Ship of Fools: How do you know whether or not you have faith?

Thread: How do you know whether or not you have faith? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028107

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I'm not sure if I've ever had any faith (Christian faith, in my case Roman Catholic or at least small-c catholic). I'm not sure how one really know if one does have faith or not.

Is it because:

a. Someone acts like they have faith (ie, has "good fruits" form their faith).

b. Someone says that they have faith (and in spite of doubt manages to keep their words in line with their faith, even if they are respectful to the beliefs of others).

c. Someone thinks they have faith (this is the one I find the most difficult to understand because I really have no clue what I believe about things as abstract as religion, let alone whether or not I will believe that the next day, hour, or minute).

d. Someone "feels" that they have faith, regardless of their rational thoughts about it. (This also confuses me, because I do not know the difference between feeling like I am bathed in the love of my Redeemer and just feeling happy about the world I live in and the people around me...It's really easy through breath control and looking at something beautiful for me to have an experience that feels like some kind of epiphany, just like I can have such an experience in a particularly quiet or rousing church service - how do I know if those feelings come from faith or not?)

e. Something else?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Like you, I've often wondered what faith 'means'. When I recite the creed, as I did on Sunday evening, in what sense was I aligning myself with those words? Intellectually? Emotionally? Psychologically? Aesthetically?

I once heard a monk say on TV that in the face of various objections to faith proposed by some commentators, all he could say was that the biblical text fed him. I think I can relate to that. The Jesus-story feeds me. Something inside of me responds to it. I think the same applies to specific Christian doctrines, to a greater or lesser extent; they simply feel 'complete', natural in their supernaturalness, as it were. Or else they feel like secondary matters about which we can disagree, or which we can be unsure or uneducated about without ceasing to be Christians as a result.

A religion has to be codified if it is to be coherent and durable (I think...), even if it's taken as read that each believer will have a different way of understanding faith, be at a different point of spiritual maturity, and have a different calling in the sense of putting the complicated words and ideas into practice.

This is how ISTM, anyway.

[ 02. March 2015, 20:38: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Svitlana, a very nice post. I find faith a strange idea. But the idea of being fed is excellent; also, being nourished. I find different religions nourishing, so I am a kind of nomad.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

For several decades I "had faith" for the same reason that I voted a specific political party - it's what I was told. God was assumed the way the "world is round" and "water is blue" were assumed - intellectually assented to because taught that, but no effect on daily life, which of course means I lost interest. Why spend time, money, attention on something that has no effect? I certainly wouldn't have died to defend any of these taught/inherited impersonal beliefs.

Today I have my own experiential reasons for thinking the world round and water colorless (not blue!) regardless of what anyone tries to teach me. I also have my own experiential reasons to believe God exists and interacts with us (on God's terms); no one trying to convince me otherwise will succeed because the belief is based on personal dynamic experience not just on academic lessons. By contrast, the church's focus on "inherited teachings" is, to me, a fragile if not imitation faith. YMMV

If (generic) you believe only because you were taught, you can easily be persuaded otherwise by a different teacher. If your belief is based on your own personal experience, you won't easily turn your back on that experience-based learning.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Sometimes it is down to dogged determination, rather than thinking or feeling.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

I have no (zilch / nada / zero) experiences that in any way indicate God exists, Belle Ringer. Maybe God just likes you more than me!

[ 02. March 2015, 22:14: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Belle Ringer: water colorless (not blue!)

?

Water is blue.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Belle Ringer: water colorless (not blue!)
?

Water is blue.

In Minnesota! Not in Texas

Water reflects the sky. yellow & pink etc, or green and white

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I have no (zilch / nada / zero) experiences that in any way indicate God exists, Belle Ringer. Maybe God just likes you more than me!

More likely thinks I'm needier than you.

But also, I was challenged at some point to keep a prayer list. Specifically ask God, if there is a God, for specific things I want that I can believe a God would like to make available and small enough that I can genuinely believe the prayer likely to be answered. Not "world peace" (it's too big, what does it mean - a world dictator? And it would seem to require major personality changes and values changes by many thousands of politicians and rebels) but "help me find some way to enjoy the family gathering a bit instead of getting upset as usual" might be a good one.

Any time I make a list adding daily whatever small desires arise, small enough for me to fully believe it can happen without requiring any major changes in anyone's life or the ways of the world (i.e. asking for help not for defying nature miracles), praying about the requests daily, checking off the ones that happen or that I decide I really don't care about, do it for a month - for me it's amazing what a high proportion gets checked off, and an even higher proportion if I keep the list for 3 months (lots of things don't happen right away).

I realize a determined skeptic will say "most of them would have happened anyway" which if the list is things like "the sun will come up tomorrow" is true, but why would one feel a need to actively request something that was obviously going to happen anyway?

[ 03. March 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Belle Ringer: Water reflects the sky.

No that's wrong. The sea is blue because that is the colour of water. It is very light blue; so light that if you have a small quantity, it looks colourless. But in large amounts (like a sea or a lake), it is blue. Seas or lakes can look yellow, pink, green or white because lighting or stuff that's in the water. But the water is blue.

I think Wikipedia has a page about the colour of water (I can't access Wikipedia right now).

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In Minnesota! Not in Texas

Water reflects the sky.

As LeRoc says, water is mostly transparent, but very slightly blue. This is different from what you might see reflected from the surface of bodies of water.

Water is blue because there's a high-order vibrational mode of the O-H bond in water in the red part of the visible spectrum, so water absorbs a little more red light than blue. Ice is blue for the same reason.

The sky is blue because of Rayleigh scattering, which isn't the same reason.

ETA: Deep lakes and seas are also blue because there's scattering of light from particles suspended in the water. Deep sees and lakes are sufficiently deep that no light can reflect from the sea bed - it's all absorbed first.

[ 03. March 2015, 01:22: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

This is a very interesting question. The best I can say is that through and despite all the various vicissitudes of life, there is at the very core of me something that believes.

M.

Posted by Nicodemia (# 4756) on :

Can you "decide to have faith"?

