Faith

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

One thing I have realized in my research of religion (mainly Christianity) is that the main requisite for one to be a follower of a specific religion is faith. I'm sure you have heard many Christians say "Just have faith." I always hated that. Just have faith. But I have come to learn that's all you really need to be a Christian: faith. Blind or otherwise.

 

I have been looking into Christianity and have been talking to many Christians about why they believe. Of course, it always comes back to faith. It really gets interesting when you ask a Christian why they have faith. The most common answer I've recieved is that they have faith in God due to God "working" in their lives, which could just as easily be themselves working in their own lives. Some simply say that it just feels right. There is a lot of different answers to why Christians "just have faith."

 

If you have ever watched a conversation between a Christian and a non-Christian about a controversial topic (whether it's God's existence, the Bible's validity, or whatever) you will probably notice that the position a person takes is dependant upon whether or not he has put faith in Christianity. I guess that's obvious. But if it is so obvious, then why do people continue having all of these controversial conversations, when in the end they really don't get anywhere? One of us could show a Christian all the evidence against the Bible's validity until we turned blue in the face, but in the end the Christian would keep on believing the Bible to be valid because he has put faith in Christianity. The Christian could do the same to one of us: Show us all of his evidence for the Bible's validity until he too is blue in the face, but once again it won't matter because we will refuse to accept the Bible's validity due to our lack of faith. So, why even bother?

 

I suppose what I'm trying to say is don't bother with conversing with Christians about topics like that. If you really want to have a conversation with a Christian that has a greater potential for productivity, discuss his faith. This is actually the very reason I left Christianity. I had talked to many Atheists as a Christian (including a few here) and they showed me quite a few things. But I simply made up explanations in favor of Christianity and went on. Why? Again, because of my faith. It wasn't until I questioned my faith itself that I began doubting Christianity as a whole. You probably have not read my testimony, but I left Christianity because I realized my Christian faith was no better than the faith of a Mormon ex-gf of mine. I had looked into Mormonism and saw it's errors. I considered my ex-gf foolish for having faith in such a contradictory religion. But then I began to think: Is my faith really any different? A few months later of thinking and research, I left Christianity.

 

I have spent a lot of time arguing and debating Christians. I also fought with myself for a long time about the evidence Christianity presents, and whether or not it's true. To be honest, I don't think any of that really matters. What matters is whether or not you are willing to have faith. I personally do not have faith in Christianity because I don't think it is any better than having faith in any other religion. Ask a Christian, "What is the difference between having faith in Christianity and having faith in [insert religion here]? What makes faith in Christianity any more right or better than faith in [insert same religion here]" You will be surprised at the response, if you get one at all. I use Mormonism as an example alot because I have had experience mostly with Mormons.

 

If you are looking to provide a good argument against a Christian, try to avoid the controversial topics like God's character being contradictory and whatnot, because you're obviously going to get a biased answer from the Christian. Why? He has faith. It seems only logical to provide an argument against his faith, if you are looking for an effective argument against a Christian.

 

This is just my opinion on the subject based on who I've talked to and what research I've done. Anyone else care to add or change something? I'm open to any opinions.

[Golden Meadows]

I can just about accept the principle expounded by a xtian, or indeed any other religious person, who says that living by faith rather than sight is nesc for a period in this world. The real question is faith in what? This is were reason must come in - faith should never oppose reason even though at times reason cannot explain or fully comprehend something beyond its powers. The problem I have with people answering legitimate, but difficult, questions with the catch all "you must have faith" type respons, is that they are murdering their conscience. Faith can never be used to justify something which seems intrinsically evil - e.g in my case its the xtian doctrine of hell, wrt to Islam its the forced conversion techniques that have been employed through the ages and the acts of "martyrdom" like ramming passenger jets into building. Faith must always be coupled with reason and never opposed to it.

[dibby]

Yes Dra. In all my dealings with the religious, whatever discussion you are having, it All comes down to a belief about the bible. They believe god writes it .....we do not. It is like talking to a brick wall, an automaton...."The Bible says......the Bible says"....etc, etc, ad nauseum.

