On faith

[Sarkus]

As I said before we can only believe in God, if we actually believe in God.

Ah yes, the "believe to believe" cycle that you continually refuse to acknowledge your argument being. And here we have you finally admitting it.

You can't be taught to believe in God, any more than you can be taught to believe in unconditional love. You can be taught, however, to believe in the person that espouses a particular religion. Belief in God only comes when you believe in God. Belief in unconditional love only comes when you actually believe in it.

You do speak a lot of hot air, don't you. Do you buy into your own guff? Or do you only try to sell it here?
Of course you don't believe in anything until you actually believe in it, the same way you don't think of anything until you actually think it, or don't say anything until you actually say it. You don't do anything until you actually do it.
Trite tautological truisms that don't actually say anything of value.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I'm not sure you do.

Why?

Exactly

At least we agree on something.

If you want to take that path, then anything goes.

Don't understand what you mean by that.

And I have, plenty, for twenty years. And none of them was able or willing to present a rational way to begin believing in God.

That's not how it works.
But I can see how an atheist may reach that conclusion.

How else then??

Belief in God is natural, as I said before.

One could, of course, jump to the God-conclusion and this jumping-to-conclusion is an ego defense mechanism. This would explain pretty much everything about how adults who don't become theists due to some social or economic pressure nevertheless can begin to believe in God.

Nice try, but no cigar.

And I assume this is basically all there is to religion.

I know.

That's a fideistic truism. I could say the same thing.

It is obvious I'll give you that. But it is that simple. It is not, however based on faith.

Been there, done that.
Or are you saying that all that vast romantic literature is actually onto something? Lol.

Can you elaborate?

You have one reply to "What is belief in God?", other people have theirs.

Yes we are all individuals, I agree.
Belief in God is ultimately one belief, through the experience of each and every individual.

The basis of my statement is the conviction that theism is primarily a matter of being primed for it. It is also possible to arrive at theism via a Kierkegaardian leap to faith, but this is only possible for one type of ego, namely one that can delude itself about the act of this leap, living in the illusion that it didn't take place. (Even poor old Soren struggled with this until his death.)

Oh! You already think you know, and as such there is nothing more for you to learn. Correct?

Really? And you're God?

Okay. I see where this is going. But in answer to your question... No, I'm not.

o. I am basing my view on this definition of God, which is -- "The definition of God I am working with is this: God is the one being that precedes me (and everyone else), that is bigger than me (and everyone else), that contextualizes me (and everyone else), that makes me (and everyone else) possible."
It's because of this definition that I can have no choice as to what to (further) believe about God. However, any other definition of God, is the definition of a demigod.

It's easy to "believe in God" as long as you define him as some kind of demigod. Arguably, most people who claim to believe in God, are actually believing in a demigod.

I can work with that.

This is inevitable for everyone.

No it's not. Some people can entertain an idea that contradicts their current world view.

And what is that knowledge?

What is the knowledge that concludes that theism is based on being primed?

I suspect that knowledge that makes the difference between me and a person who came to believe in God for the first time as an adult is that that person is far more attached to a particular person (like a guru) or to their own mind, than I am, or that they define God in terms of a demigod.

I suspect that is how it would be for you.
I have simply taken it further, and come to a different conclusion.

For one, one is defined as ruling the world.

I don't know that definition of God, maybe you can elaborate.

Jan.

 

[mtf]

Why?

We haven't discussed enough to be sure.

Don't understand what you mean by that.

If you want to rely on scriptures, as opposed to codified doctrines of actual religions, then there is a vast array of options available -- and anything goes. Scriptures say all kinds of things, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Of course, you'll probably say that you don't interpret scriptures, but read them as they are.
Textcritical issues? Who cares about those!

But I can see how an atheist may reach that conclusion.

Not sure you do.

Belief in God is natural, as I said before.

If that were true, everyone would have believe in God. Clearly, there are many who don't.

It is obvious I'll give you that. But it is that simple. It is not, however based on faith.

What it is based on, then? Love for your guru?

Can you elaborate?

Romantic love doesn't somehow come naturally; we become accultured into the notions of romantic love, and then we enact them, until we get old, jaded, and disillusioned (!!).

Oh! You already think you know, and as such there is nothing more for you to learn. Correct?

