- Nov 2, 2021
- 11
- 3
- 39
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
For most who do these things, I don't believe that their actions are the
result of pursuing a God conclusion that differs from Christianity
because if they really believed in their stance, I think they would
accept the presence of other faith conclusions; they would just use
them as an opportunity to promote their own. But many people are
uncomfortable over even correct demonstrations of faith, which we
see often (the mention of Jesus, and hearing people's personal
convictions about what's right and wrong, for example). We know a
common reaction to something we're afraid of is to resist by force,
which the world has probably noticed in the actions of many followers
of Christianity. But the common alternate response is to avoid ("fight
or flight" for example). So either action I believe is a sign of one who is
undecided about his beliefs.
As for the exertion (and therefore rate) by which one should reach his
full
conclusion, I do believe it should not be overwhelming but should be
gradual,
made of steps of progress one can handle. I believe the "on the fence"
state is a reality, but is only a grace period and not a conclusion. Even
the woman with the ultimatum will give the man some time, but that
time is to be spent making up his mind, not getting comfortable putting
off his decision. This approach agrees with what most hold true, that an
acceptable plan for change is to not try to change all at once ("Rome wasn't built in a day", baby steps, etc). But the imperativeness of this
exertion is also seen. I believe we will all be moving toward one
extreme or the other, that we can't stay in a "middle" condition.
Support for this is seen in the way the world has generally progressed
in some direction all things. Current society also reflects this, as
people have progressively become more extreme in avoiding matters
of faith, for instance. But if people's distancing from faith has gradually worsened, so too can one's pursuit of faith gradually increase.
Many people believe there are serious problems with the direction
society is going. And it seems these complaints are being heard increasingly
more often, and in more and more areas: that life has become one big
competition, everyone needing to prove they're better than another to
be satisfied, that one's own brain is no longer sufficient to make a
decision, that people are now attacked for having their own opinions,
and that the world's love of money has made it so there's no place to
speak the truth anymore (etc). For most cases, I believe these
problems are caused by the absence of faith, not desiring the state of
things but thinking that if we don't actively pursue these things that
we'll be left (as it seems to us) in an uncertain state. They are "on the
fence", not having chosen whether to be on the side of what they
believe is right or wrong. But for a Christian, removing your hand from the situation as much as possible is what faith is. And of course if one
wants a change in the state of things, one must do something different.
For anyone trying to become less unsure about their faith, believing
that to remain indecisive is not an option can be a first step. The
differentness of living by faith I think is just because we are so accustomed to living in neutral. But I believe a life of faith is a sensible way to live. Where the
next step in one's search for the truth will take them may be a
separate discussion, but what can be concluded now is that there is no
honor in indecision. It shows that we should be spending our energy on
taking that next step of faith.
Also if anyone is struggling with knowledge, with the fact that they are
seeing things that make sense to their minds and find it impossible to keep
from acknowledging them, I believe the solution comes from
understanding the place of knowledge. I think we should believe in the
knowledge we have, but we all know it is partial and I believe it always
will be. It's well known that answering a
question often just leads to many more questions. This changes how
you reat
information. Because of this, no decision will ever be conclusive with
100%
certainty. And we know that with the complexities of the truth, it only
takes
being wrong about one thing to have a completely wrong conclusion
(ex: one car
part fail and the car's useless, one bad move and a chess game's lost,
one
computer part missing and the computer won't work, etc). So
knowledge can never be the solution. But partial knowledge is good for hope, and since
partial
knowledge is inevitable, I believe the only thing knowledge can be used for is faith.
It may also help to examine "science" and how it came to authority. I'll
sum up
its approach in the word "observe", which I think appropriate since the
scientific process is largely based on things that are seen. I think to
observe means to experience, but by sight is just one way. So to now
promote the pursuit of sight as a way of life doesn't work because it will
only work well for certain types of people. But what is attainable to all is the hope this pursuit can bring.
I believe the allure of observation is that it seems that seeing
something can't fail. But having the "answer" doesn't justify us in itself: the way by which it
was obtained is just as important. There is a saying that "the end
justifies
the means". But if this was true, it would mean that if one stole enough
money,
it should no longer be theft. Or if one's "cheat sheet" produced a high
enough score, it would make the score legitimate. I'm sure most of us
don't believe this is really true. The appeal of these things is that they
dodge the work required to obtain a goal, but that work is part of being justified. There is more value in the way a goal is obtained than the
goal itself and we see this in many things (academia, obtaining things
legally, self-taught accomplishments, etc). The solution is not as simple as reaching the objective by any
means.
