How Does the Bible Define Faith?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Faith is defined as belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust, confidence, reliance, or devotion. Faith is the opposite of doubt.
Faith: What Is It?
The Bible gives a short definition of faith in Hebrews 11:1:"Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (What do we hope for? We hope that God is trustworthy and honors his promises. We can be sure that his promises of salvation, eternal life, and a resurrected body will be ours someday based on who God is.
The second part of this definition acknowledges our problem: God is invisible. We can’t see heaven either. Eternal life, which begins with our individual salvation here on earth, is also something we do not see, but our faith in God makes us certain of these things. Again, we count not on scientific, tangible proof but on the absolute reliability of God’s character.
Where do we learn about the character of God so we can have faith in him? The obvious answer is the Bible, in which God reveals himself fully to his followers. Everything we need to know about God is found there, and it is an accurate, in-depth picture of his nature.
Many passages in the Bible are impossible to understand, yet Christians accept them because of faith in a trustworthy God.
Faith: Why Do We Need It?
The Bible is Christianity’s instruction book. It not only tells followers who to have faith in but why we should have faith in him.
In our day-to-day lives, Christians are assailed on every side by doubts. Doubt was the dirty little secret of the apostle Thomas, who had traveled with Jesus Christ for three years, listening to him every day, observing his actions, even watching him raise people from the dead. But when it came to Christ’s resurrection, Thomas demanded touchy-feely proof:
Then (Jesus) said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” (John 20:27, NIV)
Thomas was the Bible’s most famous doubter. On the other side of the coin, in Hebrews chapter 11, the Bible introduces an impressive list of heroic believers from the Old Testament in a passage often called the "Faith Hall of Fame ." These men and women and their stories stand out to encourage and challenge our faith.
Faith: How Do We Get It?
Sadly, one of the great misconceptions in the Christian life is that we can create faith on our own. We can’t.
We struggle to stoke up faith by doing Christian works, by praying more, by reading the Bible more; in other words, by doing, doing, doing. But Scripture says that’s not how we get it:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by Martin Luther, one of the early Christian reformers, insisted faith comes from God working in us and through no other source: “Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.”
Luther and other theologians put great stock in the act of hearing the gospel being preached:
"For Isaiah says, 'Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?' So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." (That’s why the sermon became the centerpiece of Protestant worship services. The spoken Word of God has supernatural power to build faith in listeners. Corporate worship is vital to fostering faith as the Word of God is preached.
by Mary Fairchild
Updated January 24, 2019
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
94 visitors
T
he spoken Word of God has supernatural power to build faith in listeners. 
All believer and all others are welcome in this discussion. We need your support.
People come by faith in many ways. Mine came when a UH-1 Huey helicopter I was aircrew on got shot out from under me and came down in a dry rice paddy outside a place called DaNang. I was the only survivor and injured. By rights, I should have died but did not. Spent many years dealing with survivor's guilt. My faith and the love of a good woman are the only things that kept me from becoming a statistic of suicide.
Welcome Ed! This is the 'truth' we need to hear which can impact men and women on a deeper level. I am most grateful you shared it.
I can not match the intensity of that moment or time in your life with anything I am about to write. But, I do agree that when we are placed in a crucible of life circumstances we come face to face with who we are. Then we 'know' within our self! I offer this brief section of scripture:
John 9
24 A second time [the Pharisees] summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man [Jesus] is a sinner.”
25 He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”
"By rights, I should have died but did not." —Ed-NavDoc.
After coming to a true faith in God, not just corporal worship, one of the most humbly experiences in my life occurred, when I saw in my "inner spirit" as if I was looking at a screen— all the various times in my life that I had been in situations some borne of my choices some not, where I could have been killed. It can bring a tear or a well of tears to one's eyes. I was drenched in my own tears.
. . . To be 'blind' and now see.
Ok, that helped Ed find faith. For somebody like me, I would have probably checked my shorts, wiped my brow and said "Thank God!" while not meaning it. I would have put it down to pure luck.
I've been nearly killed by people on cell phones running stop signs and stop lights, but never put it down to God saving me for a divine purpose. I simply put it down as "this is not the day my passport gets stamped".
Whenever someone, for whatever reason, assigns divine intervention to their own personal salvation what they don't realize they are doing is saying "Obviously I mean more to God than that 4 year old who just died of cancer, tough luck for that family, they should have prayed more because it must have been their lack of faith that killed that child. If God was willing to intervene in helping me avoiding a car accident because of my faith, he would almost certainly intervene to save a 4 year old, as long as her family was faithful, right?"...
I know it's a knee jerk reaction sometime for people to thank God for their sports win, for their lottery win or surviving a near death experience, but what that implies is a very dark and evil God. A God who would spend time and effort making sure one Football team won over another but doesn't give a shit about the bus full of children that goes off a bridge or the nine year old and her two twin 5 year old brothers crossing the street and isn't a God I'd want to worship. So either he doesn't exist, isn't able to involve himself in human affairs, isn't all powerful, or is a miserable prick who enjoys watching human suffering. I prefer to believe he/it doesn't exist and there's no one to blame or thank for either the suffering or events interpreted by some as miracles.
Your experience is the normal course (path) for such occurrences. Note that I wrote it this way: "After coming to a true faith in God. . .one of the most humbly experiences in my life occurred. . . .
It kind of washed over me in my mind's eyes. (Smile.) It was a moment when I sat down quietly, reflected, and realized just how much more there is to know about this world I live in.
Jesus prayed a lot, and was crucified, DP. Tragedies are common-place. Yet, faith in God remains an everyday occurrence for believers. No one worth their salt wishes destruction and death on innocent people. Why be so dangerously pessimistic?
That is an unproven assertion because there is no proof that Jesus as the son of God ever lived.
That claim of the earthly existence of Jesus can be proven through many recorded (archived) writings, including one former bible scholar Bert Ehrman, now atheist.
Evidence of a Jewish preacher who correlates with the biblical Jesus exists per Bart Ehrman's research. Not that this human being was divine in any way. Bart Ehrman explains this fully - you should consider all he has to say rather than cherry-pick the parts you like. (Also, as a technical point, it is evidence , not proof .)
He is a New Testament biblical scholar by profession. His atheism is a function of honest reflection on the nature of the Christian God :
Did Bart Ehrman state Jesus (the man) existed? Yes! Is the claim Jesus (the man) was crucified by Romans true? Yes! I cherry-picked nothing. There are many writers who take the time to write about Jesus' divinity. Those detailed writings are beyond the scope of this article on faith, however. As to Jesus (the man) existing that is certainly and clearly established.
Okay, evidence it is.
Did you not read my opening sentence?:
Hard to miss.
Okay. If you are going to stick with Jesus was nothing more than an ordinary human being who operated as a Jewish street preacher then you are good. But if you consider Jesus divine (and we all know that you do) then you have ignored the balance of Dr. Ehrman's findings. That would be cherry-picking.
I am not going to argue with you Tig! What I think of who Jesus is was not what I 'reinforced' with epistte. Maybe this is an issue of some sort of 'cross-talking' as I was not focused on aspects of divinity as @1.1.8 clearly shows. (No mention of it.)
Is faith material or immaterial?
Faith is illogical.
Is faith material or immaterial?
What does faith is illogical mean to you?
Faith is immaterial.
It means exactly what I said. Religious faith is illogical because it is a belief that is not based on rational thought and it cannot be supported by facts.
Are laws of logic material or immaterial?
Is this what your debate tactics have devolved into?
Faith, as it relates to religion, is immaterial and illogical only to atheists.
Because it's also irrational.
