Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

And yet, that is not what "faith," Biblically construed, means at all. That's exactly the sort of misunderstanding I'm taking effort to point out.

No, I'm sure it's not. I was just mentioning it incidentally.

Oh, fair enough.

[Alexis Jacobi]

There is no "absurdity" in faith, except for those who fail to know what it is, and thus misunderstand it to be something like "wishful thinking," or "refusal to question," and pillory it accordingly. But of course, were it related at all to those things, then it would be "absurd."

To anybody who understands the concept, it's no alien thing at all.

This sort of statement is typical of you (as a conventional, religiously fanatic Christian) and in it a conventional mind-fuck operates. The first order of business, therefore, is to confront the mind-fuck.

Faith, then, is a magical component that requires 'special understanding'? And once one gets it (the sort of faith that enables a person to become the sort of Evangelist believer that you are -- and this is your object: to attempt to convert people to the religious stance that you have) -- then all the pieces fall into place. One *sees* the connecting principles and then one invests in them that much more. The process through which a young Christian joins the greater community of believers, and cements *faith*, can be examined with a bit more circumspection.

A crisis of faith would be an event when, for different reasons, one cannot any longer sufficiently *believe* what one once did believe.

It is a more honest stance, though one that is definitely problematic and difficult, to start from the fact that the faith you want others to get, which mirrors the faith you have, is in truth completely absurd! It might be efficacious to develop a faith-position such as you have, but that does not mean it would not be absurd and have absurd elements.

But when you ask for evidence of that absurdity, and I present you, Immanuel Can, as Exhibit One, that is understood to be ad hominem. As if the *idea* of a faith relationship, of faith itself, should be debated independently of the sort of person who has it, or of the modern Christian movement generally. Yet I think that you will have to accustom yourself to the fact that you are the *example* and you are the primary exhibit.

It is flatly wrong to say that a tremendously large part of religious faith, and Christian faith, is not bound up in 'wishful thinking' and even in angst and desperation. Thus by asserting that *faith* would or could stand outside of that is evidence of lack of clear seeing. It is therefore and for that reason a lie. People jump into faith-positions for a wide range of reasons -- personal, psychological, social. There is much to consider in all of this.

There can be no doubt at all -- again if you and the sort of conversations you have had is presented as an exhibit -- that the *faith* that you speak of necessitates 'refusal to question'. In Christian apologetics, and certainly Evangelical apologetics, and your apologetics, such questions are 'answered' but through obfuscations and lies. (My reference here is to all that you yourself have said about the Genesis account and the absurdity of 'original mating pairs'!)

You do not, and indeed you cannot, actually question the elements of the faith-position, and if there is a question and questioning it is only entertained to a certain point: a sort of candy-coated (and absurd) pseudo-answer that only satisfies a faithful believer or one substantially inclined in that type of direction. To question seriously could produce a crisis of faith and the object of faithfulness is certainly to avoid that.

It is true though that when someone arrives at the point that you describe as 'faith' and 'faithfulness' that, of course, one has entered the faith-club.

Now, I would say that if one arrives at the point where the beliefs of the faith-club are doubted, at that point one's work has not ended but has in fact begun. The term 'club' refers to groupthink and group-agreements and the way these function like narcotics on a mass scale. And when we refer to a critical position of modern Evangelical Christianity (and other Christian forms) we must take into consideration the degree to which American Evangelism has been corrupted in so many different ways that it requires long essays to describe. You yourself are deeply invested in such narcotics and we have, of course, touched on this in previous exchanges.

Your Christianity Immanuel is sick. And there is no other way to describe it. To be honest and forthright one must make this sort of statement about it. One of the reasons you gain no ground with anyone (here in this space for example) is because your sickness and deviousness is recognized. But again my assertion is that once you are seen that the real work has only just begun.

[Harry Baird]

Ah, the good old AJ we've come to know and love: when you've made your decision and taken a firm position against the proponents of a view which you reject, hammer away at them every dang chance you get! Don't ever put that sledgehammer away, no matter how many times you smash out the same core objection in different words!

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong to do this, just observing. Please continue.

