Reasonable faith

Dondi

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,615
Reaction score
10
Points
36
Location
Southern Maryland
What constitutes reasonable faith?

I've listed several lines of reason why I believe in the historic Christian faith. Christian ought not to think that they are following something blindly. Not that we do not have doubts once in a while, but we ought to be anchored such that our faith doesn't waiver.

1) Biblical Longetivity - The Bible has stood the test of time. Many attempts to destroy it have failed. Documentary evidence attests to the veracity and validity that what we hold now has not changed through the passage of time, as indicated by manuscriptural evidence such as the Dead Seas Scrolls for the OT, the over 5,000 ancient manuscripts of the NT, and other evidences.

2) Archeological evidence - Attests to the existence of ancient nations, cities, peoples, and artifacts that are mentioned by the Bible, some having been discounted by scholars before their discovery.

3) Israel and the Existence and Survival of the Jews - The mere existence of the Jews and the nation of Israel give credible credence to the cultural backdrop of an acient nation of people who claim to be chosen by God to bring forth His existence to the world. On May 14, 1948, Israel became a nation again after some 1700-1800 years of Jewish exile, the only ancient people ever to form into a nation and to revive an ancient language. How did such a small group of people survive for so long?

4) The Big Bang and the First Cause - After studying the issue, I'm convinced that evidence suggests a "fine tuning" of the universe that began with the Big Bang and extends to this day, which has set up conditions for life on earth. Frankly, looking at the statistical evidence, I don't see how it could have come about without some intellent force behind it.

5) Creation and Evolution - Again, even with the all the evidence seemingly in support the idea of evolution, even if it is true, with all the complexity and diversity of life, I cannot believe that there is no intellent force behind it all. Something has got to be guiding it, as statistical evidence suggests.

6) Biblical prophecy - Messianic and Apocalypical Prophesy specifically. Jesus has fulfilled over 300 OT prophesies, including time, place, and method of birth, and time, place, and method of death. But I'm more inclined toward end-time prophesies, specifically beginning with the re-birth of Israel in 1948 and the geo-political and economical landscape of the times as indicators of the coming drama as depicted in the apocalyptical literature.

7) Near-Death Experiences - Many would discount them as the product of an oxygen-deprived dying brain. But there are several accounts that cannot be explained, such as people blind from birth seeing colors, conversations being heard in a remote location where the patient could not have known what was said, descriptions of things nearby (such as a red shoe on the roof of the hospital) that the patient had no previous knowledge of. One case cited of a woman whose her heart was stopped brainwave function was flatlined in order to perform a delicate brain operation that she was later able to describe in detail the instruments used and hear the OR conversations, even though her ears were plugged.

7) Cloud of witnesses - From biographies and testimonies of those who have had the Christian experience and how it has changed their lives. This includes people I've known, aquaintences, churchmembers, friends, and family, who can attest to a personal interaction with what they believe is God, coupled with amazing instances of intervention in their lives as a result.

8) Personal Testimony - The most important evidence I have. I have known a Love that I could not have imagined could be felt. I have found a sense of forgiveness, healing, and acceptance in my own heart towhat I believe is a Presence in my life in what I call God, through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. With it I have learned to love with a love was never before able to share. And I feel a deep kinship and love with those who have discovered this phenomena also. My life has changed in many dramatic ways. I do not in the least proclaim perfection, but I am drawn to it and discovered experientially the positive impact from being obedient to God's Word and commandments. True, my experience is subjective, but that is so for every person. And when I find people with like experiences as mind when it comes to a relationship with God, it isn't a subjective as it seems.


I'm sure I could come up with more. Taken each of these separately, I might be inclined to be rather skeptical, as indeed I have in the past. But when all of these are taken together in consideration, I find that there is fairly solid basis for my faith.

Is your's a reasonable faith?
 
Hello Dondi,

I think most of the arguement you make can be made by almost any religion. The Jews can make the same argument yet they are not Christian. Other religions might be inclined to believe that your logic is no more less prone to flawed reasoning than theirs might be.

Just some comments to consider.

Love,
JM
 
Is believing in G-d reasonable from a human point of view?

Once you believe in Him, you can build a very reasonable religion in many different ways.

My Christian religion seems very reasonable to me. And since I believe I am created, it seems reasonable to do whatever my creator says without wondering if it's reasonable.

Whatever G-d says is reasonable.

The trick is in having Him in your heart so you know it's Him talking instead of your own ego.

