As requested, what I believe

[toothycat]

I believe there is a God.

I believe the Bible is a tool that has the purpose of pointing us towards God. This includes describing who God is, how to get in touch, and why one might want to; and also the kinds of things he has done for people and wanted from people in the past who did and who did not, and the kinds of things he has promised people in the past, and the kinds of things he promises us.
The people trying to read the Bible as an absolute set of rules for life, the people treating it as cyphertext and trying to decrypt it, the people trying to read every single bit literally... are missing the point.

I believe that in order to call oneself Christian, it is both necessary and sufficient to accept Jesus as God, place one's trust in him and strive to do his will, to the best of one's knowledge and ability. The placing of one's trust in God in particular is faith.

I believe the way one comes to a faith in God - to knowing God - to trusting God - is not a logical position that one can arrive at through intellectual discourse. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9.
This personal revelation is something that happens to each individual internally, and is not transferrable; it is something that God gives you when you call out for it through repentful prayer. "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." - Matthew 7:8
This is not to say that any spoken request for faith will automatically be granted as though from some mystical vending machine. The atheist who puts God to some form of double-blind test, then turns around to his Christian friends and says, "Hey, I did everything you said - went through all the motions - but nothing happened! You lied to me. Matthew 7:8 is a lie" - as I once did! - that person is missing the point. The seeking out, turning away from one's denials, calling for God - it must be meant; must come from inside; it is not what you say, but what you mean that will be given to you.

I call myself a Christian; I place my trust in God. This means that when, by some convoluted - or direct - theological intellectual reasoning someone points out to me that something Christians believe about God or something the Bible says about God or something I might opine about God leads to self-contradiction, or to an evil God, or a God that does not agree with the world as we see it just by looking around us, or some other flawed and unacceptable thing, this says to me not that Christianity is wrong and my faith unfounded but that my understanding is flawed. Participating in theological debates, I feel a bit like the popular image of the Zen monk surrounded by students trying to catch him out might; by the very act of opening one's mouth to start on some intricate disproof of God, one demonstrates one has already missed the point. cathedral_life was trying to show this to me years ago, I think. Faith in God is a function of trust, not one of mathematical proof. God cannot be pinned down with words. Mu and three pounds of flax to you all.

I realise this is a somewhat closed-minded and intellectually unsatisfying position. The truth is that for many of the intellectual problems with Christianity that I had as an atheist, before I became Christian, I still have no answers. Instead, I feel able to trust that for those questions that are not based on false assumptions, answers exist, and perhaps one day will be revealed.

Edit: some readers may not realise this, but this journal is actually shared by MoonShadow and SunKitten; beliefs, however, might not be. The above is MoonShadow's braindump, as requested by several people over the last few days; this earlier post was SunKitten's.

Comments

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I realise this is a somewhat closed-minded and intellectually unsatisfying position. The truth is that for many of the intellectual problems with Christianity that I had as an atheist, before I became Christian, I still have no answers. Instead, I feel able to trust that for those questions that are not based on false assumptions, answers exist, and perhaps one day will be revealed.
You wouldn't accept as true some statement about the PS3 architecture (for example) that you knew was contradictory and so couldn't be correct, you'd want to look at the specs, try it out, and come to a conclusion about whether it was true or not. If your faith is in a separate category to everything why is that? Why assume there are answers to those contradictions when you have no reason to do so?

Why have faith (in this sense) at all?

Faith in God is a function of trust
Trusting people that are trustworthy is a good thing I'd say, but you have to know about them before this becomes a sensible thing to do. IIUtC you're relying on faith that is a god at all, and on faith again that it is this specific god.

[toothycat]

Why assume there are answers to those contradictions when you have no reason to do so?

It is not the case that I have no reason to do so. You will find my reason mentioned in the fourth paragraph of my post.

If I was testing a statement about the PS3 architecture, I would be forced to abide by my perception of the result. I am likewise forced to abide by my perception of God.

[toothycat]

Why have faith (in this sense) at all?

You say that as though I have some kind of choice.

[theinquisitor.livejournal.com]

Christian friends have asked me before why I wasn't one - sometimes with the apparent intent of convincing me to reconsider. (Never, I note, have the offended or annoyed me by doing so).

