Foundations In Faith

[JamesInFlorida]

Nobody on the face of the Earth knows whether god exists or not.

How do you know that God's existence is unknowable? Doesn't your sentence above claiming knowledge about God - knowledge which ought to be impossible by your own theory? You are contradicting yourself.

I never claimed knowledge in god-I claimed I was convinced there was a god. Those are two very different things. For example when i was a child I was convinced that there was a Santa Clause-I didn't know there was a Santa Clause. People used to be convinced that the sun orbited the Earth-they didn't know it did.

There's a distinction between those two words, and the fact that you made the statement that I claimed I had knowledge of god-I'm convinced (but don't know) that you can't distinguish the difference between knowledge and convinced.

On top of that:

How do you know god's knowledge is possible?

 

[emilynghiem]

Why is it so difficult for those of "Faith" to, at some point in their lives, re-examine the foundations of their faith.

Born again is not a re-evaluation of religion....We are not talking about simply agreeing to confirm what you already believe.

The churches have had to back peddle several times over the centuries to account for science. They have in fact had to re-examine their own foundations. These enlightenment's have resulted in a change of the interpretations previously held sacred.

Point being that even at the top there has been numerous precedent of the practice of religion taking another honest look at itself. Why then is it so forbidden for the individual to stop somewhere along their life and take an honest hard look at what they believe.

Do you as a Christian or a Muslim ever take another look at your religion?

Dear HUGGY: To reply to your original message, as a believer in the principles in Buddhism, Christianity, and Constitutionalism, I use all three sets of laws and teachings to check each other and themselves. Whatever one system fails to catch and correct, the others provide insight and backing to stay on track. Where all agree in truth, that is where I find universal application. I believe all religions would be better checked by following Constititional principles of equal protection of freedoms, expression, and petitioning/due process to resolve conflicts. If we resolved conflicts or issues at the root, we would not be so divided over class, race, religion or economics but would be better able to work together to solve problems no matter what background or affiliation we have. All laws and principles are fulfilled where we agree in truth. And any conflict between any group or laws can lead to resolving deeper internal issues instead of blaming them on outside conflict with others. So we can check and balance ourselves by interacting and sharing diversely.

 

[Tetracide]

I never claimed knowledge in god-I claimed I was convinced there was a god. Those are two very different things.

What I was arguing was that by saying "no one knows whether God exists or not" presupposes that knowledge of God is possible. That's what you said. By saying that, you are claiming to know a characteristic of God (i.e. his ability to be known).

How do you know god's knowledge is possible?

Your questions rests on a false premise of God's existence, so I can't answer your question. But let me say that I am not required to prove that God does not exist, for if you fail to prove God’s existence, then my case has been made. Proof is the responsibility of those asserting the existence of something, not those denying it. The burden of proof is on you.

If people wish to believe in God, I don't care much, so long as they are honest about the lack of rational justification for their belief. But to distort the rules of reasoning used so well everyday for the sake of putting a rational veneer on that belief is wrong - and, well, stupid.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Tetra and Mini 14:
I believe proof of God is relative, depends on definition of what aspect you are equating with God, and on agreement between people.

Two scientist may agree on proof of some truth, but another may disagree with the evidence or bias, so the proof depends on resolving this where all the scientists agree on a true conclusion.

Two Christians may agree on some justification based on Scripture, but another may disagree with interpretation, and say God's truth means something else, not what they said. So again, these conflicts would have to be resolved for there to be agreement on the truth established within that framework.

On a larger scale, in order to establish proof of one truth between and among DIFFERING groups and frames of references, despite our differences we would still have to agree that there is one truth one source behind all these different manifestations and expressions.

I already believe that, the same God or source of life and truth, whatever or however you call life or the laws of nature or the universe, is reflected in all these different ways, from religion to science. Any conflicts arise because we have not resolved all the contradictions.
But as we make corrections, then all systems can be used consistently to define the same universal laws and reflect the same God.

