Can you explain why you have faith in your religion? (1 Viewer)

[Ray Karpis]

Otis, I haven't read every post in this thread, so I apologize if this has been discussed (though I don't think it has). I think you mentioned early in the thread that you believe there is a higher power but not in a particular "higher power" as defined by organized religions. I would be interested to know what you believe happens after we die. If there is a higher power, do you believe he/it has any plan or next step for us? Do you believe we only get this lifetime on earth and that's it? Religious or non-religious, to me, that is an important question for all of us. Why are we here? If this is all there is, why does it make any difference how I live in this brief moment I'm here. If there is something after this life, how does my time on earth affect what comes next?

Is your position just that we have no way of knowing and you aren't satisfied with the "answers" presented by organized religion? Or do you have your own belief about that issue?

Thanks. Surprisingly, a pretty thoughtful discussion in this thread, I think.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

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.

This doesn't really work. Most Christians believe there's one god, and that he wants them to believe in him. That view is sorta inconsistent with the idea that there are parts of the world where it is unlikely that people will believe in him.

There's no similar inconsistency for atheists.

 

[matuski]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

 

[Jayrok]

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.

You labeling it a copout doesn't change the fact that it is an attitude that is illustrated in the Bible. You don't accept it as an explanation, ok, so what? What would be acceptable for you to hear from a Christian in terms of explaining how he/she views God?

 

[Jayrok]

Who is the clay that he can question the potter?

Really? Oof.

 

[Joe T]

Thread title might need to be tweaked:

"Can you explain why you have faith in your religion so that we can blow holes in your explanation?"

 

[timschochet]

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.

You labeling it a copout doesn't change the fact that it is an attitude that is illustrated in the Bible. You don't accept it as an explanation, ok, so what? What would be acceptable for you to hear from a Christian in terms of explaining how he/she views God?

I accept The faith of Christians. I just don't accept the attempt to explain away apparent inconsistencies by claiming that God is mysterious.

 

[jonessed]

Thread title might need to be tweaked:

"Can you explain why you have faith in your religion so that we can blow holes in your explanation?"

That's the status quo with these. There are always new people to fish though.

After a few times the smart ones learn to stop biting.

 

[Otis]

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're wrong for a couple of reasons.

First, I'm not sure I'm an "atheist." I believe there is some kind of higher spiritual power, and maybe that is a "god" of some sort. I just don't claim to know what it is, and I certainly don't claim that I have the right view on which god is right (and, therefore, that everyone else in all other religions have it wrong).

Second, I think you're missing my point. My point is based on the fact that all religions cannot be right. Most are mutually exclusive. And so, at most, only one religion can be right. That leaves a whole, whole lot of people of different religions who are devoting their lives to the wrong thing. And the people who supposedly got it right are only arbitrarily right -- they just happened to luck into the position in which they would inherit the right religion.

My not associating with a religion doesn't change that logic. This isn't about me. It's about people who believe in something (largely because they have inherited the belief from their parents and, so I would postulate, not because they undertook some analysis and concluded that this religion was right and others wrong).

 

[Jayrok]

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.

You labeling it a copout doesn't change the fact that it is an attitude that is illustrated in the Bible. You don't accept it as an explanation, ok, so what? What would be acceptable for you to hear from a Christian in terms of explaining how he/she views God?

I accept The faith of Christians. I just don't accept the attempt to explain away apparent inconsistencies by claiming that God is mysterious.

so what are you saying Christians should do then? Are they supposed to try and explain away apparent inconsistencies to your satisfaction? There are types that feel they must defend the Bible from those claims of inconsistencies.. those are called apologists. In response to your contention that God is selective and that is unfair, an apologist (I believe) would point to the explanation of Paul when the Roman Christians asked him why God does what he does which didn't seem fair to them. He told them the story of Pharoah and how God hardened his heart in order to show his Glory. IOW, it was God's sovereign choice. Tough luck if you (they) think it is unfair.

Other Christians rely on their faith (the belief in something not seen.. e.g. a mystery) and are comfortable with simply saying God's ways are not our ways or God works in mysterious ways.

If you can accept the faith of Christians, then perhaps you can also accept their reluctance to try and explain things they feel they can't.

 

[Otis]

Otis, I haven't read every post in this thread, so I apologize if this has been discussed (though I don't think it has). I think you mentioned early in the thread that you believe there is a higher power but not in a particular "higher power" as defined by organized religions. I would be interested to know what you believe happens after we die. If there is a higher power, do you believe he/it has any plan or next step for us? Do you believe we only get this lifetime on earth and that's it? Religious or non-religious, to me, that is an important question for all of us. Why are we here? If this is all there is, why does it make any difference how I live in this brief moment I'm here. If there is something after this life, how does my time on earth affect what comes next?

