Happy Atheist Forum

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Kes, could you elaborate just a bit more...."not supposed to believe" doesn't seem to have much to do with superiority complexes.

Alright.
“Free will”, as the term is bandied about, is a farce.
I didn’t choose to be born. I didn’t choose my gender, etc. Were it up to most folks, they wouldn’t choose to die.
In other words, the idea of free will is fine, right up to the point where it bumps into someone else’s “free will” or just everyday circumstance.

It is my stance in regard to my faith that one cannot choose to believe in the god of the bible. In fact the bible spends most a great deal of time emphasizing the point. Interestingly enough most Christians disregard this fact. (That’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.)

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.
Ignorant doctrines and misunderstandings such as “eternal punishment” and trinity’s logically crumble into nothing. As a result of my determination that belief is not a choice, my faith is logically unassailable.

Okay. For clarity’s sake I’ll give a bit of background information as to how I come to my conclusions;

I use the bible as my source of information regarding my faith.
In my over ten years time of posting on message boards, I’ve heard all the arguments. So for those who are reading this and feel so inclined as to inform me of my “delusion” or my need to “believe in Santa Clause”, allow me to save us both some time;

Faith is just that. Faith.
It is only an avenue on which the timeless question of “Why am I here?”, is explored.
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.
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.
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.

That being said;

While I do not have the right to put down or condemn another for their beliefs, I do[/b] have the right to … (here it comes…) , intellectually pound the ever-living crap out of one who professes an understanding of a faith shared.
That shared faith being Christianity.

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.
What almost all contemporary Christians refuse to understand is that, the moment they declare faith fact, faith ceases to exist. Leaving them with nothing but vacant slack jawed expressions.  That makes them and their faith, targets. And targets make poor impressions.
I have a few ideas as to why they fall into this pit, the biggest cause being their ego’s. But that’s a whole other thread.

It follows that if one cannot make a decision to believe then one cannot blame another for not believing. Nor can they take credit.
As I said earlier, I get my information from the same place most Christians get theirs, the bible.
In order for me to elaborate further on how I’ve come to the conclusion, I would have to start tossing out verse. Something I’ll never do unless specifically asked to do so by non-believers.

Thanks, I think understand what you were meaning before now.

QuoteOnce 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.

I didn't choose not to believe. I just don't believe, just like I didn't choose my favorite color, or movie. They just happened. Does it mean god doesn't want to fill me with faith? or he's just going to let me chill, doing my thing until ultimately he sends me to hell? are you saying our fate is predestined based on whether god professes love to us or not?

Kestrel, thank you for explaining further. I really wasn't grasping your meaning and didn't want to assume I knew what you meant earlier. You've cleared it up.

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"I didn't choose not to believe. I just don't believe, just like I didn't choose my favorite color, or movie. They just happened.

Right. My point exactly.
As you state, you didn’t choose disbelief.
Making non-belief a default setting, as it were.
Now undoubtedly on this board is one or more people who were believers at one time or another. Which is not what we’re speaking of here.
All I’m saying is that it is my position that we are born without faith.

QuoteDoes it mean god doesn't want to fill me with faith?

Yes. That’s what it means.

Quoteor he's just going to let me chill, doing my thing until ultimately he sends me to hell?

Hell?!  Eeww. That smacks of fundy Christian droppings. Don’t get any on me.  
The question is certainly reasonable. Seems absurd doesn’t it?
Let’s see;
God chooses those to believe in him, leaving others ignorant, he then condemns those that he left disbelieving to an eternal state of punishment.
You’re right!! It is absurd.
Thank god it doesn’t work that way.

I never said anything about “hell”.
The hell doctrine is a byproduct of at least 900 yrs of believer’s insistence on applying their sense of justice over gods. It is one of at least 4 major adopted doctrines that have twisted Christianity into the ground.

I’ll address hell further in subsequent posts. If anyone is interested.

Quoteare you saying our fate is predestined based on whether god professes love to us or not?

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.
I don’t just say that because it feels good. I say it because the scripture that I use to get my information and what I witness around me confirms it.
I’m not a “because I say so”, kinda guy.

Keep in mind, that my position(s) come from what I glean from my understanding of my faith.
I’m not responsible for someone’s disbelief nor the ridiculously confused positions and conclusions of my fellow believers, who put themselves in the untenable position of having to prove their claims. I avoid this completely by having the audacity to believe that God is sovereign.
What I do feel responsible for, is as complete an understanding of my faith as I can achieve, and to share what I know with other believers who are bothered by the inconsistencies and flat-out hypocrisy’s that contemporary Christianity espouses.

What I find somewhat disheartening, is that too few are truly bothered by it.

FYI if anyone’s interested; Normally I wouldn’t have added the above italicized blurb into a post such as this. However, experience dictates that it behooves me to establish my position as soon as possible when engaging a fresh board.

laetusatheos & McQ,
You're welcome.

Hey Kestrel,

Ya know, we're almost on the same page (just offset by a bit).

I applaud your noting the difference between knowledge and faith.  By that token, since you claim no knowledge of God, you'd be an Agnostic... and since you believe in God, you're a Theist.  And I thought I'd be the only Agnostic Theist here!

Where we diverge is on two critical points:

1) belief in the bible/christ/etc.
2) belief that god determines who believes

For me, belief is a choice that each of us makes.  We choose to believe or we choose not to believe.  But it is our choice to make.

Since I'm an Agnostic Theist, I choose to believe in god.

My question to Atheists and Theists is this:
  Why is it so difficult or uncomfortable to say "I Don't Know"?

QuoteMy question to Atheists and Theists is this:
Why is it so difficult or uncomfortable to say "I Don't Know"?

So, being an Agnostic Theist, which is a new term for me, you're saying you believe that the knowledge is unattainable about god, but you believe in him anyways.

I believe there is no god.

Theists believe there is a god.

There is nothing about knowledge in any of those statements.

Asking me personally, I could say I don't know for sure if there is a god or not, but I would say that the knowledge is unattainable. This is because I don't believe in god. I guess I'm an agnostic atheist...but that just seems redundant. I'll stick with atheist true and true.

I think to answer your question, being a theist or atheist everyone has that little "I don't know" in them. Because no one will "know" until they die. We're just skipping the semantics. People who claim to know that god exists, scare me, and don't seem to be very open minded and logical.

QuoteSince I'm an Agnostic Theist, I choose to believe in god.

How did you choose to believe in god? I know one day I didn't sit down and go, "I won't do it, I just will not believe." I sat down a went, "I can't do it, there nothing in me telling me there is a god, and no proof outside of me. I don't believe in god."

