Unquestioning faith Mod Warning in final post

antiskeptic · 12-05-2017 08:59PM

smacl wrote: »

Again your pointing the accusatory finger at science for the faults of commerce and big business. Why? Big business lacks scruples. Big business benefits from its investment in science and unfairly profits from the poor as a result.

What part of bent scientists do you not understand? By "bent" I mean in some or other way in the pocket of scruple-lacking corporations? You seem to be arguing that it's societies fault that the system is rigged that way and that poor little ol scientists are forced to bend so as to put food on the table.

That is ... the Nuremberg Defence.

smacl · 13-05-2017 10:52AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

What part of bent scientists do you not understand? By "bent" I mean in some or other way in the pocket of scruple-lacking corporations? You seem to be arguing that it's societies fault that the system is rigged that way and that poor little ol scientists are forced to bend so as to put food on the table.

Ah yes, science is clearly at fault because big pharma employ some scientists. They also employ some accounts, so accountancy is at fault (money being the root of all evil). They also employ sales people, so selling and commerce in general is also evil. I daresay they also employ cleaning staff too, so while you might think cleanliness is next to godliness, not any more.

That is ... the Nuremberg Defence.

I can see the trial now, with the scientist in the dock. Yes your honour, I did invent a new cure for cancer. And (sobs) I was on a salary while doing it.

Your line of argument is so absurd it would make a committed Luddite blush.

antiskeptic · 13-05-2017 11:20AM

smacl wrote: »

Ah yes, science is clearly at fault because big pharma employ some scientists.

What's this constant reference to "science" as if it's something separate to the people who are a fundamental component of it. Science gets bent if the scientists are bent.

Can you address the problem instead of wriggling around it? Bent scientists is a problem for the scientific endeavor. And the problem can't be deflected away from the bent scientists by the Nuremberg Defence.

Your line of argument is so absurd it would make a committed Luddite blush.

Citing the successes of science isn't a way of dealing with the failings of science.

Can you halt with the mid-direction and face into the problem? It's as if your so committed to science that you can't accept any flaw at all in it. That's religion of the worst possible kind.

smacl · 13-05-2017 11:49AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Citing the successes of science isn't a way of dealing with the failings of science.

And dismissing the benefits of science with an erroneous link to the failings of big business is?

Can you halt with the mid-direction and face into the problem? It's as if your so committed to science that you can't accept any flaw at all in it. That's religion of the worst possible kind.

Science is merely a method to help us better understand the physical world and improve our lot as a result. While it is very different to religion, in that it is open to questioning, criticism and revision, and the two do not form a spectrum. Unlike religion, it does not demand faith or commitment. As for the worst kind of religion, I'd say that would be fundamentalism, which seems to be where your argument is taking you.

antiskeptic · 13-05-2017 11:57AM

smacl wrote: »

And dismissing the benefits of science with an erroneous link to the failings of big business is?

I've pointed out a problem. The extent of the problem is another, not yet determined issue

You haven't substantiated what's erroneous about the problem: bent scientists make bent science.

Science is merely a method to help us better understand the physical world and improve our lot as a result. While it is very different to religion, in that it is open to questioning, criticism and revision...

You obviously haven't heard of theology..

and the two do not form a spectrum. Unlike religion, it does not demand faith or commitment.

You seem committed. You're trying to absolve science by placing the blame on big business, politics ... anything but the bent scientists bending science. It's an astonishing expression of faith that - prepared to defend the indefensible...

smacl · 13-05-2017 12:30PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've pointed out a problem. The extent of the problem is another, not yet determined issue

You haven't substantiated what's erroneous about the problem: bent scientists make bent science.

Total nonsense. Look at what you're saying and how your mis-apportioning blame as a result. Science gets bent if the scientists are bent. You could replace science and scientist with anyone involved any field of endeavour. e.g. saying Teaching gets bent if teachers are bent does not suggest anything wrong with teaching per se, it only does so about bent teachers. We assume however most teachers aren't bent, similarly most scientists, unless of course you happen to be some conspiracy theorist.

