Faith in God is only circular and self-referential if God does not act. That is only an assertion that MUST be based on whether or not gods exist. It is of course meaningless to those who do not believe gods exist, hence not an argument.
Faith is a form of unconditional trust in *something*. That something in this case is 'God'. There is evidence that contradicts the existance of 'God' and no evidence to support it. Therefore, faith is unconditional trust in life form that doesn't appear to exist. This is not circular. If 'God' existed, the argument would not be circular either as someone can choose to 'trust still' even if they repeatedly get burned.
Adstar, Belonging to a denomination is a matter of practicing your Christianity, edifying one another as *brothers* in Christ. To hear the Word of God, people go to church, and going to church, in many cities where there are only a few different denominations, means belonging to that denomination. At least for me, here, it is unthinkable to go to a church and not belong to that denomination. (Believing in God in effect means 'believing in the Catholic interpretation of God' here. Something I have been making an effort to overcome, but I can only guess how thoroughly rooted these preconceptions are in me. It is not exactly easy to identify them.) So true! So true. I am more and more convinced that faith in God has a lot to do with the competence one treats oneself with. It seems this competence is essential for everything one does, and the crucial test of it is in relaitonship to God. Faith in God is something that is between God and a person, not between that person and other people. (I came to that conclusion even before I read Rom. 14:22.) Exactly. Two things: One: If we are to leave all we have, how then are we to ever look after orphans, help eachother etc.? Two: While here, we can't leave all that for the sake of Jesus and the Gospel. At least not all can do that -- if *all* would do that, they'd have to live like savages, as there would ne noone working the fields to give bread to the visitors. * * * Light Travelling, May be that you are mis-defining yourself. But this is the danger inherent to any definition. I do not believe it is consistent to say that a deist loves God -- a deist insists that God cannot be known, and we (usually) cannot and do not love that which we do not know.
INSIGHT, PEOPLE, INSIGHT. My premise Faith in God is only circular and self-referential if God does not act. is problematic ONLY if one insists that one's preconceptions about God are true. Enlightenment, insight, justification of faith work by the same cognitive principle: suspension of preconceptions. Once preconceptions are suspended, it is possible to come to an explanation that is supported by evidence, whereby this very explanation enables us to see that very evidence in the first place. This is insight. Indulging preconceptions prevents insight. Most great scientific discoveries are products of insight: The scientist suspended his already existing knowledge about something, allowing that there be a completely different explanation, with new evidence for a phenomenon, which in turn re-defined the phenomenon. * * * Seeing a certain phenomenon as an act of God requires faith. Otherwise, it is superstition. * * * I say it is statements of insisting that one's preconceptions (about anything, esp. God), are true. * * * It all depends on how you define God. If by God you mean 'skydaddy' or some such, then I sure am glad that there is no evidence to support the existence of such a being. The reason why science cannot find proof of God is because it insists that their preconceptions about God are true. I do not know how science can claim such a thing, it has no way of verifying its preconceptions. People repeatedly get burned when it comes to their belief in God if they had approached it as a superstition. Superstition is when one allows for a quagmire of preconceptions to spread. An Eastern wisdom (sorry, I forget which), says that as soon as you see God or Buddha, you must kill them, for they are figments of your imagination. And I agree with this. God can, rather easily, be found if one suspends one's preconceptions about God. This suspension is rarely complete, as we are bound to think, and when we think, we do employ preconceptions of one kind or another. For example, Buddhists perfect themselves in meditation to stop thinking, and Christians make an effort to get rid of intellectual and other pride -- this means active suspension of preconceptions. Then, God is nigh.
water, i thought you new better. this staement is moving back into the circular crap that christianity spouts. seeing an act of god as an act of god only requires faith if you dont know god, if you are not aware of his actions. if i am aware of how water functions how she moves and flows where she gets stuck how to enliven her and respond to her in a way that she finds engaging, then i dont need faith in order to take action. i can trust my knowledge and the subject of my knowledge to be true to its nature.