Is your position just that we have no way of knowing and you aren't satisfied with the "answers" presented by organized religion? Or do you have your own belief about that issue?

Thanks. Surprisingly, a pretty thoughtful discussion in this thread, I think.

Ray, good questions, and the answer is honestly "I don't know." I like to think that my passed family and friends still look down on us, guide us, pull cosmic strings for us, and are "with us" in some way. My grandparents had an association with cardinals, and they always seem to fly into the backyard at uncanny times, so my extended family's view, whenever we see one, is it's our grandparents coming back to say hello or watch over us. It's a nice, comforting sentiment. Is it true? Who knows. If it is, I'm definitely not satisfied that any organized religion that was written about thousands of years ago is the reason for it.

What will happen to me when I die? I don't know. I am pretty happy with the chance we have here on earth. It's a wonderful life we've been given, what an incredible opportunity. I don't need there to be something more to say it was worth it. If there is something more, that's gravy. Either way I feel compelled to do what is "right," including by others around me. That's not because I fear some fire and brimstone ending. The only clear path that way in my mind would be to abide by the rules in ALL religions, and that's more or less impossible. I do my best, try to live a good life for the sake of living a good life and setting a good example. If it's curtains at the end, I'm ok with that. If there's more, what a nice surprise. But I certainly don't believe in the notion that I am damned forever, living a good life and trying to be thoughtful, and logical, and sensible, simply because I did not accept Jesus or Noah or Buddha or whomever. It would be a pretty stupid and nonsensical god who damns most of the world from the start simply arbitrarily, and that's effectively what this god in the books would be doing. I like to think the universe and nature are a lot more sensible than that. They tend to be in nearly all other ways.

 

[Otis]

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.

This doesn't really work. Most Christians believe there's one god, and that he wants them to believe in him. That view is sorta inconsistent with the idea that there are parts of the world where it is unlikely that people will believe in him.

There's no similar inconsistency for atheists.

Better put, thanks.

 

[proninja]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

I suppose the reason I bristle against it is because first it seems derogatory and second it is a silly exercise. "You just believe that because your parents believe it" is a way to denigrate something as being irrational without having to actually address it. Earlier in the thread Tim basically told me the only reason I have faith is because my parents also do (which he apologized for, thank you Tim), which there's no way he can know. Applying something that is a fact (more people are Christians if they come from believing homes) universally as a way to discredit is unwise. Also, it's an exercise in imagination. There's no way we can apply me to being born somewhere else. I can't undo a lifetime of experience in this context. Is it likely that a person born in a Christian home in American will become a Christian? Yup. Is it likely that a person born into a Muslim home in Iran is going to be Muslim? Yup. Saying anything beyond that seems foolish.

That being said, from both a practical point of view as well as a theological point of view, you can't ignore not only the generational component but the national/corporate component in the OT covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God appears to work through the family as a unit as well as nations as a whole. We see this early in the OT, we see wisdom in proverbs speaking toward this (train a child up in the way he should go. . .), and we see whole families baptized at a time in the NT.

It doesn't discredit my faith when I see the world playing out how God seems to have decided to work in the ancient past all through the bible.

 

[proninja]

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.

You labeling it a copout doesn't change the fact that it is an attitude that is illustrated in the Bible. You don't accept it as an explanation, ok, so what? What would be acceptable for you to hear from a Christian in terms of explaining how he/she views God?

I accept The faith of Christians. I just don't accept the attempt to explain away apparent inconsistencies by claiming that God is mysterious.

If you are unwilling to accept pretty clear explanations directly from the bible, you do not accept the faith of Christians.

 

[proninja]

Thread title might need to be tweaked:

"Can you explain why you have faith in your religion so that we can blow holes in your explanation?"

That's the status quo with these. There are always new people to fish though.

After a few times the smart ones learn to stop biting.

No part of me thinks Otis is fishing. I think Tim is genuine too. Maybe I'm not one of the smart ones though.

 

[datonn]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

That type of arrogance is what always gets me related to many of the Christians I encounter on my travels through the Upper Midwest and the South. That somewhere along the line, "God's chosen people" went from being the Israelites to being Americans. The New Testament pre-dates there even being a United States of America by 1,600+ years. And the Old Testament was written thousands of years earlier (or at least the original stories that were passed down verbally before being written down were). Americans think they are the center of the planet/galaxy/universe, and we're raised that way from the time we can barely walk. So why would American Christians not think that we're "God's chosen people" too?!

The other thing that always gets me? Millions of images of a "white Jesus" that exist throughout church after church across the country. Inherited from hundreds of years of "white Jesus" being on full display throughout Europe. Then some Christians even going so far as to claim that white people of European descent are "God's chosen people," and warping scripture to treat others as second/third class individuals. I was attending a Bible study with my wife a couple years ago...where they were discussing a series called "The Truth Project." Basically, "atheists say __________, and here's why atheists are wrong." The leaders of the group, along with 5-6 of the other ~20 attendees, were railing against revisionist history. Lots of teachers at public school in the crowd, lamenting what children are(n't) being taught in public school. People writing God out of the history books related to America's Founding Fathers.