I was told to "decide not to doubt". Replied that was impossible. Doubt was already there, you can't just decide to get rid of it. But can you decide to have faith, even if it is not really there?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I don't know. But what I do know is that you cannot have without having at least some doubt at the same time, as faith implies belief rather than proven certainty.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I've been through this argument many times with naive Christians, (well, they seemed naive to me), who insisted that I could decide to believe stuff. After going through the usual points (can you believe that Paris is the capital of Germany), I would usually give up. I just don't see how I control my own thoughts and beliefs. Well, maybe I can shut some out.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
This is a very interesting question. The best I can say is that through and despite all the various vicissitudes of life, there is at the very core of me something that believes.

M.

This is true for me too, though with varying degrees of intensity.

I don't think I can really articulate why, but I think that at least some of my response is because at the most difficult times in my life those who have been most steadfast in their lovingkindness have been people of faith, Christian or Buddhist (though not sure 'faith' is technically the right word for the latter).

I realise many people posting on this board have not been so fortunate, and I've often reacted in sorrow or outright anger in reading how people who claim to be Christian have treated others who are vulnerable.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.

Huia

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've been through this argument many times with naive Christians, (well, they seemed naive to me), who insisted that I could decide to believe stuff. After going through the usual points (can you believe that Paris is the capital of Germany), I would usually give up. I just don't see how I control my own thoughts and beliefs. Well, maybe I can shut some out.

I've wondered about this too, though I get it from the opposite side, so to speak. People insisting that I have decided to believe something (i.e. Christianity, or a particular teaching thereof) and therefore I can decide to stop believing it, and why don't I, for goodness' sake? Usually with some sort of emotional inducement offered, such as "If you'd only stop believing X, you'd be more fashionable and up-to-date... be able to make more money (doing something I find morally dubious)... not have to do such-and-such an unpleasant duty" (e.g. forgiving an enemy).

Leaving all the ethical issues aside, I usually ask them exactly how they decide to believe or stop believing something. At which point they look at me like I've grown two heads and say, "You just DO it."

I tend to give up on the conversation at that point.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've been through this argument many times with naive Christians, (well, they seemed naive to me), who insisted that I could decide to believe stuff. After going through the usual points (can you believe that Paris is the capital of Germany), I would usually give up. I just don't see how I control my own thoughts and beliefs. Well, maybe I can shut some out.

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

(Lewis Carroll - for light relief).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I once remembering hearing in a Baptist sermon that faith is an act of will. Romantic love has been described in similar terms.

To my mind, this is a potentially useful way of understanding both faith and love, because it gives us some control over our lives, rather than leaving us helplessly at the whim of our emotions, which are always changing. We're agents who can live and act in such as way as to enhance our bonds with our spouse or our Redeemer, rather than having to terminate the connection simply because 'the spark has gone', as it were.

One of the downsides of Pentecostal/charismatic-type religion, ISTM, is that feelings are expected to carry all before them, whereas we know from experience that this isn't necessarily how things go. John Wesley in his spiritual anxiety was told to live faith until he had it, and he did so to great effect. I'm also reminded of Mark 9 ('I believe; help my unbelief'), which indicates how complicated faith can be.

Of course, faith can't be an act of will if the will itself is crumbling. If you've really lost interest then you might as well move on and stop talking to 'naïve Christians' about these things. There are plenty of Christians around who would prefer to talk about foodbanks or Fairtrade biscuits, or whatever!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I don't really understand faith as an act of will. For example, I'm not particularly interested in Islam - well, could I become interested in it as an act of will? Possibly. But could I start to believe in it? I find that hard to believe.

One of the old debating points was, could an atheist become a theist tomorrow, and vice versa. You could certainly go through the motions.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

I'm going to channel Gamaliel here and say that it's not an either/or but a both/and [Smile]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Faith as an act of will reminds me of the 12-step adage to "fake it until you make it" - which is often told to those members of AA, NA, etc., who do not believe in God and don't even like the idea of any higher power whatsoever. They are advised to go through the 12 steps and the other parts of the recovery program with the same personal investment that someone who believed in them would make. Granted, 12-step programs only have like a 2-3% success rate because most people do not make this personal investment (for any number of reasons), but for those who do, whether they believe in the program or in a Higher Power or not, acting like they do often results in success in their recovery.

I hate the 12 steps and all the ideology surrounding them with a passion (long story, too long for this thread). But that is beside the point. I agree that acting as if one is in a relationship with an awesome, loving God and Redeemer that intervenes in our lives will strengthen one's tendency to identify with a belief in that relationship and will also give one a tendency to see God's hand in little things that happen or do not happen each day (I am also speaking from experience). But is that faith or just cognitive-behavioral conditioning?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

But first, I have to get the will to act as if I am in a relationship with an awesome God. Where do I get that from, and why would I?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't really understand faith as an act of will. For example, I'm not particularly interested in Islam - well, could I become interested in it as an act of will? Possibly. But could I start to believe in it? I find that hard to believe.

One of the old debating points was, could an atheist become a theist tomorrow, and vice versa. You could certainly go through the motions.

Well, I've certainly heard atheists argue that Christians only have a small step to make towards atheism since they believe in just one god rather than a whole pantheon of them!

As for Islam, I live in a very Muslim area, and as I look around me I often wonder if I could become a Muslim. Other people from a similar background as mine have done so. It would require taking on a new culture and social network, not simply a change of world view. But many people do come to a religion as a result of an appealing social and psychological context ('believing before belonging'), not simply or primarily as a set of attractive theological ideas. Conversely, I imagine that loss of faith is probably related to a declining sense of belonging forn many people.

So faith can come and go, which is why it's unwise for Christians to take their faith for granted. In that sense I agree with you. Claims about the firmness of one's faith should be tempered with humility, as we don't know what tomorrow will bring. Even wise Solomon turned to other gods. But OTOH it should be said that in the Christian religion all faith is an act of will, in the sense that faith must be grounded in works or else it's dead (James 2). IOW, it's not simply about how we feel, or about the intellectual assent we give to particular doctrines.

[ 03. March 2015, 16:26: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Looking back I'm pretty sure the only reason I've become involved with Catholicism and Christianity (considering I was not raised to be religious) was:

1. I wanted to see if being part of a community with rules and morals (and a desire to do good in the world) would make me a better person and make me feel better about myself.

2. I wanted to get in touch with my family's historical religious roots (although other parts of my ancestral family tree (the minority) were Lutheran and Anglican). I felt awful that I couldn't be a godparent to one of my Catholic siblings or other relatives' children, although even now I still have never been asked to be.

