What are the pros and cons of being a Believer?

I disagree with every con you posted. I believe none of them are true.

I agree with your assertion that people do things for community. We are a social species of course.This is not why I believe though. One of your other reasons would be a better description.But I disagree that the reasons for having a religion are any less special to a nonbeliever. Community is special for everyone (EvC forum is a good example). Finding meaning to life is special to everyone too. There are probably a great deal of atheist scientists from my understanding. So believer or nonbeliever, these qualities that draw human beings to religion are the same qualities that draw nonbelievers to other experiences, studies, hobbies.

Screeching weasel the band? I have a cd of theirs, don't know the name of it. I thought they were pretty good for a rock band.I just looked it up. Very cool cover art.I have Television City DreamI haven't listened to that cd since probably the 5th or 6th grade. I remember the songs though. Pretty catchy some of them. Track 12 was a favorite.

that's nice.and another con of belief.

Has anyone mentioned yet that Paul said that if our faith isn't true, then we disciples of Christ are of all men the most to be pitied? (1 Cor 15:19).I thought his opinion might be valuable to this topic.

I wasn't going to answer, because the name of the topic, doesn't really match your question. Religion, and belief are 2 different things to me. Because religion is run by people.But to answer the topic question, the pros for my belief is knowing the Holy Spirit.The cons, like you said, being bamblasted on EVC, and having people trying to relate God to me somehow, people just not understanding me, as I did them(believers) before I knew.

I want to suggest an album to you, that you may enjoy.
It's called Casting Crowns, by Casting Crowns, and especially the song, "If we are the body"

Now, having said that (my message 140), I live a pretty wonderful life that has been described more than once by outsiders as the way everyone ought to live. I figure either we have the whole thing messed up, and what we're living really isn't Paul's Christianity, or else Paul was speaking more of himself and other apostles who were beaten, jailed, imprisoned, despised, mocked, worrying, and constantly doing without.I hope it's the latter.The results of our faith are described at Error 404 (Not Found)!!1. Personally, I think there's a lot of pros:1. No generation gap
2. Tremendous social fulfillment
3. Security based on mutual support (this isn't perfect, as a million dollar lawsuit or medical bill would bankrupt us)
4. Opportunity for and support in a life of service that gives a sense of purpose and fulfillmentI'm sure there's cons, but I'm an optimist, so I tend not to notice those.Here's some in-betweens, though, that are pros or cons based on your perspective, and perhaps even on the specific situation:1. You can't do whatever you want
2. Everyone knows all about you
3. You have to try to serve all the time, or you end up unhappy. (This is not a rule; that's just how it is.)
4. No TV (this is about 98% pro, 2% con) (This was edited to reference my post 140, because posts 141 and 142 were put up while I was posting 143.)This message has been edited by truthlover, 02-25-2006 09:49 PM

I have to give one more answer. I saw a question addressed as I read further through the posts, and I wanted to address it, too. I have a sideways answer to this question that addresses the "pull" you asked about. I had an experience. I haven't felt like I've had much choice since. I read the Gospels at age 20 and I thought, "Even if all these stories aren't true, these writers nonetheless were impressed enough by what they saw in this guy Jesus that they were willing to give up their lives for him. That means something to me." Later, someone asked me if I was ready to believe Jesus was the Son of God, and when I said yes, the whole world changed. It was the most intense experience I've ever had in my life.Over the next few months I found out that when Christians said "Go look in your Bible and see if what I'm telling you is true," that they really didn't want you to do that, and they'd tell you to get lost if it turned out the Bible disagreed with them. Years later, I remember praying, "Jesus, why should I believe in you. The proof you offered that you are from God is that your disciples would be one, even as you and the Father are one. Either you have no disciples or you're not from God or you and God together don't have enough power to unite those who try to follow you. I wish I could quit believing, because quitting now is the only logical thing to do."I couldn't quit believing, though, and now I've seen his power to unite people, so I don't have the same struggle.So, I don't believe because I "get" something. I believe because I believe and I don't feel like I had much choice in the matter.(That said, I feel like I've had plenty of experiences that would verify my belief, but that's another story and not relevant to your question.) Because they believe. If you really believe, you'll endure as much as you are able to endure for that belief.

quote:

---

In the last century there was a group of people who fell into this trap. They called themselves the Vienna Circle. They were a number of people who met in Vienna University in the 1920s and 1930s, mainly under the instigation of Moritz Schlick. They gave birth to the philosophy known as Logical Positivism with its central belief in the Verification Principle. This principle argued that no statement is meaningful if it cannot be verified empirically

---

There are shades of such thinking interwoven in your arguments, Schraf. You do seem to hold to the exclusivity of the empirically demonstrable in any case. The problem with your view (as with the Verification Principle) is that it cannot be verified empirically to be meaningful.The starting point for us all, is that we assume that an objective reality is something we can know without any reference to evidence or experiment since all such references rely on there being an objective reality. Saying that our knowing we exist depends on x amount of others saying the same thing cannot be verified. We must always arrive back at the same old starting assumption. I exist because I know I exist - period. And that to me is what true knowing is. All that empirically demonstrable does is provide tentitive shades of knowing - better described perhaps as 'evidential based belief'So when I say I know God exists, I deliberately use the word know (as opposed to think or believe) because my knowing God exists shares all the same characteristics of what it is to know I exist. I'm not saying you have to believe me - I can understand why you don'tBut you cannot say I cannot know God exists.Thus, a pro of being a believer. You can know God exists.This message has been edited by iano, 26-Feb-2006 02:08 PM

Presumably in the same why you could tell this. You don't believe you were more excited, you don't think so either. You know it because you can compare the two and tell the difference. Do you believe it is possible to know this Schraf?

Please show me where I have claimed that the statement "I believe in/know God" is meaningless.The basis for saying "I know God exists" is wholly different from the basis for saying "I know food exists".Your argument that they are exactly the same is silly and nonsensical on it's face, and I think you know it.

quote:

---

Presumably in the same why you could tell this. You don't believe you were more excited, you don't think so either. You know it because you can compare the two and tell the difference.

---

quote:

---

Is the excitement of getting that job promotion more or less exciting than getting that shiny bicycle for Christmas when you were 9?

---

quote:

---

Do you believe it is possible to know this Schraf?

---

In short, no, not really.Please realize that my opinions about how I felt about a certain event years ago compared to how I feel about a different event today are highly subjective and only vaguely remembered and could easily be wrong. I gave you my impressions, but I would not stake my life on them being extremely accurate or anything.I don't think one can make an apples-for apples comparison anyway.But anyway, I guess it's safe to say that there isn't any way to tell the difference between someone whom God is actually speaking to and someone who thinks they are being spoken to by God but isn't.By contrast, there certainly IS a way that I can verify that your mother, you, and food exists for all practical purposes.There is no way to do this, for all practical purposes, for God.Otherwise, you'd be able to tell me how to tell the difference between the two people above.

The basis for saying these things is precisely the same, to whit: the assumption that ones knowing things has an objective validity not requiring any proof. All the experimentation and empiricism you refer to is a derivative of that. A structure built on this foundationary assumption. Take away this foundation and both our knowings are meaningless. Dismantle the validity of my knowing and yours falls along with it.If you say "I know food exists" is arises out of the same foundation that I say "I know God exists".The derivative is very useful in many ways but not for commenting on the foundations on which it is built.

By contrast, there certainly IS a way that I can verify that your mother, you, and food exists for all practical purposes.There is no way to do this, for all practical purposes, for God.