Oh Christ.

Okay. I see where this is going. But in answer to your question... No, I'm not.

Then what are you?

I can work with that.

Really? We'll see.

No it's not. Some people can entertain an idea that contradicts their current world view.

So? Entertaining an idea that contradicts your current world view doesn't effect anything, doesn't change anything. I can play-act pretty much anything -- and yet it doesn't change anything for me, other than making me tired.

What is the knowledge that concludes that theism is based on being primed?

It is inferred from the current impossibility of arriving at belief in God in a rational manner; and that most people who believe in God are people who have been born and raised in theistic religions.

I suspect that is how it would be for you.
I have simply taken it further, and come to a different conclusion.

Then do tell more.

I don't know that definition of God, maybe you can elaborate.

Whenever God is called "Lord" or "Ishvara".

 

[Tiassa]

One of my favorites about faith:

• Mass shootings are on the rise; among conservative politicians, pundits, and voters we find discussion and advocacy for arming churches.

• California pastor decides to get his permit and carry a handgun while at the pulpit.

• Class goes fine; the pastor pauses on his way out to ask the instructor a question; the instructor somehow accidentally shoots him. (The claim is that he didn't recognize the gun he was drawing was actually a gun, which does actually make sense, except once again reminds that the phrase "responsible gun owner" is something of a sick joke.)

• Afterwards, congregants praise God's blessings because the pastor wasn't killed.​

↳ Naturally, the accidental shooting itself has nothing to do with this omnipotent God. Apparently, that occurred outside His Will.​

It's not "faith". It's a mass-delusional faery tale, a massive, ultimately dangerous game of make-believe.

Those Christians treat God and Christ like shit. It isn't faith.

 

[mtf]

It's not "faith". It's a mass-delusional faery tale, a massive, ultimately dangerous game of make-believe.

Those Christians treat God and Christ like shit. It isn't faith.

Or that is precisely what Christianity is supposed to be like:

Jesus didn’t care about being nice or tolerant
Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04...t-and-neither-should-you/#fwORI2z9iMGWImh4.99

I don’t recognize this Jesus.

This moderate. This pacifist. This nice guy.

He’s not the Jesus I read about in the Bible. I read of a strong, manly, stern, and bold Savior. Compassionate, yes. Forgiving, of course. Loving, always loving. But not particularly nice.

He condemned. He denounced. He caused trouble. He disrupted the established order.

On one occasion — or at least one recorded occasion — He used violence. This Jesus saw the money changers in the temple and how did He respond? He wasn’t polite about it. I’d even say He was downright intolerant. He fashioned a whip (this is what the lawyers would call ‘premeditation’) and physically drove the merchants away. He turned over tables and shouted. He caused a scene. [John 2:15]

Assault with a deadly weapon. Vandalism. Disturbing the peace. Worse still, intolerance.

In two words: not nice.

Not nice at all.
/.../
Who’d have guess it — anger is far more godly than tolerance ever could be.
/.../
Jesus told us to turn the other cheek when we are personally attacked; He never told us to turn our backs entirely and let lies spread and evil grow.

So, enough with the niceties.

Christians in this country sound too similar to the the Golden Girls song, and not enough like the Battle Hymn of the Republic. There’s too much ‘thank you for being a friend,’ and not enough ‘lightening from His terrible swift sword.’

We’re all hugging and singing Kumbaya, when we should be marching and shouting Hallelujah.

We’re nice Christians with our nice Jesus, and we are trampled on without protest.

Enough, already.

I think it’s time that Christianity regain its fighting spirit; the spirit of Christ.

I think it’s time we ask that question: ‘What would Jesus do?’

And I think it’s time we answer it truthfully: Jesus would flip tables and yell.

Maybe we ought to follow suit.


Read more at http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/04...t-and-neither-should-you/#fwORI2z9iMGWImh4.99​

 

[mtf]

Ah yes, the "believe to believe" cycle that you continually refuse to acknowledge your argument being. And here we have you finally admitting it.
You do speak a lot of hot air, don't you. Do you buy into your own guff? Or do you only try to sell it here?
Of course you don't believe in anything until you actually believe in it, the same way you don't think of anything until you actually think it, or don't say anything until you actually say it. You don't do anything until you actually do it.
Trite tautological truisms that don't actually say anything of value.