3. I loved the Christian music we sang in choir in school, and wanted to understand it better. I also wanted to understand all the references to Christianity and Catholicism in particular that were in literature, history, art, etc., and that I only seemed to get a superficial knowledge of in school while looking at them "from the outside."

4. Transubstantiation, baby. Sacred mysteries that for all intents and purposes sound like cannibalism and that (at least in conservative denominations) should only be received by the people who were doctrinally or morally in the right "state" (ooh, exclusivity) all sounded very sexy.

5. Catholicism in particular, especially if you play with its theology like a stereotypical Jesuit, can appear to say just about anything and its opposite at the same time through an unnecessarily complex jargon of Godspeak. I certainly was not going to associate myself with any religion promising a clear answer to things - how boring.

None of these things sound remotely like faith. In my life, I've also had some exposure through my mom to New Age-y movements and the Hindu and Buddhist traditions they rob from, plus (starting in high school and especially in college onward) I've been surrounded by many very happy atheists and agnostics. I don't really see anything "drawing" me to the church or to Jesus that is any different from what draws the people in those other faith/non-faith traditions to their worldview, aside from the very shallow things listed above.

So other than doing church-y things, practicing Christian-y morality, and parroting Christian talk (other than on this thread, natch) - do I have any reason to think that I have even an iota of Christian faith?

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

What if we substitute the word "trust" for "faith"? Might that help clear this up?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
What if we substitute the word "trust" for "faith"? Might that help clear this up?

Not for me. If I am urged to trust in Jesus, or for that matter, in my local shaman, I still have to locate in myself the will to do that. But why would I do that? Maybe I need the will to locate my will!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The "faith=will" position makes a lot more sense when we're talking about maintaining faith once it's already in existence. In that case, we're talking about faith in the sense of faithfulness--fidelity--keeping one's commitments in the face of passing moods.

We're not talking about stubborn holding-on-to-faith in the face of real counter evidence; any such evidence needs evaluating, of course, and that's fine.

What we are talking about is not just allowing yourself (once you are a Christian already) to drift aimlessly away from the faith through mere carelessness, or because you don't "feel it" today, or any of a myriad illogical excuses.

To change the analogy, once you marry the guy (girl), you keep working on the marriage.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quetzalcoatl

You implied above that the idea of being nourished by a religious story/tradition/idea appealed to you. But you're resistant to the notion of faith. What is the difference between the two things, in your mind?

[ 03. March 2015, 18:50: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quetzalcoatl

You implied above that the idea of being nourished by a religious story/tradition/idea appealed to you. But you're resistant to the notion of faith. What is the difference between the two things, in your mind?

That's an interesting question. Faith (or trust), for me, is pre-emptive; so we take things 'on trust'. But with a symbol or story, I can take it as is - or not. I suppose this is referring to commitment; I just plumb ran out of it. As I said, I'm a nomad; I enjoy the faiths of the world, in so far as I'm able and willing.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The "faith=will" position makes a lot more sense when we're talking about maintaining faith once it's already in existence. In that case, we're talking about faith in the sense of faithfulness--fidelity--keeping one's commitments in the face of passing moods.

We're not talking about stubborn holding-on-to-faith in the face of real counter evidence; any such evidence needs evaluating, of course, and that's fine.

What we are talking about is not just allowing yourself (once you are a Christian already) to drift aimlessly away from the faith through mere carelessness, or because you don't "feel it" today, or any of a myriad illogical excuses.

To change the analogy, once you marry the guy (girl), you keep working on the marriage.

But it's different than a marriage because in a marriage you know that the other partner exists when you marry them. You also know that you believe that the other partner exists when you marry them. I am not talking about doubts that cause one to lose one's faith. I am talking about doubt that cause someone to question whether or not their faith was ever there to begin with.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've heard the suggestion, when people have to get on with someone really difficult, that they should live 'as if' they liked them, even if they didn't. Apparently it is a lot less stressful to do this, rather than fighting all the time, and may eventually lead to natural liking.

Perhaps faith can be encouraged this way too. I'm pretty sure there are a significant number of priests, ministers and other churchgoers, who live 'as if' they believe, even when they are going through a time of strong doubts.

Posted by DOEPUBLIC (# 13042) on :

And if the partner doesn't appear to be responding ?
Faith by association or dissassociation.
Disciplining self or being disciplined ?
You don't stop being good, but is it for God-ness sake.? God spelling or good spelling ? God's news or good news ?

[ 03. March 2015, 22:44: Message edited by: DOEPUBLIC ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

One can "choose to" believe something if it's an abstract fact that has nothing to do with daily life. You can choose to believe somewhere in the universe is a planet with oceans of petroleum, or choose to believe that's a silly idea, and nothing in life is affected either way, so choosing is easy and uneventful.

Gets more awkward when life is affected. You can choose to believe the girl in the desk across the classroom from you loves you, but that belief will be challenged or reinforced by events, attempted interactions, and responses received. The chosen belief will be modified/abandoned (or reinforced) by experience that is hard to ignore when "choosing" what to believe.

We can choose to *behave* in ways that invite belief or disbelief, by choices of activities (pray, or reject the thought), and by who we mostly hang around with (believers or skeptics). Our chosen behaviors don't guarantee faith or non-faith but can make one route more likely than the other.

Yet, an activity that leads one person towards faith leads another away. For example, church attendance - a behavior some choose to explore the possibility of a God - pulls me into disinterest. Different personalities respond differently to the same stimulus. So it's hard to say what behaviors a person should choose if they want to invite faith.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
In Minnesota! Not in Texas

Water reflects the sky.
As LeRoc says, water is mostly transparent, but very slightly blue.

The artist and the scientist see and think differently. I no longer believe the scientist's way is always the most valuable or only accurate way to approach and interpret reality. I'm working to learn to see the art of reality.

Ask an artist what color water is, you'll get a lot more answers than "blue." Real life answers from personally observing real bodies of water. More fun and more experientially true than just the scientist's "blue."

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The "faith=will" position makes a lot more sense when we're talking about maintaining faith once it's already in existence. In that case, we're talking about faith in the sense of faithfulness--fidelity--keeping one's commitments in the face of passing moods.

We're not talking about stubborn holding-on-to-faith in the face of real counter evidence; any such evidence needs evaluating, of course, and that's fine.