I also think part of the reason for the exalting of observation comes
from
pride, the common error we often make when we confuse how hard
we worked with
how much we accomplished. I think something other than observation
could've
come to authority. For example, there can be much work in the
process of making a discovery, but you'll usually see the mark of other things besides
observation. That it gets the glory I think is the result of the same
situation that happens when the last piece of a machine is put into
place: that piece takes the machine from non-working to 100%
operational, and thus can appear to have had a larger influence than
the pieces before it when it really didn't. This is just the nature of the
last piece placed, but any piece could've been that piece. This means
intuition could've gotten the glory, or bravery, or chance, or faith, (etc)
since all are involved in the process of discovery. I think the power of
observation is promoted by types for whom a lifestyle of observation
works, but this is like any person who promotes in pride what
personally works for them, which we see all the time ("everyone"
should drink more, "everyone" should get married, etc). I believe the
message that observing is the answer is being promoted in the same
way.
Observation is not the goal but the hope that is derived from it. So the
idea
that observation should be exalted as truth I believe is an error: hope is
the
truth. Hope, however obtained, is the goal and it will be obtained in
different
ways by different people. I believe those that require more information than others will be allowed that information, but the goal is hope and faith,
not developing a dependency on observation. So for some, observing is
the path to hope, but for others observation will not give hope and it
must be obtained in another way for them (by being led, by faith, by
helping others, etc).
The paths that lead to hope may be as varied as the ways we live. One
can see
this in the way we all live personally, all of us seeking the same
fulfillment
but living completely different lifestyles with our own characteristics,
being unable to live like anyone but ourselves, though many contrary things are being promoted around us as the way we "should" live. And
because they who promote something tend to make it look good, many
try to live that way, only to find out it doesn't work for them. So when
"science" speaks, at best it merely means that "observation types" have found their hope, but this should have no influence on the way other
people live their lives. It should only encourage others to find their
own hope through their own forms. And it should also help people
understand the limit of what observation can be used for.
I believe the God of Christianity can be concluded from examination of
the
things we can see (Romans 1:20). The Christian message, excellently compiled in the Bible, agrees with more things we hold as true than any
other doctrine. I believe Jesus Christ was sent to complete and unify the truths of all religions (which were meant to be temporary) under
one faith (Matthew 5:17, John 10:16, 11:51-52, Galatians 3:24-26) and
even this agrees with the way we deal with information: doing away with
partial information, for all intents and purposes, when more complete
information is available.
There are many vouches for following the Christian faith. It is based on
fact
(the Crucifixion of Jesus), and its teachings are non-offensive and
perfect the values of all known religions and the values most people
hold to be true. The Bible explains what's mentioned here and more,
and the doctrine (not necessarily popular interpretations of it)
contradicts no known information or knowledge. It also has been
historically consistent & is full of hope which is still applicable for
people today. And I believe it also accounts for all the experiences of
life. I think the Bible explains that perfect knowledge is a reality, that
there is an explanation for everything. But for a Christian, it's an
unattainable reality because in this life we will only have partial
knowledge, so our job with this partial knowledge is to build our faith,
doing what we believe is right and loving one other (1 Corinthians 4:5,
13:9-13).
I believe this argument is just one path to the conclusion that a life of
faith is what lies ahead. Following after the truth, I think it's the
inevitable destination for everyone: people, including many followers of
Christianity, have just stopped short of what they began. I don't know
how each person's journey will be, but I believe an honest pursuit of faith will bring answers & not end in hopelessness. I understand the
fear and have experienced it, but have also come through it many
times, and I think anyone who will have a message of hope will also go
through it (Philippians 2:12). As for promoting Christianity, as a Christian
I believe in a reward for those who pursue what they believe is good &
a punishment for those who pursue what they believe to be or may be
wrong, but I know little about what they will be. But I believe people
are drawn to things that are done correctly, so for those looking for a
practical reason to pursue Christianity, I would point to the correctness & completeness of the doctrine, especially in a world full of error.