 

I think we should go straight to the heart of the matter. Do not accept their agenda and presupposition that the bible is to be taken literally. Lets quote some books of our own. Shakespeare, Lord of the rings...any thing you can use to support your position, from inspirational literature. They quote from a book....so can we. If they say the bible is inspired.....well.....so is Shakespeare...very inspirational. We learn from it, we just don,t try and live our lives from a 16th century perspective.

 

If this doesn,t get you anywhere then keep it personal....asking what made them christian and exploring that .

[RHEMtron]

Show us all of his evidence for the Bible's validity until he too is blue in the face, but once again it won't matter because we will refuse to accept the Bible's validity due to our lack of faith. So, why even bother

i think a lot of us here would except it. i mean the reason why so many of us in the first place left is because of the inconsistencies in the bible. if it was actually consistent, didnt go against reason, and had total historical and archaelogical evidence to back it up, we wouldnt have left, or we would reconvert.

 

Faith should never oppose reason...

 

Questions with the catch all "you must have faith" type respons, is that they are murdering their conscience.

nice... im going to make a book of quotes by famous people, and youre going in it

 

youre right though Dra. the best way to get someone to think is to catch them saying something about another person's faith. then inform that the way they judge another person's faith, they should use that same reasoning on their own. afterall... that's what jesus kinda said about judging others.

[Antlerman]

I can just about accept the principle expounded by a xtian, or indeed any other religious person, who says that living by faith rather than sight is nesc for a period in this world. The real question is faith in what? This is were reason must come in - faith should never oppose reason even though at times reason cannot explain or fully comprehend something beyond its powers. The problem I have with people answering legitimate, but difficult, questions with the catch all "you must have faith" type respons, is that they are murdering their conscience. Faith can never be used to justify something which seems intrinsically evil - e.g in my case its the xtian doctrine of hell, wrt to Islam its the forced conversion techniques that have been employed through the ages and the acts of "martyrdom" like ramming passenger jets into building. Faith must always be coupled with reason and never opposed to it.

For the sake of discussion I want to toss of few curves into this. Excuse me if I get a little long with this.

 

I have always been one who recoils from the irrationality of the Christian apologist who tries to make reality fit their “faith”, arguing stupidity that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, Evolution is false, etc, etc. I have always called it intellectual suicide. My argument to them is that humans are both rational and emotional (or spiritual), and that to be a whole human means that you not twist one side of yourself into a distorted freak in order please the other half. I can’t help but believe it is possible to satisfy both sides of ourselves without having to “prove” the unprovable, or to deny an inexplicable or ineffable sense of “awe” or “wonder” at the world that has nothing to do with rationality.

 

This is the key as I see it: Irrationality versus Non-rationality. Non-rationality would be those “senses”, those things we perceive not with our minds by “something else” (emotions). Everyone “knows” things this way. We “know” (perceive) someone loves us. We perceive or “sense” meaning to existence, etc. To try to rationally explain these sorts of things really does them an injustice and us a disservice from the “experience” of living.

 

Irrationality , on the other hand, is the intellectual denial of reality in a desperate attempt to protect something that by its very nature is non-rational. I feel that when it comes to the Christian or anyone of a religious belief, irrationality rears its mindless head when it tries to defend what is by definition non-rational. I believe this happens because they are taking the surrounding mythologies of the non-rational content as literal, and they are trying to rationalize their “faith” intellectually to themselves, or to those who challenge them taking the myths as true history and science.

 

Reason should not impose itself upon faith, and faith should not impose itself on reason. (By Faith I mean a non-rational belief, as opposed to the common use of belief in the sense of a simple cognitive acknowledgment of something, i.e., “I believe I’m hungry”). Belief in God is non-rational. Shame on them for trying to make it otherwise. They make faith irrational and have to practice intellectual suicide in order to sustain it.

[RHEMtron]

nice.... youre going on my book too

[notasheep]

Good thread, everyone!

 

For myself, I find it incomprehensible that god would make our eternal reward/punishment dependant on picking the "one true faith". Rather than whether you're trying your best to be a good person, or some other criterium.