What we are talking about is not just allowing yourself (once you are a Christian already) to drift aimlessly away from the faith through mere carelessness, or because you don't "feel it" today, or any of a myriad illogical excuses.

To change the analogy, once you marry the guy (girl), you keep working on the marriage.
But it's different than a marriage because in a marriage you know that the other partner exists when you marry them. You also know that you believe that the other partner exists when you marry them. I am not talking about doubts that cause one to lose one's faith. I am talking about doubt that cause someone to question whether or not their faith was ever there to begin with.

Okay. I'm assuming from what you just wrote that this is a person who once was a Christian, at least in the opinion of himself and others; baptized, communicant, aware of the basic teachings of the Christian faith, particularly with regard to who Jesus is and what he did, and agreeing with them. Is that right?

If not, disregard everything I'm about to write. It doesn't apply. Let me know, and I'll take another stab.

If so, then the question becomes: Why am I (general I) feeling this terrible doubt? Is it because some new logical objection or evidence has cropped up against the faith? In that case, the thing to do is go consult some old, wise, educated Christians and lay the difficulty before them. Several different people, if necessary. It is extremely unlikely that I have just now run across the evidence-to-end-all-evidence that will overturn Christianity, and this particular issue has eluded all the great minds of the past 2000 years. It is far more likely that a good answer (or at least approach to the problem) exists out there, and if we ask around, someone will point us to it.

So.

Now if the answer to "What is causing my extreme doubt" is a non-logical, emotion-based thingy (technical term [Biased]

), then it's time to think again. Mere moods in either direction are not proof or disproof of Christianity; the same goes for gut feelings, likes and dislikes, and so forth. Those things exist, and can make the Christian life very uncomfortable indeed, but they do not affect the question of whether Christianity is actually true. If Christianity is true, then it is true in spite of my existential angst and my horror at the evil of the world; if Christianity is false, then it is false in spite of whatever warm fuzzies and burnings in my bosom I may be feeling when I pray or attend worship.

So, what to do when I feel this aching, horrid doubt that God is real, that Christ exists, that anybody out there gives a shit? There are a lot of suggestions, and some help some people and some help others. In my case, when one of these moods hits, I do this.

First of all, I pray about it. Honestly. As in, "God, I'm not even sure you exist anymore, and also I'm mad as hell that you allowed X to happen in my life when it's so evil." etc. etc. etc.

Second, I go back to the ordinary sources of Christian strength and help. That is, I read the Bible (particular sections as they pertain to particular problems!), I attend worship, I take communion, I talk with Christian friends.

Third (and this may sound odd), I remind myself that I was no fool at age such-and-such when I knowingly and with my eyes open became a Christian. The fact that an emotional tsunami is sweeping over me right now does not invalidate the clearer judgement of my younger self, who was NOT under extreme duress. Remembering that fact, I decide to hold on. Nobody makes good decisions in the middle of an emotional storm. If I thought it valid then, it probably is now. It's just that I am reeling drunk at the moment (to change the metaphor).

Fourth, I outwait it. Emotions and moods are by their very nature unstable. They come and go (though the bad ones never quickly enough!). I dig my feet into the ground like a mule at my present position and refuse to budge. "Here I stand," I mutter grouchily. "I'm not going ANYWHERE until things clear up!"

[By the way, I've found that last a useful principle in many areas of life, including marriage, jobs, deaths, etc. I make my worst decisions on the spur of the moment, when I am emotionally drunk. If I outwait the emotional storm, I often find out that no decision needs to be made at all--or if it does, it's a different one than the decision that first came to mind in the heat of the crisis. IMHO nobody should marry, divorce, buy or sell a house, or do anything else major and irrevocable until at least a year after the death of a loved one, or similar crisis. It almost always pays to wait.]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Thing is, I was a complete idiot at 15, and not much brighter at 17-19 when I was at my most fervent.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
What if we substitute the word "trust" for "faith"? Might that help clear this up?

Not much. I wouldn't trust the brakes on my bike if I wasn't sure they were there.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Lamb Chopped said:

If so, then the question becomes: Why am I (general I) feeling this terrible doubt? Is it because some new logical objection or evidence has cropped up against the faith? In that case, the thing to do is go consult some old, wise, educated Christians and lay the difficulty before them. Several different people, if necessary. It is extremely unlikely that I have just now run across the evidence-to-end-all-evidence that will overturn Christianity, and this particular issue has eluded all the great minds of the past 2000 years. It is far more likely that a good answer (or at least approach to the problem) exists out there, and if we ask around, someone will point us to it.

I am beginning to understand why you consistently come to different conclusions to me.

You always seem to see the world from inside the Christian worldview looking out. So the great minds of the past 2000 years are inevitably the great Christian minds of the past 2000 years.

Whereas for me I would have to include in my assessment of the situation: why have so many of the greatest minds of the past 200 years actually
rejected Christianity? Is there real substance to some of their objections? Why have the vast majority of people over the past 2000 years not signed up to Christianity?

You then go on to mention prayer: part of the problem for me. Never felt there was anyone there actually listening to what I said.

Read the Bible: probably the point at which my doubts first crystallized - large sections are deeply disturbing.

Was I an idiot when I first made a commitment? Well perhaps not totally, but I certainly hadn't fully evaluated every single possible question / alternative answer. Still haven't, but the more I have asked questions the more I realise the answers out there by supposedly the best Christian apologeticists are just not very good.

So your approach seems to be 'defent at all costs' mine is 'is this right? could I have made a mistake?' After all there are many views that my younger self had, that I now know were pretty naive.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, for me the 'good answers' were part of the problem. And yes, I was as daft as a brush when I first got involved. That doesn't invalidate any of it, but I am a different person now.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Tha from Lancashire Quetz? My grandparents from Blackburn always used "Daft as a brush"

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Aye, lad, Oldham, or really, Owdam. Very near Yorks border also, so remember plenty of Yorkshireisms.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
I would have to include in my assessment of the situation: why have so many of the greatest minds of the past 200 years actually
rejected Christianity? Is there real substance to some of their objections? Why have the vast majority of people over the past 2000 years not signed up to Christianity?

The great minds of the past 200 years have believed all sorts of things, as far as I understand. If you want to make sure that you align your beliefs with all of theirs you might have to invent your own religion....