Thanks for the thread Dondi!
 
Hello Dondi,

I think most of the arguement you make can be made by almost any religion. The Jews can make the same argument yet they are not Christian. Other religions might be inclined to believe that your logic is no more less prone to flawed reasoning than theirs might be.

Just some comments to consider.

Love,
JM

Hey JM,
Long time no hear, good to have you back.

You are forgetting one very important thing, Christianity is not equal to World Religions.

Nice to see your name,
Karen
 

A faith supported by reason is truly the only responsible way to approach Christianity. Unfortunately, I am extremely guilty of relying on my own personal testimony, and then getting disgusted when non-Christians seem to not want to get it. I am working on that.
1. The Word of God has such a transforming power on a receptive heart.
2. While biblical archaeology cannot stand on its own, it can shine lights into history.
3. The survival of the Jews from the very beginning is enough for me, but usually people want more.
4. There IS an intelligent design in the universe. Deal with it. (I am working on this.)
5. Ditto
6. Biblical prophecy. This is something we will all understand at some point. The O.T. contains prophecy concealed and the N.T. has prophecy revealed. (this statement has been labeled “trite rhetoric”, but I like it.)
7. N.D.E.’s and miracles. If it’s not God, then you explain it. And don’t forget about the warmth and light.
8. From people of ancient times all the way to my immediate family, the Christian experience stands alone as an explanation.

Fortunately, an argument for my personal testimony does not exist.


 
Hey JM,
Long time no hear, good to have you back.

You are forgetting one very important thing, Christianity is not equal to World Religions.

Nice to see your name,
Karen

Hi Karen,

Thanks. Been away in Florida for the winter and occasionally read the posts but haven't contributed for some time.

Personally, No reason is needed for my faith. A personal testimony is all that is required. The existance of God requires no proof. It is self-evident. All the arguments in the world will change nothing either way and if ones faith is founded on reasons then if and when those reasons fall away as fallacy, so will ones faith. But if ones faith is founded not on reason but rather experience, then it can never be lost. Just my thoughts to be considered.

Love JM
 
Hello Dondi,

I think most of the arguement you make can be made by almost any religion. The Jews can make the same argument yet they are not Christian. Other religions might be inclined to believe that your logic is no more less prone to flawed reasoning than theirs might be.

Just some comments to consider.

Love,
JM


JM,

I wasn't really trying to argue from a necessarily Christian viewpoint. Nor was I attempting to trump my beliefs over those in other religions, which seems to be your impression. I don't know why you seem to think I'm trying to exert my beliefs over others. This is just my own personal viewpoint. Really it is a standpoint for a reasonable faith in God in general. The Christian specifics are my own personal convictions. Naturally, people of other faiths will have similiar convictions within their own religious paradigm. The intent of this to discuss what constitute reasonable faith.

BTW, Welcome back, JM.

Dondi
 
An understanding of WHO Jesus Christ is does not constitute an argument and vigilance in that knowledge is a reasonable defense.

The difference between reasonable defense and reasonable faith is one is to convince others, the other is to convince yourself. It is the latter that is in focus here.
 
JM,

I wasn't really trying to argue from a necessarily Christian viewpoint. Nor was I attempting to trump my beliefs over those in other religions, which seems to be your impression. I don't know why you seem to think I'm trying to exert my beliefs over others. This is just my own personal viewpoint. Really it is a standpoint for a reasonable faith in God in general. The Christian specifics are my own personal convictions. Naturally, people of other faiths will have similiar convictions within their own religious paradigm. The intent of this to discuss what constitute reasonable faith.

BTW, Welcome back, JM.

Dondi

Hi Dondi,

Thanks for your welcome. No impression or harm was meant here. You can be certain I respect your right to have any viewpoint you might choose and if it seems reasonable to you then it is so. 'Reasonable' to me is a relative term that has a myriad of definitions, almost as many as there are reasoners. :) I only used this space to communicate an alternative viewpoint and understanding and require no agreement as I believe you also do the same. Your comments were accepted as your viewpoint and I find your post a reasonable opinion.

May you be blessed in all you goings,
Love,
JM
 
Hi Dondi,

Thanks for your welcome. No impression or harm was meant here. You can be certain I respect your right to have any viewpoint you might choose and if it seems reasonable to you then it is so. 'Reasonable' to me is a relative term that has a myriad of definitions, almost as many as there are reasoners. :) I only used this space to communicate an alternative viewpoint and understanding and require no agreement as I believe you also do the same. Your comments were accepted as your viewpoint and I find your post a reasonable opinion.

