How does one come to believe something?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I accept that. It's at least true for me.

That's a laudably honest statement; it was true for me too, at one time.

 

[StTruth]

That sounds like a very healthy way of looking at it. I personally was raised in a Catholic community where belief was key and authentic participation was difficult otherwise, so I found a different religion and congregation that would allow me to keep what I wanted from my past religious identity. But I'm glad to hear that this option is open to you! That would definitely make the transition easier.

It's very unfair for a church to expect EVERYONE in church to accept everything it teaches especially when the person is free to read for himself what the Bible says, what reality is, etc. There'll come a point when something has to give. Some doctrines just can't be believed. The previous Archbishop of Canterbury ruled that a belief in the virgin birth was not a prerequisite for acceptance into the church. That is the right approach. Everyone knows the virgin birth belief came about from a mistranslation in the Septuagint (commonly called the Almah-Parthenos problem). But the virgin birth is in the creed and we can't change the creed. What a priest told me is you can still recite the Creed but your definition has to change. So when you say in the Creed, "...who was born of the Virgin Mary..." you can think of it as "Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary as Tradition puts it". The same thing with "He descended into hell". Some churches leave that out but my church keeps it. But the previous Archbishop himself did not believe in a hell. So when you recite the creed you can think of a metaphorical hell. Jesus died and so it was as if he was in the place where dead people were. You can still say the creed even if you don't accept there's a hell. The previous Archbishop obviously could say the creed. Anyway, this is just my view.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

At least you do understand carnal and spiritual to be in apposition...

Are you sure you meant 'apposition' (i.e. equivalent, referring to the same thing) ?

 

[ScottA]

I like how you constantly place you and "Him" in a similar position.. of authority, of knowledge, of "being refused". It teaches me a lot about this concept you mentioned here... "humility".

You, or course are being more than facetious, but that is exactly the circumstance: When we come to and under God, we become One with Him, and indeed, He even lives in us and speaks through us.

 

[Cearbhall]

It's very unfair for a church to expect EVERYONE in church to accept everything it teaches especially when the person is free to read for himself what the Bible says, what reality is, etc. There'll come a point when something has to give. Some doctrines just can't be believed.

Oh, there was certainly room for disagreement, but I wouldn't have been able to get something out of it once I had totally stopped believing, as you said you would be able to.

 

[Freodin]

It's very unfair for a church to expect EVERYONE in church to accept everything it teaches especially when the person is free to read for himself what the Bible says, what reality is, etc. There'll come a point when something has to give. Some doctrines just can't be believed. The previous Archbishop of Canterbury ruled that a belief in the virgin birth was not a prerequisite for acceptance into the church. That is the right approach. Everyone knows the virgin birth belief came about from a mistranslation in the Septuagint (commonly called the Almah-Parthenos problem). But the virgin birth is in the creed and we can't change the creed. What a priest told me is you can still recite the Creed but your definition has to change. So when you say in the Creed, "...who was born of the Virgin Mary..." you can think of it as "Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary as Tradition puts it". The same thing with "He descended into hell". Some churches leave that out but my church keeps it. But the previous Archbishop himself did not believe in a hell. So when you recite the creed you can think of a metaphorical hell. Jesus died and so it was as if he was in the place where dead people were. You can still say the creed even if you don't accept there's a hell. The previous Archbishop obviously could say the creed. Anyway, this is just my view.

I think I can sooth your fears... you are (yet) in no danger of becoming an atheist.

If you believe in "God", you are a theist. If you believe in "Jesus", you are a Christian. If all you troubles and doubts are limited to the inconsistencies of the Bible and Church doctrine... as long as you have an understanding church, which it seems you have... you are fine.

It would be a lot more difficult for a person like me: I do not believe "in God", nor "in Jesus". I am not involved in any way in the internal church affairs or liturgical operations... I don't think they would want me there. So I have a little difficulties to understand your reluctance in regard to your "responsibility" towards the church there.
As I see it, I have a responsibility towards the humans. And I have no problems here with the church. If they need someone to lend a helping hand... I am always willing to assist.

 

[ScottA]

Hey, I agree. And your desperation shows in every new post you make!
You present a grandious claim that is doubted. And because we express doubt, now we have to "make your own demonstration as to why" we should accept your grandious and vacuous claim?

You really don't see how petty and pathetic this makes your position?
You said: "...you think too much of yourself to allow [me being your teacher]."

