The Tension of Faith

This is the kind of preacherish, made-up, wishful-thinking twaddle that turns people off religion.I used to be able to laugh this sort of nonsense off, but these days it just makes me angry - particularly when it's targeted at children.

Well, that's made up. Aside from God's fictionality and basing this on the Christian view, how does one ever gain separation from an entity that permeates the universe? How could you ever know? His presence as indicated by what? Self reporting? Tell us about the intense joys experienced by the baby in this headline: Man held by Taliban-linked captors: They raped my wife, killed our baby--Percy

Percy said " Well, that's made up. "It's my understanding of the Bible. Do you have a better interpretation?

Percy said "Aside from God's fictionality". Do you have proof of his fictionality?

The Bible itself is really good and massive evidence of God's fictionality. One clear example is that the God character in Genesis 1 is entirely different than the God character in Genesis 2&3.The God found in Genesis 1 is competent, overarching, sure, decisive but also separate, aloof and not interacting with the creation.The God in Genesis 2&3 is unsure, ignorant, bumbling, fearful, learning on the job, dishonest but also human, empathetic, caring, and in direct interaction with the creation.The Gods of the Bible are all fictional caricatures and plot devices.

That doesn’t get the whole picture though. The very basic fundamental beliefs of my Christianity are constant. Firstly as a theist I believe that God is good, just and loving, and wants us to emulate that. Secondly as a Christian I believe that God resurrected Jesus. Those views haven’t changed.
For nearly 2000 years now Christians, including Paul by the way, have been working at what, why and how God did what He did, is doing now and will do in the future. That is what theology is about. As a matter of fact the whole Bible is like that. It is a progressive or evolving revelation. It isn’t that there are different gods in the Bible. It is about one God who mankind continually kept understanding more clearly. Look at the difference between the Torah and Isaiah. Jesus of course showed many areas where they had gotten it all wrong and moved our understanding much further along. Still, there are lots of things that we don’t understand but as individuals and societies we try and understand better, through scripture, tradition and reason. All the New Testament writers wrote that God resurrected Jesus. I objectively know that. I subjectively believe that they weren’t lying and were actually correct. We can say that about any historical document. We can read about the Battle of Hastings In 1066. We objectively know that the authors wrote the accounts as they did, but we subjectively come to our individual conclusions about whether the details are correct or whether the battle happened at all. Interesting when you say that you don’t have a position and then in the same sentence tell us what your position is. Really what you are talking about is nothing but the difference between things we know objectively and things we believe subjectively. Frankly I don’t know how that could all be worked out anyway. Christianity in many ways is not just about belief but is about a culture. It isn’t about who is a true Christian but about what culture we identify with. I have lots of friends who say they are Christian but don’t really know anything about the faith and never attend church except for weddings etc. They simply grew up in a Christian culture and identify with that group. You made an assertion without any evidence to support it, but I don’t frankly see it as being germane anyway. Well, there likely is one right and true path for everyone but we aren’t all in agreement about which path that is.

Hi ForEverYoung,There are two general reply buttons on each page of a thread, one near the top of the page, the other near the bottom. These buttons are appropriate for when you're replying generally to a thread and not to anyone in particular.At the bottom of each message is a reply button. That button is appropriate for when you're replying to that specific message.Also, there's a quoting mechanism. For example, when I type this into a message: Then what I get is this: Well, thank you for the invitation to provide my own interpretation, but why would an interpretation that I (or anyone else) make up be any better than one you make up? What is the value of a made up interpretation? If you believe in your understanding and don't think it is made up then a better response than soliciting better interpretations might be to provide a defense, a justification, a rationale. There's more than one way to respond to this request. One is by example, e.g.:

• You tell me how to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster fictional and I'll prove God fictional. Deal?

Another is by explaining the request has the way we acquire knowledge backwards:

• We don't assume something exists until it is proven that it doesn't. Rather, we only assume something exists when overt evidence for it is uncovered. For example, we didn't know bacteria existed until microscopes provided evidence. Where is your evidence that God exists?

--Percy

My beliefs are evolving. It is honest to admit that none of them have been likely to be true in the objective sense. I used to always claim that one needs to stand for something or they will fall for anything. Which brings us to a working definition for truth. Of late, I am leaning towards the belief that honesty is truth. To thine own self be true.Thus to say that "I dont know" is far better than claiming to know based on what one has read. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Let's get back to your signature.

quote:

---

He has told you, O man, what is good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

---

For some of us, doing justice, being honest, and loving kindness are all we can honestly do. We have no idea what it means to walk humbly with God. My question is this: Is it important to at least being open about one's willingness to do so..without any concept of Who it is they would even be walking with?

