Faith Alone.

I always thought that Christianity was supposed to be based on faith alone - and that Christians are not supposed to try to prove any of the aspects of their faith - God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus, miracles, nothing.

So why does it seem that more evangelical Christians are trying to catch up with Atheists who find "proof" that a god doesn't exist? Christians are supposed to be okay with this; the greatest link to Christian diety is faith, the belief in something that cannot be proved true.

So why do Christians feel like they suddenly need to prove the unprovable?

Originally posted by siriuswriter
I always thought that Christianity was supposed to be based on faith alone - and that Christians are not supposed to try to prove any of the aspects of their faith - God, The Holy Spirit, Jesus, miracles, nothing.

So why does it seem that more evangelical Christians are trying to catch up with Atheists who find "proof" that a god doesn't exist? Christians are supposed to be okay with this; the greatest link to Christian diety is faith, the belief in something that cannot be proved true.

So why do Christians feel like they suddenly need to prove the unprovable?

They didn't do this "suddenly". It has been going on for ages. Even before Christ's time.

It is human nature to want someone to believe what you believe especially if you think it will help them. Along the way, those good intentions get lost and mixed up...blended...destoryed...and tarnished. Then we end up with arguments. Then shit slinging. Then fights. Then wars.

"You should believe what I believe because of X".

That's the basic argument from any human everywhere. You don't have to be an atheist or theist to say something like that. Everyone does it...pretty much.

Would not the cave paintings in France also be more of the same? "Look at these visions. Believe I am a good Shaman". (Of course, that is just one interpretation of what was going on).

Well, it should be based on faith, and religion doesn't really have much else to hang its hat on. But people have an intrinsic tendency to justify their beliefs somehow. Whether not it actually constitutes proof or even evidence is suspect.

Also, not all religions exclude proof through other methods. Faith is a primary conduit, but not always the sole possessor of Truth.

Also because a lot of them get their butts handed to them by science (see: evolution) so they hide behind other "scientists" on religious payrolls so that they can obscure truth to the extent that it doesn't harm their worldview.

I'm with Soren Kierkegaard, if you're going to be religious don't try for logic to substantiate your beliefs.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I'm with Soren Kierkegaard, if you're going to be religious don't try for logic to substantiate your beliefs.

agreed

and I don't think that is even a criticism of religion in any way

non-overlapping magisteria and all that

i would wager to guess there aren't very many "real" Christians in the world to begin with.

To be fair, a fair number of people just don't have enough understanding of the universe around them to realize that their beliefs would need to be either largely or solely on faith to make sense. For many, the universe itself, random coincidences, the beauty of life, etc. is rational justification for God in their worldview.

I think with this age when information is at our fingertips, Faith alone is just not enough for people anymore. They want proof. And I guess for the reason that Digi already posted.

[I agree with all your answers, I'm hoping to get people in here that actually do this on these forums.]

[not that your contributions aren't all wanted and loved.]

😄

Originally posted by Digi
Well, it should be based on faith, and religion doesn't really have much else to hang its hat on. But people have an intrinsic tendency to justify their beliefs somehow. Whether not it actually constitutes proof or even evidence is suspect.

Also, not all religions exclude proof through other methods. Faith is a primary conduit, but not always the sole possessor of Truth.

Also because a lot of them get their butts handed to them by science (see: evolution) so they hide behind other "scientists" on religious payrolls so that they can obscure truth to the extent that it doesn't harm their worldview.

I disagree somewhat.

Faith cannot be challenged. Dogma can.

I have faith that 3000 years from now, on the January 2nd, it will be a lovely day. I am basing this on faith. A feeling. I'm not stating this as a fact, but as belief.
Unless one can travel through time, there really is no base or evidence to challenge my faith that Jan 2nd 3000 years from now, it will be a lovely day.
I have faith that when I die, I shall be reborn again provided I have not attained spiritual enlightenment in this life.
This too, is difficult to challenge. I am not stating this as a scientific fact, but as my own faith and belief.

