Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Otis
- Start date
Dude. You know that would make a good FFA thread. "Otis visits Redeemer Church". You know it.Interesting. I don't think a church visit is for me, I'll likely be a non-believer for good. But you never know.Thanks. But I'd say of the two reasons, the second one is really all that matters. It's like the doctor example. Sure there are people that chose to be a doctor because their parents influenced them. Or maybe it was because they got to see the benefits of being a doctor up close as they grew up. Really doesn't matter to the person who didn't have doctor parents and is now choosing.I think your #2 above is an important point -- I concede that in the end it doesn't really matter, because if people are HAPPY in their beliefs, and doing good by others, well then who cares how they got to that point. Whatever floats your boat should be good for each and every person.Thanks Otis. I think I see and understand what you're saying. And no doubt, what you're saying is at work in some degree. There is some degree of "pressure" for kids to follow their parents in whatever. Be it where they live, what they do for a living and so on.Interesting, thanks Joe. I think the one basic problem I have with your post is the following:Hi Otis,
I'd agree thinking about the "why" is important.
But I really don't think it's all the parents thing. You'll see one day GB, those kids don't just jump in line to do what you say...Especially when they're 20.
But I do hear you. My kids are more likely to be Christian than Muslim because of how they're raised. No argument there. I just think the parents aren't as big a factor as you might be thinking. And there are also adults who have a resistance to religion because they were raised that way. So it works from all angles. Which is why I say the real way is to figure it out for yourself.
You might like Anne Lamott. She grew up in San Francisco and both her parents were super smart and involved in the intellectual scene of the 60s. Following Jesus was the last thing she wanted to do as she saw it as weak minded or stupid. She's a really talented writer and is pretty much the opposite of what many folks see on TV representing Christians. Here's a 5 minute video from a series she did. This one starts off talking about her alcoholism which probably isn't relevant but in a couple of minutes in she talks about how she started going to her church.
She's got a really good book called Traveling Mercies that talks about her life and how resistant she was to Christianity. And as she says in the video, she's now a "really bad Christian". But believes in doing things badly vs not trying at all. Do what you can. Take your best shot.
J
But I do hear you. My kids are more likely to be Christian than Muslim because of how they're raised. No argument there. I just think the parents aren't as big a factor as you might be thinking. And there are also adults who have a resistance to religion because they were raised that way. So it works from all angles. Which is why I say the real way is to figure it out for yourself.
I think this goes to the heart of my issue or question. My fundamental point is that we PRIMARILY adopt religion as it's given to us. I understand there are exceptions and outliers, lots of them. But on the whole, I have to imagine that the vast, vast majority of people who identify themselves as religious have largely taken on the religions of their parents. I suppose if I could find a study or some data on that, it would either support or refute what is one of the most fundamental assumptions I'm making here.
Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.
Where I think we disagree is on two things:.
#1. How much influence the parents really have.
#2 How big a deal that it really is.
Let's say it's something like career choice. Two parents are doctors and they think being a doctor is the greatest thing ever. They want nothing more than their child to grow up to be a doctor. They influence him in every way they can and the child grows up to be a doctor and loves it.
If I were thinking about being a doctor, I'd look at what it meant to be a doctor. Would I consider that some doctors are doctors because their parents were doctors and they did everything they could to influence the child to be a doctor? Maybe. But I honestly wouldn't put that much value on it. I'd focus way more on what it might look for me to be a doctor and figure out if that was for me.
That's maybe not a very good example. But it kind of makes sense to me. I'd look at why people become something. But I'm not sure how much weight I'd put on their parent's influence.
J
But the reason I struggle with #1 and find it interesting is that I bet the statistics (if there are any) will bear out that I'm right about this and your view is not accurate. And if it's true -- if we establish that religion is generally the one we happen to inherit from our parents -- then the fundamental question it opens up is how grounded are our beliefs if they are basically just a product of arbitrary chance? If the mere fact that a person was born in New Jersey as opposed to New Delhi is ultimately what determines their faith -- their entire belief system in life -- how logical, or grounded, or reasonable is their belief in the first place? How can they really feel comfortable believing in the basic facts of their religion if it turns out that they would believe completely different basic facts of another religion had they just been born to different parents, or in a different place? And the same hole would apply to people in EVERY religion. So no one religion could then be right, or correct, or true.
And maybe the answer for all the religious people in the world is "look, I don't want to go there, and I don't need to go there, because I like what I like and I'm happy with it and it helps me live a good life." And that's OK too. We all get to spend our days as we please.
If you go to a church, I'd be surprised if anyone asks you if your parents are Christians. There isn't any "legacy" system in place. This deal is all about you and God.
But all these are great things to think about. My advice would be to keep seeking answers to the things you see. And by far, person to person is best for that. I don't know if they have a location that's near you, but Redeemer Church in NYC is really well known. The main pastor, Tim Keller is a friend of my pastor. The kinds of things you're asking and questioning are stuff they welcome. I went when I visited the city a couple of years ago and it was real low key. Nobody is going to bother you. If they do, just tell them you're there on an exploratory mission from the FFA and you're trying to decide if any of this stuff is true. That's a big part of their audience and that's great. That's what they're for. Keller's experience in NY has been pretty interesting. He says that most new churches over the years there had gone into NYC with the attitude that they were going into "enemy territory" and that NYC was like a modern day Sodom and Gomorra. Keller's attitude was, "NYC is arguably the greatest city in the world. And tons of people that live here think that. Let's have a church that is part of that instead of a church that treats the city like an enemy".
Make it a FFA field trip. Report back.
J
The one interesting thing about your analogy is the question about what the kid will be when he grows up. That's a choice. He could choose to be a doctor, or not. Either way, there is no "wrong" or "right," just different choices. But the question I'm really pondering is not why did you CHOOSE a particular religion, but why do you believe that the facts behind that religion are right. It's less a choice then and more a question of what you think really happened in the past. Of course, for the people who don't care of their religion is "true" or right, but they've just concluded it was a choice of theirs to follow one religion over another and that they like it for that reason, none of this matters. For me, if I'm going to believe in something, I need to understand that it's real, and there needs to be some logic and substance there, and so I think that's why religion never had a chance of sticking with me.
I think we differ on the "choice" part.
As it is with most things, the answer's in a Rush song - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
We are presented with the bible. And we make a choice what to do with it. So everyone makes a choice there. Are you more talking about historical accuracy of the bible and that type of thing? That's kind of the stuff I was talking about with Apologetics where scholars examine accuracy and how it compares to other historical events. Especially the New Testament which was later in history. It's definitely something to dig into for sure if that's of interest to you.
J
Nipsey
Footballguy
If there was a pill you could take that would make you believe 100% that if you followed a few rules on earth you would then end up in heaven for eternal bliss after you died, would you take that pill? I would. To go through life and be completely convinced that I was only decades away from paradise where I could do windmill dunks, fly, etc, that would be an incredible way to live. Life would be so much less stressful. Who cares if I didn't get that job? I'm 50 years away or less from pure joy in a place where everything is perfect. Why really worry about anything? As long as I pass the big guy's test, nothing else matters. I'll be reunited with everyone who's died before me, my parents, my pets, everyone. I'd take that pill in a heartbeat.