Again only to atheists.
No, by definition.
I have my opinion. I respect your right to yours.
Yes you do.
I offered no opinion. just fact.
Hmmmmmm…… The "God" Gene !
Since your soooo into Science !
Scientific response:
In the brain, VMAT2 proteins are located on synaptic vesicles. VMAT2 transports monoamine neurotransmitters from the cytosol of monoamine neurons into vesicles. PZ Myers argues: "It's a pump. A teeny-tiny pump responsible for packaging a neurotransmitter for export during brain activity. Yes, it's important, and it may even be active and necessary during higher order processing, like religious thought. But one thing it isn't is a 'god gene.'"
Carl Zimmer claimed that VMAT2 can be characterized as a gene that accounts for less than one percent of the variance of self-transcendence scores. These, Zimmer says, can signify anything from belonging to the Green Party to believing in ESP. Zimmer also points out that the God Gene theory is based on only one unpublished, unreplicated study. However Hamer notes that the importance of the VMAT2 finding is not that it explains all spiritual or religious feelings, but rather that it points the way toward one neurobiological pathway that may be important.
Science is GREAT huh !
Oh.... by the way...…
"Because it's also irrational".
Is an "Opinion".... Unless you actually crunched the "Numbers" to back the "Opinion" up as "Fact" !
Science is Great, Science is Great, Science is Great !
Major red flag right there. From a scientific standpoint. But it doesn't validate any claim or assertion of any god actually existing. Only that one believes it does (and belief does not equal fact), which is often just an emotional response, thereby making it irrational. But then, belief and other emotional responses are just about brain chemistry. Psychological illnesses, drug effects, ect., also affects brain chemistry and responses.
"May be important?" A little vague there, don't you think?
Nope. Still a fact.
Major red flag right there !
Kinda like you.....Who ONLY believes GOD doesn't exist, which is often just an emotional response, thereby making it irrational !
"May be important?" A little vague there, don't you think?"
Science !
I here a few number changes can effect the entire results of something !
"Click"...… It's changed !
That is not a belief. I am not convinced god exists. The lack of a belief is not a belief in itself.
That depends on the study, the methodology, results, replicability, and validity. One study alone (especially unpublished) does not mean said study is valid or conclusive. If you have any knowledge or appreciation of science, you would know that.
Because ?
Ad hominem attacks are fallacious. I expect you to be REASONABLE.
No evidence/proof.
And ?
I haven't seen definitive proof "for"..... and .... I haven't seen definitive proof "against" either.... but ….. I don't call you Irrational because of your "belief " !
Why do you insist on doing that to others ? Is it because you NEED them to "Believe" the way you do ?
What more do you want?
Then there's no reason to assume or believe there's a god either.
I've made no mention of my beliefs.
Doing what exactly?
Oh please! I don't care what people believe. I've always said people are free to believe whatever they want. But belief does not equal fact, nor is it free from scrutiny.
Do you NOT believe in Science as your go to ?
"But belief does not equal fact, nor is it free from scrutiny."
Hypothetically speaking ?
No, I do not believe. I go by the evidence and where it leads.
Hypothetics can be great when needed !
No. Are you suggesting belief is as valid as fact or tat it should be free from logical scrutiny?
Sure, when an idea is rational. But I'll still go by the evidence itself. Hypotheticals needs evidence to validate them.
Descriptive or Prescriptive ideas ?
And that would be ?
Objective, empirical.
Depends on what the claim is. Then we'll see where it leads.
Not at all. Faith is completely logical. You conflate "logical" and "scientific."
People have seen that God was good in the past - that he has done and said things that show his love for people. It's reasonable to develop a sense of his character based on this and logical to assume he will continue to act based on that character. Can I prove scientifically what God will do in the future? No, but I can't prove anything in particular will happen in the future. Neither can you. All we can do is look at the past and make logical assumptions about the future.
So I can't know what God will do, but I can reasonably and logically have faith that it will be what he has promised.
So your a swinger ?
If so, prove your fact....
What is that supposed to mean?
Faith (in god/s) is emotionally based, as there is no objective, empirical evidence for any deity. Therefore, it is irrational, as emotional basis is an irrational position.
"Objective" evidence is a confirmed evidence while "empirical" evidence is taken-for-granted evidence which is not confirmed by scientific experiments.
Did that help ?
Not even a little.
There is no evidence to support such assertions. only what people have said or believed.
It is illogical to accept or believe a god exist without actual evidence for one. Not to mention accept the words of those who make such claims without supporting evidence.
Can you prove scientifically that there is a god?
We can look at history to make a prediction about the future or to make comparisons between events of the past and present. That's about it.
That is only an assumption, and one which stems from the assumption there's a god to begin with. That is what is illogical.
No, because that is not quite correct. Empirical evidence is gained by observation and experimentation, which can be analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Objective evidence is confirmed evidence by experimentation which (hopefully) lacks emotional or personal bias. Basically, it's what can be observed and confirmed. There is no belief as a final or acceptable answer.
Why do you have faith in something that doesn't exist and you cannot prove or even support outside of an emotional hunch?
What would it take for you to seriously question your religious beliefs?
How can faith possibly be logical when it cannot be supported or defended in any way by objective evidence? Faith is the rejection of logic.
Which can be swayed by personal "Beliefs" and/or Experiences" !
Do you even understand the difference between empirical evidence and ancectodal evidence?
What people say IS evidence. We execute people based on that kind of evidence. You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears if you like. You don't have to like the evidence but it is evidence.
The scientific method simply is not applicable to every kind of inquiry. It works for a great many things but it can't do everything. You really need to get off this idea that somehow the scientific method is the only path to knowledge. I can pretty much guarantee you don't live your life that way, but you think that somehow it is wisdom to demand the scientific method be employed in religious matters. It's like arguing a car can't be built because you can't build one with only tweezers. Science is a tool for knowledge, but it's not the only tool.
NOW you want me to comment with you ?
What Changed since your "Leave Me Alone" INSISTANCE ?
I love how you try to attack people for using circular logic and then supply that definition of logical.
LOL
That's what I offered. I have an opinion based on available evidence and a reasoning mind. I can't help it if you don't like the analysis. That's your problem. The fact is you have a bias against the conclusions I and others have reached so you reject both the evidence and the analysis with silly claims that it's not logical, but this is only your opinion and a biased one at that.
You blatantly ignore the process of analytical reason that happens right in front of your eyes because any other course would require you to open your mind to an alternative you can't accept.
Where is my argument circular?
Where is the evidence for the existence of a supernatural religious creator? The Bible isn't evidence of god because it was written by man.
Because you're saying stupid shit and I can't take it anymore.
But continue to talk like you don't know what you're talking about. I'm done with you
True...sometimes things do happen that can not be explained by science or contradict science.
I've Kept your wishes fulfilled, no matter what "Stupid Shit" comments "I've" seen.
This is my last response to you. I think it's (3) comments that means I've broken our covenant ! I wouldn't want to do that to you !
Which is a problem. It only weakens the experiment and/or results or conclusions and damages its validity. Scientists have to disclose any bias on their part when submitting a research paper for review.
It' subjective and anecdotal. "Because I say so" is not evidence.
Wrong again! Forensic evidence is considered, which is objective and empirical evidence. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and can be refuted with cross examination. That's why forensics trumps witnesses every time!
See first statement. People saying something is meaningless and without any solid foundation unless there is actual empirical evidence to back it up. to use your legal comparison, what people say establishes a greater degree of reasonable doubt. Such doubt is lessened, if not altogether eliminated, with objective empirical evidence!