That doesn't work. Lots of people honestly believe things that are not true.I would say rather that truth is verifiable. If you can't show "the truth" to somebody else and have them agree that it's true, you can't claim that it is true, no matter how honestly you wish it was true. (And you can't pick and choose who agrees with you either. It has to be a transparent process.)

I disagree. Not all truth is verifiable...as least initially. Sometimes you gotta choose a road without knowing the final destination. It would be great if we always had good road signs, but they sometimes are lacking.

That has nothing to do with truth. Sure, sometimes you have to choose a road - and sometimes you'll choose the wrong road.We're talking about faith here - i.e. people refusing to accept the road signs because of their faith.

That's a couple of fundamental beliefs, but what about the rest? Are you born again? Do you believe Jesus died for your sins? Do you believe in the fall? Do you believe in original sin? Do you believe in redemption through belief or deeds? Have your views changed on any of these things? Most of Christian theological writing is about how to interpret the Bible, whose ambiguous and contradictory nature is why there are so many Christian sects. It's also why your beliefs keep changing. And yet the words don't change. Is the similarity to mysticism apparent to you? Again, yet the words don't change. Also, how do you know that mankind's understanding of God is becoming more clear or is just changing? Since the great variety of Christian sects concurrently represent a great many different beliefs about God, the evidence favors a view that there can be no one, right and true Christian belief. The beliefs of all Christian sects will change over time, as they have in the past, these beliefs will always be in conflict, and they can't all be right. So most likely all or wrong, no matter what sect or what time period you're talking about.And I've only mentioned Christianity so far. There are other major religions, all with their own sects of differing beliefs, and then there are a huge host of minor religions. You mean the Gospels, or are you claiming that every single NT writer "wrote that God resurrected Jesus." Did they really write that "God resurrected Jesus"? Didn't they more write things like, "He is risen", leaving open who did it? You can label the Bible a "historical document" if you like, but interpreted historically it is obviously a religious book where some of it (mostly the OT) contains some history that can be substantiated.No one could reasonably question whether the Battle of Hastings "happened at all" - there's far, far too much evidence. If you want to draw a comparison to some event in the Bible that actually happened you could try Babylon conquering Judah around 600 BC, something for which there is good extra-Biblical evidence. But most events of the Bible are completely missing any extra-Biblical support, including almost everything related to Jesus. My use of the word "position" in two different ways was unfortunate. I was responding to where you say something like your beliefs could be right, mine could be right, or we could both be wrong. What I was trying to say is that I don't have beliefs in the same way that you do. Where I have no evidence I have no beliefs, while you believe plenty of things without evidence. I don't think the difference between knowledge based upon evidence and what you're labeling "subjective belief" should be minimized. You're referring to where I said, "If morality came from religion then wouldn't our jails be filled with atheists instead of Christians?" This is true. How was I to know you didn't know this and would want evidence? Anyway, why are you saying this now since Tangle's Message 292 preceded mine: RationalWiki has an article on the topic: Atheism in prison that is fairly balanced, exploring various explanations. Patheos has a short article: Atheists Now Make Up 0.1% of the Federal Prison Population. Here's another article from TheHuminist: Nonbelievers behind Bars: Does the US Prison System Privilege Religious Inmates?Of course it's germane. In your Message 261 you asked, "Where does the sense of morality come from in a materialistic world?" I've provided an answer. Obviously morality doesn't come from religion. You know that religionists only have subjective beliefs that differ widely not just between people but between the same people at different times in their lives, you know you don't have objective knowledge, and yet you say this? Gee, that's hard to fathom. The evidence seems to pretty clearly be against there being a "one, right and true path for everyone."--Percy

Of course the Book of James doesn't even mention Jesus' death or resurrection or even his divinity but rather seems to use "Lord" as an honorific or title similar to Prince or Dear Leader.

IMHO humility is about doing the right thing without congratulating yourself on what wonderful person you are, regardless of belief. It is about doing the right thing simply because that is where your heart is. As a Christian we should consider that in doing the right thing we realize that ultimately it isn't because we are good, but because God is good, and it is Him who gave us the desire to do the right thing.Here is a quote from Tangle's favourite theologian. It is from the book "The Last Battle" of the Narnia series, with Aslan, (the lion), being a Christ figure and Tash representing an evil figure.

quote:

---

So I went over much grass and many flowers and among all kinds of wholesome and delectable tree till lo! In a narrow place between two rocks there came to meet me a great Lion. The speed of him was like an ostrich, and his size was an elephant’s; his hair was like pure gold that is liquid in the furnace. He was more terrible than the Flaming Mountain of Langour, and in beauty he surpassed all that is in the world even as the rose in bloom surpasses the dust of the desert.

​

Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him.

​

But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me.

​

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.

​

Dost thou understand , Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

---