I know what people are thinking. You don't even need a pill, you just need to have faith. Well that's where the problems come in for non-believers. For me at least, I'd have to engage in a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty in order to believe my consciousness would carry on after I died. The bible was written however long ago by people who had a remedial understanding of the body/science. When someone died it was thought the "soul" left the body. We know now that reality is perceived or consciousness exists in our brains and if our brains are damaged then how we perceive the world is altered. (There's a video where sam harris explains this better than I can.) That's what i can never get past, that when we die, when our brain ceases to work that somehow our consciousnesses would carry on without it and carry on in perfect condition. That's the part I can never get past. It doesn't make any sense. To blow past that and say i have faith that consciousness somehow will carry on in a place we've never seen is just too great a leap. Happy Easter!
eta here's that video. only 2 minutes. sums it up much better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcZkrl-eoY
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Nope! Don't really understand it myself but it is unshakable.
FUBAR
Footballguy
That's the basic disconnect between faith and logic.
Faith, by definition, is illogical.
You can't prove God's existence but you can't disprove it either.
The time lapse between the events of the Bible and the writing of the Bible is disconcerting to a Christian who tries to be logical. (it's just one of the aspects that's disconcerting)
I want to believe fully, but logic makes me question religion. Some will say God wanted it that way.
So I'm left in a position where I want to fully believe but don't, not fully. I go through the motions at Church, mostly for reasons others have already stated. Teaching kids a good way to live and treat others is the biggest reason we go to church. But I always find myself questioning the pastor. I think over the years I've come to believe the Old Testament is just stories. My Dad was upset when I told him this, but he agrees that the New Testament is far more important. Seems illogical that I would believe in that book, but I do. Sort of.
KCitons
Footballguy
I think this is the part that Otis is making in his OP. Depending on geography or parents, you don't get to make a choice. My wife and I had a discussion about this the other night. I explained to her that I was baptized within a couple of months after I was born. I received the sacrament of first confession by 2nd grade. First communion by 4th grade, and confirmation in the 7th grade. Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to do any of these things. Growing up in a Catholic family you just did them, or else.I think we differ on the "choice" part.
As it is with most things, the answer's in a Rush song - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
We are presented with the bible. And we make a choice what to do with it. So everyone makes a choice there. Are you more talking about historical accuracy of the bible and that type of thing? That's kind of the stuff I was talking about with Apologetics where scholars examine accuracy and how it compares to other historical events. Especially the New Testament which was later in history. It's definitely something to dig into for sure if that's of interest to you.
J
To make matters worse, my parents (and their parents) grew up through a period were Mass was said in Latin. They themselves didn't have a real understanding of what was being said, and what everything symbolized. They couldn't answer questions and usually referred my quizative rebellion to a priest or nun. All too often, the response was to just have faith.
It was only later that I started searching for my own answers. Ultimately, I decided the Catholic Church is not for me. It's not necessarily the gift it brings that I have a problem with, but rather the packaging that holds that gift. In raising my own kids, I've tried to allow them to make their own choices. We have visited different churches and explored different religions, kind of a buffet line fashion. Sample everything and go back for seconds of the things you like. Now as a teenager, my daughter has become involve with a couple of Christian groups. She has a much healthier relationship with God than I ever had at her age.
Thanks KC,I think this is the part that Otis is making in his OP. Depending on geography or parents, you don't get to make a choice. My wife and I had a discussion about this the other night. I explained to her that I was baptized within a couple of months after I was born. I received the sacrament of first confession by 2nd grade. First communion by 4th grade, and confirmation in the 7th grade. Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to do any of these things. Growing up in a Catholic family you just did them, or else.I think we differ on the "choice" part.
As it is with most things, the answer's in a Rush song - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
We are presented with the bible. And we make a choice what to do with it. So everyone makes a choice there. Are you more talking about historical accuracy of the bible and that type of thing? That's kind of the stuff I was talking about with Apologetics where scholars examine accuracy and how it compares to other historical events. Especially the New Testament which was later in history. It's definitely something to dig into for sure if that's of interest to you.
J
To make matters worse, my parents (and their parents) grew up through a period were Mass was said in Latin. They themselves didn't have a real understanding of what was being said, and what everything symbolized. They couldn't answer questions and usually referred my quizative rebellion to a priest or nun. All too often, the response was to just have faith.
It was only later that I started searching for my own answers. Ultimately, I decided the Catholic Church is not for me. It's not necessarily the gift it brings that I have a problem with, but rather the packaging that holds that gift. In raising my own kids, I've tried to allow them to make their own choices. We have visited different churches and explored different religions, kind of a buffet line fashion. Sample everything and go back for seconds of the things you like. Now as a teenager, my daughter has become involve with a couple of Christian groups. She has a much healthier relationship with God than I ever had at her age.
I think I see what you're saying. I'm not super familiar with Catholic stuff but I see what you're saying about the decisions when the kids aren't really aware of what they're doing. When I say we have to make a choice, I mean once we get out of the house. I know that was how it was for me. When my parents controlled what I did, I was always doing church stuff. But the day I left for college and no longer was under their direct control, I didn't go near a church. That's why I believe it really does come down to us making our choices. When I say choices, I mean adults. And I agree with you on the healthier relationship.
And to add, the "buffet line" sampling is a great way to visit churches. Good luck in your visiting there.
J
Last edited by a moderator:
Otis
Footballguy
That's a great call on the thread. It might be my only interesting contribution to this place in the past 5 years...Dude. You know that would make a good FFA thread. "Otis visits Redeemer Church". You know it.Interesting. I don't think a church visit is for me, I'll likely be a non-believer for good. But you never know.Thanks. But I'd say of the two reasons, the second one is really all that matters. It's like the doctor example. Sure there are people that chose to be a doctor because their parents influenced them. Or maybe it was because they got to see the benefits of being a doctor up close as they grew up. Really doesn't matter to the person who didn't have doctor parents and is now choosing.I think your #2 above is an important point -- I concede that in the end it doesn't really matter, because if people are HAPPY in their beliefs, and doing good by others, well then who cares how they got to that point. Whatever floats your boat should be good for each and every person.Thanks Otis. I think I see and understand what you're saying. And no doubt, what you're saying is at work in some degree. There is some degree of "pressure" for kids to follow their parents in whatever. Be it where they live, what they do for a living and so on.Interesting, thanks Joe. I think the one basic problem I have with your post is the following:Hi Otis,
I'd agree thinking about the "why" is important.
But I really don't think it's all the parents thing. You'll see one day GB, those kids don't just jump in line to do what you say...
But I do hear you. My kids are more likely to be Christian than Muslim because of how they're raised. No argument there. I just think the parents aren't as big a factor as you might be thinking. And there are also adults who have a resistance to religion because they were raised that way. So it works from all angles. Which is why I say the real way is to figure it out for yourself.
