Reasonable faith

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Prober

(imo) With the Holy Spirit as guide, you can know it's G-d's voice speaking. That is the point, isn't it? Doesn't G-d want us to hear His voice? When you hear G-d's voice repeatedly, it gets to the point where you recognize it.

Maybe. But can you prove that to me? And if not, why should I accept what you say and abandon what I believe? Andrew (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) is in direct communication with the Unseen Worlds. Is his faith unreasonable?

Originally Posted by Prober

If they can be known, why can't we assert them?

We can – but we cannot prove them.

Originally Posted by Prober

If it's an absolute, why does the community have to agree?

It's rather like 'objectivity'. Can you or I be objective? Yes, we think we can, and even when we think we are, we cannot be certain, because we cannot stand outside of ourselves. There might be factors of which we are unaware, there might be issues shadowing our perceptions of which we are unconscious.

Originally Posted by Prober

How can they change if they're absolutes?

Science declares something as absolute, then new knowledge comes along, and it's no longer absolute ... now Quantum Theory says there are no absolutes ... in the future a new theory will explain Quantum Theory, then there will be an absolute again.

What many miss is that because a single discipline says 'there are no absolutes' of itself, it cannot apply that rigour to disciplines other than itself, which is what science does. It assumes it is the mean of all knowledge. Thus science tries to say what religion is or isn't, what it can or can't be ... it simply doesn't have the knowledge of the authority to say that, but because it's pre-eminent in its field, we all accept what it says.

Originally Posted by Prober

I thought that was your argument - that Christianity (or faith) had to be reasonable.

Yes. But 'because I said so' is not an argument. If you believe in God, because I said so is sufficient. It is for me. I believe in Baptism and the Eucharist, but I have no evidence, no test, no proof ... just faith.

But the Sacraments can be the objects of philosophy, which they are.

I can explain baptism to someone, but I can't prove the Holy Spirit enters the soul ... I can explain Transubstantiation ... but there is no test that will demonstrate it.

Nevertheless, the fact that I say "Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharistic species" isn't a proof.

Originally Posted by Prober

Perhaps I haven't understood what you're saying. I'm not trying to be obtuse and I'm really not trying to be arguementative.

Nor am I.

Originally Posted by Prober

I'm trying to understand why a person can't just listen to G-d and do as G-d wishes. Is your point that G-d isn't able to or doesn't make Himself known to "regular people"?

Absolutely not. I have no doubt about God, I have doubt about people. Too many people have told me they have a direct line to God, for me to accept that these days ... I'm not saying your faith is unreasonable to you, I am saying it might appear unreasonable to everyone else.

Your understanding of God ... did you come to that all by yourself, or through the community?

If no-one had ever seen or heard of the Bible, and you found it, what would you make of it?

Thomas

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, all!

I've been holding off on this subject, mostly because I don't know how well this will be received. I understand what Thomas is saying...although I come from a different angle.

The whole concept of logic and subjectivity/objectivity is a specific discipline, of which a lot of people think they are being logical and objective when in truth they really are not familiar with what exactly that means.

I have known a lot of people in my life that find ways to justify all manner of actions and beliefs, which within their own minds is considered logical and objective reality, even to the exclusion of other points of view. Nevermind that their justifications are completely irrational...those views work for them, and they have no interest in hearing any view that confuses or competes.

There is an element to religion, Christianity being no exception, that is superstitious. It is one thing to say "the Bible is a powerful book!" Which, in some manner of speaking, is objectively true. But a subjective interpretation of that statement would lead to someone carrying a Bible "superstitiously" for protection by virtue of the power of the book, as a talisman. How often we hear of the soldier who had a bullet stopped by a pocket sized new testament tucked in a shirt pocket? How many take that, superstitiously, and carry a pocket edition new testament in their breast pocket "just in case?" The superstitious element is endemic in our society...think of the Dradcula saga. How is a vampire to be warded off? Why, with a Bible and the sign of the cross, naturally. Everbody "knows" that. (Of course, I've never met a vampire or had cause to try these remedies.)