I didn't say it was the only path. but it is the best path. But the issuer isn't knowledge itself. But rather, the claims made based on current knowledge, or especially the lack thereof.
Wanna bet? I don't go simply by what "people say" to me alone. That would just make me gullible.
Not wisdom, but logical. If religious matters or especially its claims cannot be backed up with something of substance beyond "what people say," then it's meaningless and without merit. But you can believe whatever people say if you like.
Like I said, it's the best tool, especially when establishing actual facts.
Really? What "available evidence" have you offered? "What people say?"
It's your starting assumptions and resulting conclusions that are flawed. Especially since you only seem to have anecdotal "evidence." So yes, they are rejected, and rightfully so! But you can believe them if you want. Wishful thinking seems to be all you have.
"I believe" or wishful thinking is not analytical reasoning.
Do you have any examples of this?
There is incredibly weak evidence, there is damning evidence and everything in-between. Given God is seen by most to be the unique supreme sentient entity at the root of everything, God's existence is the grandest possible claim. The evidence for the grandest possible claim naturally will be more than 'Moe says God exists'.
We have people declaring that the Earth is flat. Would you consider that evidence of a flat Earth or would you recognize that calling that 'evidence' is simply exploiting the inherent fuzziness of the English language?
Typically when speaking of evidence regarding the existence of God, the evidence would be that which can be inspected (measured) by a third party. In the case of claims such as the existence of God, the evidence is that which would pass as scientific evidence.
Strange things happen that are not always explained away by science. But that does not mean there's not a logical explanation...science just hasn't found it yet
Your copy and paste ended a few paragraphs early. Our immune system is occasionally able to fight off cancer unaided.
No.
Faith is "knowledge without evidence", but upon that knowledge, one may build a very logical edifice... as have many, many theologians.
I hope that I apply logic to my faith. I certainly try to.
OTOH, I don't conflate "logic" and "scientific method".
Knowledge obtained through the scientific method requires evidence. Knowledge obtained through faith does not. So... it's a good idea to keep in mind the source...
Knowledge obtained through faith may be applied to spiritual topics, but not to worldly topics. Knowledge obtained through the scientific method may be applied to worldly topics, but not to spiritual topics.
Simple! I've only been thinking about it for fifty years.....
How can we know that we have true knowledge if we do not also have have objective evidence to support it? This is the catch-22 of religious belief.
Knowledge obtained without evidence is faith but that activity also has an inherent confirmation bias that we have trouble getting beyond. When we agree with the source but we cannot support it we emotionally find ways of making excuses with sloppy thinking to support the (faith)knowledge that we happen to agree with.
But that does not make it any less real...
That is THE question, with always the same answer: faith.
In that case... where does faith come from? From God's grace.
Why do some people have that grace, and some not? Dunno. But it doesn't really matter.
God is good. God is love. If you are good, if you love your fellows, you are with God whether you know it or not... and whether He knows it or not.
"God = Love" may be read in either direction.
We don't believe that because we have powerful and convincing evidence that the opposite is true. The best evidence, by the way, is eyewitness testimony of astronauts who traveled to the moon and could see the Earth as a whole globe. I assume that you can't independently prove those men were there and saw what they say they saw, but you take them at their word. That's called faith.
Conversely, we don't have powerful and convincing evidence that God doesn't exist or that the things he has promised will not come to pass. In fact, when pressed for such evidence, atheists routinely insist it's not their job to supply such evidence. So if your "flat Earth" example and the scientific method is the standard you want to go with, you'll also need to present scientific evidence that God doesn't exist or we shouldn't put our trust in him. I shan't be holding my breath.
I have seen no convincing argument that we should rely solely on the scientific method. Nor have I seen a scientific proof that God doesn't exist or cannot be trusted. Furthermore, it is knowledge of science - for example, laws of physics and thermodynamics - that support the idea that a God/Creator existing outside the confines of time and space must exist.
This is a circular logic fallacy because that argument assumes that God exists, which is unproven.
You need faith to believe in god, you get faith and knowledge from God's grace, which to a believer is proof that God exists...........around and around you go.
No. I'm not trying to convince you, so I have no burden of proof. I am exposing a situation to you.
Not to me. I've never used that argument, which would indeed be circular. On the contrary, I always insist that I have no proof of God's existence. I know without proof.
Faith is not a poorly applied scientific method. Faith is knowledge without proof.
My reference to a flat Earth was simply an example of weak evidence. Clearly you agree flat-Earth testimony is weak evidence. ET abductions is also weak evidence. So we are clear on the concept of 'weak evidence' right?
Trouble is you entirely ignored my point. Here is what I wrote:
That (above) is the point I made. Grandest possible claim vs. some of the weakest possible 'evidence'
Not surprising you want personal testimony to be evidence because there is nothing else to support your claim. If you did acknowledge the importance of third-party verified objective evidence you would be in the awkward position of having to agree that no such evidence exists to support the grandest possible claim.
It would be dumb for anyone to claim that one can prove God does not exist. That is an impossible claim to prove. I routinely make this point.
In what way do scientific findings support the necessity of a sentient entity outside of our known universe? Quite a claim Tacos!, this should be interesting.
Who says it's grand? You? What does that even mean? Because God is big he's somehow harder to prove? Or he requires more proof? That's silly. The fact of God's size is irrelevant to the level of proof required to believe in him.
A controversial claim might require greater proof. A claim that went against natural assumptions or obvious conclusions might require a lot of proof.
Considering how many billions of people believe in God and always have, I would say it's neither controversial, nor does it go against natural assumptions or obvious conclusions.
As has been pointed out to you already, people are convicted based on nothing more than eyewitness testimony every single day. Furthermore, when scientific evidence is introduced in court, it must be authenticated by the testimony of a human witness. Again, you don't have to like the evidence or put your faith in it. That's your concern. But it remains evidence - and relevant evidence at that - all the same.
Then consider this: If it is impossible to scientifically prove God does not exist then it is equally impossible to prove he does exist. If we cannot agree on a standard, how we would measure it, and how we could prove or disprove it, then it's time to reject talk of a scientific proof for God. You will have to find some other way to decide the matter for yourself.
You do not think the existence of the supreme entity is a grand claim? What on Earth would be a grand claim to you?
It means the claim is of something extraordinary. 'God exists' is a rather potent claim, right? It asserts the existence of the supreme entity. See?
Ever hear of the Sagan standard? It is pithy: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Since you will simply claim that this standard is 'silly' here are some examples. (Note: examples are not arguments, they are examples intended to clarify a prior point):
My point is that the claim 'God exists' is probably the most extraordinary claim possible. Its scope is all of reality and time itself. Can you think of any claim that would top that? I cannot. So, yes, a claim of such grandeur does indeed demand rather spectacular evidence. But we have no evidence other than mere words from human beings.
argumentum ad populum
Do you think eyewitness testimony is good evidence? Have you done any research to find the legal position on this? (Clearly you have not.) It is accepted, with many constraints, only because legal proceedings typically do not have solid evidence in the first place. Not because it is considered good. Indeed, it is considered to be poor evidence.
Logically, God can be proved to exist by God presenting Himself and demonstrating His awesome power. So, no, proving that God exists is quite possible. It is impossible, however, to prove that no god exists. I am speaking in terms of logic (as I was before). That said, it is next to impossible to prove that God exists because nobody can call God up and ask for a visit. So, in effect, it is not possible to prove God exists.
Agreeing on a standard would probably be impossible. But I suspect if God were to show up one day and create a second sun (for example) so that we had two suns orbiting each other that might be considered evidence of a supreme entity. Things like that. But, as noted, God must cooperate. Until God cooperates we have no evidence of God's existence and it makes great sense to remain unconvinced.
