The bridge between belief and faith?

[LilLamb219]

So, I was curious, if you see this type of thing and believe it, which I think is reasonable to do so, how does a person bridge the gap between belief in something and faith in something; As in, if certain aspects of the Bible are untrue in your eyes and have been proven so, how does a person move forward from that and maintain faith?

There must be a point where there is less belief than faith, a point where someone is hoping it's real and places faith in it more than they believe in it. I don't think I could ever be that way and it's why I'm curious.

I know at least I would struggle to believe anything purportedly infallible if something was proven to be wrong. If anything, it speaks to the fallibility and ignorance of men and not the infallible word of God.

I wanted to address where you state that something was "proven to be wrong". Proven by man who errs? Science that constantly changes? Yes, these types of shows can be extremely convincing, can't they? They want to try to figure out things according to the "science" that they can grasp with their minds. It makes sense, right? If it doesn't make sense, then we have to force it to make sense. Because there HAS to be a logical explanation for it. Right?

That's the problem I have with watching those shows. Sure, they can come up with some really awesome explanations. But I don't have to put my trust in what some man has tried to figure out to make something work in HIS mind.

Concerning faith now... For Christians, our faith grows and ebbs. It's never constant. We can have doubts about sections of the Bible, yet STILL be a Christian.

I think that the big picture is missed when these minor items are a source of struggle. The Savior. Forgiveness of sins. Mankind is redeemed because God redeems us. Those are the huge tenets of faith that should be explored when investigating Christianity and what to believe. The other things are still valuable, but don't let those things deter you from knowing what God wants you to really know and believe.

 

[High Fidelity]

Without science we would either be extinct or still in mud huts. I trust it enough to make basic observations, especially using methods that can be demonstrates and provable.

The nature of science is that if something is discovered that changes scientific understanding, it acknowledges that. That's not to say some, most, methods aren't perfectly adequate for their purpose and others.

For example, no matter what we discover in the future, we will always know how to get to the Moon.

Just because further understanding can affect current understanding doesn't mean everything scientific is subjective.

 

[LilLamb219]

Ha. I didn't mean to make it sound as if I totally don't trust science! LOL

It's just that our understanding of our world changes with each new scientific discovery. Man is always trying to fit things into the brain in a neat little pattern.

My point is, don't get lured into tangents if you're exploring Christianity. Get to the heart of what is believed first off and that's concerning sinful man and the God who forgives us. These other types of things will just annoy you and aggravate you.

Without science we would either be extinct or still in mud huts. I trust it enough to make basic observations, especially using methods that can be demonstrates and provable.

The nature of science is that if something is discovered that changes scientific understanding, it acknowledges that. That's not to say some, most, methods aren't perfectly adequate for their purpose and others.

For example, no matter what we discover in the future, we will always know how to get to the Moon.

Just because further understanding can affect current understanding doesn't mean everything scientific is subjective.

 

[bhsmte]

Ha. I didn't mean to make it sound as if I totally don't trust science! LOL

It's just that our understanding of our world changes with each new scientific discovery. Man is always trying to fit things into the brain in a neat little pattern.

My point is, don't get lured into tangents if you're exploring Christianity. Get to the heart of what is believed first off and that's concerning sinful man and the God who forgives us. These other types of things will just annoy you and aggravate you.

In general, I would agree with you.

With that said, there is a significant difference between faith beliefs and how science operates. Faith is driven by emotion, psychological need (which I am not saying is unhealthy) and heavily on personally driven interpretations.

Science on the other hand, relies on empirical evidence, which is tested objectively, over and over again, to achieve reliable results. Sure, scientists can get things wrong, when the evidence is not clear and make their own assumptions, but the nature of science is self correcting, because of it's reliance on empirical evidence and so many scientists doing work in which they are more than happy to show how another scientist got it wrong. In other words, false information in science, has a shelf life, before it gets exposed and corrected.

With religious beliefs, empirical evidence does not exist to clarify things and hence the immense subjectivity that comes into play and even a very aggressive protection of one's subjective believes that we see take place.

 

[Tree of Life]

If one rejects the biblical accounts then there's all kinds of ingenious ways that the miraculous events could be explained naturally. I don't see how a naturalistic explanation amounts to proof that the biblical account is inaccurate.

 

[bhsmte]

If one rejects the biblical accounts then there's all kinds of ingenious ways that the miraculous events could be explained naturally. I don't see how a naturalistic explanation amounts to proof that the biblical account is inaccurate.

Natural explanation for which miraculous events?

 

[Tree of Life]

Natural explanation for which miraculous events?

Any miraculous event. But particularly the ones that have been mentioned in this thread, i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[LilLamb219]

If one rejects the biblical accounts then there's all kinds of ingenious ways that the miraculous events could be explained naturally. I don't see how a naturalistic explanation amounts to proof that the biblical account is inaccurate.

I agree. Taking one or two parts of the bible and saying that all of Christianity isn't true is like saying that I refuse to sit in this chair because one of the legs is red.

Our faith doesn't cling to the color of the leg.

Christian faith clings to the one who saves. There is a reason we need to have a Savior.

Yes, both Christians and non-Christians can argue the points brought up concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, or Noah's ark, or Jonah. And some people can be quite convincing. Should that play a part in whether to believe in the Savior though? NO.

 

[bhsmte]

I agree. Taking one or two parts of the bible and saying that all of Christianity isn't true is like saying that I refuse to sit in this chair because one of the legs is red.

Our faith doesn't cling to the color of the leg.

Christian faith clings to the one who saves. There is a reason we need to have a Savior.