Belief in God can be a prize or a trophy; belief in God can be something to envy people for; lacking belief in God can be that one profound defect that one has been made, from before one can remember, to feel guilty and ashamed of.

What is the use of believing in God? There is no such use. There are uses to believing in demigods (ie. powerful beings that can give you this or that). But in God? No. If God is in charge, then God is in charge, and nothing can change that.

Theists have been trying to convince us, trick us, blackmail us into believing that we need to believe in God, or we're worthless.
Theists have been trying to convince us, trick us, blackmail us into believing that we need to believe in God, or we don't deserve their affection.

This whole business of believing in God really is just one vast scheme of justifying the denying of affection to humans.

 

[Tiassa]

On Usurpation

Click to find a path to Hell.​

Or that is precisely what Christianity is supposed to be like:

It is not quite astounding, anymore, watching Christian apologists squirm on the hook while trying to excuse themselves from the actual instructions given by Jesus Christ. See, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7)↱, or later discourse at the Mount of Olives (Mt. 24-25)↱.

But that's the thing; in Mt. 7, Jesus warns of false prophets, and while God works in mysterious ways, it isn't hard to see how usurpers―those who wish to possess, determine, and execute God's judgment and authority in their earthly endeavors―fit the bill. The United States, for instance, is rife with evangelical assertions of Christianity most obviously and deliberately identifying according to their desire for earthly dominion according to their own judgment in lieu of God's.

Basically, what is happening is that God will reckon with each sinner, and these self-proclaimed Christians simply don't trust His Judgment and Justice to satisfy their aesthetics―so they want it for themselves.

 

[Jan Ardena]

We haven't discussed enough to be sure.

It isn't necessary to discuss with you, personally, to see how it could be possible for an atheist/agnostic to come the conclusion you did.

If you want to rely on scriptures, as opposed to codified doctrines of actual religions, then there is a vast array of options available -- and anything goes. Scriptures say all kinds of things, and can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Of course, you'll probably say that you don't interpret scriptures, but read them as they are.

I understand how you think like this, but it is so far from the actuality of theism, it becomes a pointless endeavour to explain it to you. Especially as your so set in your way of thinking.

Textcritical issues? Who cares about those!

That may well be a good point. What are they?

If that were true, everyone would have believe in God. Clearly, there are many who don't.

It is natural for humans to be affectionate to their baby children, but clearly there are some, if not many, who aren't.

Belief in God exists, and as far as we know, always existed with humans. The fact that some choose not to believe, can not, does not, and will not, affect that. At best it only proves that humans have the free will to choose.

Then what are you?

Half Klingon.

So? Entertaining an idea that contradicts your current world view doesn't effect anything, doesn't change anything. I can play-act pretty much anything -- and yet it doesn't change anything for me, other than making me tired.

If you can entertain an idea before burying your head in the sand, then you can learn something that help in your quest for truth, if that is what you want.

It is inferred from the current impossibility of arriving at belief in God in a rational manner; and that most people who believe in God are people who have been born and raised in theistic religions.

IOW, because you want it to be.

Then do tell more.

It wouldn't benefit either of us.

Whenever God is called "Lord" or "Ishvara".

???

Jan.

 

[mtf]

It isn't necessary to discuss with you, personally, to see how it could be possible for an atheist/agnostic to come the conclusion you did.

Thank you ever so much for labeling, boxing in, and pigeon-holing!

I understand how you think like this, but it is so far from the actuality of theism, it becomes a pointless endeavour to explain it to you. Especially as your so set in your way of thinking.

No, you most certainly don't understand.

That may well be a good point. What are they?

If you have to ask that ...

Belief in God exists, and as far as we know, always existed with humans. The fact that some choose not to believe, can not, does not, and will not, affect that. At best it only proves that humans have the free will to choose.

There you go. Disbelief or lack of belief in God is always a choice -- typical theist cop-out.

You're simply counting on it that your listener's own pride and insecurity would move them to submit to you. Sure, and this tactic works with not just a few people. Not me, though.

Half Klingon.

If you can entertain an idea before burying your head in the sand, then you can learn something that help in your quest for truth, if that is what you want.

