> We're absolutely required to use reason and logic to understand (I clearly > recall saying something like "God gave us a brain and expects us to use > it!"), and to humbly and earnestly inquire; > > The point I've been trying to make however, is that spiritual truths are not > ascertained through intellectual effort alone. I know I've said a couple of > times that the condition of one's heart is crucial. Is it *this* point that > is still not resonating? Humility of heart is even *more* important than > intellectual capacity. That is what is meant by the idea that we're > supposed to approach God as 'children'. Children have an innate capacity to > trust, even when they don't understand.
Yes, that point about "the condition of one's heart" resonates with my interpretation of faith as a euphemism for feelings or "intuition" or allowing one's self to be guided by emotions. It is a kind of trust not arrived at by too much reason, but mainly by emotion, the good feelings that come with a particular religion because your family and friends and community taught you it was true, or because the Bible sounds so good that you wish it was true. Except that some people obviously read the Bible and then the Quran and the Upanishads and approach it with "humility of heart" and after earnest inquiry, they choose to believe the Quran instead, or the Upanishads, or none of the above. Would you say that any choice other than the Bible is proof that a person did not approach the question with the right intangible, indefinable condition of one's heart? If that were true, it's a non- falsifiable condition that can't possibly be proven true or false. A person could claim pedophilia and cannibalism are what God wants of us, and that anyone who considers the question with the right humility or earnestness or other hard-to-pin-down quality in their heart, will arrive at agreement on this question. This is a simple way to discredit anyone who disagrees with you about that point. Whether the person has malicious intent or is just confused or deluded doesn't really matter, they could use the same line of thinking to discourage people from reaching any other conclusion. > > I chafe at it because "having faith" sounds very dangerous. Because > > when it comes to having faith in Jesus Christ, or specifically > > Catholicism versus Mormonism versus Jim Jones, I don't see anything > > that would make a person think twice about choosing Jim Jones or > > Heaven's Gate or the Branch Davidians in Waco, or polygamists with > > underage wives. Those people apparently had faith in Jim Jones or some > > other charismatic leader. They were able to accept the claims of those > > people without trying to understand them. I assume they were actively > > discouraged from trying to understand, like you are doing. I'm not > > trying to make you seem guilty by association or saying that you are > > bad like them. I'm just saying that faith seems like a very unreliable > > tool or method for trying to acquire truth. It clearly does not get > > everyone to the truth. > > I hope I've clarified this point enough now, that I never explicitly said, > and never intended to say, that we're discouraged from trying to understand; > in fact, the very opposite is true. You've clarified that the phrase I interpreted as being opposed to logic and reason in general was not intended that way. But in other things you've said (in your post just above this one), it is clear that you think reason and logic must be set aside in favor of faith or something else which I can't distinguish from your feelings or intuition. > Furthermore, I hope I've clarified a > little more the difference between 'blind faith' and humility of heart which > manifests as trust in God. Not only is 'faith' and 'trust' in God a > reliable tool or method for acquiring truth, it is *the only reliable* * > method*! Truth will evade you otherwise; worse still you'll be deluded into > thinking you've acquired it. You have clarified. I don't agree with that assertion, but I don't really have a response beyond what I've said before. > The new point to make in response to the paragraph above, is that we're *not > * to look to anyone but Jesus Christ. Those you list above, and numerous > others you haven't mentioned, all have in common that they placed their > trust in someone/something other than Christ. For those of us who have not met Jesus Christ, how do we know that a person speaking or writing a book is telling the truth in their claims about Jesus Christ? We still need to make judgments about those people. In fact, Christians also make those judgments, because there are some writings that are rejected as untrue, and some interpretations that are rejected as untrue or not inspired by God. How are we supposed to "not look to anyone but Jesus Christ" when the whole message about Jesus has been brought to most of us by people other than Jesus Christ? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
