Is Faith Dangerous? A Question for Believers...

by AllTimeJeff 85 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • LittleToe


    Respectfully, the reason I gave (which you did not include in your reply) is that Jesus said...

    Likewise respectfully, I disagree. That wasn't all that Jesus said on the subject. He said many things, but every last one of them included his personal involvement with the individual. The other extraneous ideas that you present as "key" are your interpretations of what is important. I hold a different opinion, which I am allowed. Those are my interpretations of what is important. Quid quo pro

    Why you and not most others would be my first question...

    Why did I answer you, rather than ignore this thread?

    You said you had a discussion with someone you believe to be god.

    I said no such thing. You interpreted my words as such, but I never elaborated. Perchance are you taking your own interpretation of what is written as a starting point, as you appear to have done with the Bible?

    Out of necessity, that can only be good enough for you, I can't take your word for it alone.

    I agree. Nor would I expect you to. You don't know me from Adam, and I could be a total loon

    As far as how my questions are constructed, why are they wrong from a believers point of view?

    They have the wrong starting point. You appear to assume that you start from you and what you can observe and reach out to find some elusive Deity that should (by your rules) be testable. The reality is that you find Him within, and often when you least expect it. As such you can't point and say to another person "look, here it is!".

    Is it because it demands evidence first before belief?

    Nope. I'm more than happy with the scientific method, thank you very much. Some things are beyond our current level of understanding and ability to measure, however, such as "love".

    In my own case I had [subjective] evidence before belief. I'm a scientist at heart, thus I doubt it could have been any other way.

  • LittleToe

    Can you prove that?

    Sure, if all we are is a bunch of chemicals and neural transmissions. At that level all I have to go on is what is continually recorded and interpreted in my brain. By such an argument, however, you are just a bug in my brain and everything else outside my psyche is an illusion. How far down that philosophical rabbit hole do you want to go Alice?


    I will use my other thread today if you like to argue about biblical contradictions, but surely you know they exist and that much controversy and commentary has surrounded them for centuries.

    Please don't. I wouldn't respond as that subject bores me, which returns us to the question of why I responded to this thread...

  • RAF


    RAF, I apologize if I didn't understand your point. I do respect your right to belief, just asking for reasons for your faith, if you care to share. If not, that is fine, and I had no intent to ridicule your right to faith.

    It's ok ... I guess I didn't answer the question again (sorry) ...

    but sometimes I'm not answering the question because the answer is not in the question ... to resume my point of view :

    Faith is about Confidence (In God = Whatever he is and according to the bible Everything) the God we are talking about is the the Word/Christ (wisdom related again sorry to repeat myself on the matter : Charity including forgiveness and being able to forget about our Ego when needed).

    From that some may think it's important to know if we will have salvation or not ... but it shouldn't really be important in the equation. The Real question is : How do you want to be treated and from that what are you agreing with in being the most important for everybody because you'll never be alone. so : From what your spirit want to be leaded? it's the original question.

    Example in the bible stories (totally true or not) : Some angel didn't have faith (they knew God does Exist) No they wanted to have fun (egoiste) - The Jews who have seen many miracles from God so they believed in hisexistence but they didn't have faith in the fact that his wisdom (Christ - but not yet called that way) is the solution (they had to deal with laws). And this nation in being aware from the very begining of what his wisdome will bring didn't recognise him (the Christ) - What did they want exactly? ... I guess they feel better believing that whatever was proposed yet was good enough ... So

  • Qcmbr

    I think so - but from a less obvious angle - its dangerous to the believer. The gamble is huge - a life of obedience, sacrifice, turning the other cheek, loving your enemy, sweating to pay tax and tithes, basing your day to day choices upon principles that seem rigid for the believer yet ever so malleable for the giver of the rules, something that pulls logic sideways and generally introduces a layer of guilt where none would naturally reside. Sure its dangerous but if you risk nothing then you can't expect much.