You seem committed. You're trying to absolve science by placing the blame on big business, politics ... anything but the bent scientists bending science. It's an astonishing expression of faith that - prepared to defend the indefensible...

I'm not trying to absolve science of anything as it is simply a method by which we learn. How people use or abuse it says nothing whatsoever about science, merely about those people. In the context of the OP it does not seek unquestioning faith as the conclusions we arrive at using scientific method are demonstrable and repeatable.

Gael23 · 19-05-2017 09:16PM

I was going to post something similar. I posted in another thread about a family I know who are about to bury the second of their children, one tragically and another died from a sudden illness few years ago.
When you see such a decent and well respected family have such misery come to their door it does make you question your faith.

EirWatchr · 20-05-2017 09:58AM

Gael23 wrote: »

I was going to post something similar. I posted in another thread about a family I know who are about to bury the second of their children, one tragically and another died from a sudden illness few years ago.
When you see such a decent and well respected family have such misery come to their door it does make you question your faith.

My family has experienced similar.
Please be aware of an option that most parishes have now - Bethany bereavement groups, that offer support to (no matter how long after) anyone might feel the need of it.

Gael23 · 21-05-2017 07:03PM

EirWatchr wrote: »

My family has experienced similar.
Please be aware of an option that most parishes have now - Bethany bereavement groups, that offer support to (no matter how long after) anyone might feel the need of it.

I'm not so much talking about grief but it's just not fair. No parent should have to bury a child but to have to bury two in such circumstances is horrendous.

J C · 22-05-2017 09:59PM

Gael23 wrote: »

I was going to post something similar. I posted in another thread about a family I know who are about to bury the second of their children, one tragically and another died from a sudden illness few years ago.
When you see such a decent and well respected family have such misery come to their door it does make you question your faith.

Very sad situation. This could test people's faith in God allright.
However, death is an ever-present reality in our world that was introduced by the Fall of Mankind ... and sadly, we all ultimately die ... some at a younger age ... and others at an older age.

EirWatchr · 23-05-2017 11:55PM

Gael23 wrote: »

No parent should have to bury a child but to have to bury two in such circumstances is horrendous.

I can't speak to the particulars of the situation. However..

J C - Saying everyone's death is inevitable, just a matter of when, is no comfort (quite the opposite) to someone dealing with the death of a child.

Gael23 wrote: »

I'm not so much talking about grief but it's just not fair.

Shock, anger, and questioning are all natural emotional stages of grief in bereavement.

But support is the only really good, fruitful (i.e., Christian) response available to us (and the bereaved) in times of tragedy.

"There are many goods, after all, that cannot exist without certain evils. Generosity cannot exist without need. [..] But these moral perfections cannot really exist, let alone be known to exist, without opportunity for their action. [..] But we needn't say that an unhappy death for innocent sufferers in this world is the end of their story. Why not say instead that this life, which is natural to us, and shaped by our own shortcomings, is both an opportunity to learn what sort of happiness we can cobble together by our own efforts and also a time to strive for a life better than any we could contrive for ourselves?"

- Michael Augros, Who Designed the Designer?

J C · 24-05-2017 07:54AM

EirWatchr wrote: »

I can't speak to the particulars of the situation. However..

J C - Saying everyone's death is inevitable, just a matter of when, is no comfort (quite the opposite) to someone dealing with the death of a child.

Again, I can't speak for every circumstance ... but when one of our children died, it was a great comfort to know that they had gone to a better place.

looksee · 24-05-2017 01:47PM

On the other hand, when one of our children died at 14 months after a distressing illness for all his short life, it did not help at all, in any way, when people insisted on assuring me that 'now you have a little angel in heaven', in spite of their good intentions.