God can mean different things to different people.
But can we agree all these representations point to the same source,
and there is universal truth no matter how diverse the relative expressions
and perceptions of this are.

I believe we can reach such a consensus by first
a. defining what are the different concepts or meanings of God
b. agreeing on what is the good or bad use or applications of these things,
what are the common purposes or goals that we agree are good and worth achieving
c. agreeing how we should act in order to achieve these common goals and purposes

We can do this without imposing judgment on each other's ways,
but using all approaches in the best way possible to achieve the greatest good.

I believe the drive to seek truth, good faith relations with others, and greater good will for all is what God's will means. I believe this good will, based on love of truth and justice but with merciful peace and charity, overcomes anything divisive or contrary that would otherwise obstruct us from establishing one truth, which includes all ways and all people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is it so difficult for those of "Faith" to, at some point in their lives, re-examine the foundations of their faith.

Born again is not a re-evaluation of religion....We are not talking about simply agreeing to confirm what you already believe.

The churches have had to back peddle several times over the centuries to account for science. They have in fact had to re-examine their own foundations. These enlightenment's have resulted in a change of the interpretations previously held sacred.

Point being that even at the top there has been numerous precedent of the practice of religion taking another honest look at itself. Why then is it so forbidden for the individual to stop somewhere along their life and take an honest hard look at what they believe.

Do you as a Christian or a Muslim ever take another look at your religion?

I'd like very much to hear one of these "backpedals", as you call them. Can you name me one time that Biblical doctrine has had to change due to science? I'll bet money what you're going to give me is a an occurrence of accepted science having to change due to new info, and try to present it as a change in religious doctrine.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Oh so you've read these books now? Amazing considering that less than a year ago you complained about how reading was a waste of time. In fact, we had a long detailed subject about it.

Have you or have you not had an experience with the Spiritual? If you have, why deny it? And if not then who the heck are you to lecture the rest of us on your lack of knowledge?

Yes., Don't believe everything you think you see on the internet. Sometimes I exaggerate when making a point. Even a metaphor is a form of exaggeration. Try not to get lost. I believe I said I write more than I read. That is a ridiculous statement in that writing requires about a hundred times more reading(proofing, editing and researching) than writing.

In my late teens and early twenties I did exhaustive investigation into the philosophies and religions. I developed my own path after looking into what other people subscribed to. I was also brought up a protestant episcopalian and attended church including bible classes from age birth til I was 14. This was not by choice but I went along with it for the sake of peace in my family. For you to try to make this thread about your opinion about my lack of knowledge is a shallow diversion from the question I pose in the OP.

If you cannot conduct a responsible discussion because I am a formidable opponent to your faith just admit it or don't participate.

Do I attack organized religion? Of course I do. With a vengeance. Am I doing that on this thread? No..I am attempting to look at the bigger picture of re-evaluation within religion and point out that it is a historical fact that is juxtaposed to the blind faith of the followers.

Someone thinks a lot of himself apparently. It's also apparent that you haven't set foot in a church in many, many years.

I'd be curious to know how often HUGGY conducts a re-examination and re-evaluation of HIS beliefs. I'm betting he only thinks that's necessary for people he disagrees with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I evaluate almost everything I experience.

I have yet to see anything, anything at all, that would make me question the existence of God, or the reality of my faith.

He is real, He is risen, and you are wrong

You have nothing to prove the existence of God. The burden of proof is on you, the believer.

Only if we feel compelled to justify our belief to you, and who the hell are you that we should feel the need to justify ANYTHING to you?

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Why do you presume we've never reexamined it?

Moreover, you claim to not have had spiritual experiences. Why on earth should I discount my personal experiences because your lack thereof? If you question whether math exists, and I understand geometry, why the heck should i continually ask whether math exists because you don't put in the effort to understand? And why should I listen to someone who admits they have no knowledge and experience in the matter as some sort of authority on the matter?

It's not like God is preventing any of us from coming to know Him. It just requires effort and open mindedness.

