Topic: Why is belief important to God? (Read 2047 times)

fematheunicorn · « **on:** October 14, 2008, 08:57:01 PM »

I realize this issue may have been debated a million times by most of you, but despite the hours I

End Bringer · « **Reply #1 on:** October 14, 2008, 10:48:12 PM »

Quote from: fematheunicorn on October 14, 2008, 08:57:01 PM

I

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** October 14, 2008, 11:21:28 PM »

Hi Fema, welcome to the board and congrats on the first topic!

Quote

Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

My problem with this question is that it implies some sort of Divine Checklist, as though God could have done it some other way but instead he just wanted to stick it to the humans. What if 'faith is used to determine' for the simple reason that it is the only logical way to do it? If not the only logical way, what if it is the best way out of the alternatives?

I think free will would be a component, here, but it isn't the whole story. On this I think EB is on the right track. Let me give you an analogy.

Here's the scenario:

Quote

A coast guard helicopter is hovering over the feverish waters off the cold coast of Alaska. The helicopter is dangling a long line with a life preserver attached to it into the water below, where it is being thrown about. Nearby, struggling to stay afloat and conscious in the icy waters, is the man they are there to save. His salvation here depends on him grabbing that life preserver, hoping that the line won't break, and having faith that the helicopter crew really has his own best interests in mind, and will save him- if only he has faith and steps out in that faith.

But our guy struggling in the water decides to play with philosophy while descending into hypothermia... the scenario continues:

Quote

The struggling man looks at the line and looks up at the helicopter. Suddenly he wonders at the unfairness of it all. Why should he have to rely on this rope and life preserver? Why should his faith in the crew determine whether or not he makes it into the helicopter??!?!? Surely the helicopter crew is powerful enough to swoop down and rescue him if they really wanted to. Perhaps the line wouldn't hold, anyway! Oh, the unfairness! The arbitrary nature of the affair!

Of course, in Christianity it is not quite like this. Most analogies fail at some point as you know, but there is still more room to stretch this one. The scenario continues:

Quote

Seeing the man struggling to stay alive but hesitating over some metaphysical conundrum, the helicopter crew realizes that the man is essentially powerless to save himself. Though it is intensely dangerous for the pilot and the crew, they decide on their last option: one of the guardsman dives in. Yet even now there is a need for faith: the struggling man has to stop struggling long enough to be rescued. At the very last, he must surrender. Or die. It isn't some capricious action of the helicopter crew or some nefarious plot to demand obedience... its just the fact of the situation: faith and salvation go hand in hand and there is no good alternative.

I think the answer to your question is somewhere along these lines. Faith is demanded because faith is the mechanism by which the salvation is offered. Could another mechanism be offered? Well, that depends on the situation. If the waters are calm and the temperature is warm then fine, the guy can swim to shore, or a boat can come along side, or whatever. So, the 'mechanism' provided hinges a great deal on the nature of the rescue mission at hand.

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2008, 10:51:44 AM »

Thanks again for the welcome, and quick replies :)

EB,
I was simplifying the whole salvation process (lol, ya, I know) as much as possible. I don't think I was terribly far off. But yes, what you said is almost copy/paste what they said and what I have come to understand.

EB and sntjohnny,
I can understand where you are coming from in your analogies, I think. I don't want to stray too far away from the original topic just yet, so I will try to continue with your analogies.

You both offered examples where someone would need something someone else was offering in order to be saved. From your examples, you seemed to make the point that it was necessary to trust in order to be saved, which to me looks like this:

Q. Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

A. Because faith is necessary for salvation.

Do you see why I continue to be a little confused?

Also, trust/faith is not always necessary in being saved in the world we live in. Keeping with the style of your analogies, let us pretend if I became unconcious underwater. Some good person jumps in, risks their life, pulls me out and administers mouth-to-mouth. I am uncapable of stopping, preventing, etc. I do not need to trust them- I actually have no idea what's going on! But alas, I cough up some water and am good to go. I didn't ask them to do it, I didn't need to trust them, it just happened.

To me, it seems God would be more than capable of "administering mouth-to-mouth", but chooses this whole "belief and acceptance that Christ was the Son of God who died for our sins, and rose on the third day that is what gets you into Heaven" thing. The only conclusion I can reach is that we will never know why He chooses this, or perhaps why this is the way things are. Maybe my issues about this are because the Bible does not have nice things to say about "non-believers", as if there is some choice involved. Not to mention the people I come across that treat me like a stubborn ass.

My question get's to: why choose that method?

Can it not be answered?

EDIT: I just realized I was rude and ignored something stjohnny said. I will address it:

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 14, 2008, 11:21:28 PM

My problem with this question is that it implies some sort of Divine Checklist, as though God could have done it some other way but instead he just wanted to stick it to the humans. What if 'faith is used to determine' for the simple reason that it is the only logical way to do it? If not the only logical way, what if it is the best way out of the alternatives?

I do imply a Divine Checklist, becuase that is how I see it. There could be an infinite number of alternitives, including ones we don't/can't know about. If it is logical, then we should be able to determine it, I would think. Of course it could be the best, but I don't see that we are able to determine that. Most Christians seem to think it's a pretty OK idea (or am I speeking to the wrong ones, or getting the wrong idea?), so I would assume they could shed some light on "why?".

Did I address your problem?

