No choice for faith.

[Kestrel]

It depends what you mean by fate.
If you’re inquiring about ones eternal condition, then my answer is no.
I’m saying that it is my belief that faith comes from God. That we do not have a choice of whether to believe or not.

Kestrel, I know this is hardly a fair question   , but why would god want there to be disbelievers? I know there is no way for you know this, but what is your position when it comes to your understanding of your faith?

It is a fair and reasonable question, and one on which the entirety of the hope of my faith, rests.

My answer is that more important to me than having some all loving God, is that God be fair, just and in absolute control.
It's an over simplified answer, but it is accurate and will do for now.

[ImpaledSkier]

My answer is that more important to me than having some all loving God, is that God be fair, just and in absolute control

So, you're saying in your belief system there is no punishment, or any lack of reward from god for those disbelievers? You said you don't like the idea of hell. It's just doesn't seem to make sense to me that a god who can make people believers and disbelievers would decide to make both when it would be just as fair, if not more so, to create us all one way or the other. It would end a lot of debate, anger, and violence.

And when you mean absolute control you mean...?

And sorry to ask so many personal religious type questions, you're just the first I've talked to whose held views like these, and I'm curious and thankful. So...thanks!

[ImpaledSkier]

Yes indeedy! They believe there is no god, and also claim to know there is no god. I've even run into a few, and they're equally as scary as a Gnostic Theist...

Hmm...fair enough, I was thinking Gnostic meant that they knew that they could know about god, thus negating the atheism. My bad.

[Kestrel]

joeactor stated; From my perspective, we're dealing with the domains of Knowledge and Belief. You can' choose what you know - you either know it or not.

Seems a bit absolute to me.
How ‘bout this;
What can be known is limited only by the access of what is knowable.

 

You can choose what you do, and what you believe (IMHO).

I understand what you’re saying, yet I don’t feel one can choose what they believe until one has been inspired to believe.
At first blush that seems like semantics, but I feel there’s more there….
Grrr.
On second thought, I think I have to relegate that statement to the context of things “unseen”.

For example, someone tells you they have a machine that can transport matter. Without evidence available, you can choose to believe them, or choose not to believe them. Why should belief in god be any different?

This analogy is fine as a rebuttal to a fundamentalists press. Whereas it is the fundies stance that God can be proved. “Just look around”! They say. “He’s everywhere”!

Because they are declaring that God is a known and observable quantity, we can rebut with known and observable examples of our own.
We know what a machine is.
We have a fair grasp on what matter is.
We know what it means to transport something.
We also know that if someone makes the claim of such a machine, we are well within our rights to ask for a demonstration before we conclude if the claim is true or not.

But there’s something else that we know. That is, that to date, no one has been able to prove God to the satisfaction of our intellect. Our empirical requirements.

Which is where your analogy breaks down, when you ask;
“Why should belief in god be any different”?

With your earlier declaration as Agnostic Theism being your stance, I am compelled, (in the most respectful way possible to me), to hold you to it.

That’s why a belief in God is different. IMO

You’re right joeactor, this is an excellent conversation.
Thanks to you and all!


BTW: on a lighter note, I happen to have a machine that transports matter.
It’s a Toyota.  

[Kestrel]

My answer is that more important to me than having some all loving God, is that God be fair, just and in absolute control

So, you're saying in your belief system there is no punishment, or any lack of reward from god for those disbelievers? You said you don't like the idea of hell. It's just doesn't seem to make sense to me that a god who can make people believers and disbelievers would decide to make both when it would be just as fair, if not more so, to create us all one way or the other. It would end a lot of debate, anger, and violence.

And when you mean absolute control you mean...?

And sorry to ask so many personal religious type questions, you're just the first I've talked to whose held views like these, and I'm curious and thankful. So...thanks!

ImpaledSkier,
Just a quick post to acknowledge your questions.
I'll post a reply as soon as I can.

No worries about the questions mate. I'm happy to oblige.  

Cheers!

[Kestrel]

ImpaledSkier; So, you're saying in your belief system there is no punishment, or any lack of reward from god for those disbelievers?

That is correct. Reward and punishment doesn’t even apply. Period.

ImpaledSkier; You said you don't like the idea of hell.

True. More than that however, I find no scriptural basis for it. If I did, I may still be a person of faith, just not a believer in the Christian God.