May you be blessed in all you goings,
Love,
JM

I respect the beliefs of others. Basically reasonable faith is about what convinces a person about a certain belief. I will acknowledge that I am not 100% sure about my convictions, I don't think anyone can. I am also open to the possibility that I might be completely wrong. But it is also my conviction that if God exists, any afterlife in store will not be based on ignorance or lack of knowledge. I believe that God is going to be fair and will judge according to the knowledge that which we do know and what we have done with it.

If God doesn't exist, I will have lost nothing, for nothing will matter anyway. But at least I'd have lived for something good. (I prefer to put Pascal's wager in a positive light. :))
 
I respect the beliefs of others. Basically reasonable faith is about what convinces a person about a certain belief. I will acknowledge that I am not 100% sure about my convictions, I don't think anyone can. I am also open to the possibility that I might be completely wrong. But it is also my conviction that if God exists, any afterlife in store will not be based on ignorance or lack of knowledge. I believe that God is going to be fair and will judge according to the knowledge that which we do know and what we have done with it.

If God doesn't exist, I will have lost nothing, for nothing will matter anyway. But at least I'd have lived for something good. (I prefer to put Pascal's wager in a positive light. :))

Hi Dondi,

That seems to me like a healthy outlook.

Personally to me, God's existence is beyond my belief. To me his presence is self-evident by virtue of my very 'being'. As far as God judging me, it seems I have a different perspective. To me, God loves me as I am and judgement is something we as humans lay upon ourselves by measuring and judging others. God on the otherhand just loves. This is his essence. In love, to me judgement doesn't exist. If one walks in total forgiveness of others then there is no room for measure or judgement now or forever. However, this is just my understanding from my relationship with God and it is to be taken lightly by others.

Love in Christ,
JM
 
What constitutes reasonable faith?

An aspect missing from this, and one which might be too far off topic, but is very relevant to religious experience today, is what defines 'reasonable'?

To the madman, his reality is 'reasonable'.

Put bluntly, I don't think an individual can say what is reasonable, without reference to a wider community. Reasonable depends on a censensus - 'yes, I think your faith is reasonable'.

In the wooly thinking (not everyone is a rigorous philosopher) of the West, the position has moved somewhat to the ground that because I think something, that makes it reasonable.

Science, for example, moves from reasonable belief to reasonable belief, and at each stage what was held before becomes unreasonable (eg, the sun revolves around the earth, or that people see by a ray that emanates from the eye).

Someone says, 'No, actually, the earth revolves around the sun' or 'light enters the eye' ... try explaining the function of the optic nerve to a man of 3,000 years ago ... that an upside-down image is cast on the back of the eye, which the brain inverts, digitises, then transmits to a place where an image of the outside world is constructed ...

... the person then has to present his/her thesis, with demonstrations and proofs ... multiple universe theory, is that reasonable? But is there proof?

My point is that we are led to believe that we are the arbiters of our own truths, and therefore we are the autonomous authorities of our existence. Fantasy is accorded the same value as insight and experience. Because I think it, it has a value. My wrong is equal to another's right. The value is not what is thought, but who thinks it.

I believe this to be a promethian error, and the result of the ego's overthrow of the soul. We are fallen lower than Adam ever fell, we are further from our neighbour than we have ever been...

I had a close friend whose self-image took a severe hammering as the result of three screwed-up relationships in a row. He embarked upon a process of self-affirmation, according to those books you can buy ... and engaged in a mirror-exercise which I now consider psychically and psychologically dangerous, and almost overnight turned from one of the most generous people I ever knew, to a tyrant ... it ended up that in one argument he defended the right to redefine the meaning of a word according to the context he wanted to express, that words become empty vessels, devoid of any meaning other than that which we attribute to them ... and that we are individually free to redefine them at will.

Talking to him became impossible on any meaningful level.

That's why I believe in tradition - be it of religion, of science, of whatever, determines what is reasonable, and we measure ourselves against that (and it measures us) ... else anything is reasonable.

... but maybe I'm being unreasonable?

Thomas
 
Hi Dondi,

That seems to me like a healthy outlook.

Personally to me, God's existence is beyond my belief. To me his presence is self-evident by virtue of my very 'being'. As far as God judging me, it seems I have a different perspective. To me, God loves me as I am and judgement is something we as humans lay upon ourselves by measuring and judging others. God on the otherhand just loves. This is his essence. In love, to me judgement doesn't exist. If one walks in total forgiveness of others then there is no room for measure or judgement now or forever. However, this is just my understanding from my relationship with God and it is to be taken lightly by others.

