What should motivate us to make a leap of faith?

[Fluffy]

Heya Rolling Stone,

The fact thqt you ask shows me you really aren't interested since it was answered centuries ago.

I'm sorry if I don't appear truly interested. I don't know how to demonstrate to you that it is apparent to me that the opposite is the case. I can only hope that other people will take my request as genuine and help me to find an answer.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[kai]

If we have never had a religious experience or a relationship with God, what should motivate us to make a leap of faith?

And a side note: If we have a religious experience then is it really a leap of faith?

i dont know what should motivate us ,some people could say what has motivated them, me i havnt had any experience that would even slightly motivate me to make a hop of faith, let alone a leap,

 

[cardero]

i dont know what should motivate us ,some people could say what has motivated them, me i havnt had any experience that would even slightly motivate me to make a hop of faith, let alone a leap,

Whoever does motivate another to make a leap of faith should also notify the person about the descent and the landing.

 

[roli]

Sorry, with no belief in heaven or hell as places of reward or punishment, or belief that judgment is meant to damn individuals through belief, your argument is not effective.

God is ultimate justice; but he is also ultimate grace and mercy.

Can you or I commit evil acts? yes, we can. Do we face responsibility for tho0se acts/ Sure, we do. Can you define what the consequences are going to be? No, you cannot.

Regards,
Scott

Regards,
Scott

That's fine that you don't believe in the heaven and hell of the Judeo God, but I guess it all comes down to what God you actually believe in.
That's where our differences are.
This will absolutely set the tone for what one believes or disbelieves.
I'm sorry as well ,but as far as thre Judeo God is concerned ,it's not about us and by the way,it's not my argument, it's God's profession of what it will be, dispite our views.
It's interesting that those who speak or believe contray to what God's word teaches attempt to defend their position by portraying the bible believer as one who has his own agenda, such as, your views, your wrong, your arguement is ineffective, your this or that....!!!!! It's all contained in the word of God, we just speak what God has already spoken, Jesus was persecuted for this all the time.
I'm sorry you can't define the consequences accurately enough , but according to the Judeo Christian God and his word, I can and he clearly warns us of impending danger and punishment for sin and wilfull disobedience, idolatry etc.
He does not sugar coat it so as to agree with the human emotion or reasoning minds, he clearly reveals it because he is a God of love ,mercy ,grace and wants to spare us.

The opposition are convinced the Christian is responsible for such hersey teaching, as if we create these doctrines.....we are just the messengers.LOL!!!!!!!
Mind you there are heretical teachEers out there, but if you want to go one on one on the subject of sin ,punishment, consequences, judgment and the like , pertaining to what God's word says on the subject,open her up Scotty, I'll be there.

But that is the Judeo Christian God, I'm not sure what God or concept of God you follow and believe in, I can only speak of the "I AM" GOD" of the bible.

So many cut and paste and take what they choose to believe from scripture and leave the rest,much like an experience at a buffet table.
We create a nice soothing plate of choice foods that are pleasurable to eat, not to messy,smoothe going down and something that can be easily digested and excreted.

 

[Popeyesays]

Roli,

The word "Hell" does not exist in the TaNakh at all. So how do you claim it to be a "Judeo-God"?

Regards,

Scott

 

[rojse]

Heya Rolling Stone,

I'm sorry if I don't appear truly interested. I don't know how to demonstrate to you that it is apparent to me that the opposite is the case. I can only hope that other people will take my request as genuine and help me to find an answer.

Thanks for your thoughts.

The only answer for this that I can think of is Pascal's Wager. It is basically summed up as "God is either real, or not. I can believe in God, or I cannot." The only way to lose this wager, it continues, is if you do not believe in God, and he exists.

You can obviously see the flaw in Pascal's Wager. If God existed, would he accept those that worship him merely to avoid the possibility of hell, so I do not think that is the answer RollingStone was talking about.

 

[lew0049]

If we have never had a religious experience or a relationship with God, what should motivate us to make a leap of faith?

And a side note: If we have a religious experience then is it really a leap of faith?

Simply using logic and reason. Science can not answer questions like why, and if there is not a creator or "God" then we are here by 100% accident, and if we were created by pure accident, then we have no inherient purpose except the meaning we find in our life, e.g. be a good person, parent, success, etc... after I came to these conclusions (and many people will attempt to argue against the above but that is simply what my logic and reasoning came too). Many, as I did once, ask questions like "well what purpose do flies have?" How should I or anyone else know, mankind can only evaluate mankind b/c we are mankind - not a fly.
anyway, I view christianity as the only faith that doesn't require a blind leap of faith, but thats another topic completely
have a good one
-chip

 

[Francine]

You can obviously see the flaw in Pascal's Wager. If God existed, would he accept those that worship him merely to avoid the possibility of hell, so I do not think that is the answer RollingStone was talking about.

Pascal's Wager works when you substitute Satan for God too.

 

[rojse]

Pascal's Wager works when you substitute Satan for God too.

Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Popeyesays]

Pascal's Wager is a morally bankrupt proposition.