Now, if I claim that, what I said above as an absolute truth and those who do not believe are simply wrong, it ceases to be merely a faith or belief and turns into a dogma.

Dogmas, however can and should be challenged. In fact, any established or institutionalised ''truths'' ARE to be challenged. At all times.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I disagree somewhat.

Faith cannot be challenged. Dogma can.

I have faith that 3000 years from now, on the January 2nd, it will be a lovely day. I am basing this on faith. A feeling. I'm not stating this as a fact, but as belief.
Unless one can travel through time, there really is no base or evidence to challenge my faith that Jan 2nd 3000 years from now, it will be a lovely day.
I have faith that when I die, I shall be reborn again provided I have not attained spiritual enlightenment in this life.
This too, is difficult to challenge. I am not stating this as a scientific fact, but as my own faith and belief.

Now, if I claim that, what I said above as an absolute truth and those who do not believe are simply wrong, it ceases to be merely a faith or belief and turns into a dogma.

Dogmas, however can and should be challenged. In fact, any established or institutionalised ''truths'' ARE to be challenged. At all times.

It's not a choice between faith and dogma, though. Dogma is built on other things. If you declare that faith cannot (or should not) be challenged then any dogma built on faith is similarly unchallengable.

I disagree with your choice of words in reference to how to deal with dogma. The idea that you should challenge dogma at all times a) very dogmatic itself and b) not very useful. The dogma might well be accurate. You should examine dogma (just like everything else) and either discard it or keep it depending on what you find.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's not a choice between faith and dogma, though. Dogma is built on other things. If you declare that faith cannot (or should not) be challenged then any dogma built on faith is similarly unchallengable.

I disagree with your choice of words in reference to how to deal with dogma. The idea that you should challenge dogma at all times a) very dogmatic itself and b) not very useful. The dogma might well be accurate. You should examine dogma (just like everything else) and either discard it or keep it depending on what you find.

The fact that one is examining something established as the truth to begin with is a challenge in itself, as opposed to accepting it as it is on faith.

Also, I am clearly referring to religious Dogmas only. In religion any established truths are to be examined.
I equally said that all established truths should be challenge - regardless if they're religious or scientific in nature. It is this challenge that leads to progress.

I'm not sure what your point was...

No army is large enough to counquer the galaxy, BUT FAITH ALONE CAN OVERTURN THE UNIVERSE. /random

This thread reminded me of something.

There are some people out there that set a specific goal and obtained it. Now they "know" God exists and is personal.

For example, someone could pray their heart out and then they get the answer to their prayer that is extremely specific. "My boss will ask me to work on the Briar Project even though we haven't taken them on as of yesterday. Then I will know for sure God is answering my prayers on my money situation."

Then the boss asks them that day to work on the Briar Project and they proceed to shit their pants. From that day forward, they "know" God exists.

One thing that has bothered me about this "faith" thing is the answers to prayers that WOULD have created a righteous zealot for God. I know God doesn't need that type of person (even if we are talking about a hypothetical god). But, to me, that would be the best way to convert anyone. For example, my friend from highschool is one of those very extreme and dogmatic atheists. Well, his grandfather, who helped raise him and was practically his father, got very sick, ended up in the ER, and was on his deathbed. In one of the saddest things I have seen, his Facebook status pleaded for his friends to join him in prayer to save his grandfather. His grandfather died the next day.

If you picture my faith as a pristine image of a beautiful field constantly being projected, my faith flickered and distorted for just a moment. If my friend could humble himself, despite his extreme atheism, to God into prayer, would not God have created a very devote individual by saving his grandfather from the illness and giving that old man a few more years with his grandson? I think so. Now, a Christian or Muslim apologist will say God's ways are higher than our ways and God is far beyond what we can imagine in His thought processes...but that's almost complete bullshit from my limited perspective. I don't want to "appeal to extreme- intelligence" in situations like that. That's virtually a fallacy, for me. What I want is God to operate on a simplistic level enough for us to know what He's doing to love His children. I want to be able to see it and observe it: not be bombarded by some sort of extreme complex "butterfly" effect that I may or may not comprehend or even realize is there. Does ANYone else know what I'm talking about?

