Faith

[elliotthopkins]

Hokay, as a complete luddite, I'd appreciate hearing how the religious members of the hub found their faith.

I say luddite because a. I like the word and b. I'm not strictly an atheist. I do believe in a higher power.

I've always steered away from Christianity out of ignorance.

Elliott.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Through studying evolution and cosmology.

I wasn't all that enthusiastic about a God who created universes by clicking his fingers and saying "Let there be such-and-such".

But coming up with a universe that has physics and chemistry and biology and after ten billion years ends up with me and music and literature and kittens and consciousness and hope and fear and happiness and despair... now that's clever. I think it's both arrogant and insulting to try to explain it away without recourse to any intelligence greater than our own. Is this...





...the work of chance, or an artist that blows all human artists out of the water? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he's doing. I mean, just because I can think by human standards, am I really any more qualified to question him than the kitten? Or the nebula?

As for human religions, I like the story aspects. There's as much wisdom in stories as there is in science. I'm a Christian by upbringing and Jesus's teachings fit well with my moral views, but I also like to get as much as I can out of the other long-standing religions, even those no longer practised. They can all add something to your way of looking at life. They tend to be as much about humanity as about God, which is a good thing.

Martin

[Philip Ayres]

I'm Christian by upbringing, but I how I aproach my faith and how I worship are different to my parents.

[Hero]

Brought up as Christian by my mum and school based 'churchianity'. Did'nt care as much for it till now. Became a born again Christian and a very baby one at that during the summer of 98, my faith and relationship in the man upstairs grew from there.

Like Phil I also have a different approach to worship than my parents.

===KEN

[rurudyne]

While I was 'brought up in the church', I was only religious about it. It would be in error to say that I imagined myself to be a "good person" (actually quite the opposite); but, the attitude that I was in need of salvation came with an essentially absurd notion that I had been a good person and except for the problems I'd faced I would still be so. To be blunt, it was an incredible pity party and I was the only one invited. It would also be fair to describe me as being extremely proud too.

Real faith came when (and as) I came to the end of myself. Since it would be honest to describe myself as someone rescued through intervention, it follows that my pride was severely dealt with in the process.

If I were to describe faith and discipleship I would say that it is partly like walking up a long, dark stairway where the only light comes from the end of the stairs at the very tippy top. As long as you look towards Messiah, the light, the stairs lead upwards; but, if you start minding your own steps then the stairs level out and may even start down. But discipleship and faith are also like being plucked from those stairs by the proverbial chariot of fire and carried without exertion up to the top. All of us who walk those stairs are also those of us who are picked up — and you don't get a chariot of fire to go any faster by getting out and pushing.

[Shockprowl]

I was brought up as a 'relaxed' christian by my parents, religion used more as moral guidence. Which is a good way to do it I think. We're trying to do the same with Piglet.

I have a very uneasy relationship with God. It's hard to believe in some almighty being who's suppose to protect and help us all when you're resucitating a four year old child or pulling someone out of a car wreck. So I dunno what I think really. For certain though, it's a good way to live, and treat others.

I've recently become intruiged by the concept of Jesus being and ordinary Human. Not having what you may call supernatural powers (I thought this long before the Da Vinci code by the way!!). If he did what he did as an ordinary human being, isn't that more impressive than doing it with devine knowledge?

Ian

[Philip Ayres]

shockprowl said:

I've recently become intruiged by the concept of Jesus being and ordinary Human. Not having what you may call supernatural powers (I thought this long before the Da Vinci code by the way!!). If he did what he did as an ordinary human being, isn't that more impressive than doing it with devine knowledge?

If you accept Jesus did what he did isn't it a bit hard not to accept that there's something supernatural going on ? (raising Lazarus from the dead, walking on water, feeding the 5000, giving the blind their sight back, enabling the lame to walk, curing lepers, coming back from the dead himself)

[Shockprowl]

Sorry, I should have been clearer. I'm not sure the 'supernatural' stuff happened. Could be they're embelishments. I was more refering to Jesus teaching us how to live and treat each other and be at peace with ourselves. If, as an ordinary Human being, he moved so many people at the time to live as he did and moved people so much that they joined him in trying to teach that way of life to others, that may mean more to me than him feeding 5000 using 'supernatural' powers.

