Why your faith?

[Silmarien]

I use the word God as a name for someone who would have created the universe, if such a creature exists.

I find no reason to believe God exists.

Two follow up questions:

Does this definition of God exclude traditions that view God instead as transcendent reality or the ground of being? Because plenty of theologians in any number of religions would be hesitant to describe God as "someone" or a "creature." (The latter is particularly problematic, because the very etymology of the word implies something that has been created.)

If you find no reason to believe that God exists, what is your preferred explanation for the existence of the universe? (If you do not believe an explanation is possible, that's fine, but then you will need to explain why God is a particularly poor potential explanation.)

Is there any reason I should adopt your faith?

Oh, yes. If you're a committed secular humanist, you ought to be very concerned with how you ground the concept of human dignity. To what degree are the values of modern Western society the product of 2000 years of Christian history that collapse into so much meaningless conditioning as well if Christianity is false?

I practice Christianity despite being agnostic towards it, and this is one of the reasons. I cannot justify my progressivism in the absence of the belief that history is headed in a particular direction, which is an extremely Christian concept.

 

[mindlight]

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. The birds are chirping. The flowers are vibrantly colored. "I am glad we are moving here," I inform my dog, "but it seems a little deserted this morning. Perhaps everyone went to church."

"Oh yes," you explain to me over the fence later that day. "Many of us take our faith quite seriously here".

"That's interesting", I respond. "I personally don't have much faith in any deity. Seriously, why should I adopt your faith?"

You step back, pause, and reply...

Because God believes in you and He is your only chance of redemption from hell.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Well I think you are in a better situation than some who don't leave room for the possibility that they could be wrong.

Of course. We should always be open to the fact that we may be wrong.

Are you open to the fact that you might be wrong, that God might not exist, or that your faith teaches the opposite of what he wants?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because God believes in you and He is your only chance of redemption from hell.

Ah we are back to adopting faith to escape hell.

How do you know hell exists?

What do you think we need to do to escape hell? How do you know that your way of escaping hell will work?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If you find no reason to believe that God exists, what is your preferred explanation for the existence of the universe?

A multiverse seems most likely but there are many other possibilities.

To what degree are the values of modern Western society the product of 2000 years of Christian history that collapse into so much meaningless conditioning as well if Christianity is false?

I think much of our western values come from the enlightenment.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sure... we have to draw out own conclusions and God isn't going to force Himself on anyone. I am saying if you sincerely reach out to Him that He will reach back... in some manner or form.

Ok, so you think I should adopt your faith because, if I do, God might reach out to me. What does that even mean? If God reached out to me, how would I know it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Generally and more directly to your question... I image a series of things will happen and you'll want to, in your skepticism, chalk it all off to coincidence.

That's it? I should consider your faith so that a series of events will happen to me that some regard as coincidences?

But after a while you just kind of realize that coincidences just don't keep repeating like that.

Scientists use statistical analysis to show a series of events were not coincidence. Got any statistical data for your claim?

Sorry I can't be more exact... it is honestly slightly different for everyone who sincerely asks.

I often have good things happen to me. Are these the type of things you are referring to? Does this indicate I am already correct?

 

[mindlight]

Ah we are back to adopting faith to escape hell.

There are positive and negative reasons to believe. Escaping hell is the best negative reason.

How do you know hell exists?

Gods word and church tradition are clear. Also it is necessary for our freedom to be real.

What do you think we need to do to escape hell? How do you know that your way of escaping hell will work?

We need to repent of our sins and trust in Jesus. Because I am in Christ and washed by His blood hell could not hold me. Hell is where sinners go , but if I am clean by Christ then I cannot be sent there.

 

[Ken Rank]

Ok, so you think I should adopt your faith because, if I do, God might reach out to me. What does that even mean? If God reached out to me, how would I know it?

Obviously you are either unable to have an intelligent conversation or you have an agenda you are hiding behind some wording. I didn't suggest anything, I said, based on your questions that IF you determined to seek, be prepared to hear an answer. I didn't and don't push my beliefs on you... I simply said that if you sincerely reach out to God, do not be surprised to hear back in some form or fashion. Beyond that, whatever you do is your choice and I have made that point very clear. Thanks for taking my time... I hope you find whatever it is you are looking for.

Ken

 

[doubtingmerle]

I said, based on your questions that IF you determined to seek, be prepared to hear an answer.

Sounds a little vague to me. My question has been why I should adopt your faith. Saying that then I will "hear an answer" is a little vague. How will I know that the answer I am hearing is as a result of adopting your faith?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Gods word and church tradition are clear. Also it is necessary for our freedom to be real.

If by "God's word" you mean the bible, I would like to know how you know it is God's word.

And I don't find the concept of hell to be clearly taught there. It seems more to be talking about the literal valley of gehannah, the valley where Romans burned Jewish bodies.

Finally, why does there need to be a hell for us to be free?

 

[Ken Rank]

Sounds a little vague to me. My question has been why I should adopt your faith. Saying that then I will "hear an answer" is a little vague. How will I know that the answer I am hearing is as a result of adopting your faith?