EirWatchr · 24-05-2017 04:58PM

looksee wrote: »

it did not help at all, in any way, when people insisted on assuring me that 'now you have a little angel in heaven', in spite of their good intentions.

Sorry to hear that.

You acknowledge they were well-meaning. Just wondering: did you make them aware their efforts were not being helpful to you (- did they know you didn’t share their faith?)

looksee · 24-05-2017 06:55PM

EirWatchr wrote: »

Sorry to hear that.

You acknowledge they were well-meaning. Just wondering: did you make them aware their efforts were not being helpful to you (- did they know you didn’t share their faith?)

No, I had more on my mind than sorting out other people's faith faux pas. And the people who say that sort of thing are often more concerned about their own feelings than anyone else's, and generally would not have a clue what you were talking about. This was, in fairness, 40 years ago when people really had no idea that there were other beliefs than their own.

hinault · 29-05-2017 01:48PM

Safehands wrote: »

Having been brought up in a Catholic family, I learned about religion from my parents, my teachers and the clergy. I had a relatively strong faith until my late 20's. A couple of events occurred which led me to question my faith.
Today, I don't believe that the God we learned about as children, actually exists. Having said that, I do believe that the general message of Christianity, regarding the way we should live our lives, is a good one.
I enjoy debating religion on this forum, with intelligent people, who have different views to me. I feel quite secure in my certainty that logically, the Biblical stories cannot be true. There are too many contradictions, too many holes which can be picked apart. Having said that I don't discount the possibility of some form of life after death, just not the life after death taught to us as Catholic children.

Recently, I visited a friend who has been told she has less than six weeks to live. This lady, in her late twenties, has always had a very strong Christian faith. I listened to her talk about the journey she is about to undertake. She told me about the friends and loved ones she is going to meet again, people who have gone before her. Her genuine belief, that she is going to a better place, is both humbling and thought provoking. It has not inspired me to have a Road to Damascus conversion, but it has certainly made me think in a way I have not thought before.

It has made me ask a question: When I am in her position, as I probably will be some day, would I prefer to have her mindset or mine? A certainty that I will meet my deceased family and friends again or probable oblivion where I will never meet a loved one again? The answer is rather obvious.
This woman has a great gift, she has won the lotto.

It occurs to me that there are two types of logic. The logic that tells me that the Biblical stories and Christian beliefs cannot be true and the logic that tells me that when I am on my deathbed I will be better with her unquestioning faith, than with my lack of it.

What events occurred to make you cease to have faith / belief in God's existence?

hinault · 29-05-2017 01:58PM

Unquestioning faith is the title of the thread.

Personally I think it is a misnomer to suggest that faith is unquestioning. If anything faith requires questioning, constant questioning.

"Lord, I believe, help my unbelief"

hinault · 29-05-2017 03:29PM

Steve012 wrote: »

Good post, the catholic church made a mess of things saying e.g "kiss that girl and you'll go to hell" eh sure man right on!

They pretty much used Fear the whole time, especially the older generations will tell you tales of woe when they were in school.

What if its like this though, a lot of folk know that frequency is everything. We are all made up of frequencies.
The human heart is a very powerful frequency transmitter/receiver.
There's a lot of talk about "God" being infinite consciousness. Infinite consciousness cannot hold any negativity, a pure loving all knowing consciousness.

I believe when we pass we re join infinite consciousness. Not a lot of humans can experience it here on the planet because we are affected by duality.
We can NEVER be free of sin on this planet, impossible.

Say if one went to confession, "cleared their sins" on the way out of the church there's a wedding going to begin, a lot of ladies dressed very well, some in short skirts and low cut tops, your neighbours wife happens to be among them, in the shortest skirt and the lowest top and she is very pretty.
Most hot blooded males would look a think... you guys get the picture. So hey .. I've basically just sinned again, seeing as I have my own wife and this is my neighbours.