You might like Anne Lamott. She grew up in San Francisco and both her parents were super smart and involved in the intellectual scene of the 60s. Following Jesus was the last thing she wanted to do as she saw it as weak minded or stupid. She's a really talented writer and is pretty much the opposite of what many folks see on TV representing Christians. Here's a 5 minute video from a series she did. This one starts off talking about her alcoholism which probably isn't relevant but in a couple of minutes in she talks about how she started going to her church.
She's got a really good book called Traveling Mercies that talks about her life and how resistant she was to Christianity. And as she says in the video, she's now a "really bad Christian". But believes in doing things badly vs not trying at all. Do what you can. Take your best shot.
J
But I do hear you. My kids are more likely to be Christian than Muslim because of how they're raised. No argument there. I just think the parents aren't as big a factor as you might be thinking. And there are also adults who have a resistance to religion because they were raised that way. So it works from all angles. Which is why I say the real way is to figure it out for yourself.
I think this goes to the heart of my issue or question. My fundamental point is that we PRIMARILY adopt religion as it's given to us. I understand there are exceptions and outliers, lots of them. But on the whole, I have to imagine that the vast, vast majority of people who identify themselves as religious have largely taken on the religions of their parents. I suppose if I could find a study or some data on that, it would either support or refute what is one of the most fundamental assumptions I'm making here.
Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.
Where I think we disagree is on two things:.
#1. How much influence the parents really have.
#2 How big a deal that it really is.
Let's say it's something like career choice. Two parents are doctors and they think being a doctor is the greatest thing ever. They want nothing more than their child to grow up to be a doctor. They influence him in every way they can and the child grows up to be a doctor and loves it.
If I were thinking about being a doctor, I'd look at what it meant to be a doctor. Would I consider that some doctors are doctors because their parents were doctors and they did everything they could to influence the child to be a doctor? Maybe. But I honestly wouldn't put that much value on it. I'd focus way more on what it might look for me to be a doctor and figure out if that was for me.
That's maybe not a very good example. But it kind of makes sense to me. I'd look at why people become something. But I'm not sure how much weight I'd put on their parent's influence.
J
But the reason I struggle with #1 and find it interesting is that I bet the statistics (if there are any) will bear out that I'm right about this and your view is not accurate. And if it's true -- if we establish that religion is generally the one we happen to inherit from our parents -- then the fundamental question it opens up is how grounded are our beliefs if they are basically just a product of arbitrary chance? If the mere fact that a person was born in New Jersey as opposed to New Delhi is ultimately what determines their faith -- their entire belief system in life -- how logical, or grounded, or reasonable is their belief in the first place? How can they really feel comfortable believing in the basic facts of their religion if it turns out that they would believe completely different basic facts of another religion had they just been born to different parents, or in a different place? And the same hole would apply to people in EVERY religion. So no one religion could then be right, or correct, or true.
And maybe the answer for all the religious people in the world is "look, I don't want to go there, and I don't need to go there, because I like what I like and I'm happy with it and it helps me live a good life." And that's OK too. We all get to spend our days as we please.
If you go to a church, I'd be surprised if anyone asks you if your parents are Christians. There isn't any "legacy" system in place. This deal is all about you and God.
But all these are great things to think about. My advice would be to keep seeking answers to the things you see. And by far, person to person is best for that. I don't know if they have a location that's near you, but Redeemer Church in NYC is really well known. The main pastor, Tim Keller is a friend of my pastor. The kinds of things you're asking and questioning are stuff they welcome. I went when I visited the city a couple of years ago and it was real low key. Nobody is going to bother you. If they do, just tell them you're there on an exploratory mission from the FFA and you're trying to decide if any of this stuff is true. That's a big part of their audience and that's great. That's what they're for. Keller's experience in NY has been pretty interesting. He says that most new churches over the years there had gone into NYC with the attitude that they were going into "enemy territory" and that NYC was like a modern day Sodom and Gomorra. Keller's attitude was, "NYC is arguably the greatest city in the world. And tons of people that live here think that. Let's have a church that is part of that instead of a church that treats the city like an enemy".
Make it a FFA field trip. Report back.
J
The one interesting thing about your analogy is the question about what the kid will be when he grows up. That's a choice. He could choose to be a doctor, or not. Either way, there is no "wrong" or "right," just different choices. But the question I'm really pondering is not why did you CHOOSE a particular religion, but why do you believe that the facts behind that religion are right. It's less a choice then and more a question of what you think really happened in the past. Of course, for the people who don't care of their religion is "true" or right, but they've just concluded it was a choice of theirs to follow one religion over another and that they like it for that reason, none of this matters. For me, if I'm going to believe in something, I need to understand that it's real, and there needs to be some logic and substance there, and so I think that's why religion never had a chance of sticking with me.
I think we differ on the "choice" part.
As it is with most things, the answer's in a Rush song - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
We are presented with the bible. And we make a choice what to do with it. So everyone makes a choice there. Are you more talking about historical accuracy of the bible and that type of thing? That's kind of the stuff I was talking about with Apologetics where scholars examine accuracy and how it compares to other historical events. Especially the New Testament which was later in history. It's definitely something to dig into for sure if that's of interest to you.
J
Yeah, I guess the question is more about belief in a religion, not so much the choice to participate in a religion. I view those as two different things. In your case, to simplify it, you might choose to participate in the church and it makes you feel fulfilled and helps guide you in life, and you like the way it helps your family unit, etc. That's the choice part. But I'm talking about the belief part. Like, the fact that you believe Jesus was the son of god, and that's the one and only true god, and, by definition therefore, the Buddhists and the Jews etc. etc. are all wrong in there beliefs. You've been asked to come to that belief on blind faith. You have no evidence, no proof, not a person you know and trust who can tell you yes, they spoke to Jesus, etc., not scientific proof, nothing. That's the sort of belief or faith I'm wondering about in this thread. And it's not just about Christianity. Other folks in other religions have come to equally strong beliefs in their gods, all of whom are different and often mutually exclusive. And therein lies the conundrum. Either someone is wrong or everyone is wrong, but you can't all be right. And if I associated myself with one of those groups, I would at some point step back and wonder "wait a minute, what makes me so great, or my lot in life so lucky, that I can just assume the religion I was born into is the right one?"
Anyway, it goes down a path that is probably unproductive and maybe even uncomfortable for lots of religious folks, and is something that is maybe better glossed over. Because for religious folks, there is often just no reason to go there -- you believe what you choose to believe, it makes you and your family happy, it causes you to treat others well and live a good life, and so no reason to overthink it. I guess because I view myself as a guy who was raised in it but is now on the sidelines, I can be somewhat objective about it.