ImpaledSkier; It's just doesn't seem to make sense to me that a god who can make people believers and disbelievers would decide to make both when it would be just as fair, if not more so, to create us all one way or the other. It would end a lot of debate, anger, and violence.

On the surface, this position seems reasonable. Especially from an atheistic viewpoint.
But I feel it’s flawed.
Here’s why;
Were God able to be satisfactorily proven, and universally understood, your statement would be correct. The fact that God cannot be proven is true equality.
The fact that some believe while others do not, doesn’t change that equality one iota.
The field remains level.
Why? Again, because God cannot be proven.

**IRONY ALERT** As far as being “fair” goes, the advantage goes to the atheist or non-believer. Believers are disadvantaged by the simple fact that they cannot prove their claims.

In your above quote, it is your opinion that were we “created” fully one way or the other a lot of debate, anger and violence would or could be avoided.
I’m compelled to disagree.

Without religion, man remains man.
Most assuredly religious zeal has caused its share of harm. No argument there.
Yet I find no reason that the world would be a better or worse place without it.

Removing religion from the quiver still leaves, patriotism, ethnic issues, envy, greed, hunger, needs of resources, etc. available as instruments in which to whip up the masses for war. Whether it be as micro as 2 individuals or as macro as nations.

Removing religion doesn’t stop one mans ideals from clashing with another’s ideals.

One persons ideal for society will forever make someone else feel oppressed.

I will give you this; of all the ridiculous, vain and absurd reasons to harm another, religious beliefs takes the prize. Hands down.

ImpaledSkier; And when you mean absolute control you mean...?

To control absolutely, that which is needed to achieve Gods goal.
If you don’t mind, I’m going to re-quote your original post and edit it a bit…

ImpaledSkier; It's just doesn't seem to make sense to me that a god who can make people believers and disbelievers would decide to make both…

It didn’t make sense to me either, at first.
My position is this;
I am a believer in a sovereign God.
I understand that I cannot prove this God.
It is my understanding of God that anything is possible for him to do.
My dilemma[/b] was this;
Why doesn’t God just do it?

It took me a while to figure out that I was not just asking the wrong question, I was asking the right question from the wrong viewpoint.
You see, when you state that it doesn’t seem to make sense as far as god’s motive, you are asking the right question from the right viewpoint as an atheist.

The correct question for a believer of a sovereign God is;
What is God accomplishing by not just snapping His “fingers” and making it so?
(Please note that I didn’t phrase my question as, “What is God hoping to accomplish…” or “…trying to accomplish…”.
In my opinion a true deity has the capability to achieve its own goal(s). Anything less isn’t worthy of the title.)

At any rate, once I found my answer to what God’s plan is, my faith was and continues to be confirmed.
I no longer have the occasional bouts of doubt. No more crises of faith. All that is far behind me.
But there is no gain without cost. And I pay it everyday. It gets expensive, but I feel that in the end it will be more than worth it.
For all of us.

Whether it is the knowing of a thing or an absolute faith in a thing, within my conscience it seems right that there is also a responsibility for that thing.

That’s why I do what I do.

Oh look... I rambled and made this post about me.
(Sorry ‘bout that.)

[Kestrel]

With your earlier declaration as Agnostic Theism being your stance, I am compelled, (in the most respectful way possible to me), to hold you to it.

That’s why a belief in God is different. IMO

 Unless of course, joeactor, I've either misunderstood your statement or unintentionally took your statement out of context. (?)

[joeactor]

With your earlier declaration as Agnostic Theism being your stance, I am compelled, (in the most respectful way possible to me), to hold you to it.

That’s why a belief in God is different. IMO

 Unless of course, joeactor, I've either misunderstood your statement or unintentionally took your statement out of context. (?)

Nope - I see your point with the "Matter Transfer Analogy"... there really isn't a good analogy for any of the non-fact-based beliefs.

But, as I said:  I choose to believe that belief is a choice

[Kestrel]

Nope - I see your point with the "Matter Transfer Analogy"... there really isn't a good analogy for any of the non-fact-based beliefs.

But, as I said:  I choose to believe that belief is a choice

LOL Fair enough.  

[Kestrel]

But, as I said:  I choose to believe that belief is a choice

How did you intellectually arrive at the position of believing, in the context of being a theist?

[joeactor]

But, as I said:  I choose to believe that belief is a choice

How did you intellectually arrive at the position of believing, in the context of being a theist?

