A Witty Title.

I'm probably going to cop a lot of fire for this, but this resolution bothers me. Should not an entity which asks for your faith have a responsibility to answer your questions? Does not that entity have to /earn/ your faith, rather than just expecting you to trust it?

I know that I'm speaking to a majority of Christians here, and I'm not trying to insult their faith; but still, it bothers me to think that such a poignant issue can be set aside with the idea that God is Good, so it must be assumed that the answer to the question is a Good one. It bothers me that faith can be a reason that an answer to this question is unecessary, when I feel that this is exactly the kind of question which should help /define/ one's faith.

Well, anyway, that's my thoughts on it. Faith is a wonderful thing, but this attitude does seem a little dangerously close to blind faith.

Once again, no offence or extra implications (that is, nothing I've not explicitly said) intended.
 

I guess it's a matter of the difference between knowledge and faith. Faith doesn't require knowledge - it's nice but not necessary and faith requires the ability to go "okay, we don't know about this thing here but we do know enough about the person behind things to trust that he'll do the right thing." It could be viewed, I think, like trusting a friend. You don't necessarily agree about everything or want and like the same things, and you don't necessarily know all there is to know about that person and what they think or feel but you trust that your friend will be there for you, enjoys being with you, and will act in a sensible manner should something happen. Same with God, only on a much bigger scale.

Thus, with faith, one has various suggestions about who and what God is, about what he thinks and feels and one trusts that he will do the right thing. Of course, in this case there's also the sense that he is God and all powerful and all knowing and all good, and therefore cannot help but make the right decision.

I know that that probably doesn't help much. Just trying to explain.
 

Yeah, but that only works if you /aready/ have faith in God. This is my problem; I see faith as someting which needs to be questioned and re-confirmed over and over. Generally, there are certain questions that need to be answered in order for a person to have faith - hence things like the bible, as I doubt Christianity would be quite so common without its presence. For me, this is one of those questions, so I feel uneasy for it to be dismissed based on pre-existing faith.

Or, to compare to the example, it's something I would need for a friend to openly tell me, or else I would be left doubting whether or not they truly were a friend I wanted to have.
 

I believe that the working defenition of Faith as the bibe uses it is basically interchangable with 'trust'. These days people tend to use the 'believing something that cant be proved to be true' defenition which i dont think is right.
I know i will be torched for this one, but i will say it anyway. From my reading of the bible, I believe that everone has rejected God in some way during their life. The bible says that anyone who does this deserves death. However, God sent Jesus to die to save those who trust in him.
So, people who say "how can God..." forget that 1. God made them and COULD do whatever he wanted to them. and 2. Because of their personal rejection of God, the only thing they deserve is death. God is gracious though and wants everyone to come to him through faith in Jesus.
 

God is gracious, but the only thing they deserve is death. Yeah... Laurel-li at least tries to be uderstanding, but Stoobie, you make the kind of statements which make me want to tell all Christians to take their religion and fucking shove it. And honestly, you're not going to get anywhere by just regurgitating the tenets of your faith rather than addressing the discussion, which you're not doing at all.

This isn't about proof or a lack of proof, Stoobie. This is about /why/ you have faith in God. As a Christian, you didn't just decide to follow God for no damn reason, right? You accepted him as your saviour because you believed in him, but you had reasons for doing that (like having a personal experience with God, or believing what is in the bible and accepting it to be true). Is this an incorrect assumption?

What I'm saying is that if a being (whether it's God, a friend, or whoever) wants to have your trust, they have an obligation to you to /deserve/ that trust. I don't think that's an unfair thing to say, even of God - he makes a hell of a lot of promises over the course of the bible, after all, and one would expect him to follow through.

What I'm saying is that there are a lot of questions that God answered, because he had to give people some reason to trust him (though apparently scaring the shit out of them works in a pinch ;p). Isn't that the purpose of the bible? I simply think this is one of those answers that God should give if he wants people to trust him.
 

The purpose of my comment was not to attempt to scare anyone. I just think if you start with the basic premise that God doesnt actually owe me anything, in fact I owe him, then your outlook on the whole thing changes.
God has given, he has given his Son to die for our sins on the cross. He has also created, and sustained. He hasnt been stingy either. He has poured out the blessings. I cant even remember the last time I was hungry and didnt have my hunger satisfied in all of 5-10 minutes. I have clothes, comfy shelter, a car, money and a job.
I think if you live in Australia and think that God hasnt given then your just not looking properly.
Sorry about the fire and brimstone. Like I said, just trying to put it in perspective.
 

