The Exchristian And God

[R. S. Martin]

The title of this thread was originally God Talk, Do you still speak it? The first person who responded pointed out the obvious--that we don't necessarily go around talking about God. So I changed it.

 

The Christian Biblegod is meant here.

 

What do you do if you find yourself in a conversation with very religious people—do you still use God talk?

 

I wrote my answer below and the poll questions are based on it.

 

(I don't think many of us go around looking for opportunities to talk about God--either for or against. However, for those of us living in geographical areas where there are very many very religious people, or if we have families who are very religious, we need tools to deal with situations.)

Depending how/what a person means by "God" I will still speak god talk. If by "God" a person means spiritual experiences or "ground of our being" or existential concepts, I will just go along with their talk, esp. if the person is a Christian and doesn't know that I am not. I think that is basically what religion is--codified talk about natural human experiences humans did not know how to express. After all, existentialism is a really abstract concept, yet it is something all of us grapple with. Religion gives us a way to talk about it on the every day human level. I would go so far as to suggest this may be the reason so many people seem to return to religion on their deathbed. They need to talk about life and death and their place in the universe and the concept of not being, but they have no other language or vocabulary except the religious language they learned in church long ago.

 

Admittedly, that idea just came to me as I was writing. Maybe that is why we don't turn evil when we leave God. There is mighty little real difference between the theist and atheist. One believes God is a person while the other uses the term because it's easier to say than words like existentialism and ontology. The one who believes God is a person has all kinds of stories to go along with the person to inform him/her about what this person God is like, and then they get carried away with those stories and the characters in them. I think this is what thinkers have been protesting since the days of Socrates. This includes the Jewish version known as Jesus.

 

(Both Socrates and Jesus are debatable as to whether or not they actually existed. I am suggesting they both represent something major for their own people and that Jesus may be the Jewish version of the Greek Socrates. That is my own newly-hatched idea and my be totally wrong, so don't quote me.)

[waynus]

I don't use God talk at all anymore. Two reasons come to mind, one almost everyone means something different when they use the words and secondly it tends to obscure meaning rather than add clarity to a conversation.

[R. S. Martin]

Waynus, thank you for explaining. I will go back and change the wording a bit because I don't go around talking about God. However, I live alone and seldom talk with anyone not on exC or at the seminary where I am studying so God comes up somewhat regularly. I got into theology before I deconverted but I see how a good understanding of theology can be used to undermine the power of fundamentalist religion. Add to that the fact that I live in a heavily Christian area. In this city, one can never assume that one is not talking to a person who believes in God or Allah. If they're not Christian, they're bound to be Muslim or Jewish. There's also lots of Eastern religions here but you never know by a person's skin colour and facial features what deity should be addressed or what life philosophy should be used. It's not a bad idea to be versatile. Not that I tend to get into conversations with strangers.

[1oddmanout]

I used to walk hours around the 'yard' engagin' in god talk and such. good way to make and keep safe friends. But to answer the poll, god is nothing.

[R. S. Martin]

I used to walk hours around the 'yard' engagin' in god talk and such. good way to make and keep safe friends. But to answer the poll, god is nothing.

 

Thank you for your answer. I guess I worded that wrong. I'm not sure how to improve it. Maybe the question is too difficult. But when you say "god is nothing," you give god the status of being the subject of a sentence. That is not nothing. God must be a concept in your mind in the same way that fairy or gnome or Santa Claus or whatever is a concept.

 

For myself, the closest concept I can agree with is Tillich's idea of Ground of Being. If people want to worship the concept of existence, I guess they can do so. There is a chance that I don't understand Tillich. I read something here on exC about the universe itself being consciousness. I don't get that at all. If that is what Tillich meant, then I don't get him. I don't see a consciousness in this "Ground of Being" or in existence. Frankly, I think that's crazy, but maybe that's just me.

 

When I think of consciousness I think of an entity capable of making a decision such as withdrawing or moving on its own. For example, a new born infant can withdraw its hand if it wishes. A rock cannot move itself on its own volition. A snail, on the other hand, can. Even if driven mostly by instinct, it is not a mechanical move in that specific instant.

 

But then there's larger things like what causes earthquakes and hurricanes. I'm not very scientific but I have read enough articles and listened to enough lectures to get a very general idea. And the idea I get is that there are natural phenomena. Are these caused by a consciousness? In other words, is there a consciousness in the universe capable of willing them into happening?

 

Ewww!!!!!! I never ever thought of things this way. I find it very easy to believe that things just happen. Look at me and how things happen when I'm (supposedly) in control. When it's just me and my lone self in my rooms things tend to happen for no apparent reason. Something crashes to the floor from off my desk. And its movement caused something else to happen, too. Which may have caused me to miss my bus because I couldn't find a necessary item. Missing my bus could mean missing an appointment which could have repercussions months and months down the road. Missing something as simple as a routine doctor's appointment because I missed the bus by less than one minute last winter had long term consequences that I think may have evened out by now. But my life did turn out differently (this had nothing to do with things falling from my desk; that was just an example). Of countless such coincidences the universe is made. That is what I think.

 

Now put a god in there who has planned every aspect of every tiny detail...that just takes the spontenaity out of Life. The capital L is not a typo. I mean it that way. With galaxies coming and going there's stuff happening--Life--on a level outside human or earth life. Might as well call it Life. If you want to call that Life "God" go ahead and call it god. If you want to worship it, go ahead and worship it. Just don't blow up the rest of the planet for not subscribing to your beliefs--there's probably no heaven for you to go to when you've removed yourself from this planet (because you can't blow up "the rest of the planet" without also blowing up your part of it) so you'd better take care of it for now.

 

The excuse I always hear for believing in god is that: It's so much easier to just believe that God created all of this than to figure out all this evolution stuff.

 

Okay, if "easy to believe" is the "proof of the pudding" then that works well for me. It's very easy for me to assume the scientists know what they're doing. I understand the scientific method and, like I said, I've listened to lectures and read a few articles and books. Everything hangs together and makes sense the way they describe it. I've studied and read the Bible in far more depth than I've studied any science and the science just makes sense. I don't have to twist my brain to accept it like I do for the Bible even after studying it (Bible) so much. The god concept never made sense to me even as a child. The scientific method, i.e. cause and effect, impressed itself upon my brain before I could talk (I think, I don't remember). Seems I remember some exciting times when I was quite young (after I could talk) that my mother showed me how something worked. Maybe that is when I learned that you do A and B happens.

