Understanding Belief

[pmccombs1]

And that's about all I have to say about your post right now... except that it was a lot of text and I have no real desire to respond to all of your thoughts.

I can understand your reluctance. I have yet to find a satisfying response to the dilemma I have presented, other than my own idea that we aren't here to know things, but to become something. My comment wasn't particularly suited to the piecemeal approach that you favor, and it seems to me when it got to the point where I addressed your typical responses, you lost interest. That's understandable, because I think this problem is a threatening one. Taken as a whole, you have to address a very difficult thing, which is this, "Is my personal knowledge of God justified?" Or, "Wherein is my own experience superior to that of another, which may contradict me? Might that be cause to reconsider the validity of such experiences" Or, even more difficult, "Given a number of possible personal communications from God that are indistinguishable in their quality, yet conflicting in their content, which one ought to be believed?"

In order to learn something about reality, we must first have some reliable point of reference that is objective. I'm willing to entertain the notion, however, that many religious ideas have little to do with a material truth. I think there are truths of other kinds that religion helps us know about.

[treeface]

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

Hmmm. My beliefs have undergone a number of changes over the past four or five decades. And all along the way, I have always thought that my then-current beliefs were supported by enough evidence to be reasonable, though I didn't necessarily expect said evidence to be convincing to anyone else because at times it has been largely personal and experiential.

I'm not entirely sure which comes first, the belief or the evidence. You see, I think we are capable of finding convincing (to ourselves at least) evidence out there to support a very wide range of beliefs, if we want to. If this is the case, our beliefs may be an expression of what we want to be true, rather than what is best supported by the available objective evidence.

That being said, I do think that, at some point, the journey calls upon us to trust our highest inner voice above that of all other voices, outer or inner. If one's highest inner voice is the voice of logical skepticism, then follow that voice until it has taught all that it has to teach. Maybe that will be sufficient, maybe not, might as well find out.

Not sure why you are limiting it to “Judo-Christian” narratives...

I love it! Can I start referring to myself as a "Judo-Christian"? Don't mess with me, man, I might have to go all Judo-Christian on you!!

[Damien the Leper]

That is weird. If you had had conversation with me it would have gone more like this:

You: What gives the Bible authority?

Me: God.

You: Says who?

Me: God, and the Prophets, and others who have faith or hope that it's true.

You: How can you substantially validate such a claim? Based on the reasoning you have given I cannot conclude as you do.

Me: Maybe that's because God hasn't told you it is true, or you just don't have the faith or the desire to believe.

INSERT from Me: Who and what is God? And who has the authority to say so?

You: You assert that 1) God asserts the authority of scripture and 2) scripture asserts its authority because it is inspired from God. How do you justify these assertions?

Me: Someone wrote something down as scripture by being inspired by God to write that, and God has also told me that what that person wrote is true. I'm saying I've received a personal revelation from God to assure me of what is true. I'm not just relying on what someone wrote down while claiming God said that, or inspired that. I'm saying God has told ME that idea is true.

INSERT: Who and what is God? How do you know God told you anything?

You: Really? I'm not following. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are asserting that scripture, because it is "God breathed", is the credential to properly place authority? You do realize that you have just gone in a circle right?

Me: No, that's not what I said or meant. God is the authority, and God can inspire someone to write something just as God can inspire someone to know that what is written is true, when it is. With God to help us, personally, we can know the truth of all things.

INSERT: Again, who and what is God? How do you know, if that is even an appropriate term, that God inspired any of the writings? Emotional and psychological appeal?

You: Think very hard about what you have said in response to my questions.

Me: Okay. I was, but I'll do so again.

You: Let me explain my reasoning to your thought processes. You assert the authority of scripture because God and the Prophets validate such a claim. My question to this response is: "Says who?" Your response was God. Well, how do you know? You are essentially saying to be that you say that some writer of a book of scripture says that God says so. Is that correct?

Me: No, or at least not totally correct. God has also told me, personally, so I'm not just relying on what that writer said.

INSERT: Again, who and what is God? How do you know it was God? Your beliefs and reflections thus far are, like mine, opinions and conclusions we have drawn.