Love in Christ,
JM


Do you believe that God forgives you?
 
Put bluntly, I don't think an individual can say what is reasonable, without reference to a wider community. Reasonable depends on a censensus - 'yes, I think your faith is reasonable'.

In the wooly thinking (not everyone is a rigorous philosopher) of the West, the position has moved somewhat to the ground that because I think something, that makes it reasonable.

... the person then has to present his/her thesis, with demonstrations and proofs ... multiple universe theory, is that reasonable? But is there proof?

My point is that we are led to believe that we are the arbiters of our own truths, and therefore we are the autonomous authorities of our existence. Fantasy is accorded the same value as insight and experience. Because I think it, it has a value. My wrong is equal to another's right. The value is not what is thought, but who thinks it.

I had a close friend whose self-image took a severe hammering as the result of three screwed-up relationships in a row. He embarked upon a process of self-affirmation, according to those books you can buy ... and engaged in a mirror-exercise which I now consider psychically and psychologically dangerous, and almost overnight turned from one of the most generous people I ever knew, to a tyrant ... it ended up that in one argument he defended the right to redefine the meaning of a word according to the context he wanted to express, that words become empty vessels, devoid of any meaning other than that which we attribute to them ... and that we are individually free to redefine them at will.

Talking to him became impossible on any meaningful level.


Thomas

There we have it. Reasonable faith by consensus. Someone can point to all that has preceded in history, but if the pointer is not what you like, then just ignore. You will probably not like what they are saying.

Please Thomas, you know very well "wooly thinking" is not confined to the west.

How close was this friend? Are you still in touch with him?
 
Do you believe that God forgives you?

Hi Dondi,

God's essence is love. To me, Love is unconditional acceptance. Therefore it seems to me that God has nothing to forgive. He cannot be offended. God is beyond such pettiness of attributes. It is only by holding unforgiveness of others that one is not forgiven but in essence it is not God forgiving or not forgiving but rather we as humans, being forgiven as we forgive others. So in essence we as humans are responsible for forgiveness. It seems to me that God has set up a perfect self-regulating universe.

Love to All,
Jm

Thomas,

We are the arbitrators of our own truth. Just ask anybody what they think is true. It seems obvious to me. It seems to me that we do define our own words and create in a sense our own reality. Your friends views seem reasonable to me but then again I see things differently than you. Concensus is whatever society deems appropriate at a particular time period and may or may not be related to truth. Reasonableness to me therefore remains with no absolute standard since even concensus is subject to reasoners and the teachings of the time.

Peace,
JM
 
There we have it. Reasonable faith by consensus. Someone can point to all that has preceded in history, but if the pointer is not what you like, then just ignore.

Truth is agreed by consensus, that's why in science, for example, a truth is not accepted as a truth until it can be demonstrated to be so. In the absence of proof, the acceptance of truth becomes a matter of faith ... even in the scientific community.

You will probably not like what they are saying.
One might not like a doctor's diagnosis, and one is entitled to a second opinion, but to ignore what the doctor says, because it's bad news ... is that reasonable?

Please Thomas, you know very well "wooly thinking" is not confined to the west.
I know, but it is epidemic in the west.

How close was this friend? Are you still in touch with him?

Very close, and yes.
Thomas
 
Truth is agreed by consensus, that's why in science, for example, a truth is not accepted as a truth until it can be demonstrated to be so. In the absence of proof, the acceptance of truth becomes a matter of faith ... even in the scientific community.
Thomas

I thought the Holy Spirit guided us "into all truth".
 
We are the arbitrators of our own truth. Just ask anybody what they think is true. It seems obvious to me. It seems to me that we do define our own words and create in a sense our own reality.

Like the bloke who thinks he can drink 8 pints and still drive?

Do not philosphies stand or fall on concensus? Why is it that a Plato is memorable, and the bloke down the pub is not?

Does this not render the world entirely subjective?

Then it's every man for himself, is that what you're saying?

One of my favourite sayings from my studies of medieval Japan:
"The strong eat. The weak are meat."
That was the rule, and that was reasonable.

I'm not saying reason is an absolute, but I am saying without some notion of an absolute standard, everything becomes relative, everything is negotiable, and eventually everything is negotiated away ...

Thomas
 
Back
Top