IOW, because you want it to be.

Your propensity for inappropriate jokes and the hostile attribution bias speaks volumes.

???

Which tells me that you don't actually believe in God. You, too, believe in a demigod.

 

[mtf]

It is not quite astounding, anymore, watching Christian apologists squirm on the hook while trying to excuse themselves from the actual instructions given by Jesus Christ. See, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7)↱, or later discourse at the Mount of Olives (Mt. 24-25)↱.

But that's the thing; in Mt. 7, Jesus warns of false prophets, and while God works in mysterious ways, it is hard to see how usurpers―those who wish to possess, determine, and execute God's judgment and authority in their earthly endeavors―fit the bill. The United States, for instance, is rife with evangelical assertions of Christianity most obviously and deliberately identifying according to their desire for earthly dominion according to their own judgment in lieu of God's.

Basically, what is happening is that God will reckon with each sinner, and these self-proclaimed Christians simply don't trust His Judgment and Justice to satisfy their aesthetics―so they want it for themselves.

That's where they get their attitude:

"The righteous person will rejoice when he sees your vengeance; when he washes his feet in the blood of the wicked."
http://biblehub.com/psalms/58-10.htm

"The Lord said,
“I will bring them back from Bashan,
I will bring them back from the depths of the sea,
23that you may strike your feet in their blood,
that the tongues of your dogs may have their portion from the foe.”"
http://biblehub.com/esv/psalms/68.htm


What else is there, but people's own desire for earthly dominion according to their own judgment?

Belief inGod -- as long as the believer has any say in this belief -- is the belief that God is on the believer's side, that God prefers this particular believer over other (people, who nevertheless may also be believers).

Belief in God eventually comes down to finding ways to justify competition between humans.

 

[Tiassa]

That's where they get their attitude

Yeah, that's something that comes up in American politics all the time: The Old Testament and the Epistles; anything to find an excuse to evade Jesus Christ.

What else is there, but people's own desire for earthly dominion according to their own judgment?

Actual faith in God?

 

[mtf]

Yeah, that's something that comes up in American politics all the time: The Old Testament and the Epistles; anything to find an excuse to evade Jesus Christ.

Don't forget that Jesus brought the sword, not peace.

Actual faith in God?

And what would that be?

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on a Popular Mistake

​

Don't forget that Jesus brought the sword, not peace.

I'm pointing out instruction from Christ unto the faithful, and you're suggesting the prerogative of divine authority for the faithful?

You would seem to be making my point about usurpation:

But that's the thing; in Mt. 7, Jesus warns of false prophets, and while God works in mysterious ways, it is hard to see how usurpers―those who wish to possess, determine, and execute God's judgment and authority in their earthly endeavors―fit the bill. The United States, for instance, is rife with evangelical assertions of Christianity most obviously and deliberately identifying according to their desire for earthly dominion according to their own judgment in lieu of God's.​

And what would that be?

Trust God's purpose and judgment.

I've actually given you an example. Kim Davis, for instance, will not render unto Caesar, e.g., the U.S. Constitution; she wishes instead to exercise her judgment against other people, but such judgment is God's and God's alone. She's hardly alone; Christian supremacism as an exclusionary authority has been around pretty much since ... if not the beginning, then perhaps second century. Any time you see someone using Christianity to harm others, you are looking at a usurpation of God's authority.

For that evangelical political bloc I noted, this is why they do it:

Basically, what is happening is that God will reckon with each sinner, and these self-proclaimed Christians simply don't trust His Judgment and Justice to satisfy their aesthetics―so they want it for themselves.​

They are, essentialy, faithless.

Here's a petty one: The same bloc of evangelical Christians who will not render unto Caesar also, as part of their political ritual, call Republican candidates to stand before them and demonstrate their piety for the sake of being seen.

Some people really do run around like a Mack Sennett antithesis of Christianity. No amount of unwinding the neuroses driving that behavior will ever make it properly Christian.

The thing is that if you add it all up through the Gospels, Christ makes exercising judgment under the Law that He came to fulfill virtually impossible; in Matthew 25, He seals the fate of the faithful:

"When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.

Then the King will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?'

"And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'

"Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.'

"Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?'

"Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

(Matthew 25.31-46 [RSV]↱)​

And there you have the key to Christian faith. It's one of the most apparent instructions of His ministry.
____________________

Notes:

Image: Pastor Kevin Swanson calls for genocide against homosexuals in the name of Christ at the National Religious Liberties Conference, 7 November 2015, in Des Moines, Iowa, an event attended by three Republican presidential candidates―Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), Mike Huckabee, and then Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.​

Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. 7 August 2016. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/

 

[wellwisher]

When Jesus died on the cross and ascended into heaven, according to the traditions, he left behind a comforter, the spirit of truth. This promise is where Christian faith comes into play. If you have faith in the promise of the living spirit, you will let it lead you each day of your life. You can't see the spirit with the eyes, but need to have faith that the promise exists.

Not everyone was ready for this much uncertainty and responsibility. Most people preferred to be more traditional group members, having others to tell the group what they should collectively believe and do. The early Christian flock became divided into the children of the bondwoman, who wished to be bonded by laws, rules, traditions, prestige and power structure, and the children of the free woman who were bonded to the flux of the spirit; inner voice and faith. The new path of the spirit would lead them to places nobody else had gone.

The main problem with faith in the living spirit was, since it may lead you to new places, away from the herd, you will often be prosecuted, out of ignorance. Forgive them they know not what they do. You will suffer like Jesus. Joan of Arc, ends up being burned at the stake by the children of the bondwoman, who had their rules and laws.

For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again (laws; bond woman) but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, so that we may also be glorified with Him. Romans 8:15

In tradition, there is one spirit and one Christian body. But like the human body, not all cells of body are the same. They can be very different, yet are all working for the same purpose; life of the body. This how the spirit work; E pluribus unum; from the many, one. In preparation for the spirit, Jesus taught his flock to love your enemy, love your neighbor and love God. There is a human tendency to fear novelty, unknown and therefore fear faith. However, what you fear are often different cells of the body of man,all of which are needed for life. The spirit tells us which of the cells we are, personally, and allows us to see how the other cells work, all for the same goal. Love assures we take care of the entire body of man, which is integrated by the promise of the spirit.

 

[origin]

Don't forget that Jesus brought the sword, not peace.

I don't recall Jesus ever being armed. I guess I missed that part in the Bible.

 

[Billy T]

Ah yes, the "believe to believe" cycle that you continually refuse to acknowledge your argument being. And here we have you finally admitting it.
You do speak a lot of hot air, don't you. Do you buy into your own guff? Or do you only try to sell it here?
Of course you don't believe in anything until you actually believe in it, the same way you don't think of anything until you actually think it, or don't say anything until you actually say it. You don't do anything until you actually do it.
Trite tautological truisms that don't actually say anything of value.

 

[Yazata]

I don't recall Jesus ever being armed. I guess I missed that part in the Bible.

http://biblehub.com/matthew/10-34.htm

 

[Jan Ardena]

Ah yes, the "believe to believe" cycle that you continually refuse to acknowledge your argument being. And here we have you finally admitting it.

That's what you need me to say...

I have serious doubts about whether religious people actually believe anything they profess to believe.

Good point.
As simple as this may sound, one has to actually believe in something, to be believe in something. Further more we all know this to be true, because we all experience believing in something.

It means that the standard of theism is that has tp actually believe in God, to be one.

Assertions of belief in God, is actual belief in God, no matter how sincere.
What do you think belief in God entails?

Jan.

 

[sculptor]

Faith is a belief in something that is beyond reason and beyond one's self.
It takes the pressure off and relieves stress.
We all function better in a stress free environment.
For some folks, that is all that is needed.

 

[Sarkus]

That's what you need me to say...

I don't need you to say anything, Jan. You say enough for us to understand what you mean, even if you don't fully understand your own words.

It means that the standard of theism is that has tp actually believe in God, to be one.

this seems garbled?

Assertions of belief in God, is actual belief in God, no matter how sincere.

Is this what you meant to type?
That an assertion of belief is the same as an actual belief, irrespective of sincerity? I assume it is not what you meant so I'll give you an opportunity to correct yourself, I'm that generous.

What do you think belief in God entails?

Are you talking about the belief in the existence of God (which is all theism requires by definition), or belief in God as in having faith that God will come through for you, so to speak?