I've given many answers, but the simplest, and I think the best, is simply that I *don't* have faith.

So yes, I think I agree - that is the point, and most of the hyperbole surrounding it is missing it.

(Not that I don't enjoy the abstract game that theological debate can become on occasion. But that has never led to me considering my own position - just the semantics.)

Thank you for helping me understand my own opinions a little better.

[fatkraken.livejournal.com]

I think this is why I find Evangelism so counter intuitive and peculiar. The "Faith which comes from within" is all well and good, but it's not something you can persuade people to have; either they come to the conclusion on their own or they don't. Quoting the Bible to people who don't think it's true is like pissing in the wind, when, like me, you don't have the "spark" of faith, as it were, all arguments are circular and ultimately meaningless.

It's why it's rather pointless to have theological debates on the existence or otherwise of God, the way devoutly religious people feel is so utterly alien to me (not in a bad way, just in the fact that you guys have this faith thing which I don't) and is based on a perception of reality I don't share (again, not necessarily in a bad way) that by our natures we end up going in circles.

[toothycat]

Quoting the Bible to people who don't think it's true is like pissing in the wind

Hear, hear. With respect to quoting the Bible to a nonbeliever for the purpose of settling an argument, the way one quotes the Oxford Dictionary to settle a matter of spelling for instance, I would have vehemently agreed with your statement when I was an atheist, and I still agree now.

There is the caveat that when describing to someone what opinion I myself hold on some issue and why I hold it, it can be a useful thing to refer to; but I do feel it is very important to communication for Christians to realise that trust in the Bible is not universal.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Do you?

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Yikes! No wonder you think you're pestering people by talking about your faith if you think referring to the bible is like quoting Oxford Dictionary at them. Using the Bible in that way would be absolutely disastrous, but thankfully I don't know anyone who would use it like that.

Almost all of the evangelism I've seen or done that has involved the Bible has not been primarily saying "The bible says this, and it's an authority so you must accept it" (as one might with the OED), but more as you would treat any text that made truth claims about reality. By saying "well the bible argues that world would be like this, and you'd feel like this, and this and that, does that match with how you think things are?". As a Christian I never treated it as a textbook, but I did treat it as a book containing truth that was rational and worth discussing and analysing.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Are you a non-Christian?

I'm an atheist who used to be an Evangelical Christian, so I hope that frames what I'm about to say helpfully.

When I was a Christian I did think there was a 'faith from within' that you couldn't just copy across to someone else (as toothycat said in his post), but as an Evangelical I thought that Christianity was actually objectively true. So the evidence for it being true must be all around us in the world, in history, and the Bible must be more than just a collection of mystical platitudes that would only have meaning to the chosen few.

So as an Evangelical I wouldn't have bashed you with the bible, or pleaded that you'd believe or have the same kind of experiences as me. (Assuming we were friends and you were amenable to a discussion) I'd talk to you about why I believed what I believed, why you believed what you believed, and what we thought the rational arguments for and against one another's positions were.

Ultimately I'd believe that there would need to be a 'inner illumination' that I couldn't make happen myself (that would be up to you / God), but I didn't think the process of coming discovering if Christianity was true, and then coming to have 'faith' in it were disconnected from my brain and the rational world, something based entirely on emotions, circular reasoning, closing my mind off rationally from critically considering whether my faith was true, and blind leaps into the dark either.

Whether the Bible contains any useful truth that points towards Christianity being true is a different matter, and one which I'd probably give a different answer to now I'm not a believer :P

[fatkraken.livejournal.com]

I'm a not christian, yes, but I'm also British, and as such have encountered very little personal evangelism. We tend to keep our religion very much to ourselves. So most of what I perceive as evangelism is based on JW pamphlets we occasionally get through the door and US style televangelism seen on, well, telly. All of which seem to use the Bible as a starting point, assume it's true and go from there. I'm more than happy to hear that there are rational and sensible evangelists who use the bible as a subtle debating tool rather than a blunt instrument.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

It is not the case that I have no reason to do so. You will find my reason mentioned in the fourth paragraph of my post.
Could you quote the exact bit that gives the reason? I've read it about ten times now and I can't see it.