Are laws of logic material or immaterial?
Gordy, there is a rousing discussion on the meaning of atheism (lack of belief, disbelief) at this link: ATHEISM: Positive and Negative! And Faith Too!
You can head over there for it!
I've always said people are free to believe whatever they want. But belief does not equal fact, nor is it free from scrutiny.
How about 'highjacking'? Can you not take over discussion for your own purposes? This article regards: faith. Can you stick to it, please?
Faith is not a feeling, Gordy. It does not change according to personal emotional "ups and downs."
This is not an ad-hominem. I asked a rhetorical question if you were going to continue this same line of arcane questioning?
It's based on feelings or emotions: you "feel" there a god, spirit, ect and then convince yourself, or be convinced, there is.
No thanks. I've had enough of your misinformation about atheists.
How am I doing that? The post you reference discusses belief.
See previous statement.
They're rational.
How should we 'sign' a question is rhetorical, epistte? And since you have interacted, can you go back and answer the question please. The hope is we can somehow move forward.
How would it have helped your argument if I would have defined logic as either material or immaterial?
If the question is too much for you ignore it, please.
What would it take for me to question my religious beliefs? Bottom line is far more than you or anyone else here could ever come up with to convince me otherwise. End of story...
That requires faith to have faith.
How does one first determine that the Bible is actually the divine word of God and not merely the work of (many) ancient men over (many) centuries of writing?
Let me say I had faith that should you come to this discussion, you would start with the inclusion of this last sentence. It is from prior sets of experiences faith develops and deepens. From the first instance one steps into understanding the immaterial nature of God and proceeding onward faith becomes more reliable.
Determination of faith in the words of the bible comes from abiding study of it (to see if what is stated is true). Whole theological areas of study deal with many aspects and statements of the Bible.
Everybody exercises faith in something every day. It is central to life.
The question remains unanswered:
How does one first determine that the Bible is actually the divine word of God and not merely the work of (many) ancient men over (many) centuries of writing?
You have a book. It is called the Bible. The Bible claims it is the divine word of God (and then defines God). What is the basis for accepting this if not faith?
You have my answer. It works continuously in my life. I sought God's involvement in my life and I read:
The spoken Word of God has supernatural power to build faith in listeners and readers. The Bible is Christianity’s instruction book. It not only tells followers who to have faith in but why we should have faith in him.
Another non-answer.
Then you should be able to answer:
How does one first determine that the Bible is actually the divine word of God and not merely the work of (many) ancient men over (many) centuries of writing?
Be specific. Vague answers are non-answers. You have in effect claimed that the Bible has supernatural powers (magic) to build faith. How? And what creates the faith in the first place?
Does the Qur'an have this power too?
You have my answer from my experience. You seem to not like it.
So that we do not get off on the wrong foot, I encourage you to accept my answers when they come from me about me.
In my opinion, the article is clear enough in it delivery. That is why I am partially replying with it up to this now. Please, be careful with what you write. For example:
How what? How does the Bible have supernatural power (singular) or magic? (That parenthetical word is not in the original.)
What creates faith in the first place?
Assuming you mean, faith in God, seeking, hearing, listening, and reading. From the article: In addition, faith
1. It is the gift of God.
2. So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
Does the Qur'an have this power too?
It appears Muslims are people of faith in God (Allah), in my opinion. God permits diversity for various types of nuances in faith.
Your 'answer' is merely that you have faith that the Bible is the divine word of God because the Bible has supernatural powers which created your faith.
You claim to 'think' the Qur'an also possesses supernatural power wherein God (now Allah) gives faith through the pages of a book. Thus the Qur'an is also the divine word of God.
Apparently faith comes from reading words attributed to any god. Yahweh (OT), Christ (NT), Allah (Qur'an) all have books wherein they are the main god. Three remarkably different texts making contradictory rules and describing quite different gods with very different rules, plans and characteristics yet all legit simply because people believe the words.
Hindus are also people of faith. Do you accept their gods? If the Qur'an is a path to God then logically so is the Bhagavad Gita. Similarly, this logic would apply to any text considered holy by any culture. If people believe based on a book then the book ipso facto is divine and true.
Logically, if a culture believes in a god, the god is just as legit as any other. There is nothing in your answer that distinguishes a 'true' God from 'false' gods.
I hear you. And, as for me, I do not worry (or stress over) about other men and women and their choice of god/s. That can only lead to one or several outcomes: Neither of which is conducive to good health or peace with all men. I accept that co-mingling of gods, idols, 'other' religions, and a myriad of denominations are not 'serviceable' by any one individual. Better to settle down one's spirit and serve well in some capacity.
What you will have to accept for now is what I have to accept for now is what every religion on Earth accepts for now: God wants us to live in peace with one another. That is, we are not to fight over God, who calls each of us individually and collectively, and gifts us in the same, to faith.
Now then, I have to mention something that has been sticking up in the back of my mind for months now in these discussions - which I have not bothered to bring out but will do from now on:
The believer is a captive to faith in God, having been gifted it. The believer in a real sense is compelled into spiritual service (a life of faith), because we can not simply ignore its "message," once hearing and receiving it. The atheist or agnostic has no such motivation or force placed individually or collectively upon oneself or as a group. I know that to be so, because I was an agnostic once upon a time.
What that condenses now to is an atheist or agnostic can make heralding statements which can seem to sum up what God, religion, and faith is all about, even though nothing about faith in God can be completed and "packaged" in such a manner. After all, these are complex concepts for which many thinkers dead and living have written about - all based on writings by ancient prophets and apostles. The 'books' and their writers not even realizing the depths of the writings they wrote (or the degrees of future impacts) would have on a myriad of generations after their departures.
Finally, and this is important, the writings (books) are not complete. That is, the believer should and does understand that "we see darkly" for now. We do not yet "behold" the full tapestry of what the Author and Finisher (God) of our faith is accomplishing. In this manner, this is why we call it,
Faith.
In other words as I see it, is you don't know everything, either. You don't know the mind of God and what he/she intends for us. Is that pretty much it?
I will let you read what Apostle Paul wrote about this as he was establishing (planting) churches. After Apostle Paul made all his arguments, entreaties, and suffered dearly on behalf of the people in the coming church age of his day, in addition, he wrote this:
I Corinthians 13
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.
What does all that say to the churches of today? We are not complete in our understanding of God's "day to day" plan for humanity. We simply are beholden as believers to follow after it, for we are called to enjoin its mission.
* Btw, I was tightening up that comment as you must have been commenting. The whole editing thing, we all know and love! (Smile.) You may want to reread my @3.1.6.
Yes, I see where you edited your comment. So my next question, who continues the writings? Does that mean someone will be commissioned to edit the Bible?
I know that there are always new interpretations of the Bible being published but can one actually add on to the Bible?
pssstttt....I think King James added stuff that didn't belong there
Not just then!
From the beginning, there were battles over what should be considered "holy". The Catholic Bible is not identical to the most common Protestant ones... then there's the Bool of Mormon, and various fringe cults...
I'll stick to the Gospels. Period.
What "plan"? There are a hundred billion galaxies, with a hundred billion stars in each. Do you really imagine that God has a plan for each? The universe would be a farce.
"God is love." ... "Love one another." ... ... That's all anyone needs.
Welcome Bob! I did not mean to overstate my understanding. I am not informed of God's plan for any one day of my own existence, at-known another, and another, and —.
(Smile.)
