Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[oi_antz]

What would an example of god condemning you look like? You'd feel...bad?

Yes, and it would be visible.

 

[oi_antz]

This very much reminds me of Homer Simpson praying "Please give me absolutely no sign... Thy will be done".

But it's there to see though, if seeing is what one wants to do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But it's there to see though, if seeing is what one wants to do.

It clearly isn't, or people wouldn't be asking you to show them how you know what you claim to know.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Where has our self-declared Christian philosopher gone? Has he abandoned the thread?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, and it would be visible.

Ok, lemme get this straight...

When you feel good, it's god's work.

When you feel bad, it's god's work.

In your mind, this is somehow an objective standard for observing god in your life?

 

[oi_antz]

It clearly isn't, or people wouldn't be asking you to show them how you know what you claim to know.

I reckon this is a bit presumptuous on your part. I'd quite like to see how you would answer my question from Post #1327.

 

[bhsmte]

Anyone else noticing a trend here?

 

[oi_antz]

Ok, lemme get this straight...

Please make your best effort to that goal, and I will be glad to assist.

When you feel good, it's god's work.

When you feel bad, it's god's work.

In your mind, this is somehow an objective standard for observing god in your life?

Not that, at all. As you mentioned shame and guilt are closely associated (even as I understand, that guilt depends on shame), how is it that you suppose one can feel guilt for the sin they are ashamed of on one day and then on another day, to feel forgiven and accepted? Especially, consider why a faithful person, (Christian in this case, who is sensitive to God's feeling about them), one day feels that He does not accept them and another day feels that He does. Note that there is a visible comparison between two states in such a person: on one day, he has convinced himself to believe by logic and yet does not feel in his heart that he is acceptable, then the next day he does feel in his heart the relief of having been accepted by God.

This real heartfelt conviction is not something that confirmation bias can produce, whereas a belief based on logical constructs certainly can be produced by confirmation bias. Is this helpful to understand what I am describing? I think we should really concentrate on establishing that clarity of understanding before conclusions are drawn.

 

[oi_antz]

Anyone else noticing a trend here?

I noticed a trend that those predisposed against faith are getting stuck into me, and everyone else has withdrawn. What did you notice?

 

[bhsmte]

I noticed a trend that those predisposed against faith are getting stuck into me, and everyone else has withdrawn. What did you notice?

How do you determine when someone is predisposed against faith beliefs?

 

[oi_antz]

How do you determine when someone is predisposed against faith beliefs?

Not enquiring to understand, and instead opposing, every statement that threatens to demonstrate that faith is reasonable, valid and right. Such a person demonstrates that they are predisposed against faith beliefs, by their opposition. Not all those who lack faith in this thread are of that nature, nor are those who claim to have faith simply not opposed. But the true motives of a person are revealed by their actions, even if their words deny it.

 

[bhsmte]

Not enquiring to understand, and instead opposing, every statement that threatens to demonstrate that faith is reasonable, valid and right. Such a person demonstrates that they are predisposed against faith beliefs, by their opposition. Not all those who lack faith in this thread are of that nature, nor are those who claim to have faith simply not opposed. But the true motives of a person are revealed by their actions, even if their words deny it.

Well, being a christian for 40 years, would show I am not opposed to faith beliefs.

What I inquire about, is when people of faith beliefs make certain claims about evidence for their belief, or in judging others. Then, I will ask them to support those claims.

My interactions with you have followed a certain pattern and you have your perception of it and I have mine and they differ greatly.

At this point, I think it best I stop responding to you, as I don't see the pattern changing, or anything positive coming from it.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, being a christian for 40 years, would show I am not opposed to faith beliefs.

The facts are still leading me to make my own conclusion. You remain non-Christian, and not enquiring to find that being Christian is reasonable, valid and right. Every inquiry of yours appears to be for the purpose of supporting your position that is fundamentally opposed to Christianity. This does not suggest that my inquiries are not as much for the same purpose supporting the idea that faith is reasonable, valid and right.

Anyhow, to offer reflection, a rhetorical question: why must we need to decide what this shows?

What I inquire about, is when people of faith beliefs make certain claims about evidence for their belief, or in judging others. Then, I will ask them to support those claims.

I would not like you to take away the idea that I have not provided this at your request, so please let me know whether you believe there remains an unanswered question, so that any grudge may carry is a fair one. Also, if you believe I have been wrong to judge someone and that I should apologise, seeing I am not aware of the need to do so, I deserve to be informed of this too.

My interactions with you have followed a certain pattern and you have your perception of it and I have mine and they differ greatly.

At this point, I think it best I stop responding to you, as I don't see the pattern changing, or anything positive coming from it.

I also don't have any hope that this pattern will change. This is a most perfect opportunity for me to ask you whether you can suggest to me which flaws in me could be addressed that would cause the pattern to change. That should be useful to benefit me in growth.