Regards,
Scott

 

[kai]

Simply using logic and reason. Science can not answer questions like why, and if there is not a creator or "God" then we are here by 100% accident, and if we were created by pure accident, then we have no inherient purpose except the meaning we find in our life, e.g. be a good person, parent, success, etc... after I came to these conclusions (and many people will attempt to argue against the above but that is simply what my logic and reasoning came too). Many, as I did once, ask questions like "well what purpose do flies have?" How should I or anyone else know, mankind can only evaluate mankind b/c we are mankind - not a fly.
anyway, I view christianity as the only faith that doesn't require a blind leap of faith, but thats another topic completely
have a good one
-chip

here we go again the accident thing, its more a law of averages you have to factor in the size of the universe the amount of suns with life supporting planets by eons of time and life will form somewhere we are either the very first planet , othe only planet or there could be thousands of them out there.

 

[rojse]

Pascal's Wager is a morally bankrupt proposition.

Regards,
Scott

Exactly, and that's why I do not consider it to be a worthy reason for someone to make that leap of faith.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Heya Rolling Stone,

I'm sorry if I don't appear truly interested. I don't know how to demonstrate to you that it is apparent to me that the opposite is the case. I can only hope that other people will take my request as genuine and help me to find an answer.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I was too harsh and I apologize.

In my mind, someone truly interested would investigate theological beliefs on their own rather than rely on a bunch of numb nuts (myself included). I suppose it has a lot to do with my personal history--rebelling against having been made to go to church and all and coming to the conclusion, right or wrong, that if I were to have a religious philosophy, it would be derived from the best minds and most sublime insights suited to my (sometimes offensive) temperament. I often fall into the habit of thinking that people interested in such matters will access all the information that's out there. Again, I'm sorry.

I believe it was Thomas Aquinus who said that the tools must be adequate to the task to what they are assigned. One must believe in order to know. In modern terms, we might say that the brain is hard-wired in a way that it cannot perceive what it does not believe is possible. The transformation of belief into a living faith, the realization/perception of a reality beyond the physical senses, however, is a lot easier said than done. As it's been pointed out in other threads, it not as simple as flipping on a switch.

I know it sounds paradoxical, but no one "finds" God by seeking, but only those who seek shall find him. A person will seek only if they believe or hope there is something to be found. Sometimes, maybe usually, the search is motivated by a sense of despair or a felt need for something more. Whatever the motive, its the inside looking to the outside for answers. The "finding" is a gradual breakdown of the boundary between inside and outside. In rare instances, the wall collapses quite suddenly, like what happened to Paul on the way to Damascus ot the Buddha under the tree. In both cases, the tool had to be adequate to the task--it had to believe there was something more before it could perceive.

 

[lew0049]

here we go again the accident thing, its more a law of averages you have to factor in the size of the universe the amount of suns with life supporting planets by eons of time and life will form somewhere we are either the very first planet , othe only planet or there could be thousands of them out there.

so essentially, you are taking a leap of faith with the multiuniverse theory b/c the numbers against your theory in no way even come close to averaging out. regardless though, even if one day science can prove that the multiuniverse theory is actually true true; unless there is a creator, we still are an accident because the theory completely discounts the source of these 'multiuniverses' - only a source make mankind not an accident b/c only a source/creator could give mankind anytype of meaning/purpose. From your perspective, if there was one less universe or the size of our universe was fractionally smaller, would we still not be an accident? Also, how is something created from nothing, unless you believe the world is infinitely years old? The theory you are stating doesn't solve the origin of life problem though.

 

[Godfather89]

God speaks to you in a way that you will understand and when you know thats when you will take that leap. I can't say for you what is going to inspire you to take that leap and no one should otherwise there ignorant. Its not like a doctor who says take two pills and call me in the morning, theres no procedure it just happens it could be an experience I overlook but it caught your attention.

For example, that movie Pulp Fiction when Samuel L Jacksons character and John Travolta's character were caught off guard by the gunmen in the bathroom. SLJ's character said it was an act of God that those bullets didnt kill them while JT's character just blew it off like it didnt even matter.

Thats the experience that changed SLJ's character but not JT's character.

 

[logician]

If we have never had a religious experience or a relationship with God, what should motivate us to make a leap of faith?

And a side note: If we have a religious experience then is it really a leap of faith?

Maybe the question should be what usually does:

Some preacher preaching a sermon?
Death in the family?
Personal failure or other tragedy?

 

[rojse]

I find the idea that when you believe in God, you will get your evidence, to be very unconvincing.

I could just as easily interpret that statement as "when you are in a state that you will be receptive to God, you will receive some phenomena that you will interpret to be from God, which to you, will be that evidence."

 

[sandandfoam]

I find the idea that when you believe in God, you will get your evidence, to be very unconvincing.

I could just as easily interpret that statement as "when you are in a state that you will be receptive to God, you will receive some phenomena that you will interpret to be from God, which to you, will be that evidence."

For me it's a bit like seeing the cow.

Where is the cow?


Once you see it you can't not see it.

 

[rojse]

Thanks for the cow!