere and everywhere he could conceivably be, rather than people who've had the Bible handed to them and told 'if you do what it says in this book, you'll spend eternity in paradise'. Why does God reward faith?
Neither do I. Surely to question God and his(her!) doctrines could be seen as the ultimate test of faith? As God is unprovable faith is necessary for belief in him. The problem with the whole religion malarky is that it is a very emotive subject, maybe people do not like to question their own faith and I have certainly been on the receiving end of people who take any question of faith very very personally. Pesronally, I would have thought to an omniscient higher being, blind faith would fall into the same category as no faith.
I don't know.....maybe it does! Faith in God is not blind. There is sufficient evidence to make you look, there is sufficient evidence to make you ask the question. There is sufficient evidence to make a rational choice about many things, and for those things that you don't know or can't know, then you have faith, based on all that 'case history' where you did have enough evidence. Every Monday through Friday morning, I get up, get dressed, get the kids dressed and drive them to the bus stop for school. But, guess what? I don't know how my power steering works. I know some things about internal combustion, I understand what spark plugs do, but when it comes down to it, I have to just take it on faith that my power steering will work on Monday morning, the same as it worked out last Friday night. You aren't going to know everything. May I suggest starting with those things you do know, and building from there.
Don't get me wrong, I would view blind faith as unquestionable belief. I do however, believe any religious person of whatever faith may at times question their faith. "Why me" and so on. I think for believers the essence of faith is maybe to question, yet still believe. On the other hand, I have a kind of non-religious faith. I tend to think most people are not that bad after all. Even the worst people I have met (and I mean worst, I have met some low low people) have had redeeming qualities. I believe as it were, in human nature. You might call that the essential holy spirit or whatever, but I really believe most human beings are not all that bad. Some are, but most are not.
Faith is a reward that you give yourself. It is more than a belief in god. It is a belief in your own abilities to trust your inner guidence where ever it takes you. As long as you are doing your best, even if you fail. Faith in yourself and the belief that things will get better, will get you over any road block no matter how many times you fall. Faith keeps you going. Without faith, what other option is there in life? To lay down and die? To me, its that simple. Faith is not a question of pleasing god or anybody else. Its the force that pushes you through life so that you can keep reaching for your best potential, even in the face of adversity. Its about keeping it positive and not letting the negaitive get the best of you. :love: Faith= :woo: adversity :cry: Lack of Faith= :bang: True story of A & B: A & B are going through similiar problems right now. A is cool headed and at peace, because A has faith in A's abilities to pull A's self out of A's situation and A knows with the neccasary faith and effort, everything will be ok. No matter how it turns out, A will be fine in the end. B however, is letting the imperfections of the moment, take over B's mind. Which is driving B and everyone around B crazy. The more B thinks about how nothings working out, the more things work out that way, and the angrier B get's. The problems become so amplified in B's mind, that all B wants to do now, is run away through drugs and alcohol. Conclusion. A has more energy and peace of mind to make life work out and get closer to the goal. While B gets stuck deeper and deeper in depression, and the goal becomes further away. Same situation, two totally different ways to look at it. The difference is faith, and lack of it.
I think religious faith teaches people, usually at a young age that is it a virtue to not ask for evidence. Maybe it is a comfort thing or maybe it’s just how they were raised. I personally don’t need it. I feel freer by living my own path and what I feel is necessary for me, than being limited to a pre existing path and having to adapt my life to it. Even if there is a God, why do we have to worship him? Until the supposed God himself speaks to me and says do this, I regard the whole notion of God irrelevant. I’ve only even heard of “God” through other humans and I’d rather do things first hand. If someone basis their belief on evidence then surly they would choose the side which has more of it, and which is more compelling. To add to that, people need to see all the “evidence” from all ideas and theories in order to make an informed conclusion, but I doubt many people actually do this, especially children. When there is no evidence, then surly no solid conclusion should be made. Most people say there is lots of evidence for God, but most of this “evidence” is Catch-22 as it requites you to already have the belief and faith, which in turn makes the evidence you’re looking for unnecessary. Evidence according to my definition should make a strong case for the hypothesis in question. Bibles, world of mouth, science defying events and revelations are not evidence. I would disagree that faith in God is not blind as most young people believe in it simply because they were told to, or were not shown opposite ideas. A child of devout Jewish parents will not have any experience and/or knowledge of other beliefs, so how can their belief not be blind. Surly the best way I to look at all ideas, then decide for ones self. This is straw man as we do know how they work. Just because one doesn’t know something, doesn’t mean it should be disregarded or regarded untrue. I don’t know about a lot of things, but I don’t disregard them. Anyone can go and read books about something they don’t understand and educate themselves on it. Incidentally, the only evidence for God and your religion is from another human being and you must have faith for it to “work” or mean anything, whereas spark plugs and power steering do not require the users faith for them to work. Can you elaborate on why people should start with what they do know and working from that. Isn’t it better to build on your knowledge, not just harbour what your have.