What makes you think I have no knowledge on the subject? Just because I reject it totally? Does that have to mean I haven't read ALL of the commonly known references to the Christians, Mormons and Muslims? Obviously since I labored through those books nearly 40, 10 and 40 years ago respectively I don't remember much of it word for word. If you read War and Peace 40 years ago you probably couldn't quote any of it either. You would still remember what the book was about.

But this thread isn't about me as you obviously missed the point. The POINT is that organized religion has had to re think much of what it once believed and even tortured and murdered people for not subscribing to. The Muslims still kill other Muslims for not adhering to their interpretations of the supposed words of Mohammad and according to him god.

I have noticed that some cling mindlessly to "faith" as the answer to everything they do not personally agree with in their religion. They do not question obvious nonsense even though the church has called bullshit on its own teachings from time to time. So do these followers have more "faith" than the Pope?

I think this is an honest question looking at religion as a whole and how it has changed at the top. It seems to me that all scripture interpretation by the leaders of the churches must be perfect according to many. So it begs the question why the apology to Galileo? If he was wrong ..then he was wrong.

Or do you endorse re-evaluating what you have faith in?

Is it possible to mindlessly cling to anything ?

 

[HUGGY]

Yes., Don't believe everything you think you see on the internet. Sometimes I exaggerate when making a point. Even a metaphor is a form of exaggeration. Try not to get lost. I believe I said I write more than I read. That is a ridiculous statement in that writing requires about a hundred times more reading(proofing, editing and researching) than writing.

In my late teens and early twenties I did exhaustive investigation into the philosophies and religions. I developed my own path after looking into what other people subscribed to. I was also brought up a protestant episcopalian and attended church including bible classes from age birth til I was 14. This was not by choice but I went along with it for the sake of peace in my family. For you to try to make this thread about your opinion about my lack of knowledge is a shallow diversion from the question I pose in the OP.

If you cannot conduct a responsible discussion because I am a formidable opponent to your faith just admit it or don't participate.

Do I attack organized religion? Of course I do. With a vengeance. Am I doing that on this thread? No..I am attempting to look at the bigger picture of re-evaluation within religion and point out that it is a historical fact that is juxtaposed to the blind faith of the followers.

Someone thinks a lot of himself apparently. It's also apparent that you haven't set foot in a church in many, many years.

I'd be curious to know how often HUGGY conducts a re-examination and re-evaluation of HIS beliefs. I'm betting he only thinks that's necessary for people he disagrees with.

In the event I witness a biblical hallucination, hear a voice identifying itself as god or see a body pop up out of a grave you would probably not be the first person I report it to.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do you presume we've never reexamined it?

Moreover, you claim to not have had spiritual experiences. Why on earth should I discount my personal experiences because your lack thereof? If you question whether math exists, and I understand geometry, why the heck should i continually ask whether math exists because you don't put in the effort to understand? And why should I listen to someone who admits they have no knowledge and experience in the matter as some sort of authority on the matter?

It's not like God is preventing any of us from coming to know Him. It just requires effort and open mindedness.

What makes you think I have no knowledge on the subject? Just because I reject it totally? Does that have to mean I haven't read ALL of the commonly known references to the Christians, Mormons and Muslims? Obviously since I labored through those books nearly 40, 10 and 40 years ago respectively I don't remember much of it word for word. If you read War and Peace 40 years ago you probably couldn't quote any of it either. You would still remember what the book was about.

But this thread isn't about me as you obviously missed the point. The POINT is that organized religion has had to re think much of what it once believed and even tortured and murdered people for not subscribing to. The Muslims still kill other Muslims for not adhering to their interpretations of the supposed words of Mohammad and according to him god.

I have noticed that some cling mindlessly to "faith" as the answer to everything they do not personally agree with in their religion. They do not question obvious nonsense even though the church has called bullshit on its own teachings from time to time. So do these followers have more "faith" than the Pope?

