Theological Opinions

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

When I said "faith" above, I was referring to blind faith. Just wanted to make that clear. Many people think Christianity is nothing but blind faith, a view I have fought vigorously against ever since I first came to Entmoot's General Messages. True Christianity, instead, is reasonable faith. For example, you can be reasonably sure, as a child, that your mother is going to give you breakfast in the morning. It's faith, but it's not blind faith. It's faith based upon loving relationship and upon experience. My problem is with blind faith and unthinking faith, not with reasonable faith.

i see it differently... i would call an absolute belief that christianity must be true blind faith, for the simple reason that the evidence is non-conclusive... in fact, i'd say that there is no evidence at all, but even if i give you the evidence you have claimed to exist, it still leaves doubt

reasonable faith is what i have found practiced by most christians i have met in life... a belief that there is a god, but a realization that this is in fact a belief in something that is very unproven... and also a willingness to make their own interpretations when it comes to things like the bible and how to practice their beliefs

to me, reasonable faith says: "there is a path, but humanity can not be 100% sure what that path is... we should all try our best to follow it in our own way, and respect the different paths others may travel"

blind faith say: "my way is the way"

[Spock]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i see it differently... i
blind faith say: "my way is the way"

One of the most accurate and succinct statements posted herein.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i see it differently... i would call an absolute belief that christianity must be true blind faith, for the simple reason that the evidence is non-conclusive... in fact, i'd say that there is no evidence at all, but even if i give you the evidence you have claimed to exist, it still leaves doubt

Of course. There is an element of doubt. A mother might arbitrarily choose one morning not to provide her child with food. So there is a slight possibility that reasonable faith that the mother will provide food is going to be left unjustified. This element of doubt is small, however. Saying that there isn't 100% proof that the mother will provide food for her child, and that therefore faith is unjustified, is what I would term "unreasonable doubt."

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to me, reasonable faith says: "there is a path, but humanity can not be 100% sure what that path is... we should all try our best to follow it in our own way, and respect the different paths others may travel"

blind faith say: "my way is the way"

For children who have never had a mother, I can understand their not having faith that a new guardian is going to provide food for them. There is not sufficient evidence for them to support faith in this case. That is what you're essentially saying here. You're looking from that lost child's perspective, that "we cannot be 100% sure," but the problem is that you're assuming the lost child's perspective is the only perspective. In short, you are assuming, "my way is the way." You're like a lost child who, based upon his own experience, is assuming that nobody has a mother who can be trusted. You have no reason to have faith, but based on your experience, you're assuming that no one else does either.

Yes, a child cannot be 100% sure that his parent will provide for him (I'm assuming, of course, in this example, that this is a loving and a well to do parent, for that is the only way the analogy can fit with God. Forget the loving and well to do bit and the analogy loses all meaning, but it works otherwise). He can have reasonable faith that the parent will, however. A lost child who has no parent and has no reason to have faith is behaving irrationally when he says, "therefore it doesn't make sense for anyone to have faith."


It is not the child who anticipates his mother giving him food who is making the mistake of saying, "my way is the way." Rather, it is the child who has no reason for faith and thus thinks no one does, who is making the flawed mistake that, "my way is the way." His error is that he can't speak for everyone else's experience. He also makes an error in that he thinks that the faith of a child who has a mother and expects her to provide for him is blind faith, simply because he hasn't had the experience himself.

The child with a parent is not making that error, for he knows that there are people out there who don't have a mother, and thus have no reason to have faith that they will get food in the morning from her. He is not making assumptions about other people's experiences. However, as he knows that his mother is seeking to adopt more people, he is smart enough to try to get some of these people he loves off the streets to share in his good fortune.

Like the lost child in my analogy picture, you have not experienced spiritual reality. Faith in a God who provides spiritual food is therefore foreign. And of course it's possible that God may stop providing for me and cease his relationship with me. Based on loving relationship and personal experience though, this possibility becomes unreasonable doubt. Reasonable faith is what is called for. You haven't experienced that yet, so for you, faith might seem unreasonable. However, I encourage you along with millions of others around the world, that this spiritual reality does exist and that God does provide for his children. Trust in him is well justified. He won't give you 100% of scientific proof of his existence, but this is not necessary for faith. No one requires 100% proof in order to live their lives. No one requires 100% proof that the food at a restaurant won't get them sick. People still fly on airplanes and use cars in spite of the possibility that they may break down. God is far more reliable than they are, though. People haven't experienced him yet, though, so they logically are less trusting.

God opens the door to trust, however. "Seek and you will find," is the word that addresses this. I don't have to convince you that I receive food from my mother. In the name of Jesus, I'm offering you food from my mother. Ask God to reveal himself to you, and he shall.