Thank you for this, after such an energetic exchange, that we rather invite time to produce the growth.

 

[bhsmte]

The facts are still leading me to make my own conclusion. You remain non-Christian, and not enquiring to find that being Christian is reasonable, valid and right. Every inquiry of yours appears to be for the purpose of supporting your position that is fundamentally opposed to Christianity. This does not suggest that my inquiries are not as much for the same purpose supporting the idea that faith is reasonable, valid and right.

Anyhow, to offer reflection, a rhetorical question: why must we need to decide what this shows?

I would not like you to take away the idea that I have not provided this at your request, so please let me know whether you believe there remains an unanswered question, so that any grudge may carry is a fair one. Also, if you believe I have been wrong to judge someone and that I should apologise, seeing I am not aware of the need to do so, I deserve to be informed of this too.

I also don't have any hope that this pattern will change. This is a most perfect opportunity for me to ask you whether you can suggest to me which flaws in me could be addressed that would cause the pattern to change. That should be useful to benefit me in growth.

Thank you for this, after such an energetic exchange, that we rather invite time to produce the growth.

I will make this short and only address the portion I have put in bold.

Countless times, I have given you this feedback with specifics and this is why I have concluded, the wall has been hit and further communication with you is not something I want to move forward with.

 

[oi_antz]

I will make this short and only address the portion I have put in bold.

Countless times, I have given you this feedback with specifics and this is why I have concluded, the wall has been hit and further communication with you is not something I want to move forward with.

OK, got it. Thanks!

 

[Davian]

Not enquiring to understand, and instead opposing, every statement that threatens to demonstrate that faith is reasonable, valid and right.

That statement would appear to be somewhat circular. If one has statements that demonstrate that their faith is reasonable, valid and in particular, right, why would one need faith?

Such a person demonstrates that they are predisposed against faith beliefs, by their opposition.

I am not opposed to faith beliefs, any more than I am opposed beliefs in visiting extraterrestrial aliens, Bigfoot, and Bermuda Triangles. It just appears that, to date, they all lack statements that show that their beliefs are reasonable, valid and right.

 

[oi_antz]

That statement would appear to be somewhat circular. If one has statements that demonstrate that their faith is reasonable, valid and in particular, right, why would one need faith?

This is a difficult question Davian, because I am not certain it is not making a false assumption. If I reword it then I can answer it, so perhaps that will do for you:

[modified]: If one's faith really is reasonable, valid and in particular right, why would that one need faith?

If we agree what faith is, and I agree with what St. Paul described of it, then faith is being sure of things unseen and being confident of what we hope for. Things that are unseen are the whole basis of Christian life, assuming that there is spiritual influences at work with all people's thoughts. We Christians are sure of this. We can also observe how this manifests through the words and actions that people make, yet it doesn't mean that the unseen things become seen (for some people, maybe it does, but I do not see spirits as things). The other part, is being confident of what we hope for: seeing that this is based on some future thing and when whatever we have hoped for has come to pass then there is no need to be confident in our hope for it, this is naturally something that only belongs to faith. So: just that faith is necessary, does not mean that faith is not necessarily reasonable, valid and right.

I am not opposed to faith beliefs, any more than I am opposed beliefs in visiting extraterrestrial aliens, Bigfoot, and Bermuda Triangles. It just appears that, to date, they all lack statements that show that their beliefs are reasonable, valid and right.

What do you mean by this word "show"?

 

[Davian]

This is a difficult question Davian, because I am not certain it is not making a false assumption. If I reword it then I can answer it, so perhaps that will do for you:

If we agree what faith is, and I agree with what St. Paul described of it, then faith is being sure of things unseen and being confident of what we hope for. Things that are unseen are the whole basis of Christian life, assuming that there is spiritual influences at work with all people's thoughts. We Christians are sure of this. We can also observe how this manifests through the words and actions that people make, yet it doesn't mean that the unseen things become seen (for some people, maybe it does, but I do not see spirits as things). The other part, is being confident of what we hope for: seeing that this is based on some future thing and when whatever we have hoped for has come to pass then there is no need to be confident in our hope for it, this is naturally something that only belongs to faith. So: just that faith is necessary, does not mean that faith is not necessarily reasonable, valid and right.

Again you show that our approaches to exploring reality are diametrically opposed.

In the manner that you use the word, "unseen", it would be more appropriately be replaced with "undetectable". Particularly by any objective measure to date.

Your "being confident of what we hope for" is indistinguishable from "wishful thinking". You are starting with your conclusion and gathering what you will to justify it. There is a small, remote chance that you might be holding a conclusion that is "reasonable, valid and right", but your methodology is fraught with confirmation bias and your conclusion is wildly inconsistent with other theists using the same methodology.

I hold the premise that, of all the theologies out there, they are all wrong. Now, there may be a very small chance that, in all of the thousands of religions and denominations and sects that somewhere in there a theist has their theology right, but what is the chance of that?

