|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Are Christians Afraid To Doubt? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
anastasia writes: Have faith...take a stand. But don't just stand! Look around. Is this faith really doing anything for you? Is it really making your life more livable or more meaningful? We can't just sit back on our idealistic haunches and feel justified for finding the 'solution'. What good is a solution if it hasn't solved anything?..If God is your solution, by all means have confidence like a child. Then, seriously, get up and be an adult..CTD writes:
Does your heart say one thing, but reason another. An older, wiser friend once told me to follow the heart in such situations. The heart is smarter, and reason will catch up later. This has proven to be true in my experience.(He's one of the most intellectual persons I've ever known - go figure!)sidelined writes: I do not believe that life is meaningless.
I have fathered 3 children and been father to five more and I have known of disappointment and sacrifice. I have also known love and bonding and sheer delight at the marvelous world we find ourselves a part of. I have buried friends and witnessed births. I have seen the moon rise full 20 miles into the wilderness over the Bow river in the dead of winter with Orion soaring to the west. I have watched my mother talk to me with the light of recognition long since gone and more than once wished I had been there to wish her farewell. Life is a huge thrill ride, a dance, a play ,a theater to which we are both actor and audience yet this is somehow a meaningless adventure?Rob writes: Do you honestly think that we humans will see unbelievable deception IF we refuse to have a love of Christ and/or the truth? For the record, many fundamentalists believe that this is, indeed true. I am just about bleeding in my mind and soul for you folks, but there's nobody home. It reminds me of what is said in those stupid scriptures about the signs and wonders and almost incomprehensible deception that will come in the last days.Rob writes: But why would God give you the insight and not the rest of us?
And although none of you believe in such foolishness (not even the elect) I will share it with you at the expense of my usefulness in this travesty and ship of fools...arachnophilia writes: Personally, I can no more deny Gods reality than I could my Mothers reality. is god real? this is the question, after all. everything else is really beating around the bush. it's the fundamental doubt. it's a question i consider, sure, but not one i ever seriously entertain.arachnophilia writes: I am highly skeptical, but I am not so skeptical that I dismiss the experience. Otherwise, I may as well declare personal experience and eyewitness testimony as invalid. People can be too skeptical, I think. They end up forever questioning and never arriving at a truth. i have come to be high skeptical of any claimed religious experience (including my own), and have all but discarded the notion. I will go so far as to say that I give respect to people who take a stand on agnosticism, as long as they are totally honest with themselves. I only ask that they respect my decision to make a stand even in the midst of inconclusive facts beyond a reasonable doubt.
CTD writes:
There is some basis for every belief. It may not be valid, as in the case of an hallucination; but there is always some basis. The closest thing I know of to truly blind faith is the statement "There is no god."CTD writes: Good point, CTD! Unless someone has walked a mile in my shoes and experienced what I have experienced, they have no business telling me my God does not exist. At worst, I have the right to be left alone with my belief.
Would it be best for Christians to grab hold of any doubt they can - even one based on a misrepresentation of scripture - just so they can abandon their faith and join the ranks of the scoffers? Are you that desperate for fellowship? Ringo writes: We should be unafraid to discuss and examine our faith.
Should we accept what we have been spoon-fed? Or should we try to understand?Ringo writes: The elusive fourth Beatle strikes again!
It's not about "abandoning faith" at all - it's about strengthening your faith. You must have a very weak faith indeed if you're afraid to test it.nator writes: If so, I believe that God meant for it to be this way. I am only speculating, but I believe that God allowed the world to have competing ideologies to test the innermost hearts of humanity to resolve the problems. The verdict is still out on how we did.
I contend that region and parentage "chooses" most people's religion for them.I CANT writes: Sure. Is it proper for a believer to question whether or not God is real? Is it proper to question why our religion believes certain things? Is it proper to abandon our fundamentals and become true critical thinkers with no answers and lots of questions? Does the God of our hearts understand and allow such questioning to occur? There are some things I do not doubt can these be included? Phat, would you please clarify for me. Convictions are very different from intentions. Convictions are something God gives us that we have to do. Intentions are things that we ought to do, but we never follow through with them. * * * * * * * * * * “The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.” --General Omar Bradley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Rob writes: You are being trained to be a better apologist, Rob. You are in a battle and are prohibited from using scripture, your primary weapon of choice. Will you be able to allow God to use you to communicate through your own words and personality? You say that our only tool is that which is understandable If so, why do you even need to attempt to convert or convince anybody? Is not God capable of drawing all men unto Himself? Why does He need you or I to do so?