Simple.  I didn't.

Knowledge and Belief are two separate domains.

I intellectually arrived at the position of being an Agnostic.

I emotionally arrived at the position of being a Theist.

Both are choices.  One uses knowledge, the other feelings.

We make choices every day based on our emotions.  There doesn't have to be an intellectual component (although many decisions do involve both).

All things have their place.  If you choose a car based solely on your emotional reaction, best of luck with whatever you get.  On the other hand, if you choose a spouse solely because they match a list of qualifications, I wish you luck in divorce court...

JoeActor

[Kestrel]

Excellent. Makes sense to me.
Thanks.

[Will]

Once a believer realizes that they did not choose to believe, that the very faith they profess comes from god and not themselves, it levels the playing field.

Very interesting idea. Forgive me for asking, but do you mean that God decides who believes in him? Doesn't that suggest that the road to heaven is preordained by God's decision to give you faith or not....therefore doesn't that mean that nothing we can do will earn the reward of heaven? That's somewhat disconcerting. The former believer in me would say, "The teachings of Jesus Christ suggest, in so many words, that one plays an active role in their faith and is free to make the determination about the true nature of the supernatural, and inevitably God. To suggest that man does not choose to believe in God takes away the most fundamental rights of mankind after the fall." Then I'd mention a ton of bible verses like the entire books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and some of the letters.

I am of the opinion that faith comes from uncertainty, fear, narcissism and the need for a Disney answer to every question. Forgive my callous point, but the idea that the universe was created as our playground and a supreme supernatural being believes us to be the greatest of all his creations...it reminds me of when people say things like, "We live in the greatest country in the world". It begs the question: says who? (which brings us to the next quote:)

At the end of the day the “delusional” argument doesn’t work with someone who claims to have faith as opposed to knowledge. Why? Because in order to bring the charge of delusion to the table, one must have knowledge to replace said delusion. And unless I missed the report on CNN that said the meaning of life has been found, you, me and everyone else with an idea or belief are on equal ground. Anyone who insists on pushing the point, I toss into the same bin as ignorant fundamental Christians.

Ah, the "meaning of life", fundamental basis on which philosophy is built. When most people discuss the meaning of life, they start with an assumption: life has meaning. What evidence is there of that? Well that's, oddly enough, a matter of faith. It, like the supernatural, really has no proof. I can't conclusively say that the meaning of my life is to worship a being, the existence of said being being inexistent. I can't even cling to something as simple as existentialism isn't more than a matter of perception, and we all know that perception is quite relative. Our equal ground is our lack of knowledge.

A few years ago, I was having a board discussion, when an atheist popped in and implied that he was more qualified to speak on the meaning of life because he had a degree in philosophy.
I congratulated him on his achievement, then pointed out that he was on level with any illiterate dirt farmer. And that is a fact. It’s not a put down. A shut down, maybe. But not a put down.

That's a rather blunt way of putting it. I'd say he's more like a painter who strives to better understand expression. His knowledge is hardly useless, though it may not be useful to him or you or me. If a belief system can be honestly beneficial to you, and it won't damage the world around you, then go do your thing. If you can be a better person because of your philosophy, congratulations. It took a crutch of sorts, but at least you're moving.

In my not so humble opinion, any sentient being who can ask themselves, “Why am I here?” has a right to draw their own conclusions because as of yet no definitive answer has been shown to be satisfactory to all people.

Ah, but it's rarely that simple. When someone else's conclusions to life knock at my door during dinner or shit on me for not believing in a big white guy with a beard sitting on a cloud, the conclusion grows into something different. When a book tells me how shellfish (yes, that old favorite) are evil, or homosexuals are damned, and more importantly, people take the book's words to be gospel - pun intended? -, it goes from conclusion to something much different. We go from an idea, which is easy to change, to belief, which is not easy to change. I love ideas, but I can't wrap my head around beliefs. How can you live in a world where the rules are set and nothing more in your experience can change them?

The Christian theists dilemma in regard to the declarations of their faith(s), is the fact that they claim that they know their faith to be true. Which opens the door, and reasonably so, for ridicule from people who do not believe as they.

That I can agree with, though I don't like the idea of ridiculing anyone for anything (cept ridiculing Bush for saying things like "The only way we can win is to leave before the job is done.", you can make fun of Bush all you want).

I enjoyed your post.