I politely raised my hand and asked: "What color was Jesus' skin? What color was Jesus' hair?" How tall was Jesus?" To which most attendees looked at me like I had just landed in a space ship from Mars. So I clarified my point. "Given the region of the world in which Jesus was born, at the time He was born, what were his likely physical traits?" Of course, they might have countered with the fact that Jesus' "DNA" wasn't dependent upon Mary or Joseph, via immaculate conception. But even with that in mind, if God were sending His Son into Israel ~2,000 years ago, what did he likely look like? I'd have bet good money that he wasn't white, ~six feet tall, with straight brown hair and blue eyes. But how is Jesus depicted in just about every picture, altar, stained glass window across the United States and Europe?

Of course, then I reminded folks that we need to work on the planks in our own eyes before we go criticizing the specks in other people's eyes. Related to "revisionist history." But that got me off of a few people's Christmas card lists as a direct result.

 

[Psychopav]

Glad to see Jayrock jump in on this one.

I agree with pretty much everything he has had to say today.

Going back to the original question, at the risk of being repetitive, I think it's a problem of confusing the scientific method with proof. I have all the proof I need to believe in the existence of God, but what starts it is a leap of faith. There is and could be no proof that sufficed for me to make that leap, it is a decision on my part. For some, it comes like a bolt of lightning, an epiphany that they now believe in something that they didn't before and they can pinpoint the moment that it happened. For others, it's something that develops over a long period of time and they realize that their faith exists, and it cannot be given a specific start date. This latter kind is where I fit, but even so I have had several moments in my life where I have decided definitively that I believe in the tenets of the Apostles Creed:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth;

and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,

Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;

He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body and life everlasting.

And a believer continues to affirm that leap of faith, day after day, but with this difference: the evidence which he did not look for before the scales fell is now evident. Evident, but personal.

In other words, my "proof" is sufficient for me alone. If it were transferable, repeatable, able to be re-created in a laboratory, it would be sufficient for everyone. Not only is that not the way it IS, it's not the way I would even imagine it could be. So it fits with my perception of reality and also my idea of how free will would reasonably work. I can pass along my faith through my witness, but you must take the same leap that I took in order for that faith to be active. Faith is not like a scientific principal, which can be proven, generally accepted, and subsequently put to use in some technological progress.

On the contrary, faith is a relationship. To look at it any other way is to look at it differently than the believer is called to look at it. The Bible is not a technical manual. Sacred Tradition is no ISO certified process for salvation. Prayer and sacraments are not formulas for regrowing hair, removing warts, or unclogging toilets. They are ways of communing with the divine, of sharing love with God. They are intimate, personal, and unique from person to person and in each experience.

 

[Joe Bryant]

FWIW, this article speaks a little to the "legacy" issue and whether someone chooses their religion based on their parents. This study believes in 15 years that China will have more Christians than any other nation.

Though officially, the communist country of 1.3 billion is atheist, Christianity has spread so rapidly, that by 2030, it could be home to more than 247 million Christians. In an interview with The Telegraph, Prof. Yang noted that the country’s Protestant churches had just one million members in 1949; in 2010, that number was 58 million. Many of those attend unsanctioned, “underground” house churches in an effort to avoid government oversight.

The article was on Relevant.com which is a Christian angled site but the original article is from The Telegraph.

And to add, I'm not a big fan of the "we have a lot of numbers on our side so we must be right" angle. But I thought the explosive growth in China was relevant to the "legacy" question that was being discussed.

J

 

[Jayrok]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

That type of arrogance is what always gets me related to many of the Christians I encounter on my travels through the Upper Midwest and the South. That somewhere along the line, "God's chosen people" went from being the Israelites to being Americans. The New Testament pre-dates there even being a United States of America by 1,400+ years. And the Old Testament was written thousands of years earlier (or at least the original stories that were passed down verbally before being written down were). Americans think they are the center of the planet/galaxy/universe, and we're raised that way from the time we can barely walk. So why would American Christians not think that we're "God's chosen people" too?!

The other thing that always gets me? Millions of images of a "white Jesus" that exist throughout church after church across the country. Inherited from hundreds of years of "white Jesus" being on full display throughout Europe. Then some Christians even going so far as to claim that white people of European descent are "God's chosen people," and warping scripture to treat others as second/third class individuals. I was attending a Bible study with my wife a couple years ago...where they were discussing a series called "The Truth Project." Basically, "atheists say __________, and here's why atheists are wrong." The leaders of the group, along with 5-6 of the other ~20 attendees, were railing against revisionist history. Lots of teachers at public school in the crowd, lamenting what children are(n't) being taught in public school. People writing God out of the history books related to America's Founding Fathers.