Because God is not bound to a religion or a denomination... and anyone who reaches out to Him in a pure heart He hears... or He is a liar. This isn't about adopting a faith, a denomination, or a religion... it is about a relationship. And LATER, should you find a denomination or something that is in harmony with your understanding or that blesses you with more depth of understanding, and you then want to be part of it, so be it.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Because God is not bound to a religion or a denomination... and anyone who reaches out to Him in a pure heart He hears... or He is a liar.

Your God is fine with atheism, hinduism, mormonism, islam, tribal witchcraft, satanism, or whatever? If not, how do I know which ones your God likes and which he doesnt?

 

[Silmarien]

A multiverse seems most likely but there are many other possibilities.

In that case, what would be your preferred explanation for the existence of the multiverse?

I think much of our western values come from the enlightenment.

To the extent to which that is true (Enlightenment thought is actually extremely elitist in some ways), the Enlightenment didn't happen in a cultural vacuum. Christianity was still the cultural backdrop against which it played out and not a factor that can be eliminated when discussing it.

Also, a significant portion of Enlightenment thought on human nature (think Rousseau and the idea that humans are by nature solitary) is simply wrong, so if your values are coming from a flawed anthropology, you're still in trouble.

 

[bling]

You are the salesman. I am the potential client.

It is your job to make the sales pitch, not me.

I am not going to sell you something you do not want (that is not ethical). So what do you want and why do you want it?

 

[doubtingmerle]

I am not going to sell you something you do not want (that is not ethical). So what do you want and why do you want it?

I want to know if you think I should adopt your faith.

Is so I would like to know why you think that.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Silmarien, we seem to be drifting from the op. We are here to find out if you think I should adopt your faith, and why you might think that.

In that case, what would be your preferred explanation for the existence of the multiverse?

Most likely something always existed, but "always" is not well defined once you go back past the big bang. What "always existed" is anyone's guess.

To the extent to which that is true (Enlightenment thought is actually extremely elitist in some ways), the Enlightenment didn't happen in a cultural vacuum. Christianity was still the cultural backdrop against which it played out and not a factor that can be eliminated when discussing it.

Also, a significant portion of Enlightenment thought on human nature (think Rousseau and the idea that humans are by nature solitary) is simply wrong, so if your values are coming from a flawed anthropology, you're still in trouble.

I did not say the enlightenment thinkers were perfect, nor did I claim they worked in a vacuum with no influence from previous thought. They still layed much of the foundation for modern western thought.

 

[bling]

I want to know if you think I should adopt your faith.

Is so I would like to know why you think that.

I cannot give you my faith, it would have to be your faith (trust in God/Christ).
Accepting God/Christ is really accepting pure sacrificial charity and most people will do almost anything to avoid accepting charity as charity, so there has to be a huge desire or need to overcome pride.

Within every nonbeliever there is a potential child of God and it is that child I would like you to release to go to the kingdom.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I cannot give you my faith, it would have to be your faith (trust in God/Christ).

Obviously.

Again, why would I want to have that faith?

Accepting God/Christ is really accepting pure sacrificial charity and most people will do almost anything to avoid accepting charity as charity, so there has to be a huge desire or need to overcome pride.

I am not seeing a strong sales pitch here. What charity would I be receiving?

Within every nonbeliever there is a potential child of God and it is that child I would like you to release to go to the kingdom.

What does it mean to release my potential inner child to go to the kingdom?

 

[Silmarien]

Silmarien, we seem to be drifting from the op. We are here to find out if you think I should adopt your faith, and why you might think that.

I'm a leftist social theorist, with all the baggage that entails. Asking one of us whether we think you should adopt our paradigms is opening up a particularly nasty bag of worms. Obviously the answer is going to be yes, but the reasons behind that are going to be pretty complicated. If you do not want to deal with postmodern criticisms of secularism, that's fine, but your hypothetical neighbor should be more careful when challenging people to explain themselves!

I'm deeply troubled by the resurgence of fascism throughout the West and less than impressed by the coherence of secular answers to it. If I believe people should adopt a particular belief system, it's because I think that the further we get from a Christian worldview, the shakier a foundation modern human rights are going to have.

I also find theism rationally compelling, so I think that anyone who doesn't has overlooked something and would be better off reconsidering the issue. But of course that is going to be another very difficult conversation. (Mostly it comes down to the conclusion that the Enlightenment got just about everything wrong and has left us with any number of irrational prejudices.)

Most likely something always existed, but "always" is not well defined once you go back past the big bang. What "always existed" is anyone's guess.

If you see space-time as emergent, and I think it's correct to do so, then concepts like "always" and "before" aren't merely not well defined. They're out of place entirely. We've entered the realm of the eternal in the theological sense.

Whether we can say anything about the eternal is the underlying question. Theists would say that we can, and if you find theism a particularly problematic description of the eternal, then you are also saying that we can, at least in relation to one specific possibility.

I did not say the enlightenment thinkers were perfect, nor did I claim they worked in a vacuum with no influence from previous thought. They still layed much of the foundation for modern western thought.

And their moral principles were to a large extent based in Christianity. You see this with things like Jefferson's Bible--discard all the talk about miracles, but retain the moral message of the Gospel. Is it reasonable to uncritically preserve the moral aspect of a supposed divine revelation while rejecting everything else? What answer can you give to thinkers like Nietzsche who attack even the Christian concept of morality that underlies modern thought?