A puzzling thing about traditional religion

I wonder how this business about the necessity of faith got started. If you don't have faith that God exists, you go to hell (or if you want to be more liberal, not believing is bad for you in some other way). It's so unreasonable. Why should God care if I believe in Him or not? It's almost as though He needs our belief to convince Himself of his own existence. God in existential angst? If He wants so badly for us to believe in Him, why doesn't He make His existence obvious? Because if He did,it would be too easy to believe in Him? It's a sort of test which only some can pass--those who are willing to toss their reason aside. It sounds like a sales tactic to me, like an insurance agent pushing insurance with dire threats of impending doom. We look around and see no evidence of impending doom. But you never know, do you? Something could happen. Better buy that insurance policy.One would think that God would wish to promote reason among his creatures and eliminate scare tactics. And, in fact, if one wished to assign a purpose to evolution, we could call it "the process of promoting Reason" (although that's a little optimistic). This doesn't make much sense if we think of God in the traditional sense, but if God is not perfect but developing Himself through the evolution of life, then the idea is not totally outrageous. The Big Bang was the birth of God, so to speak. Not that I believe any of this, but if we were to try to come up with a substitute for traditional religion, this might be one (Bergson seems to talk in these terms, if I understand him correctly).[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
Why should God care if I believe in Him or not? It's almost as though He needs our belief to convince Himself of his own existence. God in existential angst?

---

Coming from the foundation that the Bible reveals God to us, I would say that your understanding of the character of God is flawed. God is love - He created us to be in a relationship with Him.

quote:

---

If He wants so badly for us to believe in Him, why doesn't He make His existence obvious? Because if He did,it would be too easy to believe in Him?

---

The heavens declare the glory of God, the skies proclaim the work of His hands. For that which is known about God is evident to them and made plain in their inner consciousness because God has shown it to them. For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made. So men are without excuse.

quote:

---

It's a sort of test which only some can pass--those who are willing to toss their reason aside.

---

God is a God of reason, of logic, of order. And all through the Scriptures He instructs us to use our brains, to understand, to think, to reason.

quote:

---

It sounds like a sales tactic to me, like an insurance agent pushing insurance with dire threats of impending doom. We look around and see no evidence of impending doom.

---

God did not send the Son into the world in order to judge (to reject, to condemn, to pass sentence on) the world, but that the world might find salvation and be made safe and sound through Him.

quote:

---

One would think that God would wish to promote reason among his creatures and eliminate scare tactics.

---

God does exactly that, unfortunately we're the ones on the learning scale :-) We so often judge parents by what the children do ... The scriptures say, "it is God's kindness that leads us repentance."

Chara, my perception of God was not what I was putting forth in the first part of my post. I was putting forth the image of God as presented by traditional religions that make "faith" mandatory, with threats of dire consequences if we don't have it and with great rewards if we do have it. As an analogy, a good father does not threaten his children if they do not love and adore him or promise them huge rewards if they do. He does not try to force his children to "believe" in him. Maybe they love him or maybe they don't, but a good father would attempt to rise above such considerations.So, morally speaking, I find these faith-based religions repugnant.

Robin,

quote:

---

So, morally speaking, I find these faith-based religions repugnant.

---

Just to clarify, what would a non-faith based religion be?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Just to clarify, what would a non-faith based religion be?

​

PE

---

One where there was some evidence for the deity concerneds exsistence?

Well, Deism for one is not faith-based (flawed in its reasoning, perhaps, but not faith-based).

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
Well, Deism for one is not faith-based (flawed in its reasoning, perhaps, but not faith-based).

---

By Deism, do you mean believing in a "God" (for want of a better word) but denying revealed religion?So for this to be non faith based, the belief in God must be arrived at through evidence and reason (I'll shorten this to just "reason" from now on) rather than faith, from which three questions arise:1) what are your criteria for distinguishing between faith and reason? ie how can you tell that you've arrived at a particular conclusion from reason alone?2) It seems to me that for Deism to be truly non-faith related it has to have a proof (or at least a justification rooted in reason) for God - is this proof communicable?3) Criteria and (non) communicability established, how do we go from here to establishing there's a God?PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

quote:

---

Originally posted by joz:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Just to clarify, what would a non-faith based religion be?

​

PE

---

​

One where there was some evidence for the deity concerneds exsistence?

---

See, I wouldn't have called that a religion...I guess Robin was hinting at Deism, which I hadn't realised was a movement (which seems a tad ironic, if you ask me) until about ten minutes ago.PE------------------
It's good to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains
fall out. - Bertrand Russell

Primordial, I see your point about the difficulties of distinguishing between faith and reason as regards religion. I said Deism because one its tenants is--or perhaps was--that God could be proved to exist through logic (the usual and flawed arguments for design, first cause, etc.). Now the Catholic Church says or said the same thing. The difference however is that "faith" is a major tenet of the Catholic Church, but Deism overtly denies the necessity of faith and even--depending on the Deist--thinks of the whole idea of "faith" as an unwholesome superstition. So we can say that Deism in its intentions, at least, is non-faith-based.But actually my term "faith-based" was the wrong term, as you no doubt noticed. I meant those religions that threaten non-believers and promise believers rewards for believing. I'm sure there are "faith-based" religions that do not engage in that type of activity. I don't know of any but I'm sure there are some.[This message has been edited by robinrohan, 11-22-2002]

To follow up about faith-based religions that don't threaten non-believers, I now distinctly remember a conversation I had at some party or other:anonymous person: There are as many paths to God as there are people.me: That means that all religions are true?ap: Yes.me: How about atheism?ap: Especially atheism. Atheism is also a religion.me: But if they contradict each other?ap: God is the alpha and the omega, where all contradictions are resolved.It didn't make much sense but I prefer that to the usual threats and promises.

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
anonymous person: There are as many paths to God as there are people...

​

...me: How about atheism?

​

ap: Especially atheism. Atheism is also a religion.

---

Doesn`t that render all religion moot anyway?Sounds kind of odd to me.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by robinrohan:
As an analogy, a good father does not threaten his children if they do not love and adore him or promise them huge rewards if they do. He does not try to force his children to "believe" in him. Maybe they love him or maybe they don't, but a good father would attempt to rise above such considerations.

​

So, morally speaking, I find these faith-based religions repugnant.

---

Another characteristic of God is His holiness - morally spotless in character and action. His love is governed by this holiness and our relationship with Him is broken when we do anything that does not measure up to this holiness.This is not unlike our relationship with our earthly fathers. When we go against our earthly father, our relationship is broken. We are still his child, but lets face it, the quality of the relationship isn't there.You have commented that "a good father would attempt to rise above such considerations." Well, our Heavenly Father did more than that. To fulfill his holiness and his justice, Jesus took the punishment that we deserved so that the relationship could be restored. What is morally repugnant about that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Primordial Egg:
Robin,

​

quote:

---

So, morally speaking, I find these faith-based religions repugnant.

---

​

Just to clarify, what would a non-faith based religion be?

​

PE

---

ummmm... abiogenesis?added by edit: nah that can't be, abiogenesis requires every bit as much faith as any other religion[This message has been edited by forgiven, 11-22-2002]

I guess so. Perhaps this is one of those cases in which the brains fall out.

That business about Jesus being ransomed for our sins doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If God was going to forgive us, why didn't he just forgive us instead of sacrificing his only begotten son? Why was that necessary?