How does one come to believe something?

[bhsmte]

Simple answer: see previous reply. I don't operate on quoting chapter and verse.

Why wouldn't you want to cite the text you rely on for your beliefs?

 

[Truly1999]

Fair

The reality of consensus view of the NT from NT scholars and historians. Which by the way, I have spend a lot of time studying.

Fair enough.

 

[Davian]

I don't mean to be flippant, but you will find the answers to your questions in the New Testament.

The Bible is subject to interpretation, from Christian atheism to pantheism/panentheism. I really do not see it as a means of clarifying... anything.

"Christian atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed."

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The apostle Paul quotes a pantheist poem about Zeus in Acts 17:28, turning it into a panentheist statement about their "unknown God" when he quotes, "'In him we live and move and have our being' as some of your poets have said."

Panentheism is also a feature of some later Christian thought, particularly in mystical Orthodox Christianity, Catholic philosophy, and process theology. In order to avoid confusion with pantheism some panentheists now use the doublet "unitheism.""

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truly1999]

Not brave at all, but thanks for saying so. I have ALWAYS enjoyed a respectful discussion on a given topic with those who believe differently than I do on that topic.



That's the obvious guess, but it's not quite right. Read the Opening Post in my thread titled "RSLancastr, a church-attending, Bible-reading Agnostic" for the story.



I certainly do, including:

1. Singing in the choir.
2. Socializing with the many friends we have made there (just last Sunday evening, we attended a concert at a local Episcopal church with some dear friends from our church).
3. Inserting a non-believer's perspective into discussions, such as those in our Sunday School class and the Men's Bible Study group.

H

Or, as my Susan puts it, "How can we (Christians) fulfill The Great Commission if, we only associate with other Christians?"



Apparently so! Our church is pretty good at it, largely due to the "tone" set by our Senior Pastor.



Actually, I am only a member of the congregation, not of the Church, or even of the church, which would require me to make an Affirmation of Faith, something I cannot and will not do.



No more than my singing the Lennon/McCartney song "Michelle" would be my choosing to believe that I was actually in love with a woman named Michelle.



Again, no more than I am singing to the fictional Michelle in the above example.



I can't speak to that.



How so?

-RSL

When all is said and done, who am I to say what is the best way for you or your church? If everyone is happy with the situation, why upset things?

 

[Truly1999]

The Bible is subject to interpretation, from Christian atheism to pantheism/panentheism. I really do not see it as a means of clarifying... anything.

"Christian atheism is a theological position in which the belief in the God of Christianity is rejected or absent but the moral teachings of Jesus are followed."

Christian atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The apostle Paul quotes a pantheist poem about Zeus in Acts 17:28, turning it into a panentheist statement about their "unknown God" when he quotes, "'In him we live and move and have our being' as some of your poets have said."

Panentheism is also a feature of some later Christian thought, particularly in mystical Orthodox Christianity, Catholic philosophy, and process theology. In order to avoid confusion with pantheism some panentheists now use the doublet "unitheism.""

Panentheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you follow this theology?

 

[Truly1999]

Why wouldn't you want to cite the text you rely on for your beliefs?

There are many verses I could quote from but it would take up more time than I'm prepared to dedicate to it at the moment. I'm being drawn into a deeper theological debate than I intended to by members who want to go deeper with me.

 

[Davian]

Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you follow this theology?

Niether; just providing real-world examples of the very wide range of interpretations of the Bible that are out there.

 

[jay17]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

As others have said. premise #1 is unsound, thus #3 is incorrect.

I think this version is sound...
1. People only come to believe something by evaluating information.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating information.
Be this information, data coming in from one's 5 senses during experiences, listening to or reading other's thoughts about god, or one's own thoughts on the matter.

I think the problem with your equation is the term 'evidence'.
Although at the fundamental level, evidence is information, there is a subtle but significant difference between the two.
"Evidence is anything that you see, hear, or read that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened."
"Information - a message received and understood."

Example: A burning bush.
Information you are receiving is, the bush is burning, there are flames but the bush is intact, it is not being destroyed by the fire.
You have acquired this knowledge by observation and comprehension of all the elements(fire, plants, atmospheric conditions, etc), but have yet to create a conclusion as to how this bush remains intact.

Evidence is you are still receiving all that information, but you choose to judge that god is keeping the bush intact. You have no proof it is god, but you conclude\lean towards it has to be god, thus you now change the term 'information' into 'evidence'...for the information is now about god.

'Evidence' is the term people use to prove something they are already convinced exists or they lean heavily towards it. It's a term used by biased individuals.
They already have in their mind god exists, so they provide evidence to others, not information.

A defense lawyer does not express that they provide information to the jury, they provide evidence.
The lawyer says, "Members of the jury, i know the accused is innocent, and i shall provide evidence to back up my claim\the truth of the matter."
The lawyer does not say, "Members of the jury, I have no idea if the accused is innocent or not, but i shall provide information and you decide if they are guilty or not."
The lawyer is biased, they already have in their mind the accused is innocent or they lean heavily towards it.