Why do you think that you can fit the mind of God into a human mind? That's a blatant contradiction of the word "God." This question presupposes that God is real. Given that, you can't really ask why it's wrong to believe a lie. The answer is self-evident. By definition, the first time God reveals himself to a person, the person lacked faith in God. Honor. It's the same reason that soldiers are rewarded for fulfilling orders without question. It's not. But turn it around: When the humans show that they are accurate, it is clearly wrong to reject what that say. Focus on the message, not the messenger, for a change. He does.
It changes a lot if the messenger is a supposed deity. Atheists simply have morality, religious people add in a supreme being. If the message your talking about, morality/good, is the most important part, why all of the other stuff? We’ve clearly illustrated that the other stuff is not required to live moral.
Either you have misunderstood my question, or I have misunderstood your answer. (What do you mean by that response? I really don't understand what you are saying.) OK, let me rephrase it, why is it a 'sin' to believe something that is incorrect? Yes, we are assuming that God is real. We have a God who is real, and a load of humans who do not know whether or not God is real, and don't know what to believe. Why are those who happen to choose 'believe in God' rewarded, while those who happen to choose 'believe there is no God' are punished? If you've got two boxes, one containing a ticket to the bahamas and one containing a tickets to the far reaches of the solar system with no provision of a spacesuit, and the boxes are identical except that one is painted blue and one if painted purple, and someone who claims to have provided the ticket to the bahamas says to you 'I heard the bahamas ticket is in the blue one', is it 'good' to go with their suggestion, and 'bad' to ignore them? Cos that's the situation I see myself in. If you don't know which message is the lie, and have no way of knowing for sure, why is it deserving of punishment if you happen to pick the option which turns out to be wrong, when all you could really do anyway was make a guess? But more what I was asking - it's not even as simple as picking a box. Because to believe requires you to be convinced, and if you're not convinced by all the evidence you see around you, there's not a lot you can really do about it, except for look for more evidence. So even if you happen to believe the right message, that's just because you're willing to accept what someone tells you for no reason, other than you are rather more easily convinced of things you don't know about than other people. If we're talking about definitions, then no, by definition, if someone has had God revealed (and I mean actually revealed) to them, they no longer have *faith* in God, they KNOW God exists. I'm talking aobut what you people call revelation. When you see signs that God exists, not proof. I know that I say I wouldn't be convinced by it anyway, but it's not like people are saying 'well, he does, you just ignore it', I have people saying to me that God will not do anything to reveal himself to me unless I have faith. I do not see the virtue in following orders without question. A lot of Jews got killed by people doing that in the second world war. If you just say 'honor', that doesn't really give it that much of a context, I'm not sure what you mean by 'honor', there are many definitions in the dictionary, and I'm not sure which one you mean. It is not the message I lack faith in. If I knew that the messenger could be trusted, it would all be fine. I don't trust human being to have got the message of God right. I have yet to find a human being who is always accurate in what he says, or even a human being who is verifiably accurate for part of the time that he says something. But the former does not have faith, and the latter does. That contradicts the Bible.
I agree. To add to this though, your actions as an adult depend on and are influenced by how you were raised, which you don’t have a choice over. So to say someone chooses not to follow/accept God isn’t really their choice as such, it is down to the fact the they were raised to not simply believe what there are told, but rather test things for themselves and look at evidence. I know aikiMac believes in free will, but free will only exists within the boundaries of ones character. Free will is not the ability to do what ever one what to do across an open plane, as this will clearly contradict your character and morals etc. For example, you don’t have the free will to believe homosexuality is or isn’t wrong, rather, you believe it is wrong because you were raised to believe in that manner. A change in that belief can happen, but not via total free will, it would be determind in some way.
To have faith in God is to say you trust him [or her] in simple terms Why is it 'good' to believe? The bible says,"God rejoices when wick turn around and do good." Why is it 'wrong' to doubt the existence of God? It's like a family member saying to you,"You, no longer have any "existence" in my life." If I have my biblical facts right, Apostle Paul [or Peter] was known for publicly denouncing God. God seen Paul's heart, attempted to convert paul, and paul converted. In the bible, God actually calls a person of "blind faith" a fool. In the bible it says that there will be those who use the name of God, but god will not recognize them. So, not everyone who claims to have faith is in favor with God. It all comes down to the heart of the person. Jer. 17:10 10"I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.