Superstition is not the same as empirical objectivity. Because "everybody knows" does not mean something is logical. And this is where science and religion tend to butt heads...it is alright to be illogical and superstitious...wwe just can't call it logic and rational.

I'd love to flesh this out more, but I need to go.

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Maybe. But can you prove that to me?

No. It's just a personal comfort that works for me. You do hear Him, though, don't you?

And if not, why should I accept what you say and abandon what I believe?

You shouldn't - unless the time comes that it becomes truth, of course.

Andrew (I'm sure he won't mind me saying this) is in direct communication with the Unseen Worlds. Is his faith unreasonable?

Maybe...subjective, huh?

But 'because I said so' is not an argument. If you believe in God, because I said so is sufficient. It is for me. I believe in Baptism and the Eucharist, but I have no evidence, no test, no proof ... just faith.

I'll agree that that's true.

I have no doubt about God, I have doubt about people. Too many people have told me they have a direct line to God, for me to accept that these days ... I'm not saying your faith is unreasonable to you, I am saying it might appear unreasonable to everyone else.

I guess that's the point I was trying to make - To do whatever G-d says is reasonable. It may not appear reasonable, however.

Your understanding of God ... did you come to that all by yourself, or through the community?

Here's where you're making me think...

Got my start from my parents, then from the pastor and other adults, then from my own examination of life, nature and just talking to G-d.

I suppose I have benefitted from "tradition" in that respect. Then from that base, I've studied with the Holy Spirit to make sure the things that "men" told me were true.

If no-one had ever seen or heard of the Bible, and you found it, what would you make of it?

Thomas

I would think G-d could make His will known from it, but who knows what form that would take in such circumstances.

This is one reason why I try to keep an open mind of others' opinions. G-d may actually be speaking through them and I don't want to ignore Him because I'm not hearing a familiar message.

Thanks for taking the time to hash through this with me.

Just good stuff,
Mark

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by Prober

Here's where you're making me think...

Got my start from my parents, then from the pastor and other adults, then from my own examination of life, nature and just talking to G-d.

I suppose I have benefitted from "tradition" in that respect. Then from that base, I've studied with the Holy Spirit to make sure the things that "men" told me were true.

Interesting. Seems in many cases this is a pattern. 1) One starts out being affiliated at an early with a particular denomination of religion due the parents beliefs 2) Then is taught through Sunday School/Church the rudiments of doctrine 3) Then an examination one's life to determine whether what one has learned has significance or validity 4) Followed by a veering away from roots in an effort to seek the truth on one's own, perhaps venturing into another denomination or religion 5a) Finally a return to one's tradition with a refreshed outlook on the base that had been the foundation of faith. 5b) Or an abandonment of the original foundation in the conviction of something else.

[Dondi]

I had a thought on reasonable faith while responding to the thread on Scientology found here:

BBC Panorama on Scientology

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

but seriously.. how can any rational being believe that space aliens flew here on DC-10's and trapped alien souls under the volcanos in Hawaii? that strains credulity.

Now see, this to most of us would think this is an unreasonable faith. But for those who subscribe to Scientology do not think so. When celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta buy into this, we view them as crackpots by association. Are they that out of touch with reality? How do you think a person gets to a point in believing in something like this? Why is it so believable for them?

BTW, did I mention that I wouldn't mind moving this thread to the Belief and Spirituality forum? Mods?...hello?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

One is saying there are no absolutes that can be known, everything is relative, it's the argument of the Enlightenment and modernity.

I suggest that it is absolutely TRUE that you will NOT be having breakfast on the planet Neptune tomorrow. Mars is out too. Maybe Earth. History is absolute... the real history. and Einstein's theories of relativity are actually all about a couple of absolutes. Speed of Light being one of them.

Originally Posted by Thomas

What you cannot prove, however, is that the voice you hear is the voice of God. You may well think it is. You may think you're handsome.

With that level of thinking, you can not prove that a person's voice is really the one that you hear. It could be God's voice. It could just be the flesh. It could be the parents talking. It could be the oppressive government talking. It could just be the education talking. It could be drugs talking. Or, it could actually be the person. Hard to tell sometimes.