You: But that is what you are claiming. In the end, you don't actually know that God, if he does exist and I'm not saying he doesn't, said any or did any of the things that scripture claims.

Me: Yes I do know that God said that, because he said so to me.

You: (Slightly awkward silence)...so your response is to appeal to faith which is emotively and psychologically based? You do realize that this reasoning will continue to fall flat on its face. I'm not trying to dissuade you from believing. I'm trying to understand where any actual authority stands and why I should consider any truth claims. Faith is not a reasonable or logical response.

Me: It is when God is the one who gives the faith to you, or to me, which assures us of what is the truth. If God were to say something like this to you: That is true!... why would you not believe him? If God said so, and you knew it was God, I think you would.

INSERT: You make many assumptions based on your reasoning. As I have stated to others before, I'm not claiming that God does not exist. That is presumptuous and arrogant. But to assume in the opposite direction is equally fallable. It would seem that all this discussion relies solely on the FACT that God does exist and not simply faith that God exists.

[Damien the Leper]

Is there any sort of evidence possible for value or meaning?

We can find all sorts of evidence for material phenomena and come to a reasonable conclusion about the nature of things and how they came to be. From this we might understand, at least, how the atheist can deny God.

But does the atheist stop there? Not usually. Then he goes on to explain how irrational belief, particularly that found in what he calls "religion," is bad. It's dangerous and it needs to be stopped. Atheists like Dawkins think that atheism needs to become more militant and root out the evil that is religion. So, you see, it plays into some value system.

We can see where the view of the material world and reality arises, and if we understand the atheist then we must agree that he is indeed rational. But where did his value system come from, if not from the imagination? By the atheists' own standards, all values and meanings are make-believe. Whenever an atheist makes a claim about good or bad, he is participating in something akin to the thing he despises. He is practicing religion. He can't prove the goodness or badness of anything with objective evidence to back him up. He has to appeal to some other subjective area beyond reason.

This is exactly why I can't fully discount supernaturalism from my humanism. There is still too much that is unexplained. For example, the Resurrection. The mere fact or idea that that tomb was empty is perplexing. (HINT: It's probably the one thing that is kicking Dawkins and his ilk in the behind).

Rather than taking on the militant attitude that is the New Atheists movement, I prefer a more pacifistic approach. I like to think that I'm much more patient and open minded than Dawkins & Co.

I don't agree, however, with the assertion that scripture is the scale by which morality or good and evil is weighed. It is illogical to assume that good does not exist based on the argument of relativity. As I told USU before, Plato's quote concerning knowing the good and doing the good is set in human conscience and consiousness. It is just as natural as plant life that grows. It simply is. (Kinda a supernaturalistic approach I suppose).

[Damien the Leper]

Logic and reason have their place and benefits, of course, but they don't seem like very useful tools for discussing spiritual experiences.

I love art, and when I talk about art, I discuss it in the language of art. I also love history, and when I discuss it I discuss it in the language of history. I do not discuss history in the language of art, nor do I discuss art in the language of history. (Expect when I am discussing art history )

Anyway, my point is, it is going to require severe mental gymnastics to try and discuss spiritual matters in the language of logic and critical reason, and at best it will be only partially successful.

I agree with you. However, it is not an impossible or improbable stretch.

[mfbukowski]

As I told USU before, Plato's quote concerning knowing the good and doing the good is set in human conscience and consiousness. It is just as natural as plant life that grows. It simply is. (Kinda a supernaturalistic approach I suppose).

Values which promote longevity of the culture survive; these can be seen as "natural law" and as an "unchanging principle of goodness". The Golden Rule promotes a culture with longevity- whereas a culture which promotes wholesale murder of masses of people, for example, tend to be short lived.

So one can see unchanging natural law in a secular way or in a religious way. It's like what we are discussing on the Life of Pi thread- choose your story as you see fit.

But when God tells you which story is right, it becomes obvious which story wins; if you have had no revelation about it, choose the secular course. Ultimately the secular course does not work as well- I think that is clear. But God speaks to our hearts subjectively and if one actually misunderstands all this and discounts the subjective they will never know that. Perhaps that is the direction you are headed- I would counsel against it but I suspect you don't care about that.

But what I am telling you is straight Alma 32 should you choose to see it that way.