[Antlerman]

I was thinking about this after I posted it and have an addendum I wanted to add while it was in my thoughts:

 

Belief in God is non-rational; Belief that the earth is 6,000 years old, against all credible evidence is irrational. Mainstream Christians mostly have a non-rational faith in God. Biblical literalists have an irrational faith in God. That is the difference I am seeing. Non-rational faith in something, like love, and an irrational faith in something like Creationism.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Faith must always be coupled with reason and never opposed to it.

Reason should not impose itself upon faith, and faith should not impose itself on reason.

Isn't it interesting how all Christians consider their faith reasonable? The reasons behind this differ, but the end result is still the same. "My faith is reasonable becaue I have seen God work in my life. How can I deny that?" Like I said earlier, it's probably just the individual himself working in his own life. "I look at space and the stars and everything around me, and I say there is a God. How can you say otherwise?" And some rationalize their faith by a lack of knowledge: They don't know everything about the universe, so they just say God made it all because they really don't know what else to say. And this really puts us in a bind, because they expect that if we deny God created everything, then we must have some other explanation to explain it. Some of us, like myself, do not mind not knowing everything. I don't claim to have an answer for our creation. And Christians look down on us for that, because they have an explanation and we don't. In their eyes we have proven ourselves fools by claiming ignorance, just as the Bible says. They say we are fools for denying the "evidence." The reasons are extensive to why a Christian may claim his/her faith reasonable. I've always thought they were interesting to hear though, because the flaws in each explanation can be seen when looked at honestly and in an open-minded way.

 

i think a lot of us here would except it. i mean the reason why so many of us in the first place left is because of the inconsistencies in the bible. if it was actually consistent, didnt go against reason, and had total historical and archaelogical evidence to back it up, we wouldnt have left, or we would reconvert.

Yeah, I didn't take into consideration the different situations involved. I'm sure there are some here who actually were open-minded and looked at the evidence... lol, I didn't. It's difficult to be open-minded when you are raised in a Christian home. For me to leave Christianity it took me examining my faith itself.

 

Belief in God is non-rational; Belief that the earth is 6,000 years old, against all credible evidence is irrational. Mainstream Christians mostly have a non-rational faith in God. Biblical literalists have an irrational faith in God. That is the difference I am seeing. Non-rational faith in something, like love, and an irrational faith in something like Creationism.

Yet Christians will do anything to prove their irrational faith as rational (like by using Creationism, as you said). Lol, irrational faith in a Christian gets to me more than non-rational faith does (assuming I understand your definitions correctly). Those with irrational faith always seem to be trying to shove the "evidence" in your face, and when you are finally able to decline it they get outraged at how someone can be so blind. I try to steer clear of the irrational ones...

[Golden Meadows]

I have always been one who recoils from the irrationality of the Christian apologist who tries to make reality fit their “faith”, arguing stupidity that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, Evolution is false, etc, etc. I have always called it intellectual suicide.

Yes, there comes a point with most people where the amount of non verifable evidence required to maintain a literal interpretation of biblical passages becomes stretched to breaking point.

 

 

My argument to them is that humans are both rational and emotional (or spiritual), and that to be a whole human means that you not twist one side of yourself into a distorted freak in order please the other half. I can’t help but believe it is possible to satisfy both sides of ourselves without having to “prove” the unprovable, or to deny an inexplicable or ineffable sense of “awe” or “wonder” at the world that has nothing to do with rationality.

Well put, its not good for mental equilibrium for either to be suppressed - this is a recognition of our humanity. In the case of "faith only" the cost is too high, a thinking person will be pulled apart inside by trying to suppress legimitate questions. I cannot believe that a good God would want that. Some questions there may be no answer in this life and that I accept -unless the question relates to the very nature of the deity and how that influences out human interactions. If I think a doctrine is evil because it makes either God into a monster, e.g hell, or as a consequence inflicts harm on other people, e.g religious fanatics blowing not just themselves up but other people, then its right to question and not be put off by "you are judging God" type assertions.

 

This is the key as I see it: Irrationality versus Non-rationality. Non-rationality would be those “senses”, those things we perceive not with our minds by “something else” (emotions).

I see the distinction you are making and it seems a good one though I guess unless you set out what you mean, as you have done here, many people will take "non-rationality" in a perjorative sense, in effect opposed to reason.