Originally Posted by Thomas

But some here argue that the community has no right to set a standard – that is seen as invasive, hierarchical and tyrannical.
And we know that individual standards are fallible.
So there are no 'standards' as such.
There is simply a state of complacency in which we're happy to live as long as 'they' do not make conditions too uncomfortable, personally.

I drive on the right side, but write with the left side. Whats your excuse? Might depend if you are in a red or blue state: Which Side Of The Road To Drive On? Left Or Right, Country By Country Around The World

Originally Posted by Thomas

Pattimax pointed out that the West does not own 'wooly thinking'. I agree. But we set the standard for complacency, I think.

A standard for apathy?

[Prober]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Interesting. Seems in many cases this is a pattern. 1) One starts out being affiliated at an early with a particular denomination of religion due the parents beliefs 2) Then is taught through Sunday School/Church the rudiments of doctrine 3) Then an examination one's life to determine whether what one has learned has significance or validity 4) Followed by a veering away from roots in an effort to seek the truth on one's own, perhaps venturing into another denomination or religion 5a) Finally a return to one's tradition with a refreshed outlook on the base that had been the foundation of faith. 5b) Or an abandonment of the original foundation in the conviction of something else.

Yeah, I agree.

I chose 5a because of lack of conclusive evidence to the contrary.

This has been an enjoyable discussion, huh?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Dondi

BTW, did I mention that I wouldn't mind moving this thread to the Belief and Spirituality forum? Mods?...hello?

I think they've all gone on holiday

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Dondi

Interesting. Seems in many cases this is a pattern. 1) One starts out being affiliated at an early with a particular denomination of religion due the parents beliefs 2) Then is taught through Sunday School/Church the rudiments of doctrine 3) Then an examination one's life to determine whether what one has learned has significance or validity 4) Followed by a veering away from roots in an effort to seek the truth on one's own, perhaps venturing into another denomination or religion 5a) Finally a return to one's tradition with a refreshed outlook on the base that had been the foundation of faith. 5b) Or an abandonment of the original foundation in the conviction of something else.

This I think links with

Should hereditary determine religion?

he says, bravely ignoring the fact that the thread hasn't been moved. No-one chooses their hereditary/parentage/place of birth. So if people are spiritually inclined they will either "go with the flow" of their accident of birth or go through the sort of process that you have outlined above Dondi.

s.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

A standard for apathy?

Do you care if that is an oxymoron?

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Dondi

I had a thought on reasonable faith while responding to the thread on Scientology found here:

BBC Panorama on Scientology



Now see, this to most of us would think this is an unreasonable faith. But for those who subscribe to Scientology do not think so. When celebrities like Tom Cruise and John Travolta buy into this, we view them as crackpots by association. Are they that out of touch with reality? How do you think a person gets to a point in believing in something like this? Why is it so believable for them?

BTW, did I mention that I wouldn't mind moving this thread to the Belief and Spirituality forum? Mods?...hello?

Interesting article but to be fair not everyone in scientology is exposed to that teaching. You have to be a certain level. Also that belief may seem just as reasonable as that of Christians reported to believe in ..... just to mention a very few of the hundreds...

God talked through a donkey.
The sun stood still for about a whole day. Joshua 10:13.
The rapture of the church.
A whale swallowed Jonah and spit him up after 3 days alive.
Jesus raised the dead and turned water into wine.
The dead came out of their graves and showed themselves to many people. Matthew 27:52-53

Look objectively.... Do these sound any more reasonable than the scientology claim... I think not.

Peace,
JM

[pattimax]

After I think about it , I guess there could be a standard for indifference.

How would you define that?

[niranjan]

Originally Posted by Dondi

2) Archeological evidence - Attests to the existence of ancient nations, cities, peoples, and artifacts that are mentioned by the Bible, some having been discounted by scholars before their discovery.

Well, I actually read in the newspapers that israeli archaeologists were unable to find no proof at all with respect to solomon and other dudes.