I politely raised my hand and asked: "What color was Jesus' skin? What color was Jesus' hair?" How tall was Jesus?" To which most attendees looked at me like I had just landed in a space ship from Mars. So I clarified my point. "Given the region of the world in which Jesus was born, at the time He was born, what were his likely physical traits?" Of course, they might have countered with the fact that Jesus' "DNA" wasn't dependent upon Mary or Joseph, via immaculate conception. But even with that in mind, if God were sending His Son into Israel ~2,000 years ago, what did he likely look like? I'd have bet good money that he wasn't white, ~six feet tall, with straight brown hair and blue eyes. But how is Jesus depicted in just about every picture, altar, stained glass window across the United States and Europe?

Of course, then I reminded folks that we need to work on the planks in our own eyes before we go criticizing the specks in other people's eyes. Related to "revisionist history." But that got me off of a few people's Christmas card lists as a direct result.

I don't disagree with you. There are many Christians that believe America is the new chosen people... or at least they act like it. And they think Jesus was tall with blonde hair and blue eyes. The Jesus depicted in European art certainly didn't look Jewish.

But apparently, Jesus actually had brown hair and blue/green eyes, if you believe the little boy on the movie "Heaven is for real". So who knows?

 

[proninja]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

That type of arrogance is what always gets me related to many of the Christians I encounter on my travels through the Upper Midwest and the South. That somewhere along the line, "God's chosen people" went from being the Israelites to being Americans. The New Testament pre-dates there even being a United States of America by 1,400+ years. And the Old Testament was written thousands of years earlier (or at least the original stories that were passed down verbally before being written down were). Americans think they are the center of the planet/galaxy/universe, and we're raised that way from the time we can barely walk. So why would American Christians not think that we're "God's chosen people" too?!

The other thing that always gets me? Millions of images of a "white Jesus" that exist throughout church after church across the country. Inherited from hundreds of years of "white Jesus" being on full display throughout Europe. Then some Christians even going so far as to claim that white people of European descent are "God's chosen people," and warping scripture to treat others as second/third class individuals. I was attending a Bible study with my wife a couple years ago...where they were discussing a series called "The Truth Project." Basically, "atheists say __________, and here's why atheists are wrong." The leaders of the group, along with 5-6 of the other ~20 attendees, were railing against revisionist history. Lots of teachers at public school in the crowd, lamenting what children are(n't) being taught in public school. People writing God out of the history books related to America's Founding Fathers.

I politely raised my hand and asked: "What color was Jesus' skin? What color was Jesus' hair?" How tall was Jesus?" To which most attendees looked at me like I had just landed in a space ship from Mars. So I clarified my point. "Given the region of the world in which Jesus was born, at the time He was born, what were his likely physical traits?" Of course, they might have countered with the fact that Jesus' "DNA" wasn't dependent upon Mary or Joseph, via immaculate conception. But even with that in mind, if God were sending His Son into Israel ~2,000 years ago, what did he likely look like? I'd have bet good money that he wasn't white, ~six feet tall, with straight brown hair and blue eyes. But how is Jesus depicted in just about every picture, altar, stained glass window across the United States and Europe?

Of course, then I reminded folks that we need to work on the planks in our own eyes before we go criticizing the specks in other people's eyes. Related to "revisionist history." But that got me off of a few people's Christmas card lists as a direct result.

I don't disagree with you. There are many Christians that believe America is the new chosen people... or at least they act like it. And they think Jesus was tall with blonde hair and blue eyes. The Jesus depicted in European art certainly didn't look Jewish.

But apparently, Jesus actually had brown hair and blue/green eyes, if you believe the little boy on the movie "Heaven is for real". So who knows?

I also am entirely uncomfortable with what much of 'murica considers Christianity to be, and unfortunately the failings of some parts of the church are a problem for all of the church.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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.

This goes back to my Doctor example earlier Otis. Does that make sense?

Some parents influence their children to become doctors. Some of the kids grow up and become doctors. Some don't.

Let's say you find yourself as a freshman in college having had no influence from your parents as to what to be, I think you'd look around at careers and if you considered being a doctor, you'd judge it solely on the merits of what it would mean to be a doctor.

Is the fact that some doctors were influenced by their parents to become doctors or some doctors were born in a state that produces a lot of doctors really something you'd worry about as you considered whether you wanted to pursue a career in being a doctor?