What do you mean by this word "show"?

Demonstrate, in a manner commiserate to the claim, and the standards of those you wish to convince.

 

[oi_antz]

Again you show that our approaches to exploring reality are diametrically opposed.

In the manner that you use the word, "unseen", it would be more appropriately be replaced with "undetectable". Particularly by any objective measure to date.

Your "being confident of what we hope for" is indistinguishable from "wishful thinking". You are starting with your conclusion and gathering what you will to justify it. There is a small, remote chance that you might be holding a conclusion that is "reasonable, valid and right", but your methodology is fraught with confirmation bias

Yes you are right to say all of this, but this is still a good definition of faith. I didn't suggest that having faith always has more justification than not having faith. I've said on this thread that WRT faith, always there is the opportunity to be confident to believe or disbelieve.

and your conclusion is wildly inconsistent with other theists using the same methodology.

You are forcing me to guess what this means, and I don't feel comfortable to do that. Do we need to agree over this?

I hold the premise that, of all the theologies out there, they are all wrong. Now, there may be a very small chance that, in all of the thousands of religions and denominations and sects that somewhere in there a theist has their theology right, but what is the chance of that?

Very slim. In Noah's day, he was the only one with a valid theology, and we are getting more and more toward the point where the world will decide to oppose the teachings of God. I hear atheists wishing for this sometimes. It wasn't always like that, but it was expected since the time when the world thought it could eradicate God by ending Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:7, 2 Timothy 4:3-4 shows this prediction.

Still, some people I have met do come to mind as ones who love the truth.

When someone is comfortable in their spiritual standing before God, I can see it. I see this surprisingly often! I see people who come and go from that state too. This is the constant demand of repentance at work and on display in those who live that way. Whereas what you mean by "theology" is probably more formulaic - a set of beliefs. I think that life is far too complex and broad to be defined by a set of beliefs, so God requires from us a disposition toward doing the right thing, and a willingness to be corrected. He has placed in us a conscience which tells us what is right in all situations, and those who live with good conscience do not feel His condemnation. Such people would have a correct theology IMO according to my definition of theology, and if they exercise repentance fully, they will be led to recognize that Jesus Christ is their Lord.

Demonstrate, in a manner commiserate to the claim, and the standards of those you wish to convince.

Would you like to list a few faith beliefs that you think are in issue (as being faith beliefs that I think are reasonable, valid and right while some people on this thread are predisposed against them), and if I agree that they are suitable examples, then I will see if I can find or make some statements to show that it is reasonable, valid and right to have those faith beliefs.

 

[Davian]

Yes you are right to say all of this, but this is still a good definition of faith. I didn't suggest that having faith always has more justification than not having faith. I've said on this thread that WRT faith, always there is the opportunity to be confident to believe or disbelieve.

If believing in things undetectable is a good definition of religious faith, it's all yours. I see no value in it.

You are forcing me to guess what this means, and I don't feel comfortable to do that. Do we need to agree over this?

Do you disagree that there are theists that have very different theologies than you, yet work with similar evidence?

Very slim. In Noah's day,

...if he existed...

he was

...in the very unlikely event that there is a grain of truth in the biblical flood story...

the only one with a valid theology, and we are getting more and more toward the point where the world will decide to oppose the teachings of God.

I am not aware of any "teachings of God". I have seen claims, but nothing substantiated. Or consistent.

I hear atheists wishing for this sometimes.

How can that be, if they disbelieve the existence of gods?

It wasn't always like that, but it was expected since the time when the world thought it could eradicate God by ending Jesus Christ. 2 Timothy 3:7, 2 Timothy 4:3-4 shows this prediction.

Still, some people I have met do come to mind as ones who love the truth.

By "truth", you mean, religious opinion.

When someone is comfortable in their spiritual standing before God, I can see it. I see this surprisingly often! I see people who come and go from that state too. This is the constant demand of repentance at work and on display in those who live that way. Whereas what you mean by "theology" is probably more formulaic - a set of beliefs. I think that life is far too complex and broad to be defined by a set of beliefs, so God requires from us a disposition toward doing the right thing, and a willingness to be corrected. He

...allegedly...

has placed in us a conscience which tells us what is right in all situations

or varies by person, location, age, and brain states.

, and those who live with good conscience do not feel His condemnation.

That must be me. I feel no such thing.

Such people would have a correct theology IMO according to my definition of theology, and if they exercise repentance fully, they will be led to recognize that Jesus Christ is their Lord.

Why would I repent to a fictional character?

Would you like to list a few faith beliefs that you think are in issue (as being faith beliefs that I think are reasonable, valid and right while some people on this thread are predisposed against them), and if I agree that they are suitable examples, then I will see if I can find or make some statements to show that it is reasonable, valid and right to have those faith beliefs.

No. I'll pass on that one.