Faithless a Choice?

[Audie]

I see. Then logically, you did not understand the implications of your own initial remark to me.

Fascinating. But not surprising.

Please show original remark

 

[capumetu]

Why does the world lack faith? Is it because there is lack of evidence, hence disbelief?
According to the Bible, No. This is not the case. To the contrary.

There is a huge amount of clear evidence, and many do believe. However, the Bible highlighted the reasons for the lack of faith - the faithless.
It said... "The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him. All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God." - John 12:39-43.

So the reasons the Bible gave are, 1) God prevents them from having that faith; 2) They fear men, because they prefer glory from men.
In other words, God leaves people in a spiritually blind state, because they don't want to accept, or they don't want to face rejection and ridicule from the faithless, but want to receive praise from them.

Why would God, not rather open their eyes though. Does he not want to save them?
The simple answer is given at 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12... That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

According to the Bible, the simple answer is... it's what they choose.
Do they want to be faithless? Is that what the Bible is saying? Evidently, in a way, yes.
A person may believe something but they may not want to believe it, for their own personal reasons.
For example, the text above states one reason. The text quoted earlier gave another, when it said, they love the glory of men, and they feared rejection.

Is God fair in letting people choose even though it results in the person's harm, rather than their benefit?

Yes sir, man was created in God's image Gen 1:26. That includes the freedom of choice. True, most people have chosen to be their own god at their harm as well as others Ecc 8:9 He did not design us to be robots, and in the long run His world will be the way it would have been if He had, only by choice and not force or instinct.

I'm glad I can make a free choice, and I am sure Atheists, and agnostics are equally happy that they can freely choose what they want to accept.

I see you agree with God's decision to grant us free will.

So whether one has faith or not, is actually up to an individual. It a personal choice.
Thoughts?

Why does the world lack faith? Is it because there is lack of evidence, hence disbelief?
According to the Bible, No. This is not the case. To the contrary.

There is a huge amount of clear evidence, and many do believe. However, the Bible highlighted the reasons for the lack of faith - the faithless.
It said... "The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.” Isaiah said these things because he saw his glory, and he spoke about him. All the same, many even of the rulers actually put faith in him, but they would not acknowledge him because of the Pharisees, so that they would not be expelled from the synagogue; for they loved the glory of men even more than the glory of God." - John 12:39-43.

So the reasons the Bible gave are, 1) God prevents them from having that faith; 2) They fear men, because they prefer glory from men.
In other words, God leaves people in a spiritually blind state, because they don't want to accept, or they don't want to face rejection and ridicule from the faithless, but want to receive praise from them.

Why would God, not rather open their eyes though. Does he not want to save them?
The simple answer is given at 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12... That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

According to the Bible, the simple answer is... it's what they choose.
Do they want to be faithless? Is that what the Bible is saying? Evidently, in a way, yes.
A person may believe something but they may not want to believe it, for their own personal reasons.
For example, the text above states one reason. The text quoted earlier gave another, when it said, they love the glory of men, and they feared rejection.

Is God fair in letting people choose even though it results in the person's harm, rather than their benefit?
I'm glad I can make a free choice, and I am sure Atheists, and agnostics are equally happy that they can freely choose what they want to accept.

So whether one has faith or not, is actually up to an individual. It a personal choice.
Thoughts?

 

[Sunstone]

I once found a story of a Rabbi, who said:

"Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God."

If Judaism, Christianity, and Islam were three brothers, instead of three religions, Judaism would be the brother who was most self-aware.

 

[Sunstone]

Please show original remark

It's a long chain, but here goes. In her OP, nPeace wrote (excerpt)...

However, the Bible highlighted the reasons for the lack of faith - the faithless.

I quoted the entirety of her OP (which was a mistake --
I should have merely quoted the part I was replying to,
the part I excerpted above) and replied...

Biblical 'reasons' are so silly, aren't they? Transparently agenda-driven. Reading the Bible in reference to non-believers is kin to asking a Ford salesman his opinion of the Toyota salesman. Same vulgar level.

The Bible has some truly insightful passages in it. Wish its treatment of atheism and non-belief rose above the level of mudslinging.

Does anyone recall the name of the Dutch theologian who said, "Atheists are our natural allies because they ask the right questions"? I recall the quote but not the author.

I think it wasn't clear to nPeace what I was replying to,
and she might have a point there. Had I been in her shoes,
I would have figured it out, but mainly because I've had
years more training in analyzing texts than most people,
and I presume that includes her. At any rate, I didn't
communicate as well as I could have that I was commenting
on "the Biblical reasons for the lack of faith", and
not on Bible as a whole. She replied...

Guess that makes Jesus, his apostles, and the prophets silly.

She's got a point there. If you don't pick up on what
I'm referring to, if you assume I am talking about the
entirety of the Bible, then her response makes sense of
a sort. It strikes me as a comment made in bad faith,
but that's a separate issue. At any rate, here's the rest
of the exchange...

Are you saying you actually believe the worst elements of the Bible make some of the best look silly?

I don't even understand what you are asking here.

I see. Then logically, you did not understand the implications of your own initial remark to me.

Fascinating. But not surprising.

Basically, I was too hard on her. I assumed she understood
what she didn't understand because I myself would have most
likely understood it. But going back over it, that was an
unwarranted assumption.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because God leaves people in a spiritually blind state, because they don't want to accept, or they don't want to face rejection and ridicule from the faithless, but want to receive praise from them?