End Bringer · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2008, 01:36:23 PM »

Quote from: fematheunicorn on October 15, 2008, 10:51:44 AM

EB,
I was simplifying the whole salvation process (lol, ya, I know) as much as possible. I don't think I was terribly far off. But yes, what you said is almost copy/paste what they said and what I have come to understand.

One would think the consitency of the answer means something then.

Quote

You both offered examples where someone would need something someone else was offering in order to be saved. From your examples, you seemed to make the point that it was necessary to trust in order to be saved, which to me looks like this:

Q. Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

A. Because faith is necessary for salvation.

Do you see why I continue to be a little confused?

Nope. Because as the analogies showed being saved automatically requires acceptance and by proxy trust and faith in the one offering to save you.

Quote

To me, it seems God would be more than capable of "administering mouth-to-mouth", but chooses this whole "belief and acceptance that Christ was the Son of God who died for our sins, and rose on the third day that is what gets you into Heaven" thing.

Your analogy fails for the very reason SJ mentioned: It depends on the nature of the situation. Your anaology doesn't work for the very fact that we are conscious of our situation, and it's in no small part our own fault that put us in this situation, which is why God was never obligated to help us in the first place. And that's where the aspect of free-will mentioned comes into play.

Quote

The only conclusion I can reach is that we will never know why He chooses this, or perhaps why this is the way things are. Maybe my issues about this are because the Bible does not have nice things to say about "non-believers", as if there is some choice involved. Not to mention the people I come across that treat me like a stubborn ass.

Continuing with the analogies there is a choice involved: accept the help or don't. And as far as what happens to non-believers go, what else would you expect? You think someone who refuses a life saving cure will just automatically get better?

Quote

My question get's to: why choose that method?

Pretty much because there wasn't any other way. Mankinds fall seperated us from God, and as such we are incapable of mending that breach on our own. That's why God stepped in and did it for us. All we have to do is have faith in Him and accept it. As the analogies shows the nature of the situation demands that some concsious choice has to be made by us one way or another.

Quote

Can it not be answered?

Seems by your own admission you've been consitently given the answer. You just seem to be having trouble accepting it for some vague reason.

Quote

I do imply a Divine Checklist, becuase that is how I see it. There could be an infinite number of alternitives, including ones we don't/can't know about. If it is logical, then we should be able to determine it, I would think. Of course it could be the best, but I don't see that we are able to determine that. Most Christians seem to think it's a pretty OK idea (or am I speeking to the wrong ones, or getting the wrong idea?), so I would assume they could shed some light on "why?".

There equally could be no other alternatives, which is why I think your objection ultimately fails. Though a question that comes to mind is exactly what is wrong/offensive with this criteria in the first place? It seems a rather small price for salvation compared to what Christ had to go threw when crucified, wouldn't you say?

cimics · « **Reply #5 on:** October 15, 2008, 09:54:22 PM »

Quote

Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

I'll take a stab at this.

God created humans (in His own image) because He wished to create creatures with whom He can have a relationship. Part of having a relationship is wanting to have a relationship. People who have belief and faith are people who want to have a relationship with God, and show that they are really interested in investing themselves in such a relationship.

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2008, 09:56:20 PM »

OK, a lot to get into... I don't like how some people refuse to address some points (not talking about you guys!). Where I think I am wrong I will admit it, but I will try to address everything you said. Answers in bold:

Quote from: End Bringer on October 15, 2008, 01:36:23 PM

Quote from: fematheunicorn on October 15, 2008, 10:51:44 AM
EB,
I was simplifying the whole salvation process (lol, ya, I know) as much as possible. I don't think I was terribly far off. But yes, what you said is almost copy/paste what they said and what I have come to understand.

One would think the consitency of the answer means something then.

I was trying to keep it simple to avoid the discussion going off topic. I addressed the beef of salvation.

Quote
You both offered examples where someone would need something someone else was offering in order to be saved. From your examples, you seemed to make the point that it was necessary to trust in order to be saved, which to me looks like this:

Q. Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

A. Because faith is necessary for salvation.

Do you see why I continue to be a little confused?

Nope. Because as the analogies showed being saved automatically requires acceptance and by proxy trust and faith in the one offering to save you.

I guess you are saying "Nope" as in you don't understand why I am confused. I am confused because your answer is begging the question. You simply substituted "Why" for "Because"

Q. Why do we need air to breathe?

A. Because we need air to breathe.

^ Does not answer question.

If your analogies were at all applicable to the situation, perhaps that would have been better. My analogy showed it was not necessary.

Quote
To me, it seems God would be more than capable of "administering mouth-to-mouth", but chooses this whole "belief and acceptance that Christ was the Son of God who died for our sins, and rose on the third day that is what gets you into Heaven" thing.

Your analogy fails for the very reason SJ mentioned: It depends on the nature of the situation. Your anaology doesn't work for the very fact that we are conscious of our situation, and it's in no small part our own fault that put us in this situation, which is why God was never obligated to help us in the first place. And that's where the aspect of free-will mentioned comes into play.

I disagree completely. My analogy is quite comparable to the situation: If I cannot see, hear, feel, taste or talk I am practically unconscious. Since I cannot see, hear, feel, taste or talk to God, I feel that my drowning analogy is far closer to the situation that we are in than your analogies.