You asked why God made the world the way that he made the world. Well, he just did. We could spend a week listing all the things that God could have done differently, but none of that matters -- things are they way they are because that's the way they are. Let's remember the context. You're not asking about mispelling a word or the family tree of the kings of Spain. You're talking about not believing that which God has already explicitly told you is crucial. You're not in a position to deny that you've already been told. Your very questions reveal that you've already gotten the message from God. With that context in mind, your doubt is functionally equivalent to calling God a liar. The answer to your question is, therefore, self-evident. Poor analogy -- open the box and look for yourself. You already have the ability to read the Bible for yourself, and you already have study references available to you. That you don't do it is your own fault. You're in no position to blame anyone else. Ill-formed question. You do have a way of knowing for sure: Read the book yourself, along with a commentary or two to help you over the rough spots. Those are functionally the same. The commanding German officers rewarded the German soldiers who guarded and killed the Jews. Likewise all commanding officers from all armies in all nations in all time periods rewarding obedient soldiers. The specifics of what they did is not the issue here. The fact that they did it is the issue here. You're making a problem where there is no problem, and that makes you look silly, and that is your own fault. You really need to stop blaming other people and start focussing on yourself. The messenger can be trusted. The messenger has already been scrutinized to the Nth degree, and you know that, and all that you ever need to know is available for your reading pleasure, but you're consciously choosing to close your eyes.
Perhaps you have not had responses, as Christians may see your questions as either loaded, or unpleasantly phrased. I can't speak for Christians (Not being one), but I think it's a disrespectfully facile to suggest that their faith is based on something "God told them". If you are genuinely interested in exploring and learning about Christianity, you may wish to sign up for a Bible study... Many Christian groups offer the mainstream Alpha Course, or there may be courses of a more academic and theological nature at a local University. I'm sure either venue would provide plenty of opportunity to ask questions and discuss various aspects of Christian faith.
Who are you to judge whether she has or has not got a message from God Do you really think if she had a genuine message from God, she would be doubting? Why is she not in the position to deny she has been told? That a ridiculous assumption! As i posted at beginning of the thread...... Most people say there is lots of evidence for God, but most of this “evidence” is Catch-22 as it requites you to already have the belief and faith, which in turn makes the evidence you’re looking for unnecessary. Evidence according to my definition should make a strong case for the hypothesis in question. Bibles, world of mouth, science defying events and revelations are not evidence, especially when one must have faith in order to see them as evidence. This is fallacy as there is not one medal giver for the whole world, but for every nation. Whereas there is only one God to judge. Would the German officials have given medals to the British? Likewise, would British official have given medals to the Germans? Of course not. People get judged by their respective leader(s), religion is no different. Soldiers followed order because they were given the orders directly, not via a book. The problem is not the “orders” per se (although I don’t agree with them all), it's the fact were simply expected to have faith. No rational person would just have faith without real tangible evidence. “I can fly”, I presume you have faith I can. The messengers are human beings from thoudends of years ago, who we only know about from a book. I will not base my life around that.
Poogle, I am the owner/manager of a local bookstore specializing in Christian books, Bibles, commentaries, and other references. I regularly attend conferences with other bookstore owners and suppliers. I am familiar with the Alpha Course (which BTW was started in the UK), and I think that this is an excellent suggestion. The Alpha course will cover the basics, length and breadth, of Christian belief, at a level specifically to allow understanding and discussion. In all honesty, it might not answer your deepest longings for proof/evidence, but it will make any/all discussion a lot more fruitful and enjoyable for you, as you will have a solid background and be able to speak the 'language'. Anyone offering the Alpha Course will probably also be more than willing to spend time talking to you one-on-one to address specific concerns/questions you might have.
1. so then why do you propose to understand it? 2. Because they get paid and promoted? How could you possibly construe it as anything other than blind? Lack of evidence, dosen't propose proof.
This may sound like a loaded statement, but I don't mean to offend. In truth, no real Christan should be offended by people who question faith. I have found that usualy offence comes as a response to the fear that maybe their faith isn't as rock solid as they thought it might be. ( Sorta like a few hundered years ago when europe got all offened becase they were told that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe) I think that any Christan that is confortable with their standings in hte religous would welcome a qestion or two beacse if you truly believe these questions will only stengthen you faith and if you don't and they weaken your faith, may you should consider a new religion.
I completely agree, but it's also important to note that a lot of such "questioning" is veiled insult and attack, not respectful and intelligent inquiry. And Christians are human: Despite parables about turning the other check, they are likely to be offended at such an attack, just like anyone else. That being said, I do agree that both external skepticism and personal self-scrutiny are healthy.