 

Everyone “knows” things this way. We “know” (perceive) someone loves us. We perceive or “sense” meaning to existence, etc. To try to rationally explain these sorts of things really does them an injustice and us a disservice from the “experience” of living.

Thinking or doing, the theory or the practice. Whilst they are obviously not mutually exclusive I think in my own case I think too much and do too little. Some people need to find meaning for existence - without meaning the experience becomes an excercise in futility and unhappiness results.

 

 

Irrationality , on the other hand, is the intellectual denial of reality in a desperate attempt to protect something that by its very nature is non-rational.

I would clarify one point here. Something can be beyond the powers of the reasoning faculties to comprehend -the most extreme example I can think of would be trying to plumb the depths of Gods nature - since its not possible to think thoughts greater than self, but that doesn't mean theres a denial of reality involved. An example to illustrate the point I think you are making: some xtian apologists would insist that death and the non permanence of the observable universe came about through the sin of man, yet the fossil records show that whole species came and went long before man appeared on earth. A literal reading of the bible leads to, at face value, an irrational explanation of why there is decay and death. If however the fall happened outside of time and the material universe as we see it now had this seed of corruption sown in it from the beggining of time then the argument moves from the irrational to the non-rational using your definitions.

 

 

I feel that when it comes to the Christian or anyone of a religious belief, irrationality rears its mindless head when it tries to defend what is by definition non-rational.

Yes, an example would be a xtian apologist trying to pretend that he can explain the doctrine of the trinity. The best he can do is say that its not opposed to reason, though others, e.g muslims, might say it was. Mystery is an integral part of xtianity but some people might talk as though they have the answer to everything but they don't - they are not omnipotent.

 

 

I believe this happens because they are taking the surrounding mythologies of the non-rational content as literal, and they are trying to rationalize their “faith” intellectually to themselves, or to those who challenge them taking the myths as true history and science.

Agreed yet myths can contain truths in forms other than the literal and once this accepted they no longer fall under the category of non-rational or irrational, they have their own internal logic as long as the medium is understood.

 

Reason should not impose itself upon faith, and faith should not impose itself on reason.

Yes, unreasonable faith is no faith at all.

 

 

Belief in God is non-rational. Shame on them for trying to make it otherwise. They make faith irrational and have to practice intellectual suicide in order to sustain it.

Yes, instead of saying "we don't know" and acknowledging that due to the limitations inherent in a contingent being there will always be mystery. This is perhaps an understandable byproduct of the of the technical advances made in the last couple of years that might have us believe that science can explain everything - but that in itself is an irrational argument.

 

 

Thanks antlerman for a thought provoking post.

[Antlerman]

This is the key as I see it: Irrationality versus Non-rationality. Non-rationality would be those “senses”, those things we perceive not with our minds by “something else” (emotions).

I see the distinction you are making and it seems a good one though I guess unless you set out what you mean, as you have done here, many people will take "non-rationality" in a perjorative sense, in effect opposed to reason.

I know that is going to be the difficulty in being clear about what that distinction means. For the sake of being able to have a clear dialog about these things, I think it will be worth that extra step in informal discussion. I see too often where a lack of distinction like this makes everything that is not based on rational thought seem irrational, which isn’t the case. A lot of valid perspectives get swept away through a lack of definition in the language we use.

 

I believe this happens because they are taking the surrounding mythologies of the non-rational content as literal, and they are trying to rationalize their “faith” intellectually to themselves, or to those who challenge them taking the myths as true history and science.

Agreed yet myths can contain truths in forms other than the literal and once this accepted they no longer fall under the category of non-rational or irrational, they have their own internal logic as long as the medium is understood.

I’m very interested in hearing you elaborate your thoughts on this and discussing them. I think it might provide some very useful insights for me that I'm looking for in understanding the role of mythology in people’s lives.

[Golden Meadows]

I’m very interested in hearing you elaborate your thoughts on this and discussing them.

 

My own personal reponse to myths in a religious context is perhaps best explained with a practical example. It seems clear to me that the imagery and story line used in the early part of Genesis is meant to convey profound truths in a medium that is suitable for mankind in his minority - spiritual, moral and technical development. I'm not arguing the case for or against its divine authorship but simply recognising that the story is pitched at the level of child - in picture terms a parent telling its child by way of a fantasical story, something that impresses on the childs imagination, a prototype for a moral or other essential truth.