I don't have a bone to pick with religious people. My parents are awesome people and have been religious at points in their lives. My dad went through a difficult patch and started to go to church every week for some years, after never going before. He even became one of the eucharistic ministers who would walk around with the basket at mass. No idea how that happened, I should ask him one day. He hasn't been to church in years and instead is on a golf course on Sunday mornings. So he used religion when he needed it in life, and it gave him comfort, and he then set it aside again. My mom had an experience at one of those healing masses we all went to as shtick once. She was knocked out cold onto the floor, swears it was legit and the most incredible thing. That one gets me. She's not a religious nut, and I still wonder if they hit her with chloroform or there was a trap door or something. Or maybe there was something real and spiritual going on, who knows. In any event, she also hasn't been to church in ages, so it couldn't have been all that powerful....
Point is, people I admire and respect have been religious at times. I'm not knocking it just to knock it. I'm honestly curious about how people explain these issues to themselves; or maybe the answer is they don't bother to, and that's alright too.
Otis
Footballguy
windmill dunksTotally with you, GB. You make a good point that it sounds like a pretty awesome and stress free way to live. And man, imagine dealing with the loss of loved ones knowing well you'll see them again pretty soon. Get hit with a cancer diagnosis? It's like an open ended draw, you push and see what happens, and even if you bust out it's cool because there's another, better game starting up soon.
But maybe that's the point. I think religion is largely a coping mechanism, to help with loss, and anxiety, and the strains of life and our fragile human minds, and maybe that's exactly why it works that way. Maybe it's by design....
Otis
Footballguy
Seems silly that it HAS to be a choice between faith and logic. If you were some wonderful god, why not just make it a whole lot simpler. Why play coy?
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
That's interesting about your dad and especially your mom. I'd ask her more about it. I've never had any experience with something like that but it sounds like something I'd want to know more of.Otis said:That's a great call on the thread. It might be my only interesting contribution to this place in the past 5 years...Joe Bryant said:Dude. You know that would make a good FFA thread. "Otis visits Redeemer Church". You know it.Interesting. I don't think a church visit is for me, I'll likely be a non-believer for good. But you never know.Thanks. But I'd say of the two reasons, the second one is really all that matters. It's like the doctor example. Sure there are people that chose to be a doctor because their parents influenced them. Or maybe it was because they got to see the benefits of being a doctor up close as they grew up. Really doesn't matter to the person who didn't have doctor parents and is now choosing.I think your #2 above is an important point -- I concede that in the end it doesn't really matter, because if people are HAPPY in their beliefs, and doing good by others, well then who cares how they got to that point. Whatever floats your boat should be good for each and every person.Thanks Otis. I think I see and understand what you're saying. And no doubt, what you're saying is at work in some degree. There is some degree of "pressure" for kids to follow their parents in whatever. Be it where they live, what they do for a living and so on.Interesting, thanks Joe. I think the one basic problem I have with your post is the following:Hi Otis,
I'd agree thinking about the "why" is important.
But I really don't think it's all the parents thing. You'll see one day GB, those kids don't just jump in line to do what you say...
But I do hear you. My kids are more likely to be Christian than Muslim because of how they're raised. No argument there. I just think the parents aren't as big a factor as you might be thinking. And there are also adults who have a resistance to religion because they were raised that way. So it works from all angles. Which is why I say the real way is to figure it out for yourself.
You might like Anne Lamott. She grew up in San Francisco and both her parents were super smart and involved in the intellectual scene of the 60s. Following Jesus was the last thing she wanted to do as she saw it as weak minded or stupid. She's a really talented writer and is pretty much the opposite of what many folks see on TV representing Christians. Here's a 5 minute video from a series she did. This one starts off talking about her alcoholism which probably isn't relevant but in a couple of minutes in she talks about how she started going to her church.
She's got a really good book called Traveling Mercies that talks about her life and how resistant she was to Christianity. And as she says in the video, she's now a "really bad Christian". But believes in doing things badly vs not trying at all. Do what you can. Take your best shot.
J
But I do hear you. My kids are more likely to be Christian than Muslim because of how they're raised. No argument there. I just think the parents aren't as big a factor as you might be thinking. And there are also adults who have a resistance to religion because they were raised that way. So it works from all angles. Which is why I say the real way is to figure it out for yourself.
I think this goes to the heart of my issue or question. My fundamental point is that we PRIMARILY adopt religion as it's given to us. I understand there are exceptions and outliers, lots of them. But on the whole, I have to imagine that the vast, vast majority of people who identify themselves as religious have largely taken on the religions of their parents. I suppose if I could find a study or some data on that, it would either support or refute what is one of the most fundamental assumptions I'm making here.
Because if that is established, I think that's where the big, interesting question comes in. Not only are people having blind faith, but they're having blind faith in the religion that is essentially handed to them, even in the face of all the myriad other religions in the world, and knowing full well that, in all likelihood, had they grown up on the other side of the world, they'd have a completely different belief. I just find that a really interesting choke point in this whole analysis/discussion of religious faith. Again, if my assumption is way off, it's less meaningful. But if my assumption is a good one, it raises what I think are big questions.
Where I think we disagree is on two things:.
#1. How much influence the parents really have.
#2 How big a deal that it really is.
Let's say it's something like career choice. Two parents are doctors and they think being a doctor is the greatest thing ever. They want nothing more than their child to grow up to be a doctor. They influence him in every way they can and the child grows up to be a doctor and loves it.
If I were thinking about being a doctor, I'd look at what it meant to be a doctor. Would I consider that some doctors are doctors because their parents were doctors and they did everything they could to influence the child to be a doctor? Maybe. But I honestly wouldn't put that much value on it. I'd focus way more on what it might look for me to be a doctor and figure out if that was for me.
That's maybe not a very good example. But it kind of makes sense to me. I'd look at why people become something. But I'm not sure how much weight I'd put on their parent's influence.
J
But the reason I struggle with #1 and find it interesting is that I bet the statistics (if there are any) will bear out that I'm right about this and your view is not accurate. And if it's true -- if we establish that religion is generally the one we happen to inherit from our parents -- then the fundamental question it opens up is how grounded are our beliefs if they are basically just a product of arbitrary chance? If the mere fact that a person was born in New Jersey as opposed to New Delhi is ultimately what determines their faith -- their entire belief system in life -- how logical, or grounded, or reasonable is their belief in the first place? How can they really feel comfortable believing in the basic facts of their religion if it turns out that they would believe completely different basic facts of another religion had they just been born to different parents, or in a different place? And the same hole would apply to people in EVERY religion. So no one religion could then be right, or correct, or true.
And maybe the answer for all the religious people in the world is "look, I don't want to go there, and I don't need to go there, because I like what I like and I'm happy with it and it helps me live a good life." And that's OK too. We all get to spend our days as we please.
If you go to a church, I'd be surprised if anyone asks you if your parents are Christians. There isn't any "legacy" system in place. This deal is all about you and God.