The 'best' spiritual book or books from the list the saying goes: Are whichever one or ones you read!
When I say I'll stick to the Gospels, I'm not being flippant.
Jesus's message appeals to me; church gobbledygook does not. Gadgets like the Trinity are distractions. Virgin birth is, IMNAAHO, irrelevant to Christ's message, and as John said, anything that distracts is bad.
The life and message of Jesus of Nazareth. That's it. Full stop.
I'm okay with that. And I understand your reasons as they have been shared in the past by others.
You do not mind if I go to the end of our biblical collection of books? (There is a lot of systematic theology involved.) Certainly, I know you do not mind.
I'm pretty sure that Christ is happy with anything that helps you to follow Him. The question is, does (whatever) help you love your neighbor, or distract you from that purpose.
Being a simple person myself, I figure that simpler is better.
No. I have 'reconciled' biblical scriptures and letters in my life. What I am confident of, as I read your comments, is you have "majored" in what matters from scripture, too! After all the 'details' and arguments in scripture which pull out this aspect, or that aspect, one by one, pulling them apart, examining them, and then placing it all back in line >>>what is concluded is this: Love covers a multitude of sins. (Smile.)
There’s a word I like very much: clobbertexting. Using a verse out of context to "prove" whatever the clobbertexter wishes.
It's absurd, of course. No particular phrase in the NT is worthy of confidence.
First, there's the question of whether the book should be in the Bible at all. Second, the original was in koine Greek, and necessarily translated. Third, the translators have inserted (and surely excised) segments for almost two thousand years. Fourth, our knowledge of the "original text" has gradually improved over the last century, as ever-older copies have been found... leading to new questions about translation.
So while we may be confident of, say, Christ's basic message... we are sure to not know any of His exact words.
Clobbertexting is ridiculous.
Bible study, commentaries, (bible) dictionaries, concordances, handbooks, history books, and more are tools used by any serious bible student!
There is exegesis (getting down to what biblical texts mean).
Homiletics (preaching biblical texts as for our present day), would seem to be closer to this 'clobbertexting' behavior. "Pretext" is another useful word for 'working' spiritual texts out of context.
There is so much that goes into this. Loads and loads of topics! God - the subject matter written about in every age!
Beware of bibliolatry.
That sounds rather circular.
I tend to think it will remain so too.
If that's the case, then
How did you get your faith, Cal?
And I am most sincere in my question. I don't want you to think that I'm mocking your faith
Hi TG! If I had to sum it up, I would say I was sick and tired of being sick and tired, of 'riotous living.' Though, coming to faith can be different (see @ 1.1.1 Ed-NavDoc.) for anybody. Apostle Paul had a 'Damascus Road' experience.
After I became a faithful believer, one day not so long after I was reading the Bible and came across this:
The Prodigal Son (Hover over, please.)
I remember laughing out loud (hooting, actually) when I got to verse seventeen's beginning, ( dang those ancient writers- lol ) . . . I have been faithful ("in the house") since 1993. People come to faith through many different paths, I wrote an article on NT, The One About Faith about the former slave trader who wrote the great hymn, Amazing Grace and the famous boxer George Foreman! Compelling reading.
TG, just looked over that article, The One About Faith. I actually give my 'testimony' of coming to faith in it in fuller relief! It is a 'great' read, if I must say so.
I'll give it a look-see
I think it is powerful stuff. And TG, I am proud of myself for pulling it together!
You should be! It's a very good piece of writing.
I left you a comment
Oh good! Thank you, TG!
I have faith, not Bible based, but it is faith. I have faith in my husband, my children, Mother Earth. Is faith only religious?
That is a mistake many people make. When talking about faith and belief, why do so many people automatically assume believers are always talking about God?
Most discussions of faith usually involved a god/religion of some kind, as this particular article does. So the assumption is a safe one.
I wasn't assuming anything - as you can see by my post I do not connect faith to religion. I was asking CB if he did? So stop assuming that you know me.
My apologies. I was not specifically referring to you but in general terms only. And I have never assumed that I know you that I can recall. Again my apologies.
Welcome Veronica! Nope, as people we have faith about all sorts of situations: Faith is central to all of life! (Smile.)
I believe that as well.
This can be appreciated by each and every day that we awake, faithfully see "the dawn," step out into the exterior surrounding of our world, into reliable surroundings! That's how faith increases. One firm step at a time!
Are we supposed to ignore the Old Testaments when it comes to the character of God and how much we "Hope" he will honor his contract? The New testaments is second hand through Jesus, Old Testaments is first hand from the mouth of God. "And God said unto them"
From what i read god stated he resented making humans, does not give me a warm fuzzy that he wants us all hanging out in his house.
And the Qur'an paints another very different picture.
The many different faces that have been painted by the thousands of religions humans have invented are as varied and unique as the authors of those religions themselves. This fact tends to dispute the idea that there is a singular creator being who is perfect and thus never changes. And while one could claim that all religions are like blind men examining an elephant, each describing different aspects of the same creature, the descriptions humans have come up with for their many God/gods are so incongruous as to be virtually impossible to apply to another religions concept of God. If there were one singular creator being that's never changed and has in fact contacted or communicated its will to humans, one would think more religions would align in their description of said deity regardless of the different names they might give it.
What can be stated about that? If only God would cease to be invisible and immaterial. Then, all these words and thoughts could cease, or at the least, set off in a more direct course. . . . Maybe some day in the future.
Well, that would certainly stop the endless imaginings of what it is, what it wants and how it expects us to live. Up till now we only have the writings of humans, translated and interpreted by other humans, to define the concept of God.
And, riding above it all, we have one other (for we are not orphans!): The abiding, indwelling Spirit. That 'spark' of God that witnesses with our spirit that we in fact are: Children of God. Okay, this is a rich bible concept that some here may not grasp without further nuance discussion. You should recognize it, nevertheless DP!
Is that "spark" like the invisible and immaterial difference between an art critics opinion of an expressionists seemingly random paint strokes and a five year olds actual random paint strokes that make one worth millions and the other worth less than the canvas it was painted on? That, what was it, ah yes, je ne sais quoi..? And only those who have developed an appreciation for art can truly understand how spiritually moving a piece might be, only those who have experienced the "grace" of the artist can put a value on his works? Is that how we should view the religious, as art snobs who dismiss anyone who can't see what they see in their scriptures as being "blind" or somehow untouched by grace?
Let me allow you to answer your own questions, DP. I want to gaze upon the depths of your vindictiveness - if only briefly.
I can tell I upset you sometimes. You can't believe why someone might study what I've studied and read what I've read and still come to the conclusion that there likely is no God. You are flummoxed at the thought that a child indoctrinated in scripture and raised by Christians could ever turn their back on the heroes of old that you now idolize. How could I not feel the way you do about Jesus, how could I reject the spiritual embrace you believe you've experienced? Well, I experienced likely a similar embrace, I can't say the same because no two peoples experiences ever are, but I used to tell myself that was what it was. For the first several decades of my life I often attributed things to Gods grace, that's what I had learned from my parents and I didn't doubt it for quite some time. But my leaving that, searching for something else, reading, studying other religions, speaking to random Christians showing up at my door from Mormons to JW's to debate scripture, hasn't made me "vindictive". It's made me a realist. Just because the people around me ask me to tell kids that Santa exists, it's not "vindictive" to decline. It's not vindictive to tell the truth even when there is a desire for group delusion. To proclaim you don't believe in God isn't vindictive.
Oh, you write so much more than "don't believe," DP. Your comments often course with negative nuance and expression regarding religion in general, in my opinion. (Smile.)