I'm quite grateful, to be honest, that Christianity isn't a religion devised by and for 'great minds'. How would that benefit the likes of ordinary little me?

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quetzalcoatl

You implied above that the idea of being nourished by a religious story/tradition/idea appealed to you. But you're resistant to the notion of faith. What is the difference between the two things, in your mind?
That's an interesting question. Faith (or trust), for me, is pre-emptive; so we take things 'on trust'. But with a symbol or story, I can take it as is - or not. I suppose this is referring to commitment; I just plumb ran out of it. As I said, I'm a nomad; I enjoy the faiths of the world, in so far as I'm able and willing.

Talking of inventing one's own religion, there's a sense in which we can only do this (and perhaps we all do it to some extent) due to the faith of others. So even if we have no faith ourselves, we stand on the shoulders of others who did in the past, and who do now. Nomads enjoy their freedom to roam, but they require others to stay at home and occasionally provide them with food and drink as they pass through....

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very wise words, Svitlana. I sleep at nights in the shadows cast by giants; but also, giants become boring, if they pre-digest my food.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:

quote:
Lamb Chopped said:

If so, then the question becomes: Why am I (general I) feeling this terrible doubt? Is it because some new logical objection or evidence has cropped up against the faith? In that case, the thing to do is go consult some old, wise, educated Christians and lay the difficulty before them. Several different people, if necessary. It is extremely unlikely that I have just now run across the evidence-to-end-all-evidence that will overturn Christianity, and this particular issue has eluded all the great minds of the past 2000 years. It is far more likely that a good answer (or at least approach to the problem) exists out there, and if we ask around, someone will point us to it.
I am beginning to understand why you consistently come to different conclusions to me.

You always seem to see the world from inside the Christian worldview looking out. So the great minds of the past 2000 years are inevitably the great Christian minds of the past 2000 years.

Whereas for me I would have to include in my assessment of the situation: why have so many of the greatest minds of the past 200 years actually
rejected Christianity? Is there real substance to some of their objections? Why have the vast majority of people over the past 2000 years not signed up to Christianity?

You then go on to mention prayer: part of the problem for me. Never felt there was anyone there actually listening to what I said.

Read the Bible: probably the point at which my doubts first crystallized - large sections are deeply disturbing.

Was I an idiot when I first made a commitment? Well perhaps not totally, but I certainly hadn't fully evaluated every single possible question / alternative answer. Still haven't, but the more I have asked questions the more I realise the answers out there by supposedly the best Christian apologeticists are just not very good.

So your approach seems to be 'defent at all costs' mine is 'is this right? could I have made a mistake?' After all there are many views that my younger self had, that I now know were pretty naive.

None of that is what I meant. We've got a major misunderstanding going on. But I'm reminded what an idiot I am to try posting on this board, and I think I'd better withdraw.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Svitlana - I have no idea where you got the idea that I want to align my thinking with all the great thinkers of the past couple of hundred years.

My point was almost the exact opposite. Lambchopped seemed to suggest that I consult (possibly trust) the voices of wise, old, educated Christianity. And my response was that there are many more voices out there (just as valid) as the Christian voices he/she points me to.

[ 04. March 2015, 14:46: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

Water is blue.

Could this be rather like 'that dress is blue and black'. 'No, that dress is white and gold'.

What to one person is really obvious, another person can't see at all!

[ 04. March 2015, 20:55: Message edited by: Chorister ]

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

As I think I said somewhere I've had a long period as "faithfree" but I'm not now.

When I became so I didn't decide not to believe I decided to stop attending church, praying etc.

When I came back I didn't decide to believe I decided to start praying and then attending church again.

When I left I still basically believed as that wasn't really the issue that made me quit.

When I came back I thought the faith would still be there, sort of dormant, and have been shocked and saddened the degree to which it atrophied and which I can't, despite wanting to, just "turn it back on again". Even after a couple of years back, I'm still constantly on the edge of leaving.

In fact the main reason I don't is that I feel like the period of my life when I was away was not good, and so I'm determined that whilst there's a spark left I'm going to fan the flame. So the choice is not about switching from 100% non-belief to 100% belief (or vice-versa) it's about feeding those thoughts and feelings that I want to win (and, gulp, being prepared to deal with it, finally, if they don't in the end).

I also relate to LambChopped's thing about trusting an earlier me. Sometimes my current faith is so up and down, and I'm so confused that it's helpful to think, that there was a version of me who was pretty confident about this. And it's not just that he was no idiot (or rather, I'm no cleverer than he) it's that I can still remember what it felt like to have that kind of a faith and that's something I'd dearly love to have again.

When asked at my last homegroup what I wanted prayer for, I said, "Well my favourite prayer for myself at the moment is 'I believe, help my unbelief'"

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Paul - a very honest answer. I hope that either you can revive / hold on to your old faith. Or, that you can finds ways to live positively with the slightly less reassuring alternative.

[ 05. March 2015, 06:06: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

Can someone help me here, please - I'm getting a little confused.

There seems to be an assumption in much of the above that the term "faith" has, to a working approximation, the same meaning as the term "belief".

So far as I can see, the two terms evidently do not mean the same thing, not even approximately. Faith has more the meaning of "a basis for action". This is also, more or less, so far as I can see, roughly the viewpoint found in the Bible.

So why, why, why is there such concern about the presence or absence of intellectual certainty, that is to say, of belief? Why can we not say "Here I am, and this is the way I go, and here is what I try to do?".

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Can someone help me here, please - I'm getting a little confused.

There seems to be an assumption in much of the above that the term "faith" has, to a working approximation, the same meaning as the term "belief".

So far as I can see, the two terms evidently do not mean the same thing, not even approximately. Faith has more the meaning of "a basis for action". This is also, more or less, so far as I can see, roughly the viewpoint found in the Bible.

So why, why, why is there such concern about the presence or absence of intellectual certainty, that is to say, of belief? Why can we not say "Here I am, and this is the way I go, and here is what I try to do?".

Because if the object of that faith doesn't actually exist, then it's a bit pointless trying to interact with it.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because if the object of that faith doesn't actually exist, then it's a bit pointless trying to interact with it.

I'm sorry, but I can't see what that reply means, nor how it could be relevant.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.

It may not matter much to you whether God actually exists or not, but it does to me, and it's a bit patronising to be told it's not important when to some of us it clearly is.

Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :

quote:
Originally posted by blackbeard:
Can someone help me here, please - I'm getting a little confused.

There seems to be an assumption in much of the above that the term "faith" has, to a working approximation, the same meaning as the term "belief".

I think that's one of the meanings of faith, yes.

quote:
So far as I can see, the two terms evidently do not mean the same thing, not even approximately.

Yeah they do. Faith covers a range of meanings and both are in this range. But even you don't agree I'm having a hard time believing you've never met someone for whom the meaning of "faith" includes "belief" (PS now you have)

quote:
Faith has more the meaning of "a basis for action". This is also, more or less, so far as I can see, roughly the viewpoint found in the Bible.

I think "basis for action" is included in there, as is "trust". I think the Bible contains examples of all these.

quote:
So why, why, why is there such concern about the presence or absence of intellectual certainty, that is to say, of belief? Why can we not say "Here I am, and this is the way I go, and here is what I try to do?".

Because,

quote:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11v6

Which is kind of what Karl said.

And even if Karl (or me, or anyone) doesn't see this as authoritative and/or doesn't particularly want to "please God", he/we will still encounter lots of Christians who do, and so the idea of interacting with a being that may not exist would naturally be a question of concern.

[XP with Karl]

[ 05. March 2015, 19:21: Message edited by: Paul. ]

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider: If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.

It may not matter much to you whether God actually exists or not, but it does to me, and it's a bit patronising to be told it's not important when to some of us it clearly is.

I don't know Karl, I have been thinking about this a lot. I think there are a number of things which might be positive about religion even if God does not exist: for example community, shared purpose, meaning, direction etc and so on.

On some level I can see that it being right or wrong can be seen as being of ultimate importance, but I think it is possible (maybe at a different level) to see that there might be some benefits in living as if it is true.

Maybe that is too much of a rationalisation for you, but it works for me.

Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
Because,

quote:
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11v6
Which is kind of what Karl said.

[/QB]

Thanks Paul, you have at least illuminated an area of misunderstanding.

Always a bit of a risk in quoting proof texts, because later in that same chapter of Hebrews we have some magnificent examples of men of faith; and, bluntly, some of them leave a bit to be desired so far as faith is concerned. For instance, Gideon who later turned to the Baal; Jephthah, who sacrificed his own daughter; David, about whom much has been written in the forums of this very Ship. What is magnificent about them, though, is what they managed to achieve, even if they would have had trouble passing GCSE in religious studies (if there is such a thing).

I think, if you are going to start using proof texts, you might as well go a bit further and quote some from the epistle of James as well (ch 2 vv 14 onwards). Try v 19 for example.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear (though I thought I did). I have not claimed that God doesn't exist, nor have I advocated that anyone should so claim. But I am concerned with the state many find themselves in, apparently; something along the lines of "well, I used to believe, and to a large extent still do, but now and then a little shadow of a doubt creeps in ...". And, as you know, this can lead to severe distress. I would say that the little shadow of doubt is not terminal and does not mean that faith has gone, so long as you can find something that enables you to carry on and, to some extent, continue to do what God asks of us.

On the meanings of words: we will probably continue to disagree. I will say again that "faith" and "belief" are not synonyms. As you point out, each term can have a range of meanings which can overlap. It seems to me that the verse of Hebrews which you quote could be an example of such an overlap, but in view of the rest of the chapter, I do not see that the term "faith" in that context can be stretched to include the term "faith" as I have sometimes seen it used (or, I might claim, abused). One of the pitfalls of the English language; terms are not always precise.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know Karl, I have been thinking about this a lot. I think there are a number of things which might be positive about religion even if God does not exist: for example community, shared purpose, meaning, direction etc and so on.

A framework for life. I think those who follow the monastic path, eg. The Rule of St. Benedict, understand this.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

Faith, the word, doesn't work as a verb. You can't faith in something, you have to use a longer phrase and put your faith in it. Which means we tend to switch to believe and before you know it we are back with 'belief that'.

Karl LB, you insist you can't interact with something that doesn't exist, but is that absolutely so? What about mathematics? The hunt for the proof to Fermat's last theorem? Or what about Englishness in a Billy Bragg sense? Or the ever encouraging spirit of the young? There are some pretty diffuse ideas and social movements that have a life and pop up and surprise us here and there; abstract ideas that have partial but concrete expression.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

But with God I don't see the point. I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief. If there's no God to have faith in, I just don't see any reason to frame that mode of living in religious terms.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Faith, the word, doesn't work as a verb.

Well it does in the New Testament Greek. Pisteuo is the verb of the noun pistis .

Interestingly, the commentary on the noun does seem to imply it's a gift from God, not something we can conjure up ourselves. Not sure what I think about that but it could be true.

This convo reminds of the clip from Angels and Demons with Tom Hanks when he is asked whether he believes in God.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But with God I don't see the point. I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief. If there's no God to have faith in, I just don't see any reason to frame that mode of living in religious terms.

I think the reality is that few manage that without the structures available in forms of organised religion.

But I'm not trying to talk you into or out of anything - whatever floats your boat.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.

I agree. May as well have one's worldview framed by current fads of society or whatever social club you're a part of (Tennis anyone?).

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief.

No you can't. You have to see some value in living according to Jesus' example. Why would you choose to live according to Jesus' example if his God didn't exist and he made it all up? That would be irrational.

You're trusting (believing - having faith) there is some value in living according to Jesus' example and beliefs about his father.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
If there is no God, then there is no point in faith or religion and we should give it up and have a lie in on a Sunday morning.

I agree. May as well have one's worldview framed by current fads of society or whatever social club you're a part of (Tennis anyone?).

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief.
No you can't. You have to see some value in living according to Jesus' example. Why would you choose to live according to Jesus' example if his God didn't exist and he made it all up? That would be irrational.

You're trusting (believing - having faith) there is some value in living according to Jesus' example and beliefs about his father.

You've introduced another element there "and belief's about his father." I thought it was clear I was talking about Jesus' ethics. Those one might follow simply because they appear to be a very good set of ethics. That would be their value.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

But why would you trust his ethics but not his faith? His ethics come from his faith in God. He believes they are God's will for humankind.

Where else would they come from?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But why would you trust his ethics but not his faith? His ethics come from his faith in God. He believes they are God's will for humankind.