You also bring up free will, as if I am able to control what I believe. With the research I have done, and the dialogue I have had with Christian college kids, adults, converts, pastors, priests apologists and the like (which is far more than most people), I do not believe in my heart that the Judeo-Christian God exists in the form that the Bible describes. Belief is NOT something you can force by your free will. I cannot force myself to believe in something that in my heart I am convinced is wrong. This is why I feel that you saying I am "refusing" anything is silly, especially as if something were right in front of me as in your analogies.

Besides, if my child were going to die if they did not recieve a shot, I would FORCE her to get it. If my child were drowning in the ocean and not reaching for the rope for WHATEVER reason, I would be in the waters trying to save her.

Quote
The only conclusion I can reach is that we will never know why He chooses this, or perhaps why this is the way things are. Maybe my issues about this are because the Bible does not have nice things to say about "non-believers", as if there is some choice involved. Not to mention the people I come across that treat me like a stubborn ass.

Continuing with the analogies there is a choice involved: accept the help or don't. And as far as what happens to non-believers go, what else would you expect? You think someone who refuses a life saving cure will just automatically get better?

Again, I don't see how a non-believer is refusing a cure. God is NOT standing in front of me, offering something. Some book that I doubt says He is. Maybe it is something Christians cannot comprehend, because they talk like "poor little God is TRYING to help you! Just believe!". Well, I don't. I cannot help it, sorry. He made me, He should know how I work.

It's the same as if I watch two movies and say I believe one is better than the other, and the director of the one I didn't like gets offended. What am I supposed to do about it? I don't want to offend him, but I didn't think that his was as good.

Quote
My question get's to: why choose that method?

Pretty much because there wasn't any other way. Mankinds fall seperated us from God, and as such we are incapable of mending that breach on our own. That's why God stepped in and did it for us. All we have to do is have faith in Him and accept it. As the analogies shows the nature of the situation demands that some concsious choice has to be made by us one way or another.

I really don't follow this. Not because I haven't heard it a hundred times, either. First off, I wasn't there with God and the Tree. I was never told by my Creator anything. Also, no other way? I don't know about you, but if I could think of other ways I'm sure God could. Of course, His would be assumed better, since He is supposed to be perfect and I am merely a human.

Again, I do not think your analogies do anything to shed light on the answer, as mine clearly shows that by your same reasoning it is possible to be saved without making a choice of anykind.

Quote
Can it not be answered?

Seems by your own admission you've been consitently given the answer. You just seem to be having trouble accepting it for some vague reason.

Are you saying that I am having trouble accepting the the fact that my question cannot be answered? Or that I am having trouble with the idea that belief/faith is necessary? If the latter is the case, I hardly think the reason is vague.

Quote
I do imply a Divine Checklist, becuase that is how I see it. There could be an infinite number of alternitives, including ones we don't/can't know about. If it is logical, then we should be able to determine it, I would think. Of course it could be the best, but I don't see that we are able to determine that. Most Christians seem to think it's a pretty OK idea (or am I speaking to the wrong ones, or getting the wrong idea?), so I would assume they could shed some light on "why?".

There equally could be no other alternatives, which is why I think your objection ultimately fails. Though a question that comes to mind is exactly what is wrong/offensive with this criteria in the first place? It seems a rather small price for salvation compared to what Christ had to go threw when crucified, wouldn't you say?

Of course there equally could be no other alternative. I'm assuming the objection you speak of is that I think belief is an unfair means of salvation?

You ask what is wrong/offensive. I think I, and millions before me, have explained explicitly why this would be unfair. It is unfair because I can SAY that I believe something, but I cannot BELIEVE something that I do NOT BELIEVE. Is that clear enough?

You say it is a small price to pay for what Christ had to endure. I think you should stop appealing to emotion. I think what people go through in torture camps, the sex trade and aids infested areas in Africa are far more brutal than what Christ endured. Most of those people, by the requirements Christians agree on, will not receive any reward, either. What Christ may, or may not have endured is irrelevant.

If we cannot comprehend the reasoning behind God wanting us to believe in him, please just say that. However, I find it wrong for anyone to try to defend God's reasoning, and actually be of the oppinion that it is OK by standards that we can understand for God to do this, unless they can explain why.

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2008, 10:08:29 PM »

Sorry, didn't see your post.

Quote from: cimics on October 15, 2008, 09:54:22 PM

Quote
Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

I'll take a stab at this.

God created humans (in His own image) because He wished to create creatures with whom He can have a relationship. Part of having a relationship is wanting to have a relationship. People who have belief and faith are people who want to have a relationship with God, and show that they are really interested in investing themselves in such a relationship.

I think you answer the question pretty well. However, not all people that do not believe/ have faith are necessarily people that do not want to have a relationship with God. Maybe if they met God, they would want to have a realtionship with him. If I say down with Jesus at Starbucks, I might be all for this Christianity thing.

If He just wants some number of people with him, I guess that would make sense. However, He would have to not care about all the others that might want to have a relationship, if only they were able to know him somehow. But the Bible doesn't seem to support that view. Therefore, the entire belief/faith requirement seems to be a pretty poor tool for finding people to have a relationship with.

BTW, I'm trying to avoid the unfairness aspect becuase it was not part of the OT. I mentioned it with EB because he started mentioning free will, etc.

EDIT: I'd like to add that I might like to have a relationship with God. I can't really have a serious want if I don't believe in Him, though. Can I? How could I even know if I really did want to have a relationship with Him? I certainly don't want to have a relationship with someone who is sexist, homophobic and arbitrary in His choosing of people. Maybe if I could me Him and He could explain why He demands such things, I would be able to actually do that thing called choosing.

