Some questions about doctrine

[lucaspa]

Why did you want to be a Physist? In doing so, you have placed a burden on your faith to go in this direction which seems like a devoted religion in itself (a life long occupying study). As a Christian who believes in Jesus, you would be exploring the teachings of Christ, even today, to understand your faith better.

I'm a bit confused here. Are you saying that occupations that require life long study hinder faith? If so, then that would prohibit Christians from being doctors, teachers, scientists, lawyers, etc. This is brand new doctrine and I'd like to see the reasons and justification for it.

Maybe there is something in you that has directed yourself away from faith. This same thing allows you to freely explore science. It makes you a Physist.... I believe that being a Physist doesn't interfere with one's faith,

People become scientists because "something" directs them away from faith? Also, here you state that being a physicist does NOT interfere with your faith, but above you said it was a "burden" to faith and should be avoided. Can you explain the contradiction?

I have always missed Physics. I had thought of joining your ranks long ago. Faith is one of those things that once alive it produces. Faith is like a life-form within us.

So faith will stop us from being scientists? Below you state that Isaac Newton had faith and you even agreed with his faith. But how could Sir Isaac have faith if he were a scientist?

I am called a heretic by many, but I am in good company with Thomas Jefferson, Michael Servitus and Sir Issac Newton who didn't believe in Trinity either.

Well, by the definition you are a heretic. Do you consider yourself a Christian? Before you answer, remember the forum's rule about Christians believing in the Nicene Creed.

The Faith has nothing to do with the side kicks from man's continual theologies. Faith comes from obeying and believing in Jesus' and his Gospel.

"The Faith"? If you don't believe Jesus is God, what do you believe about Jesus? When you say "believing in Jesus" what do you think Jesus is? It sounds like you think Jesus and God are separate and you don't need to believe in God.

Believing in the truth of science is wonderful,

It should be, since that truth was put there by God. But you seem to think that science is somehow separate from God and His truth.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The bigger problem here seems to be people assuming that having a burden on your faith is always a bad thing. It's not as if Christian teaching opposes the idea of God willing in some sense that our faith be challenged, especially knowing the capacities of the creation to suffer temptation and challenges to faith. Seems to me that people are taking a principle that states that since something is abused or misused, it should be eschewed and avoided [by the faithful]. This is absurd on the same grounds that Christians would condemn a fellow Christian who wants to be a philosopher or a scientist because they make a conflation of science and philosophy as being "gateways" to atheism, heresy and the like, which is a problematic fallacy, or even multiple fallacies

 

[lucaspa]

The bigger problem here seems to be people assuming that having a burden on your faith is always a bad thing.

Let's be fair. It's Stephen Kendall. I've not see this doctrine anywhere else.

It's not as if Christian teaching opposes the idea of God willing in some sense that our faith be challenged,

People who have personal experience of God unanimously report that God is very challenging.
I remember reading of Jesus feeling challenged in his faith in the Garden of Gethsemane and that again on the cross.

Seems to me that people are taking a principle that states that since something is abused or misused, it should be eschewed and avoided [by the faithful]. This is absurd on the same grounds that Christians would condemn a fellow Christian who wants to be a philosopher or a scientist because they make a conflation of science and philosophy as being "gateways" to atheism, heresy and the like, which is a problematic fallacy, or even multiple fallacies

I don't recognize the name "problematic fallacy". Are you referring to the Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief Fallacy? Fallacy: Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If the very document these people find so authoritative says that being challenged in your faith is not a bad thing, but edifying, then why deny the obvious?

And I wasn't referencing any particular fallacy by name, since I'm not a logician by practice or knowledge. I'm reflecting on a phrase I find very profound still, abusus non tollit usum, which from my scant research just a minute ago, seems to just be a Latin proverb, not attributed to any particular author. But the fallacy is based on association it seems, not so much the consequences, though those may be incidentally relevant. People might say that just because some scientists and philosophers are hostile to Christianity or just atheists or agnostics, that therefore philosophy and science are therefore dangerous to Christians in particular. I have a feeling this is a named fallacy once I have explained it in some detail like this.