I think this is an honest question looking at religion as a whole and how it has changed at the top. It seems to me that all scripture interpretation by the leaders of the churches must be perfect according to many. So it begs the question why the apology to Galileo? If he was wrong ..then he was wrong.

Or do you endorse re-evaluating what you have faith in?

Is it possible to mindlessly cling to anything ?

Huggy mindlessly clings to the belief that he's automatically smarter than religious people.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Someone thinks a lot of himself apparently. It's also apparent that you haven't set foot in a church in many, many years.

I'd be curious to know how often HUGGY conducts a re-examination and re-evaluation of HIS beliefs. I'm betting he only thinks that's necessary for people he disagrees with.

In the event I witness a biblical hallucination, hear a voice identifying itself as god or see a body pop up out of a grave you would probably not be the first person I report it to.

Ahhh, so I was correct. You only believe that religious people should re-consider and re-evaluate their beliefs. YOU, on the other hand, can just pick your beliefs and cruise on through the rest of your life without ever thinking again. Right?

 

[HUGGY]

I'd be curious to know how often HUGGY conducts a re-examination and re-evaluation of HIS beliefs. I'm betting he only thinks that's necessary for people he disagrees with.

In the event I witness a biblical hallucination, hear a voice identifying itself as god or see a body pop up out of a grave you would probably not be the first person I report it to.

Ahhh, so I was correct. You only believe that religious people should re-consider and re-evaluate their beliefs. YOU, on the other hand, can just pick your beliefs and cruise on through the rest of your life without ever thinking again. Right?

I wouldn't put it in those exact sarcastic terms but essentially...yes. I am willing to accept that there is a god when one shows up.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

I never claimed knowledge in god-I claimed I was convinced there was a god. Those are two very different things.

What I was arguing was that by saying "no one knows whether God exists or not" presupposes that knowledge of God is possible. That's what you said. By saying that, you are claiming to know a characteristic of God (i.e. his ability to be known).

How do you know god's knowledge is possible?

Your questions rests on a false premise of God's existence, so I can't answer your question. But let me say that I am not required to prove that God does not exist, for if you fail to prove God’s existence, then my case has been made. Proof is the responsibility of those asserting the existence of something, not those denying it. The burden of proof is on you.

If people wish to believe in God, I don't care much, so long as they are honest about the lack of rational justification for their belief. But to distort the rules of reasoning used so well everyday for the sake of putting a rational veneer on that belief is wrong - and, well, stupid.

So you're saying that my statement of "no one knows whether God exists or not", isn't accurate-because of lack of ability to prove god exists. Reread my statement again-because that was the point of my statement. It rests on the uncertainty of god's existence. It's impossible to prove if there is a god-I clearly state that by saying no one knows if there's a god. You're just strawmanning right now.

I never claimed to have knowledge of god's existence. I know you like to box in every god-believing person, and I understand that you can't distinguish the words "convinced" and "know". But when you call others stupid-yet you've put words in their mouths that don't exist...you really lose credibility.

And whereas there's no scientific proof in existence of god (and I fully admit this), you can't reasonably claim that in order to prove something you have to prove it exists, and not that it doesn't exist.

edit: For example in science you deal with the null hypothesis hands on in order to prove your hypothesis. Not the other way around. But with all your big words I'm sure you were well aware of this simple formality when it comes to science.

 

[Gadawg73]

I evaluate almost everything I experience.

I have yet to see anything, anything at all, that would make me question the existence of God, or the reality of my faith.

He is real, He is risen, and you are wrong

I respect that but that is opinion only.
You can never disprove my belief in God.
You can never prove the existence of God.
Beliefs are not fact with religion.

 

[kwc57]

In the event I witness a biblical hallucination, hear a voice identifying itself as god or see a body pop up out of a grave you would probably not be the first person I report it to.

Ahhh, so I was correct. You only believe that religious people should re-consider and re-evaluate their beliefs. YOU, on the other hand, can just pick your beliefs and cruise on through the rest of your life without ever thinking again. Right?