I believe Yeshua came to show us and keep us on the right side of duality.
Right side of duality " Love your neighbour as yourself"
Wrong side, "Kill the <snip> and take his land"

I've been looking researching and studying this topic out of interest for years now. And I didn't come from a catholic background.

Ah we'll all know one day anyway

The underlined bit interests me.

Unfortunately lots of people dress very inappropriately when attending church. A church is a place of worship, it is literally God's house. And as such one should try to dress as well as their means allow them, when entering God's house.

Dressing in inappropriate attire is an issue. Therefore if people have any respect for God, and for themselves, they should dress modestly when visiting a church.

But even aside from this, yes a man will look at a woman and, if she is virtually undressed this will attract a certain type of man (men). We are human and we have the gift of sexuality.

Lustful thoughts can lead to inappropriate behaviour. Therefore what the Bible is teaching is simply this, avoid situations where lustful thoughts do occur, because lustful thoughts could lead to lustful behaviour.

EirWatchr · 30-05-2017 05:01PM

hinault wrote: »

Unquestioning faith is the title of the thread.

Personally I think it is a misnomer to suggest that faith is unquestioning. If anything faith requires questioning, constant questioning.

"Lord, I believe, help my unbelief"

I think it’s still a misleading use of the word “questioning”, though I agree with the sentiment you are expressing.

The OP actually expressed questioning in terms of a “lack of faith”, that is, questioning whether to believe at all in the truth of Christ’s message (in particular, his promise of eternal life.)

The sense of “questioning faith” as held by people who live that faith is (as Anselm put it) a “faith seeking understanding”, which assumes there is an understanding to be had through living in faith, and so from what God chooses to reveal to us over time (through public and private, or prayerful revelation) rather than by human efforts alone to attain understanding.

But “lack of faith” implies a questioning that puts any application of faith (i.e., living that faith in Christ through prayer, study, worship, charity, etc.) into abeyance until sufficient reason is arrived at first to practice faith.

That kind of questioning can be a ransom held to avoid the assent of faith, even if the desire for faith is present. So any understanding that may be achievable through faith itself is rendered inaccessible to someone all the while they are “questioning faith”.

hinault · 31-05-2017 12:13AM

EirWatchr wrote: »

I think it?s still a misleading use of the word ?questioning?, though I agree with the sentiment you are expressing.

The OP actually expressed questioning in terms of a ?lack of faith?, that is, questioning whether to believe at all in the truth of Christ?s message (in particular, his promise of eternal life.)

The sense of ?questioning faith? as held by people who live that faith is (as Anselm put it) a ?faith seeking understanding?, which assumes there is an understanding to be had through living in faith, and so from what God chooses to reveal to us over time (through public and private, or prayerful revelation) rather than by human efforts alone to attain understanding.

But ?lack of faith? implies a questioning that puts any application of faith (i.e., living that faith in Christ through prayer, study, worship, charity, etc.) into abeyance until sufficient reason is arrived at first to practice faith.

That kind of questioning can be a ransom held to avoid the assent of faith, even if the desire for faith is present. So any understanding that may be achievable through faith itself is rendered inaccessible to someone all the while they are ?questioning faith?.

Perhaps.

But there may be a perception too that those who do profess a belief/faith that their belief/faith is unquestioning.
The perception might be out there that once one possesses faith then that person's belief is 100% certain and fixed from then on.

In my experience there are few people who's faith is unquestioning. In fact as I said in the post you quoted, it is my direct experience that those who do hold a belief/faith do question and do assess what they believe.

Faith isn't something which is static or fixed, in my view.

In my opinion, faith ebbs and it flows. Faith gets tested, even sorely tested at times too.

Nick Park · 31-05-2017 05:40AM

looksee wrote: »

On the other hand, when one of our children died at 14 months after a distressing illness for all his short life, it did not help at all, in any way, when people insisted on assuring me that 'now you have a little angel in heaven', in spite of their good intentions.