Where else would they come from?

Well this is very hard to answer. But let's say - from inside his own head. Maybe he was deluded about where the ethics came from - does that make them bad ethics?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

So he made them up himself?

Why would you trust that?

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Oh Evensong, this is a silly imaginary game of ethics.

Let's say: because I value the ethics. Plenty of people have developed ethical systems based on delusions, what should that in and of itself make it untrustworthy?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Sounds like the genetic fallacy to me, that the value of an idea can be linked to its source. I would think that many people would say that they approve of Christian ethics; they aren't required to have a theological understanding of them. That's too purist.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Of course, there are many other possible ways to rationalise it: the church changed it, someone else changed it, Paul changed it etc and so on.

Very possibly a person doing this would not be taking Christ's ethics in a way that (some) Christians would approve of - but I can't really see why this is a problem either. There is no monopoly on Christ in Christianity, after all.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

You can also cherrypick from an ethical system - why not? People don't have a monopoly on ideas.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Well, we're all free to do what we like, and cherrypicking is certainly the order of the day; every man is the author of his own spiritual destiny. But if the question is whether Christians or Christian fellowships should feel obliged to 'approve' of this practice in every circumstance then I don't see any obligation on either side.

IMO a religious fellowship should not feel pressured to envision itself as a social club for nice, helpful people, with a few optional supernatural ideas attached. Yes, some churches do turn into that over time, and that's fine if the group is happy with that. But if that's something it wishes to resist then I don't see why it should be condemned for doing so.

I sense, too, that many churches that drift too far towards accommodating modern cherry picking tendencies end up losing their distinctiveness, which means they no longer possess the qualities that made them interesting (if not particularly obliging) in the first place.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, we're all free to do what we like, and cherrypicking is certainly the order of the day; every man is the author of his own spiritual destiny. But if the question is whether Christians or Christian fellowships should feel obliged to 'approve' of this practice in every circumstance then I don't see any obligation on either side.

Why is that a question? That wasn't what was being discussed at all. Of course, it goes without saying that the Christian churches would not approve and nobody is asking them to endorse anything. Why would they be asked to?

quote:
IMO a religious fellowship should not feel pressured to envision itself as a social club for nice, helpful people, with a few optional supernatural ideas attached. Yes, some churches do turn into that over time, and that's fine if the group is happy with that. But if that's something it wishes to resist then I don't see why it should be condemned for doing so.

Nobody is suggesting otherwise. In fact, the question was not about the church at all, but whether Karl could in good conscience take the ethics and leave the supernatural from Christianity.

quote:
I sense, too, that many churches that drift too far towards accommodating modern cherry picking tendencies end up losing their distinctiveness, which means they no longer possess the qualities that made them interesting (if not particularly obliging) in the first place.

That's nice.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The question was not about the church at all, but whether Karl could in good conscience take the ethics and leave the supernatural from Christianity.

But isn't that what Western society has already achieved? There doesn't seem to be too much angst about it these days. 'Do unto others...' is considered to apply to everyone, without the need to reference Jesus. Some commentators say that the moral and cultural work of Christianity is done, and now we can drop the supernatural and simply carry on being nice people.

OTOH, the notion of 'good conscience' is interesting, because one of the advantages of atheism (possibly borrowed from Protestantism) is supposedly that individuals can follow their own guiding light, their own conscience, and don't need permission from any human or (in the final analysis) divine authority to create their own rules for living. 'Do unto others...' may or may not be the outcome of this process.

As for churches, I should really have linked to your post above, in which you mentioned the benefits of religion without the supernatural; you brought up 'community and shared purpose', which most people connect with churches in a religious context. I was questioning the idea that religious groups can successfully provide community and shared purpose once their reason for being - the worship of and obedience to God - is removed.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
But with God I don't see the point. I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief. If there's no God to have faith in, I just don't see any reason to frame that mode of living in religious terms.

That's having faith in Christ. You're saying you are inspired by Christ, that you identify with him and his way, that his teaching is not only how you live, but is a bit better than that because it's something you fall short of but aspire to follow more fully. That's faith in Christ. The Church might also ask that you get a bit exercised about his death, too; get upset, find your sense of justice challenged, even find your faith troubled that such a thing could happen to such a man.

Having that sort of practical, participative identification with Christ is also having faith in God, who offers us, they say, Jesus Christ as a definitive revelation of God's character, call and promise.

What would it add to also believe in the existence of a supreme being? As far as your suffering neighbour is concerned, is it any better if you live in the style of Jesus AND you also believe that a supreme being exists?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You're saying you are inspired by Christ, that you identify with him and his way, that his teaching is not only how you live, but is a bit better than that because it's something you fall short of but aspire to follow more fully. That's faith in Christ. The Church might also ask that you get a bit exercised about his death, too; get upset, find your sense of justice challenged, even find your faith troubled that such a thing could happen to such a man.

However, you could argue that Christ brought his death on himself - by claiming to be something that he wasn't.

If he'd died simply for being a good man rather than misleading people about being a god, wouldn't that have been better? If nothing else, it would have been more humble of him....

At this point in history perhaps it's necessary for the (emerging?) post-theistic movement in Christianity to create an entirely secular Jesus who makes no mention of a god. Atheistic god-talk clearly leads to confusion in a theistic world, and creates new theological problems even as it solves others.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Well, we're all free to do what we like, and cherrypicking is certainly the order of the day; every man is the author of his own spiritual destiny. But if the question is whether Christians or Christian fellowships should feel obliged to 'approve' of this practice in every circumstance then I don't see any obligation on either side.

Why shouldn't Christians approve of "cherrypicking" - they do it just as much as anyone else, on both the individual and organizational level. Each denominational group chooses which issues to make central, which ones to reject, and which ones to leave up to the individuals. Each individual chooses which of their denomination's teachings to accept personally or to ignore. Of course they might not like it when this is pointed out - they often would rather refer to "tradition" or a particular interpretation of some ancient document for why their particular choice of cherries are the "right" ones and all others are heretical, but, basically, all religions are manifestations of cherrypicking if they have any sort of core beliefs, and those may change and shift emphasis over time.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I can live ethically, pretty much according to Jesus' example, without faith, religion or belief.
No you can't.