When I speak negatively about religion I am almost exclusively speaking of their constant overreach into secular society. I speak of Christians with the same feeling I have toward Islam because they are two sides of the same coin, and while some Christians take that as an offense, it's not meant as one, it's simply a fact that Christianity is no different and Islam has just as much evidence to support its doctrine as Christianity does.
If the public school my daughter goes to was trying to push Koran classes and having her do Muslim art projects during the winter holiday, I'd be equally as upset as I am when she comes home with Santa and Christmas tree projects.
Beyond the Christian overreach I often comment on, the rest of my comments I believe you take as "attacks" are me simply refuting your religious claims. When you proclaim there is a God and you know what he wants for mankind (even though that's being rather full of yourself believing you picked the one right religion among thousands) and I ask for proof which you're not able to produce, that's not being "vindictive" either.
To point out the many flaws in organized religion isn't being vindictive. I regularly hear Christians pointing out the flaws they feel they found in Islam and why they shouldn't be trusted and why we should fight so hard against allowing any Sharia law influences here in America. Do you consider them "vindictive"? If not, then why would my pointing out flaws I've found in the bible or doctrinal flaws in some Christian denominations be considered "vindictive"?
"(Smile.)"
Well if my comments "course with negative nuance", then yours often stink of smugness and haughty superiority where you talk down to others as if they are just the poor uninformed masses who you pity for never having experienced the spiritual connection you claim to enjoy.
Last I heard, Christians of any variety were not apt to behead somebody who did not share their particular religious views as radical Muslims are known to do. So placing Christians in the same category as Muslims would be totally contradictory.
If given an opportunity I do believe some radical Christians would do something just like that. Christians used to burn heretics......
Christians have murdered millions of people ... even other Christians .. who didn't share the views of their particular sect. True, these days most Christians live in more secular Western nations, so they had to stop committing those atrocities. But if we went back to a more theocratical society, such as America in its early days (Salem witch trials, anyone?), the Christian fanatics would revert to being just as bad as the extremist Muslims. After all, they worship the same god, and their holy books each call for murdering in the name of that god. A religious fanatic is a religious fanatic.
No it is not. DP did not state that Christians and Muslims today have equivalent beliefs and/or practices. He wrote this:
He was referring to the fact that both Christianity and Islam draw from the OT. The category is that both are based on the OT (the coin). (Islam, by the way, considers parts of the NT as well. For example, it recognizes Jesus as a prophet like Muhammad.) Logically (if these religions were true), the god of Christianity (Jesus+Yahweh+Holy Spirit) and the god of Islam (Allah) are the same god (Yahweh).
Further, and crucially, he notes that Islam has as much supporting evidence as Christianity. Both have zero supporting evidence.
That is very different from suggesting that (especially by modern comparison) Christianity and Islam are equivalent beliefs and/or have equivalent practices. We all know that is not true.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for clarifying something I shouldn't have assumed was obvious.
True.
Keep in mind that Islam is seven centuries younger than Christianity. Imagine Christianity seven hundred years ago ...
... and then came the wars of the Reformation...
They shoot doctors who perform abortions. George Tiller was murdered... in his church...
I wonder how many people have a clue of what took place in the past. For example, imagine living in a time where Protestants were burned at the stake (after being tortured) simply because they dared to read the Bible themselves rather than take all instruction from Catholic priests. Imagine being hunted by agents working for the Catholic church - agents whose sole job was to find non-Catholics so they could be converted or killed.
Organized religion - of any kind - takes an interest in its own survival. If conditions allow, that includes killing non-believers.
I agree. History agrees as well.
It seems to be a common practice in these debates to pretty much ignore the point / argument and instead zero in on select words, extrapolate a strawman and argue against it.
Maybe it is just me, but if I found myself tempted to employ cheap debate tactics I would immediately reevaluate my position. It makes no sense (to me) to blindly try to argue strawmen when you know that the other person is right. Better to take the time to think through one's position.
Case in point.
I see two possibilities:
The person is boneheadedly stubborn, and will not... WILL NOT... be wrong.
The person is not actually discussing the topic at hand, but is promoting a wider (often political) agenda.
Santa and Christmas tree projects.
Are these two Christian activities or simply cultural behaviors by societies-at-large? I know both activities and sentiments are immersive, but strip them away from the cultural and world religions, specifically Christianity still remains intact!
I see another possibility that combines elements from both of your options:
The person holds a belief that is comforting; losing the belief would be uncomfortable and undesirable. The individual thus clings to the belief in spite of facts and/or logic to the contrary. That is, if a good point is made contrary to the belief, the good point is ignored - wiped from memory. Confirmation bias.
( We do not need to do much searching to find a case in point — several in fact. )
"Fanaticism" is the operative word. Let's cut through to the core of this right now. All groups, including secular groups, have its extremists and fanatics! Those poor, dumb, anti-social types who lie at the margins who will lie, cheap, propagandize, and if all else fails exact all manners and degrees of evil against innocent victims and guilty elements indiscriminately!
'Chiming in" to long-running discussions simply to point out the degree to which one group has soiled its good name, while neglecting to acknowledge the soiling of world history by humanity-at-large (for our issues are all intertwined on this planet) fails at stating the benefits received by and hazards presented by every group which has power over its dissenters. For as sure as day follows night, people have shown themselves to form groups that will struggle against whichever authority is in charge—even to the death of millions.
The time has come to get off this particular hobby-horse, because it improves nothing to sit around being inflamed over old and bad periods of world history!
The discussion was about religious fanaticism. Getting in katrix' face because she pointed out actual facts on historical religious fanaticism (and labeling it properly) is inappropriate. Nowhere did katrix even imply that fanaticism is exclusive to religious groups.
And I exercise my privilege to write that fanaticism is not exclusive to religious groups, but is a problem in society as a whole. Moreover, this article tries to have a central theme labeled by its title:
How Does the Bible Define Faith?
There is a proper time and place for everything, TiG! And I simply am not certain we have exhausted the topic of discussion, before heading off in multiple directions.
"After coming to a true faith in God, not just corporal worship, one of the most humbly experiences in my life occurred" 1.1.2
There's nothing "humbly" about declaring you have found the "true faith".
"Your experience is the normal course (path) for such occurrences." 1.1.5
As opposed to your super special course..?
" just looked over that article, The One About Faith. I actually give my 'testimony' of coming to faith in it in fuller relief! It is a 'great' read, if I must say so." 4.1.1
If you must say so, I guess it must be great.
"We, who are called and have life-long unctions to serve - just as men and women of old were placed into service." 10.1.3
So now you get to determine who was called and who wasn't? Is it only your "true faith" that calls people?
"We would all like simple answers and God in the material sense to sit and divulge infinite answers to our "infinite" lists of questions (I suppose). But, alas, that is not the way it is. What do we do in the offing? Ignore our calling? Live as you do (without faith)?" 10.1.9
Yes, how could you ever even entertain the thought of living like a dirty "negative" atheist.
That is your right. My point is that you wrongly took katrix to task.
And you (all of us) lose the right to call 'off-topic' when someone responds directly to your off-topic comment.
IMPASSE.
Hi DRHunk, let me approach your question in this manner. Is I say to you I have an "old contract" and a "new contract" which should you desire to have in your immediate possession? Admittedly, this is a wider area of discussion than faith, but I am glad you bring it up.
I've never seen credible of God's existence, and yet I believe He exists. That is faith. And since it doesn't come from evidence, it must come from grace.
I believe "God is good" is both figurative and strict senses. Also "good is God"... wherein it gets complicated...