But all these are great things to think about. My advice would be to keep seeking answers to the things you see. And by far, person to person is best for that. I don't know if they have a location that's near you, but Redeemer Church in NYC is really well known. The main pastor, Tim Keller is a friend of my pastor. The kinds of things you're asking and questioning are stuff they welcome. I went when I visited the city a couple of years ago and it was real low key. Nobody is going to bother you. If they do, just tell them you're there on an exploratory mission from the FFA and you're trying to decide if any of this stuff is true. That's a big part of their audience and that's great. That's what they're for. Keller's experience in NY has been pretty interesting. He says that most new churches over the years there had gone into NYC with the attitude that they were going into "enemy territory" and that NYC was like a modern day Sodom and Gomorra. Keller's attitude was, "NYC is arguably the greatest city in the world. And tons of people that live here think that. Let's have a church that is part of that instead of a church that treats the city like an enemy".
Make it a FFA field trip. Report back.
J
The one interesting thing about your analogy is the question about what the kid will be when he grows up. That's a choice. He could choose to be a doctor, or not. Either way, there is no "wrong" or "right," just different choices. But the question I'm really pondering is not why did you CHOOSE a particular religion, but why do you believe that the facts behind that religion are right. It's less a choice then and more a question of what you think really happened in the past. Of course, for the people who don't care of their religion is "true" or right, but they've just concluded it was a choice of theirs to follow one religion over another and that they like it for that reason, none of this matters. For me, if I'm going to believe in something, I need to understand that it's real, and there needs to be some logic and substance there, and so I think that's why religion never had a chance of sticking with me.
I think we differ on the "choice" part.
As it is with most things, the answer's in a Rush song - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice".
We are presented with the bible. And we make a choice what to do with it. So everyone makes a choice there. Are you more talking about historical accuracy of the bible and that type of thing? That's kind of the stuff I was talking about with Apologetics where scholars examine accuracy and how it compares to other historical events. Especially the New Testament which was later in history. It's definitely something to dig into for sure if that's of interest to you.
J
Yeah, I guess the question is more about belief in a religion, not so much the choice to participate in a religion. I view those as two different things. In your case, to simplify it, you might choose to participate in the church and it makes you feel fulfilled and helps guide you in life, and you like the way it helps your family unit, etc. That's the choice part. But I'm talking about the belief part. Like, the fact that you believe Jesus was the son of god, and that's the one and only true god, and, by definition therefore, the Buddhists and the Jews etc. etc. are all wrong in there beliefs. You've been asked to come to that belief on blind faith. You have no evidence, no proof, not a person you know and trust who can tell you yes, they spoke to Jesus, etc., not scientific proof, nothing. That's the sort of belief or faith I'm wondering about in this thread. And it's not just about Christianity. Other folks in other religions have come to equally strong beliefs in their gods, all of whom are different and often mutually exclusive. And therein lies the conundrum. Either someone is wrong or everyone is wrong, but you can't all be right. And if I associated myself with one of those groups, I would at some point step back and wonder "wait a minute, what makes me so great, or my lot in life so lucky, that I can just assume the religion I was born into is the right one?"
Anyway, it goes down a path that is probably unproductive and maybe even uncomfortable for lots of religious folks, and is something that is maybe better glossed over. Because for religious folks, there is often just no reason to go there -- you believe what you choose to believe, it makes you and your family happy, it causes you to treat others well and live a good life, and so no reason to overthink it. I guess because I view myself as a guy who was raised in it but is now on the sidelines, I can be somewhat objective about it.
I don't have a bone to pick with religious people. My parents are awesome people and have been religious at points in their lives. My dad went through a difficult patch and started to go to church every week for some years, after never going before. He even became one of the eucharistic ministers who would walk around with the basket at mass. No idea how that happened, I should ask him one day. He hasn't been to church in years and instead is on a golf course on Sunday mornings. So he used religion when he needed it in life, and it gave him comfort, and he then set it aside again. My mom had an experience at one of those healing masses we all went to as shtick once. She was knocked out cold onto the floor, swears it was legit and the most incredible thing. That one gets me. She's not a religious nut, and I still wonder if they hit her with chloroform or there was a trap door or something. Or maybe there was something real and spiritual going on, who knows. In any event, she also hasn't been to church in ages, so it couldn't have been all that powerful....
Point is, people I admire and respect have been religious at times. I'm not knocking it just to knock it. I'm honestly curious about how people explain these issues to themselves; or maybe the answer is they don't bother to, and that's alright too.
J
matuski
Footballguy
I doubt most anyone would have an issue at all with religion purely as a coping mechanism. Or as a motivating factor to help others.Fla\/\/ed said:
Problem is that religion isn't just a coping mechanism. Unfortunately, claiming the keys to the afterlife is also used as a tool to manipulate and influence. A way to seize power and control others.
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
It's one of a few foods endorsed by Jesus. Frankly, you cannot go wrong there.Otis said:I could stand to eat a lot more fish, might help my diet some.Rohn Jambo said:Are you wasting my time because you had to eat fish on Good Friday?I like fish.Otis said:
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Fishes good, loaves bad.
matuski
Footballguy
I don't think I could make it any clearer.
For coping.. great. To manipulate and influence.. not great.
My wife was raised Catholic (now attends a Lutheran church), and for her, rituals and liturgy basically *IS* church. Stand up, sit down, "and also with you." I was raised in the Covenant denomination. Kind of like Wesleyans or just a bit like the Mennonite Church. And for us, it was basically four walls and a sermon. Very little liturgy, VERY little pomp and circumstance. And certainly no hokus pokus related to wine turning to blood, or praying to Mary or any saints.
My wife and her family made a HUGE deal about baptizing our kids, about transubstantiation, about Maundy Thursday (I had never even heard of Maundy Thursday until I met her...as apparently for Catholics, it ranks right up there with Easter and Christmas). I think it's much ado about nothing, really. About "religion" getting in the way of "faith." But I've played along...as I don't want to make any more waves with that kind of stuff than I already do. I was really proud of my daughter (11) today though, as she said: "Mom, the wine served at communion isn't the blood of Jesus, and the bread isn't really the body of Jesus either." Why people (literally) believe that kind of nonsense really boggles my mind...though I'm sure atheists are quick to think the same thing about my own belief in God. A belief in an after-life.
Anyway, I had to do a mental "you go, girl!" when she said that...as it made me proud of her to stand up to her Mom and what her grandparents and uncles/aunts believe and show that she's really thinking about things. Now she can help me continue working on her classmate (another fifth grader), who came to school last Spring (public school) and proudly proclaimed that the Earth was "100 years old" after visiting the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
My daughter told her "the UNITED STATES is older than that. And besides, the Earth is really more than four billion years old!" A chip off the 'ol block, as more of a person who wants you to defend your assertions and who is a rabble-rouser. She's going to be a handful when she's a teenager, no doubt (lol).
My wife and her family made a HUGE deal about baptizing our kids, about transubstantiation, about Maundy Thursday (I had never even heard of Maundy Thursday until I met her...as apparently for Catholics, it ranks right up there with Easter and Christmas). I think it's much ado about nothing, really. About "religion" getting in the way of "faith." But I've played along...as I don't want to make any more waves with that kind of stuff than I already do. I was really proud of my daughter (11) today though, as she said: "Mom, the wine served at communion isn't the blood of Jesus, and the bread isn't really the body of Jesus either." Why people (literally) believe that kind of nonsense really boggles my mind...though I'm sure atheists are quick to think the same thing about my own belief in God. A belief in an after-life.