Copernicus · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2008, 01:05:51 AM »

Hi, fema. Welcome to the board. Great OP. I don't have time for much of a response now, but I think that you are mainly interested in reactions from the Christians. I agree that cimics gave the most interesting response, as the others did seem to beg the question rather than answer it. He did not do that. However, his reply leads to the next obvious question, which is why the creator of the vast, complex universe would find a need for a relationship with our kind of being. And that would lead into the free will issue at some point, something that you don't seem keen on exploring.

I often find a related question just as interesting, if not more so: Why do people think that belief is important to God? That question, of course, is more appropriate for atheists than believers. From a non-believer's perspective, it makes perfect sense that believers would build elaborate defenses against loss of belief, and the belief that a god would require belief in his existence would seem to be a good strategy against loss of belief, since everyone seeks to avoid punishment.

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2008, 01:21:51 AM »

Hi, Copernicus
You are right in assuming I am mainly interesting in reactions from Christians. However, I would love for non-Christians to add their input as well. It would seem to make this discussion far more interesting, especailly for me. What's funny is that I've been reading on this forum for a while and I was hoping you would show up in this topic, so thanks :)

As for the free will, it would be something I don't feel keen on exploring in this topic, since I fear it would take us too far away from the OT, and doesn't seem necessary to get into yet. But I think that may have been what you meant.

As for your question, I am falling asleep as I type this so I will have to address it later.

Thanks again, everyone, for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2008, 08:40:05 AM »

Fema,

Your reactions basically reflect the point I was driving at when I said:

Quote

Could another mechanism be offered? Well, that depends on the situation. If the waters are calm and the temperature is warm then fine, the guy can swim to shore, or a boat can come along side, or whatever. So, the 'mechanism' provided hinges a great deal on the nature of the rescue mission at hand.

Cimics answered by giving details about the particular mission. Also, you pointed out that if a person is completely unconscious then you'd just have to go in and that wouldn't be a violation of free will, or if your daughter needed a life saving shot, etc, etc. In other words, you raised questions about the 'particular mission.' So, critical to answering your question is to outline precisely what situation we are in. If in fact the only thing that can save us is a thrown life preserver then we are hardly in a position to complain that the only thing offered to us was a life preserver.

So, what situation are we in? How do we know? What do Christians believe?

These are three different and very important questions. For one thing, you might disagree with the assessment of what 'situation we are in' but Christians have an assessment, and whether or not you agree with that assessment is irrelevant to deciding whether or not their 'rescue mission' is rationally tied to that assessed situation.

The real issue here is the true nature of the situation- not 'faith' being linked to salvation.

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2008, 09:53:34 PM »

Quote from: Copernicus on October 16, 2008, 01:05:51 AM

I often find a related question just as interesting, if not more so: Why do people think that belief is important to God? That question, of course, is more appropriate for atheists than believers. From a non-believer's perspective, it makes perfect sense that believers would build elaborate defenses against loss of belief, and the belief that a god would require belief in his existence would seem to be a good strategy against loss of belief, since everyone seeks to avoid punishment.

I think your question would probably be better for a discussion, as mine seems to end at "Because the Bible says so."
Though, I'm not trying to jump the gun and wrap this up, but that is where I am starting to see this discussion going.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 16, 2008, 08:40:05 AM

So, what situation are we in? How do we know? What do Christians believe?

These are three different and very important questions. For one thing, you might disagree with the assessment of what 'situation we are in' but Christians have an assessment, and whether or not you agree with that assessment is irrelevant to deciding whether or not their 'rescue mission' is rationally tied to that assessed situation.

The real issue here is the true nature of the situation- not 'faith' being linked to salvation.

OK, are you basically saying that Christians view the "situation" differently? Since they believe the Bible is either literally true, or mostly true, that is why they come to this assessment?

I promise I am not trying to lead into a trap; I am trying to see if this discussion can continue, or if we have to leave it at "Because the Bible says so." Which wouldn't bother me, I guess. It just seemed like you and End Bringer were going to try and make a little more sense out of it, which seems to be where Copernicus' question would go.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #12 on:** October 17, 2008, 08:48:12 AM »

"OK, are you basically saying that Christians view the "situation" differently? Since they believe the Bible is either literally true, or mostly true, that is why they come to this assessment?"

This is part of it but not the whole picture.

"I promise I am not trying to lead into a trap; I am trying to see if this discussion can continue, or if we have to leave it at "Because the Bible says so." Which wouldn't bother me, I guess."

I hope it wouldn't! The idea that God uses faith as the mechanism by which salvation is achieved is information found in the Bible so it only makes sense that testing the coherency and rationality of that should also appeal to the Bible for information on the 'situation.'

I have a real problem with challenging the reasonability and respectability of a teaching which is generally derived from the Scriptures by comparing against their own, non-Scriptural framework. Another example of this sort of thing are nonChristian objections to hell. Well, the same source for our information about hell also tells us about heaven. If you don't buy the stuff about heaven there is no point in getting bent out of shape about hell. But any analysis of 'hell' must be based on the terms which is presented.

Now, I said that 'what the Bible says' forms a part of the subject. I asked three questions:

Quote

what situation are we in? How do we know? What do Christians believe?