 

Probably the argument can be made that it's more complicated than that but my point is that the scientific method has always made sense to me and god has not. I remember when I was a child looking at a tin can. I had learned that Mom could answer some fantastic questions--that things came from somewhere. There was a picture of a pineapple on the label of the can but I wasn't interested in the pineapple; I was interested in where tin cans came from so I pointed to the can and asked Mom, "Where did this come from?" I must have happened to point to the picture of the pineapple. Mom said "God made it."

 

I had no idea who or what she was talking about. She explained that we couldn't see or hear God but he was real all the same. I was beginning to feel spooked. I hadn't the slightest clue what she was talking about--stuff that was real but we couldn't see or hear it. I had merely asked where the tin can came from. Was she telling me it wasn't real??? It was really spooky. Finally I made the connection that the picture on the can was god. That was the first time I had heard about god. And the picture she seemed to indicate was really weird. (Be aware that I had very low vision and she was not truly aware of how very low my vision was. She knew it was defective but she always expected me to see better than I did.) I suspect that the picture I connected with god was the trademark. To me at the time it looked like a head disconnected from its body. So I got the idea that god was this disconnected head. Not exactly a nice idea for a little girl to go to bed with.

 

I hadn't the slightest idea why I should even know about such a weird thing. I was still curious about where the tin can came from but I didn't dare ask any more questions. As time passed she kept bringing this god thing up time and again. I don't know who or what was behind the whole thing. Were there no Bible story books available in 1960? Why didn't she just go to a bookstore and get a children's bible story book with pictures if this was so important? At the very least we might have avoided the disconnected heads.

 

Of course, I might then have been stuck with the old man in the sky with a white beard so many of you grew up with. As it was, I don't remember losing any sleep about this crazy incident. I learned somewhere along the line that we couldn't see god and nobody knew what god looked like; it was evil to even make a picture of god. (I guess that is why she didn't get a book with pictures of him?) When my sisters and I got older (maybe aged between 6 and 12) we would sometimes play god when mom wasn't around. We had no electricity and no bathroom. In winter we used a kerosene lantern for a light to go to the outhouse in the woodshed. But once in a while Mom let us use a flashlight. That was a treat.

 

There were two seats. The four of us would crowd in there together. It was cold, after all. One of the ones waiting would hold the flashlight. And she would play god. She would turn it around in a circle to make the sun rise and set. Yes, there would be moments of darkness but all of us were in on it and it was fun being allowed to use the flashlight. We knew not to fool too long if we ever wanted to use the flashlight again; mom didn't like if we wore out the batteries because they cost money. But it was fun all the same. We NEVER told mom that we played God. She had ideas as to what was okay and what wasn't and it didn't always agree with our ideas.

[ShackledNoMore]

I have to pick "Other, Please Explain for all three answers.

 

For the first question, clearly I don't think god is a real tangible being that exists, body or not. Nor can I claim that god is some sort of "essence," even an abstract one (if that is what the third choice is). I think he's just part of an old, made up mythology.

 

For question two, I just don't use god talk. I may keep my silence, I may redirect my own comment as a secular one after someone has made an absurd god reference without calling out what I actually think about those beliefs, they may remain unaware of my lack of belief in their god, but I will NEVER expound upon somebody's god delusions in conversation by expressing acknowledgement or agreement with their god talk.

 

For question three, I'm not convinced that people are more or less likely to grovel to god on their deathbed after the advent of the Internet than before. I'm sure that it happens, and when it does, it is driven out of fear, but I tend to suspect that it is less common than than many xians would lead you to believe, and that many deathbed conversions are a perceived act of kindness to prevent those left behind from having to believe that their loved one is burning in hell.

[1oddmanout]

I used to walk hours around the 'yard' engagin' in god talk and such. good way to make and keep safe friends. But to answer the poll, god is nothing.

 

Thank you for your answer. I guess I worded that wrong. I'm not sure how to improve it. Maybe the question is too difficult. But when you say "god is nothing," you give god the status of being the subject of a sentence. That is not nothing. God must be a concept in your mind in the same way that fairy or gnome or Santa Claus or whatever is a concept.

 

For myself, the closest concept I can agree with is Tillich's idea of Ground of Being. If people want to worship the concept of existence, I guess they can do so. There is a chance that I don't understand Tillich. I read something here on exC about the universe itself being consciousness. I don't get that at all. If that is what Tillich meant, then I don't get him. I don't see a consciousness in this "Ground of Being" or in existence. Frankly, I think that's crazy, but maybe that's just me.

 

When I think of consciousness I think of an entity capable of making a decision such as withdrawing or moving on its own. For example, a new born infant can withdraw its hand if it wishes. A rock cannot move itself on its own volition. A snail, on the other hand, can. Even if driven mostly by instinct, it is not a mechanical move in that specific instant.

 

But then there's larger things like what causes earthquakes and hurricanes. I'm not very scientific but I have read enough articles and listened to enough lectures to get a very general idea. And the idea I get is that there are natural phenomena. Are these caused by a consciousness? In other words, is there a consciousness in the universe capable of willing them into happening?

 

Ewww!!!!!! I never ever thought of things this way. I find it very easy to believe that things just happen.

 

THanks for the reply; I guess I should improve on being a "man of few words" (oh, how I wish I knew how to type [and knew how to quote multiple times, as I see others doing]). Your post deserves a more detailed resonse, but to begin; I agree with ShackledNoMOre-there isn't, and absolutely no reason to believe, in a consciousness or 'higher entity' that humans label 'god'.

 

I have never understood even, the reason why one needed to! Your believing that things just happen is SO refreshing. I studied a lot, but study is a fun exercise for me, and I easily get on a bandwagon for a cause, and could preach up a storm, but belief was always a choice, not a, hmmm, belief.

 

I have always been uneasy of why we developed the need to worship anything; 'adore' an entity; be 'humbled' in front of a god, and distrustful of a belief system that was so oriented and implanted by our Western Culture-there are so many others, unfortunately not many that haven't been tainted by our Culture.

 

So many threads in this forum repeat the same theme--Middle Eastern theology isn't original, and many cultures have the same basic concepts. I am pleased to hear in your words the simplicity of not needing to even consider the concept of 'god'. May we all grow to that level of maturity.

[SWIM]

I think god is

 

Other, none existant.

 

I use god talk when

 

Other, Swearing is pretty much it. God damn it! One of my favorite phrases.

I think in the past before the internet many people may have seemed to return to God or Christianity on their deathbed because

 

 

other - FEAR of death and remnants of pascals wager still in their subconscious.

 

[R. S. Martin]

For question three, I'm not convinced that people are more or less likely to grovel to god on their deathbed after the advent of the Internet than before.