I hope those remarks I made are clear in someway. And that is just speaking for myself.

QuoteIt 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?

Quote from: "joeactor"My question to Atheists and Theists is this:
  Why is it so difficult or uncomfortable to say "I Don't Know"?

I say I don't know about a lot of things.  I'm an atheist because I don't believe in a god since I find little to no reason to believe.  Yet, I'm agnostic because certain concepts of god are so undefined and uninvolved that we really can't know one way or the other.

First off - great discussion all - I love a good philosophical debate ;-)

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"I guess I'm an agnostic atheist...but that just seems redundant. I'll stick with atheist true and true.

Gnostic and Agnostic both deal with Knowledge.
Theist and Atheist both deal with Belief.
... so that gives the four basic choices ...

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"People who claim to know that god exists, scare me, and don't seem to be very open minded and logical.

Abso-friggin-lutely.  No debate on that point!

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"How did you choose to believe in god?

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

Or, to get totally recursive on you:

I choose to believe that belief is a choice.
 :lol:

Quote from: "joeactor"Hey Kestrel,
My question to Atheists and Theists is this:
  Why is it so difficult or uncomfortable to say "I Don't Know"?

I’m an atheist and I admit, I don’t know.  Here are some thoughts on why I don’t label myself an agnostic anymore:  

The god of the bible has human characteristics, and there are plenty of examples of terrible things happening in the bible at god’s behest or due to god’s direct action.  Why worship a god who is violent and spiteful?  I wouldn’t spend my life with a person who displayed those characteristics.  Why would an all knowing, loving god treat his favorite creation this way?  It doesn't make sense.

As a person, I would do anything to ease the suffering of others (whether they “deserve” it or not).  Clearly it is not in my power to ease all suffering, but if it were and I refused to use that power, that would make me a monster.  Since (IMHO) the Judeo-Christian god can be described in this manner, why worship this god?

Okay, so I dismiss the possibility of that version of god.  If some other version of god exists, I don’t believe he/she/it has human characteristics.  So how can I relate to this entity?  Well, I can’t so it doesn’t affect my life; why trouble myself over this possible, invisible entity?

Asking questions, going in circles; I’ve had enough of it.  It’s easier to be an atheist than to continue searching for answers that don’t exist.  Sure, I’d like to be proven wrong, but so far I haven’t been.  So until someone smarter than me comes up with answers, I’m fine with my position.

QuoteFor 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?

Well, if someone told me they had a machine that can transport matter, I wouldn't believe them. It wouldn't be a choice, I'd instinctively just not believe him. If he was a very convincing person I may be pursuaded to eventually believe him, but is that really a choice? It wouldn't be me saying, "Okay, I choose to believe you now." It'd be, "You made a good point, and now I believe you." I would never say, "Even though you make good points and I want to believe you, I choose to not believe." I would just believe.

I guess this might get down to a debate as to whether we really have choices. Say someone punches you in the face at a bar ( :cheers: )one night. You are probably going to want to slug him right back. You may even feel it was an overwhelming feeling to do that, but say you don't. Was that a choice? Or was the 'feeling' to not punch him dictating your actions? This is kind of how I feel about the whole choosing to believe anything idea.

And on a side note: Those 4 choice you mentioned, can you have a Gnostic Atheist?

Quote from: "joeactor"Hey Kestrel,

Ya know, we're almost on the same page (just offset by a bit).

I applaud your noting the difference between knowledge and faith.  By that token, since you claim no knowledge of God, you'd be an Agnostic... and since you believe in God, you're a Theist.  And I thought I'd be the only Agnostic Theist here!

Where we diverge is on two critical points:

1) belief in the bible/christ/etc.
2) belief that god determines who believes

For me, belief is a choice that each of us makes.  We choose to believe or we choose not to believe.  But it is our choice to make.

Since I'm an Agnostic Theist, I choose to believe in god.

My question to Atheists and Theists is this:
  Why is it so difficult or uncomfortable to say "I Don't Know"?

Agnostic Theist works for me. :)

Hey I.S.,

I see what you mean with the Bar analogy.  We're down to splitting philosophical hairs - heck we might be agreeing and not know it!

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"And on a side note: Those 4 choice you mentioned, can you have a Gnostic Atheist?

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...

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"

QuoteIt 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.

QuoteMy 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!

QuoteYes 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.

Quotejoeactor 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.

 

QuoteYou 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”.

QuoteFor 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.  

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"

QuoteMy 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!

QuoteImpaledSkier; 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.

QuoteImpaledSkier; 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.

QuoteImpaledSkier; 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.

QuoteImpaledSkier; 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…

QuoteImpaledSkier; 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.)

Quote from: "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. (?)

Quote from: "Kestrel"

Quote from: "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. (?)

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:

Quote from: "joeactor"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:

LOL Fair enough.   :cheers:

Quote from: "joeactor"But, as I said:  I choose to believe that belief is a choice :lol:

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

Quote from: "Kestrel"

Quote from: "joeactor"But, as I said:  I choose to believe that belief is a choice :lol:

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

Excellent. Makes sense to me.
Thanks.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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:)

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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?

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

QuoteWillravel; 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.

QuoteWillravel; 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…

QuoteWillravel; 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.

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

QuoteKestrel; 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.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

Let's say, hypothetically, I win a luxary cruise to Hawaii. The tickets are for me "and a friend". I now have a choice to make, as I have three casual girlfriends. Do I choose Christine, the aggressive, dark haired one, Jenny the brunette librarian, or Jessica the blonde busybody?

In making this decision, I'm not going to choose based on hair color. I'm going to choose based on personality, which is something each of these women has developed on her own over her lifetime. I'm not choosing them based on stuff they can't control, I'm basing it on stuff they can.

Similarly, the equally hypothetical god creature could determine to save someone because he has brown hair, or because he chooses to believe. What you are saying is god chooses people to save, therefore he chooses whether they believe. You're missing a step there, and by my understanding, that step doesn't exist in scripture. I'm no authority, and frankly, I'd question anyone who said he or she was, but I think I'd remember reading somewhere if we didn't have free will about the whole faith thing. Yes, the "holy spirit" inspires faith in people, but there is a marked difference in semantics between inspiring something and bestowing or engraining something. The idea is that the holy spirit opens up the opportunity to choose faith.

In my mind that makes the holy spirit the escence of denial and the begining of a disconnect with reality, but that's for you to decide.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

The idea I found disconcerting was that "believers" are slaves to god's imposition of a supernatural belief. Can yuo imagine if someone were to use some power over you to convince you that trees were sentient, and deerved your protection and worship? That'd be more of a mean trick than a divine inspiration.