For our purposes here, the first two questions are the key ones. In order to determine whether it is reasonable or not to put so much emphasis on 'faith' we have to establish what are predicament is (if we're in any predicament at all) and how we are going to find that out. You've made some statements about 'well, what if the situation is really like..." and to that I would say, "sure. but what if its not."

If the situation is as I describe it then your objections about faith largely fall away, and I sense from your statements that you would agree with that. So, fema, what is our situation? How do you know?

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #13 on:** October 18, 2008, 01:53:20 AM »

Let me just say... I had my reply completed and I forgot to click "stay logged in forever", and it timed me out. I am crying (lol, not really. But look at my post time) but I will try to re-write it.

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #14 on:** October 18, 2008, 02:36:59 AM »

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 17, 2008, 08:48:12 AM

I hope it wouldn't! The idea that God uses faith as the mechanism by which salvation is achieved is information found in the Bible so it only makes sense that testing the coherency and rationality of that should also appeal to the Bible for information on the 'situation.'

I have a real problem with challenging the reasonability and respectability of a teaching which is generally derived from the Scriptures by comparing against their own, non-Scriptural framework. Another example of this sort of thing are nonChristian objections to hell. Well, the same source for our information about hell also tells us about heaven. If you don't buy the stuff about heaven there is no point in getting bent out of shape about hell. But any analysis of 'hell' must be based on the terms which is presented.

So then everything in the Bible is arbitrary? God IS [the essence of] good, not a simply a being that always does good.(whereas 'good' would be something that existed independantly from God). God's will and conepts of love and compasion are simply incomprehensible, and we cannot use logic to deduct the reason behind any of it? He commands it, we should do it?

As a side note, the Golden rule (do unto others) is something we are to follow, but He breaks it. Does that not bother you at all?

Maybe that is where I was going wrong with Christianity. When I considered myself a Christian, I noticed that it seemed like things that God commanded could be accepted universally, and were pretty logical, like not sleeping around or eating pigs, because those were unhygienic. When people started bashing my religion, I decided to try and show that everything had a reason behind it. When I got to homosexuality, gender bias and faith, I was stuck. This coupled with several other factors eventually led me to being agnostic.

I think that I got the idea from listening to various priests/pastors/youth group leaders that acted as if things written in the Bible were not arbitrary. That not only was doing these things going against God's command, but that they somehow negatively affected the world.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 17, 2008, 08:48:12 AM

Now, I said that 'what the Bible says' forms a part of the subject. I asked three questions:

Quote
what situation are we in? How do we know? What do Christians believe?

For our purposes here, the first two questions are the key ones. In order to determine whether it is reasonable or not to put so much emphasis on 'faith' we have to establish what are predicament is (if we're in any predicament at all) and how we are going to find that out. You've made some statements about 'well, what if the situation is really like..." and to that I would say, "sure. but what if its not."

If the situation is as I describe it then your objections about faith largely fall away, and I sense from your statements that you would agree with that. So, fema, what is our situation? How do you know?

One thing about me is that I am very reluctant to claim that I know anything. I will do my best to answer, and offer my reasoning:

what situation are we in?

Of the two, I select "unconcious."

How do we know?

I would maintain that we cannot know for sure, but the reasoning behind "unconcious" is much stronger than the opposite. If I cannot see/talk to/hear/meet/feel God, how the hell can I believe in/trust in/want to have realtionship with/live for God? Let alone CHOOSE to?

I know you could probably point in the Bible to passages where it would imply "concious", but I'm pretty sure there isn't a single place where it would actually back up the position with any kind of reasoning.

Could you pretend to not be 100% convinced by the Bible? How would you assess the situation? Even believing the Bible, what makes you assess it as "concious" besides the simple fact that it is implied? What reasons support it?

What do Christians believe?

I don't know, they believe the Bible, and therefore don't need to question it? "Why" becomes irrelevent?

*note*
Normally I wouldn't post while being so tired (it is 4:30 here), but I literally would not be able to sleep if I didn't get this out of my system. These things keep me up at night, so thank you for your replies.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #15 on:** October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM »

"So then everything in the Bible is arbitrary?"

I confess that I'm confused because my remarks would imply the exact opposite, that faith is important because it is the necessary tool for the job.

My point about examining the Bible for information on the 'situation' had to do with how we test the justice and coherency of faith as the mechanism. It isn't about something arbitrary at all. It's about a logical relationship where the 'situation' drives the selection of the appropriate 'mechanism.' You are taking issue with the choice of mechanism but setting aside the analysis of the 'situation.'

"As a side note, the Golden rule (do unto others) is something we are to follow, but He breaks it. Does that not bother you at all?"

Going to pass on this one for now.

"I decided to try and show that everything had a reason behind it. When I got to homosexuality, gender bias and faith, I was stuck. "

That's too bad, because those are the easy ones.

The reason(s) behind pain and suffering are the ones that are hard to understand.

"I think that I got the idea from listening to various priests/pastors/youth group leaders that acted as if things written in the Bible were not arbitrary."

There are some limited examples of things that conceivably might be arbitrary. I would suggest that one 'solution' to your problem is to hold to the view that generally the things in the Bible are not arbitrary, but nonetheless we don't have enough information to sort it all out, proper. Just because we don't know the reasons doesn't mean that there aren't reasons. Where is it written that we have to show what all the reasons are?