[Spock]

Some points seem to be overlooked: Faith and trust must be learned. As far as seeking, many seek but not everyone finds. Just a thought.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i see it differently... i would call an absolute belief that christianity must be true blind faith, for the simple reason that the evidence is non-conclusive... in fact, i'd say that there is no evidence at all, but even if i give you the evidence you have claimed to exist, it still leaves doubt

But don't YOU have doubt in your beliefs about God? Any rational person can and should have doubts about their beliefs, IMO. Given the nature of the question, one CANNOT be 100% sure of their beliefs about God. So you have made your decision, based on your evaluation of the available evidence, that agnosticism is the most reasonable decision. Lief and I have made our decision, based on our evaluation of the available evidence, that Christianity is the most reasonable decision. It's not a matter of Lief's belief and my belief being faith-based and yours NOT being faith-based. They're BOTH faith-based.

[brownjenkins]

interesting analogy lief, but not really the angle i am getting at... it's not about whether or not you trust in you mother to give you food, more about what kind of food you would like to get... 99% would agree that a child should be fed, but there is vast disagreement about what they should be fed

a child growing up in the rural china and waking up to a table with a bowl of rice might be perfectly pleased with his loving mother... the same child in suburban america might think his mother was punishing him, "where are my coco puffs?!?"

the same is true of faith... i assume you have grown up in a christian family... if so, it is not surprising that you hold the christian faith dear... as do most in western society... many draw morality from the bible

yet, that same child in rural china may have grown up with a completely different, yet just as meaningful, faith... they might not even have the vaguest notion of what "the bible" is

and a suburban child like myself may have grown up in an environment where any kind of practiced faith was fairly uncommon

but the basic morality held by the child in china, the boy who grew up in a christian family, and someone like me who grew up in a mostly secular environment is more or less the same... and these three could live side by side peacefully, respecting each other's differing faiths as alternate paths to the same end

to me, blind faith is "blind" because it refuses to see that there is more than one path to personal salvation... it fails to see anything outside of it's own faith... it places the means to salvation before the end... and it does not trust humanity

it says, "there is no possible way a child can become a well-adjusted, caring adult unless they are weaned on coco puffs"

[Spock]

You do realize your coco puffs analogy just goes off the charts of sensibility, IMO

[Insidious Rex]

Works for me. What would you prefer? Captain Crunch?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Spock

Some points seem to be overlooked: Faith and trust must be learned. As far as seeking, many seek but not everyone finds. Just a thought.

Some people seek God on their own terms rather than his. That's one reason why not everyone finds. They're not seeking so much for the truth as for a specific truth. Some claim to seek reality, while only seeking one version of reality, or to fulfill preconceptions. Self-interest can also get in the way. Differing views on religion are one reason why often in the scripture and in life, God performs miracles, saying, "then they will know that I am the Lord."

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying about faith and trust. Would you mind explaining that to me more fully?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

it says, "there is no possible way a child can become a well-adjusted, caring adult unless they are weaned on coco puffs"

Funny.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to me, blind faith is "blind" because it refuses to see that there is more than one path to personal salvation... it fails to see anything outside of it's own faith... it places the means to salvation before the end...

The belief that all religions or lack there-of lead to the same end is a belief without any evidence that I've ever seen. Have you ever seen any evidence to support this belief?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

and it does not trust humanity

I find it amazing that after World War 2, you can have faith in humanity. We're madly self-serving creatures. Self is the God of much of modern society, and it will be its bane.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not sure what exactly you're saying about faith and trust. Would you mind explaining that to me more fully?

See Merriam-Webster OnLine or any like site for standard definitions.

[Lief Erikson]

All right, I'll respond on the assumption that I'm interpreting you correctly.

Yes, faith and trust grow over time. They are also learned. God doesn't demand faith that can move mountains in the very start of his relationship with people. Faith grows over time. It starts small, but grows. Trust also. I agree with you .

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

All right, I'll respond on the assumption that I'm interpreting you correctly.
I agree with you .

I believe my reaction can be quantified as a joyous, hallelujah!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

to me, blind faith is "blind" because it refuses to see that there is more than one path to personal salvation...

What IS "personal salvation", IYO? And how are you so sure that it has more than one path to it? Is that a faith-based belief of yours?

(and my other question is still pending - what, you're busy at work or something? )

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I find it amazing that after World War 2, you can have faith in humanity.

But can anyone believe in a "good God" after such a thing? I don't really see how after the war one should have more faith in God than before.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But can anyone believe in a "good God" after such a thing? I don't really see how after the war one should have more faith in God than before.

"the war" what war?

as for 'good god', haven't you heard James Brown lately

Stay safe.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But can anyone believe in a "good God" after such a thing?

Why are you blaming God for what man did?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

But can anyone believe in a "good God" after such a thing?

Jews carved the following inscription on the wall of a cellar they were hiding in, during the Holocaust:

"I believe in the sun, even when it is not shining. I believe in love, even when there's no one there. I believe in God, even when he is silent."

Originally Posted by Radagast The Brown

I don't really see how after the war one should have more faith in God than before.

Often, it is in times of hardship that people realize that they are insufficient to deal with their problems, and they come to rely more fully upon God. This is why many of the strongest Christians are people who have suffered. A time of suffering can make or break someone. It tests the person's faith. It makes people see that they have two choices, endure suffering for God or turn away from God. People have lost their faith because of suffering or loss, and others have become the strongest believers because of suffering or loss. Suffering tests true believers and strengthens them, while at the same time removing from us the hangers-on who lack real conviction and give us a bad name by the things they do.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why are you blaming God for what man did?