I agree that ego has and always will find it's way into spirituality. It's another mechanism of the human psychi that helps to rationalize faith. It's another blanket hiding the truth.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.”

Sounds like a fair representation of what the bible asks.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

If only it were that simple. The fact of the matter is that the bible was written over a long period of time by a lot of different people. This results in a few things, the most relevant of which is the iposition of different perspectives on the supposed word of god or Jesus. The most noteable of these would be the different take on god before and after the birth of Jesus. Is god a wrathful, vengeful being that constantly tests humanity, or is god a kind, forgiving, and welcoming creature that loves everyone so much he sent his son to die just to show us how serious he was? Those are two fundamentally opposed personas, and it serves to confuse people about the true nature of god.

Not only that, but the bible is vague. It's open to interpretation, which is why we have 28 sects of evangelicals in Texas alone. The biggest consequence of this is the question, "Who's interpretation is right?" That is by far my favorite question for Christians because I either get the "Oh I agree, the spereation of the chuch is bad, blah blah" or "I'm right, everyone else is wrong." Both answers are dumb. Answer one is agreeing that the church they attend religiously (hehe) is wrong, and answer two is the ultimate expression of vanity and ego. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

It would be hypocritical of me to quote scripture to a believer. I don't believe, you do. Even as an acedemic exercise, it just feels wrong.
Interesting things happen and I find it endlessly fascinating. Such as;

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

Have you ever watched Entertainment Tonight? No questions asked on that show about anything are valid.

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.

I have no problem with someone persuing meaning. It's when that search leads to what I can only conclude is a delusion, and that delusion leads to the spreading of fear and misinformation that I start questioning whether someone should intervien. I'm not going to call the men with white coats if you choose to believe in god or shiva or the flying spaghetti monster, but when that grows into an organization where your answer is accepted by unquestioning people as their answer, and when the belief causes others harm or discomfort, there must be a deconstruction of what's really going on.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Good post, good points and good speaking with you.

Cheers.

Likewise. Have a good one.

Willravel, your post went along way in showing me where you stand. Thank you.

OK, let’s see here…

I never stated thing one, in regard to one being “saved” or that being a believer holds an advantage over those who do not. In fact my position is almost opposite of that. In your making of that assumption, the common contemporary understanding of Christianity is reflected. The same understanding that perhaps played a part in repulsing you from the faith. To me, that’s a good thing. I don’t fault you for it. But your assumption as well as your analogy as applied to me is wrong.

As for scripture, you opened that door, here:

QuoteWillravel; The former believer in me would say, "The teachings of Jesus Christ suggest, in so many words,… <snipped> … Then I'd mention a ton of bible verses like the entire books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and some of the letters.

I chose to walk through that door, which you then slam shut by declaring it would be hypocritical of you to quote scripture to a believer. Yet, much of your post speaks to Christian doctrinal issues, as you understand them to be.  Well…OK, it’s certainly your choice to do things that way, but I don’t have that luxury. The understanding of my faith is inexorably bound with the book. It’s the same bond that prohibits me from criticizing anyone, in the context of faith, except fellow believers in Christ.

What?! The bible was written by different people?! Over a long period of time?!!
:lol: (Just havin’ some fun, mate)
Seriously, if I’m going to believe in a resurrected 3 day old dead guy, walking on water, talking burning bushes, then it’s not a stretch for me to figure that a god can keep his followers instruction manual intact enough to be useable.
Understand that I do not consider the bible proof of anything, other than to another believer.

QuoteWillravel; The idea I found disconcerting was that "believers" are slaves to god's imposition of a supernatural belief. Can yuo imagine if someone were to use some power over you to convince you that trees were sentient, and deerved your protection and worship? That'd be more of a mean trick than a divine inspiration.

This doesn’t apply in my theology.
While I feel that faith comes from God, how a person chooses to express that faith is up to that person.

So. That doesn’t leave us too much….wait!

QuoteWillravel;… and when the belief causes others harm or discomfort, there must be a deconstruction of what's really going on.

I agree.
Now we have some solid common ground. Deconstruction is what I’m all about.

Excellent.  

Quote from: "Kestrel"I never stated thing one, in regard to one being “saved” or that being a believer holds an advantage over those who do not. In fact my position is almost opposite of that. In your making of that assumption, the common contemporary understanding of Christianity is reflected. The same understanding that perhaps played a part in repulsing you from the faith. To me, that’s a good thing. I don’t fault you for it. But your assumption as well as your analogy as applied to me is wrong.

You have an opposite view? Do yo mean to suggest that non-believers are saved and faithful are not?

Quote from: "Kestrel"As for scripture, you opened that door, here:
I chose to walk through that door, which you then slam shut by declaring it would be hypocritical of you to quote scripture to a believer. Yet, much of your post speaks to Christian doctrinal issues, as you understand them to be.  Well…OK, it’s certainly your choice to do things that way, but I don’t have that luxury. The understanding of my faith is inexorably bound with the book. It’s the same bond that prohibits me from criticizing anyone, in the context of faith, except fellow believers in Christ.

Fair enough. My intent was never to offend, and I can imagine an athiest quoting scripture to a believer to be somewhat disrepsectful. I picture in my mind Jesus and Nietzsche arguing over biblical morality.

Okay, so speaking to the idea that God makes people believe instead of allowing people to have free will:
In Genesis, God gives man free will and dominion over all animals. Man is favored and is thus given the gift of free will. Ironically, that free will was part of what lead to the fall. When the fruit was eaten, knowledge of the nature of good and evil was added to the list. Free will + understanding of good and evil = people. (From the Council of Trent) "When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." There is a mutual collaboration and cooperation between two powers: god's grace, and man's freedom.
1 Peter 2:16 "Live as free men, but do not use your cover-up for evil..."
2 Cor 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Peter's and John's letters are a good source of info on the subject.

Quote from: "Kestrel"What?! The bible was written by different people?! Over a long period of time?!!
:lol: (Just havin’ some fun, mate)

;)[/quote]
Common ground is quite a good first step.

QuoteWillravel;
You have an opposite view? Do yo mean to suggest that non-believers are saved and faithful are not?

No.
My view is that everyone is saved.
Needless to say, my view is as popular to my fellow believers, as if I dropped trou and took a dump on the altar during mass. Because my view strips them of the feeling that they chose God, robbing them of that quiet air of superiority that drives them to think that those who do not choose as they, are somehow…ignorant, or to be pitied or just less.
I feel scripture bears me out.

QuoteWillravel; My intent was never to offend…

Understood and appreciated.