 

I think it would be fair to say that many people today would associate myth with pure fiction and therefore treat stories passed down from ancient civilisations as laughable and not worthy of serious consideration. They are approaching the myths in ways that would not have been recognised by the original people they were created for. A christian will argue that we have to live in this life by faith and not sight, ignoring the reason why this should be for a moment - I can accept that there is a good purpose behind this - its clear that this poses a problem for a people wishing to convey the workings of a hidden and mysterious God who does not routinely makes himself and his will manifest to each individual on a daily basis.

 

As a child the story about the the apple and the tree of knowledge seemed to make a big impression on my imagination though I did not have the vocabulary or ideas to express it. When as an adult I became a xtian those same passages were a frequent source of meditation because of the very deep truths I recognised in them even though I never approached its interpretation from an exclusively literal point of view.

 

Poetry, by heightened use of language, can take the things of everyday life, things that through familiarity we don't even notice anymore, and light up the imagination once again. Modern writers can do the same, Tolkien and Lewis might be examples, where the medium of the the myth is used to express what the writers believe to be eternal truths, bypassing the auto-reject mechanisms of a modern mind that has been turned off by "religion". Good myth conveys truths that transcend time and cultures, literalism destroys it.

[Antlerman]

Poetry, by heightened use of language, can take the things of everyday life, things that through familiarity we don't even notice anymore, and light up the imagination once again. Modern writers can do the same, Tolkien and Lewis might be examples, where the medium of the the myth is used to express what the writers believe to be eternal truths, bypassing the auto-reject mechanisms of a modern mind that has been turned off by "religion". Good myth conveys truths that transcend time and cultures, literalism destroys it.

The portraits of mythology, the rhythms of poetry, the sublime words of musical imagery, and the lessons of literature, all seem lenses into the heart of the human imagination of its own place in the universe, a perception of ourselves, somehow programmed to the point of innate, through possibly our own genes, but certainly in cultural values and self portraits. They are all vehicles into a discovery of ourselves, which is seemly disconnected in the de-mythification of the universe through scientific knowledge. In this sense it almost seems that the rise of fundamentalism is an irrational (there's that word ), reactionary response to this disconnect from our sense of our own human self-definition. Where literalism/fundamentalism destroys this is when it hits that disconnect I observed earlier, where people sacrifice their rational minds in light of modern knowledge in favor of the myth-only portraits of the world. This is the dilemma of the modern world and religious (poetic self-definition) sense of being.

 

I hope this is making some sense. It's late for me and I'll think more on this tomorrow. BTW, I hope continue to be part of the forums here. I enjoy your participation.

[Golden Meadows]

Poetry, by heightened use of language, can take the things of everyday life, things that through familiarity we don't even notice anymore, and light up the imagination once again. Modern writers can do the same, Tolkien and Lewis might be examples, where the medium of the the myth is used to express what the writers believe to be eternal truths, bypassing the auto-reject mechanisms of a modern mind that has been turned off by "religion". Good myth conveys truths that transcend time and cultures, literalism destroys it.

The portraits of mythology, the rhythms of poetry, the sublime words of musical imagery, and the lessons of literature, all seem lenses into the heart of the human imagination of its own place in the universe, a perception of ourselves, somehow programmed to the point of innate, through possibly our own genes, but certainly in cultural values and self portraits. They are all vehicles into a discovery of ourselves, which is seemly disconnected in the de-mythification of the universe through scientific knowledge. In this sense it almost seems that the rise of fundamentalism is an irrational (there's that word ), reactionary response to this disconnect from our sense of our own human self-definition. Where literalism/fundamentalism destroys this is when it hits that disconnect I observed earlier, where people sacrifice their rational minds in light of modern knowledge in favor of the myth-only portraits of the world. This is the dilemma of the modern world and religious (poetic self-definition) sense of being.