I wouldn't put it in those exact sarcastic terms but essentially...yes. I am willing to accept that there is a god when one shows up.

You know, the thing about free will is that you have to seek something to find it.......it doesn't just fall in your lap.

 

[HUGGY]

I was just reading in another thread and came across one of the more common "back peddalings" in faith. That was posted by Care4All about the 6 or 7 days of creation. In her post she mentioned how people take a "day" too literally. Rubbish! If the old testament is the literal word of God then you cannot take it too literally. God says "6 days"...he means six days. He didn't say "ya...but a day really means a billion years". Now-a-days only a handful of Christians actually believe the heavens and the earth were created literally in 6 days.

What happened to the faith? Is "Faith" not all encompassing? Is "Faith" not absolute?

Can Christians just nibble away at the word of God when it suits them and still think of themselves as having faith in God?

 

[Gadawg73]

The one that is the most absurd to me is the gay boogeyman issue. If there is one issue that makes a large % of American Christians look ridiculous is this issue where they believe homosexuality is an abomination and a sin.
But the Bible also states not to eat hog sammiches and not be a glutton as those are also sins.
But being queer is a larger sin to these clowns while they eat hog sammiches all they want, smoke, drink "sweet tea" and get fat.
Yet Jesus no where says anything about gays, faggots or anything.
After many years as Baptist, Methodist and others I now attend a non denominational open door church that accepts anyone and does not judge anyone.
Isn't that supposed to be GOD'S job anyway?

 

[JoReba]

Why is it so difficult for those of "Faith" to, at some point in their lives, re-examine the foundations of their faith.

Born again is not a re-evaluation of religion....We are not talking about simply agreeing to confirm what you already believe.

The churches have had to back peddle several times over the centuries to account for science. They have in fact had to re-examine their own foundations. These enlightenment's have resulted in a change of the interpretations previously held sacred.

Point being that even at the top there has been numerous precedent of the practice of religion taking another honest look at itself. Why then is it so forbidden for the individual to stop somewhere along their life and take an honest hard look at what they believe.

Do you as a Christian or a Muslim ever take another look at your religion?

What makes you think it is "forbidden" for people to reexamine their personal and crporate Faith?

 

[HUGGY]

Why is it so difficult for those of "Faith" to, at some point in their lives, re-examine the foundations of their faith.

Born again is not a re-evaluation of religion....We are not talking about simply agreeing to confirm what you already believe.

The churches have had to back peddle several times over the centuries to account for science. They have in fact had to re-examine their own foundations. These enlightenment's have resulted in a change of the interpretations previously held sacred.

Point being that even at the top there has been numerous precedent of the practice of religion taking another honest look at itself. Why then is it so forbidden for the individual to stop somewhere along their life and take an honest hard look at what they believe.

Do you as a Christian or a Muslim ever take another look at your religion?

What makes you think it is "forbidden" for people to reexamine their personal and crporate Faith?

I see it frequently that those of "faith" resist any examination. Perhaps they don't feel this is the appropriate forum to do so. Perhaps it is the manner in which their faith is questioned. This is just a place to discuss that topic. Nothing more or less.

 

[xsited1]

Why is it so difficult for those of "Faith" to, at some point in their lives, re-examine the foundations of their faith.

Born again is not a re-evaluation of religion....We are not talking about simply agreeing to confirm what you already believe.

The churches have had to back peddle several times over the centuries to account for science. They have in fact had to re-examine their own foundations. These enlightenment's have resulted in a change of the interpretations previously held sacred.

Point being that even at the top there has been numerous precedent of the practice of religion taking another honest look at itself. Why then is it so forbidden for the individual to stop somewhere along their life and take an honest hard look at what they believe.

Do you as a Christian or a Muslim ever take another look at your religion?

This doesn't just happen with religion, but politics and science (just to name two others) as well. It's human nature. (Isn't that obvious???)