Regardless of all that, my homie would have kept his sensibilities in the sciences but become a theist (if even an agnostic theist like myself). He would have believed in a higher power had his most heart-felt, sincere, and humble prayer of probably his entire life would have been answered.

TL : DR version: This is why I hate faith so much. It seems meaningless the more you think about it even IF a personal and active God exists. Living life as a genuinely good person, trying to overcome your weaknesses, and increasing the number of talents and abilities you have is definitely a great way (dare I say the best way?) to live your life. Surely God's infinite Grace will bridge the gap upon death and not require petty rites, right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I want is God to operate on a simplistic level enough for us to know what He's doing to love His children. I want to be able to see it and observe it: not be bombarded by some sort of extreme complex "butterfly" effect that I may or may not comprehend or even realize is there. Does ANYone else know what I'm talking about?

I can only imagine god leaving a "signature" to say "I've been here, don't worry". To go further than that risks a level of interference religions seem to find unacceptable.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Surely God's infinite Grace will bridge the gap upon death and not require petty rites, right?

And if he doesn't accepting hell might not be very difficult.

People have called that an immature response but I have trouble seeing the alternative. Who can really say that if it turns out the path to salvation was torturing children that they would instantly change their whole morality to fit that fact? Or if it was merely petty, as in the joke where a man is sent to hell for eating entrees with a salad fork, who can really say they would suddenly admit to being moral failures? I think it was Kant who talked about moral intuition, people just won't (perhaps cannot) accept a god that disagrees with them about morality.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I can only imagine god leaving a "signature" to say "I've been here, don't worry". To go further than that risks a level of interference religions seem to find unacceptable.

Okay. I see your point. Seriously...such simple words mean many.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And if he doesn't accepting hell might not be very difficult.

This is what Mormons believe. We will be "comfortable" with whatever "heaven" we get. The liars, adulterers, murderers, thieves, etc. will all get a heavenly glory. It is only those that deny God and everything about him that will go to "hell". Meaning, only the people that actually want to go to hell, go to hell.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
People have called that an immature response but I have trouble seeing the alternative. Who can really say that if it turns out the path to salvation was torturing children that they would instantly change their whole morality to fit that fact? Or if it was merely petty, as in the joke where a man is sent to hell for eating entrees with a salad fork, who can really say they would suddenly admit to being moral failures? I think it was Kant who talked about moral intuition, people just won't (perhaps cannot) accept a god that disagrees with them about morality.

Exactly. We don't know "objective" moral truth, for sure...assuming it actually exists. If God has always existed and these are His Eternal laws, sure, we can call those objective. They will seem arbitrary to us.

But, from my perspective, almost all religions are right. I see "God" in pretty much all of them. This is why I don't get hung up on "then why are there so many religions?" They all pretty much teach you to be a nicer person. Just few of us actually do that and instead focus on why we are better...and possibly introduce the rites, ourselves.

Originally posted by Digi
To be fair, a fair number of people just don't have enough understanding of the universe around them to realize that their beliefs would need to be either largely or solely on faith to make sense. For many, the universe itself, random coincidences, the beauty of life, etc. is rational justification for God in their worldview.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
One of the smartest people I knew claimed his cause for believing in God was the beauty in one particular sunset. 😂

Seriously...that's deep. He is probably the type that could tell an entire story from just an abstract pencil scribble, too.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
One of the smartest people I knew claimed his cause for believing in God was the beauty in one particular sunset. 😂

This is not a refutation of my point. Your friend, however smart, was a victim of magical thinking and the irrational tendency to ascribe divine qualities to entirely explainable phenomena. Such people, however, do exist.

Originally posted by Digi
This is not a refutation of my point. Your friend, however smart, was a victim of magical thinking and the irrational tendency to ascribe divine qualities to entirely explainable phenomena. Such people, however, do exist.

Oh and I wasn't trying to refute your point, just commenting on an anecdote that your post reminded me of.