  • RAF

    So my point is :
    Faith is more related to what we believe in being more important it's was motivate us to get what is important.
    If you believe in God/Christ and do not agree with his wisdom / the faith is very limited and the reaction can be only related to fear, and from that (fear) any false prophet or bad politician will lead you to do some thing that might not really help but instead lead to worst (so of course faith can be very dangerous - it depends on what your faith rely on)

  • Apostate Kate
    Apostate Kate
    You disagree with the fact that JW's are Christian. Fair enough, I will concede that point, as it isn't my main arguement anyway. Thousands of years have been spent in the Christian community where one denomination or sect argues with another over which one is in fact Christian. But that highlights my point on faith. Why are you right? JW's take those same scriptures, as do Catholics, Protestants, LDS, etc, they will look at the same scripture and DISAGREE! Its really amazing to see. I am nuetral as to what JW's claim to be, because they are a cult. It is an accident of history that the Catholics or Protestants today are viewed as mainstream, only because they have been around longer. The fact that you used the bible though Kate doens't answer my question as to why I should trust the bible, thus putting faith in it as the authority of truth and the nature of god.....

    Here's the thing..I never said I was right. I said I have faith in Jesus, believe He was who He said He was, and have dedicated my life to Him. It is not my business if you believe the same or not. The only way that you are my business is that I am called to love you unconditionally just the way you are and to help you when you need help.

    You mention religions, I do not follow any religion. I do not put my faith in any religion. I used the Bible just to show you that not all religions follow Jesus or believe him. As far as trusting the Bible that takes personal research. If you honestly research it and decide you don't believe so be it. The Bible is bigger than I am and doesn't need me to convince anybody of its validity. An honest search will bring honest unbiased answers.

    Kate: The fact is as far as authentic Christian faith, it is not about the Christian but all about Jesus.
    You: Thanks for sharing this. I would respectfully disagree for this reason...

    Whether you disagree or not, she's correct. That is exactly what Christian faith is about. It's not about being a member of a religion or denomination. It's simply about Christ. Any faith that doesn't have Christ completely at the heart of it is not considered by any other Christian.

    Respectfully, the reason I gave (which you did not include in your reply) is that Jesus said at John 13:35 ""By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." I thought the point was self evident, but you disagree. Ok, why? As you can see above, your reason is that "Any faith that doesn't have Christ completely at the heart of it is not considered by any other Christian." That in no way answered my point or contradicted it. If it isn't about the Christian as Kate said, why did Jesus say that a disciple, i.e. a Christian, would be identified by this criteria? Jesus himself set the criteria, why do you put it upon yourself to disagree with what Jesus said at John 13:35 Little Toe? Isn't Jesus saying here that it IS about the Christian? Please answer this.... If your answer is that you have the right to your thoughts on the matter, please know that I am happy that you do. It seems to me that such a belief about what it means to be a Christian contradicts John 13:35.

    John 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. This is how Jesus told us we will know authentic believers from religious fakers. Love is an action word. That does not mean that the faith is about the follower. By John 13:35 I can inspect the fruit, the actions of a persons life thus knowing if this person truly is a follower of Jesus Christ or not.

    Matthew 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

    Mark 10:21 Jesus looking at him loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack. Go, sell whatever you have, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me, taking up the cross."

    Luke 9:23 He said to all, "If anyone desires to come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.

    John 5:39-40 "You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and these are they which testify about me. Yet you will not come to me, that you may have life.

    Revelation 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, then I will come in to him, and will dine with him, and he with me.

    In my life there has never been anyone like Jesus. In all of hisptory I do not see anyone like Him. This is my faith. Not everyone will believe but that will not change my love for them nor my purpose to make life better for them any way that I can with every moment I have, in the name of Jesus.

    My faith in Jesus is not dangerous to me or anyone else, on the contrary it is the answer to all the worlds problems. People lie, cheat, steal, kill, hate, rape, beat, war..that's what people do. Follow people and end up in danger, follow Jesus and end up with a fountain of joy that never ends inside your heart.