No. It is not that I think too much of myself. It is that I think too highly of "God" to accept your ridiculous representation of this idea as "truth".

I was desperate, so I can speak from experience. Which means I recognize just where you are in the process - and you are not there yet. But, as for me, I have passed through that valley, and I am at peace and know the truth from both sides...without a doubt. The doubt only exists in the stage you are in. Acceptance is a choice.

And if you actually had high regard for God, you would love me with a love that does not mock.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You, or course are being more than facetious, but that is exactly the circumstance: When we come to and under God, we become One with Him, and indeed, He even lives in us and speaks through us.

So how can we tell whether it's God speaking through you or it's just you being pompous?

 

[ScottA]

Says every snake oil peddler.

And how are we to come back to this truth? Here is one who tries to "impress" us with his "truth". Over there, there is someone else trying to do the same with his "truth".

Oh, no, they are not trying to "impress" us. They are trying to help us, to teach us, to lead us to the truth.
And how are we to decide which help to accept, which teachings to heed.. which person to follow? Throw a coin?

The task is not to count the counterfeits, but to recognize the Truth.

 

[StTruth]

I think I can sooth your fears... you are (yet) in no danger of becoming an atheist.

If you believe in "God", you are a theist. If you believe in "Jesus", you are a Christian. If all you troubles and doubts are limited to the inconsistencies of the Bible and Church doctrine... as long as you have an understanding church, which it seems you have... you are fine.

It would be a lot more difficult for a person like me: I do not believe "in God", nor "in Jesus". I am not involved in any way in the internal church affairs or liturgical operations... I don't think they would want me there. So I have a little difficulties to understand your reluctance in regard to your "responsibility" towards the church there.
As I see it, I have a responsibility towards the humans. And I have no problems here with the church. If they need someone to lend a helping hand... I am always willing to assist.

Not believing in God is no big deal. I know of priests who don't believe in God. The former Archbishop of York even went so far as to say that Jesus never existed in history. That's OK. It's obvious that the Jesus of history (assuming he existed) is a different person anyway from the Jesus created by the Church. People today think that when I say 'the Jesus created by the Church", I'm assuming that Jesus is fake but that's incorrect. You can believe in an iconic Jesus without having to believe in a real existing Jesus because you may want to use this image of Jesus as a focal point for doing good to mankind. I don't see anything wrong with this. Neither does the church if it has priests and archbishops who don't believe.

As long as a parishioner is willing to do obeisance to the concept of God even if he doesn't believe in a real God being, and he's willing to submit to the church authority and tradition, I don't believe the church will excommunicate such a Christian.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

But, as for me, I have passed through that valley, and I am at peace and know the truth from both sides...without a doubt.

Your lack of doubt isn't the issue. It's your lack of good evidence that's the issue. I can find countless people who have claims for which they have no doubt but who you would disagree with. And I'm sure they would say something similar to your "I have passed through the valley...". Whatever you would say to them, they would deny it and continue to insist that their claim is correct instead, using the same type of phraseology that you do.

How do you discuss things then?

 

[Freodin]

I was desperate, so I can speak from experience. Which means I recognize just where you are in the process - and you are not there yet. But, as for me, I have passed through that valley, and I am at peace and know the truth from both sides...without a doubt. The doubt only exists in the stage you are in. Acceptance is a choice.

That is obviously false. If you were speaking from experience, if you "recognize" where I am "in the process", if you knew "both sides"... you wouldn't talk to me in the way you do.

And if you actually had high regard for God, you would love me with a love that does not mock.

I don't mock you... I pitty you. This need, this, yes, desperation of needing to be accepted as God's spokesman, as being on an equal level of God himself when faced with rejection... this isn't healthy.

But I cannot help you there.

 

[bhsmte]

The task is not to count the counterfeits, but to recognize the Truth.

LOL

 

[Freodin]

Not believing in God is no big deal. I know of priests who don't believe in God. The former Archbishop of York even went so far as to say that Jesus never existed in history. That's OK. It's obvious that the Jesus of history (assuming he existed) is a different person anyway from the Jesus created by the Church. People today think that when I say 'the Jesus created by the Church", I'm assuming that Jesus is fake but that's incorrect. You can believe in an iconic Jesus without having to believe in a real existing Jesus because you may want to use this image of Jesus as a focal point for doing good to mankind. I don't see anything wrong with this. Neither does the church if it has priests and archbishops who don't believe.