Hopefully this information can help others improve or begin a real life
of faith.
result of pursuing a God conclusion that differs from Christianity
because if they really believed in their stance, I think they would
accept the presence of other faith conclusions; they would just use
them as an opportunity to promote their own. But many people are
uncomfortable over even correct demonstrations of faith, which we
see often (the mention of Jesus, and hearing people's personal
convictions about what's right and wrong, for example). We know a
common reaction to something we're afraid of is to resist by force,
which the world has probably noticed in the actions of many followers
of Christianity. But the common alternate response is to avoid ("fight
or flight" for example). So either action I believe is a sign of one who is
undecided about his beliefs.
As for the exertion (and therefore rate) by which one should reach his
full
conclusion, I do believe it should not be overwhelming but should be
gradual,
made of steps of progress one can handle. I believe the "on the fence"
state is a reality, but is only a grace period and not a conclusion. Even
the woman with the ultimatum will give the man some time, but that
time is to be spent making up his mind, not getting comfortable putting
off his decision. This approach agrees with what most hold true, that an
acceptable plan for change is to not try to change all at once ("Rome wasn't built in a day", baby steps, etc). But the imperativeness of this
exertion is also seen. I believe we will all be moving toward one
extreme or the other, that we can't stay in a "middle" condition.
Support for this is seen in the way the world has generally progressed
in some direction all things. Current society also reflects this, as
people have progressively become more extreme in avoiding matters
of faith, for instance. But if people's distancing from faith has gradually worsened, so too can one's pursuit of faith gradually increase.
Many people believe there are serious problems with the direction
society is going. And it seems these complaints are being heard increasingly
more often, and in more and more areas: that life has become one big
competition, everyone needing to prove they're better than another to
be satisfied, that one's own brain is no longer sufficient to make a
decision, that people are now attacked for having their own opinions,
and that the world's love of money has made it so there's no place to
speak the truth anymore (etc). For most cases, I believe these
problems are caused by the absence of faith, not desiring the state of
things but thinking that if we don't actively pursue these things that
we'll be left (as it seems to us) in an uncertain state. They are "on the
fence", not having chosen whether to be on the side of what they
believe is right or wrong. But for a Christian, removing your hand from the situation as much as possible is what faith is. And of course if one
wants a change in the state of things, one must do something different.
For anyone trying to become less unsure about their faith, believing
that to remain indecisive is not an option can be a first step. The
differentness of living by faith I think is just because we are so accustomed to living in neutral. But I believe a life of faith is a sensible way to live. Where the
next step in one's search for the truth will take them may be a
separate discussion, but what can be concluded now is that there is no
honor in indecision. It shows that we should be spending our energy on
taking that next step of faith.
Also if anyone is struggling with knowledge, with the fact that they are
seeing things that make sense to their minds and find it impossible to keep
from acknowledging them, I believe the solution comes from
understanding the place of knowledge. I think we should believe in the
knowledge we have, but we all know it is partial and I believe it always
will be. It's well known that answering a
question often just leads to many more questions. This changes how
you reat
information. Because of this, no decision will ever be conclusive with
100%
certainty. And we know that with the complexities of the truth, it only
takes
being wrong about one thing to have a completely wrong conclusion
(ex: one car
part fail and the car's useless, one bad move and a chess game's lost,
one
computer part missing and the computer won't work, etc). So
knowledge can never be the solution. But partial knowledge is good for hope, and since
partial
knowledge is inevitable, I believe the only thing knowledge can be used for is faith.
It may also help to examine "science" and how it came to authority. I'll
sum up
its approach in the word "observe", which I think appropriate since the
scientific process is largely based on things that are seen. I think to
observe means to experience, but by sight is just one way. So to now
promote the pursuit of sight as a way of life doesn't work because it will
only work well for certain types of people. But what is attainable to all is the hope this pursuit can bring.
I believe the allure of observation is that it seems that seeing
something can't fail. But having the "answer" doesn't justify us in itself: the way by which it
was obtained is just as important. There is a saying that "the end
justifies
the means". But if this was true, it would mean that if one stole enough
money,
it should no longer be theft. Or if one's "cheat sheet" produced a high
enough score, it would make the score legitimate. I'm sure most of us
don't believe this is really true. The appeal of these things is that they
dodge the work required to obtain a goal, but that work is part of being justified. There is more value in the way a goal is obtained than the
goal itself and we see this in many things (academia, obtaining things
legally, self-taught accomplishments, etc). The solution is not as simple as reaching the objective by any
means.
