Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You are simply a lost person and all I can offer you is the Gospel and the truth about who God is.
The fact that you are seeking is really good, though. If only you would rest in Christ...
I have, but until there's a response, I can't put aside my unbelief. Can a person just believe in something as a choice?
Which is not a good thing. Faith is not a virtue.Yes, of course. It's called a leap of faith for a reason.
BTW, were you baptized? If yes, then there is no reason to doubt if you want to believe or not, because God has already promised in the waters of baptism to accept you. You do want to believe, and that is enough. Remember, Jesus said all we need is the faith the size of a mustard seed.
Which is not a good thing. Faith is not a virtue.
But not if you care about what's true.It is if it helps you get on with life and to be happy.
194332"]But not if you care about what's true.
No, I don't recall claiming to be an "expert in truth." Nor do I see how that is relevant to my comment?And you are an expert in truth?
No, faith can obstruct their path to knowledge by keeping them committed to ideas that are either unfounded or demonstrably wrong. That's why it's not a virtue.If you can't get up in the morning and get on with life, you most certainly will not be able to pursue truth. That's my point. Faith can help somebody pursue truth. The idea that "faith is not a virtue" is just your opinion... one you gave no evidence to support.
No, faith can obstruct their path to knowledge by keeping them committed to ideas that are either unfounded or demonstrably wrong. That's why it's not a virtue.
Given the context of this forum, I am using the term as a description for what I see practiced in religion. I am not using it in a broader, more general sense as a synonym for "confidence" or "trust."I think we have completely different understandings of what faith means.
I am not using it in a broader, more general sense as a synonym for "confidence" or "trust."
On what is their confidence based and is it sufficient to warrant the high (often extreme) level of confidence they have in the claims of their religion?That's the sense that Christians usually use the term, though. At least in the churches I have attended.
But in order to trust that he is your saviour you must first believe that he exists. It wouldn't make sense for you to trust in something you don't believe to be real.When I say, I have faith in God... I mean that I trust that God is my savior. I put the ultimate concerns of my existence in his hands. It doesn't mean I believe "God exists" as a brute fact.
On what is their confidence based, and is it sufficient to warrant the high (often extreme) level of confidence they have in the claims of their religion?
But in order to trust that he is your saviour you must first believe that he exists. It wouldn't make sense for you to trust in something you don't believe to be real.
Other religious groups also have ancient scriptures and personal testimonials, so this doesn't seem to distinguish Christianity from other religions that also lay claim to "the truth." What does the longevity of a belief, or the gratification it gives believers, have to do with its truth?The Bible, just the mere existence of Christianity as a movement for 2,000 years, personal experience of God. People don't put their eggs in one basket, typically. Christianity is a worldview that many people find satisfying, despite your apparent lack of belief.
What if the level of confidence far exceeds what is warranted by the evidence? I've been told by many people on this forum that they would continue to believe even if their reasons for belief were shown to be inadequate and even if compelling contrary evidence came to light. In other words, they won't allow themselves to honestly reconsider their position.I suppose you are talking about certainties. How much certainty a person requires seems to be up to the individual. I don't believe I need absolute certainty to have a measure of confidence. And again, a mustard seed of faith is all that my religion tells me is required.
Other religious groups also have ancient scriptures and personal testimonials, so this doesn't seem to distinguish Christianity from other religions that also lay claim to "the truth." What does the longevity of a belief, or the gratification it gives believers, have to do with its truth?
In other words, they won't allow themselves to honestly reconsider their position.
Given the abundance of mutually incompatible supernatural claims, what is needed is a way of distinguish the claims that have merit from those that do not. Faith doesn't give us a way to do this.I don't have a problem with religious pluralism, in fact to some degree I accept it. I don't interpret Jesus well-known statement "I am the way, the truth, and the life" in John the way many Christians you are probably familiar with, do. In my opinion, it's a case of eisegesis used to further a particular religious exclusivism (the Christian writer Brian McLaren has talked about this in a few of his books).
It's only the logic of Aristotle that assumes that truth must be exclusive. But I'd question Artistotles assumptions.
Given the abundance of mutually incompatible supernatural claims,.
But also a great deal of incompatibility. Many claims are in direct opposition to one another, and faith doesn't help to resolve this situation. In fact, it seems to render it intractable.I believe we share a great deal of common ground.
So if something is very personally meaningful we should continue to believe it even if it is demonstrably false? This suggests that the personal import of a belief is more important than its veracity.... its unwise to change something as personally meaningful at the drop of the hat just because contrary evidence appears to contradict something a person has believed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?