A better approach in my opinion is to show that there are enough cases of substance where the reasons can be demonstrated to establish that God is reasonable. Then, in the cases where we can't pinpoint with sniper accuracy what the reasons are, we can float some options and fall back on our confidence that even though we don't know what the reasons are in those particular instances, we nonetheless believe it is very likely that there are reasons. This would be my approach.

Quote

what situation are we in?

Of the two, I select "unconcious."

I confess I don't know what you mean. :) I feel like I'm conscious. :) Can you explain what you mean by this?

"I know you could probably point in the Bible to passages where it would imply "concious", but I'm pretty sure there isn't a single place where it would actually back up the position with any kind of reasoning."

I don't know if I could do this because I don't know what you're talking about. :)

"Even believing the Bible, what makes you assess it as "concious" besides the simple fact that it is implied? What reasons support it?"

Same as above. What are you talking about?

"I don't know, they believe the Bible, and therefore don't need to question it? "Why" becomes irrelevent?"

This is the wrong answer. Have you ever read any GK Chesterton or CS Lewis?

Tony N · « **Reply #16 on:** October 24, 2008, 01:17:29 PM »

Quote from: fematheunicorn on October 14, 2008, 08:57:01 PM

I realize this issue may have been debated a million times by most of you, but despite the hours I

fematheunicorn · « **Reply #17 on:** October 24, 2008, 08:00:49 PM »

First off, I would like to apologize for my misspellings. I thought my spell check was on, and as I am a poor speller, I thought for once I was spelling everything write! Or, right... In any case:

sntjohnny,

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

"So then everything in the Bible is arbitrary?"

I confess that I'm confused because my remarks would imply the exact opposite, that faith is important because it is the necessary tool for the job.

Hm, I should not have used the word arbitrarily so freely. I don't think I can apply the word since I do agree that there could be reasons that we simply don't understand.

Your remarks did imply the opposite, but I honestly don't understand how you have come to that conclusion. Besides the fact that you simply believe God IS good, and that there actually is something to that Bible book.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

My point about examining the Bible for information on the 'situation' had to do with how we test the justice and coherency of faith as the mechanism. It isn't about something arbitrary at all. It's about a logical relationship where the 'situation' drives the selection of the appropriate 'mechanism.' You are taking issue with the choice of mechanism but setting aside the analysis of the 'situation.'

I don't believe at all I set aside the analysis of the situation, did I? I commented on it, and referred to it as "unconscious" (as I was going along with our analogies of drowning or being saved by a rope)The situation is that we are on a tiny rock, and that the vast majority of the intelligent and gifted minds here are of the opinion that the Earth has little to no supporting evidence for what Christians/other religions believe. God doesn't come down and talk to us, we cannot see him, He doesn't make himself clearly known... yet we are supposed to believe in Him. That's the situation.

Yes, and what does the Bible say about why faith is the best mechanism? It condemns non-believers as if there is something morally wrong with unbelief. I don't know how I am supposed to read something like that and make any sense of it. I didn't read it cover to cover (got a little bored with the instructions on what to do with clay pots that menstruating women had sat on), but I have read a lot.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

"As a side note, the Golden rule (do unto others) is something we are to follow, but He breaks it. Does that not bother you at all?"

Going to pass on this one for now.

OK, just curious anyway.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

"I decided to try and show that everything had a reason behind it. When I got to homosexuality, gender bias and faith, I was stuck. "

That's too bad, because those are the easy ones. The reason(s) behind pain and suffering are the ones that are hard to understand.

Wow, you speak with a lot of confidence about that. I would love to hear these 'easy' responses. I would say I should start a new topic, but you already mentioned you had a problem against evaluating moral standards of the scriptures with values outside the scriptures, so I'm not exactly sure how you would do that? Even with the scriptures, how would it end in anything more than "God told us not to, therefore it is wrong"?

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

"I think that I got the idea from listening to various priests/pastors/youth group leaders that acted as if things written in the Bible were not arbitrary."

There are some limited examples of things that conceivably might be arbitrary. I would suggest that one 'solution' to your problem is to hold to the view that generally the things in the Bible are not arbitrary, but nonetheless we don't have enough information to sort it all out, proper. Just because we don't know the reasons doesn't mean that there aren't reasons. Where is it written that we have to show what all the reasons are?

Yes, I will admit that possibility (that we don't have enough information/comprehension, etc), but that certainly doesn't make me want to say "OK, then I'll buy into Christianity while I wait for an answer"

You are right, of course, it makes no claims of the like. However, you see often see commands followed by analogies and reasons. So why not expect to see the same pattern followed more often? Especially on harder-to-grasp concepts? On the non-nonsensical ones we typically get a "This was a disgrace to God" type reasoning, with nothing explaining why it is a disgrace besides "He said not to".

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

A better approach in my opinion is to show that there are enough cases of substance where the reasons can be demonstrated to establish that God is reasonable. Then, in the cases where we can't pinpoint with sniper accuracy what the reasons are, we can float some options and fall back on our confidence that even though we don't know what the reasons are in those particular instances, we nonetheless believe it is very likely that there are reasons. This would be my approach.

I don't follow that logic at all. We could establish God is reasonable sometimes, but how does that carry that he is reasonable all the time? Actually, we see a LOT of unreasonable actions. God doesn't like a country, so he decides it needs to be obliterated, rather than send a savior for it. He floods the world because people weren't doing what he wanted (even though He gave them free will). Oh, but later He sends His only son down to be our savior. His actions, as displayed in the Bible, are sometimes reasonable and sometimes not. Bush is reasonable sometimes... does that mean we shouldn't ask questions and just assume everything he is doing is actually reasonable?