Anyway, I had to do a mental "you go, girl!" when she said that...as it made me proud of her to stand up to her Mom and what her grandparents and uncles/aunts believe and show that she's really thinking about things. Now she can help me continue working on her classmate (another fifth grader), who came to school last Spring (public school) and proudly proclaimed that the Earth was "100 years old" after visiting the Creation Museum in Kentucky.
My daughter told her "the UNITED STATES is older than that. And besides, the Earth is really more than four billion years old!" A chip off the 'ol block, as more of a person who wants you to defend your assertions and who is a rabble-rouser. She's going to be a handful when she's a teenager, no doubt (lol).
Last edited by a moderator:
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
I thought Jesus was baptized when he was 30 years old?
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
mr roboto
Footballguy
Fwiw, faith = trust. Not intellectual belief. I trust in Jesus. Put my personal faith and trust in him. Not the Bible, a certain denomination, certain specific doctrine.
Faith and logic are not the same category. One is and act of the will toward a relationship (faith/trust) and one is an act of the mind toward understanding. Faith can inform logic and logic can inform faith. But I reject the definition of faith as currently bandied about in this thread.
Faith and logic are not the same category. One is and act of the will toward a relationship (faith/trust) and one is an act of the mind toward understanding. Faith can inform logic and logic can inform faith. But I reject the definition of faith as currently bandied about in this thread.
I might take things a step further and say faith and beliefs are also <> truth. Because someone beliefs that the Earth is 6,000 years old doesn't make it true. Because someone's faith teaches them that a priest can recite a little Latin/blessing, and ordinary wine/grape juice or bread becomes the LITERAL blood/body of Christ doesn't make it true either.
Truth trumps faith and beliefs. I can have faith in God, believe in an afterlife, et al (and I do). But that doesn't necessarily make it true. I believe it's true! But I cannot PROVE it is true. Nor can anyone prove it isn't true. Now, there are many other things associated with Christian faith that can be tested as being true or false! The age of the Earth, transubstantiation, etc. My problem with many (other) Christians is their insistence upon clinging to lies that have already been disproven. Atheists, for example, cannot prove or disprove the existence of God! But it's awfully easy to test a bottle of red wine before communion, then test that same bottle of red wine during/after communion, and prove that absolutely NOTHING has changed with its contents!
Millions of Christians will counter fact with "you just need to have faith...that God works in mysterious ways, and that if your faith were strong enough, you'd realize that Satan can/will deceive you with false witness/evidence."
And folks wonder why atheists/deists and other non-Christians will throw the entire baby out with that dirty bathwater?Focus on truth. EVERY DAY should be spent pursuing truth. Seeking (and asking for) wisdom. And not clinging to lies which cast doubt on the entire faith community. The Earth isn't 6,000 years old. Red wine and bread does not magically transform into Jesus' body/blood. Etc. The sooner folks stop teaching and clinging to lies, the sooner non-believers with an open mind might take Christianity more seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Went with my family to an Easter service today- Lutheran church. Just like last year, during the sermon, the pastor attempted to "prove" the existence of Jesus, and His resurrection, discussing a few books which related "irrefutable evidence"- I suppose this is an example of what Joe referred to as "Apologetics"?
Now though I'm not a believer myself, I understand faith, or at least I think I do. What I don't understand is this need by some religious people to prove that their faith is true. Whether its this pastor, or the whole Intelligent Design movement, or those Christian writers who attempt to refute atheism in the form of a "scientific" debate- what I wonder is, why isn't faith enough for these people? Why can they simply say what Datonn just wrote, that God's existence can never be proven, but that they believe based on their faith? Or is the fact that they persist in attempting to prove this stuff a confession of sorts that even for them, faith by itself isn't enough?
Now though I'm not a believer myself, I understand faith, or at least I think I do. What I don't understand is this need by some religious people to prove that their faith is true. Whether its this pastor, or the whole Intelligent Design movement, or those Christian writers who attempt to refute atheism in the form of a "scientific" debate- what I wonder is, why isn't faith enough for these people? Why can they simply say what Datonn just wrote, that God's existence can never be proven, but that they believe based on their faith? Or is the fact that they persist in attempting to prove this stuff a confession of sorts that even for them, faith by itself isn't enough?
^ Tim: Two quick things:
1. God's existence HASN'T been proven to the satisfaction of people who do not believe in a God/Creator. I cannot prove that God is real/true to these individuals, nor (I would assert) can anyone else. That said, I wouldn't say that because of that, God's existence can NEVER be proven. I'm just not the guy for the job. The only being who can/will be able to do it? God himself. Or herself/itself, if that's more folks' style. Your proverbial "smoking gun." But no human being can/will be able to do it...no matter how hard they try.
2. Evangelical Christians view it as their charge, their obligation, to lead others to God. To love your neighbor as yourself means to care about their faith/soul, and not allow them to not know God. Not let their children not know God. Which is why most hard-core Christian Conservatives don't much care for "live and let live." Because if they're letting you live the type of life you want to live, but that life (in their view) is one which leads you and/or others away from God, then they're not doing their job of loving you as they would love themselves. Allowing you to lead your friends and family astray. I think many of these people have their hearts in absolutely the right place! That said, their execution of said charge/mission?! Horrific would be an understatement.
1. God's existence HASN'T been proven to the satisfaction of people who do not believe in a God/Creator. I cannot prove that God is real/true to these individuals, nor (I would assert) can anyone else. That said, I wouldn't say that because of that, God's existence can NEVER be proven. I'm just not the guy for the job. The only being who can/will be able to do it? God himself. Or herself/itself, if that's more folks' style. Your proverbial "smoking gun." But no human being can/will be able to do it...no matter how hard they try.
2. Evangelical Christians view it as their charge, their obligation, to lead others to God. To love your neighbor as yourself means to care about their faith/soul, and not allow them to not know God. Not let their children not know God. Which is why most hard-core Christian Conservatives don't much care for "live and let live." Because if they're letting you live the type of life you want to live, but that life (in their view) is one which leads you and/or others away from God, then they're not doing their job of loving you as they would love themselves. Allowing you to lead your friends and family astray. I think many of these people have their hearts in absolutely the right place! That said, their execution of said charge/mission?! Horrific would be an understatement.
Last edited by a moderator:
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
LOLz remember when you were like 7 and you longjumped 50 feet or whatever? That was great.^ Tim: Two quick things:
1. God's existence HASN'T been proven to the satisfaction of people who do not believe in a God/Creator. I cannot prove that God is real/true to these individuals, nor (I would assert) can anyone else. That said, I wouldn't say that because of that, God's existence can NEVER be proven. I'm just not the guy for the job. The only being who can/will be able to do it? God himself. Or herself/itself, if that's more folks' style. Your proverbial "smoking gun." But no human being can/will be able to do it...no matter how hard they try.