Perhaps the Bible is not the Word of God. But unless God has revealed Himself, then we have no basis for labeling anything as 'true or false' in the ultimate metaphysical sense, other than by our own prejudice (the very thing we seek to escape). Our only tool for understanding is that which is understandable.CTD writes: If God wants to be undetectable, or render us collectively or individually incapable of detecting Him, I suggest He could manage to do so. If God wants to get in one's face, or summon one to His location, what's to stop Him from doing so?Nator writes: And I do not doubt my belief. It may be subjective for me, though I perceive it as objective for everyone. It is a positive truth claim. But "subjective" truth is only true for an individual. "Objective" truth is true for everybody, no matter one's personal beliefs.IMB - God is very much objective. God is God regardless whether anyone believes in Him or not. Exclusive objectivity is unprovable, very annoying,(to some) yet quite clearly a belief option.It is no more annoying than having an atheist say to us that God does not exist, however. Stile writes: Unless there is no conclusion, according to a critical thinker.
I think doubt is one of those large parts of life where an extremist view in either direction is rather... incapacitating.Stile writes: It may be important for some to take a definite stand, while for others it is equally important to conclude nothing. Each should be convinced in their own mind and heart.
Is it ever appropriate to take a stand? Of course. Again, depends on how important the subject matter is. Nator writes: That is honest!
I have no idea if I'm right about the existence of God. I'm not even sure if the answer is knowable by anybody.Rob writes: The only thing that annoys me about you is that your topics are too long and tend to dominate threads which you did'nt start. You have every right to participate but would be advised to talk less and listen more. (and no long scripture...we are in Rome..do as the Romans do!)
Why is it that you have such a problem with me believing the way I do, and presenting it to others in as intellectually coherent a manner as possible?Rob writes: So quit trying to prove people incorrect! Thats the Holy Spirits job...not yours!
By explaining why I am a Christian, and why it makes sense, I am giving the implicit answer to why the opponent in question is incorrect in his or her analysis.Jar writes: So I am assuming that you don't believe that people ever get saved or meet God or that God imparts anything into them?
there are areas where doubt should be the norm. That would include areas such as the existence of GOD as well as other areas where it is impossible to know, test or verify the answer. In those areas the individual should always continue to doubt, to question.Rob writes: But thats my point! We are not meant to be on top of our students even if we fancy ourselves to be teachers! Let the students have equal say! To reiterate: We are not God! Of this I have no doubt.
If you look back at a good teachers history, you will see a marked change in strategy for staying on top of the students, who's constant and tribal urge, is to cut the authority out from under him, so as to intimidate and tempt him to accept a bribe in exchange for a passing grade.Ringo writes:
It's the teacher's responsibility to inspire the student to thirst for knowledge - not just drone on the same rote "lessons" day after day.anastasia writes:
No one has to rob us of the good stuff. Only the crutches. The questions should always be 'do we really know what we claim to believe?' and 'do we still believe it upon knowing?'.I CANT writes: Man! I am glad for you! I wish that I had no doubts! I believe that God foreknew that I had a brain and a mind and would think. As a Christian, my advice to you would be to be honest with yourself and if you ever do have any doubts take them to God in prayer.
I think everyone who has not been born again that believes somethingcame from nothing should have GREAT DOUBT. If I ever had any doubts the past 20 days removed all doubt's that I might have ever had. Ringo writes: The crutch of faith? I prefer the analogy of the anchor of faith. I dont like getting swept around by changing doctrines. Doubt is the filter that removes false "certainty". It builds confidence in tested results. It gives us results we can truly trust. It frees us from the crutch of faith.. Edited by Phat, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
crashfrog writes: Doesn't the fact that you can't even agree with other Christians on where the message is indicate that, if there even was an attempt to relay a message that would be accurate through all time, it completely failed? No. If there was a message there is no reason it HAS to be revealed everywhere. No one says that God's message, in order to be preserved, must reproduce itself in perfection in all adverse environments. It is a seed, which can be thrown upon barren earth, or fertile. There is no indication that for one plant to be reproduced, it must be able to thrive everywhere. The preservation of anything depends on there being the right environs. You can not prove that the right environs for God's work are doing anything except being preserved. The species may have evolved, it may not have all members of itself in perfect similarity, but it has not become extinct.