Having experienced the bereavement of a child myself, I agree wholeheartedly. Not only that, the notion that a dead child becomes an angel is profoundly unChristian. The intentions of such people were undoubtedly good, but their bad theology was unwelcome.

J C · 10-06-2017 10:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

Having experienced the bereavement of a child myself, I agree wholeheartedly. Not only that, the notion that a dead child becomes an angel is profoundly unChristian. The intentions of such people were undoubtedly good, but their bad theology was unwelcome.

Somebody becoming an angel is obviously erroneous ... but becoming a saved saint is the very basis of the Christian Faith ... and it can be a source of consolation when a Christian loses a child. Of course the Human pain is there ... but it is somewhat eased by the idea that the child is with Jesus Christ ... who is far better.

kelly1 · 24-07-2017 10:36PM

Safehands wrote: »

Having been brought up in a Catholic family, I learned about religion from my parents, my teachers and the clergy. I had a relatively strong faith until my late 20's. A couple of events occurred which led me to question my faith.
Today, I don't believe that the God we learned about as children, actually exists. Having said that, I do believe that the general message of Christianity, regarding the way we should live our lives, is a good one.
I enjoy debating religion on this forum, with intelligent people, who have different views to me. I feel quite secure in my certainty that logically, the Biblical stories cannot be true. There are too many contradictions, too many holes which can be picked apart. Having said that I don't discount the possibility of some form of life after death, just not the life after death taught to us as Catholic children

Hello Safehands, I'm wondering what your faith was based on? Was it blind faith or were you taught reasons for believing?

When Jesus was crucified like a common criminal, his disciples thought they had backed the wrong horse and they went into hiding from the Jewish authorities in fear of their lives. But having seen the resurrected Jesus in person, their faith underwent a very radical transformation and they became very bold in preaching the Gospel, even though they knew they could be killed for it.

The point is that theirs wasn't a blind faith. Jesus gave them proof beyond all doubt that He was God. As Saint Paul says, if the resurrection never happened, our faith is in vain.

If you're looking for a rational basis for faith, I suggest you read one of the man "apologetics" authors like William Lane Criag, John Lennox or Gary Habermas.

God bless you,
Noel.

Safehands · 25-07-2017 09:50AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello Safehands, I'm wondering what your faith was based on? Was it blind faith or were you taught reasons for believing?

When Jesus was crucified like a common criminal, his disciples thought they had backed the wrong horse and they went into hiding from the Jewish authorities in fear of their lives. But having seen the resurrected Jesus in person, their faith underwent a very radical transformation and they became very bold in preaching the Gospel, even though they knew they could be killed for it.

The point is that theirs wasn't a blind faith. Jesus gave them proof beyond all doubt that He was God. As Saint Paul says, if the resurrection never happened, our faith is in vain.

If you're looking for a rational basis for faith, I suggest you read one of the man "apologetics" authors like William Lane Criag, John Lennox or Gary Habermas.

God bless you,
Noel.

Hi Noel. The "faith" that I had was obviously based on what I was taught as a child. I have no doubt that if I was born into a Muslim household, I would be a follower of Muhammad. If I was born of Hindu parents I would follow that faith. Likewise for Sikhism, Judaism or Buddhism.
I do not believe in the traditional Heaven. For example, I do not accept that Mary was assumed body and soul into that Heaven, nor do I believe in transubstantiation. I believe that Christian teachings are a good way to live one's life. So are the teachings of many religions.

kelly1 · 25-07-2017 01:42PM

Safehands wrote: »

Hi Noel. The "faith" that I had was obviously based on what I was taught as a child. I have no doubt that if I was born into a Muslim household, I would be a follower of Muhammad. If I was born of Hindu parents I would follow that faith. Likewise for Sikhism, Judaism or Buddhism.
I do not believe in the traditional Heaven. For example, I do not accept that Mary was assumed body and soul into that Heaven, nor do I believe in transubstantiation. I believe that Christian teachings are a good way to live one's life. So are the teachings of many religions.

ok, but were you given reasons for accepting the faith that was passed on to you?
Did anyone ever explain to you why Christianity is more plausible than other faiths?