But obviously you will choose what you want and reap the rewards of that choice whatever they may be, good or bad.

[mfbukowski]

This is exactly why I can't fully discount supernaturalism from my humanism.

Just realize, as I have said before, that Mormonism IS humanism because God is a Man. We promote the highest potential of mankind- to become gods! That which exalts man is our highest goal. Unfortunately many don't see Mormonism that way because from my point of view, they are blinded by Neoplatonic philosophy which should have died at least 600 years ago. It has been promoted by apostate Christianity which should have ended with the restoration, but unfortunately we have not replaced it yet with a good Pragmatic humanistic theology. But many Mormon intellectuals are trying. It will happen eventually- it is inevitable as older generations who were not raised on Neoplatonism die out. We are after all in a postmodern age and eventually even the most conservative institutions will have to surrender.

I was a Marxian years ago but that is not true humanism in my opinion. It does not exalt the individual it exalts the masses- that is the wrong direction in my opinion. True humanism should exalt each individual and teach the individual to excel and the culture will follow. Marxian philosophy does the opposite- it seeks to change the culture and then the culture will change the individual.

Actually the Beatles got it right way back when:

You tell me it's the institution

Well you know

You better free your mind instead

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao

You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

[mfbukowski]

So, lots of people say different things about what God is, does, has said, and so forth. God has spoken to a lot of different people through many centuries, and He is saying some very different things. Maybe the Bible has the right words, or the Quran, or the Bagavhad Gita, or some Upanishads, or the Book of Mormon, or some combination of them, etc., etc.

Suppose one wants to know the truth; which of all these things is right, or none of them? Well, the Mormon story gives us a handy answer, "Why not ask God and find out?" What greater witness can you have than from God? Right? And we have lots of stories around that particular doctrine, of people asking and finding out after the manner of our Mormon formula.

Only, there's a catch. We aren't unique in this doctrine of seeking the Spirit for guidance, even though sometimes we claim otherwise. Other people in other faiths believe it too, and guess what? God confirms their own version of the Truth! I know Catholics who have heard the voice of God and have been cemented in their faith beyond all doubt. Could they be right? Uh oh. We're back to square one.

Now the question is this: How can I know if my spiritual confirmation really came from God? Will the real God please stand up?

There are some challenges. For instance, we can't objectively know what these other people have felt who claim some alternative confirmation of Truth. What we can see is their language, and it seems very much similar to the language we use to describe our own experiences. They felt incredible peace, assurance, goodness, certainty, and gratitude. Perhaps the voice was audible. It imparted a feeling of good-will and charity. It opened the mind and enlightened understanding. It provided them with visions and comfort.

I get this from some Catholic acquaintances about the Eucharist and about their mother Church, the only true Church on the face of the earth (according to their spiritually-confirmed experiences). Sam Keen, the wonderful agnostic, shared his own experience with this "Spirit." It set him in his path. A Jewish atheist friend of mine recounted to me his experience with the "universe" and with receiving visions and messages from his deceased relatives that strengthened him in his atheism. We are far from the only people having spiritual experiences; it's prevalent enough that researches are well aware of it and have studied it in a demographic that includes more than just Mormons.

Another challenge is that this spiritual sense can't be correlated with any reliable and material fact. We can't say, for instance, "you know it's from God because it won't deny Christ. That's the litmus test." Well, that's illogical. How can we rely on that statement? How do we know it's true? What is Christ, or what is Good? It's just as easy to say that, "you can know it's from God because it won't deny Vishnu." Is the claim coming from a reliable source that can be verified?

If the whole point is to verify the authoritative source that says, "it's from God if it doesn't deny Christ (or the Good, or whatever)," then you can't point back to the authority for its own validation to describe what the test is. That's a fallacy of circular reasoning. The first red flag that goes up is when a religious text or teaching points to itself for validation. "Gee. I wonder if such-and-such source of authority is reliable. I guess I'll ask it and find out." That's irrational thinking.