Since faith is by grace, not everyone has it. That's not a problem. God, being good, isn’t bothered by either your belief or your disbelief. Your destiny is your own. Do you love your fellows or do you hate?
I've always thought that faith requires no proof of God's existence, that's why it's called faith.
However, as I don't have faith in a God or Gods, I have no "grace". But I do like that you said God is not bothered by that. And that makes sense because if he/she is omnipotent why should God be bothered by my lack of faith. God knows he exists even if I doubt his existence.
P.S. Most days I love my fellow humans
Some Gods are not bothered by that...
"5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled.7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” Genesis 6:5,6
That line, "that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time", strikes me as a huge generalization. I can't believe that was actually true, that every second humans were thinking of evil.
I think it really unfair of God to blame the beasts of the earth and the sky for what the humans did (if they really were that bad). The bears and the sparrow didn't do anything wrong.
AND
God created the the bear and the sparrow....so....
That text is a few thousand years old. Taking it literally today is just a teeny tiny bit anachronistic...
Taking it literally then would be just as problematic... But I take your point. Mine was merely that while some people don't believe God is a jealous, angry bitter God who regrets making humans as described in the Old Testament, but some do believe that. And some do take Genesis literally despite the lack of evidence for a global flood or a 6,000 year old earth created in six literal days.
So when you say "God, being good, isn’t bothered by either your belief or your disbelief" that's a nice sentiment, but it's simply one opinion of God among billions and one that many religious extremists apparently don't share.
Yes. An excellent one, I think!
I'll give you that, it's certainly a nice perspective regardless of whether many people agree.
yeah, how did jackrabbits and elephants piss the almighty off but eels and jellyfish get a free pass?
I took my Mother to visit my Aunt on Sunday. They both started talking about the cold and weather. Somehow my Mother brought up global warming. My Aunt actually said it is all up to God.
It is almost like some just give everything a free pass as it is what God would will.
Kinda goes against their narrative that one must take care of themselves.
had a few trips like that, most times I was wise enough to be quiet and let them go on 'cause most times there was good food involved (but giggling to myself)
Some theists seem to think god gets irate at disbelief and will punish me with hell if I don't believe. That indicated he really is bothered by it.
Not if god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Then our route through life is already mapped out.
That's kinda sorta incompatible with "God is good"...
Discussing "omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent" gets very messy, very quickly. Contradictions abound. Usually, the conversation is mainly semantic.
I do not want to believe that our lives are foreordained (although there are more and more scientific reasons to think they may be...) So the Big Three Omnis are even more complicated.
So I punt. Maybe there are human brains truly capable of apprehending the Big Three Omnis across billions of light years and trillions of stars... but my poor brain is not among them.
I believe God is good. End of that topic!
I would love to read about these "scientific reasons". Can you provide some links?
Not off-hand.
It's logical, though. As we learn more and more about the world around us, we see more and more cause/effect. We know about hormones that contain our behavior, and we know the causes that produce those hormones.
Example: I seeded an article yesterday on the effects our gut biome has on our brain... The more we learn about such things, the less our behavior is "random".
Who says "god is good?" I've had some theists tell me god is good while others say god gets angry, jealous, or sends people to hell who do not believe in him or Jesus, ect. Sending someone to hell for eternity doesn't strike me as good.
The inherent paradoxes of an omnipotent and omniscient god aside, if god truly those things, then there is no such thing as free will or choice and our destinies are already laid out, unable to be changed. Any "choice" we make is just an illusion and already known in advance.
As I have always said, people are free to believe whatever they want.
I do. Except that I capitalize "God". It's an article of faith.
Not I. The more I contemplate God... the more I feel that I know Him... the less I feel free to invent. I seem to be approaching Him, ever so slowly....
Not that I would presume to say that I know Him.
That is you prerogative. Others might have a different take on god.
Of course.
Uhh, no it's not.
There is a BIG difference between saying that our actions effect others and saying that our actions are preordained. In fact when other people's actions can effect your own, in a myriad of different ways (big and small), that tends to point away from a preordained life.
That makes absolutely no sense. That's like saying whatever goes up must come come down, therefore we have no free will in our lives. You are comparing apples to asphalt and claiming that's why the sky is blue.
If a god did exist, I would think you're spot on. Why would a god have a massive ego and a jealousy issue, as well as an anger management problem, as if it were the pettiest of humans? I would think a god would be above such base emotions. I also don't think it would give a rat's ass about our sex lives, as long as those sex lives involved only consenting adults.
The whole biblical focus on a jealous god who needs to be worshipped to keep it from torturing us for eternity is so laughable ... and why anyone would worship something they truly believed was that evil is beyond me.
The OT does not disallow pedophilia. In several places it specifically allows it ( Numbers 31 ):
So if the OT were true, Yahweh would apparently be okay with pedophilia.
True, but I was referring to Bob's assumption that God is good, not that it's as portrayed in the bible.
The biblical god demands pedophilia, and rape, and slavery, and murder. It is not a good god in the least. It's .. imagine this ... like the worst of humanity was at the time they invented it!
I know, just emphasizing how the 'big picture' view of the biblical God as 'good' does not seem to hold water.
Old Testament God
Agreed. Jesus is a net good guy in the NT. Trouble is, Jesus IS Yahweh and Jesus did support the OT.
Out of curiosity, how do you reconcile that? Do you, for example, take Jesus as a character and believe in his message while disregarding the balance of the Bible?
Not really.
He was a preacher in a Jewish context. Preaching against the OT was not going to be very successful. So he gave the OT lip-service, while preaching a new covenant.
I think Jesus of Nazareth must have been one of the most fascinating people ever to exist. His ideas about God and our relations with God were radically different from everything that went before.
He was, IMNAAHO, the "Son of God" in exactly the same way that you and I are children of God. After His execution, His disciples did a fantastic PR job.
Jesus was being politically correct, eh? While I agree that he would have had to walk a careful line, the fact remains (as best any of us can tell) that Jesus did indeed 'own' the OT while spinning a new covenant. Consider that to be the meaning of 'support'.
Got it.
You say he "owned"; I say he "gave lip-service". Judgement call.
I think we are pretty much saying the same thing. By 'own' (the quotes were deliberate) I meant that he presented himself as supporting the OT while preaching something substantially different. Kind of like Trump 'owning' the views of the religious right while carrying on with his own agenda.
For example ( Matthew 5 )
As a general reaction to this article... the Bible is not a very good source for the meaning of words. There are dictionaries for that.
The Bible may be useful in thinking about the contexts and consequences, though.
We could consider that the books in the Bible take into account the periods and meaning of words during in and near to their compositions. (See concordances, for example.) Also, in some cases, there are 'linkages' across its many books. (Smile.)
It seems to me that there's a great danger of not seeing the forest because there are so many trees.
We cannot be sure of any given word in the whole Bible. Too many copies across too many centuries by too many men with agendas. Too many Greek homophones.
In these conditions, concordances are... dubious...
We must read the text from a distance, hear the music rather than the notes.
I am not sure I have any disagreement with your main point. However, there are many discussions and writings which can respond to 'concerns' about ancient documents and agendas. Unfortunately, they are beyond the scope of this article about defining faith. There are answers to your issues, but they require their own distinct place for proper consideration, in my opinion.
True. We will surely have the opportunity.
Faith isn't just about believing in God. Frankly, that's the easy part. The hard part is in trusting God. i.e. trusting that he's paying attention, that he cares, that he has prepared something more for us. These things are harder to embrace intuitively, especially when life is not going well. We might love our parents, children, or spouses, but even with these people we often have trouble trusting they will do what they have said they will do. Trust is a kind of faith, too.