A Protestant tradition? Or a Catholic tradition? (Don't forget the Russian Orthodox, Christianity's forgotten third major branch.) Oh lordie, tell me about it crash will you? Don't forget that I am more Russian Orthodox than Roman Catholic. Don't forget that the Orthodox agree on every single major tenet of Roman Catholcism except Papal authority. Dont't forget that the vast majority of Christians do not techniaclly fall under the Protestant label. And hey, got something against the Greeks? Got something against the other hundreds of sects that fall under the same doctrinal beliefs as Catholics do?
Really, you should think twice before suggesting that Christianity's fractured history represents the unerring transmission of a singular message. What if I have, and what if I have concluded that is does? Does this take away my ability to doubt?
Surely you see the inherent ridiculousness in asserting "God has relayed his perfect message perfectly preserved through the years, but my church is the only one who actually knows what it is"? That's intellectual weak sauce. Why is it intellectually any different from saying that there have been many different explanations for a natural phenomenon, but only one will be correct? If there is a God, it stands to reason that only one religion will be correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Phat, the only thing that I don;t like about your approach of late, is this idea that what you believe is meaningless. What does it mean to take a stand if it doesn't mean to proclaim something as true? True to you doesn't count.
You are growing a tad bit wishy washy. You are not seeking objective truth. This is little short of believing that your faith is made up, that your God is made up. I encourage you to strike a happy balance, Do not waiver in truth, but be compassionate towards others in their understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: The crutch of faith? I prefer the analogy of the anchor of faith. I dont like getting swept around by changing doctrines. What about changing scenery? Changing weather? Changing clothes? Are you anchored to faith or to doctrine? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No one says that God's message, in order to be preserved, must reproduce itself in perfection in all adverse environments. But that's exactly what it means. God's message isn't preserved if it's one message among thousands of false variations, each indistinguishable from each other. It's like a game of telephone. It's the message at the end that matters.
The preservation of anything depends on there being the right environs. So now the mighty power of God is nothing in the face of environment? That's not the "omnipotence" I've heard so much about. You're just making excuses.
And hey, got something against the Greeks? Got something against the other hundreds of sects that fall under the same doctrinal beliefs as Catholics do? Not at all, but you're proving my point - it's ludicrous to assert God's message has descended through the ages with no confusion in the face of 11,000 separate Christian denominations with individual, contradicting ideas about what that message even is. Oh, right. They're all wrong and you're right, because you say so. LOL!
Why is it intellectually any different from saying that there have been many different explanations for a natural phenomenon, but only one will be correct? Because the scientific process eliminates wrong theories over time. Wrong ideas gradually fall by the wayside and a consensus emerges. The exact opposite is happening here. The number of denominations is increasing, not decreasing, consistent with the degradation and mutation of "God's message", whatever that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
crashfrog writes: But that's exactly what it means. God's message isn't preserved if it's one message among thousands of false variations, each indistinguishable from each other. Come on now. Preserved means saved. If it is one among thousands, this does not take away from the fact that this ONE is preserved.
How do you know that God doesn't preserve the environment for His message? Not at all, but you're proving my point - it's ludicrous to assert God's message has descended through the ages with no confusion in the face of 11,000 separate Christian denominations with individual, contradicting ideas about what that message even is. Who said 'with no confusion'? What makes you think that there is a God but there is no Satan , and that Satan is not known for confusion? You cannot honestly and simply prove that there is no one message saved for all of time. You can believe there is not, and this is at your whim. It is not something that has any substance to it. The logical time to take a stand is when there is nowhere else to go. Your arguments are not conclusive, and maybe you should question this. Edited by AdminPhat, : fixed quote... I think. :?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Preserved means saved. If it is one amoung thousands, this does not take away from the fact that this ONE is preserved. That's not what we're talking about, though. God's message isn't preserved if it's crowded out by thousands of false misinterpretations. Being crowded out is precisely what you guys said wasn't happening. You appear to be retreating from that claim.
Who said 'with no confusion'? You! CTD! What do you think we've been talking about this whole time? If God's real message can't be distinguished from the thousands of fake ones, it hasn't been preserved at all.