J

 

[Jayrok]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

I suppose the reason I bristle against it is because first it seems derogatory and second it is a silly exercise. "You just believe that because your parents believe it" is a way to denigrate something as being irrational without having to actually address it. Earlier in the thread Tim basically told me the only reason I have faith is because my parents also do (which he apologized for, thank you Tim), which there's no way he can know. Applying something that is a fact (more people are Christians if they come from believing homes) universally as a way to discredit is unwise. Also, it's an exercise in imagination. There's no way we can apply me to being born somewhere else. I can't undo a lifetime of experience in this context. Is it likely that a person born in a Christian home in American will become a Christian? Yup. Is it likely that a person born into a Muslim home in Iran is going to be Muslim? Yup. Saying anything beyond that seems foolish.

That being said, from both a practical point of view as well as a theological point of view, you can't ignore not only the generational component but the national/corporate component in the OT covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God appears to work through the family as a unit as well as nations as a whole. We see this early in the OT, we see wisdom in proverbs speaking toward this (train a child up in the way he should go. . .), and we see whole families baptized at a time in the NT.

It doesn't discredit my faith when I see the world playing out how God seems to have decided to work in the ancient past all through the bible.

I understand what you're saying.

 

[Jayrok]

Prayer and sacraments are not formulas for regrowing hair, removing warts, or unclogging toilets.

I actually found a good remedy for removing a mole. Probably works on warts as well. Apple cider vinegar. It works.

 

[matuski]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

I suppose the reason I bristle against it is because first it seems derogatory and second it is a silly exercise. "You just believe that because your parents believe it" is a way to denigrate something as being irrational without having to actually address it. Earlier in the thread Tim basically told me the only reason I have faith is because my parents also do (which he apologized for, thank you Tim), which there's no way he can know. Applying something that is a fact (more people are Christians if they come from believing homes) universally as a way to discredit is unwise. Also, it's an exercise in imagination. There's no way we can apply me to being born somewhere else. I can't undo a lifetime of experience in this context. Is it likely that a person born in a Christian home in American will become a Christian? Yup. Is it likely that a person born into a Muslim home in Iran is going to be Muslim? Yup. Saying anything beyond that seems foolish.

That being said, from both a practical point of view as well as a theological point of view, you can't ignore not only the generational component but the national/corporate component in the OT covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God appears to work through the family as a unit as well as nations as a whole. We see this early in the OT, we see wisdom in proverbs speaking toward this (train a child up in the way he should go. . .), and we see whole families baptized at a time in the NT.

It doesn't discredit my faith when I see the world playing out how God seems to have decided to work in the ancient past all through the bible.

And this is where the conversation gets off track.

Everything that makes the religious uncomfortable immediately becomes me try to "denigrate" or be "derogatory".

I am every bit as sincere as anyone else here, I just don't approach it with kid gloves like some. I will challenge you on your religious position the same as I would anything else. You are uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else.

It is not some far fetched imaginary scenario. It is played out everyday, you are Christian because you were raised in a Christian dominated country. Were you not born here, you would have been raised in another religion. Trying to cop out on this as some sort of abstract argument doesn't work.

Also - please remember when trying to discredit an argument as an "exercise in imagination", that we are debating invisible sky gods.

 

[johnjohn]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

I suppose the reason I bristle against it is because first it seems derogatory and second it is a silly exercise. "You just believe that because your parents believe it" is a way to denigrate something as being irrational without having to actually address it. Earlier in the thread Tim basically told me the only reason I have faith is because my parents also do (which he apologized for, thank you Tim), which there's no way he can know. Applying something that is a fact (more people are Christians if they come from believing homes) universally as a way to discredit is unwise. Also, it's an exercise in imagination. There's no way we can apply me to being born somewhere else. I can't undo a lifetime of experience in this context. Is it likely that a person born in a Christian home in American will become a Christian? Yup. Is it likely that a person born into a Muslim home in Iran is going to be Muslim? Yup. Saying anything beyond that seems foolish.

That being said, from both a practical point of view as well as a theological point of view, you can't ignore not only the generational component but the national/corporate component in the OT covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God appears to work through the family as a unit as well as nations as a whole. We see this early in the OT, we see wisdom in proverbs speaking toward this (train a child up in the way he should go. . .), and we see whole families baptized at a time in the NT.

It doesn't discredit my faith when I see the world playing out how God seems to have decided to work in the ancient past all through the bible.

And this is where the conversation gets off track.

Everything that makes the religious uncomfortable immediately becomes me try to "denigrate" or be "derogatory".

I am every bit as sincere as anyone else here, I just don't approach it with kid gloves like some. I will challenge you on your religious position the same as I would anything else. You are uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else.

It is not some far fetched imaginary scenario. It is played out everyday, you are Christian because you were raised in a Christian dominated country. Were you not born here, you would have been raised in another religion. Trying to cop out on this as some sort of abstract argument doesn't work.

Also - please remember when trying to discredit an argument as an "exercise in imagination", that we are debating invisible sky gods.

get over yourself....