2. Evangelical Christians view it as their charge, their obligation, to lead others to God. To love your neighbor as yourself means to care about their faith/soul, and not allow them to not know God. Not let their children not know God. Which is why most hard-core Christian Conservatives don't much care for "live and let live." Because if they're letting you live the type of life you want to live, but that life (in their view) is one which leads you and/or others away from God, then they're not doing their job of loving you as they would love themselves. Allowing you to lead your friends and family astray. I think many of these people have their hearts in absolutely the right place! That said, their execution of said charge/mission?! Horrific would be an understatement.
timschochet
Footballguy
Frankly, and I'm only speaking now of what you refer to as the "hard-core Christian conservatives", I'm not at all as sure as you are that their hearts ARE in the right place. Perhaps some are, for the reasons you stated, but it seems to me that many use their religious beliefs as an excuse to judge and condemn others, to assert moral superiority, and basically to meddle in people's private affairs. None of this is Christian based on my (admittedly limited) understanding of that religion, but nonetheless that's what I perceive.
Murder, slavery, racism and countless other horrible acts have been committed in the name of God over the centuries. Do people twist and pervert scripture into things that support their own agenda or personal/financial gain? Absolutely. But that is in direct violation with the command to love one's neighbor as you love yourself. And as with other things in society, it's not necessarily people "breaking the law" who are the biggest threat or hindrance to said society. It is the people who think they are "above the law." Immune to its rules and consequences. And those are the individuals who do irreparable harm to the Church. Ten-times worse than the people who "preach" tolerance ("judge not, lest ye be judged"), and don't pretend that they've got all the answers to all the questions.
OPM: If it matters (I already know it won't), my experiences with the super-natural are what cemented my belief/faith in God and an after-life. Not a doubt in my mind. Same rules apply. I could try until I'm blue in the face to "prove" certain things to folks...and 200-300 pages later, we'd be no better off. But if people could only walk a mile or two in my shoes, I'd be curious to see if their perspective might change. I've had some pretty amazing things happen in my life. Had 3-4 experiences I only wish I could also forget. No drugs. No alcohol (though I've "evolved" to having maybe 5-6 drinks/year in my 30s and 40s). No mental illness. Experiences which others have shared. Can I explain them? No. Can I PROVE they occurred? No. But the fact that 10-20 people around the FFA keep going back to that stuff every (and I do mean every) time I want to talk about politics, TV shows, Vikings football, or astronomy means that it really struck a nerve. Wish I could claim it as a Top Ten epic fishing trip of all-time! Even had another FFAer offer to swap logins for a while, so they could really puff-up what they thought was "schtick."
But I SUCK at fishing. Real-life or otherwise.
Nipsey
Footballguy
First of all, the offer to swap usernames was not for "a while", it was forever. Second, it would not have been for me to "puff up" anything you had previously discussed. We would have both posted as we always had, just using each others usernames without the board's knowledge of the switch. I think it would have gone down as a successful and epic experiment in that (I believe) nobody would have figured out the switch happened and we would have seen firsthand how the board reads and reacts differently to certain posters based on their posting history and perception. It would have been, in my opinion, the best "shtick" in the board's history and to be honest I'm disappointed that you've remembered the offer in this way. My intention was not to embarrass you or have you "fish" and pretend to be me. It was a long time ago but reread that PM if you still have it. I can understand why you didn't want to make the swap but you obviously misunderstood what I was proposing.Murder, slavery, racism and countless other horrible acts have been committed in the name of God over the centuries. Do people twist and pervert scripture into things that support their own agenda or personal/financial gain? Absolutely. But that is in direct violation with the command to love one's neighbor as you love yourself. And as with other things in society, it's not necessarily people "breaking the law" who are the biggest threat or hindrance to said society. It is the people who think they are "above the law." Immune to its rules and consequences. And those are the individuals who do irreparable harm to the Church. Ten-times worse than the people who "preach" tolerance ("judge not, lest ye be judged"), and don't pretend that they've got all the answers to all the questions.
OPM: If it matters (I already know it won't), my experiences with the super-natural are what cemented my belief/faith in God and an after-life. Not a doubt in my mind. Same rules apply. I could try until I'm blue in the face to "prove" certain things to folks...and 200-300 pages later, we'd be no better off. But if people could only walk a mile or two in my shoes, I'd be curious to see if their perspective might change. I've had some pretty amazing things happen in my life. Had 3-4 experiences I only wish I could also forget. No drugs. No alcohol (though I've "evolved" to having maybe 5-6 drinks/year in my 30s and 40s). No mental illness. Experiences which others have shared. Can I explain them? No. Can I PROVE they occurred? No. But the fact that 10-20 people around the FFA keep going back to that stuff every (and I do mean every) time I want to talk about politics, TV shows, Vikings football, or astronomy means that it really struck a nerve. Wish I could claim it as a Top Ten epic fishing trip of all-time! Even had another FFAer offer to swap logins for a while, so they could really puff-up what they thought was "schtick."
Otis
Footballguy
Well, my question all along has been how did you get to your faith. By that I mean, for you to have faith, you must at some point first have concluded that this religion is "right," in the sense that the factual basis of the religion is sound and true. In the case of Christians, you came to believe without any proof that Jesus is the son of God, the one and only true God, and living according to the Bible would get you into heaven. And you came to believe that despite all the other religions out there, and again, despite your lack of proof. This is the point of focusing on. What makes you believe the facts of your religion are right. I'm not asking about your decision to have faith in your God and devote yourself to your religion. That's a different issue. There had to be some step before that, or else why not put your faith in a stop sign or Dora the Explorer or something else arbitrary. SOMETHING made you conclude that this particular religion was the right one to invest your life and energy in. What was it? How did you come to that conclusion?
matuski
Footballguy
Has anyone here said that?So there is no manipulation and influencing by groups/people that aren't religious?I don't think I could make it any clearer.
For coping.. great. To manipulate and influence.. not great.
Religion is unmatched in this regard, however. Nothing else allows a group/individual to leverage the "afterlife" they have drilled into the masses' heads since birth while simultaneously avoiding accountability by hiding behind an invisible cloud surfer. As far as I am aware, this is unique to religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
parasaurolophus
Footballguy
I agree with Otis that almost all religious faith is a "legacy" faith. Early followers had faith because of the stories they were told or read. Those stories were likely considered fact. People really believed Noah made an ark, moses really parted some seawater, the earth was 5000 years old, there was a bush that burned and spoke, etc etc. Given those circumstances I can easily see people developing a very strong faith in religion, a factually based faith.
Now most people believe those stories are made up, yet faith remains. I get how the "faith" started hundreds of years ago. It was a different time. So many things needed an explanation. I simply don't get how it remains when the premise of it is completely different and all the backstory is completely different and ever changing. One by one so many of these stories are found to be false, absurd and ridiculous even. Yet it seems that as long as there are stories that are in a grey area, people will still keep faith in them and hold them to be true. These same people then dismiss other religions that have ideas and stories that are also not "proven" to be false.