 

Yeah, well, I was afraid if I didn't put in a qualifier to put it in the past, people would take offense that I thought there was even a possibility that THEY would reconvert. And it seemed to me that with access to the internet it would be less likely to happen than before because of all the support we get through groups like this, and all the information that is easily accessible. I don't know any stats, or if it can be proven, but time and again I see observations being made that deconversions seem to be on the increase due to the accessibility of information on the internet. Thus, it occurred to me that this could also apply to end of life issues.

 

I'm sure that it happens, and when it does, it is driven out of fear, but I tend to suspect that it is less common than than many xians would lead you to believe,

 

It would be one of those "selective memory" items that Christians remember the cases where it does happen.

 

and that many deathbed conversions are a perceived act of kindness to prevent those left behind from having to believe that their loved one is burning in hell.

 

I wondered if this might happen, too. Let's see, do we have a story on here of someone's parent or grandparent who did that?

[Guest WarrantedPVC]

I ticked all of the options in the first bit. I am ready to adopt any of the God-concepts in a discussion, although I always make sure we specify what kind of a God we are talking about. That said, I don't believe in the existence of any of those particular Gods. It's like... I have a concept of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy but I don't really believe they exist.

 

As for God-talk, again, I ticked all of the options. It really depends on the situation... but I do use it quite a lot, I think.

 

And deathbed conversions, well... I think each time there was an individual reason, it's hard to generalize.

 

PVC

[Amethyst]

1. I think god is an idea which human beings make up in their own minds, because they've been born into cultures with the concept. I think god is as individual a concept as each person, since no two people have the exact same idea of what god is. Even though people may claim to agree on a general idea of god, usually they bring their own perceptions, fears, hopes, and dreams into their concept of god. God is really the ultimate Mary Sue.

 

2. I rarely use god talk anymore, generally only if it becomes necessary. I'd rather remain silent than use it.

 

3. Are you talking about reconversion here or just discussing religion? If what you mean is reconversion, I'd say they either do it out of fear, or possibly fake it as a way to comfort their relatives who literally believe in hell. If simply talking about it, probably because we don't really have a lot of other options to discuss what happens after you die. If what dying people want is comfort, they're going to talk about things like the afterlife, rather than what scientifically happens.

[R. S. Martin]

THanks for the reply; I guess I should improve on being a "man of few words" (oh, how I wish I knew how to type [and knew how to quote multiple times, as I see others doing]).

 

It looks like you can type okay. About quoting multiple times. Some people know the code and just type it in. It's not hard to learn if you've got a good memory for details. If you do the quote thing with any post, you can read the code. You can cut and paste it for additional quotes.

 

For the content of the quotes I use cut and paste. For example, in SNM's post above I responded to various parts. I cut out all but the part I wanted to respond to and pasted it below where I was typing. Same with your post here. There's stuff below where I'm typing. If there's anything left over when I'm done, I'll delete it (hopefully I won't forget).

 

There's another way to make additional quotes. Highlight the block of text you want to show up as a quote. Then go up to the tool bar at the top and click on the balloon--the thing that looks like the balloons they use in comics to show what people are saying. If you hold your cursor on it for a bit the words show up that say "wrap in quote tags." That's the easy way. If I quote more than one person in the same post, I type the person's name inside the quote box (e.g. oddmanout said:) so people will know who said what. I think that is important so people can follow a conversation.

 

I have never understood even, the reason why one needed to! Your believing that things just happen is SO refreshing. I studied a lot, but study is a fun exercise for me, and I easily get on a bandwagon for a cause, and could preach up a storm, but belief was always a choice, not a, hmmm, belief.

 

I love studying, too, and I knew you had quite a bit of training; otherwise I would not have jumped on you for that minor language problem. But I knew that for a person who has put together major compediums or whatever it is you said you did, that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to choice of words and I wasn't sure what. This post clarifies. I'm learning a lot from this thread.

 

QUESTION: How can belief be a choice??? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth." I thought we are supposed to seek truth above all else. All the churches I have looked at require new members to profess to believe certain things. To say "I believe" means "It makes sense to me." Heb. 11:1 says "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Apparently there is evidence to be had. And, above all, it makes sense. It HAS TO! That is what I believe means--I trust it because it makes sense. That is the ordinary meaning of the word believe. We don't get to choose that; the choice is made for us by logic.

 

Christians like to argue that faith is not logical. Even my profs bring up that stupid argument. I call it stupid because they don't bring it up unless and/or until my questions challenge doctrinal dogma. My papers are graded on quality of logic I bring to my arguments. Apparently the arguments within theology must be logical and make sense. Thus, it is illogical to argue that faith is not logical. (I'll wait to point that out to my profs until I have my degree but I don't think they are reading these forums.)

 

The point I'm getting at is that Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. I understand you used to preach. According to the NT we're supposed to want truth above all else and Christ is that truth. For Christian churches, their dogma is The Truth because each church thinks they got it right about who Jesus is. But if we truly seek unadultrated truth we question authority and any authority whose top goal is to guide people into "all truth" will be delighted when people do this. For the most part, academia is a prime example of this. Principles that do not apply to the positive as well as negative situation are not principles.

 

People's whose top priority it is to find truth at all costs do not have the choice of belief. Nobody knows this better than scientists. Yet you say belief is a choice. Can you explain?

[R. S. Martin]

3. Are you talking about reconversion here or just discussing religion? If what you mean is reconversion, I'd say they either do it out of fear, or possibly fake it as a way to comfort their relatives who literally believe in hell. If simply talking about it, probably because we don't really have a lot of other options to discuss what happens after you die.

 

The question is:

 

I think in the past before the internet many people may have seemed to return to God or Christianity on their deathbed because

I based that on stories Christians tell that so many atheists return to Christianty when they're dying. I understand Christians take it as reconversion. I have always questioned (privately in order not to upset people) how responsible such reconversions are. It seems to me that when people are in extreme conditions such as deathbed situations of necessity are, the brain cannot be functioning at high capacity.

 

I have heard of situations where Christians have pressured such individuals to the extreme for a sign--any sign--that they have accepted Jesus or repented, or whatever their specific religion dictated was necessary for salvation. A flicker of an eye lid or a squeeze of the hand would do if a person was barely capable of communication. The "signs" given were sometimes so slight that others wondered whether they were real or whether the family was so desperate that they imagined something that wasn't there. I would like to throw into the mix that perhaps the person complied just to release the pressure PROVIDING he/she was capable of that much rational thought.