[Immanuel Can]

Faith, then, is a magical component that requires 'special understanding'?

No, it just requires a proper Bible dictionary.

A crisis of faith would be an event when, for different reasons, one cannot any longer sufficiently *believe* what one once did believe.

Right.

But a "crisis of faith" can happen to anybody, anytime. A scientist who finds that his new experiment proves his old theory wrong has a crisis of faith...he can no longer believe in his own theory, without contradicting the evidence of his eyes. He has to revise his view. An Atheist who becomes exposed to truth has a crisis of faith in Atheism. He has to reconsider whether or not his original assumption that there is no God is really true. Crises of faith can happen to anybody.

And it's precisely because faith is such a routine matter that they can. Everybody has faith in something. And to lose confidence in that faith is always disconcerting.

But so what?

You've just misunderstood what "faith" actually is, according to its Biblical definition AND its routine expressiions, AJ. You have imagined it's some kind of special religious or imaginative faculty...and it's not, never was, and isn't that, Scripturally speaking.

So maybe you should have a crisis of faith in your old assumption, eh?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Ah, the good old AJ we've come to know and love: when you've made your decision and taken a firm position against the proponents of a view which you reject, hammer away at them every dang chance you get! Don't ever put that sledgehammer away, no matter how many times you smash out the same core objection in different words!

Hey, I'm not saying you're wrong to do this, just observing. Please continue.

The Key to understanding why I take certain positions and where I am going with this is in my stance against *Hebrew idea-imperialism".

Other elements of the position that I am developing -- that is taking shape as a result of this thread and this conversation though, of course, I had been researching in these areas previously -- are in idea-resistance to powerful and indeed psychologically overpowering narratives that are wielded in social-engineering battles. My idea -- it is certainly not mine but it is one I work with -- has as its focus *the time we are in*.

It surprises and baffles me that in this conversation, and many conversations on this forum, that the discussion of ideas (philosophy) is not linked to contemporary events and developing circumstances. If the so-called War on Terror is thought of as the Third World War (the long cold war being an extension of WWll and a prelude to the War on Terror) we are now in World War Four. We are at war, this much seems clear to me, and the primary weapon of war is the wielding of narratives.

Now what I object to (speaking to American Evangelical Christianity and Immanuel Can's stated alliances) is the degree to which this Evangelical dispensational position has been usurped by strange powers that I do not, as yet, know how to name. Or to name fairly and judiciously.

[attofishpi]

There is no "absurdity" in faith, except for those who fail to know what it is, and thus misunderstand it to be something like "wishful thinking," or "refusal to question," and pillory it accordingly. But of course, were it related at all to those things, then it would be "absurd."

To anybody who understands the concept, it's no alien thing at all.

I agree that there is no absurdity to faith.

It begs the question however, WHY would an omnipotent God, that could easily convince everyone on the planet, that "HE" exists, beyond any reasonable doubt - still leave the majority of humans with DOUBT?

[Immanuel Can]

There is no "absurdity" in faith, except for those who fail to know what it is, and thus misunderstand it to be something like "wishful thinking," or "refusal to question," and pillory it accordingly. But of course, were it related at all to those things, then it would be "absurd."

To anybody who understands the concept, it's no alien thing at all.

I agree that there is no absurdity to faith.

It begs the question however, WHY would an omnipotent God, that could easily convince everyone on the planet, that "HE" exists, beyond any reasonable doubt - still leave the majority of humans with DOUBT?

Well, to work on that answer, let's play the scenario the other way.

Let's imagine God appears, and in such a way that no more doubt is possible...for anybody. What happens next?

Or let's run it another way: God never left any doubt that He exists in the first place, so every person on Earth automatically believes in God. What happens next?

[attofishpi]

There is no "absurdity" in faith, except for those who fail to know what it is, and thus misunderstand it to be something like "wishful thinking," or "refusal to question," and pillory it accordingly. But of course, were it related at all to those things, then it would be "absurd."

To anybody who understands the concept, it's no alien thing at all.

I agree that there is no absurdity to faith.

It begs the question however, WHY would an omnipotent God, that could easily convince everyone on the planet, that "HE" exists, beyond any reasonable doubt - still leave the majority of humans with DOUBT?