As long as a parishioner is willing to do obeisance to the concept of God even if he doesn't believe in a real God being, and he's willing to submit to the church authority and tradition, I don't believe the church will excommunicate such a Christian.

Well, if the church worked on this level, and this level alone... most atheists wouldn't have any problems with the concept at all. (They might think it a little funny though.)
But it doesn't. And most people who a part of "the church", of Christianity, don't. That leads to all the problems atheists have with Christianity.

Right here in this thread we have someone who believes that he speaks for God, that he has privileged knowledge.
You might say: as long as you uses these claims to the benefit of humanity... fine.

But what if he doesn't? And I think that there are quite a lot of Christians who don't.

 

[Freodin]

The task is not to count the counterfeits, but to recognize the Truth.

Fine, I agree with that.

And now tell us how to do that.

 

[ScottA]

I like that you used the example of "court".

Every defendant in his right mind expects that the persecutor demonstrates and evidences his accusation. Every defendant in his right mind expects that his defense demonstrates and evidences the doubts towards the accusation.

No defendant - nor anyone involved with the judicial system, except a desperate persecutor - expects everyone to bow before the authority of the accusation proclaiming "He is guility! I know it!"

And for another reason I like this courtroom analogy: here we see examplified the question of "how to decide"? Here we do have two sides. The one proclaiming "He is guilty. I know it.", the other "He is innocent. I know it."

Now, dear jury... do you throw a coin?

We/you are without a defense, have been found guilty and are convicted already. Now you make your appeal - not the other way around - you have it backwards. Luke 4:18

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We/you are without a defense, have been found guilty and are convicted already. Now you make your appeal - not the other way around - you have it backwards. Luke 4:18

Or not...

 

[Freodin]

We/you are without a defense, have been found guilty and are convicted already. Now you make your appeal - not the other way around - you have it backwards. Luke 4:18

Found guilty how? Convicted by whom?
Any way you want it... you come down to the first scenario: both sides present their cases, present their evidence, try to convince the jury.

You don't get to jump this part because it doesn't suit you.

So it seems to me that you have it backwards... you already declared the defendent guilty without a trial, because you know you have no leg to stand on. I can appeal on the simple fact that I didn't get a fair trial.. hey, no trial at all!

 

[bhsmte]

Found guily how? Convicted by whom?
Any way you want it... you come down to the first scenario: both sides present their cases, present their evidence, try to convince the jury.

You don't get to jump this part because it doesn't suit you.

So it seems to me that you have it backwards... you already declared the defendent guilty without a trial, because you know you have no leg to stand on. I can appeal on the simple fact that I didn't get a fair trial.. hey, no trial at all!

But, he claims to speak for god.

 

[ScottA]

It might be fictional, it might be from a cheesy comic book, but I found this saying to be very very fitting:
"With great power comes great responsibility! "

Yes, I am putting it "all" on the teacher... that is the way the power structure works, no mistake. You might be surprised what is possibe in paedagogics... where you just to drop your authoritarian view for a second.

I put the "all" in quotation marks for a reason. I know of the limitations also. There are good teachers out there as well as bad teachers... but they all are humans.
You, on the other hand, present "God ALMIGHTY". I expect more from an ALMIGHTY being than from an oriental potentate type that cannot imagine a course of action beyond kow tow or execution.

So if he has given me my whole life to come to know the truth... hey, and even in my own way and in my own time... then it is his responsibility to present me this truth in my own way and in my own time.
If he doesn't, he fails the goal that he himself set.

It is a bad teacher who blames his student.


I see that you ignored the rest of my post, especially the part where I dismantled your "court" analogy, as well as your assertion that "the truth" is extempt from the need of being demonstrated. But, see, I cannot make you acknowledge your mistakes, much less make you understand your mistakes. I try my best, but I am not that good a teacher, especially when faced with an obstructive student. But I am only human.

And still I blame me for failing you.

It would be better if you start with the court analogy...which as I pointed out is rather a prison analogy (that is what we get for getting ahead of your progress).

The prison analogy: Change your ways. Make your appeal. Do your time. Re-enter the society and the reality of God a changed person.

Meanwhile, God is not lacking in His approach as you suggest, but is merciful in giving you this opportunity. He is in complete control, and all things are by design.

Another thing: You will not find God or Truth in the world, or in others...but rather within you. Whether that means you find yourself to be of God, that you should return to Him, or not. Either way, that is all between you and God - I am simply in His service, as you too will be, if you come around.