 

I have never been in that situation so I don't know how much rational thought is possible. I do know about my grandfather when senility was getting the upper hand. He would seem not to be "with it," but then he would comment on something nobody had expected him to pick up. This could suggest that the weakened brain is unpredictable as to what it picks up. When my mother was on her deathbed, my siblings discussed in her room with each other whether or not I could eat with them at her funeral because of my apostacy. I don't think that was an appropriate subject to discuss within hearing of a dying person. She and Dad used to be very sensitive about what could be discussed within hearing of a very sick person "because you never know what they might pick up even though they appear to be unconscious."

 

So to your question, Amethyst, I assume reconversion was meant.

 

If what dying people want is comfort, they're going to talk about things like the afterlife, rather than what scientifically happens.

 

Aren't there other ways to comfort dying people? In recent years I've heard things like celebrating a good life, or talking about the good times that they had. I'd be interested in ideas from others but here are some things that come to my mind:

 

I love you.

I'm going to miss you.

We're right here.

We'll stay with you to the end.

We won't leave you alone.

You were the best you could ever be.

You've been a great sister/Mom/Dad [whatever the relationship]

 

Obviously, to make these statements, all parties present must be in agreement that this probably is the end. There are cases where families are in denial. You may note that I am not here saying the person was the perfect mom or dad because they obviously weren't; nobody is. But I believe most people are the best they can be at any given time under the situation. Thus, I believe it is correct to say "You were the best Mom you could be." I think that is acknowledging and accepting the person for who he/she is and for many people that feels very affirming and supportive. If they hear it as "You were the best mom on earth," what does it matter?

 

I personally would want to be very careful to say only things that I could defend with honestly and personal integrity when/if confronted. For example, if there had been a history of conflict in the relationship and the dying person challenged me for suddenly changing my tune and saying he/she was the best on earth, I would want to be able to point out that actually I had not said exactly that; I had only said that they had been the best they could be.

 

I think that would relieve both them and me because both of us would know that the relationship is still in place regardless of warts. It would be a statement of forgiveness. If I had lied, and the person knew it, that look of accusation would haunt me for a very long time to come. For me, personal integrity is extremely important. Perhaps this is not the case for everyone.

[1oddmanout]

QUESTION: How can belief be a choice??? Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Life, and the Truth." I thought we are supposed to seek truth above all else. All the churches I have looked at require new members to profess to believe certain things. To say "I believe" means "It makes sense to me." Heb. 11:1 says "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Apparently there is evidence to be had. And, above all, it makes sense. It HAS TO! That is what I believe means--I trust it because it makes sense. That is the ordinary meaning of the word believe. We don't get to choose that; the choice is made for us by logic.

 

Christians like to argue that faith is not logical. Even my profs bring up that stupid argument. I call it stupid because they don't bring it up unless and/or until my questions challenge doctrinal dogma. My papers are graded on quality of logic I bring to my arguments. Apparently the arguments within theology must be logical and make sense. Thus, it is illogical to argue that faith is not logical. (I'll wait to point that out to my profs until I have my degree but I don't think they are reading these forums.)

 

The point I'm getting at is that Christians want to have their cake and eat it too. I understand you used to preach. According to the NT we're supposed to want truth above all else and Christ is that truth. For Christian churches, their dogma is The Truth because each church thinks they got it right about who Jesus is. But if we truly seek unadultrated truth we question authority and any authority whose top goal is to guide people into "all truth" will be delighted when people do this. For the most part, academia is a prime example of this. Principles that do not apply to the positive as well as negative situation are not principles.

 

People's whose top priority it is to find truth at all costs do not have the choice of belief. Nobody knows this better than scientists. Yet you say belief is a choice. Can you explain?

 

 

A small study:

Heb 11:1

 

(ESV) Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

 

(KJVA) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

(YLT) And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

 

VINCENT’S WORD STUDIES (1886)

Heb 11:1 -

Faith (πιÌστις)

Without the article, indicating that it is treated in its abstract conception, and not merely as Christian faith. It is important that the preliminary definition should be clearly understood, since the following examples illustrate it. The key is furnished by Heb_11:27, as seeing him who is invisible. Faith apprehends as a real fact what is not revealed to the senses. It rests on that fact, acts upon it, and is upheld by it in the face of all that seems to contradict it. Faith is a real seeing. See Introduction, p. 363.

Substance (ὑποÌστασις)

See on Heb_1:3 and see on Heb_3:14. On the whole, the Rev. assurance gives the true meaning. The definition has a scholastic and philosophic quality, as might be expected from a pupil of the Alexandrian schools. The meaning substance, real being, given by A.V., Vulg., and many earlier interpreters, suggests the true sense, but is philosophically inaccurate. Substance, as used by these translators, is substantial nature; the real nature of a thing which underlies and supports its outward form or properties. In this sense it is very appropriate in Heb_1:3, in describing the nature of the Son as the image or impress of God's essential being: but in this sense it is improperly applied to faith, which is an act of the moral intelligence directed at an object; or a condition which sustains a certain relation to the object. It cannot be said that faith is substantial being. It apprehends reality: it is that to which the unseen objects of hope become real and substantial. Assurance gives the true idea. It is the firm grasp of faith on unseen fact.

Evidence (ἐÌλεγχος)

N.T.o. Quite often in lxx for יָכַֽח, to reprove, rebuke, punish, blame. See Pro_1:23; Wisd. 2:14; Sir. 21:12. See especially on the kindred verb ἐλεÌγχειν, Joh_3:20. Rend. conviction. Observe that ὑποÌστασις and ἐÌλεγχος are not two distinct and independent conceptions, in which case καὶ would have been added; but they stand in apposition. ἘÌλεγχος is really included in ὑποÌστασις, but adds to the simple idea of assurance a suggestion of influences operating to produce conviction which carry the force of demonstration. The word often signifies a process of proof or demonstration. So von Soden: “a being convinced. Therefore not a rash, feebly-grounded hypothesis, a dream of hope, the child of a wish.â€

Of things (Ï€ÏαγμαÌτων)

ΠÏᾶγμα is, strictly, a thing done; an accomplished fact. It introduces a wider conception than ἐλπιζομεÌνων things hoped for; embracing not only future realities, but all that does not fall under the cognizance of the senses, whether past, present, or future.

 

ROBERTSON’S WORD PICTURES (1926)

Heb 11:1 -

Now faith is (estin de pistis). He has just said that “we are of faith†(Heb_10:39), not of apostasy. Now he proceeds in a chapter of great eloquence and passion to illustrate his point by a recital of the heroes of faith whose example should spur them to like loyalty now.