 

 

 

Literalism, by definition, is a plague on religions of the book, Islam, Judaism and a large part of Christianity. It's a very understandble tendency - if a person truly believes that the words contained in their scriptures are the very word's of God then there is drive to understand and follow them to the letter. Its even more imperative when you believe that you are going to be fried for all eternity for not doing so.

 

A xtian might argue that this points to Jesus being the something more than a prophet since he seems to have had an appreciation of what religions of the book turn out like, i.e there is nothing in the gospels to indicate that he wanted a book compiled, he seems more interested in forming a church. Instead of a religion of the book he wanted a church in which the holy spirit would live and guide it through time.

 

This is only my take on what Jesus meant, am not claiming that this was actually the case. As one of his followers put it: "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life".

 

This tendency to literalism is magnified in monotheism because it puts up barrier's, you are either in or out, matters are black or white, you worship this insanely jealous god only or you worship demons.

 

I can describe with a lot of words how a lark runs along the ground from where it nests, how it takes flight and rises upwards and it will be technically correct but it misses the essence of the sight that the poet captures with non literal language:

"Like to the lark at break of day arising, From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate"

[Bobo]

A most excellent thread.

 

I have encountered this issue when talking to my mother and my mother-in-law. At first glance, they couldn't be more different. My mother is an active, churchgoing Christian. My mother-in-law has a sort of vague, New Age-ish faith that she doesn't want to even attempt to define. (She thinks she would be acting like one of those arrogant, unpleasant evangelicals that way.)

 

And yet, my mom seems to take lots of things on faith, even when she knows better. Rather than resorting to apologetics, she acknowledges that there are serious problems with the Bible. She acknowledges evolution. She says even if the resurrection weren't true (riding the fence), it wouldn't matter to her. (My response: "What do you MEAN it wouldn't matter to you? How can you say that?")

 

Part of the answer is that she has supernatural experiences. Visions of her deceased relatives who apparently take a sabbatical from heaven to come and visit her on earth. She doesn't see this as a dream or a figment of her imagination...she says she is really awake when this happens. Yet even the Bible is very clear that it doesn't work this way. So, in essence, the Bible not only contradicts science and history, but it also contradicts her own (albeit bizarre) experience. Her visions are heretical.

 

These are both intelligent, educated women. My mom completed her master's degree, and my mother-in-law was a registered nurse for decades. She is extremely interested (and well read) in spirituality.

 

And yet, even for these two, they prefer to simply take things on faith...even though their simple faiths lead them down very different paths. Isn't that de facto proof that simple faith isn't enough?

 

P.S. Does anyone have an idea what would make my mom see totally realistic visions of her dead relatives in heaven? I've heard varying explanations, including a psychiatric/neurological disorder or a specific gene (which she evidently didn't pass on to me).

 

P.S.S. Is this truly a dangerous condition? Think about it...your supernatural visions cause you to believe things that you know not to be true. Couldn't that cause you to do other insane things? Could God be sending messages through her dog at some point? Is she delusional?

 

Even scarier possibility...is my mother a Christian medium (try explaining THAT one to your evangelical pastor)?

[Ouroboros]

This is only my take on what Jesus meant, am not claiming that this was actually the case. As one of his followers put it: "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life".

It's interesting that the teachings the Jesus had (if they were his), then he put a spiritual spin on the Torah books. He interpreted the old books in a new way, as spiritual and illustrative. Just look at the comments about the law, sabbath, sacrificing in the temple etc. Jesus was preaching a non literal interpretation of the Torah and the Law.

 

Now here comes Christians, and do the same "sin" as the Pharisees and Saducees. Literally interpret the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Doing the same thing that he was against.

[Golden Meadows]

This is only my take on what Jesus meant, am not claiming that this was actually the case. As one of his followers put it: "the letter killeth, the spirit giveth life".

It's interesting that the teachings the Jesus had (if they were his), then he put a spiritual spin on the Torah books. He interpreted the old books in a new way, as spiritual and illustrative. Just look at the comments about the law, sabbath, sacrificing in the temple etc. Jesus was preaching a non literal interpretation of the Torah and the Law.

 

Now here comes Christians, and do the same "sin" as the Pharisees and Saducees. Literally interpret the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Doing the same thing that he was against.