G'day water. Belonging to a denomination is taking part in sectarianism. The Body of Christ was established by the Holy Spirit IS NOT DEVIDED. NEVER HAS BEEN DEVIDED. AND WILL REMAIN UNITED INTO ETERNITY. The unity is in Spirit. Are you in a church now? Is sciforums a denomination?... No. The gathering of the Body Of Christ happens every day and there is no need for church buildings or intermediating “professionals” to control such fellowship. Matthew 18 20 "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them." Simple solution. Never Go To Church. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Well root those preconceptions out of yourself. Not sure what you mean here when you say “competence”. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Good.. Then why are you still chained in your “preconceptions” about the need to belong to a denomination? You seem to be in two minds?? Looks like The Holy Spirit is working within you. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! All Praise The Ancient Of Days
No no no. I can tell that you think this way because you think of faith as something lofty, like taking something on some vague trust and knowing you are not having any proper knowledge. I see faith as a matter of dedication, commitment to an ideal, to a value. You talking about me? There is something I was planning to bring up, and this is a good opportunity to do so: If you read the Bible in other languages, and investigate their equivalents for what in English is called "faith", you'll see that English has an artifical complication of concepts when it comes to "faith" and "belief". I checked out a religious forum in my native language, Slovene, and the issues are debated there with the use of different arguments. Here, it is often "faith" vs. "knowledge" (ie. "delusion" vs. "reality"), while this dichotomy doesn't exist that way in my language and culture when it comes to issues of religion. The conclusion some might draw form this is that we are delusional or something. But the thing is that here, the classical issues of religion are understood more in matters of commitment to an ideal and denomination.
i wouldnt say lofty. a vague trust in something unknown, yes. i think both faith and belief are pretty vague and confused statements. similarly god is a word that has become a complicated conceptual puzzle and a carrier of so many misconceptions that i would prefer not to use, even to think about the divine. delusion v reality raises issues of personal frames of reference. sounds like your home country has a very political religious system in place??
Non. Is your preconception then that God acts, God exists, or both? For your argument depends on one or all of these. As for the evidence for these presumptions, I am not sure how you are able to identify them as such.My 'preconception' of God is changed I assure you. God is now a nothing in me. If you were born in the jungle and raised by animals, you would show no signs of spirituality and would not recognize phenomenon as acts of God. You might argue absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but this stance leads to many troubles. This faith is foolish; it must first assume God acts (because the creature's society has instilled the notion that there is a God, and He acts) before having faith that a circumstance is numinous. I never did see Mowgli pray. The only preconceptions science has of God are the ones which prevail in society. Without society, science has not only no preconceptions of God at all, but no God to discover. As for suspensions of thought and the like, we can all see the banality therein. Without a certain society to claim and reinforce the idea that unfettered meditation leads to God, people simply are incapable of springing their idea of their own accord. How do they think? They don't. Which reminds me of some writing I have to do. Say hello if you find me online.
Adstar, Are you saying that you are against all and any churches? I mean, do you oppose that there are churches (buildings and denominations)? Whew. That is new! Easier said than done. It is very hard to identify them in the first place, you know. And before I can fix them I first have to find them. To treat oneself with competence: to have good self-esteem, good self-knowledge, self-dependence, knowing what one can do and what one cannot do. I don't have the need to belong to a denomnation as such, but I do feel a need to belong to a church. But here, this, in effect, means that I also belong to a denomination. If you only knew. Like all good girls, I have been trained to be a twin, a good and an evil one, in one person. This is more tragic than I can say. I hope so!
you say this with such certainty! yet it has no validity. animals have to be the purest manifestaion of spirit that the earth has (well maybe not rats or maggots or the heron that keeps eating my fish). nature itself is divine. i imagine the closer a person is raised to that state of being the greater will be recognition of the evil in man. if the faculties of spiritual discernment are unfolded why would they be any less able to relate to god than a human raised in an urabn jungle by people with less sense of relatedness than the uncivilized animal?