We're trying to discover if God exists, and if He does, if He has said anything or has any connection with us whatsoever. We are quite aware that there are many people pushing their versions of the answers to this question. Some of us have traditional ties to these groups and we maybe choose to "go along to get along," except sometimes in Internet forums where we just have to bring up these troubling issues and see if anyone out there has ideas that might help us out--besides, "well, ask God. If you're willing to get the answer, you'll get it". Of course. We have also, very frequently, already experienced a spiritual witness that is often associated with a testimony in other people. Some of us have even had it for multiple, contrary ideas. But for the reasons explained above, we can't accept those experiences as reliable representations of objective reality. We know that the human mind is just too tractable and easily sucked into narratives that can literally change the material human experience to grant certainty to these personal experiences that can't be measured against some external, reliable source.

We can continue to struggle with our faith, as it seems that this is why were are here in the first place. But an objective certainty is not possible to achieve in mortality; we may only feel a subjective conviction. In the end, belief is tied to a central faith that has to do with subjective experience and desire, and not with deductive logic or reason. The time may come when we choose to accept a subjective witness of one of the various Truths out there; it will be something that reflects who we are or who we have become. Being and becoming, I suppose, must have to do with the purpose of life, if there is one.

Great post!

I have a few piddling disagreements, but overall, good stuff in my never-humble-opinion.

[mfbukowski]

Logic and reason have their place and benefits, of course, but they don't seem like very useful tools for discussing spiritual experiences.

I love art, and when I talk about art, I discuss it in the language of art. I also love history, and when I discuss it I discuss it in the language of history. I do not discuss history in the language of art, nor do I discuss art in the language of history. (Expect when I am discussing art history )

Anyway, my point is, it is going to require severe mental gymnastics to try and discuss spiritual matters in the language of logic and critical reason, and at best it will be only partially successful.

Dang this is cool! I am actually seeing more and more people I actually agree with here! Thanks for the post!

[Nathair/|\]

Just realize, as I have said before, that Mormonism IS humanism because God is a Man. We promote the highest potential of mankind- to become gods! That which exalts man is our highest goal. Unfortunately many don't see Mormonism that way because from my point of view, they are blinded by Neoplatonic philosophy which should have died at least 600 years ago. It has been promoted by apostate Christianity which should have ended with the restoration, but unfortunately we have not replaced it yet with a good Pragmatic humanistic theology. But many Mormon intellectuals are trying. It will happen eventually- it is inevitable as older generations who were not raised on Neoplatonism die out. We are after all in a postmodern age and eventually even the most conservative institutions will have to surrender.

I was a Marxian years ago but that is not true humanism in my opinion. It does not exalt the individual it exalts the masses- that is the wrong direction in my opinion. True humanism should exalt each individual and teach the individual to excel and the culture will follow. Marxian philosophy does the opposite- it seeks to change the culture and then the culture will change the individual.

Actually the Beatles got it right way back when:

You should read Faith of the Fallen by Terry Goodkind.

[mfbukowski]

You should read Faith of the Fallen by Terry Goodkind.

Why? Would I agree or disagree with it?

[Nathair/|\]

Why? Would I agree or disagree with it?

It's all about the nobility of the human spirit. I think you'd enjoy it very much, but I think there would be interesting areas of debate for you. The author is something of an objectivist, though I think he somewhat softens the fatal flaws of that philosophy.

[Maidservant]

I define faith and belief differently than most people, as I don't find the vernacular usage of this day and age to match what the scriptures discuss using these terms. I also consider faith and belief to be very different items although they work together. But I don't have a good replacement term to share; I have a long replacement sentence, ha ha. If I am understanding you correctly, for me in my mind anyway, what you are discussing is: how do I know what I think I know is actually correct and therefore a worthy set of knowledge upon which to found my life and set a course?

The short answer and the long answer is: experience (and trusting our own experience).

Since we cannot experience everything, at some point we have to make decisions about others' experiences that they report to us, and we do that partially by whether or not we trust that other person (not only this, as certainly we can honestly disagree with people we trust; and there are other exceptions to this idea, hence my use of the word 'partially').