The only explanation that remains(at least to me) is the legacy of it. I simply can't see any other reason why people could believe so strongly in something while dismissing somebody else's beliefs that are based on the same quantity of data.
Now most people believe those stories are made up, yet faith remains. I get how the "faith" started hundreds of years ago. It was a different time. So many things needed an explanation. I simply don't get how it remains when the premise of it is completely different and all the backstory is completely different and ever changing. One by one so many of these stories are found to be false, absurd and ridiculous even. Yet it seems that as long as there are stories that are in a grey area, people will still keep faith in them and hold them to be true. These same people then dismiss other religions that have ideas and stories that are also not "proven" to be false.
The only explanation that remains(at least to me) is the legacy of it. I simply can't see any other reason why people could believe so strongly in something while dismissing somebody else's beliefs that are based on the same quantity of data.
Otis
Footballguy
Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.
It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.
matuski
Footballguy
Is a Christian comfortable with the fact that if they grew up in Iran they would be equally (if not more so) devoted to Islam?
Jayrok
Footballguy
Faith remains because those with solid faith (in things unseen and/or the inexplicable) keep their faith in the source of these stories and tales. Having faith that there is a beautiful life after death outweighs the perceived alternative if their beliefs are wrong. Clinging to the belief that one may see their departed loved ones again may be better to some than a reality that death ends everything. So they choose to keep faith that a higher power loves them and is waiting to reward them.
My wife is a good example. She couldn't care less if Noah's ark wasn't a real story or that Moses may not have even existed. She doesn't care that men may have botched the Bible with redactions and other tamperings over the years. She believes in God and in Jesus as the son of God. And that's it. If she passes away and it all turned out to be silly, so what? She lived her life with the kind of faith that enabled her to be a better person... one who loved others and went out of her way to be kind to others and help those in need. I don't see anything wrong with that attitude and I do see a whole lot of right.
mr roboto
Footballguy
If you or I were born 200 years ago we'd be married by our 18th birthday. If we were born in North Korea we would believe Kim Jong Il is a god. If you were born in Mexico you would love soccer and hate American football. If you were born a woman you'd bleed out you hoo haa 4 days a month. This is fun.
Fla\/\/ed
Footballguy
Jayrok
Footballguy
But why can't you believe that it is also true? Of course I believe there is always reason for doubt. If you know me at all you know that I have lots of doubt. I know others who have no doubt and they came to that conclusion based on faith.Because it's totally arbitrary. You devote your life to something not necessarily because you believe in this thing because it's "true" - it's something that was handed to you based nearly solely on where you were born and the parents you were born to. Doesn't that strike you as reason for doubt? If I were Omar up the street, I might be muslim; or if I were Joshua around the block, Jewish. It's (virtually) solely because of the fact that I happened to be born in one place and to one family that I have the beliefs that I have. That to me is a powerful reason to question things. I recognize that folks who are religious will likely tell themselves, and become comfortable with the notion that, they believe strongly in what they believe; that they arrived independently at their beliefs; and that they would probably have believed the same things under different circumstances. But I think the statistics show none of those are likely the case. And so why were your parents or grandparents "right"? Why not Joshua's grandparents? Omar's? These religions conflict, along with a host of others, and so they can't all be right.
It strikes me as a gaping, powerful hole in religious belief systems. I am curious to know whether and how religious people come to terms with that.
Do they think their "religion" is right? Of course. But the ones I know aren't interested in trying to prove it is right to anyone else. It is right to them and that is enough. It is my belief that they come to terms with it because of faith. It is the faith they choose to believe in.
I believe that I can prove that the gospels are not 100% factually true in terms of accurate historical events. To some with the brand of faith I'm talking about, it just doesn't matter. To others it does matter and it would cause them concern. But that is where faith comes in.
I say question all things. And I have. Some others just don't care. They believe in this Jesus character and in his teachings and mission. They are thankful that they grew up in a place where Christianity was taught. Please see my response to Matuski for the rest.
matuski
Footballguy
Exactly. In other words, religion is just as arbitrary as these others. I'm glad you agree.
Are you comfortable with this fact?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok
Footballguy
I imagine that they are, yes. The Bible says that no one can come to know Jesus unless God the Father has drawn them (John 6:44). To some, this could indicate that God chooses who will come to know Jesus. So if there are Christians in Iran, it is because God drew them to Jesus. If they remain devoted to Islam, then they were not drawn.
This could be the standard apologetic for your question of whether a Christian should be comfortable with the fact of geographic influence. To the Christian, you see, it doesn't matter where one is born. If God chooses them, they will hear his message about Jesus. The Bible also tells us that Jesus is the good shepherd and his sheep hear his voice. Those who aren't his sheep don't hear his voice, I guess. Does that seem exclusionary? Sure does, but there it is.
mr roboto
Footballguy
Sure. Doesn't mean they are all equally untrue.
matuski
Footballguy
What?
eta - ah I see.. your religion is the "right" religion. But you would say the same about islam growing up in Iran, or about a cow god in India.
eta again - in fact your argument for the other religion would probably be identical to the one you make for your current religion.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
But doesn't this argument suggest that God favors the people of north and south America and western Europe over the rest of the world?
Black Box
Footballguy
Let's put it another way.
You are an atheist. You do not believe in any God or gods. You, the atheist, hold this to be true. However, if you were not raised in a society with freedom of religion, the odds of you being an atheist are lower. Much lower. In Iran, you could be executed. In my alternate reality, you are an Islamic freedom fighter in Iran. Does this affect the truth of your atheism in any way? Of course not. I'm just asserting something in an alternate reality that I made up.
And the same goes for the Christian. Or the Islamist. Or whoever. Alternate reality arguments get you nowhere because they apply to all people everywhere equally. And they're grounded in imagination to boot.
You are an atheist. You do not believe in any God or gods. You, the atheist, hold this to be true. However, if you were not raised in a society with freedom of religion, the odds of you being an atheist are lower. Much lower. In Iran, you could be executed. In my alternate reality, you are an Islamic freedom fighter in Iran. Does this affect the truth of your atheism in any way? Of course not. I'm just asserting something in an alternate reality that I made up.
And the same goes for the Christian. Or the Islamist. Or whoever. Alternate reality arguments get you nowhere because they apply to all people everywhere equally. And they're grounded in imagination to boot.
Jayrok
Footballguy
Not necessarily. There are Christians in most places on earth, I imagine. Don't know for sure. It could also suggest that the Americas and western Europe heard the message sooner than later. Maybe the message is yet to get to other remote locations. That may suck for those in Iran and other places that have died or will have died before the message gets out. But what can you do?
But even if it does suggest that God favors people of a certain locale, is it not his sovereign choice? The apostle Paul taught the Romans that God is the potter and man is the clay. Who is the clay that he can question the potter?
timschochet
Footballguy
The whole potter and clay business is always the same copout that non-believers hear whenever we raise the question of one of God's actions which seem either cruel or inexplicable (in this case, seeming to favor the West with plenty more Christians over the rest of the world). When believers can't explain, they give us the old "God is too mysterious for humans to comprehend"etc.