Exactly - it is an inclination I can recognise in myself, maybe there is latent "pharisee" in other peoples hearts?

 

 

 

A most excellent thread.

 

I have encountered this issue when talking to my mother and my mother-in-law. At first glance, they couldn't be more different. My mother is an active, churchgoing Christian. My mother-in-law has a sort of vague, New Age-ish faith that she doesn't want to even attempt to define. (She thinks she would be acting like one of those arrogant, unpleasant evangelicals that way.)

 

And yet, my mom seems to take lots of things on faith, even when she knows better. Rather than resorting to apologetics, she acknowledges that there are serious problems with the Bible. She acknowledges evolution. She says even if the resurrection weren't true (riding the fence), it wouldn't matter to her. (My response: "What do you MEAN it wouldn't matter to you? How can you say that?")

 

Part of the answer is that she has supernatural experiences. Visions of her deceased relatives who apparently take a sabbatical from heaven to come and visit her on earth. She doesn't see this as a dream or a figment of her imagination...she says she is really awake when this happens. Yet even the Bible is very clear that it doesn't work this way. So, in essence, the Bible not only contradicts science and history, but it also contradicts her own (albeit bizarre) experience. Her visions are heretical.

 

These are both intelligent, educated women. My mom completed her master's degree, and my mother-in-law was a registered nurse for decades. She is extremely interested (and well read) in spirituality.

 

And yet, even for these two, they prefer to simply take things on faith...even though their simple faiths lead them down very different paths. Isn't that de facto proof that simple faith isn't enough?

 

P.S. Does anyone have an idea what would make my mom see totally realistic visions of her dead relatives in heaven? I've heard varying explanations, including a psychiatric/neurological disorder or a specific gene (which she evidently didn't pass on to me).

 

P.S.S. Is this truly a dangerous condition? Think about it...your supernatural visions cause you to believe things that you know not to be true. Couldn't that cause you to do other insane things? Could God be sending messages through her dog at some point? Is she delusional?

 

Even scarier possibility...is my mother a Christian medium (try explaining THAT one to your evangelical pastor)?

 

Bobo, I am sending you a pm later today regarding your post.

[Ouroboros]

Exactly - it is an inclination I can recognise in myself, maybe there is latent "pharisee" in other peoples hearts?

Yeah, why is that? Why do we tend to become Pharisees?

 

Literalism leads to argumentative religion, which in a sense is not faith, but trying to find some rationality for their belief. (Even though it mostly fails) In essence, literalism is not faith. *gasp* It's the strive to make reason of the belief. It's the urge to explain and give reasons to believe. But shouldn't faith be just what it is? Faith only, not reason? Aren't they supposed to be their opposites?

[Golden Meadows]

Exactly - it is an inclination I can recognise in myself, maybe there is latent "pharisee" in other peoples hearts?

Yeah, why is that? Why do we tend to become Pharisees?

A form of spiritual facism? the desire to exert control over others for powers sake and nothing to do with love. Its easy to rationlise away, e.g under the pretext of guarding Gods Holy Word. Jesus said that we are to love our neighbour even if they are our neighbour but I detect a different law at work which has its roots in selfishness. The doctrine of original sin I can readily accept because I see its effects in myself, what I cannot accept is that the God who made me would have me punished for all eternity because of it.

 

Literalism leads to argumentative religion,

Because every intepreter thinks they are infallible.

 

which in a sense is not faith,

If you mean that the xtianity of Jesus Christ was not a religion of the book then I agree.

 

but trying to find some rationality for their belief. (Even though it mostly fails) In essence, literalism is not faith.

literalism in this context means irrational "faith"?

 

*gasp* It's the strive to make reason of the belief. It's the urge to explain and give reasons to believe. But shouldn't faith be just what it is? Faith only, not reason? Aren't they supposed to be their opposites?

Some people may think that faith and reason are opposites as you say because they feel that in essence faith is some kind of irrational belief, but I dont think that has never been mainline xtianity. Faith and reason go together. If faith is irrational then its no faith at all. There may be a lack of evidence to support a belief but thats not the same as irrational belief which is no faith at all.