Ian

[Hero]

Jesus RULES.

===KEN

[Shockprowl]

And so does his wife, Mary Magdelene.

[rurudyne]

My own all time favorite saying: "I'm not so sure about agnosticism."

[dyrl]

Two responses:

1. My faith: ... Depends on the weather.

2. Re: Shockprowl woundering about the Historical Jesus -

Well - the problem with the view of Jesus as being just another historical figure who had some interesting things to say is that...

it ignores what Jesus said.

Jesus said that he was the Son of God, that he was the Logos, that basically - to boil it down; He was GOD.

More - He said that only though Him will we reach the Father.

Now - you can call that crazy, you can say it's not true, you can call it the "story aspect" of religion - but I call it what Jesus said.

And I think out of fairness to Jesus - if we're going to be open to what he said about Man and the universe - we really have to consider the statements he made equating himself with the Divinity.

Jesus is either a nutcase and or He's actually...God.

I prefer this perspective to the "historical jesus" teaching - because it focuses too much on mushy stuff that all sane and reasonable people agree on without focusing on the controversial stuff - aka - the Nature of God, Man and the Universe.

it's cold, wet and rainy today -so I'm in a medieval mood:)

dyrl

[karla]

why is it whenever someone metions faith God comes into the picture? leave the man alone lol no one ever thinks of the faith he/she has of themselves.

Whether there is the one god, or none or even 100, I couldn't care less as long as I'm happy that's all that matters.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 22, 2008 19:41:57 GMT dyrl said:

Well - the problem with the view of Jesus as being just another historical figure who had some interesting things to say is that...

it ignores what Jesus said.

Jesus said that he was the Son of God, that he was the Logos, that basically - to boil it down; He was GOD.

More - He said that only though Him will we reach the Father.

Now - you can call that crazy, you can say it's not true, you can call it the "story aspect" of religion - but I call it what Jesus said.

There's one slight flaw in your logic, namely that the texts which tell us what Jesus said also tell us he performed miracles and rose from the dead.

So if a historian doesn't believe he did the things the Gospels say he did, why would that historian believe he said the things the Gospels say he said? Maybe he didn't say them.

There are good reasons for believing things other than the likelihood of their being true - logical reasons as well as moral ones. E.g. without each parent's (logically unfounded) belief that their child is the most precious child in the world, and the effect that belief has on their behaviour, life on Earth as we know it probably wouldn't have developed. Similarly, the belief that two humans deserve equal rights, regardless of whether one is a genius and the other retarded, make us civilised. Neither of these beliefs is based on scientific evidence but that doesn't make them invalid or stupid.

Most of us can believe things by choice when those beliefs bring us some spiritual benefit. I choose to take the Gospels on faith because doing so leads me to a way of thinking about the world that feels right and makes me a better person than I would be without it or a similar set of beliefs. I find the belief that humans are the most intelligent, wise and moral beings at work in the world dangerous and depressing, and the belief that we are mere children in terms of knowledge, wisdom and morality compared to a God beyond our comprehension healthy and uplifting. (I consider humility a great virtue.) I also think it very healthy to be humbled by the example of Jesus. Therefore I choose to believe those things are true.

I've never thought of most other religions as being untrue, since most of them have a lot of good examples and philosophies too. (As a Catholic, I wish we could have the Dalai Lama as Pope!) The only religion I have made a positive choice to think of as untrue is atheism because its core tenet is that certain things I consider beneficial and rewarding to believe are untrue.

I find it strange that evolutionary biologists such as Richard Dawkins want to extinguish all beliefs that are not the result of scientific deduction, when (a) they tend to make an unscientific exception when it comes to atheism, and (b) natural selection has not led to the inclination to have such beliefs being removed from the gene pool, suggesting they may have some benefit. (Indeed, there is a case to be made - open to debate - that the decline of religion in modern society has led to a general decrease in happiness and increase in mental illnesses.)

If you find you are able to choose what to believe when it comes to things beyond the reach of scientific enquiry, choose something good.