 

[The Commish]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

I suppose the reason I bristle against it is because first it seems derogatory and second it is a silly exercise. "You just believe that because your parents believe it" is a way to denigrate something as being irrational without having to actually address it. Earlier in the thread Tim basically told me the only reason I have faith is because my parents also do (which he apologized for, thank you Tim), which there's no way he can know. Applying something that is a fact (more people are Christians if they come from believing homes) universally as a way to discredit is unwise. Also, it's an exercise in imagination. There's no way we can apply me to being born somewhere else. I can't undo a lifetime of experience in this context. Is it likely that a person born in a Christian home in American will become a Christian? Yup. Is it likely that a person born into a Muslim home in Iran is going to be Muslim? Yup. Saying anything beyond that seems foolish.

That being said, from both a practical point of view as well as a theological point of view, you can't ignore not only the generational component but the national/corporate component in the OT covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God appears to work through the family as a unit as well as nations as a whole. We see this early in the OT, we see wisdom in proverbs speaking toward this (train a child up in the way he should go. . .), and we see whole families baptized at a time in the NT.

It doesn't discredit my faith when I see the world playing out how God seems to have decided to work in the ancient past all through the bible.

And this is where the conversation gets off track.

Everything that makes the religious uncomfortable immediately becomes me try to "denigrate" or be "derogatory".

I am every bit as sincere as anyone else here, I just don't approach it with kid gloves like some. I will challenge you on your religious position the same as I would anything else. You are uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else.

It is not some far fetched imaginary scenario. It is played out everyday, you are Christian because you were raised in a Christian dominated country. Were you not born here, you would have been raised in another religion. Trying to cop out on this as some sort of abstract argument doesn't work.

Also - please remember when trying to discredit an argument as an "exercise in imagination", that we are debating invisible sky gods.

Been following the thread for some of the good conversation, but this deserves the biggest I can give....get over yourself dude....HFS No one owes you anything.

 

[The Commish]

I have to admit, when I first opened the thread my first thought was another Otis fishing trip, but it appears to be different this time around. If I'm being honest, I had a lot of the same questions you did Otis and that was being raised in a Christian home. My parents took a different approach with me that I won't bore people here with but your questions are NOT uncommon. Per usual, I pretty much agree with the things proninja says from the "believer" perspective and Jayrok from the "skeptic" perspective. These are two guys you should listen to.

 

[Ray Karpis]

Prayer and sacraments are not formulas for regrowing hair, removing warts, or unclogging toilets.

I actually found a good remedy for removing a mole. Probably works on warts as well. Apple cider vinegar. It works.

Confirmed. It does work on warts.

 

[Otis]

Thread title might need to be tweaked:

"Can you explain why you have faith in your religion so that we can blow holes in your explanation?"

That's the status quo with these. There are always new people to fish though.

After a few times the smart ones learn to stop biting.

No part of me thinks Otis is fishing. I think Tim is genuine too. Maybe I'm not one of the smart ones though.

I'm not fishing. I'm curious to know how people make these logical leaps, if they make them at all. No poster here is forced to respond, religious or not.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I completely, totally understand why atheists would find some/all religious beliefs ridiculous. That doesn't faze me at all, and it's a phenomenon that was anticipated by both Paul and Luke. If I was an atheist, I would be right there with you.

I do find it hard to understand how somebody who believes that his dead grandmother is communicating with him from beyond the grave via birds would consider other people's religious belief so incomprehensible. This is one of those times when it seems like it would be pretty easy to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. If you think that you can intuit religious truth from your personal experience, why can't others? This is exactly what religious people catch flak for all the time ("My religion makes perfect sense but yours is obviously crazy.")

 

[matuski]

I think it is true that geography and parental influence play a large role in one's faith, especially initially. But why should that bother the believer?

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?

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.

I suppose the reason I bristle against it is because first it seems derogatory and second it is a silly exercise. "You just believe that because your parents believe it" is a way to denigrate something as being irrational without having to actually address it. Earlier in the thread Tim basically told me the only reason I have faith is because my parents also do (which he apologized for, thank you Tim), which there's no way he can know. Applying something that is a fact (more people are Christians if they come from believing homes) universally as a way to discredit is unwise. Also, it's an exercise in imagination. There's no way we can apply me to being born somewhere else. I can't undo a lifetime of experience in this context. Is it likely that a person born in a Christian home in American will become a Christian? Yup. Is it likely that a person born into a Muslim home in Iran is going to be Muslim? Yup. Saying anything beyond that seems foolish.

That being said, from both a practical point of view as well as a theological point of view, you can't ignore not only the generational component but the national/corporate component in the OT covenants God made with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. God appears to work through the family as a unit as well as nations as a whole. We see this early in the OT, we see wisdom in proverbs speaking toward this (train a child up in the way he should go. . .), and we see whole families baptized at a time in the NT.

It doesn't discredit my faith when I see the world playing out how God seems to have decided to work in the ancient past all through the bible.