QuoteWillravel; If that's the case, then do you eat shellfish? Do you ever make physical contact with a woman when she is menstrating? There is a lot of archaic law that has a lot mroe to do with socioty at the time than greace and faith, espically in Deut.

The Law and all it entailed was meant for the Hebrew alone as God’s chosen people. It never applied to the gentile. As an aside; The law is actually locked into an ethnicity and ethnicity is not a choice.

QuoteWillravel; What you mean to say is that a believer doesn't choose to believe, but they are free to do with their faith as they see fit?

That’s correct.
One line of reasoning that I use to come to this understanding is the fact that I find any scripture at all.
Allow me to expound on that;
If God chooses who has faith, then what’s the need for the big heavy book? The book itself tells me that God bestows faith. The books existence tells me that while God bestows faith, He does not bestow some sort of instant understanding. Scriptures existence is evidence of that, to me.

QuoteWillravel; Okay, so speaking to the idea that God makes people believe instead of allowing people to have free will:
In Genesis, God gives man free will and dominion over all animals. Man is favored and is thus given the gift of free will. Ironically, that free will was part of what lead to the fall. When the fruit was eaten, knowledge of the nature of good and evil was added to the list. Free will + understanding of good and evil = people. (From the Council of Trent) "When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." There is a mutual collaboration and cooperation between two powers: god's grace, and man's freedom.
1 Peter 2:16 "Live as free men, but do not use your cover-up for evil..."
2 Cor 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Peter's and John's letters are a good source of info on the subject.

There’s a lot to cover. It deserves a thoughtful reply.
I’ll work on it tonight, and hopefully post it in the morning.

Quote from: "Kestrel"No.
My view is that everyone is saved.
Needless to say, my view is as popular to my fellow believers, as if I dropped trou and took a dump on the altar during mass. Because my view strips them of the feeling that they chose God, robbing them of that quiet air of superiority that drives them to think that those who do not choose as they, are somehow…ignorant, or to be pitied or just less.
I feel scripture bears me out.

Well, it seems fair, and anything that robs someone else of a sense of superiority is something I can get behind....but I'm not sure if it's supported by scripture. I have had more than a few discussions with door to door mormans about the existence of hell in the bible (as well as the existence of the triune god and angels that rape people). Doesn't the existence of the typical Christian hell stand in stark opposition to the idea that everyone gets into heaven?  

Quote from: "Kestrel"The Law and all it entailed was meant for the Hebrew alone as God’s chosen people. It never applied to the gentile. As an aside; The law is actually locked into an ethnicity and ethnicity is not a choice.

I don't remember where it said that Deutoronomy only applies to the Jews.

Quote from: "Kestrel"That’s correct.

Owned!

Quote from: "Kestrel"One line of reasoning that I use to come to this understanding is the fact that I find any scripture at all.
Allow me to expound on that;
If God chooses who has faith, then what’s the need for the big heavy book? The book itself tells me that God bestows faith. The books existence tells me that while God bestows faith, He does not bestow some sort of instant understanding. Scriptures existence is evidence of that, to me.

But why bother if everyone's invited to the big party upstairs?

Quote from: "Kestrel"I’ll work on it tonight, and hopefully post it in the morning.

NP, I appreciate the thought and effort going into your responses.

QuoteWillravel; Okay, so speaking to the idea that God makes people believe instead of allowing people to have free will:
In Genesis, God gives man free will and dominion over all animals. Man is favored and is thus given the gift of free will. Ironically, that free will was part of what lead to the fall.

Whoa! All this “free will” stuff.
First, Scripture dictates that man was created and formed by God. So right out of the box, free will in its broadest and most absolute sense is void. Adam had no say whatsoever in his creation. Personally I can relate to that because I had no say in my gender, ethnicity, or even if I wanted to exist at all. (and I’m not confident that I’d have picked the nutty family I was to be part of.)

Second, God puts the man into a garden. Doesn’t say the man chose it, or even asked for it. Just plunked him down there. No free will as to where the man called his hood.

 There’s other stuff like, God creating woman from man, (adam was never consulted, no free will, there) Even mans position of dominion was appointed. We can say that man had parameters in which he could willingly move. If not, then Gods command not to partake of the tree would have been unnecessary.

But for the sake of our discussion, here’s the kicker; Adam, the man, through no choice of his own, was a believer. What he did with that faith was his choice. Obviously his choice was not to believe God.
What was true then of believers is still true now. A bunch of people endowed with belief by God, who still refuse to believe God means what He says.

It’s the exact …..same…..thing.

 

QuoteWillravel];When the fruit was eaten, knowledge of the nature of good and evil was added to the list. Free will + understanding of good and evil = people.

You make a very common and very forgivable error, here. IMHO.
It’s not the tree of understanding of good and evil, it’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The difference being, the knowing of a thing does not equate to the understanding of that same thing.

WARNING: IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE MY FOLLOWING POINT, GRAPHIC IMAGERY AS WELL AS SEEMINGLY BLASPHEMOUS WORDING WILL BE UTILIZED. IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS.

Alright.
Before man acquired the knowledge, or more accurately, the awareness of good and evil, it stands to reason that the rule of the day was pretty much anything goes. Ignorance truly being bliss.
In other words perhaps there were days when God was strolling through the garden and came across Adam puttin’ it to a sheep while Eve smacked his ass with a switch. To which God would maybe chuckle, shake his head and say, “You nutty kids, you!”, and keep on going. Why? Because there is no way that a just God would hold one responsible for that which they do not know, or are not aware of.
(Interestingly enough, it is the same sense of justice which makes the man made doctrine of “Hell”, void and unjust.)

I can apply what I glean from scripture on this subject to what I witness around me. Because no ones definition of right and wrong, or good and evil, is truly in line with another. The awareness is there, but the understanding is not, and remains the fodder for philosophers. Experiences in my life have shown that when I do not understand a thing, I cannot properly apply it.
Now, when my brethren hear these things they start foaming like Mentos in a jug of Diet Pepsi. They leap up and down screaming, “Do God’s will! God’s will is good! Your will is bad! God doesn’t do evil!” Yet when seemingly biblical atrocities are pointed out to them, the believer starts with the mental gymnastics. At first it’s fun to watch, then it gets boring and finally just stupid.
Many believers reach into the Hebraic Law and pick and choose what they perceive as God’s desire for goodness. They think that just because they believe, that they know how to apply right and wrong, good and evil.
Jesus, as well as other great teachers in history, were clear on what the default position should be for a believer who lives in a world where good and evil are perceived but not understood. That is to be counter-instinctual.
Turn the other cheek.
If someone steals from you, offer them more.
The Golden Rule
Etc.
Why? Because Jesus recognized that people don’t know what they’re doing.
I try to tell my fellow believers that when Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do”, Jesus wasn’t critiquing the crucifixion techniques. He was commenting on the fact, that they did not know the difference between right and wrong, voicing the fact of their ignorance. (This just doesn’t apply to good/evil. It applies to the whole shebang.)