[Kestrel]

Willravel; Very interesting idea. Forgive me for asking, but do you mean that God decides who believes in him? Doesn't that suggest that the road to heaven is preordained by God's decision to give you faith or not....therefore doesn't that mean that nothing we can do will earn the reward of heaven? That's somewhat disconcerting.

Yes, from what I understand of my faith, God decides who believes in him. For me, it’s fairly hard to ignore when Scripture spends so much time referring to believers as the elect and/or chosen. The mechanics of faith itself is explicitly laid out in Scripture and ignored by those who claim scripture as their authority.
Only after accepting the fact that I had no say in my faith, did everything change for me and I came to see what an absolute mess, most of my brethren had made from their unwillingness to control their egos.  Doctrines long held by Christians as “truths” fall away. No hell. No eternal punishments. No “choice” to be made in an environment in which God cannot be intellectually proved. No worries for those who have not heard the gospel. Perhaps most importantly, an understanding of what the “gospel” really is. The understanding that Christians have no place imposing their beliefs upon government. Among many other things.
Disconcerting? Not from where I stand.

Willravel; The former believer in me would say, "The teachings of Jesus Christ suggest, in so many words, that one plays an active role in their faith and is free to make the determination about the true nature of the supernatural, and inevitably God. To suggest that man does not choose to believe in God takes away the most fundamental rights of mankind after the fall." Then I'd mention a ton of bible verses like the entire books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and some of the letters.

To which the current believer in me would respond, “The teachings of Jesus Christ demands that one strive to understand the workings of their faith and to produce the good works that can only come from that understanding. To understand that God is sovereign in all things for God’s purpose.”
Sure you could toss scripture at me. But Scripture is the very thing that would lay waste to your position. This is not a personal boast, as I feel all I’m doing is repeating Scripture. I didn’t write it, I just choose to actually believe it.
Perhaps you want to give it a go. Good. I encourage it. It’s what I do and I’ve been doing it for a very long time.
Interesting things happen and I find it endlessly fascinating. Such as;

Fundie/Evangelicals, will pipe up and declare that I’m leading people to Hell. To which my reply is, if I have the power to “trick” people into some eternal state of pain and torment, then my cat can kick their god’s ass.

Some former believers/atheists actually pick up the banner of their discarded beliefs or things they never believed in and argue for[/b] that which they claim to no longer/never believe.

Some atheists and/or agnostics from time to time, will actively see and clearly understand my points and work with me. (One certainly does not have to believe in scripture to understand it.)

Some believers even come to doubt their faith and walk away. Not being able to handle the possibility that they did not actively choose to believe in God. Or discouraged that they seem to have gotten so much of their understanding, backwards. Subject to their own egos to the end.

Anyway…

Willravel; Ah, the "meaning of life", fundamental basis on which philosophy is built. When most people discuss the meaning of life, they start with an assumption: life has meaning. What evidence is there of that?

To me it seems fitting and correct that every and any sentient being, who has the ability to ponder their own existence, has a right to ask, "Why am I here? What's it all for"?
If an intellect can form the question, then the question is valid in my opinion.
At the end of things we may find the question moot and pointless after all.
Until then however....the question has a right to stand.

The meaning of life, is a pursuit that should never be taken from one, and an answer that should never be imposed upon another.

Good post, good points and good speaking with you.

Cheers.

[Kestrel]

Just for the sake of posting at the moment, I’d like to illustrate one of my points from my above post;

Kestrel; Some atheists and/or agnostics from time to time, will actively see and clearly understand my points and work with me. (One certainly does not have to believe in scripture to understand it.)

Five or six days ago I was perusing this forum and I stumbled across a perfect example of my above quote.
I was reading a thread where a believer popped in and began with the same old tired believer stuff. Out of the blue, a self proclaimed atheist posts a question regarding how this believer “chose” to believe. I actually laughed out loud because I knew where the question was going. Not that I was laughing at anyone, I wasn’t. I was laughing at the irony of an atheist correctly applying scripture to a believer in order to discredit the believer.
McQ was the atheist involved and it was brilliant. Right out of the gate, McQ for all intents and purpose hamstrung the believers position. If I remember right, the believer in question never really got around to McQ’s question. But that’s not my point. My point is that McQ, an atheist and myself being a believer can agree on at least one point of scriptural doctrine, while each of us holds our respective positions of believer/non believer.

I’ll try to find McQ’s post and link to it.