But this is immaterial of you don't believe in any God in the first place. So where do you stand on theism?

Safehands · 25-07-2017 02:17PM

kelly1 wrote: »

ok, but were you given reasons for accepting the faith that was passed on to you?
Did anyone ever explain to you why Christianity is more plausible than other faiths?

But this is immaterial of you don't believe in any God in the first place. So where do you stand on theism?

I was brought up in the Era where merely going into a "protestant" church was forbidden. They were misguided, I was told. I belonged to the "one true church". Going to a Protestant service was an occasion of serious sin. Missing Mass on Sunday was a "Mortal Sin", in the same category as murder. The instruction I received wasn't very Christian.

Christianity more plausible? Our Lady, visited by an Angel, giving birth as a virgin, without "knowing" a man, then remaining a virgin for the rest of her life. Finally ascending into Heaven, a spiritual place, body and soul. More plausible than what exactly?

kelly1 · 25-07-2017 02:55PM

Safehands wrote: »

I was brought up in the Era where merely going into a "protestant" church was forbidden. They were misguided, I was told. I belonged to the "one true church". Going to a Protestant service was an occasion of serious sin....

I don't have time for that kind of snobbery/bigotry. Having said that, I do accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as being the "fullness of truth".

Christianity more plausible? Our Lady, visited by an Angel, giving birth as a virgin, without "knowing" a man, then remaining a virgin for the rest of her life. Finally ascending into Heaven, a spiritual place, body and soul. More plausible than what exactly?

Do you think God is incapable of performing miracles?

If Jesus had a human father, then He wouldn't be the Son of God, would He?
Didn't Jesus ascend into Heaven with a human body? So why not His mother too?

Safehands · 25-07-2017 10:40PM

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't have time for that kind of snobbery/bigotry. Having said that, I do accept the teachings of the Catholic Church as being the "fullness of truth".

"The Fullness of truth". That is a cliche. I have no idea what it means.

kelly1 wrote: »

Do you think God is incapable of performing miracles?

If a plane flies into a mountain and all 200 people walk out of the wreckage without a scratch, I would regard that as a miracle. If I lost an arm and the next day woke up with a perfect new arm, that would be a miracle. If God is going to perform a miracle, I would be delighted. I don't believe that someone relating a story that our lady was assumed into a spiritual place, with her body intact, without any evidence for it, falls into the category of a miracle. It falls into the category of a nice story, but is completely implausible. I don't believe it, you do. That is fine. We are all entitled to our beliefs.

kelly1 · 25-07-2017 11:44PM

Safehands wrote: »

"The Fullness of truth". That is a cliche. I have no idea what it means.

If a plane flies into a mountain and all 200 people walk out of the wreckage without a scratch, I would regard that as a miracle. If I lost an arm and the next day woke up with a perfect new arm, that would be a miracle. If God is going to perform a miracle, I would be delighted. I don't believe that someone relating a story that our lady was assumed into a spiritual place, with her body intact, without any evidence for it, falls into the category of a miracle. It falls into the category of a nice story, but is completely implausible. I don't believe it, you do. That is fine. We are all entitled to our beliefs.

I'm starting to wonder why you started this thread. What are you hoping to get from it?

Safehands · 26-07-2017 12:03AM

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm starting to wonder why you started this thread. What are you hoping to get from it?

I don't have faith in the type of afterlife that you, or my friend had. I don't believe in miracles. I listen to cliches, which are meaningless to me. And yet, intelligent people, like yourself, do believe and continue to believe. I wonder how.

Unquestioning faith **Mod Warning in final post**

Comments

Unquestioning faith Mod Warning in final post