All that being said, when an unbeliever waves scripture at me and says “Your God is an evil murdering bastard”, I’ll say, “Yeah, I see why you say that.” If pushed further, my reply becomes, “As a believer, I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt that He knows how to apply good and evil to the eventual benefit of all”. On the whole, a most unsatisfactory answer for the unbeliever. But it’s honest.

[micro-rant]When I see one of my brethren, in the face of a nonbeliever waving their bibles, doing that stupid witnessing thing, using their stupid catchphrases like, “You could have a personal relationship with Jesus!”, with their stupid fish stickers, and their stupid twisted gospel of malice, all I think of is how within scripture, it’s the believers that fuck things up, and believers who make things right under God’s supervision.
Of course trying to make them see this is like trying to teach my cat to whistle.[/micro-rant]

QuoteWell, it seems fair, and anything that robs someone else of a sense of superiority is something I can get behind....but I'm not sure if it's supported by scripture.

because we can trust scripture?

Frankly, I think every argument that cites scripture is immediately void. I just feel it's like arguing with a brick wall. It ain't gonna budge.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Whoa! All this “free will” stuff.
First, Scripture dictates that man was created and formed by God. So right out of the box, free will in its broadest and most absolute sense is void. Adam had no say whatsoever in his creation. Personally I can relate to that because I had no say in my gender, ethnicity, or even if I wanted to exist at all. (and I’m not confident that I’d have picked the nutty family I was to be part of.)

Second, God puts the man into a garden. Doesn’t say the man chose it, or even asked for it. Just plunked him down there. No free will as to where the man called his hood.

 There’s other stuff like, God creating woman from man, (adam was never consulted, no free will, there) Even mans position of dominion was appointed. We can say that man had parameters in which he could willingly move. If not, then Gods command not to partake of the tree would have been unnecessary.

But for the sake of our discussion, here’s the kicker; Adam, the man, through no choice of his own, was a believer. What he did with that faith was his choice. Obviously his choice was not to believe God.
What was true then of believers is still true now. A bunch of people endowed with belief by God, who still refuse to believe God means what He says.

Well that's not really fair. Adam and Eve took evening stroles with god who appeared physically. They spoke directly to him and were aware of god's nature as creater and ruler. They'd be stupid not to believe in him. It'd be like me not believing in bread. I've never met god. He's never come down and explained to me why he ultimately decided on the green/blue color scheme on Earth. He never explained to me why Madonna thinks she's british. It would be easy to believe in a present god who you could experience with your senses and even engage in conversation.

I recognize that the god from the OT was controling and such, taking ribs and making women, but god never asked the fish if it was okay to make them and such, so I figure that just might be the nature of creationism. We leave the creating to him.

Quote from: "Kestrel"You make a very common and very forgivable error, here. IMHO.

You're jus about as forgiving as the big guy!

Quote from: "Kestrel"It’s not the tree of understanding of good and evil, it’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The difference being, the knowing of a thing does not equate to the understanding of that same thing.

I miswrote. I still don't think people have a full understanding of the nature of good or evil. I meant to say knowledge. I'm used to using the word understanding at work. Adam and Eve were made aware of good and evil after ingesting the fruit.

Quote from: "Kestrel"WARNING: IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE MY FOLLOWING POINT, GRAPHIC IMAGERY AS WELL AS SEEMINGLY BLASPHEMOUS WORDING WILL BE UTILIZED. IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS.

AAHH!!! You scared me.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Alright.
Before man acquired the knowledge, or more accurately, the awareness of good and evil, it stands to reason that the rule of the day was pretty much anything goes. Ignorance truly being bliss.

Right, they were Republicans....go on....

Quote from: "Kestrel"/snip *right and wrong*

You're preaching to the choir. I do understand that.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Now, when my brethren hear these things they start foaming like Mentos in a jug of Diet Pepsi. They leap up and down screaming, “Do God’s will! God’s will is good! Your will is bad! God doesn’t do evil!” Yet when seemingly biblical atrocities are pointed out to them, the believer starts with the mental gymnastics. At first it’s fun to watch, then it gets boring and finally just stupid.

I do love the whole "God works in mysterious ways..." thing. Talk about a dead end argument.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Turn the other cheek.
If someone steals from you, offer them more.
The Golden Rule
Etc.

That's the meat of the bible. Even though I don't believe in the proven existence of a god creature, I do recognize the moral lessons hidden in the bible (and the qu'ran, and thousands of other religious texts).

Quote from: "Kestrel"All that being said, when an unbeliever waves scripture at me and says “Your God is an evil murdering bastard”, I’ll say, “Yeah, I see why you say that.” If pushed further, my reply becomes, “As a believer, I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt that He knows how to apply good and evil to the eventual benefit of all”. On the whole, a most unsatisfactory answer for the unbeliever. But it’s honest.

At least he didn't turn into a cow and try to seduce women like my favotire god, zeus. I'm wondering why an uneliever would try to suggest someone they know to be fictional is evil. It seems like a moot point from their perspective.

I would have to suggest that mass murder in the bible raises real questions about the lessons we are supposed to learn from the bible. When 70,000 people ere killed because David ordered a census of the people in 1 Chronicals, and even moreso when god flooded the planet only allowing one family to survive (theoretically causing the deaths of millions of people), the god creature sends a clear message that he is free to move outside the confines of morality and reason. That's pretty scary.

Quote from: "Kestrel"[micro-rant]When I see one of my brethren, in the face of a nonbeliever waving their bibles, doing that stupid witnessing thing, using their stupid catchphrases like, “You could have a personal relationship with Jesus!”, with their stupid fish stickers, and their stupid twisted gospel of malice, all I think of is how within scripture, it’s the believers that fuck things up, and believers who make things right under God’s supervision.
Of course trying to make them see this is like trying to teach my cat to whistle.[/micro-rant]

Agreed, and it's that that allows more people to become disillusioned with the faith and find the strength to leave than anything else. When planned parenthood is targeted by religious extreemists, when insane televangilist Pat Robertson that calls for poltiical assasinations and blames no prayer in schools for the 9/11 attacks, when homosexuality isn't accepted, when people say and do evil in the name of god or jesus, and when people live in constant fear of god....that drives a wedge between regular, reasonable people and power hungry delusional people.