The assurance of things hoped for (elpizomenōn hupostasis). Hupostasis is a very common word from Aristotle on and comes from huphistēmi (hupo, under, histēmi, intransitive), what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise). See the philosophical use of it in Heb_1:3, the sense of assurance (une assurance certaine, Menegoz) in Heb_3:14, that steadiness of mind which holds one firm (2Co_9:4). It is common in the papyri in business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. “And as this is the essential meaning in Heb_11:1 we venture to suggest the translation ‘Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for’†(Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, etc.).

The proving of things not seen (pragmatōn elegchos ou blepomenōn). The only N.T. example of elegchos (except Textus Receptus in 2Ti_3:16 for elegmon). Old and common word from elegchō (Mat_18:15) for “proof†and then for “conviction.†Both uses occur in the papyri and either makes sense here, perhaps “conviction†suiting better though not in the older Greek.

 

THE PEOPLE’S NEW TESTAMENT (1891)

Heb 11:1-3 -

Faith is the substance. The old meaning of substance, as well as of Hupostasis, the Greek word here used, is "stand under," that is to be a foundation. Faith is the foundation on which all our hopes for the future are built.

The evidence. Rather, the conviction or persuasion of things not seen. Without faith we would be limited to the very narrow world comprehended by the senses.

For by it the elders, etc. The ancient men of God, through faith, so lived, that they have obtained a good name.

Through faith we understand, etc. The creation of the world is among "the things not seen," and all our knowledge of it rests upon our faith in the word of God. Indeed, our knowledge of all past history depends upon faith.

 

ALBERT BARNES NOTES ON THE BIBLE (c.1860)

Heb 11:1 -

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for - On the general nature of faith, see the notes on Mar_16:16. The margin here is, “ground or confidence.†There is scarcely any verse of the New Testament more important than this, for it states what is the nature of all true faith, and is the only definition of it which is attempted in the Scriptures. Eternal life depends on the existence and exercise of faith Mar_16:16, and hence, the importance of an accurate understanding of its nature. The word rendered “substance†- ὑποÌστασις hupostasis - occurs in the New Testament only in the following places. In 2Co_9:4; 2Co_11:17; Heb_3:14, where it is rendered “confident†and “confidence;†and in Heb_1:3, where it is rendered “person,†and in the passage before us; compare the notes on Heb_1:3. Prof. Stuart renders it here “confidence;†Chrysostom, “Faith gives reality or substance to things hoped for.â€

The word properly means “that which is placed under†(Germ. Unterstellen); then “ground, basis, foundation, support.†Then it means also “reality, substance, existence,†in contradistinction from what is unreal, imaginary, or deceptive (täuschung). “Passow.†It seems to me, therefore, that the word here has reference to something which imparts reality in the view of the mind to those things which are not seen, and which serves to distinguish them from those things which are unreal and illusive. It is what enables us to feel and act as if they were real, or which causes them to exert an influence over us as if we saw them. Faith does this on all other subjects as well as religion. A belief that there is such a place as London or Calcutta, leads us to act as if this were so, if we have occasion to go to either; a belief that money may be made in a certain undertaking, leads people to act as if this were so; a belief in the veracity of another leads us to act as if this were so. As long as the faith continues, whether it be well-founded or not, it gives all the force of reality to what is believed. We feel and act just as if it were so, or as if we saw the object before our eyes. This, I think, is the clear meaning here. We do not see the things of eternity. We do not see God, or heaven, or the angels, or the redeemed in glory, or the crowns of victory, or the harps of praise; but we have faith in them, and this leads us to act as if we saw them. And this is, undoubtedly, the fact in regard to all who live by faith and who are fairly under its influence.

Of things hoped for - In heaven. Faith gives them reality in the view of the mind. The Christian hopes to be admitted into heaven; to be raised up in the last day from the slumbers of the tomb, to be made perfectly free from sin; to be everlastingly happy. Under the influence of faith he allows these things to control his mind as if they were a most affecting reality.

The evidence of things not seen - Of the existence of God; of heaven; of angels; of the glories of the world suited for the redeemed. The word rendered “evidence†- ἐÌλεγχος elengchos - occurs in the New Testament only in this place and in 2Ti_3:16, where it is rendered “reproof.†It means properly proof, or means of proving, to wit, evidence; then proof which convinces another of error or guilt; then vindication, or defense; then summary or contents; see “Passow.†The idea of “evidence†which goes to demonstrate the thing under consideration, or which is adapted to produce “conviction†in the mind, seems to be the elementary idea in the word. So when a proposition is demonstrated; when a man is arraigned and evidence is furnished of his guilt, or when he establishes his innocence; or when one by argument refutes his adversaries, the idea of “convincing argument†enters into the use of the word in each case.

This, I think, is clearly the meaning of the word here. “Faith in the divine declarations answers all the purposes of a convincing argument, or is itself a convincing argument to the mind, of the real existence of those things which are not seen.†But is it a good argument? Is it rational to rely on such a means of being convinced? Is mere “faith†a consideration which should ever convince a rational mind? The infidel says “no;†and we know there may be a faith which is no argument of the truth of what is believed. But when a man who has never seen it believes that there is such a place as London, his belief in the numerous testimonies respecting it which he has heard and read is to his mind a good and rational proof of its existence, and he would act on that belief without hesitation. When a son credits the declaration or the promise of a father who has never deceived him, and acts as though that declaration and promise were true, his faith is to him a ground of conviction and of action, and he will act as if these things were so.

In like manner the Christian believes what God says. He has never seen heaven; he has never seen an angel; he has never seen the Redeemer; he has never seen a body raised from the grave. “But he has evidence which is satisfactory to his mind that God has spoken on these subjects,†and his very nature prompts him to confide in the declarations of his Creator. Those declarations are to his mind more convincing proof than anything else would be. They are more conclusive evidence than would be the deductions of his own reason; far better and more rational than all the reasonings and declarations of the infidel to the contrary. He feels and acts, therefore, as if these things were so - for his faith in the declarations of God has convinced him that they are so - The object of the apostle, in this chapter, is not to illustrate the nature of what is called “saving faith,†but to show the power of “unwavering confidence in God†in sustaining the soul, especially in times of trial; and particularly in leading us to act in view of promises and of things not seen as if they were so. “Saving faith†is the same kind of confidence directed to the Messiah - the Lord Jesus - as the Saviour of the soul.