Martin

[The Doctor]

May 23, 2008 18:26:52 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

May 22, 2008 19:41:57 GMT dyrl said:

The only religion I have made a positive choice to think of as untrue is atheism because its core tenet is that certain things I consider beneficial and rewarding to believe are untrue.


Martin

If I could just respond to that point, I consider myself to hold atheist views but I wouldn't personally describe it as a religion. I'm unclear on your meaning there.

Richard Dawkins annoys me a bit though. I did read his book, 'The God Delusion' and thought it was a rather intolerent and intractable piece of work.

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 23, 2008 19:49:46 GMT The Doctor said:

If I could just respond to that point, I consider myself to hold atheist views but I wouldn't personally describe it as a religion. I'm unclear on your meaning there.

Atheism is only a religion in the broadest sense, in that it is a set of beliefs about deities taken on faith (in this case, the belief is that no deities exist). It is a faith, since it is not based on evidence. There is no evidence for the non-existence of gods.

All the other major world belief systems about deities involve the belief that at least one does exist, which makes atheism unique (and uniquely unappealing to me personally).

I would not call agnosticism a religion or faith because it does not involve any beliefs.

Martin

[The Doctor]

OK, I get where you're coming from now. Thanks for the clarification.

-Ralph

[Deleted]

There are far too many problems with the story of Christ as far as I'm concerned. For a start they claim that he was the Son of God even though it was clearly stated that he was the son of Joseph and Mary unless of course Joseph was God or that Mary had a fling behind Joe's back.

It is my belief that the story of Christ isn't true but merely a fictionalised account of what he actually did. Maybe walking on water means that he was a traveller who wouldn't let anything stand in his way and his curing of the lepers means he saved people from certain death.

As for other faiths I'm wondering if some of the stories are actually true. Each individual faith claims (to a certain extent) that the others don't exist. So who's telling the truth? The ancient Greeks had many Gods who they believed would reward them or punish them for things they did whereas the Muslim faith believes that their God is the only God that exists and the Christian God is just plain fiction. Another question that arrises from time to time is the sex of God. Is he/she man or woman? I spoke to a religious person a while back and he said that God was unsexed - he was neither man nor woman but some kind of entity that watches over us yet paintings such as the one in the Sistine Chapel depicts God as a muscular male with a beard. Personally, I believe that God is a woman because theres no way he would have put testicles on the outside if he was a man!

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Gotta put you right on a coupla things, Zudobug.

1. It is nowhere stated in Christianity that Jesus was the son of Joseph and Mary. (In the story) Mary was a virgin, who became pregnant through a miracle. Joseph stood by Mary either because he believed that, or just because he loved her.

2. It is not strictly accurate to say that each individual faith claims that the others don't exist. While it's true that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all state that there is only one God (and so exclude the Hindu gods and the ancient gods of Greece/Rome/Egypt - at least from being gods in the same sense of the word 'god') - those three religions have much of the Old Testament in common. They can be said to worship the same God but just disagree over the status of Jesus and Mohammed, and other details. As for the gods of Ancient Greece/Rome/Egypt, they pop up in works such as Milton's Paradise Lost as being amongst Satan's fallen angels.

3. Michelangelo was using artistic licence when he painted the Sistine Chapel. Male and female are concepts that arise due to the part sexual reproduction plays in life on Earth. I can't see that it could meaningfully apply to God, if there's only one of Him. (Personally, I consider Him to be outside the concept of number, let alone gender. I consider logic and mathematics to be part of the universe He created. And time too, so 'created' is also a misleading word.)

4. And I know you weren't being too serious in your last point, but testicles have evolved to be on the outside in order to keep the contents at the right temperature. (Hence they retract when it's too cold and they need extra warmth from the body.)

Although I am a Christian by choice, I acknowledge that a lot of religion is down to human imagination. But the human imagination is itself a wonder of nature and should not be stifled.

"We all must face reality sooner or later."

"Well, Doctor, I wrestled with reality for 35 years, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it."

- Elwood P Dowd, 'Harvey'

Martin

[karla]

"was Jesus based on Pagen God's?"
bwahahaha! I always have this image of Pagen God's in my head and they sit on trees.