You know, when Job was tormented in many ways and complained to God, God never tried to squirm out of the responsibility . Rather, he pointed out his grandeur as evidence of how high above us he is, and then argued that people are quite arrogant when they assume that their knowledge is equal to God's on this matter.

Furthermore, it is also plain that God does use suffering for his own designs. He sent his son to the Earth in order to be crucified for us. This horror was God's own plan, and turned out to be most definitely the best. If the most horrible and unjust event in human history can be shown to be the best event, this should alter our perspective some on our own troubles.

[Rían]

Lief, re your answer to my question to Rad - are you saying that mankind is blameless for the atrocities of WW2?

And my question to Rad stands - Rad, why are you blaming God for what man did?

[Rían]

And Rad, if you DO think God is responsible in some way (assuming He exists), what do you propose he should have done about it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Lief, re your answer to my question to Rad - are you saying that mankind is blameless for the atrocities of WW2?

My response would be based on Romans 9:18-24. If there is no free will, why does God blame us? Who are we to talk back to God!!? An infinite, perfect and loving Creator has the right to do as he pleases with his creations. It is human arrogance to say that if we don't understand his plan right now, there can be no good plan. God is knowledgeable enough to be trusted concerning the terrible parts of life, even if we can't understand what he's doing now.

In the final analysis, as far as I can see, it is God who is to blame for the atrocities of World War 2 and not mankind. Mankind, in the hands of God, has no free will or choice. As Paul wrote, "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." I personally like it that way, for any choice that is free of God, he must have chosen to be random. That means that in creating us, he was putting it to random chance whether we would be going to heaven or hell. The perspective that says God is in charge of every part of the process is a far more comforting and in my view scriptural perspective than the one that says God assigned our fates to random chance.

As designer of all things, God crafted the horrors as well as the bounties that exist in life. The worst of all the world's horrors was the death of God's own Son. However, what we have seen in this worst of the world's horrors is that in the hands of God, it turns into be fairest incident of life and joy. Thus, we see an example of how evil and sin can be used in the hands of the "potter" to spawn glory. God clearly sent his Son to Earth for the purpose of our salvation. He had the cross in mind when he sent Jesus here. If we all accept that he crafted this worst of abominations, why do we with such reluctance accept that he also is behind the other calamities of the world?

I personally see a difference between the will of God and the plan of God. God wills that all mankind be saved. His will is always for the best. It tears at his heart to see the evils of the world. The Holocaust was a perverted evil that surely enraged him. The death of God's Son, how can we doubt that he was enraged and grief stricken at this occurrence? God's will is always for the good and against evil.

God's plan has more perspective. It is God's plan that the evil events in the world occur, so that great good may be revealed. For example, the scripture says (Romans 11:32), "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." If there is no disobedience or sin, how can mankind experience God's mercy. There are an abundance of qualities of God that we only have experiential access to because of the disobedience.

Warning: No one take that verse out of context to mean that every person alive will be saved. The same chapter talks about some evildoers having their eyes darkened so they cannot see and their backs bent forever.

My point in raising that verse is again the sign of how God uses transgression or evil for his own purpose, and not only uses it, but designs it as well, just as he designed Christ's crucifixion. It all turns into good. We thank God for sending his son to die for our salvation. We do not condemn God for making an evil choice. In the same way, it is vain to say that any of God's choices are evil when the cards aren't yet on the table. The Passion of the Christ is the main incident I think we have revealed to us in scripture where God tipped his hand to us by showing what he was doing through the incident, and it is impossible to say that he did wrong.



Mankind is not where the final blame lies, in the final analysis. Even if one argues for free will, from that point of view, God permitted all the wrongdoing in the world to occur while foreknowing what would happen. True that he could not violate free will without violating us in a kind of "cosmic rape". However, he could have done things differently. We're talking about the resources of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. He could have created a world in which we used our free will for good. He can foreknow whether one throw of the dice will get him free will that chooses good or one that chooses evil. He can predict the dice. Hence, he can choose a universe that freely chooses good and just not create a world where evil is freely chosen. Or supposing God chooses to create a world where there is really free free will, free from his choosing a free will that chooses what he chooses, but God instead chooses to let random chance decide. Mankind is in charge of her own destiny. Mankind has her own will that God does not choose. In that case, there is random chance that we will be saved. In fact, one might even suggest that the dice are loaded against us, for according to the scripture, only a remnant shall be saved, and "broad is the path that leads to destruction, while narrow the path that leads to life." So God loads the dice against us and then tosses. Either that, or we're experiencing a statistically unlikely roll off the dice that is not in our favor. Either way, my eternal life is hinged on the roll of a die. It's not something I'm particularly happy with.

Predestination is a far more sophisticated, generous and scriptural view . If God designs the events of our lives from beginning to end, this shows that he cares about us. A God who leaves me to random chance . . . well, I have trouble seeing the caring in that.