 

ADAM CLARKE’S COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLE (c.1820)

Heb 11:1 -

Faith is the substance of things hoped for - Εστι δε πιστις ελπιζομενων ὑποστασις· Faith is the Subsistence of things hoped for; Ï€Ïαγματων ελεγχος ου βλεπομενων· The Demonstration of things not seen. The word ὑποστασις, which we translate substance, signifies subsistence, that which becomes a foundation for another thing to stand on. And ελεγχος signifies such a conviction as is produced in the mind by the demonstration of a problem, after which demonstration no doubt can remain, because we see from it that the thing is; that it cannot but be; and that it cannot be otherwise than as it is, and is proved to be. Such is the faith by which the soul is justified; or rather, such are the effects of justifying faith: on it subsists the peace of God which passeth all understanding; and the love of God is shed abroad in the heart where it lives, by the Holy Ghost. At the same time the Spirit of God witnesses with their spirits who have this faith that their sins are blotted out; and this is as fully manifest to their judgment and conscience as the axioms, “A whole is greater than any of its parts;†“Equal lines and angles, being placed on one another, do not exceed each other;†or as the deduction from prop. 47, book i., Euclid: “The square of the base of a right-angled triangle is equal to the difference of the squares of the other two sides.†Ελεγχος is defined by logicians, Demonstratio quae fit argumentis certis et rationibus indubitatis, qua rei certitudo efficitur. “A demonstration of the certainly of a thing by sure arguments and indubitable reasons.†Aristotle uses it for a mathematical demonstration, and properly defines it thus: Ελεγχος δε εστις ὁ μη δυνατος αλλως εχειν, αλλ’ οὑτως ὡς ἡμεις λεγομεν, “Elenchos, or Demonstration, is that which cannot be otherwise, but is so as we assert.†Rhetor. ad Alexand., cap. 14, πεÏι ελεγχου. On this account I have adduced the above theorem from Euclid.

Things hoped for - Are the peace and approbation of God, and those blessings by which the soul is prepared for the kingdom of heaven. A penitent hopes for the pardon of his sins and the favor of his God; faith in Christ puts him in possession of this pardon, and thus the thing that was hoped for is enjoyed by faith. When this is received, a man has the fullest conviction of the truth and reality of all these blessings though unseen by the eye, they are felt by the heart; and the man has no more doubt of God’s approbation and his own free pardon, than he has of his being.

In an extended sense the things hoped for are the resurrection of the body, the new heavens and the new earth, the introduction of believers into the heavenly country, and the possession of eternal glory.

The things unseen, as distinguished from the things hoped for, are, in an extended sense, the creation of the world from nothing, the destruction of the world by the deluge, the miraculous conception of Christ, his resurrection from the dead, his ascension to glory, his mediation at the right hand of God, his government of the universe, etc., etc., all which we as firmly believe on the testimony of God’s word as if we had seen them. See Macknight. But this faith has particular respect to the being, goodness, providence, grace, and mercy of God, as the subsequent verses sufficiently show.

 

JOHN GILL’S EXPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE (1887)

Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for,.... The "faith" here spoken of is not a mere moral virtue, which is a branch of the law; nor a bare assent to anything revealed, declared, and affirmed in the Gospel; nor a faith of doing miracles; nor an implicit one; nor a mere profession of faith, which sometimes is but temporary; nor the word or doctrine of faith; but that which is made mention of in the preceding chapter, by which the just man lives, and which has the salvation of the soul annexed to it: and it does not so much design any particular branch, or act of faith, but as that in general respects the various promises, and blessings of grace; and it chiefly regards the faith of Old Testament saints, though that, as to its nature, object, and acts, is the same with the faith of New Testament ones; and is a firm persuasion of the power, faithfulness, and love of God in Christ, and of interest therein, and in all special blessings: it is described as "the substance of things hoped for"; and which, in general, are things unseen, and as yet not enjoyed; future, and yet to come; difficult to be obtained, though possible, otherwise there would be no hope of them; and which are promised and laid up; and in particular, the things hoped for by Old Testament saints were Christ, and eternal glory and happiness; and by New Testament ones, more grace, perseverance in it, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life. Now faith is the "substance" of these things; it is the ground and foundation of them, in which there is some standing hope; in which sense the word υποστασις is used by Septuagint in Psa_69:2. The word of promise is principal ground and foundation of hope; and faith, as leaning on the word, is a less principal ground; it is a confident persuasion, expectation, and assurance of them. The Syriac version renders it, the "certainty" of them; it is the subsistence of them, and what gives them an existence, at least a mental one; so with respect to the faith and hope of the Old Testament saints, the incarnation, sufferings, and death of Christ, his resurrection, ascension, and session at God's right hand, are spoken of, as if they then were; and so are heaven, and glory, and everlasting salvation, with regard to the faith and hope of New Testament saints: yea, faith gives a kind of possession of those things before hand, Joh_6:47. Philo the Jew (e) says much the same thing of faith; "the only infallible and certain good thing (says he) is, that faith which is faith towards God; it is the solace of life, πληÏωμα χÏηστων ελπιδων, "the fulness of good hopes", &c.''

 

It follows here, the evidence of things not seen; of things past, of what was done in eternity, in the council and covenant of grace and peace; of what has been in time, in creation, and providence; of the birth, miracles, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ; of things present, the being, perfections, love, &c. of God; of the session of Christ at God's right hand, and his continual intercession; and of the various blessings of grace revealed in the Gospel; and of future ones, as the invisible realities of another world: faith has both certainty and evidence in it.

 

(e) De Abrahamo, p. 387.

 

JAMIESON, FAUSSET, AND BROWN COMMENTARY (1871)

Heb 11:1 -

Heb_11:1-40. Definition of the faith just spoken of (Heb_10:39): Examples from the Old Covenant for our perseverance in faith.

Description of the great things which faith (in its widest sense: not here restricted to faith in the Gospel sense) does for us. Not a full definition of faith in its whole nature, but a description of its great characteristics in relation to the subject of Paul’s exhortation here, namely, to perseverance.

substance, etc. — It substantiates promises of God which we hope for, as future in fulfillment, making them present realities to us. However, the Greek is translated in Heb_3:14, “confidenceâ€; and it also here may mean “sure confidence.†So Alford translates. Thomas Magister supports English Version, “The whole thing that follows is virtually contained in the first principle; now the first commencement of the things hoped for is in us through the assent of faith, which virtually contains all the things hoped for.†Compare Note, see on Heb_6:5, “tasted ... powers of the world to come.†Through faith, the future object of Christian hope, in its beginning, is already present. True faith infers the reality of the objects believed in and honed for (Heb_11:6). Hugo De St. Victor distinguished faith from hope. By faith alone we are sure of eternal things that they ARE: but by hope we are confident that WE SHALL HAVE them. All hope presupposes faith (Rom_8:25).

evidence — “demonstrationâ€: convincing proof to the believer: the soul thereby seeing what the eye cannot see.