AFAICT you:
1. State you are a Christian.
2. State you trust God.
3. Give a long explanation of something to do with why people are "missing the point" if they try to disprove God.
4. Say faith in God is about trust
5. Say God cannot be 'pinned down with words'

1 and 2 look very unlikely to be answers to my question.
4 doesn't look like it is either.
I'm not sure what 5 means as I don't know what you are thinking of when you say 'pinned down'.

Is it in 3? Could you demysticise it so I can clearly understand what you're saying? Koans are fun, but I'd like to clearly know what your answer to my question is. I'm not very good at Koans and mystical puzzles. I tried to state my question clearly and succinctly, I would appreciate it if you could do the same with your answer.

If I was testing a statement about the PS3 architecture, I would be forced to abide by my perception of the result. I am likewise forced to abide by my perception of God.
OK sure. So analogy then is that you perceive one thing about the PS3, say that it can do a certain number of calculations per second. It's perfectly reasonable for you to consider that to be the case if you've perceived it.

Then one of your colleagues perceives a different answer to the question (they're representing someone with a different religious faith / experience). Given that we (well I say we, you might not) assume an objective reality we're faced with how to resolve the issue of these two different experiences. In the case of the PS3 (and well.. everything else) you could objectively test the thing, find out how the tests differed and boom you'd both have the same answers.

ISTM there is a resolution process in the real world when two different conclusions are reached, and it isn't normal to assume one is correct if it is known that other people just as reliable and honest and oneself have come to radically different conclusions using (what look like) the same methods.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

There are certainly a lot of Christians out there who have the approach of bashing people or annoying them as much as possible (think of some of the well known Christian preachers with megaphones in London for instance). The US televangelist style is pretty rare in the UK I think. Even Evangelicalism (a branch of protestant Christianity which most of those evangelists will belong to) is quite quite different in the UK compared to the states. Much more low key and reasonable. None of this shouting at people nonsense.

Most of my experience of Christian evangelism has been pretty low key compared to that, and at the moment I would say woodpijn and alextfish (sorry, I don't know if you know them as I don't know how, if, or where you fit in to the toothycat real world social circle) are 'evangelising' me by inviting me (not pressuring me) to their nice friendly church (which has nice carol services), and having low key but interesting discussions about belief. I've never once felt bashed by them (although I doubt they would say the same about me ^^;;)

[toothycat]

Using the Bible in that way would be absolutely disastrous

It appeared to me to be a very common final resort in debates with some Christians at uni. I never quite understood the purpose.

Edit: I suppose if one were to believe that the book one holds in one's hand is infallible, using it as one uses the Oxford Dictionary would be logical. Especially so since the OED can't claim infallibility!

[toothycat]

The way I came to a faith in God is through personal revelation.

Given that we (well I say we, you might not) assume an objective reality we're faced with how to resolve the issue of these two different experiences.

At least some part of my faith is based on a nontransferable subjective experience. Did my original post not make this entirely clear?

[toothycat]

Can you choose to disbelieve you are attracted to the ground?

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

If other people weren't attracted to the ground then "people are attracted to the ground" would obviously be wrong, yes.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I don't think it would be logical because the OED is a book of definitions (actually more accurately a book of the common usages of words). The Bible is AFAICT a very different kind of book.

Anyone who wanted to prove that Jesus was the messiah, entirely based on "The bible says so *points at page* here. QED", might well be right. But they'd have to show (which presumably they could) to the person they were talking to that the Bible could be relied upon in that way.

If someone had never heard of the OED likewise you'd have to explain why it is trustworthy to this degree before you started using it like an authority in discussions.

[toothycat]

(a) You've changed my statement from one based on your perception of yourself ("you are attracted to the ground") to an objective one about other people. However, the form of the argument still holds in your formulation - given that you observe that people are attracted to the ground, can you choose to disbelieve it?

(b) Note that I am surrounded by people attracted to God.

[toothycat]

I don't think it would be logical because the OED is a book of definitions (actually more accurately a book of the common usages of words). The Bible is AFAICT a very different kind of book.