All of that is nonsense amd an assumption. Instead of asking people why and believe them, toy assume they either are deliberately lying or don't know themselves so you can insert what some guy wrote thousands of years ago. That's lazy, it's dishonest, it is doing that "bearing false witness" thing.

 

[pearl]

The dilemma of theodicy has two horns. Either god is omnipotent, then it is responsible for evil. If it isn't responsible, it can't be omnipotent.

God can do anything logically possible which does not conflict with his nature. There are two major difficulties with an all-powerful being. The first problem has to do with the extent of God’s power. Does omnipotence allow God to redefine logic or break the laws of logic?

Omnipotence (saintaquinas.com)

 

[Heyo]

God can do anything logically possible which does not conflict with his nature. There are two major difficulties with an all-powerful being. The first problem has to do with the extent of God’s power. Does omnipotence allow God to redefine logic or break the laws of logic?

Omnipotence (saintaquinas.com)

Yes. I'm aware of the Thomist position and that it is canon in the RCC. But that is not what many Christians (and other monotheists) believe. Ask around, about half insist on god being able to defy logic.

 

[ppp]

This is RF. I have been here for more than a year. I have seen the responses of people whom have been given evidence. I think it is wise to discuss with people if they are willing to discuss with you, rather than just say something is wrong without being willing to show, or demonstrate why it is wrong.

Do you demonstrate that your claim is right first? Or do you assert your beliefs as some sort of rightfully presumed truth that has to be proven wrong? From the sentence above that is what it sounds like your expectations are, no? Is so, it is no wonder you get a lot of "bah". I am happy to have a discussion, but I am not going to start off on the unevidenced assumption that your (or anyone else's) claim is correct.

While I have only been on RF for a few months, I have had these discussions for much longer, both online and in person. And what more than 90% of the god claims presented to me are composed of "I feel it is true...", "A lot of people have thought it for a long time...", and "It is written..." For me, it is the less than 10% who have thought past that sort of stuff to the more rational argumentation that catch my attention.

 

[pearl]

Ask around, about half insist on god being able to defy logic.

I think we all must grow up, sooner or later, otherwise, we will grow 'out' of Christianity.

 

[Audie]

Do you demonstrate that your claim is right first? Or do you assert your beliefs as some sort of rightfully presumed truth that has to be proven wrong? From the sentence above that is what it sounds like your expectations are, no? Is so, it is no wonder you get a lot of "bah". I am happy to have a discussion, but I am not going to start off on the unevidenced assumption that your claim is correct.

While I have only been on RF for a few months, I have had these discussions for much longer, both online and in person. And what more than 90% of the god claims presented to me are composed of "I feel it is true...", "A lot of people have thought it for a long time...", and "It is written..." For me, it is the less than 10% who have thought past that sort of stuff to the more rational argumentation that catch my attention.

Do you demonstrate that your claim is right first? Or do you assert your beliefs as some sort of rightfully presumed truth that has to be proven wrong? From the sentence above that is what it sounds like your expectations are, no? Is so, it is no wonder you get a lot of "bah". I am happy to have a discussion, but I am not going to start off on the unevidenced assumption that your claim is correct.

While I have only been on RF for a few months, I have had these discussions for much longer, both online and in person. And what more than 90% of the god claims presented to me are composed of "I feel it is true...", "A lot of people have thought it for a long time...", and "It is written..." For me, it is the less than 10% who have thought past that sort of stuff to the more rational argumentation that catch my attention.

No evidence has been presented.

Like evidence that evolution is wrong
.
Big claims, nothing is delivered.

 

[Audie]

I think we all must grow up, sooner or later, otherwise, we will grow 'out' of Christianity.

'Some don't grow up'

 

[pearl]

'Some don't grow up'

And 'they' come in all sizes, shapes, and religions, and no-religion.

 

[ppp]

I think we all must grow up, sooner or later, otherwise, we will grow 'out' of Christianity.

I think that growing out of Christianity is growing up.

 

[halbhh]

I think that growing out of Christianity is growing up.

Heh. A living being is either growing or changing, and can't really stand still very long in the more full sense (they might give an appearance on the outside of standing still for a time tho). In reality we are all either changing in a good way, or changing in a bad way, pretty soon.

Year to year sure, but even week to week.

There is not an "up" to "growing up" that is a point where we truly stop. We either continue to progress, or we move in a less good direction, but the only constant is change. Which way are you moving today? is always a good question for anyone. Happy New Years!

 

[ppp]

There is not an "up" to "growing up" that is a point where we truly stop

I am not sure why you chose to assume that growing up is "a point where we truly stop. " I don't see it that way.

 

[halbhh]

I am not sure why you chose to assume that growing up is "a point where we truly stop. " I don't see it that way.

Well, I hoped to write clearly enough in the rest of that short post that it might be more clear. I used several more sentences to try to make it clear.

If someone says: I'll only read 1 sentence.

Then I'd try: "You can't stop anywhere long, so you got to continue forward (all your life), or else drift downward, your choice."

eh, I think my original wording was better tho.

 

[Audie]

And 'they' come in all sizes, shapes, and religions, and no-religion.

Yup.

 

[ppp]

Well, I hoped to write clearly enough in the rest of that short post that it might be more clear. I used several more sentences to try to make it clear.

If someone says: I'll only read 1 sentence.

Then I'd try: "You can't stop anywhere long, so you got to continue forward (all your life), or else drift downward, your choice."

eh, I think my original wording was better tho.

You appear to be responding to something other than my post.

 

[halbhh]

You appear to be responding to something other than my post.

Have a good New Years!

 

[ppp]

Have a good New Years!

Same to you!