Well, I think you have to start with picking which God to believe in as that will end up determining whether he's a he, whether "he" is paying attention to you, whether "he" cares and whether "he" has actually prepared something more for us.
So if that was the easy part, even though there are thousands of Gods to choose from that humans have invented throughout history, I have to assume you likely picked whichever faith was most convenient based on who you were born to and where, though that seems like a terrible way to determine which God actually exists if there is one. I have to doubt any loving creator would leave humanities faith up to the random chance of where they were born.
And as for religion being hard to embrace intuitively, you're right, it's not something that would be easily believed if it weren't fed to us at a very young age. If religion were something that all humans didn't choose until they were adults, like people choose mates now, I wonder how many would choose to marry themselves to one. If they weren't like child marriages where your parent decides for you what religion you'll be married to, I have to wonder how many would still be religious.
You were a leader in the Christian faith, no? And now you are an avowed and expressive atheist. On the other hand, there are "little" atheist children who are renown great thinkers and writers of world religion articles and books!
So what point about "indoctrination" are you specifically wanting to deliver here, DP?
I think the question I asked was pretty clear, how many people do you truly believe would express a belief in one of the worlds religions if they hadn't been indoctrinated in a specific religion from childhood? What if we chose to introduce our children to God like many evangelicals introduce them to sex? Keep their childhood abstinence only. Then, when they're older, looking to maybe settle down, you can give them the wink and nod and whisper in their ear about what God you believe in and why. Then it will be up to them whether they want to pick the God you've chosen for them.
Oh, I can't give you a percentage on that one. You are better 'situated' to look at atheistic nations in the West and make a case for percentages of atheists who become religious adherents, in my opinion. You should try it!
As to your second question: What does "the god-given gift of faith" have to do with sex? On second thought: Anyway, how do children hear about sex these days?
Correct. The words are synonymous, friend Tacos!
does that include the murdering and support of slavery as well ?
wait.. you are telling me that God (if he/she exists) is unable to communicate his/her word effectively to his/her own creations so there would be no misunderstandings nor any misinterpretations ? Why wouldn't the bible passages be easily and universally understood by everyone in the exact same manner since it came from the "all-powerful, all-knowing" God ? somehow, out of 100 worshippers of God, we'll get 200 different interpretations of God and the bible.
The best question of all: Why faith? What could God be after by giving believers just enough spiritual power to sufficiently hold onto faith? And, hold on we, believers, do!
Let me ask you something about this: Atheism.
I have recently experienced through research that there are a great many points of view and variations of atheism. This is odd to me for one reason: As near as I can discern there are not sealed 'books' or closed off histories to atheism. But, atheist writers pen and promulgate variations of what appears to be a singular point of view: A lack of a belief in God, gods. How can it be? What becomes of 'universal' atheism? Isn't atheism simply a lack of belief 'untroubled' by time, periods, and ages?
wonderful question ! maybe when you actually answer mine - i'll consider answering yours, deal ?
Your 'research' has been nothing but a silly witch hunt.
Atheism = lack of belief in a god
Since atheists are human beings -and human beings often have different views- you will find different ways of expressing atheism. All sorts of terms (mostly synonyms) will appear and new sub-types of atheism will be created. Just like with the theists.
But, in the end, atheism = lack of belief in a god. There is nothing complicated about this. If you are not convinced a god exists, you are an atheist.
This whole thread has been more or less dealing with complexities and difficulties placed upon men and women who are living under an invisible and immaterial God by faith.
We, who are called and have life-long unctions to serve - just as men and women of old were placed into service. The 'thread' is unbroken. So yes, as imperfect people we get even our "instructions" wrong, but we remain compelled to continue on. This is what must not and shall not be overlooked. Believers can not simply turn and walk away.
I will confide that it is AMAZING all the teachings and theologies and such that people can put down to 'pad.' What does this say about God—much besides, I'd guess!
Rather, "If you are more convinced that God does not exist, than that He does, you are an atheist."
Under the definition you gave, an agnostic theist would be an atheist.
An agnostic theist is convinced God exists (convinced = believes in) but allows for the possibility that God might not exist.
The precise usage of each word is, as usual, critical.
I am good with your phrasing - we are talking about the same thing. Could also say: 'if you do not believe a god exists you are an atheist'.
Note what I wrote as the actual definition:
it would be AMAZING if you would answer the questions. I'll repost them again:
please note - the first question deals with God (not people, not faith, not followers, not garlic, not barns, not cars, not air conditioning, not radio waves, not your favorite DVD nor your favorite childhood memory when you were 8 years old...). The second question comes from the first in the respect of clear communication from an "all-powerful, all-knowing" God - not asking about humans, i'm asking about the passages being "Many passages in the Bible are impossible to understand" as stated in the article which makes no sense if it's a message that God wanted his creations to actually understand/follow/live by. So, take another stab at answering the actual questions, i appreciate the efforts.
And you felt 'urgency' to write this in my direction, why?
My only point is the similarity of people dealing with all the ideas and worldviews which proliferate in mankind. In the case of world religions these are expressed as disciplines based on very old texts . In the case of atheism — free-thinking based on a basic neutral statement:
Why are there atheist writings and points of view developed for something so basic as a lack of belief in God?
A bit off-topic. But, may be unavoidable.
There is no need IMO. My point was that human beings naturally look at things differently and some are compelled to invent new angles because they think that accomplishes something. Some even simply rename existing concepts to put their brand on it.
atheism = lack of belief in a god
Simple. Nothing mysterious. No special rules or assumptions. It is simply a condition. If one does not believe in a god, one is an atheist.
What I am telling you is : "This whole thread has been more or less dealing with complexities and difficulties placed upon men and women who are living under an invisible and immaterial God by faith."
We would all like simple answers and God in the material sense to sit and divulge infinite answers to our "infinite" lists of questions (I suppose). But, alas, that is not the way it is.
We do not have such luxury to simply walk away! As Jeremiah 20:9 states, '(This faith) would be like having fire shut up in our bones!'
What do we do with our faith, simply because we can not answer questions better suited for God and not known to us?
And so it is with faith. God does not deign to interfere with our operation of faith or faiths at this time. The Gospel message, even Apostle Paul called it in a matter of words:
The "foolishness" of preaching.
I Corinthians 1 (Needed for context and relevance)
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written:“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,
24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
Even Apostle Paul knew this human frustration of doing with words and actions what God appearing for all time could explain. But, it is not the way it is to be. We must walk by faith! We are given no choice of it.
What does any of this have to do with my comment?
Er' maybe the words "human beings naturally look at things differently and some are compelled to invent new angles because they think that accomplishes something."
Set my mind to racing, or it could be a 'bleed over' from my comment to Phoenyx13. Needed to be stated, I reckon (somewhere!). Anyway, hope it helps in some shape or fashion.
"Faith is believing in something that you know isn't true." (Robert Heinlein)
Robert Heinlein wrote fiction.
Do you consider the Bible to be predominantly fact or fiction?
GREAT question, in the context!!
Like most "legendary stories", there is surely some "factual truth" in there... somewhere.
Like any richly thoughtful work, there is surely quite a bit of "truth greater than truth".
Like any great literary work, it must be read at several levels, with expert exegesis close at hand. (Try reading James Joyce without exegesis!)
Incidentally... I am a huge Heinlein fan. I think I've read every word he ever wrote. Politically, a Neanderthal.
And the bible is a collection of fables written in the bronze age. What's your point?
"Truth greater than truth" Hilarious. By the way, Joyce is fiction too.