things not seen — the whole invisible and spiritual world: not things future and things pleasant, as the “things hoped for,†but also the past and present, and those the reverse of pleasant. “Eternal life is promised to us, but it is when we are dead: we are told of a blessed resurrection, but meanwhile we molder in the dust; we are declared to be justified, and sin dwells in us; we hear that we are blessed, meantime we are overwhelmed in endless miseries: we are promised abundance of all goods, but we still endure hunger and thirst; God declares He will immediately come to our help, but He seems deaf to our cries. What should we do if we had not faith and hope to lean on, and if our mind did not emerge amidst the darkness above the world by the shining of the Word and Spirit of God?†[Calvin]. Faith is an assent unto truths credible upon the testimony of God (not on the reasonableness of the thing revealed, though by this we may judge as to whether it be what it professes, a genuine revelation), delivered unto us in the writings of the apostles and prophets. Thus Christ’s ascension is the cause, and His absence the crown, of our faith: because He ascended, we the more believe, and because we believe in Him who hath ascended, our faith is the more accepted [bishop Pearson]. Faith believes what it sees not; for if thou seest there is no faith; the Lord has gone away so as not to be seen: He is hidden that He may be believed; the yearning desire by faith after Him who is unseen is the preparation of a heavenly mansion for us; when He shall be seen it shall be given to us as the reward of faith [Augustine]. As Revelation deals with spiritual and invisible things exclusively, faith is the faculty needed by us, since it is the evidence of things not seen. By faith we venture our eternal interests on the bare word of God, and this is altogether reasonable.

 

Bullinger's word studies show that the root word pistis has many more 'flavors' than the KJV interprets it:

 

150. "BELIEVE" :

THE USE OF THE WORD

IN VARIOUS CONNECTIONS, ETC.

 

There are two Verbs, two Nouns, and one Adjective to be considered in connection with this subject.

Verbs.

 

pisteuo = to have faith (pistis) in; hence to believe. Translated "believe", except in eight instances, see below (iv).

 

Used absolutely : Matt. 8:13; 21:22; 24:23, 26. Mark 5:36; 9:23, 24; 13:21; 15:32; 16:16, 17. Luke 1:45; 8:12, 13, 50; 22:67. John 1:7, 50; 3:12-18; 4:41, 42, 48, 53; 5:44; 6:36, 64; 9:38; 10:25, 26; 11:15, 40; 12:39, 47; 14:29; 16:31; 19:35; 20:8, 25, 29-31. Acts 2:44; 4:4, 32; 5:14; 8:13, 37; 11:21; 13:12, 39, 48; 14:1; 15:5, 7; 17:12, 34; 18:1-8, 27; 19:2, 18; 21:20, 25; 26:1-27. Rom. 1:16; 3:22; 4:11; 10:4,10; 13:11; 15:13. 1Cor. 1:21; 3:5; 14:42; 15:2, 11. 2Cor. 4:13. Gal. 3:22. Eph. 1:19. 1Thess. 1:7; 2:10, 13. 2Thess. 1:10. 1Tim. 3:16. Heb. 4:3. Jas. 2:1-19. 1Pet. 2:7. Jude 5.

 

With dative of person or thing believed : Matt. 21:25, 32; 27:42. Mark 11:31; 16:13, 14. Luke 1:20; 20:5. John 2:22; 4:21, 50; 5:24, 38, 46, 47; 6:30; 8:31, 45, 46; 10:37, 38; 12:38; 14:11. Acts 8:12; 13:41; 16:34; 18:8-; 24:14; 26:27; 27:25. Rom. 4:3; 10:16. Gal. 3:6. 2Thess. 2:11,12. 2Tim. 1:12. Titus 3:8. Jas. 2:23. 1John 3:23; 4:1; 5:10.

 

With direct object of the fact believed, either a Noun in the Acc. Case, or a sentence : Matt. 9:28. Mark 11:23, 24. John 4:21; 6:69; 8:24; 9:18; 10:38; 11:26, 27, 42; 13:19; 14:10, 11; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 20:31. Acts 8:37; 9:26; 15:11. Rom. 6:8; 10:9; 14:2. 1Cor. 11:18; 13:7. 1Thess. 4:14. Heb. 11:6. Jas. 2:19. 1John 4:16; 5:1, 5.

 

Translated "commit" : Luke 16:11. John 2:24. (both followed by Dative and Accusative); "committed to", or "put in trust with" (Passive) : Rom. 3:2. 1Cor. 9:17. Gal. 2:7. 1Thess. 2:4. 1Tim. 1:11. Tit. 1:3.

 

With Prepositions:

 

eis (Ap. 104. vi) : Matt. 18:6. Mark 9:42. John 1:12; 2:11, 23; 3:15, 16, 18, 36; 4:39; 6:29, 35, 40, 47; 7:5, 31, 38, 39, 48; 8:30; 9:35, 36; 10:42; 11:25, 26, 45, 48; 12:11, 36, 37, 42, 44, 46; 14:1, 12; 16:9; 17:20. Acts 10:43; 14:23; 19:4. Rom. 10:14. Gal. 2:16. Phil. 1:29. 1Pet. 1:8, 21. 1John 5:10, 13.

 

en (Ap. 104. viii) : Mark 1:15. Eph. 1:13.

 

epi (Ap. 104. ix) :

With Dative : Luke 24:25. Rom. 4:18; 9:33; 10:11. 1Tim. 1:16. 1Pet. 2:6.

With Acc. : Acts 9:42; 11:17; 16:31; 22:19. Rom. 4:5, 24.

 

In two instances, through the object being a Relative Pronoun, and attracted to the case of its antecedent, the Verb is followed by a Genitive : Rom. 4:17; 10:14.

 

There are only 248 occurrences of the Verb pisteuo (of which 99 are found in John's Gospel), but in two cases besides those noted in iv, it is followed by a direct object of the thing believed, as well as a Dative of the person. These are John 4:21; 14:11-, and are therefore noted under both ii and iii.

 

peitho, which is found 55 times, means to "persuade", and is so translated in Matt. 27:20; 28:14. Luke 16:31; 20:6. Acts 13:43; 14:19; 8:4; 19:8, 26; 21:14; 26:26, 28; 28:23. Rom. 8:38; 14:14; 15:14. 2Cor 5:11. Gal. 1:10. 2Tim. 1:5, 12. Heb. 6:9; 11:13.

The Passive, "to be persuaded" or the Middle, "to persuade oneself", is translated "believe" in Acts 17:4; 27:11; 28:24.

 

"Obey" in Acts 5:36, 37. Rom. 2:8. Gal. 3:1; 5:7. Heb. 13:17. James 3:3; "agreed" in Acts 5:40; and "yield" in Acts 23:21.