I was able to find the strength to question because of things like this. If Christianity was perfect. a lot more people would find themselves stuck in it.

Quote from: "ImpaledSkier"

QuoteWell, it seems fair, and anything that robs someone else of a sense of superiority is something I can get behind....but I'm not sure if it's supported by scripture.

because we can trust scripture?

No. What Willravel is saying is that on an intellectual level, confidence is iffy from his point of view, whether what I'm declaring is supported. It actually has nothing to do with sprituality. It's more along the lines of, lets say...an instruction manual on building a bike.
For instance, I'm saying bolt "A" fits into hole "C", Willravel, is saying he's not so sure that bolt "A" goes there at all.
Do you take my meaning?

QuoteFrankly, I think every argument that cites scripture is immediately void. I just feel it's like arguing with a brick wall. It ain't gonna budge.

Fair enough. Just the way it should be from my POV.

The argument is fully hypothetical from my point of view and partially hypothetical in Kastrel's point of view.

Imagine a conversation about the role of Jim the slave in Huckeberry Finn by Mark Twain. Obviosuly, the occourances in that book were works of fiction, but the debate (while possibly only an effort in accedemic concerns) would be just as debateable. I could still make points and cite evidence from the book, and likewise my adversary could make counter points citing evidence from the book.

Let it be known that I do not begrudge people for their faith. If it can help them, I'm all for it. It just doesn't work for me.

QuoteWillravel; Well that's not really fair. Adam and Eve took evening stroles with god who appeared physically. They spoke directly to him and were aware of god's nature as creater and ruler.

No where in scripture does it claim that God had a physical presence, with Adam. Certainly God was vocal, but that's it.
Personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that hearing a non-corporeal voice, would convince a non-believer of God.

QuoteWillravel; You're jus about as forgiving as the big guy!  //  
I miswrote. I still don't think people have a full understanding of the nature of good or evil. I meant to say knowledge. I'm used to using the word understanding at work.

I know what you meant. That's why I declared your misspeak a very forgivable error.
One of the main thrusts of my post was to illustrate how we are all left responsible for our own "understanding" of good/evil. More importantly that God is aware of the fact that all we have is whatever moral individual guidelines we impose upon ourselves lacking that full understanding.

QuoteWillravel;  I'm wondering why an uneliever would try to suggest someone they know to be fictional is evil. It seems like a moot point from their perspective.

On the surface, yes, I would agree.
But as a believer, I can take the premise of your quote farther and to places that my fellow believers have locked themselves out of.
Like this;
Just because a person doesn't believe in scripture does not remove their right to compare God's actions within that scripture to their own understanding of good and evil. Especially, if they have someone in their face waving scripture at them declaring that this same God is "love" and that God's will is good and right.
Believers think that just because they believe, that they have a superior morality, or at least the inside track to morality, than those who do not. Intellectually, I've shown that scripture does not bear them out on this. Further  I can show this is ironclad throughout scripture. And what God's will for the believer is at this point in time, is to have a steaming cup of STFU.
My whole point is, that I have shown, without mental contortions, how a believer has no right to claim what is good or evil.
What does all this mean to the unbeliever? Absolutely nothing.

I write this stuff in the hopes that perhaps a believer will read it and come to a better understanding of their faith. My position illustrates how unscriptural it is to impose laws upon people as a whole. Abortion issues (One line of scripture takes the abortion issue out of the hands of the believer), stem cell issues, anti gay marriage, whatever else they wish to impose upon society is wrong. Because their own book, tells them that they don't know what they're doing.
No one knows better than I, how futile my efforts are. Still I'm compelled by conscience to try.

QuoteWillravel; When planned parenthood is targeted by religious extreemists, when insane televangilist Pat Robertson that calls for poltiical assasinations and blames no prayer in schools for the 9/11 attacks, when homosexuality isn't accepted, when people say and do evil in the name of god or jesus, and when people live in constant fear of god....that drives a wedge between regular, reasonable people and power hungry delusional people.

You see?
In this matter you and I are in perfect agreement. For the sake of our discussion, the only thing we differ on, is you do not believe in god and I do. Because of my stance that faith is not a choice, there is no harm, no foul. For my part, anyway.

QuoteWillravel; I was able to find the strength to question because of things like this.

So was I.

Quote from: "Kestrel"No where in scripture does it claim that God had a physical presence, with Adam. Certainly God was vocal, but that’s it.
Personally, I’d be hard pressed to believe that hearing a non-corporeal voice, would convince a non-believer of God.

I exaggerated a bit. I'm afraid I have a quirky and inconsistant sense of humor. In a world of honesty and free of deception, what use is skepticism? Adam knew no reality of doubt. God existed and questioning the existence of god was still generations away.

Quote from: "Kestrel"One of the main thrusts of my post was to illustrate how we are all left responsible for our own “understanding” of good/evil. More importantly that God is aware of the fact that all we have is whatever moral individual guidelines we impose upon ourselves lacking that full understanding.

Which is why you think we call get in to heaven, including non-believers?

Quote from: "Kestrel"On the surface, yes, I would agree.
But as a believer, I can take the premise of your quote farther and to places that my fellow believers have locked themselves out of.
Like this;
Just because a person doesn’t believe in scripture does not remove their right to compare God’s actions within that scripture to their own understanding of good and evil. Especially, if they have someone in their face waving scripture at them declaring that this same God is “love” and that God’s will is good and right.
Believers think that just because they believe, that they have a superior morality, or at least the inside track to morality, than those who do not. Intellectually, I’ve shown that scripture does not bear them out on this. Further  I can show this is ironclad throughout scripture. And what God’s will for the believer is at this point in time, is to have a steaming cup of STFU.
My whole point is, that I have shown, without mental contortions, how a believer has no right to claim what is good or evil.
What does all this mean to the unbeliever? Absolutely nothing.

It would be meaningless to a non-believer if we lived in a world where believers and non-believers lived in perfect harmony. That fact of the matter is we don't. A lot of my world is shaped by jesus christ. Leaving alone the fact my father is a Lutheran pastor, many places in the world, espically the US, are really Christian places. I see laws being passed and politics hinging on Judeo-Christian morality. As an example, I have gay friends that can't get married because of no reason outside of ancient law that really isn't relevant now.

Quote from: "Kestrel"I write this stuff in the hopes that perhaps a believer will read it and come to a better understanding of their faith. My position illustrates how unscriptural it is to impose laws upon people as a whole. Abortion issues (One line of scripture takes the abortion issue out of the hands of the believer), stem cell issues, anti gay marriage, whatever else they wish to impose upon society is wrong. Because their own book, tells them that they don’t know what they’re doing.
No one knows better than I, how futile my efforts are. Still I’m compelled by conscience to try.