  • Narkissos
    I am most defenitly not a follower of Socrates at all, I haven't read 8 paragraphs attributed to him. I think that as you put it, if I am guilty of jumping from the issue of "benefit/harm" to that of "truth/error", then it might have something to do with the fact that those ideas are related, if not the same thing.

    And that is deeply Socratic (at least by hearsay, as Socrates didn't write anything afaik): evil stems from ignorance; true knowledge necessarily works the both good and beautiful (kalos k'agathos).

    Why may I ask, is it so wrong to ask believers for the reasons as to why they believe. Why is it bad if it is pointed out that no one has answered why I should believe or given persuasive evidence and fact?

    It is certainly not wrong, but it was not your initial question (see your title).

    To me, the danger or benefit of faith (which both exist) are independent from its being right or wrong (sorry to repeat myself).

    Iow, a wrong belief can be beneficial in some circumstances; harmful in others. Same with a true belief.

    Let me take the example of fatalism. It is most likely a wrong belief inasmuch as there is no, objectively, such thing as "fate". It can be harmful (when a fatalist fails to take appropriate action because of his/her belief); it can also be helpful -- producing a subjective sense of implicit trust and/or resignation which contributes to peace of mind, better perception and greater happiness (cf. Diderot's Jacques le fataliste). This is a typical example of a poison-remedy, the difference lying in posology.

    Want to try with a true belief? Evolutionism can make us humble, socially and ecologically responsible, respectful of biodiversity, etc. It has also nurtured the Nazi ideology of racial domination and Lebensraum. Posology.

    Let's assume that objectively there is no God (I do tend to believe that): yet in a godless world a theist believer can work much good, and an atheist prick be socially and psychologically destructive. Et vice versa.

    Since you care about right and wrong, can you prove me wrong?

  • RAF
    Narkissos : To me, the dangeror benefit of faith (which both exist) are independent from its being right or wrong (sorry to repeat myself).

    Thanks for repeating because it helps : what is More Important (is the key)
    that's why Christ's reasonning is bases onNO LAWS ... because it will always depends on the situation.

    Sometimes someting good might be bad (regarding to the circumptances - like for instance getting on everydody's nerve about not doing this or that when it does nothing bad to others), something bad may lead to something good (at least make us think about the fact that it was bad).

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog


    are you a believer in a religion and thus, have faith in god?


    If yes, what do you use as evidence?

    The impossibility of the contrary.

  • yaddayadda

    Posting this from another recent thread, as it is relevant to this topic:

    "Whatever labels you want to put on it, it takes just as much faith (more in fact) to believe that all life in the universe is the result of blind chance than to believe in a great mind behind it all. Atheists are keen to argue that there is no evidence for God's existence (using simplistic analogies with unicorns and fairies) but equally, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to support the crazy notion that everything came from nothing.

    To hold to the belief that chance, through a process of random shuffling, brought about our world, is just as much in the realm of 'metaphysics' than objective science. The problem is particularly acute in respect to the beginnings of life itself.

    Belief in a personal God or belief in impersonal forces of blind chance: they're both articles of faith. You choose based on the available evidence. I personally believe, based on the evidence, it is only a small step to believe in a creator, not a giant leap. It takes a much bigger leap of faith, across a giant chasm of improbability, to put your faith in the astronomically odds associated with blind chance as an explanation for everything.

    It is mindlessness, more aking to rank credulity rather than faith even, to assert that amino acids just randomly strung themselves together to form the protein chain, to take just one example. Our tightly-knit and intelligible universe is simply not sufficiently explained by a random chance process. Whatever the alternatives are, that simply doesn't cut it.

    I recommend you read "The Quantum World" by Theoretical physicist John Polkinghorne to learn more about alternatives to the unsatisfactory explanations of naturalistic atheism . Polkinghorne is a colleague of Stephen Hawking and the former president of Queen's College, Cambridge, and has been at the forefront of high energy physics for over thirty years. Interestingly, even Stephen Hawking, at the end of his book "A Brief History of Time" humbly acknowledges that science can only describe the "what" of human observations and that only God can answer the "why." "

Share this