In Acts 12:20, the active is rendered "made ... friend", and in 1John 3:19 "assure".

 

peitho has a Middle Perfect, pepoitha, with a reflective sense, "I have persuaded myself" : i.e. "I trust". This is rendered "trust", "have confidence", &c., in Matt. 27:34. Mark 10:24. Luke 11:22; 18:9. Rom. 2:19. 2Cor. 1:9; 2:3; 10:7. Gal. 5:10. Phil. 1:6, 14, 25; 2:24; 3:3, 4. 2Thess. 3:4. Philem. 21. Heb. 2:13; 13:18.

 

Nouns.

 

pistis (*1) = faith. The living, Divinely implanted principle. It connects itself with the second Aorist of peitho (I. 2, above), Gr. epithon, occurs 242 times, and is always translated "faith", except in Acts 17:31, "assurance"; Titus 2:10, "fidelity"; and Rom. 3:26, and Heb. 10:39, where "of faith" is rendered "him which believeth", and "them that believe".

 

pepoithesis = confidence. It is derived from the Middle Perfect of peitho (I. 2, above), which is always to be distinguished from the Passive Perfect (pepeismai). The latter refers to persuasion wrought from without; the former refers to a persuasion realized from within, and this is what pepoithesis seems to always mean. Pistis (No. 1) refers rather to the principle, and pepoithesis refers more to the feeling. It occurs 6 times, and is rendered "confidence" in 2Cor. 1:15; 8:22; 10:2. Eph. 3:12. Phil. 3:4; and "trust" in 2Cor. 3:4.

 

Adjective.

 

pistos occurs 67 times, and is rendered "faithful" 54 times. It is necessary to give the references, as it is the only word so translated. It is translated "sure" in Acts 13:34, "true" in 2Cor. 1:18. 1Tim. 3:1, and 10 times "believer", "he that believeth", &c. : viz. John 20:27. Acts 10:45; 16:1. 2Cor. 6:15. 1Tim. 4:3, 10, 12; 5:16; 6:2.

 

(*1) The English word "faith" is always the translation of pistis, except in Heb. 10:23, where the Greek word is elpis, everywhere else rendered "hope".

 

Logic does not necessarily man reality or truth; just what I understand and comprehend at one point in time. Translation of Greek words can also have other interpretations, and even then, interpreted either in specific context or cultural context. Also, so much of our thinking, our societal 'standards' have been influenced by the incredibly bad KJV.

 

I have a choice to follow and identify with a religion, cult, political party or race car. Folks can 'believe' that Toyotas have high quality (my first blew out the heater core at 25,000 miles), Chevy's race best, Jeff Gordon is the best driver, and that mcDonalds have healthy foods; I can generate historical references and studies to prove my contention; none of the above makes it true. You couldn't believe the amount of religious contention and half-baked philosophies abound when combined with a multitude of men living together in closely-guarded warehouses; each one with TheThruth as espoused by whaatever TV preacher is on early morning TV. None of them can prove anything, just what they believe aT the moment.

 

I was determined to find TheTruth of the Christian faith, had the time to study the original languages and translations, and found agreement with the Reformed theology; all questions were answered, if there was a discussion between one position or the other (oh, say, supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism) I could find an answer, a logical, yet heart- and soul-warming logical answer; one that I could confidently yet quietly stand upon, an assurance of what I believed.

 

Doesn't make it any more true than 'belief' in the Spaghetti Monster (praise be his noodly appendages). Logic and assurance does not make truth or reality.

 

I can believe in the Reformed theology is the best representation of the Christian message and remain immersed in it, but it doesn't mean that I believe that the Christian myth is true.

 

and BTW-this took 90 minutes to type- the cut and pasting I had on file; but a least I got to listen to a lot of The Cure on Veoh

[R. S. Martin]

and BTW-this took 90 minutes to type- the cut and pasting I had on file; but a least I got to listen to a lot of The Cure on Veoh

 

Thank you for your time. FYI, it is quite normal for me to spend that much time on a major post.

 

Logic does not necessarily man reality or truth; just what I understand and comprehend at one point in time. Translation of Greek words can also have other interpretations, and even then, interpreted either in specific context or cultural context. Also, so much of our thinking, our societal 'standards' have been influenced by the incredibly bad KJV.

 

You limit yourself to an out-dated version of an ancient text and a religion, along with its logic, based on it. That is why I bring in reality and scientists of the present day with present-day understanding of reality. You and I grew up in the twentieth century. We learned to think and read and understand reality in terms of twentieth century thought. My own religious up-bringing was based on Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible, that dates to 1545; the KJV was seen as but a supplement. I doubt that it is better than the KJV but it did keep us aware that there were more than one translation of the Bible out there, and that the KJV probably wasn't the best one. There are very many places where the English and German are translated very differently. The basic narrative is the same but the more ambiguous verses in psalms, etc. vary greatly.

 

I was determined to find TheTruth of the Christian faith, had the time to study the original languages and translations, and found agreement with the Reformed theology; all questions were answered, if there was a discussion between one position or the other (oh, say, supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism) I could find an answer, a logical, yet heart- and soul-warming logical answer; one that I could confidently yet quietly stand upon, an assurance of what I believed.

 

I see. The only Reformed theology of which I have read a lot is Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. There are two things that stand out very strongly for me in his writing: absolute trust in authority, and predestination.

 

Coming as I do from a strong Anabaptist position, I feel like he is removing all responsibility from the individual. The individual becomes nothing but a puppet at the mercy of an unpredictable God whose mind we have no right to question. (I looked up the basis for this in the Westminster Catechism, which uses an obscure verse in Deut. for its basis.) From that position I can see why you say belief is a choice.

 

Hodge goes so far as to say that even logic is based on authority. Well, it's not. He just doesn't understand responsibility and what constitutes the self or human nature. He does not know the liberty of thinking freely and unfettered by religious constraints.

 

Thanks again for taking time to answer my question.

[Rhia]

I don't believe in any god - so for me, "God is nonexistant".

I don't speak any "god talk".

I think people return previously to the internet out of ignorance and fear.

[Ouroboros]

God is - I'd say it's more like the "ultimate reality", "what is" etc. Basically, everything that is and exists is all together "God", all powerful, all knowing, but not globally sentient, but yet localized sentient.

 

God speak - only at the presence of Christian family members, I know they're too hardcore for me to argue or debate with them, so I don't even want to try. Luckily I live on the opposite side of the globe so I don't see them or talk to them very often.

 

Re-conversion at death bed - fear, and some internal desire to have hope for a life after death. Nothingness seems a bit scary.