I want to say up front that for my central spiritual experiences, thoughts, opinions and courses of action, my values and the way I make decisions about the meaning and purpose of my life, I do all of that from direct experience. I have been trained from the time I was a child in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I have been presented with a narrative, and these are or were the pieces I have had to work with as I have grown and had my mind, heart and experiences expanded. Again, for me, this is a narrative NOT beliefs or faith (in my definition/my understanding of scriptural usage of these terms). This is perception. This is what I was given and I am responsible for what I make of it--stay with it, modify it, leave it behind. For me, as I continue to expand my perception, I don't find any edge to the boundary of what it means to me to be within my covenants. No knowledge is outside my covenants, or as I experience that.

Evidence is neither here nor there, for me. I'm not even sure what evidence is. You can collect evidence for anything. And that collection of evidence is most often in the shape of what has already been decided by one's perception.

Experience is a slightly different frame than evidence and it is one that seems closer to reality (in my experience! ha ha). And I do not need to know what is 'true' in some static way because what I understand to be true is always changing. I can only BE true to what I know. I do not have nor seek evidence for God; I try to LIVE God. And in this way, God is always true because God is always my experience. For those who prefer not to live God, then they are right also, because that is the experience they have sought and created for themselves.

[blackstrap]

In case anyone is interested,Euclidian Geometry seems all logical and rational,yet it is founded on a couple of AXIOMS which,by definition, are concepts which are accepted to be 'true' without proof , ie by faith if you will. The first IIRC is "there exists a point. " A point is an object(idea) that has no dimensions,no length,width ,or thickness, yet if a couple of them are put together there then exists a ' line ' which has only 1 dimension,length. On these foundations were built most of the ancient and modern world structures. Talk about magnifying faith through works!

[volgadon]

Just realize, as I have said before, that Mormonism IS humanism because God is a Man. We promote the highest potential of mankind- to become gods! That which exalts man is our highest goal. Unfortunately many don't see Mormonism that way because from my point of view, they are blinded by Neoplatonic philosophy which should have died at least 600 years ago. It has been promoted by apostate Christianity which should have ended with the restoration, but unfortunately we have not replaced it yet with a good Pragmatic humanistic theology. But many Mormon intellectuals are trying. It will happen eventually- it is inevitable as older generations who were not raised on Neoplatonism die out. We are after all in a postmodern age and eventually even the most conservative institutions will have to surrender.

I was a Marxian years ago but that is not true humanism in my opinion. It does not exalt the individual it exalts the masses- that is the wrong direction in my opinion. True humanism should exalt each individual and teach the individual to excel and the culture will follow. Marxian philosophy does the opposite- it seeks to change the culture and then the culture will change the individual.

Actually the Beatles got it right way back when:

My favourite line from my favourite Beatles song.

[Maidservant]

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

At this point in my life, I do not prefer these above the other religious information that I also am in possession of. I learn from a lot of sources, I learn from a lot of people, and I find spiritually transformative experiences from a variety of experiences. My primary experience that continues to have an extremely high value for me is the covenant I made at baptism and the covenants I made in the temple. I see myself as participating in a priesthood covenant NOT as consenting to a particular narrative or set of information. My experiences in the Church and those based on Judeo-Christian is still the most dominant since that is what I know and I find the Church organization to be something that makes the most sense to me in innumerable ways and that I don't find from other places. But that's me. I appreciate if others' experiences are different than mine.

My interpretation of the information in the scriptures changes constantly based on my life experiences and what I know or understand presently would not be recognizable to the me of 20 years ago, although I'm still in the same church and still reading the same scriptures and still going to the same temple. I think that is how it is supposed to be.

Again, in my use of the word 'belief', I do NOT 'believe' in the narrative or truth claims of the Church. I would have to talk with you about specific items, but let's say there was a specific item, I would say that I think it is correct, or I find it sacred, or I find it functional, or it is my opinion. I could not speak of faith or belief in that sense. What I DO believe in is: love, forgiveness, redemption, etc etc. And I have faith to try to live by these things. I believe in the MESSAGE that I find in all religious narratives and that I find in simply being human. I BELIEVE in God--not in God's existence but IN GOD, IN LIFE, IN GOOD. It's all the same to me. I believe in these ideas and these realities. Why? Because I can. I have the power to believe and to bring them in to existence and that is what I am supposed to be doing here on this planet. I am a creator, as we all are.