I don't think it's fair to say that anything He does is reasonable, if anything perceived as unreasonable is going to be marked "probably reasonable, we just don't get it" I noticed you saying that Evolution is not falsifiable in another thread. How is it any different than Christianity? It seems you are presenting Christianity as 'not falsifiable' because of all the unknown possibilities for there to be a situation where this all makes sense. When giving room for all these unknowns, don't we also have to make room for less appealing possibilities?

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

what situation are we in?

"Of the two, I select "unconcious."

I confess I don't know what you mean. :) I feel like I'm conscious. :) Can you explain what you mean by this?

I thought it was well established in this conversation that conscious would be referring to the situation that you and End Bringer had described, where unconscious would be the situation (drowning) that I described.

In relation to God, I feel pretty unconscious as I cannot observe Him with any of my, erm, 'God-given' senses.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

"I know you could probably point in the Bible to passages where it would imply "concious", but I'm pretty sure there isn't a single place where it would actually back up the position with any kind of reasoning."

I don't know if I could do this because I don't know what you're talking about. :)

"Even believing the Bible, what makes you assess it as "concious" besides the simple fact that it is implied? What reasons support it?"

Same as above. What are you talking about?

I hope I cleared that up.

Quote from: sntjohnny on October 21, 2008, 08:48:30 PM

"I don't know, they believe the Bible, and therefore don't need to question it? "Why" becomes irrelevent?"

This is the wrong answer. Have you ever read any GK Chesterton or CS Lewis?

Some CS Lewis. I tried to make it through Mere Christianity. Either I'm dense or he didn't make it very clear how he jumped from one assumption to the other. I keep getting told to read it, so I guess I will just go through it. I'm not really sure how the question was relevant, though? I think I was the one asking what Christians believe, as I really don't get it. So I'm not sure why you asked me.

After all of this, I'm still seeing that the answer is going to end up "Because God says so". If you want to include "there could be this instance that would explain everything" well, it's not too much different. I think the answer should just be "We don't/can't know"

Tony N,

I'm not ignoring your response. I'm about to get kicked out of Starbucks so I can't spend the time necessary to process your point and ask questions. lol, why DO these places close?

(I work for sbux, xD)

OK, I've read your reply about six times... I don't see where you attempt to answer the question. You seem to make corrections on my understanding of salvation, but you still admit that faith is necessary in the equation. Even after your response, I still think my question is valid.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #18 on:** October 24, 2008, 11:49:36 PM »

"First off, I would like to apologize for my misspellings."

No reason to apologize. I'll only mention something if you ever claim to be a spelling bee champ. :)

"Your remarks did imply the opposite, but I honestly don't understand how you have come to that conclusion."

Because of the 'situation' we are in.

"Besides the fact that you simply believe God IS good, and that there actually is something to that Bible book."

I am not referencing my belief that God is good or that the Bible is true. This is irrelevant to my point. You don't have to believe that the chopper pilot is good or that the Bible has something to it to understand that you have to reach up there and grab that rope or you're gunna die. There ain't no other way. It isn't arbitrary. It is the logical rescue option for the given situation.

"I don't believe at all I set aside the analysis of the situation, did I?"

You did in one very important sense. You analyzed it from your own frame of reference rather than the frame of reference which posits the 'saving mechanism.' If you're testing the coherency of the position, you have to accept the terms of the argument from beginning to end. Whether or not those terms are valid is a different story.

"Yes, and what does the Bible say about why faith is the best mechanism? It condemns non-believers as if there is something morally wrong with unbelief."

Unbelief would be wrong in the sense that not reaching out and grabbing the dangling rope is wrong. Faith in Jesus is the best mechanism because Jesus is the only way to be saved. If there is any other way, we are unaware of it. I don't believe there is and certainly the Scriptures make that point, too.

"Wow, you speak with a lot of confidence about that. I would love to hear these 'easy' responses."

Some day.

"Yes, I will admit that possibility (that we don't have enough information/comprehension, etc), but that certainly doesn't make me want to say "OK, then I'll buy into Christianity while I wait for an answer""

I wouldn't ask you to. I would ask you to explore whether or not reasons are offered for anything else of importance. If the important ones are 'explained' then you don't need to wait around for everything to be explained before you come on board. I believe the important ones are 'explained.' This carries me through the other ones, including some others like the problem of pain and suffering which is important but difficult.

"So why not expect to see the same pattern followed more often?"

I don't agree that it isn't followed often enough. Perhaps the 'often' is subjective. How 'often' do you require before you are satisfied? Personally, I would be quality over quantity. I think the big ones are there.

"I don't follow that logic at all. We could establish God is reasonable sometimes, but how does that carry that he is reasonable all the time?"

Don't you apply the same reasoning in your daily life? There are people you trust and you trust them because they have been 'reasonable sometimes.' You're not there to watch them all the time, but you are reasonable to believe that they are reasonable at other times because they are reasonable in the times you observe. I'm only asking you to apply to God what you apply in your daily life.

"Actually, we see a LOT of unreasonable actions. God doesn't like a country, so he decides it needs to be obliterated, rather than send a savior for it."

hmmmm, like Jonah? How do you know he doesn't send saviors?