 

From the early church times came the 4 ways of interpreting the scriptures. In essence this was literal and the spiritual with the spiritual being subdivided into allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses. A given passage in scripture could be open simultaneously to all these senses of interpretation. The literalist only sees one sense and mangles the information in the process. Even if I dont think God was the author of all the texts I can certainly see that the human writer was aware of these senses.

 

[Golden Meadows]

Exactly - it is an inclination I can recognise in myself, maybe there is latent "pharisee" in other peoples hearts?

Yeah, why is that? Why do we tend to become Pharisees?

 

Literalism leads to argumentative religion, which in a sense is not faith, but trying to find some rationality for their belief. (Even though it mostly fails) In essence, literalism is not faith. *gasp* It's the strive to make reason of the belief. It's the urge to explain and give reasons to believe. But shouldn't faith be just what it is? Faith only, not reason? Aren't they supposed to be their opposites?

 

Hi Hans,

Shakespeare seems to be cropping up all over the place for me today. I came across the following in a "Merchant of Venice" :

 

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart:

O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

 

p.s If anyone is interested Google has just launched a web site today dedicated to Shakespeare.

http://books.google.com/googlebooks/shakespeare/

[Ouroboros]

Hi Hans,

Shakespeare seems to be cropping up all over the place for me today. I came across the following in a "Merchant of Venice" :

 

"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.

An evil soul producing holy witness

Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,

A goodly apple rotten at the heart:

O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!"

Very true.

 

I think that the core message of the Gospels are just that. Don't read anything literally. That was the message the supposed Jesus was sending. There's so many sayings in the Gospel that points to that. And yet, the followers of the Jesus cult, they do it now. It's so sad, really.

 

Here's a thought I had. In the Gospels Jesus talks about the secret messages; he's talking about that it's hidden for those who don't believe and such. Maybe this was a message from the author of the gospels to tell the reader "don't read these stories about Jesus literally, we're hiding a message beneath the words." Like a coded text.

[Dra_Mucd_Uha]

Very true.

 

I think that the core message of the Gospels are just that. Don't read anything literally. That was the message the supposed Jesus was sending. There's so many sayings in the Gospel that points to that. And yet, the followers of the Jesus cult, they do it now. It's so sad, really.

Yeah, if we were to read it literally, all of the flaws would be shown, and Christianity proven to be false. So now we have to take the Scriptures "with a grain of salt" and read them in a non-literal fashion, which means the scriptures can mean just about anything you want them to. Not only does this give the church more power over it's followers because they can make the scriptures meet their desires, but it also allows Christianity to continue in it's existence, and even thrive.

[Ouroboros]

Yup.

 

Read it literally, you find the conflicts and the contradictions and know it's not the "perfect word of God".

 

Read it allegorical, and it will fit anything you want, and it's not the "perfect word of God".

[Golden Meadows]

Yup.

 

Read it literally, you find the conflicts and the contradictions and know it's not the "perfect word of God".

 

Read it allegorical, and it will fit anything you want, and it's not the "perfect word of God".

 

Whoever Jesus really was or wasn't it seems he was indifferent to the publishing of the NT. The book of rules, as it is in effect for some people, makes no mention of Jesus sanctioning such a thing but rather a church. If it was so important why is it not referenced in the Gospels? I just wonder if xtianity would have survived longer in my heart if there was a book of stories that complemented the basic teaching of Jesus instead of the INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD that MUST be obeyed RELIGIOUSLY. If this was the case Hell would never have survived as a doctrine nor a lot of the other patently obvious contradictions.

[Mythra]

Christianity takes a huge amount of something - call it faith if you will.

 

All a person has to do to realize this, is to step back for just one second and pretend.

 

Pretend that you are in a library - and you find a book there. You've never heard a word about this book before.

 

You check the book out of the library and begin to read.

 

It's a story that includes talking snakes, talking donkeys, the sun standing still, people walking on water, oceans parting, food falling from the sky, and a thousand other things that are equally incredible..

 

Any person, upon reading the bible without prior indoctrination, would say "yeah, sure - those things really happened. Right.

 

It's only after being told over and over again by someone they trust that "yes, this is God's Word to humanity, every word is true, just believe" that people learn to ignore their common sense and cover the eyes of reason and swallow this nonsense whole.