Originally Posted by Dondi

3) Israel and the Existence and Survival of the Jews - The mere existence of the Jews and the nation of Israel give credible credence to the cultural backdrop of an acient nation of people who claim to be chosen by God to bring forth His existence to the world. On May 14, 1948, Israel became a nation again after some 1700-1800 years of Jewish exile, the only ancient people ever to form into a nation and to revive an ancient language. How did such a small group of people survive for so long?.

So you believe in the "chosen people " stuff as well. Cute.

Originally Posted by Dondi

On May 14, 1948, Israel became a nation again after some 1700-1800 years of Jewish exile, the only ancient people ever to form into a nation and to revive an ancient language. How did such a small group of people survive for so long

And what do you think about the Indian and the chinese nations ! Aren't they ancient people as well, ( in fact more ancient than the jews) and haven't they been living in their nations without any exile.

[juantoo3]

BTW, did I mention that I wouldn't mind moving this thread to the Belief and Spirituality forum? Mods?...hello?

As you wish!

[cyberpi]

Dondi, it seems like you are pretty heavily calling Faith a belief or a religion. I'm sure you've probably heard me say this before, but in my life, the Gospels, and the OT, I find that it is definitely not that. It is far more because people are more than something written. Faith is a relationship between people that can willfully respond and cause change. Being one of the persons in that relationship you know when someone is Faithful to you or not because some of the words or beliefs originated from you. You know whether someone has Faith in you, and you can see when they are Faithful. So it is not a 'what' that you want to place Faith in, but in 'whom'. Faith is just a word, but two people can define what Faith between them is. You can first realize Faith between people, and then with God. I find that it is like any other relationship that you'd have with your spouse, parents, children, or neighbor. Prayer is for real communication. Someone is listening and even responding.

With the scientology, I personally once found that biofeedback with the galvanic skin resistance is worthwhile with meditation. It is embraced in clinical medicine and can be used for relaxation and meditation. That is more of a personal discipline though, kind of like bike riding or a personal skill. I've never looked into scientology but I have read a bit about it and it involves biofeedback with another person who is the monitoring probe, asking questions and looking at responses. Looks like psychology to me... or a lie detector test?! There is faith in a person or a group, who may or may not be faithful with that information. There is confession there which is outstanding, but then people with evil goals can use that against them. Any confessions with their 'reading' is very similar to catholic confession in a box. Not exactly the baptism out in the open in front of other people and that is why the scientologist was able to use that information against them. If this scientology group is spying on people, paranoid over what someone says about them, and using divulged information without a 'faithful patient confidentiality'... then they are definitely not being faithful or having faith in people. Bad news. Similary Jesus was betrayed by Judas in a similar fashion, right? Except that he knew it and was above it.

That BBC guy could have put the scientologist in his place if he knew how. He should have tried to put his arm around the guy or shake hands, offer him some affection and a token of his appreciation and kindness for his interest in him, and whether he accepted that or not then he should have asked him why he was being such a paranoid hypocrite. From there it depends on the scientologist's reaction. The scientologist was putting on a show... when he approached the BBC guy and pronounced that a person could dig and dig and find nothing against him in his background, that was a strong clue of the underlying turmoil the guy is in. Insecurity. He was trying to protray the media as the brute. The response should have been immediately, "Why dig... you are vomiting your insecurity all over the place." The programmed sensitivity displayed to the smallest negative word reveals a lack of faith, so holding up a mirror would cause him to buckle and second guess himself. Sadly, the BBC guy did not know how to disarm the younger brute. I have not thought of the scientology as being in the same theme park as the Raelians or other groups, but I can see how it easily could be.

Reasonable Faith to me is really like asking what is reasonable in a relationship when for example a spouse has cheated or is otherwise being unfaithful. Or an employee steals. Or someone who owes money does not pay. What are reasonable burdens to accept and issues to respond to and reduce faith in the person? For example in the USA people are being registered as sex offenders and that information is being publicly displayed. Armed with that knowledge, what is considered to be "Reasonable Faith" in thy neighbor?