by braincleaned 141 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
We house beliefs - both religious and non-religious - in the same sectors of our brain.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-neural-correlates-of-religious-and-nonreligious-belief
This could explain why Ford owners are similarly fanatical in their loyalty.
If religion is a snare and a racket and every religion is based on faith; faith is a snare and a racket.
To use the bible to prove what faith is, what it means or what is represents is like using Star Wars the movie to prove that the force is a real thing. Fiction to prove fiction.
Having faith in Christ means believing in the Bible, which in itself requires faith. Fiction to prove fiction. And thats only the christian-Judeo religion.
People who claim that they "heard", "saw" or were "revealed" anything from god, Allah, Jesus or anything else requires others to have faith in thier claims. They are in the position of the man who claims there is an elephant in the room. "Believe me because I know. I know about elephants."
Here is a even more interesting question, What if its not an Elephant? What if there is a tiger in there?
What if its not Jesus/ Jehovah? What if its Krishna? What if its some other gods we have never heard of because there is a small tribe in the Amazon that has the "truth"?
All these scenarios require one missing thing, however, and that is: PROOF. Every individual theist has thier personal experience on why they believe. Thier personal experience. Personal.It would be ridiculous to ask anyone else to accept anyone else's experience as proof because your personal experience does not equal proof.
For example, just because one person wore red while on a flight to Boston and the plane crashed does not mean wearing red on a flight= plane crash.
Because a few or even millions have had a "spiritual" experience does not constitute proof of God. If so, it could also mean there are a million wackos out there. Or, a million people were mislead by the devil.
So, in conclusion, to tell anyone, "Well, you have to "hear" faith" or "you have to believe in him" makes several assumptions.
1. We have not already tried to do that before.
2. We havent had our own "experience" in the past, but perhaps on retrospection, in the face of reason and evidence, we concluded it to be coincidence.
3. You are not experiencing psycological problems.
4. Your "faith" in the elephant is the right faith and not the tiger.
"Because nothing in that definitions says that faith is BASED on hope."
Tec, I think you missed my point by saying "Faith is the assurance (assured expectation) OF what one hopes for."How is that assured expectaion not based in hope? Are we to play the game of semantics?
If I follow your argument, you attempt to solidify the word "Faith" by making "assurance" it's main meaning.
I do find your argument a clever one, but assurance means nothing without the object of that assurance.
Do you see the problem?
~~~~~~
Ucantnome, Children have the firm persuasion that Santa will bring them gifts. How is their faith any more realistic because they just belive it to be true?
I admit I do not understand why all of you faithful attempt to rationalize the obvious — faith is just hope in invisible evidence — a gut feeling. How much persuaded or
"assured" you are of this "evidence" doesn't negate the fact that it is not based in Reality!
Be honest with yourselves — you have faith because your gut tells you it's true and that no hard evidence can topple that faith.
OnTheWayOut, you say " belief can very much so be a choice. A person can choose from different sources or from personal experience."
I totally agree — that's what I was saying, you trust a source (yourself, ot exterior sources), THEN you believe or not.
Belief per se is NOT a choice! Even a gut feeling that comes from within — we either accept it or deny it in earnest (belief).
A) Trust in a source
B) Belief in reaction to the source
" I would, and have, examined that evidence."
Tec, could you please tell us what that evidence was? And how did you question/examine it — and against what?
Thanks.
Theredeemer, nicely argued. Love the Star Wars analogy... so true.
Here's a little meme I did...
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/1463092_168885836653366_705160169_n.jpg
braincleaned
matthew 11:2-6 is i think jesus providing evidence to john. so i think when we pray we get evidence. otherwise my prayers were worthless.
I don't think God wants me to believe in an invisible elephant, but the men who sell invisible elephant related products do. Thinking that there is no God because life isn't all rosey and fair is a flawed view IMO. Nowhere in the scriptures is anyone promised an easy life. I think the JW indoctrination about never dying and having a "spiritual paradise" makes us jaded when we learn that those things are false.
The ironic thing is that God's word NEVER promised either of those things. A spiritual paradise on Earth is a myth, so is an easy life that magically and seamlessly blends into immortality with no discomfort. All the empty promises come from the invisible elephant inc. sales division.
DD
Ucantnome, you are again assuming that the Bible is a valid source. It is not. Not the OT. Not the NT.
DATA-DOG, God assures us he is Love, and all powerful. The accounts in the Bible clearly contradict this.
I'm not focusing on the flaws of the presumed creation — but on the flaws of the Creator.
That's why Christians are forced to have a double standard in their moral sense: Genocide, Slavery, Vengeance, Jelousy, are okay if it comes from God, that we conveniantly are banned from questioning.
Such circular rationalization. This is why I write and attempt to share the tools of critical thinking and logic to believers.
I also have special family reasons to be so passionate about slaming Reality on the table.
Tec, I think you missed my point by saying "Faith is the assurance (assured expectation) OF what one hopes for. "How is that assured expectaion not based in hope? Are we to play the game of semantics?
I did not miss your point. I know what you are trying to say. I'm not playing at semantics, but am saying something completely different than what you are saying.
Assured expectation is based upon what gives that assurance (Christ; his words; the Spirit who speaks; his own death and resurrection)... so that one can have faith (know) that what one hopes for is real.
If I follow your argument, you attempt to solidify the word "Faith" by making "assurance" it's main meaning.
Yes.
I do find your argument a clever one, but assurance means nothing without the object of that assurance.
Hope is not the object of the assurance. Chirst is the object of the assurance (faith). His words (then and now); his own death and resurrection. He is the basis of faith... so that we may know that our hope (in what he promised) is real.
Do you see the problem?
Only with what is being said about the basis of faith.
My faith is not based on a mere hope, braincleaned.
My faith is based upon Christ. Upon his words; upon the truth in His words and in Him.
Peace,
tammy