Yes, both Christians and non-Christians can argue the points brought up concerning Sodom and Gomorrah, or Noah's ark, or Jonah. And some people can be quite convincing. Should that play a part in whether to believe in the Savior though? NO.

Agree.

Christians have typically adapted their level of literal belief in the bible based on what knowledge they have accumulated during their life. If that knowledge tells them something they used to believe as literal, is likely not true, no reason to abandon the believe all together, you just make adjustments.

Some can't adjust though and they end up scrambling to protect the literal interpretations, at all costs.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Agree.

Christians have typically adapted their level of literal belief in the bible based on what knowledge they have accumulated during their life. If that knowledge tells them something they used to believe as literal, is likely not true, no reason to abandon the believe all together, you just make adjustments.

Some can't adjust though and they end up scrambling to protect the literal interpretations, at all costs.

Good points, bhsmte, but there is one thing I'd like to qualify. The fact that there are Christians who 'overreact' to the inroads of historical criticism doesn't mean in and of itself that it is the New Testament from whence the supposed justifications are drawn by Christians who promote an exclusively hyper-literalistic defense of the Bible as a whole.

 

[High Fidelity]

Agree.

Christians have typically adapted their level of literal belief in the bible based on what knowledge they have accumulated during their life. If that knowledge tells them something they used to believe as literal, is likely not true, no reason to abandon the believe all together, you just make adjustments.

Some can't adjust though and they end up scrambling to protect the literal interpretations, at all costs.

But that's just it for me; It's either all true or it isn't.

If something is wrong then that speaks to the fallibility of man and the rest of it loses credibility and authority for me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But that's just it for me; It's either all true or it isn't.

If something is wrong then that speaks to the fallibility of man and the rest of it loses credibility and authority for me.

Tywin,

How did you develop such a rigid expectation regarding the nature of the Bible?

 

[High Fidelity]

Tywin,

How did you develop such a rigid expectation regarding the nature of the Bible?

I'd have thought it natural to expect something of such importance to be clear, infallible and without room for ambiguity.

Ultimately we're expected to take blind faith in something of which other religions expect as well. So if you'd want the 'right' or 'true' words to be read, I'd have thought it wouldn't have room for error that would in turn lead to doubt.

When so much is on the line, I just guess I expect something a little more than what everyone else is offering as well.

 

[Paradoxum]

Well....surprise. Some of us are actually educated and also know how to handle the Bible in ways other than what is proffered in some Bible 101 class at the local church.

I know not everyone is literalist and conservative, I just didn't think the percentages were like they apparently are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'd have thought it natural to expect something of such importance to be clear, infallible and without room for ambiguity.

Ultimately we're expected to take blind faith in something of which other religions expect as well. So if you'd want the 'right' or 'true' words to be read, I'd have thought it wouldn't have room for error that would in turn lead to doubt.

When so much is on the line, I just guess I expect something a little more than what everyone else is offering as well.

Interesting. My construct of expectations regarding the Bible has always been, might I say, a little bit more flexible. If the Bible had been written directly by God himself, like was does supposedly with the Ten Commandments, or if Jesus had written a gospel Himself, or some kind of spiritual treatise, then I might hold it up to an expectation of seeming perfection, and then be disappointed when I found that it failed to do so. But, the reality is that all of the books have been mediated through human hands, and in my expectations, the Scriptures, though Sacred, will be limited by the thought patterns, social processes, and finiteness of the writers. What makes them 'special' is that these authors, to varying degrees, may very well have had proximity to the divine. (Plus, it helps to do studying on a wide array of approaches, rather than just hold one approach with an iron grip and then let it slip if it fails.) Just my suggestion to try to nudge you along.

Actually, the bible does offer a bit more than what the 'others' are offering. The only strong competitor--and I use the term 'strong' loosely--is the Qu'ran.

 

[dms1972]

Yes I've seen BBC docs a few times in the past, and found what they said plausible, then found myself with something like the same question, about belief and faith. Then afterwards it occured to me if I'd been at church that Sunday evening and not watching a BBC documentary I'd not been in that difficulty.

Is this something to do with Lessing's great ugly ditch? Or is that something else?I think I eventually reached the point: "They're all trying to hoodwink me. I am not going to be hoodwinked or believe anyone arguments."

Infallible, inerrant and literal are not all the same.



And for me it also seems to involve issues about trust and authority.

 

[dms1972]

So what is this geologist's in the documentary starting point?

 

[bhsmte]

But that's just it for me; It's either all true or it isn't.

If something is wrong then that speaks to the fallibility of man and the rest of it loses credibility and authority for me.

Some are like you and this varies from person to person.

Some can't deny well evidenced realities and convince themselves all these well evidenced facts are wrong and are superseded by a book written by many unknown authors 2000 years ago. Some can deny the evidence and in fact, have a strong need to deny it, at all costs.

And I can understand why a certain person would call into question the entire content, if some of the content is obviously false. Not unlike in a courtroom, if an eye witness is shown to be lying about one subject, the entire testimony comes into question.

 

[High Fidelity]

Some are like you and this varies from person to person.

Some can't deny well evidenced realities and convince themselves all these well evidenced facts are wrong and are superseded by a book written by many unknown authors 2000 years ago. Some can deny the evidence and in fact, have a strong need to deny it, at all costs.

And I can understand why a certain person would call into question the entire content, if some of the content is obviously false. Not unlike in a courtroom, if an eye witness is shown to be lying about one subject, the entire testimony comes into question.

Indeed and I don't think I'd be able to ignore it.

I think in many ways, and I hope it doesn't sound offensive, but because I wasn't raised in or around religion, I am not nearly as emotionally attached as a lot of people my age, so maybe that's why I can't believe, regardless of perceived imperfections, wholeheartedly.