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

I do not take authority from the scriptures, or at least not an ultimate authority. I try to find things in them and live by them based on my entire perception and experience about how life is meant to be led. It's a personal journey, one for which only I am responsible for what I choose. I do trust a lot that is in scripture and try to trust it as a piano beginner might trust a piano master--I have a general assumption that there is wisdom there from those better or more progressed than I. However, I also question a lot I find in the scriptures (and I usually learn more about what is in there, a new understanding as my old one 'breaks').

[mfbukowski]

I define faith and belief differently than most people, as I don't find the vernacular usage of this day and age to match what the scriptures discuss using these terms. I also consider faith and belief to be very different items although they work together. But I don't have a good replacement term to share; I have a long replacement sentence, ha ha. If I am understanding you correctly, for me in my mind anyway, what you are discussing is: how do I know what I think I know is actually correct and therefore a worthy set of knowledge upon which to found my life and set a course?

The short answer and the long answer is: experience (and trusting our own experience).

Since we cannot experience everything, at some point we have to make decisions about others' experiences that they report to us, and we do that partially by whether or not we trust that other person (not only this, as certainly we can honestly disagree with people we trust; and there are other exceptions to this idea, hence my use of the word 'partially').

I want to say up front that for my central spiritual experiences, thoughts, opinions and courses of action, my values and the way I make decisions about the meaning and purpose of my life, I do all of that from direct experience. I have been trained from the time I was a child in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, so I have been presented with a narrative, and these are or were the pieces I have had to work with as I have grown and had my mind, heart and experiences expanded. Again, for me, this is a narrative NOT beliefs or faith (in my definition/my understanding of scriptural usage of these terms). This is perception. This is what I was given and I am responsible for what I make of it--stay with it, modify it, leave it behind. For me, as I continue to expand my perception, I don't find any edge to the boundary of what it means to me to be within my covenants. No knowledge is outside my covenants, or as I experience that.

Evidence is neither here nor there, for me. I'm not even sure what evidence is. You can collect evidence for anything. And that collection of evidence is most often in the shape of what has already been decided by one's perception.

Experience is a slightly different frame than evidence and it is one that seems closer to reality (in my experience! ha ha). And I do not need to know what is 'true' in some static way because what I understand to be true is always changing. I can only BE true to what I know. I do not have nor seek evidence for God; I try to LIVE God. And in this way, God is always true because God is always my experience. For those who prefer not to live God, then they are right also, because that is the experience they have sought and created for themselves.

I always love your posts and this is another one I loved! That really is the essence of it in my opinion.

[Maidservant]

Then from a logical and rational perspective there really isn't any reason to believe?

What is your definition of logic and rationality and why do you prefer them as your primary frame for defining, perceiving and experiencing your life, reality and the choices you make about information?

I personally do not respect logic that much and I have no need or desire to conform to some logic or even to define it for myself. It's simply irrelevant to me and I use other frames and narratives to organize my experience of knowledge.

As I see it anyway, logic always requires that a postulate system already be in place, and then one can discuss the logics of that system. But at the foundation is an arbitrary postulate that was created simply from the imagination of a human being, like all things are created.

1) God exists.

2) Scripture is authoritative.

3) Resurrection implemented the means by which believers attain salvation and exaltation.

4) Miraculous narratives meant to establish some form of supernatural (absolute?) truth.

God IS.

We forget that 'God' is a word or a concept or a narrative just like all words. It's a way to frame reality. When we see the sacredness of nature, of life, of humanness, a lot of us like to see God. It's a choice (as the Sermon says, the pure in heart will SEE God). The word 'God' is short, 3 letters, very handy. It's helpful and at the same time can cause a lot of barriers in understanding between people, because the God that one person is talking about (say, you) is not the same image that another person is talking about (say, me). I think most people care about things like love and freedom (as two examples). The only difference is the frame we put that in. I love putting that in the frame of God. This provides a transcendant, ecstatic frame to everything for me. But I know some people prefer love and freedom in other frames and find that their understanding and experience of God violates that. Usually when I hear people begin to talk about that God, I don't recognize what they are talking about, and if that was my God, I wouldn't support him either. So I can only respect their decision to say 'I won't follow or consent to that God' because I don't either! ha ha.

I already answered with my view on scripture authority.