*shrug* and yet I encounter people who use both in the same way and must posit some theory for why they do so. You have perhaps a better one?

If someone had never heard of the OED likewise you'd have to explain why it is trustworthy to this degree before you started using it like an authority in discussions.

Indeed, as I keep saying.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

The way I came to a faith in God is through personal revelation.
OK, so as I tried to ask originally - why is 'personal revelation' a trustworthy source of information?

Unless it is because it is because it is. Which would mean you have no idea if it is but just choose to accept it as such (hopefully it's obvious why that would be bad).

Also, why is your personal experience absolutely trustworthy in a way that personal internal experience of others isn't? Presumably if you started hallucinating you'd go to see a doctor and get medication for it, you wouldn't say "No, there really are little blue smurfs that walk around with us". Why is this internal experience protected and special compared to other ones that (I assume) you'd accept were artefacts of how the brain works (or how it is malfunctioning), and either ignore or would seek medical attention for?

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

The reason I did that is because you can both personally experience being attracted to the ground, and observe other people being attracted to the ground (or not). If there was a mismatch between what you experienced and what you saw other people experience then "people are attracted to the ground" would have to be wrong, it would need at least some tweaking to be consistent with the reality you observe.

Note that I am surrounded by people attracted to God.
Trying to connect your analogy to what we're talking about, it's like you are attracted to the ground (experience Yahweh) while others are attracted to walls (other Gods), and others float (are atheists). That's the disconnect, that's where things don't add up. Given that experience someone could say "Well, I know this explanation doesn't explain most of what I see around me, but I'm going to believe it anyway", which is I think what you're saying you do.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Indeed, as I keep saying.
Ack! But that's because it's a book of definitions, which the Bible isn't.

If instead we were talking about a science text book, someone might not accept that it is an authority, but they could test the things in it by... testing the things it talks about! And seeing if the things it talks about (e.g. there is gravity which makes things attracted to things with mass) could be checked against the experience of the person and of other people.

[toothycat]

If we're striving for a complete analogy, you've missed out the bit where you don't start being attracted to the ground until you genuinely want to be and call out to it. I'm pretty certain I described that part of the faith in the original post. That cuts away at the disconnect, rather. The other missing bit from the analogy is that I can't actually *see* what the pull or lack thereof feels like to anyone else - we're all in separate rooms, shouting to each other.

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

We can't see it happening to other people, but we know there are other people and we assume they don't make everything up, and they're relaying their experiences to us (which contradict without our own personal view).

It's not that our experience isn't happening, or that there's isn't. It's that our interpretation of our experience cannot be correct because if it doesn't account for the experiences others have. So you need a better explanation that encompasses everything that is happening.

In this case I'm thinking of things like "There is more than one God, people find different ones", "God appears in many guises", "God doesn't want to be found by everyone", etc.

[toothycat]

Presumably if you started hallucinating you'd go to see a doctor and get medication for it, you wouldn't say "No, there really are little blue smurfs that walk around with us".

Well, it depends. If I saw little blue smurfs, and I was the only one to see little blue smurfs, and it bothered me, I'd go to a doctor.

But if lots of people I trust and admire seriously told me over and over that they saw little blue smurfs, and that seeing little blue smurfs was a good thing, and I learned that people had been seeing little blue smurfs for thousands of years, and they told me that little blue smurfs actually really did exist; well, I might be dubious until I saw some; but people told me that if I called out for the little blue smurfs to come out and really meant what I said, I'd see them - and, after just humoring them for a while to no effect, one day I did really mean it, and I started seeing smurfs like everyone around me was - why would I go to a doctor?

And if then someone came along, and was where I had been at the humouring and doubting stage, what could I say to them but "call out and see for yourself"?

[toothycat]

(which contradict without our own personal view)

...do they?

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm under the mistaken impression that Christian experience (as an absolute truth) is in some way contradictory with that of all the people who experience other gods or none, and that statements like "God wants you to know him, and he is all powerful so can do that" don't match up with "I looked for God but couldn't find him".

How silly of me! There are no contradictions at all!