3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

It seems to me this statement is saying...'Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating information that states that god exists.'

I also think there is a subtle but significant error in this...
"Evidence is anything that you see, hear, or read that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened."

Neither 'evidence' nor 'information' has any innate power to cause anyone to believe one way or the other. The individual has the power as they contemplate the info and formulate a conclusion.

So, if two people observe existence and one chooses to believe\conclude god exists, and the other does not, that is not proof either way. It's just each individual examines the unassigned information present in existence,and each, according to their own biases that comes from their currently held knowledge, decides if something suggests god exists or not.

How does one come to believe something?

By contemplation - "thoughtful or long consideration or observation".

But just because a person believes something to be true, does not automatically mean it is. But if a person believes it enough, then they are fully convinced and will interface with existence from that mindset.

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha

If a Christian believes bible god exists, then they will perceive they exist in a world where this god exists. They will have a world view where bible god is real...irregardless if this god actually exists or not.

This is why many religious people do not bother with empirical proof of their god, as their belief is all the proof they require. Thus god is no longer the object of their devotion...their belief is.

 

[GBRK]

There was a thread a while back entitled "Belief not a choice?" and several atheists in that thread insisted that people only come to believe things by evaluating evidence. So I thought I'd extend that into a syllogism and see if it floats.

1. People only come to believe something by evaluating evidence.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating evidence.

Is the above a sound argument? If not, why not?

Belief is different with each person and isn't such a black and white issue. Usually, my belief is that people believe when they have enough reason to believe. Most all things are done on faith even driving to work or school is an issue of faith. Faith that you will make it safely, that your car will get there, that your driving skills are good enough to get you there. As far as God is concerned I can only speak for myself. The reason for my faith is that there have been very demonstrative events in my life where God has revealed Himself unto me. Ultimately those events gave me reason to wonder and question God and the ultimate decision was one of faith, without evidence, but was immediately rewarded with conformation and certification through God's Holy Spirit's baptism. By that I mean when God gifted me with His Holy Spirit which was undeniable and totally overwhelming. There is no adequate way to explain or describe that event and fact other than just to say you know it when it happens.

As for the other events that happened that led me to the point of belief or point to open up to God those were things that could have been explained away as happenstance or luck or just right place and time but I believe otherwise myself. Each person should have reason to believe and have a reason that they believe as they do and not because of another person or what another person says. I fully believe that God reaches out and ministers to each person directly, from and by Himself through conviction of His Holy Spirit and reveals unto each person their Spiritual need. Then and only then (John 6:44) is the mortal human person able to make that Spiritual decision to receive Christ as their Savior and understand their Spiritual situation and their Spiritual need. It is ultimately a matter of faith but each person should make that decision their own self. To the atheist they claim there is no God that God is dead to them and they are actually correct in saying so. For the Atheist they have no reason to think God is real, other than possibly that void that each human has within their heart/soul/spirit/life that yearns to know it's creator and to be complete and know the answers. The atheist has not the Holy Spirit as a living ministry within their own body which is God living and dwelling within us. True (real) Christians are given God's Holy Spirit as a confirming ministry certifying that they are God's and giving legitimacy to their Salvation.

First steps are that inner yearning and desire and need, second is being open to accept God's invitation and open to believe and then when God calls and reaches out to you be willing to accept that and accept Christ sacrifice for us and our sins and sin nature. Hope that helps or makes sense.

 

[Joshua260]

As others have said. premise #1 is unsound, thus #3 is incorrect.

I think this version is sound...
1. People only come to believe something by evaluating information.
2. People who are Christians believe that God exists.
3. Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating information.
Be this information, data coming in from one's 5 senses during experiences, listening to or reading other's thoughts about god, or one's own thoughts on the matter.

I think the problem with your equation is the term 'evidence'.
Although at the fundamental level, evidence is information, there is a subtle but significant difference between the two.
"Evidence is anything that you see, hear, or read that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened."
"Information - a message received and understood."

Example: A burning bush.
Information you are receiving is, the bush is burning, there are flames but the bush is intact, it is not being destroyed by the fire.
You have acquired this knowledge by observation and comprehension of all the elements(fire, plants, atmospheric conditions, etc), but have yet to create a conclusion as to how this bush remains intact.

Evidence is you are still receiving all that information, but you choose to judge that god is keeping the bush intact. You have no proof it is god, but you conclude it has to be god.

'Evidence' is the term people use to prove something they are already convinced exists or they lean heavily towards it. It's a term used by biased individuals.
They already have in their mind god exists, so they provide evidence to others, not information.

A defense lawyer does not express that they provide information to the jury, they provide evidence.
The lawyer says, "Members of the jury, i know the accused is innocent, and i shall provide evidence to back up my claim\the truth of the matter."
The lawyer does not say, "Members of the jury, I have no idea if the accused is innocent or not, but i shall provide information and you decide if they are guilty or not."
The lawyer is biased, they already have in their mind the accused is innocent or they lean heavily towards it.

It seems to me this statement is saying...'Therefore, People who are Christians only came to believe that God exists by evaluating information that states that god exists.'