Well, to work on that answer, let's play the scenario the other way.

I am pretty sure you would have read my reasoning already, but doubt you would agree.

The first question from you below was reasonable, the second premise is totally innacurate.

Let's imagine God appears, and in such a way that no more doubt is possible...for anybody. What happens next?

Almost the entire population of humans act morally since they are concerned of the consequences...and possible reward(s).

Or let's run it another way: God never left any doubt that He exists in the first place, so every person on Earth automatically believes in God. What happens next?

That is not the case. Thus, the next logical alternative question still remains:

God exists, has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that HE exists, why?

[Immanuel Can]

I agree that there is no absurdity to faith.

It begs the question however, WHY would an omnipotent God, that could easily convince everyone on the planet, that "HE" exists, beyond any reasonable doubt - still leave the majority of humans with DOUBT?

Well, to work on that answer, let's play the scenario the other way.

I am pretty sure you would have read my reasoning already, but doubt you would agree.

The first question from you below was reasonable, the second premise is totally innacurate.

I'm just hypothesizing. I'm asking, "What if..." I'm not requiring you to say that's how it is.

In fact, both are counterfactual cases. We're using the "well, let's consider the alternative" strategy in order to unpack the consequences of your question. That's all.

Let's imagine God appears, and in such a way that no more doubt is possible...for anybody. What happens next?

Almost the entire population of humans act morally since they are concerned of the consequences...and possible reward(s).

Too late.

As the Bible says, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Rm. 3:23) All have sinned...already.

If God is a God of justice, what has He got to do, in order to be righteous? He sees evil. He knows we are complicit. As righteous and all-powerful, what should He do?

Or let's run it another way: God never left any doubt that He exists in the first place, so every person on Earth automatically believes in God. What happens next?

That is not the case.

Yes, of course. But it helps us see why He chose not to do that, if we consider what His having done it would result in. But if even imagining the hypothetical makes you uncomfortable, then let's set aside this second scenario for now. Let's focus on the first one.

[attofishpi]

Well, to work on that answer, let's play the scenario the other way.

I am pretty sure you would have read my reasoning already, but doubt you would agree.

The first question from you below was reasonable, the second premise is totally innacurate.

I'm just hypothesizing. I'm asking, "What if..." I'm not requiring you to say that's how it is.

In fact, both are counterfactual cases. We're using the "well, let's consider the alternative" strategy in order to unpack the consequences of your question. That's all.

Let's imagine God appears, and in such a way that no more doubt is possible...for anybody. What happens next?

Almost the entire population of humans act morally since they are concerned of the consequences...and possible reward(s).

Too late.

As the Bible says, "All have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God." (Rm. 3:23) All have sinned...already.

If God is a God of justice, what has He got to do, in order to be righteous? He sees evil. He knows we are complicit. As righteous and all-powerful, what should He do?

Or let's run it another way: God never left any doubt that He exists in the first place, so every person on Earth automatically believes in God. What happens next?

That is not the case.

Yes, of course. But it helps us see why He chose not to do that, if we consider what His having done it would result in. But if even imagining the hypothetical makes you uncomfortable, then let's set aside this second scenario for now. Let's focus on the first one.

There you go off on evangelical fund_a_mental_list irrational comprehension. I can never get a serious, rational debate with you - you chop change contort to your own ridiculous notions from the buy bull book.

IF the bible is to be taken literally as God's word then why in his omnipotence did he allow its title "bible" to be phonetically identical to "buy bull"?

Don't you think HE wants the bible to be questioned by intelligent minds, hence the phonetic perfection!?

[Belinda]

Faith, then, is a magical component that requires 'special understanding'?

No, it just requires a proper Bible dictionary.

A crisis of faith would be an event when, for different reasons, one cannot any longer sufficiently *believe* what one once did believe.

Right.

But a "crisis of faith" can happen to anybody, anytime. A scientist who finds that his new experiment proves his old theory wrong has a crisis of faith...he can no longer believe in his own theory, without contradicting the evidence of his eyes. He has to revise his view. An Atheist who becomes exposed to truth has a crisis of faith in Atheism. He has to reconsider whether or not his original assumption that there is no God is really true. Crises of faith can happen to anybody.