H.P Lovecraft was an atheist too CTHULHU ^^

[dyrl]

Ah - I love the Hub. So much wonderful insight. Let me latch on to a few things though:

Karla wrote:
Whether there is the one god, or none or even 100, I couldn't care less as long as I'm happy that's all that matters.

I say:
Yes, but what if God is Happiness? This is Jesus' teaching. Jesus might be completely crazy and completely wrong. But if you say "as long as I'm happy that's all that matters," then you must consider knowing what happiness is to be the most important thing. If there is a claim that God is happiness, then suddenly it matters very much whether there is one god, 100 or none.

Martin wrote:
Similarly, the belief that two humans deserve equal rights, regardless of whether one is a genius and the other retarded, make us civilised. Neither of these beliefs is based on scientific evidence but that doesn't make them invalid or stupid….

Nor are such contentions based merely on faith. What is often lost in these deliberations where ancient faith is pitted against modern science is the essential role of ancient reason. Modern science is largely experimental and rejects the inductive logic of ancient reason. Thus, modern science believe only what it is able to empiricly prove, and calls this a fact, whereas all opinions are categorized as values. But the problem with this paradigm is that it leaves to the realm of "values" the question of whether modern science is good or not? And to what end should we use it? If these questions are merely matters of values - of beliefs - and all religions and their interpretations are merely matters of "belief" - well then - who's to say whether the Crusader or the Inquisitionist's interpretation of Christianity is not more preferable to Mother Teresa's?

Ancient rationalism was not as precise as modern science; which allowed it to be - in my view- more capable of teaching us truths about the human condition; since Mankind is not something to be understood by dissecting people.

Therefore, I just don't fully accept the premise here. I think that un-aided reason can in fact demonstrate the equality in nature of all men; and it is more of a political question as to whether people will accept this equality; but it is not a question of proofs. Likewise, religion need not be purely mystical; it has reason as its' good friend.

In short - the Dalai Lama is cool - but Cardinal Ratzinger is cooler

Martin wrote:
If you find you are able to choose what to believe when it comes to things beyond the reach of scientific enquiry, choose something good.

Why?

Why not choose something evil? You see - this is the problem with Kant, and with the entire body of ethical and moral thought that is grounded in modern scientific rationality as opposed to ancient rationalism. It compels us to take "leaps of faith" or to dwell in some nihilistic slum of the soul. It forever tears us - as humans - apart: either we just believe with all our hearts or we sulk and write poetry in French cafes and wait for the worms to eat us.

The absurdity of this choice would be tragic if it were not such a comedy. I truly think that if only religion were to once again be merged with reason, and reason divorced of the empirical sciences, then we might be able as humans to have a better understanding of morality - rather than a "feel" for it.

dyrl

[neohugman]

It is a real shame that people still believe in that nonsensical load of myth called Christianity. I cannot think of any religion in history that has been more damaging to the world, or more full of pure hate. Read Christopher Hitchens' latest book.

[Grand Moff Muffin]

May 25, 2008 20:29:36 GMT @neohugman said:

I cannot think of any religion in history that has been more damaging to the world, or more full of pure hate.

Call me picky, but as far as I'm concerned people who don't follow Christ's instructions to live by peace, love and generosity are not followers of Christianity, and those who have acted contrary to Christ's teachings under a Christian flag (of which there have sadly been many) had no business doing so in his name.

Christ's teachings and examples on how to live could not be further from encouraging people to kill or persecute one another, and so I cannot see how they can be held responsible for evils done by a church that called itself 'Christian' in later centuries, or why Christ's teachings should be ignored on account of the evil actions of those people who ignored them and called themselves Christian.

Similarly, atheism is not to blame for the atrocities carried out under Stalin, nor Islam for 9/11 or Judaism for oppression of Palestinians. Human beings are to blame.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Couldn't have put it better myself, Martin.

-Ralph

[karla]

May 25, 2008 16:07:52 GMT dyrl said:

Ah - I love the Hub. So much wonderful insight. Let me latch on to a few things though:

Karla wrote:
Whether there is the one god, or none or even 100, I couldn't care less as long as I'm happy that's all that matters.