I would say that my "faith", or "trust" in God continues to grow, as I grow my understand of myself, our world, and God, all change and develop.

Yes, I don't have all the answers, it doesn't really bother me. (I understand that the reason I can say it doesn't bother me, is because I am a Christian).

But in some sense the only reason I am a Christian is because God showed himself to me - and through his word. Because He has shown himself to be trustworthy, the things I can't completely know, or understand, I will leave in His hands because He is trustworthy.

Perhaps this is a circular argument, and in part you are right - trust in the revealer leads to trust in the revelation, which increases awareness of the actions of God, which leads to a greater trust in God.

Did that actually make sense?
 

Stoobie, you're not scaring anyone - I don't know where you got /that/ idea. But will you try for just /one moment/ to look at this from a non-christian perspective? You have the same problem here as in every other religious debate I've seen you take part in - you spend the whole time saying "God is this" and "God is that" and how good God is, like it's a proven fact that we all accept. But it's not - it's an unproven stance based on faith. And you never actually step outside that predetermined Christian viewpoint to consider the issue, so you wind up just re-typing the same basic Christians tenets over and over again instead of addressing the issue.

Stoobie, why do you believe in God? It doesn't have to personal, just a brief idea of how you came into the faith. Because if you came to know God through the bible, or a church, or your parents, or a christian friend - rather than just waking up one day and knowing - them you've proven my point. God needs to provide /some/ answers, or Christianity doesn't /exist/. People don't believe in God by default - they need to receive some kind of proof before they will believe, and unless God wants idiots for followers, that's a good thing. That proof can be anything - a miracle, a personal connection, just seeing the happiness of a Christian friend - but whether or not God owes us or we owe God, that proof has to be there before a person has a reason to believe.

Duncan, what you say actually makes perfect sense, at least to me. God gave you a reason to trust him - and when you have trusted in him he hasn't let you down, and so your trust is rewarded and strengthened. That's /exactly/ the kind of thing I'm talking about!
 

I think it has to be what duncan terms a "circular argument"... In that, the only way we get to understand gods motives and reasoning, is through understanding him better.

The more we understand his reasoning and motives, the better understanding we will get of the kind of person he is.

That said, I actually think its more of a spiral argument. It keeps getting bigger and bigger, but starts from a simple core.

Personally, I can say I have reached a point on the spiral where this answer, combined with my knowledge of god, satisfies me. That dosent mean I dont want to know how it works, or what method god uses to achieve it, but I am content in the fact that this is the way it is.

Fox is right however, in saying you need a core of faith to begin with. This is the start of the spiral.. Ill come back to that in a sec

Stu. You said. "I just think if you start with the basic premise that God doesnt actually owe me anything, in fact I owe him, then your outlook on the whole thing changes. "

This exactly puts the finger on Fox's issue. Shes asking where this basic premis comes from. She dosent share it, and as such, the rest of your argument is of no value to her.

So where does this spiral start? It can start anywhere. For me, I really cant put a finger on it, one day I just realised I was quite a way up the spiral. God had proven himself to me.

I know that dosent help much, but Im not gonna lie to convince people.

I guess my point is simply this. Fox, you feel that some questions need to be answered before the "spiral" can begin, I say that if you can just leave it as something you dont yet comprehend, then as you move round the spiral(If you do) it may begin to make more sence to you.

I guess what im saying is this. Its possible that god will do right by them, but noone really can say. Its possible he will do wrong. ITs possible im a criminal mastermind manipulating my friends to my nefarious ends, but you dont let that stop you from being my friend. You dont let a posibility that I could be like that stop you from understanding me based on what you have actually seen/know.

(Ok, this is a really extreem example.. sorry, but I hope my point is clearish)
 

To chime in rather late with my rather tenative 2 p worth, I've been thinking a bit recently about how reason and faith seem to be two completely different 'mechanisms' (as has been suggested above).

To me faith seems to be something like an emotion. And reason/ knowledge seems to be something quite distinct from this. I can learn all the 'facts' about Christianity, and agree (for example) that there is 'a resurrection shaped hole in history'. But to go from there to actually becoming a Christian - to get onto that spiral - seems to require a leap that reason isn't necessarily going to help me with. Belief/ faith to me is not a choice based on reason/ argument/ knowledge, it's something you either feel or you don't. (Although having a large number of unresolved questions probably makes it less likely that you'll make that 'leap of faith'.)

But because I see the distinction from this side, I imagine that might also help explain how reason might pose questions that you can be to some extent content to leave unanswered, if your faith is strong enough.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this is completely relevant, but it's certainly something I'm thinking about as I continue to try to work through questions like this.