And this is where the conversation gets off track.

Everything that makes the religious uncomfortable immediately becomes me try to "denigrate" or be "derogatory".

I am every bit as sincere as anyone else here, I just don't approach it with kid gloves like some. I will challenge you on your religious position the same as I would anything else. You are uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else.

It is not some far fetched imaginary scenario. It is played out everyday, you are Christian because you were raised in a Christian dominated country. Were you not born here, you would have been raised in another religion. Trying to cop out on this as some sort of abstract argument doesn't work.

Also - please remember when trying to discredit an argument as an "exercise in imagination", that we are debating invisible sky gods.

Been following the thread for some of the good conversation, but this deserves the biggest I can give....get over yourself dude....HFS No one owes you anything.

You are uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else.

[SIZE=11.818181991577148px] [/SIZE]

 

[theglorydays]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

 

[Joe Bryant]

I completely, totally understand why atheists would find some/all religious beliefs ridiculous. That doesn't faze me at all, and it's a phenomenon that was anticipated by both Paul and Luke. If I was an atheist, I would be right there with you.

I do find it hard to understand how somebody who believes that his dead grandmother is communicating with him from beyond the grave via birds would consider other people's religious belief so incomprehensible. This is one of those times when it seems like it would be pretty easy to put yourself in the other guy's shoes. If you think that you can intuit religious truth from your personal experience, why can't others? This is exactly what religious people catch flak for all the time ("My religion makes perfect sense but yours is obviously crazy.")

That's an interesting point IK. And I admit, that was my thought when I read Otis' post on the cardinals. It's fascinating to me how we think and process. It makes me lean toward wondering / asking another question (and maybe this is better for Tim's other thread about those who don't have faith) and that's asking: For you folks that don't identify with a particular faith or religion, do you believe there is something beyond our life here? Is there a "higher power" or are there "spiritual" things that exist beyond what we see here?

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

I'm not sure I follow there. What are the specific bible verses that teach everyone who doesn't believe in God hates him?

I suppose there are some atheists who'd say they "hate god" but that's not been my experience. What are bible verses you're speaking of?

J

 

[The Commish]

You are uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else.

[SIZE=11.818181991577148px] [/SIZE]

I'm going to follow everyone else's cue in this thread and just ignore you too.

 

[parasaurolophus]

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.

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.

What if she was a better person because of her faith in greek mythology? What if she was a better person because she was a scientologist? Would you treat it the same way? Kudos to you if you would, but most people snub their noses at these things while having "faith" in something with the same amount of data supporting it.

 

[Ray Karpis]

To go back to something stated earlier in this thread, as a general point, I don't believe at all that "faith" = "illogical." Some in this thread have said faith is "by definition" illogical. Simply not true.

 

[Cyclones]

I was adopted as an infant into a Catholic family, went to a Catholic school until I was 16, and was an altar boy until I was 14 (cue up the jokes guys.)

I generally just accepted that Catholicism was the right religion, although I didn't get into the whole "one religion must be correct" mantra that I would embrace later in life.

At 16 I stopped going to Church completely. I never really prayed or read the bible or anything like that, but I did steal the occasional pull from the wine bottle while setting up communion.

At 21 I moved from northern Ontario to Kentucky, married a Mormon girl, and converted. For 13 years I basically bought into that whole disaster, until one day I couldn't take it anymore and told the wife I was done. We were divorced about a year later.

Perhaps the "out there" beliefs of the LDS church have jaded me, but I've been an atheist ever since. It's just not for me, there is too much science to suggest that religion is whack. I don't begrudge anyone with faith though. I still have several close Mormon friends and my son still goes to Church every week and I support that.

 

[The Commish]

To go back to something stated earlier in this thread, as a general point, I don't believe at all that "faith" = "illogical." Some in this thread have said faith is "by definition" illogical. Simply not true.

be prepared...you're going to get some pretty narrow definitions thrown your way simply because "logic" is a science of sorts and belief (and faith) tend to exist in places where science doesn't go.

 

[Jayrok]

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.

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.

What if she was a better person because of her faith in greek mythology? What if she was a better person because she was a scientologist? Would you treat it the same way? Kudos to you if you would, but most people snub their noses at these things while having "faith" in something with the same amount of data supporting it.

Nothing would change from my pov. If faith in hinduism makes one a generous/loving person, then more power to them and god (whichever god they worship) bless them. I am agnostic and don't actually agree with a lot of what Christians believe. But I will say, I wish I had her faith. I wish it were that simple.

 

[proninja]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

I'm not sure I follow there. What are the specific bible verses that teach everyone who doesn't believe in God hates him?

I suppose there are some atheists who'd say they "hate god" but that's not been my experience. What are bible verses you're speaking of?