I say:
Yes, but what if God is Happiness? This is Jesus' teaching. Jesus might be completely crazy and completely wrong. But if you say "as long as I'm happy that's all that matters," then you must consider knowing what happiness is to be the most important thing. If there is a claim that God is happiness, then suddenly it matters very much whether there is one god, 100 or none.

do you have a happiness meter then?

[Hero]

I am happy with my Faith

[dyrl]

Karla wrote:
"
do you have a happiness meter then?"

See - you smile and joke, but I think that your question leads to a serious point, which I am trying to make.

The point is that happiness, like all which is related to the art of being human, cannot be quantified in the same way that mathematics and the natural sciences allow us to quantify, say, phenomena in nature through physics, mechanics etc.

Does this mean that all things pertaining to humans are therefore "subjective" and "relative" and that morality, because it cannot be precise and cannot be quantified, is just a "value?"

I don't think so. Reason and rationality are not mere matters of quantification, but also a logical reflection and a deductive process. Nature is not merely something that we can learn the workings of and bend towards our own end, but it is also something essential; the basis of principle - or at least a good starting point for seeking out principles.

dyrl

[karla]

May 28, 2008 6:14:24 GMT dyrl said:

Karla wrote:
"
do you have a happiness meter then?"

See - you smile and joke, but I think that your question leads to a serious point, which I am trying to make.

The point is that happiness, like all which is related to the art of being human, cannot be quantified in the same way that mathematics and the natural sciences allow us to quantify, say, phenomena in nature through physics, mechanics etc.

Does this mean that all things pertaining to humans are therefore "subjective" and "relative" and that morality, because it cannot be precise and cannot be quantified, is just a "value?"

I don't think so. Reason and rationality are not mere matters of quantification, but also a logical reflection and a deductive process. Nature is not merely something that we can learn the workings of and bend towards our own end, but it is also something essential; the basis of principle - or at least a good starting point for seeking out principles.

dyrl

oh come on lmao! whats wrong with smiling and laughing then?
I understand the point your saying, but it's hard for me to describe what I want to in words! (I'm not smart like that )

ok, what do you believe in dyrl? you haven't mentioned that yet.

[dyrl]

Karla wrote:
oh come on lmao! whats wrong with smiling and laughing then?
I understand the point your saying, but it's hard for me to describe what I want to in words! (I'm not smart like that )

Me:
I'm sorry if it came across as though I was criticizing you for the very wonderful, healthy and lovely habit of joking and laughing - I only now realized that my post could have been construed that way; I should have inserted a smily face or something because I did sound terribly serious there and didn't mean to oops. internet woes...As for being smart, I think acknowledging that it's hard to describe things in words is a very very veeeerrrrrrryyyyy smart observation, since words have nothing to do with the things they supposedly describe ("circle" is not round:) )

Karla wrote:

ok, what do you believe in dyrl? you haven't mentioned that yet

Me:

No, I haven't, have I ?

dyrl

[karla]

May 28, 2008 20:16:11 GMT dyrl said:

Karla wrote:
oh come on lmao! whats wrong with smiling and laughing then?
I understand the point your saying, but it's hard for me to describe what I want to in words! (I'm not smart like that )

Me:
I'm sorry if it came across as though I was criticizing you for the very wonderful, healthy and lovely habit of joking and laughing - I only now realized that my post could have been construed that way; I should have inserted a smily face or something because I did sound terribly serious there and didn't mean to oops. internet woes...As for being smart, I think acknowledging that it's hard to describe things in words is a very very veeeerrrrrrryyyyy smart observation, since words have nothing to do with the things they supposedly describe ("circle" is not round:) )

Karla wrote:

ok, what do you believe in dyrl? you haven't mentioned that yet

Me:

No, I haven't, have I ?

dyrl

oooo he's a sneaky one! your like an online thesaurus
yeah, it is hard speaking to people online but I don't think adding a smiley faces everywhere is going to help your situation dyrl.....unless you use that one with the sunglasses, yeah he's funny

are you ever going to give your view on life? I'm sure it would be very, very long!