I no longer think on my eternity with terms like salvation and exaltation. So I cannot answer this. As far as Resurrection is concerned, I have a deep sense that I am eternal--have always existed and always will, in some way or another. Is my sense correct? Only time will tell. But it is an experience with me, that I experience my eternal-ness constantly in every moment of the now. But I feel comfortable examining Resurrection both of Jesus and of us all in a mechanical sense, and questioning it. I don't have conclusions, so until I do, I can accept the story as it is, don't have a lot of problem with it, and I certainly find the symbolism and the hope for its reality to be beautiful.

I don't consider religion nor spirituality nor belief nor faith nor the narrative of the Church to be exercises in the supernatural, so I can't answer that.

[Maidservant]

This begs the question of how do you know it is from God? Furthermore, what is God. Who says that God is what you or anyone else claims God to be?

You and each of us are responsible for our own journey of this. End of story. Then you just trust yourself, your experience and what you know. And trust other people that what they know, comes from their journey.

What is the light of Christ? Where does this concept come from? What gives the "light of Christ" any weight of authority and discernment?

Deserves its own thread.

It is too emotively and spiritually-psychologically based.

You've made a decision for yourself (it seems) that such a way of perceiving one's experiences is defective, and I am curious how, when and why you made this decision. Perhaps for others an emotion, spirit, psychological base is preferable. For myself, I don't use these categories. I just call it all experience, life, being human.

Faith is emotive and psychologically based. It doesn't hold up in rational argument or discussion.

I can't answer this as my understanding of faith makes use of none of these categories.

The proof is in the pudding. You live the principles and see if your life is better.

Yep. Experience.

What IS "truth" after all? That is the question here, and without a theory of what that is, you will not even know what to look for. . . . It is about a narrative that gives your life meaning and purpose.

Also another worthy thread, although I'm sure there have been rounds on it before .

Let me be clear again, I'm not trying to dissuade anyone out of faith. However, if there is not a rational, reasonable, or logical explanation for a worldview, leaving the "faith" construct out of the equation, then the worldview is inconsequential and goes onto the same shelves as mythology. . . . If the narratives found in scripture are simply narratives rather than actual historical writings then what greater value do they have than that of the story of Heracles or the Odyssey? Not an ounce.

I find it odd (from my point of view) that you use the word 'inconsequential' and 'mythology' in the same sentence. From my point of view, there is hardly anything of greater consequence than myth (or other names this goes by = narrative). You personally (based on your experience and the choices for which you are responsible) have decided that mythology is inconsequential. Why?

And I agree with you that the story of Heracles and the Odyssey carry in many ways the same weight as the Hebrew scriptures we use EXCEPT that if you examine Greek thinking, there are a lot of things I personally disrespect like the level of childish selfishness of the characters, but there is a lot to criticize in some Biblical characters as well (King David, maybe?). So the point isn't what is written--it's what WE make decisions about what we know based on what we are presented with in what is written whether it is the New Testament or the latest offering of Dr. Wayne Dwyer (for one example). We have to find and know ourselves, for the good and bad, as reflected in what is written.

Human beings are ALWAYS creating mythology. There is no moment or space or time without mythology. We LIVE a story all the time. We LIVE a meaning all the time. We have our personal mythologies and we connect to larger cultural mythologies in some way (conforming or challenging or both).

Much more intelligent and rational people than you and I have weighed the evidence, examined their experiences and come to the logical conclusion that God must exist. Whether God does or does not exist does not effect the rational nature of their decision. . . .There are logical and rational reasons for believing as they do, even though it may be difficult for some to articulate their reasoning. . . . Even if someone was able to prove or disprove the existence of a creator using our current scientific models, they would probably be in error and the proof would be rejected later as we gain more understanding. Remember, people of all ages have considered themselves the pinnacle of human achievement and knowledge only to looked upon as quaint fools by future generations. The same will be true of us. . . . I think there are logical and rational reasons for both, but given my experiences I believe the more logical and rational conclusion is that there was some sort of creative force behind the creation of the universe. Could I be wrong? Yes. Could those who chose to believe in nothing be wrong? Yes. Are my arguments illogical or irrational? No, even though in the end they may lead me to incorrect conclusions. . . . If one religion is true I want it to be the Church of Jesus Christ, because it offers the most compelling narrative for the destiny of man. I do not want the other religions to be true because their narratives do not appeal to me nearly as much. . . . I want it to be true so I try it, and repeatedly the promised response is received. Something is promised in the gospel and I try it and I receive the promised response. Is it possible that I am deluding myself? Sure, but it is also possible that what I am repeatedly seeing is a true phenomenon, so I continue to try and it has not failed to respond. Is it illogical and irrational then to continue to believe in something that I do not fully understand, but do receive responses repeatedly as promised? If so then there are many irrational scientists and engineers because this exact thing is done all the time. There are many many phenomena that we do not understand completely, but we know that when a certain input is given a certain response is received.