And it's precisely because faith is such a routine matter that they can. Everybody has faith in something. And to lose confidence in that faith is always disconcerting.

But so what?

You've just misunderstood what "faith" actually is, according to its Biblical definition AND its routine expressiions, AJ. You have imagined it's some kind of special religious or imaginative faculty...and it's not, never was, and isn't that, Scripturally speaking.

So maybe you should have a crisis of faith in your old assumption, eh?

I agree with your explanation of the nature of faith. The so-called crisis of faithis critical not because it's generally bad for you to have to stop and thing again, but because you are unaware the possibility exists and that it's good for your health and wellbeing.

[Pattern-chaser]

...what have you now to say of that absurd thing "FAITH"?

There is no "absurdity" in faith, except for those who fail to know what it is, and thus misunderstand it to be something like "wishful thinking," or "refusal to question," and pillory it accordingly. But of course, were it related at all to those things, then it would be "absurd."

To anybody who understands the concept, it's no alien thing at all.

To anyone able to generalise the meaning of faith, and apply it outside of religion, as well as inside, it is clear that faith is pretty much universal, however much we might prefer certainty instead. The world is uncertain, to us humans, and nearly every idea we have about it is based on/in faith.

Just a thought...

[Immanuel Can]

I can never get a serious, rational debate with you - you chop change contort to your own ridiculous notions from the buy bull book.

I'm actually serious. I'm just answering your question. There's been no "contorting." It's all rather straightforward, actually. I'm trying to help you to think through possible explanations for what you asked.

IF the bible is to be taken literally as God's word...

Well, I personally do that; but nothing I said to you so far requires that of you before you can answer. So far, I've asked you to do nothing but consider what the alternative would look like. That's a logical exercise, and requires no special belief. If you can do logic, you can answer.

Or not. Suit yourself. However, I've given you the respect of a thoughtful reply, and offered you a strategy for answering your question. If you don't like that, I cannot help that.

[Immanuel Can]

...what have you now to say of that absurd thing "FAITH"?

There is no "absurdity" in faith, except for those who fail to know what it is, and thus misunderstand it to be something like "wishful thinking," or "refusal to question," and pillory it accordingly. But of course, were it related at all to those things, then it would be "absurd."

To anybody who understands the concept, it's no alien thing at all.

To anyone able to generalise the meaning of faith, and apply it outside of religion, as well as inside, it is clear that faith is pretty much universal, however much we might prefer certainty instead. The world is uncertain, to us humans, and nearly every idea we have about it is based on/in faith.

Just a thought...

This is true.

That's also why, in Scripture, "faith" is associated with things like "trust." It simply means reliance on something for which the information available is anything less than 100%. And since we are human, the empirical facts of this world are all only available to us on less than perfect certainty. So faith is something everybody does, every day, all the time.

The important distinction is not between men who have faith and those who do not -- since everybody does -- but rather between other things, such as what one has one's faith in, how much of it one is prepared to extend, what situations warrant faith and which don't, and so on. But there's absolutely no possibility for us of getting away from faith completely. To do so would mean to stop living.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree with your explanation of the nature of faith. The so-called crisis of faithis critical not because it's generally bad for you to have to stop and thing again, but because you are unaware the possibility exists and that it's good for your health and wellbeing.

Something went wrong with your syntax there, B...but I think I catch the drift of your response.

Faith and doubt are not opposites. The poet, Robert Browning, knew this. Faith is necessary because doubt remains possible; and doubt cannot be at peace with itself whenever it senses that a little exercise of faith might allow it to see what it is refusing to see. The two exist together in all of us, but in different proportions in different situations: and only "when the perfect comes," as the Bible puts it, does "the partial pass away."

We are not in "the perfect" yet. So for now, doubt is going to remain a reality for all of us; but so is the possibility of faith. And they are companions, not adversaries. Both are healthy or unhealthy, depending on the particulars of the situation in which they are exercised, or the object to which they are directed.