Just Believe!!!

[liamconnor]

Christians are often ridiculed for their "blind faith"; skeptics retort to evangelical attempts with "show me some proof!" Sadly, Christians will appeal to "faith over reason".


But is this not a distortion of the N.T.?

Two quetions: Did Paul (our earliest Christian writer) require blind faith when he championed the doctrine of "solo fidei" (yes, a latin anachronism)? Or was "by faith" not an apologetic doctrine, but a soteriological one?

Where, when and/or why did "faith" become an appeal to unintellectual assent to a doctrine?

[William]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

To begin with even if Paul's claim were true (which it isn't) and we could conclude that there must be a designer God because the world appears to be designed to the layman's eye, it wouldn't logically follow that Hebrew God mythology must then be the one true religion.

How would that be the case?

[William]

[Replying to post 9 by marco]

Though we might snigger at the faith of an Anselm or Augustine, it has provided vast income for the main Christian Church.

Even for all of her denominational offspring. Including those who believe they are 'not of her', such as JWs.

It is all, inevitably, a kind of business.

[William]

[Replying to post 10 by bluethread]

The relationships between life and death, faith and reason are very complicated and not just a means of deriving income.

Perhaps what is being expressed then is that the love of money appears to have taken over, as the less complicated, more surest of the two?

[brianbbs67]

Augustine and Anselm held to the incomprehensible: crede ut intellegas - believe that you may understand which to the reasonable mind appears to put the chariot before the horse. But paradox is the life blood of Christianity - death is life. Though we might snigger at the faith of an Anselm or Augustine, it has provided vast income for the main Christian Church.

I understand that this forum is not a place for deep discussion, but rather short clarification and argumentation. That said, I think your summary does not really give justice to the struggle of the church fathers. The relationships between life and death, faith and reason are very complicated and not just a means of deriving income.

I am not sure yet that is correct. But, it could be. Would love to discuss the deepest of things.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 8 by Divine Insight]

To begin with even if Paul's claim were true (which it isn't) and we could conclude that there must be a designer God because the world appears to be designed to the layman's eye, it wouldn't logically follow that Hebrew God mythology must then be the one true religion.

How would that be the case?

Well, even if we could conclude that the world must have been created by an intelligent designer that information would support any and all religions that claim that the world was created by a God. So how could it favor any one specific religion.

In other words, Paul's argument was made from a very narrow-minded perspective. Paul figured that people would either believe in his God or no God at all. He wasn't thinking about (or may not even be aware) that there are thousands of other religions around the world that also claim that the world was created by an intelligent God.

So Paul was sorely mistaken when he suggested that people are without excuse for not believing in the religion he ultimately embraced. His argument could be used to support any number of pagan religions as well.

[William]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

Thanks for your clarification DI. It is a classic example of dogmatism. Even that Paul had an unusual experience doesn't mean that this signifies his new path is 'the only one' but I suppose this is a natural enough reaction for anyone as they are approached in the context of their belief systems and respond in light of that.

[marco]

I understand that this forum is not a place for deep discussion, but rather short clarification and argumentation. That said, I think your summary does not really give justice to the struggle of the church fathers. The relationships between life and death, faith and reason are very complicated and not just a means of deriving income.

All discussion, bluethread, possesses the depth we want to give it. Our humble ruminations may elevate the ordinary. I often find that I am opposing views I admire and respect, but in which I have no belief. I cannot, with Anselm, say "I believe that I may understand." It sounds to me like injecting a mind-numbing substance to colour reality.


Through the corridors of the centuries religion has graduated to Religion, the rules and secular regulations becoming as important as the obscured original message. However, if the original can allow itself so readily to be changed then I see no divine penmanship. It is commendable but futile of modern seekers to scratch among the torn and incomplete fragments for a lost truth.

[bluethread]

All discussion, bluethread, possesses the depth we want to give it. Our humble ruminations may elevate the ordinary. I often find that I am opposing views I admire and respect, but in which I have no belief. I cannot, with Anselm, say "I believe that I may understand." It sounds to me like injecting a mind-numbing substance to colour reality.


Through the corridors of the centuries religion has graduated to Religion, the rules and secular regulations becoming as important as the obscured original message. However, if the original can allow itself so readily to be changed then I see no divine penmanship. It is commendable but futile of modern seekers to scratch among the torn and incomplete fragments for a lost truth.

I am not calling for canonization, but for due consideration. "I believe that I may understand." sounds a lot like "I think, therefore I am." Both speak of presuming a premise and drawing conclusions. I have always been in favor of accepting the premise for the purpose of working the concept and not just expecting the premise to be accepted universally as absolute truth.

[marco]

"I believe that I may understand." sounds a lot like "I think, therefore I am." Both speak of presuming a premise and drawing conclusions. I have always been in favor of accepting the premise for the purpose of working the concept and not just expecting the premise to be accepted universally as absolute truth.

They are both aphorisms, importantly different in their grammatical form. Cogito ergo sum is a succinct attempt to prove existence through observed consciousness. The conclusion follows from what is accepted - namely thought. Credo ut intellegam - expresses purpose. It is not the sort of idea Descartes would have endorsed. It is counter-rational.
We can take a false premise and make valid deductions from it. Embracing a dubious faith and then correctly deducing that we understand is not a great recommendation. It is like saying "I believe in Santa so that I can understand where the presents came from."

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

Thanks for your clarification DI. It is a classic example of dogmatism. Even that Paul had an unusual experience doesn't mean that this signifies his new path is 'the only one' but I suppose this is a natural enough reaction for anyone as they are approached in the context of their belief systems and respond in light of that.

I agree that this would be Paul's natural reaction to what he believed to be a religious experience. The key here is that Paul could not be speaking the inspired words of any God in his writings then because if he was being inspired to write by a God he wouldn't have been inspired to write such obviously non-sequitur things.

In fact, to the contrary, if he was being inspired by a God to write such an important document the God would have been sure to inspire him to not write things that are obviously false. So Paul's writings reveal to us that he was just an average human writing what he personally felt.

So that's the key to recognizing that Paul could not be writing any "Divinely Inspired Scriptures".

In other words, the "believers" of this religion that believe that Paul was some sort of inspired profit chosen by God to write (as Paul claims he was), then if Paul says that we are without excuse for not believing in this God, this information must be coming from God himself. In other words, the "believers" accept that God is telling us through Paul that we are without excuse for not believing in him, for the reasons Paul gave.

But those reasons don't hold up to scrutiny. Therefore they could not have come from any omniscient all-wise God. So we can't hold words written by Paul to be God telling us important facts through this prophet, when in truth they are not facts at all.

In other words, once we see that the reasoning Paul uses is non-sequitur, then we instantly know that Paul cannot be relaying the reasoning of any God. So this blows the idea that Paul is somehow relaying God's message to us via inspired writings out of the water.

If a true God were actually inspiring Paul to convey important information to us that information would be immaculate and not open to non-sequitur reasoning. So the fallacy of Paul being a prophet of any God is exposed.

The fact that as a mere mortal human Paul would naturally jump to non-sequitur conclusions based on poor reasoning does nothing to help the situation.