Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Faith Is Construct to Protect Christianity

BillyJean
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 3:09:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Got to talking about this at a family dinner the other night:

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God. A pre-requisite of faith is that what one has faith in can't be proven, but acted upon regardless of the lack of proof. The Christian God (and Jesus [one in the same!]) says in order to be saved you have to have faith. So in order to be saved, you cannot be able to prove the existence of God.

This whole exercise seems to shield Christianity from having to explain itself in reality, no? You can't prove God doesn't exist and in order to have faith and go to heaven, it becomes necessary that you can't prove God exists, right? Just seems to be a logical cop-out.
Sloppy Joes. Slop. Sloppy Joes.
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 3:55:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 3:09:43 PM, BillyJean wrote:
Got to talking about this at a family dinner the other night:

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God. A pre-requisite of faith is that what one has faith in can't be proven, but acted upon regardless of the lack of proof. The Christian God (and Jesus [one in the same!]) says in order to be saved you have to have faith. So in order to be saved, you cannot be able to prove the existence of God.

This whole exercise seems to shield Christianity from having to explain itself in reality, no? You can't prove God doesn't exist and in order to have faith and go to heaven, it becomes necessary that you can't prove God exists, right? Just seems to be a logical cop-out.

Faith by definition is not dependent on logic. I think one of the key tenents of spiritual belief is that of recognizing that there are limits to your own ability to reason.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 4:56:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

I think it is a mistake to say that faith necessarily implies lack of reason. I do believe that Christianity actually softens the meaning of this word to mean exactly that. Think about it; faith is seen as a fundamental virtue, then softened to mean "believing in the unknown" or something to that effect. It's the perfect blend of ignorance to propagate this religion.

I believe faith is a strong virtue, but only when based on your principles. I have faith in my principles because they have shown time and time again to work (when I choose to employ them, of course).
kfc
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 5:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 4:56:58 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

1.
confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.
belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.
belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.

Just wanted to point out all the meanings.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 6:34:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 3:09:43 PM, BillyJean wrote:
Got to talking about this at a family dinner the other night:

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God. A pre-requisite of faith is that what one has faith in can't be proven, but acted upon regardless of the lack of proof. The Christian God (and Jesus [one in the same!]) says in order to be saved you have to have faith. So in order to be saved, you cannot be able to prove the existence of God.

That's a fair statement. I've often stated in discussions with skeptics that if I could prove God's existence, in a way that everyone would accept, I would at the same time, invalidate Christianity and the Bible because it would remove the need for faith.

This whole exercise seems to shield Christianity from having to explain itself in reality, no?

Christianity explains itself, in the Bible, if you choose to believe, and that's all that was ever intended. Unlike what many skeptics seem to think, the goal of Christianity isn't to prove itself. Christianity doesn't "have to explain itself", so it needs no shield.

"You can't prove God doesn't exist and in order to have faith and go to heaven, it becomes necessary that you can't prove God exists, right? "

His existence can't be proven, or disproven, with empirical evidence. We have no "divinity detectors", He won't show up on radar, etc. Yes, you have to have faith in Christ in order to enter Heaven.

"Just seems to be a logical cop-out."

God isn't concerned with man's attempts to reason about His existence. He didn't design everything with the intent of defeating the logic of those who are trying to disprove His existence. His Creation should stand as proof, and we have free will to decide whether, or not, to accept that proof. Faith requires the humility to admit that there is something more important, and more powerful than ourselves. That is an immensely difficult thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that skeptics think that even God, Creator of the universe, owes it to them to pay them a special visit to prove Himself. That's not the way it works though. There is no cop-out, because there is no requirement for God to prove anything more to you. Either you look around at what He has created, and accept it, or you deny that He exists, it's your choice.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2011 7:55:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I believe that Faith within this post is not being looked at properly.

Faith - despite a dictionary definition that merely captures the current cultures perception of the definition of a word.

The Biblical Greek idea is not a "Blind" Belief in a set "thing".

For example, a Biblical faith would be more akin to stating.

"My mother will not kill me 10 minutes from now."

If you were asked, on a whim, to prove the fact that your mother will indeed not skewer you mere moments in the immediate future you would be required to provide evidence for your "confident expectation".

Most would be reasonable and not require evidence and rely on your personal experience with your mother and allow you to make the judgment call, but there appears to be a select few denying the personal experience that all super naturalists base their beliefs upon.

When asked to provide evidence for your "claim" that your mother is not going to skewer you 10 minutes from now,

you in fact have no:

1. "Video" documenting your mothers past actions,
2. Documentation of your mother's non-violent actions

Indeed you actually have contrary evidence, which anyone can point to:
1. In the form of harsh punishments up to and including "the big whooping you got when you were 13"

etc…

I believe I am able to state that the overwhelming majority of people on planet earth allow and accept conclusions that have undocumented evidence due to dimensional constraints and limitations based upon time and space.

( To clearly define the fact that no one can go into the past to "develop" a specific kind of evidence necessary for the present. This is a dimensional time limitation. Additionally, nobody is able to travel in spatial format that would allow the gathering of evidence within an allotted timeframe due to being constrained dimensionally. All of this is understanding that supernaturalism is interacting with a fourth spatial dimension on that dimensions terms and not our own )

To deny that we are limited by both time and space in our dealings with the supernatural is to deny the obvious.

To ask a person limited to by both time and space in their dealings with God "to fork over your "approved" form of evidence and deny their claims of personal experience and "biblical faith" is I believe called special pleading by a naturalist.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2011 5:59:33 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/27/2011 3:09:43 PM, BillyJean wrote:
Got to talking about this at a family dinner the other night:

You can't prove or disprove the existence of God. A pre-requisite of faith is that what one has faith in can't be proven, but acted upon regardless of the lack of proof. The Christian God (and Jesus [one in the same!]) says in order to be saved you have to have faith. So in order to be saved, you cannot be able to prove the existence of God.

This whole exercise seems to shield Christianity from having to explain itself in reality, no? You can't prove God doesn't exist and in order to have faith and go to heaven, it becomes necessary that you can't prove God exists, right? Just seems to be a logical cop-out.

Because one cannot prove something does NOT mean it isn't so OR that I cannot personally KNOW something without being able to convey it to another..

I'm in a RELATIONSHIP with God because (by His Grace) He has REVEALED Himself to me.
The Cross.. the Cross.