The Tension of Faith

I have observed that in general, believers are less apt to care so much whether a claim is fantastical or not.. In fact, the more fantastic is is, the more likely we are to believe it. We have confirmation biases surrounding our belief in our Deity. Were there no suggestion of magic, many of us would lose interest. A religion or belief based only on facts is boring.

Although you are a likable fellow and although I have no reason to believe that you are going to hell (if a hell exists) the fact is that you believe with a degree of evidence that religion and belief are on the way out---for good. I, on the other hand, believe in a Creator of all seen and unseen Who wants a relationship with all of us---specifically me. In that light, my views and beliefs on religion and Jesus are admittedly selfish---while yours are seemingly based on a belief that all of us---myself included---will be better off without our silly beliefs.I honestly think and believe that your motives are pure and noble.I believe (and hope) that you are wrong about Jesus...as I do Carrier, Dawkins, Hitchens, and others. You have done well, however. I believe that if you are right, I won't totally die. I just won't feel as confidant or comfortable...but I suppose I should be less selfish and think about you, your family and kids.Perhaps what you believe will actually be better for them than what I believe.

I disagree, Faith. There is always a point to the discussion, even if, and especially if it challenges what you believe in. Words are our way of communicating with ourselves and others the ideas, values, and beliefs which we all freely hold dear.You personally have contributed a majority of the volume of words and ideas expressed here at EvC Forum, but I can say that I personally feel and believe that Percy has contributed a good percentage of the quality of words and ideas expressed here. This Forum---in the diminishing time in which it has left, can be and I dare say will be a forum for quality expression rather than authoritarian spam. There is never only one correct point of view and the whole modern idea that news should be censored and that there is a real view and a fake view is quite frankly alarming.

I agree--it is bad form to say so. Challenging someone's argument is fair game, provided it is done with integrity and honesty. Reiterating points using CAPITAL letters or restating the same points numerous times adds nothing to a discussion. The challenge for any of us as writers and authors of beliefs and ideas is to present them in a new and better form of expression. Even in matters of Faith and Belief, there is no right and wrong belief or opinion. There is only your opinion and my opinion. (And take note--I am saying this as a believer in Jesus Christ.) Something tells me that you will never give up, but I might suggest that you focus on taking more time to be creative and persuasive with how you present your argument. I have noticed Percy's responses to you and others recently, as well as noting how you all have responded to each other ten years ago. Archives allow that. I must say that in my opinion, he is putting a lot of thought and discipline into his replies. We could both learn from that, and my point is that none of us will convince anybody of anything by being careless with our replies. CONCLUSION: Be diligent in forming a reply, use reasoned argumentation and evidence if available, be honest, and let the words speak for themselves.

Interesting line of thought. Could you elaborate on it and give me a scripture or two to further your point?

At least we have no evidence that they were true. Perhaps we could better use our talents to convince people that we ourselves have integrity rather than attempting to convince them that the Bible itself has integrity.

deleted...wrong respondantEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

You often mention the pack mentality of EvC Forum and that you see it dominated by Leftist Ideology. At a posting rate of over 9 posts per day, you are on course to become the number one respondent here. One thing I will admit, somewhat sadly: You are the poster girl for Biblical Christianity. In case you have not done so, I encourage you to read the blog I posted over at The Marketing Of Christianity. The Christians Making AtheistsI believe that that blog is talking about you. (Not that I am innocent...I too make many mistakes in my replies to others.) In my opinion, your weakness is that you never entertain opinions and beliefs contrary to your own. Your critics say that you are part of the cult of Biblical Christianity. If anyone wishes to see evidence of its impact, read the comments after that blog post--made by a variety of respondents.We truly live in a culture having a war on ideology. I used to think and believe that it was a sign of the last days, as you still probably do. Now, though still a believer in Jesus Christ, I fear that Biblical Christianity and traditional values are going to lead the world into a self-fulfilling prophecy of chaos...simply because we are taking a stand for authoritarian ideology marketed as The Truth.My intent is not to attack you personally, though if the shoe fits, wear it...don't run from it. I am challenging you to be less authoritarian.

I disagree. We are not the ones converting anybody, Faith. Have your 9 posts a day produced a single convert? Have your blogs? The whole issue is communication. Compromise is an art. Anyone who truly knows me knows my beliefs, despite my neurosis in occasional posts. Sometimes I feel that you try too hard to use a hammer and end up beating your head against a wall. You are afraid to question your beliefs. You claim that you know that they are right, but the audience is interested in how you know. They have already pegged you as an example of all that is wrong with organized religion.Besides, I am not here to convert people. If you are, I submit that you need to work on your technique. They will believe you if you are honest...not simply because you are without compromise and a staunch literalist. It is our character that we market in any online forum. The audience is too smart to fall for the dramatic orations of a preacher. They have seen the television preachers and they have in many cases been to a church. They may question our motives, however. BTW did you even read the article that I asked you to read? If not, I wonder how people think of your authoritarian closed-mindedness? Perhaps you are right, however. If I come across as wishy-washy, at least I am being honest and not hiding my insecurities. Because we all have them. Even believers.Edited by Phat, : added ranting

Authoritarian
So lets review. Is God an authoritarian?Do you have a different definition of the word?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You are right.We can only talk about the Gods we create. Faith and I have more in common with an interactive God than you do. Your definition is more unknowable. Ours relates to humanity. The issue, at least in my question to Faith, is how He relates. A case can be made for each "God" that we individually define. I'm attempting to address her definition. You likely will see her creation as similar to the God of Calvinism. Perhaps my definition too...I dunno. And I would argue that GOD is Who GOD is. We simply disagree on GODs character.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Because you see no need to do so. I'll give you the idea that the rest of us pretend, although we try and envision God with all the tools we have to work with. Faith will likely argue that God is who she knows he is...I would have used the same argument due to fear of "throwing God away" as you have many times suggested. Nevertheless, for this particular argument i will concede that GOD Is likely unlike our attempts at description or identification. I have not thrown away the Gospel Of John, however, so I will continue to argue that God is embodied in Jesus. Correct. I am not that inclusive. Yes, but Faith points out that you also do this to some extent. The God whom you market is more than just a human. He is complete. He can be She or It. He likely does not favor humans exclusively. Do you disagree?This whole idea of a "universal God" is so much kum ba yah! add by edit: I found a clever link as a postscript:
When Did 'Kumbaya' Become Such A Bad Thing?Edited by Phat, : added postscript

Perhaps God shows human traits to humans. She may show pond scum traits to pond scum, for all we know. After all, the Bible says even the rocks will cry out! I wonder how God relates to rocks? The exclusivists would be furious, however.Your God is certainly more developed than the God of Calvinism.

That is undoubtedly true. What some would call an internal conscience...the ability to discern right and wrong...is in every human and gives support to your argument that God saves everybody (or that at least we are not foreknowingly damned) even if we dont believe in God.You have to understand how I believe, however. I dont believe that I create the God i worship...at least not entirely. I see your argument, and it does make logical sense, but I believe strongly that God exists and that I can communicate through prayer. To me, that is not something I created to talk to. (or to listen to...although I do listen to my conscience)

And you likely would make the argument that all of the stories and books of the Bible are describing a God whom we created...even Jesus as God. While i cannot argue against your line of reasoning, I stand by my belief that God is more than a human creation.You call what I describe GOD. You would likely again argue that communion with and/or dialogue (or monologue) with GOD is at best imagination. Or am I wrong? Is it possible for an ant to communicate with you?