I also think part of the reason for the exalting of observation comes
from
pride, the common error we often make when we confuse how hard
we worked with
how much we accomplished. I think something other than observation
could've
come to authority. For example, there can be much work in the
process of making a discovery, but you'll usually see the mark of other things besides
observation. That it gets the glory I think is the result of the same
situation that happens when the last piece of a machine is put into
place: that piece takes the machine from non-working to 100%
operational, and thus can appear to have had a larger influence than
the pieces before it when it really didn't. This is just the nature of the
last piece placed, but any piece could've been that piece. This means
intuition could've gotten the glory, or bravery, or chance, or faith, (etc)
since all are involved in the process of discovery. I think the power of
observation is promoted by types for whom a lifestyle of observation
works, but this is like any person who promotes in pride what
personally works for them, which we see all the time ("everyone"
should drink more, "everyone" should get married, etc). I believe the
message that observing is the answer is being promoted in the same
way.
Observation is not the goal but the hope that is derived from it. So the
idea
that observation should be exalted as truth I believe is an error: hope is
the
truth. Hope, however obtained, is the goal and it will be obtained in
different
ways by different people. I believe those that require more information than others will be allowed that information, but the goal is hope and faith,
not developing a dependency on observation. So for some, observing is
the path to hope, but for others observation will not give hope and it
must be obtained in another way for them (by being led, by faith, by
helping others, etc).
The paths that lead to hope may be as varied as the ways we live. One
can see
this in the way we all live personally, all of us seeking the same
fulfillment
but living completely different lifestyles with our own characteristics,
being unable to live like anyone but ourselves, though many contrary things are being promoted around us as the way we "should" live. And
because they who promote something tend to make it look good, many
try to live that way, only to find out it doesn't work for them. So when
"science" speaks, at best it merely means that "observation types" have found their hope, but this should have no influence on the way other
people live their lives. It should only encourage others to find their
own hope through their own forms. And it should also help people
understand the limit of what observation can be used for.
I believe the God of Christianity can be concluded from examination of
the
things we can see (Romans 1:20). The Christian message, excellently compiled in the Bible, agrees with more things we hold as true than any
other doctrine. I believe Jesus Christ was sent to complete and unify the truths of all religions (which were meant to be temporary) under
one faith (Matthew 5:17, John 10:16, 11:51-52, Galatians 3:24-26) and
even this agrees with the way we deal with information: doing away with
partial information, for all intents and purposes, when more complete
information is available.
There are many vouches for following the Christian faith. It is based on
fact
(the Crucifixion of Jesus), and its teachings are non-offensive and
perfect the values of all known religions and the values most people
hold to be true. The Bible explains what's mentioned here and more,
and the doctrine (not necessarily popular interpretations of it)
contradicts no known information or knowledge. It also has been
historically consistent & is full of hope which is still applicable for
people today. And I believe it also accounts for all the experiences of
life. I think the Bible explains that perfect knowledge is a reality, that
there is an explanation for everything. But for a Christian, it's an
unattainable reality because in this life we will only have partial
knowledge, so our job with this partial knowledge is to build our faith,
doing what we believe is right and loving one other (1 Corinthians 4:5,
13:9-13).
I believe this argument is just one path to the conclusion that a life of
faith is what lies ahead. Following after the truth, I think it's the
inevitable destination for everyone: people, including many followers of
Christianity, have just stopped short of what they began. I don't know
how each person's journey will be, but I believe an honest pursuit of faith will bring answers & not end in hopelessness. I understand the
fear and have experienced it, but have also come through it many
times, and I think anyone who will have a message of hope will also go
through it (Philippians 2:12). As for promoting Christianity, as a Christian
I believe in a reward for those who pursue what they believe is good &
a punishment for those who pursue what they believe to be or may be
wrong, but I know little about what they will be. But I believe people
are drawn to things that are done correctly, so for those looking for a
practical reason to pursue Christianity, I would point to the correctness & completeness of the doctrine, especially in a world full of error.
Hopefully this information can help others improve or begin a real life
of faith.