[toothycat]

You're nitpicking pointlessly. What are you actually arguing against? You could go around and observe people talking to collect the kind of data that the OED is based on and test the correctness of its definitions. The fact that it's a dictionary has nothing to do with its authority as a reference for spelling and the use of language.

[toothycat]

statements like "God wants you to know him, and he is all powerful so can do that" don't match up with "I looked for God but couldn't find him"

Well, they both fit in the overall worldview. Go back to my original post and reread - we've gone full circle now.

[pinkapplejam.livejournal.com]

How come all this is being posted, is someone attacking you guys for your beliefs or something? It seems like a sudden brain dump, which by no means is no bad thing, but it seems to have generated massive responses. Has someone triggered something? I hope you guys are ok.

I'm not big on religion, my parents are 'meh' due to unsupportive relatives (ie in the past it was more important to get christened than to figure out what was medically wrong with my bro and offered little to no understanding or support when they needed it, stuff like that turns one off from religion and it's ceremonies), people who I met personally who were very Christian were very offputting and not very nice people, the Catholic debate, the Jehovas Witnesses who even found me in Japan (freaks), etc.

So I do not get involved with religion or anything at all TBH, I've had very few good experiences (obviously meeting you guys is a big plus =)).

For the record I am atheist, based upon my experiences and preferences in life. It's interesting to read your viewpoints, but it's worrying when people may be writing critically or attacking your beliefs. I admit though I haven't read all posts/replies thoroughly, so I may be missing something, but I do hope you're both alright and no-one is being a prick. *Rolls up butt-kicking sleeves*

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

The toothycats are posting in response to the biiiig religion posts I've made recently on my journal. I also asked them both to make posts like this so I could understand their faith better.

[toothycat]

How come all this is being posted, is someone attacking you guys for your beliefs or something? It seems like a sudden brain dump, which by no means is no bad thing, but it seems to have generated massive responses. Has someone triggered something? I hope you guys are ok.

We're fine - I've handled far worse on newsgroups and most people are being lovely, but thanks ;) Like Rob says, it was in response to his request to know more, and also in response to this poll Serge posted, where a surprising (to me) number of people wanted to know more.

I'm not big on religion

Yeah, I picked up on that, and on the why.

the Jehovas Witnesses who even found me in Japan (freaks), etc.

Bad luck! I've never had a JW visit in my entire life...

It's interesting to read your viewpoints, but it's worrying when people may be writing critically or attacking your beliefs.

Um. I don't like pointless attacks, but any belief, scientific, religious or otherwise, ought to be able to deal with critical arguments (where 'criticism' is used in the artistic sense, probing and not necessarily negative).

I admit though I haven't read all posts/replies thoroughly, so I may be missing something, but I do hope you're both alright and no-one is being a prick. *Rolls up butt-kicking sleeves*

We're fine, it's mostly all fine, please don't worry :) I'll keep your offer in reserve, though ;)

[ex-robhu.livejournal.com]

I've never had a JW visit in my entire life...
Perhaps this is why I'm strange. I've been visiting by JWs once (twice?), and I was busy and couldn't talk to them so I asked them to come back the next day so we could talk then, but they didn't!

Back in my CU days one of my (Christian) friends (LJ user='podbo' />, who is a UCCF guy now) had JWs come around and arranged to meet with them for a few hours every week. After a few months the older one (they go in pairs, one older more experienced JW and one less experienced one) said they weren't coming any more because (my friend surmised) the younger one was doubting JW-ism and thinking about (mainstream) Christianity instead!

[denji.livejournal.com]

really? you believe this is closed minded?

I completely disagree! but maybe that's because this is the kind of god I belive in ^_^ but i would ay this is a pretty open veiw on christianity.

i acutally think people who do not believe in god are closed minded- uh..not because they don't beleive in god, but because i've had expeirences of people belittling someone elses faith..i just think that's equally narrow minded. :(

anyway again, it was interesting to hear what you think about it all =] and thank you again because it creates a better understanding :) I whole haertedly agree with you- that God cannot be found via mathematical proof. I believe that if used, faith should be used if only to better your life ad give you a place to go, and should be used with an open mind. ^^