Actually, yes, you can. Depending, of course, on what aspects of his example you choose to follow. There are many of Jesus' teachings that are common with the teachings of other religious and secular people over the course of human history, and that I may aspire to in my life, particularly about how to treat others, that don't require any belief in an omnipotent, anthropomorphic supreme being to put into practice. In the same way, believing in a divine Jesus + Big Daddy and the Spook doesn't necessarily force people to follow Jesus' teachings: if they did, we'd see a lot more charity and a lot less hatred among some Christians.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
Why shouldn't Christians approve of "cherrypicking" - they do it just as much as anyone else, on both the individual and organizational level. Each denominational group chooses which issues to make central, which ones to reject, and which ones to leave up to the individuals. Each individual chooses which of their denomination's teachings to accept personally or to ignore.

You've answered your own question: every group has the right to decide what it will tolerate or not tolerate. That doesn't mean that it has to tolerate everything.

It's true that churchgoers tend to be less deferent towards priestly authority than used to be the case. But then again, priests and theologians openly disagree with each other, especially in the larger denominations, so they can hardly expect the laity to hang on every word they say. I certainly don't put the clergy on a pedestal. Church doctrines, IMO, should be owned by every church member, not just by a priestly elite. I think this situation is more likely where there is a diverse choice of churches, rather than individual churches that try to be all things to all men. But we do need the latter - the CofE does the job relatively well.

Secularisation has unfortunately undermined choice, though, and I can see that, for example, young middle class Christian couples in some areas will feel drawn to the lively local evangelical church because it's the only place where they can meet other Christians like themselves in an engaging environment, not because their theology is particularly evangelical. This must create a degree of tension (which one can read about on the Ship), and the problem could increase in the future as MOTR options continue to decline in many parts of the country.

I attend MOTR churches myself. Some of them might want to pursue the post-theistic route in future, as it would certainly make them distinctive. But I don't know if many of them could pull it off.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
You're saying you are inspired by Christ, that you identify with him and his way, that his teaching is not only how you live, but is a bit better than that because it's something you fall short of but aspire to follow more fully. That's faith in Christ. The Church might also ask that you get a bit exercised about his death, too; get upset, find your sense of justice challenged, even find your faith troubled that such a thing could happen to such a man.
However, you could argue that Christ brought his death on himself - by claiming to be something that he wasn't.

If he'd died simply for being a good man rather than misleading people about being a god, wouldn't that have been better? If nothing else, it would have been more humble of him....

At this point in history perhaps it's necessary for the (emerging?) post-theistic movement in Christianity to create an entirely secular Jesus who makes no mention of a god. Atheistic god-talk clearly leads to confusion in a theistic world, and creates new theological problems even as it solves others.

Jesus died because he attacked the Temple, and he didn't claim to be a god. But that's irrelevant to the point that having faith in him means following him and standing with him.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

But this still gives rise to the thought that Jesus's early death was rather a waste of time, though. With a little more sense he could have lived a bit longer and still been a decent role model.

This is relevant because I get the impression that some atheists would find Jesus a more faith-worthy character if he'd made some different decisions and taught a somewhat modified message. Putting that aside, however, your description of what it means to have a post-theistic faith in Jesus could apply to almost any great historical character who is worthy of admiration. That's fair enough, but it doesn't particularly justify the attention paid to Jesus.

[ 06. March 2015, 22:19: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

But Jesus is God, in a sense. He is where we meet the ultimate truth of life. He isn't just the author of a set of teachings. He is our last great hope, his death the final tragedy, his resurrection the extraordinary victory of grace. Whether you think of God as some entity or not.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Oh Evensong, this is a silly imaginary game of ethics.

Let's say: because I value the ethics. Plenty of people have developed ethical systems based on delusions, what should that in and of itself make it untrustworthy?

Because they're delusional?

If you value the ethics, why do you value the ethics? On what basis are you making that value judgement?

I'm not sure the ethics can be divorced from the man. He lived and breathed them - to death and beyond.

Besides, Christian ethics are often counter intuitive. "Take up your cross and follow me" is hardly the greatest advertisement. "The first will be the last and the last will be the first" is extremely revolutionary. It's bizarre. The beatitudes are freekin hilarious without the belief in the resurrected life.

These reflect the nature of the God Jesus believed in.

I suspect we can no longer see the revolutionary nature of Jesus' ministry because in many ways, western socialism has incorporated it and Hollywood has bought it. Howsa about that happy Hollywood ending where good defeats evil in the end? Love wins. We seem to have forgotten why.

[ 07. March 2015, 10:32: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I believe that one of the reasons the church needs to continue, is so that it is always there for those who need it. And the ever-present, open building is a very potent symbol. Therefore, people of faith (however vaguely that is expressed) need to support it and ensure that those doors always stay open to those in need.

Whenever I am stewarding, and see someone come in to light a candle, I have no idea of the strength of their faith. But I do know the church supplies the opportunity and fulfils a need, for that moment, and for that person.

Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :

I'm intrigued by the argument that you can stick to belief by being dogged. It's a bit like love, then, isn't it? When your old man gets arthritic and grumpy love may be worth holding on tight to.

And the contrary argument - that you just cannot help believing - or not believing, is equally fascinating. Because so often it's not so much about not believing, but about believing something else. And that's like love, too.

And when a man and his young secretary fall in love, they often feel they just can't help it.

And apostates all - whether from religion or marriage, can have a hard time of it. The default attitude of those who stick it out with the old god or the old spouse is generally dismissive - and very old testament. If you go whoring after other gods, or other women, expect to get notted.

The fact is though, that divorce sometimes works to the benefit of both parties, as does religious apostasy. The only places where it never can is where one or other of the partners sees the outcome as a loss of control over the other.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Some people might find a loss of faith for a while leads ultimately to a deeper and richer faith later, through being tested. Perhaps that's like love too, although it won't be the experience of all.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some people might find a loss of faith for a while leads ultimately to a deeper and richer faith later, through being tested. Perhaps that's like love too, although it won't be the experience of all.

I think my experience is that "losing faith" is that I realise what I need to have faith in. So yes, I would agree with this. I think for a lot of people, it is the crisis that makes them realise what is important.

What I have heard from all sorts of people is that the language they reject means that "faith" might not be the right way to describe what they have afterwards, but it it a deeper faith in what they consider is real.

(I say "they", but, to an extent, I include myself in this. However, I do still embrace the concept of faith).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0