I also think there is a subtle but significant error in this...
"Evidence is anything that you see, hear, or read that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened."

Neither 'evidence' nor 'information' has any innate power to cause anyone to believe one way or the other. The individual has the power as they contemplate the info and formulate a conclusion.

So, if two people observe existence and one chooses to believe\conclude god exists, and the other does not, that is not proof either way. It's just each individual examines the unassigned information present in existence,and each, according to their own biases that comes from their currently held knowledge, decides if something suggests god exists or not.

By contemplation - "thoughtful or long consideration or observation".

But just because a person believes something to be true, does not automatically mean it is. But if a person believes it enough, then they are fully convinced and will interface with existence from that mindset.

"We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make our world." - Buddha

If a Christian believes bible god exists, then they will perceive they exist in a world where this god exists. They will have a world view where bible god is real...irregardless if this god actually exists or not.

This is why many religious people do not bother with empirical proof of their god, as their belief is all the proof they require. Thus god is no longer the object of their devotion...their belief is.

That's a pretty neat post, but I don't agree with it. I used a Wikipedia definition of what evidence is and it included testimony, documentation, and archeological findings...all of which exist and Christians cite as evidence for the existence of God. Even several atheists in this thread were honest enough to admit that this was true (although disagreement still exists about whether the evidence is sufficient or not).

 

[AllanV]

Why do you believe this?

Experience.

 

[bhsmte]

Experience.

Experience with what?

 

[AllanV]

Hi AllanV,

You make some interesting points. Whilst the power of God can be felt through the Holy Spirit working in Christians, he can only dwell within someone who has accepted Jesus into their lives and who follows him as their Saviour each day. A Christian woman cannot provide a cover for her non-believing husband. A choir cannot redeem a non-believing choir member.

Hi, I have interacted with Christians but do not understand some of the language that is used. I read the scriptures to some depth before attempting to go to any church, mainly because of the distances and cost involved.
After reading the Bible what confronted me in the Christian Church was not expected. There are so many versions and they all seem to think their Church is correct. There is also a lot of sickness and the spiritual presence and belief in God is weak. The doctrine is incorrect and the true gospel is not being taught. There needs to be a big clean out because without it no change will take place.

Following Jesus is not something superficial it is actually having His nature. This is very gentle and the Eternal Father indwells with some power. It is difficult to comprehend how hard in the heart a rebellious human is until the complete experience is taken on. There needs to be a complete transformation as written in scriptures but not understood.

How does a Christian accept Jesus into their lives and follow Him as their savior each day?

 

[Davian]

Experience.

What kind of experiences? Are your senses infallible?

 

[Wayne R.]

"Are your senses infallible?"
Are yours? Do your senses tell you all you need to know about reality? Are you convinced there's nothing beyond what your senses tell you?

 

[AllanV]

What kind of experiences? Are your senses infallible?

In my work the natural senses have to be trusted. While driving a vehicle they are important. In most recreational endeavors they are important. But what is intuition or premonition because they have assisted me in work, kept me safe and free from traffic fines while driving and generally keep me safe in my recreational pursuits.

 

[Davian]

"Are your senses infallible?"
Are yours? Do your senses tell you all you need to know about reality?

No. I often resort to electronic instrumentation to objectively measure the state of things around me.

Are you convinced there's nothing beyond what your senses tell you?

No.

 

[Davian]

In my work the natural senses have to be trusted. While driving a vehicle they are important. In most recreational endeavors they are important. But what is intuition or premonition because they have assisted me in work, kept me safe and free from traffic fines while driving and generally keep me safe in my recreational pursuits.

I asked, are your senses infallible?

 

[As I was saying]

To this day science has no clue what so ever as to what actually caused the spark of life to happen on earth.

That's incorrect. We can, and have, created life.

No we haven't and I will illustrate the fact with a simple story.

Two scientists approached God and said to him "We don't need you anymore God as we have created life."

"Hmmm. Is that so? Would you care to demonstrate it for me?"

"Yes, no problem" replied the scientists.

One of them bent down and picked up a handful of dirt.

"Just a moment" said God. "Use your own dirt."

No human has ever created life as any attempt to do so has involved using material that was already created. To create life you have to start with nothing and the only person who has done that is God as Genesis clearly shows. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He created what wasn't there out of nothing. All he used was his word. Each part of his creation was brought into being with "And God said..."

 

[Davian]

No we haven't and I will illustrate the fact with a simple story.

Two scientists approached God and said to him "We don't need you anymore God as we have created life."

"Hmmm. Is that so? Would you care to demonstrate it for me?"

"Yes, no problem" replied the scientists.

One of them bent down and picked up a handful of dirt.

"Just a moment" said God. "Use your own dirt."

No human has ever created life as any attempt to do so has involved using material that was already created. To create life you have to start with nothing and the only person who has done that is God as Genesis clearly shows.

A story of a god creating something from nothing is only that - a story.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." He created what wasn't there out of nothing. All he used was his word. Each part of his creation was brought into being with "And God said..."

And why should this story be given any credence?