That's fair, so long as you don't into the role of "unquestionable leader" in someone's mind. As someone who tends to have everyone's attention when I speak (not to boast, just stating fact), I do have a responsibility to those who listen to make sure that they think for themselves.

Quote from: "Kestrel"You see?
In this matter you and I are in perfect agreement. For the sake of our discussion, the only thing we differ on, is you do not believe in god and I do. Because of my stance that faith is not a choice, there is no harm, no foul. For my part, anyway.

I wish more Christian leadership was able to take that rersponsible stance.

Quote from: "Kestrel"So was I.

And I worry about those who can't question their faith because of the fear that is, from an early age, associated with questioning the faith. Hell is a powerful motivater, powerful enough to keep some people in the dark or their entire life. I pity them, and sympathize with them.

QuoteWillravel; Adam knew no reality of doubt. God existed and questioning the existence of god was still generations away.

I disagree.
Adams doubt in regard to Gods commandment, judgement, is reflected in Adams choice to disobey God. Also, God never tells Adam that He is[/b] God. To think otherwise is to add to scripture.
If you like, we can agree to disagree and put it on the shelf.

QuoteWillravel; Which is why you think we call get in to heaven, including non-believers?

Before I can even begin to tackle that one, I must state my case why there is no hell. I’m sure we’ll get to it, in the near future.

QuoteWillravel; That's fair, so long as you don't into the role of "unquestionable leader" in someone's mind.

Believers willingness to accept, “Because I say so.”, Is partially why the faith is in the mess it’s in. Let’s just say that I am of the Berean mindset, and encourage my fellow believers to search the scriptures, to see if these things are so. At the end of the day it is a believers responsibility as an individual to agree or not.

QuoteWillravel; I wish more Christian leadership was able to take that rersponsible stance.

They won’t.
Contemporary Christians tsk tsk the Pharisees in scripture. All the while not seeing that they are the same. One was wrapped in the robes of the law of moses, the other in the robes of the cross of Christ. Ever has it been the blind leading the blind.

QuoteWillravel; And I worry about those who can't question their faith because of the fear that is, from an early age, associated with questioning the faith. Hell is a powerful motivater, powerful enough to keep some people in the dark or their entire life. I pity them, and sympathize with them.

Agreed.

Just wanted to interject that this is a fascinating discussion. And it's being done in a really civilized manner. Thanks!

Thank you. Though I can only take 51% of the credit.  :lol:

Quote from: "Kestrel"I disagree.
Adam's doubt in regard to Gods commandment, judgement, is reflected in Adam's choice to disobey God. Also, God never tells Adam that He is[/b] God. To think otherwise is to add to scripture.
If you like, we can agree to disagree and put it on the shelf.

I don't think any human, Adam included, is supposed to know the true nature of god. The idea is that Adam believed in the existence of the creature we now know as god. Adam may not have called him god or known what he was, but he knew he was speaking to someone and understood that person to be real. I'm sure there was no doubt in Adam's mind that thevoice with which he spoke was real. That was what I meant.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Before I can even begin to tackle that one, I must state my case why there is no hell. I’m sure we’ll get to it, in the near future.

Shoot, but if it's the same argument as the mormons, you might be in for a real debate. I've actually converted mormans at my door.

Quote from: "Kestrel"Believers willingness to accept, “Because I say so.”, Is partially why the faith is in the mess it’s in. Let’s just say that I am of the Berean mindset, and encourage my fellow believers to search the scriptures, to see if these things are so. At the end of the day it is a believers responsibility as an individual to agree or not.

Sure.

Quote from: "Willravel"Shoot, but if it's the same argument as the mormons, you might be in for a real debate. I've actually converted mormans at my door.

As Mormons use an amended* source of information than I do, I cannot speak to their theology.

No conversion worries here.  

*Edited for clarity.

Quote from: "Willravel"Shoot, but if it's the same argument as the mormons, you might be in for a real debate.  

I don't know how the Mormons put forth their position, but I do know how I do it.

It starts with one easy question;

If there is a hell, and people who don't choose to believe in Christ go there for some eternal BBQ, then....why does Thomas get a pass?

No wonder they convert.
You stun them with 2 weeks of deafening silence.
 :lol:

Quote from: "Kestrel"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.
What almost all contemporary Christians refuse to understand is that, the moment they declare faith fact, faith ceases to exist. Leaving them with nothing but vacant slack jawed expressions.  That makes them and their faith, targets. And targets make poor impressions.
I have a few ideas as to why they fall into this pit, the biggest cause being their ego’s. But that’s a whole other thread.

Perfectly put.  Bravo.  I didn't realize I had a doppelganger on this forum… or, I guess since you were here first, I'm your doppelganger…  Hrm.  Anyway, this is a fantastic thread.  It's only been with in the past year or so that everything clicked for me and I felt the awe and wonder at seeing everything fall together spiritually.  After I followed the light of philosophy out of the cave of doctrine I discovered a new way of looking at the world and God.  It is as Martin Luther said when the Catholic church was all up in his grill telling him to recant: "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!"

Anyway, just wanted to chime in and say good job.  I hope Will comes back to this.  I love that guy.  

Oh and:

Quote from: "Kestrel"No wonder they convert.
You stun them with 2 weeks of deafening silence.

 :lol:

I love these forums.  I just wish they weren't so slow.  I guess not enough athiests are happy?   :o

Quote from: "Kestrel"

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Kes, could you elaborate just a bit more...."not supposed to believe" doesn't seem to have much to do with superiority complexes.

Alright.
“Free will”, as the term is bandied about, is a farce.
I didn’t choose to be born. I didn’t choose my gender, etc. Were it up to most folks, they wouldn’t choose to die.
In other words, the idea of free will is fine, right up to the point where it bumps into someone else’s “free will” or just everyday circumstance.

It is my stance in regard to my faith that one cannot choose to believe in the god of the bible. In fact the bible spends most a great deal of time emphasizing the point. Interestingly enough most Christians disregard this fact. (That’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.)

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.
Ignorant doctrines and misunderstandings such as “eternal punishment” and trinity’s logically crumble into nothing. As a result of my determination that belief is not a choice, my faith is logically unassailable.

Okay. For clarity’s sake I’ll give a bit of background information as to how I come to my conclusions;

I use the bible as my source of information regarding my faith.
In my over ten years time of posting on message boards, I’ve heard all the arguments. So for those who are reading this and feel so inclined as to inform me of my “delusion” or my need to “believe in Santa Clause”, allow me to save us both some time;

Faith is just that. Faith.
It is only an avenue on which the timeless question of “Why am I here?”, is explored.
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.
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.
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.