J

Saying that every person who doesn't believe has the same reason is roughly the same thing as saying that every person who does believe has the same reason. Statements like "you reject God because you hate him" are roughly analogous to "you're just a Christian because your parents were" or "you're uncomfortable because you recognize you absolutely cannot defend it the same way you would anything else."

We would all be better off to leave people to define their own positions and let them explain what they think rather than set up straw man arguments that fit whatever narrative goes through our own heads. No matter what your position on this particular topic is.

 

[butcher boy]

Faith absolutely can make you a better person. I know plenty of people in my life who are examples of it. It can, however, make you a worse person too, but that's usually when organized religion becomes part of the picture. For example, anyone who would vote against certain civil rights because the Bible says its a sin, or anyone who rejects what science has offered and instead believes things like a 6,000 year old earth. I cant say anyone who falls under those examples has become a better person because of their faith.

 

[shader]

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.

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.

What if she was a better person because of her faith in greek mythology? What if she was a better person because she was a scientologist? Would you treat it the same way? Kudos to you if you would, but most people snub their noses at these things while having "faith" in something with the same amount of data supporting it.

This probably is the root of the issue. When I look at the stars, it strengthens my faith in God. When an atheist looks at the stars, they don't feel the same way I do.

I actually approached the question personally in my mid-20's. I took a step back and looked at the universe and the beginning of life. For me, it was everything that happened BEFORE the first cell "sparked" that just didn't make sense without a creator. The orderliness of the universe, the precision of the natural laws of the universe, the immense complexity of a cell, and the complete inability of man to answer how life could arise on it's own, how the universe could explode into existence, etc. Science has none of those answers, and isn't really close to answering it.

That being said, numerous discussions with atheists in person and on this board show that atheists can't accept the above, because they immediately ask that next question: Who created God? Fair point, but one I personally never struggled with. At some point, all of us have something that we can't explain. The atheist can't explain the what and why of the "pre-universe". I can't explain how God IS and how God can exist outside the universe (and outside time too). But when I see order in the physical universe, whether it's a house, a watch or an atom, I see evidence of design.

Once you are convinced in a Creator of some sort, you then use your deductive skills to sift through the religions and figure out if any make sense to you.

 

[matuski]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

You nailed it... but which god do I hate more? Yours or theirs?

 

[shader]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

???

Psalm 14:1

 

[BroadwayG]

I don't have a specific religion, but I can only watch 00 come up on the cosmic roulette wheel so many times before I start to wonder if something has the table rigged.

 

[theglorydays]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

I'm not sure I follow there. What are the specific bible verses that teach everyone who doesn't believe in God hates him?

I suppose there are some atheists who'd say they "hate god" but that's not been my experience. What are bible verses you're speaking of?

J

There are a few verses that state it very clearly and it is a theme that runs throughout scripture. Romans 8:7 says that the carnal mind (man in his natural state) is at enmity against God. Enmity is hatred towards God, man shows this by actively disobeying God and His laws.

Romans 5 says we are Gods enemies. In our natural state we are not indifferent towards God, but actively rebel and reject Him. He is our highest enemy because he threatens our "right" to do as we please and commands complete allegiance and submission to Himself. Psalm 2 talks about this.

If you ever doubt that man in his natural state hates God, begin to describe the realities of hell and the eternal punishment reserved for those who reject Christ.

Man has no problem creating a god of his own imagination, one that isn't holy, just and righteous. But the God of the bible is and when He is preached as described in scripture, a God "who hates all evildoers" (psalm 5:5) and who is " angry with the wicked everyday", (psalm 7:11)you will see the carnal mind that is at enmity against God.

 

[theglorydays]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

???

Psalm 14:1

The word for fool their indicates a moral problem, not that the man isn't intelligent. Jesus said the same thing in John3:17-18. Man won't come to the light because his deeds are evil.

.Answer: Both Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1 read, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Some take these verses to indicate that atheists are stupid, i.e., lacking intelligence. However, that is not the meaning of the Hebrew word translated “fool.” In this text, the Hebrew word is nabal, which refers more to a “moral fool,” e.g., someone without morals. The meaning of the text is not “unintelligent people do not believe in God.” Rather, the meaning of the text is “immoral people do not believe in God.”

http://www.gotquestions.org/fool-heart-no-God.html

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/fool-heart-no-God.html#ixzz2zYRAn8j4

 

[BeaverCleaver]

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.

Atheism would be the same elsewhere - it is all gods I reject, not just the Christian god. That I would be able to declare it might be another story.

The bible makes it clear that there are no atheists, only God haters that suppress the truth in unrighteousness. The christian response to atheism is that you reject the reality of God because you hate Him. Not popular but that is what the bible teaches

You nailed it... but which god do I hate more? Yours or theirs?

If you don't believe in God or Gods how can you hate something that doesn't exist in your view?

 

[proninja]

I'm thinking that Christians arguing among themselves probably isn't so productive or useful in this thread