So in the end I choose to believe because I want it to be true, and I have had repeated experiences that have confirmed my belief.

-guerreiro9

I enjoyed everything you have to say.

I think you helped me with a new word. The experiences in the Church and the gospel and in God and in seeking spiritual experience are phenomenological. They are not necessarily evidence based in terms of a list of criteria of evidence needed to fit a "rational" frame/model or Enlightenment model that is still dominant in our culture/mythology. There IS phenomena experienced. The experience is primary. Our explanation after is secondary (or so I say). And our explanation is based on who WE are (individually or as a group).

Just embrace the phenomena though, maybe, without trying to explain it into the ground, ha ha. I don't know.

[Maidservant]

I decide what is important in my life . . . . by what I see in the world around me. . . . .

What I want from life is to live. To touch lives for good and to experience the touch of others seeking to do the same. I want to breathe, to love, to be loved, to lift burdens, to bond with random people because we share the greatest trait of all: our humanity. The very real fact that we do exist.

Sweet. This is exactly how I frame my worldview too.

We are told that "the righteous will live by faith" Habakkuk 2:4. So in my opinion, everything I believed until proven had to first be founded in faith. But then once proven I no longer had faith in these things, rather I developed knowledge of things I once only had faith in believing. For me, this presents the opportunity to have faith in greater mysteries of God. So the process of having faith leading to knowledge never ends because we are pursuing an endless God! Just my thoughts

Love listening to you all the time. " . . . we are pursuing an endless God!" WOW!

[Maidservant]

I always love your posts and this is another one I loved! That really is the essence of it in my opinion.

Thanks! Back at ya! And I love your Calmoriah quote in your sig line, I think that puts where both you and I are coming from in a really great way.

[pogi]

1) What is it about the Judeo-Christian narratives that appeal to you to believe?

The promise of spiritual evidence after belief, which leads to faith, which leads to knowledge, you know, the parts you don't want to talk about.

2) What is it about the Judeo-Christian truth claims that appeal to you to believe?

The promise of spiritual evidence after belief, which leads to faith, which leads to knowledge, you know, the parts you don't want to talk about.

Can any of your beliefs and truth claims that you assert from scriptural (and/or prophetic) authority actually be substantiated without faith?

It cannot and will not be substantiated for you without belief, believe it or not!

You want to see something funny, go onto a philosophy forum and pose the question "do you exist"?

I cannot substantiate you without faith. As soon as I can do that, I might be willing to talk to you about God. Good luck!

Edited November 25, 2012 by pogi

[mfbukowski]

I BELIEVE in God--not in God's existence but IN GOD, IN LIFE, IN GOOD. It's all the same to me. I believe in these ideas and these realities. Why? Because I can. I have the power to believe and to bring them in to existence and that is what I am supposed to be doing here on this planet. I am a creator, as we all are.

Wow.

This is worth about 87 rep points and I can only give one. I suggest everyone contribute

[Maidservant]

Wow.

This is worth about 87 rep points and I can only give one. I suggest everyone contribute

You are too kind. Thank you.

[wenglund]

I submit that it is epistemically impossible for the human mind to have faith without some measure of reason/logic, and it is impossible for the human mind to have reason/logic without some measure of faith. I challenge anyone to demonstrate otherwise.

If so, then faith and reason would suggest that we not speak of faith and reason as discrete categories, but rather in terms of a spectrum arrayed with varied admixtures of each.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-