That being said;

While I do not have the right to put down or condemn another for their beliefs, I do[/b] have the right to … (here it comes…) , intellectually pound the ever-living crap out of one who professes an understanding of a faith shared.
That shared faith being Christianity.

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.
What almost all contemporary Christians refuse to understand is that, the moment they declare faith fact, faith ceases to exist. Leaving them with nothing but vacant slack jawed expressions.  That makes them and their faith, targets. And targets make poor impressions.
I have a few ideas as to why they fall into this pit, the biggest cause being their ego’s. But that’s a whole other thread.

It follows that if one cannot make a decision to believe then one cannot blame another for not believing. Nor can they take credit.
As I said earlier, I get my information from the same place most Christians get theirs, the bible.
In order for me to elaborate further on how I’ve come to the conclusion, I would have to start tossing out verse. Something I’ll never do unless specifically asked to do so by non-believers.

This fascinates me.  If you say that you believe in god wouldn't you have to first define god and then state that you believe in this defintion of god.  If you lack the knowledge necessary to define god then how can you define a god?  Wouldn't that mean that you have faith in something you don't have knowledge about?  Isn't faith in something you don't understand because you lack knowledge of it baseless?

Quote from: "Naked4Jesus"

Quote from: "Kestrel"

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Kes, could you elaborate just a bit more...."not supposed to believe" doesn't seem to have much to do with superiority complexes.

Alright.
“Free will”, as the term is bandied about, is a farce.
I didn’t choose to be born. I didn’t choose my gender, etc. Were it up to most folks, they wouldn’t choose to die.
In other words, the idea of free will is fine, right up to the point where it bumps into someone else’s “free will” or just everyday circumstance.

It is my stance in regard to my faith that one cannot choose to believe in the god of the bible. In fact the bible spends most a great deal of time emphasizing the point. Interestingly enough most Christians disregard this fact. (That’s a whole ‘nother can o’ worms.)

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.
Ignorant doctrines and misunderstandings such as “eternal punishment” and trinity’s logically crumble into nothing. As a result of my determination that belief is not a choice, my faith is logically unassailable.

Okay. For clarity’s sake I’ll give a bit of background information as to how I come to my conclusions;

I use the bible as my source of information regarding my faith.
In my over ten years time of posting on message boards, I’ve heard all the arguments. So for those who are reading this and feel so inclined as to inform me of my “delusion” or my need to “believe in Santa Clause”, allow me to save us both some time;

Faith is just that. Faith.
It is only an avenue on which the timeless question of “Why am I here?”, is explored.
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.
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.
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.

That being said;

While I do not have the right to put down or condemn another for their beliefs, I do[/b] have the right to … (here it comes…) , intellectually pound the ever-living crap out of one who professes an understanding of a faith shared.
That shared faith being Christianity.

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.
What almost all contemporary Christians refuse to understand is that, the moment they declare faith fact, faith ceases to exist. Leaving them with nothing but vacant slack jawed expressions.  That makes them and their faith, targets. And targets make poor impressions.
I have a few ideas as to why they fall into this pit, the biggest cause being their ego’s. But that’s a whole other thread.

It follows that if one cannot make a decision to believe then one cannot blame another for not believing. Nor can they take credit.
As I said earlier, I get my information from the same place most Christians get theirs, the bible.
In order for me to elaborate further on how I’ve come to the conclusion, I would have to start tossing out verse. Something I’ll never do unless specifically asked to do so by non-believers.

This fascinates me.  If you say that you believe in god wouldn't you have to first define god and then state that you believe in this defintion of god.  If you lack the knowledge necessary to define god then how can you define a god?  Wouldn't that mean that you have faith in something you don't have knowledge about?  Isn't faith in something you don't understand because you lack knowledge of it baseless?

Sometimes the trouble with entering into a discussion late is that people don't read all of the threads prior to chiming in. I suggest going back through this thread and the others where Kestrel defined his beliefs.

Secondly, the whole point of "faith" is a belief in something (in this case, god or a god) without needing evidence of it. So naked4jesus, you're missing the point of the entire meaning of faith by asking for a complete knowledge of god before believing.

Quote from: "Scrybe"It's only been with in the past year or so that everything clicked for me and I felt the awe and wonder at seeing everything fall together spiritually.

I know what you mean.
I’ve been seeing more and more like-minded people, on the web every year.
I think I count 6 of us now. LOL

Quote from: "Scrybe"After I followed the light of philosophy out of the cave of doctrine I discovered a new way of looking at the world and God.

Well put.

Quote from: "Scrybe"It is as Martin Luther said when the Catholic church was all up in his grill telling him to recant: "Here I stand; I can do no other. God help me. Amen!"

I think of him often and wonder if in his later years he didn’t put more of it together.

Quote from: "Scrybe"Anyway, just wanted to chime in and say good job.

Thanks.
It’s much appreciated.

Quote from: "Scrybe"I hope Will comes back to this. I love that guy.

Yeah. Will’s OK.
Although I feel that he would be better served by taking less credit for that which he didn’t earn.
Eh, Will?  

Quote from: "Naked4Jesus"This fascinates me. If you say that you believe in god wouldn't you have to first define god and then state that you believe in this defintion of god.

Sure. I'm OK with that. I'm also OK with the idea that my perception of god, is incomplete.

QuoteIf you lack the knowledge necessary to define god then how can you define a god?

I don't define it. I defer to the source of my spiritual information to define it.

QuoteWouldn't that mean that you have faith in something you don't have knowledge about? Isn't faith in something you don't understand because you lack knowledge of it baseless?

Hence, "faith".
The 'base' or foundation of my faith rests upon a feeling.

I'll illustrate further.

It's my position that the "feeling" of faith is not a choice. What we do with that feeling is.

Allow me to reach back and use JoeActors, explanation as an example;

Quote from: "JoeActor"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...

Attraction is not a choice. What we do with that feeling of attraction, is a choice.
Using JoeActors marriage example;
None of us has control over the people we are attracted to. We are either attracted to one degree or another or we're not.

JoeActor states that he chooses the emotions he feels. Quite a feat!  

Personally, I've been attracted to my share of women over the years, but I didn't ask all of them to marry me. I understood that regardless of any attraction, there were aspects of the person that I found either incompatible or unappealing. Therefore driving my choice of whether to pursue or abandon the relationship.

For this discussion; I have a feeling of faith of which I've no control. I made a choice to follow the explanation of that faith as is explained within the bible.

Does that make my position clearer?