You cannot honestly and simply prove that there is no one message saved for all of time. I'm not under an obligation to disprove things that are obviously ridiculous. And to assert message fidelity in the face of 11,000 denominations who disagree with you is 100% ridiculous. If you have some evidence for your ludicrous claim, now is the time to present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5984 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
crashfrog writes: That's not what we're talking about, though. God's message isn't preserved if it's crowded out by thousands of false misinterpretations. Being crowded out is precisely what you guys said wasn't happening. You appear to be retreating from that claim. Whoa, I wasn't in on any crowding out conversation! I am sure I don't have to remind you that this 'crowding' is EXACTLY what was predicted by Jesus anyway. The road that leads to damnation is wide and traveled by many, but the road to eternal life is narrow and found by few. Why should I expect otherwise?
You! CTD! What do you think we've been talking about this whole time? If God's real message can't be distinguished from the thousands of fake ones, it hasn't been preserved at all Someone right now is distinguishing it, if it exists. You have to prove that it does not.
I'm not under an obligation to disprove things that are obviously ridiculous. And to assert message fidelity in the face of 11,000 denominations who disagree with you is 100% ridiculous. If you have some evidence for your ludicrous claim, now is the time to present it. No prob. I am likewise not under any obligation to prove that many choices don't allow that only one answer is possible. The only thing that needs to be proven is that the ONE answer is not existing. Can you? It doesn't matter how many choices there are! Is this supposed to be easy? Did you ever expect a pathway all laid out with road marks?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why should I expect otherwise? You shouldn't. Anybody who ever played the game of Telephone should know better. But by the same token you shouldn't go around proclaiming that God has the magic power to preserve his message unchanged through the centuries, while at the same time shrugging your shoulders and saying "eh, well, why would God's message be any different?" Well, I'm not the one who said it was different. You and CTD just did.
Someone right now is distinguishing it, if it exists. You have to prove that it does not. No, I don't. It's up to you to prove your ridiculous assertions, not me to disprove them.
I am likewise not under any obligation to prove that many choices don't allow that only one answer is possible. You're under an obligation to support your assertions with evidence if you expect them to be taken seriously.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I may have doubts in how I feel, but I won't even entertain your attempts to prove that I should doubt. You have known me a long time Crashfrog, and I usually respect your wisdom, but when you step into the realm of faith, your militant logic is unimpressive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes: ... if you don't believe in God you have no business even offering an opinion in this thread. According to the OP, this thread is supposed to be about Christians, not necessarily restricted to them. It appears to me that most of the Christians in this thread are afraid to think about their faith and bristle at the thought of anybody else thinking. I'm disappointed in you. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I just get angry when someone tells me that my faith is made up or that logic always trumps belief. That is my faith. It may not always appear logical. Besides...why am I so disappointing? I may be reacting off the cuff, but I am being honest, if a wee bit immature.
Edited by Phat, : spelling
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If three of us agree on a consensus and Crash suddenly walks in the room and announces that the Emperor has no clothes, we are under no obligation to adhere to Crashes assertions. Fair enough, but did you forget that in the fable, the Emperor doesn't have any clothes? Look, Phat, if you don't believe in something you feel you can defend with reason, logic, and evidence - I don't have a problem with that. You're under no obligation to prove that your faith is a reasonable thing to me. I could care less! But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Don't roll up in here lambasting atheists for telling you your faith isn't reasonable, and then turn around and admit that you had no intention of defending the rationality of faith all along.
There is no law written in stone or on the books of the United Nations that states that evidence and the scientific method are the final arbitrator in all matters. For reasonable people engaged in a reasonable effort in truth-seeking, yeah, there is. Making stuff up to get the conclusion that makes you feel warm and fuzzy isn't a path that leads to truth. It's self-deception. Don't engage in it and then bitch when people tell you you're not being reasonable. It's unseemly.
I may have doubts in how I feel, but I won't even entertain your attempts to prove that I should doubt. Doubt, or don't doubt. I could care less. But don't shit in my lap and tell me it's chocolate. Don't make a claim that faith is compatible with reason if you're not willing to subject your faith to the same strictures as other reasonable beliefs. Faith only gets to play by it's own rules as long as it stays off the table. When you bring faith to the table of reason, it submits to those strictures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I just get angry when someone tells me that my faith is made up or that logic always trumps belief. Instead of getting angry, prove me wrong. Or don't, but then don't have a bitch-fit when I state my opinion that faith is an exercise in wishful thinking, not a path to what is true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024