"He floods the world because people weren't doing what he wanted (even though He gave them free will)."

Would you say the same thing about Hitler and the holocaust? Would you have preferred that God stood by and did nothing as the Jews were rounded up and slaughtered? I'm going to guess you'll say 'no.' So do you want God to intervene or not? He flooded the world not just because people chose to play chess when he wanted to play scrabble. It says that the people were pretty nasty. You don't think God should do something about human nastiness?

"I don't think it's fair to say that anything He does is reasonable, if anything perceived as unreasonable is going to be marked "probably reasonable, we just don't get it""

That's fair enough. It goes back to the general preponderance of the evidence. You lamented about God not sending saviors to countries but that is exactly what Jonah was. Maybe your list of 'perceived as unreasonable' items is not a fair list.

"It seems you are presenting Christianity as 'not falsifiable' because of all the unknown possibilities for there to be a situation where this all makes sense. When giving room for all these unknowns, don't we also have to make room for less appealing possibilities?"

Very good. You've got potential.

The problem is that you think there are a whole host of 'unknown possibilities.' I don't agree with that. For example, I don't think it is 'unknown' at all as to why faith saves. Faith saves because it was the only tool for the job. It is not unknown why God just slaughters countries without 'sending saviors.' It is demonstrable that he did just that in several cases. It is not unknown why God created marriage to be between a man and a woman- he wanted godly offspring (Malachi 2). Hard to generate offspring apart from the cooperation of a man and a woman, ya know? You think you've got a huge list of 'unknowns' and are operating on the assumption that just because you don't know the answers, no one does. In fact, to this point in the conversation, you have yet to raise an issue which I didn't feel was satisfactorily addressed within the Christian worldview.

"I thought it was well established in this conversation that conscious would be referring to the situation that you and End Bringer had described, where unconscious would be the situation (drowning) that I described."

Ok, now I'm with you. My bad.

"In relation to God, I feel pretty unconscious as I cannot observe Him with any of my, erm, 'God-given' senses."

I'm not sure that unconscious would be the word. Perhaps 'blind' would be better. But you raise an interesting and important point. Your 'unconsciousness' has nothing to do with your inability to observe Him. Even Adam and Eve before they fell into sin could not have observed Him. God is a transcendent agent. If you ever expected that you might possibly observe him then your expectations were always out of line.

"I think I was the one asking what Christians believe, as I really don't get it. So I'm not sure why you asked me. [about Lewis and Chesterton]

How about because they were Christians?

Both men had reason to believe that aspects of Christianity were reasonable and they didn't fall back on the Bible "Just Because" nor did they heavily rely on 'free will.' I think you should check them both out as a good start into what Christians believe. Chesterton's 'Orthodoxy' should be high on your list. If Lewis's Mere Christianity is confusing, try his collection of essays, "God in the Dock."

Tony N · « **Reply #19 on:** October 26, 2008, 06:05:05 AM »

Quote from: fematheunicorn on October 14, 2008, 08:57:01 PM

My question- to Christians believing that belief, or faith, is the only way to receive salvation- is as follows:

Why should belief or faith be used to determine who goes to Heaven?

I would like the answer to address the justification in judgment being based off of something that does not display free will if possible.

Thank you.

First of all not all who have faith go to heaven in the oncoming eons (the 1000 year reign of Christ on the earth and new earth eon).
One group, the Circumcision believers, remain on the earth and enter the kingdom OF the heavens that is to be set up by Christ on the earth.

The other group, the Uncircumcision believers, meet Christ in the air and their realm is inherrent in the heavens.

Now to your question.
"God is the saviour of all mankind, especially of believers" (1 Timothy 4:10). Especially does not mean "exclusively." Believers get a special salvation prior to God saving the rest of mankind.

But why does God base the saving of any individual on faith? The bible says: "It is of faith that it may accord with grace" Rom.4:16. What does this mean? How is faith in harmony or in accord with grace? How does this prove a non-free-willistic approach to faith? Well, grace is not worked for. It is gratuitously given, not out of works else if it is worked for then works is no longer grace. Think about that last statement. Read that in Romans 11:6.

First of all we are saved by Christ's faith. Christ's faith saves mankind. (Romans 11:22; Gal.3:22).

God then gives, to specified individuals who are set for life in the coming eons, faith to be believing that Christ died for their sins.

Why is faith used to determine who is saved in the coming eons? I guess it is to show the saved that they could not possibly have believed Christ dying for their sins apart from God giving them the grace and therefore faith to see it.
The unbelievers do not exhibit faith. God has not given them faith to believe.

The apostle Paul says if one believes this is proof of their salvation

Phi 1:28 and not being startled by those who are opposing in anything, which is to them a proof of destruction, yet of your salvation, and this from God,
Phi 1:29 for to you it is graciously granted, for Christ's sake, not only to be believing on Him, but to be suffering for His sake also,

Why does God save mankind through Christ's faith? Why did Christ have to have faith to believe God that He would not just die for the sins of the world but that God would rouse Him from the dead? His faith undoes Adam's unfaith or unbelief (same Greek word). Christ's faith is then given to be human by God to believe and trust God for their salvation.

That faith saves us during this life by walking a well pleasing life to God and saves us for the oncoming eons. Yet there is nothing free-will about it.

Am I getting closer to answering your question?
Tony

Author Topic: Why is belief important to God? (Read 2047 times)