Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[JDaniel]

It seems to me that a lack of belief, and ‘derision and hatred’ are two very different things. One cannot hate something that one does not believe in. While I suppose anger (and hate, even) are possible towards God if someone DOES believe, that’s a much different circumstance than simply not believing.

Seeker:

Perhaps “hate” was the improper word. I used “hate” because it was already used. “Detest” would be a good replacement.

God bless,
jd

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

It’s really not, but if you think Reagan is a bad example, pick another. Choose any human you like, and write an accurate biography, including extensive quotes, 30 years after their death. Interview whomever you like, but remember the rules. No modern technology. Word of mouth only.

It can’t be done, not with any degree of accuracy. Especially the quote part.

Not by me. But oral cultures did this sort of thing all the time, with plenty of accuracy. The reason your comparison doesn’t work is that I have never made a concerted effort to memorize the sayings of anybody, so the fact that I actually haven’t memorized anybody’s sayings doesn’t prove anything.

The Iliad was transmitted by word of mouth for centuries.

That may be true, I don’t know one way or the other. Regardless, the chances are greater than zero.

The chances of just about anything are greater than zero. That’s not really the standard we should aim for, is it?

I don’t know how to reply to this without going in circles, but again I say, he lost nothing. He did not die, he merely changed forms. And his existence before was identical to his existence after, so there was no sacrifice.

I think we’re using different meanings of the word sacrifice. You’re using it to indicate a permanent loss. I’m using it to indicate a gift to God.

Now, imagine that I’m a millionaire. I love imagining that. You give me a nice gift worth, say, a thousand bucks. I’m touched, and I give you a gift worth two thousand bucks. The fact that you pulled a profit on the deal doesn’t change the fact that you gave me a gift, right?

Go to forums.jewish.com or forums.muslim.com (note: totally made-up websites, they may or may not exist, and if they exist, they may or may not be what the name implies) and you’ll find plenty of people who say the same about their books.

I didn’t claim that nobody says their books are comparable, I’m saying that I’ve never seen comparable books.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t. That is irrelevant and has nothing to do with my point.

A God who loves us, who desires salvation for us, is not going to stack the deck against us. If that God decides, for whatever reason, that believing in him, and following certain rules is required to receive salvation, is he then going to allow other ‘Gods’ (who may not even exist in reality) to have books that are just as credible as his own.

I agree that he won’t stack the deck against us. I don’t think the deck is stacked against us. In fact, I think the odds are totally in our favor. I mean, really. A lifetime of the most deplorable sins that you can imagine, and if in your dying breath you say, “I’m sorry,” you’re good. This is stacked against us?

 

[bluelake]

If I believed that this present life were just a brief test to determine whether I would be admitted after death to another life of eternal bliss, it is inconceivable to me that I would ever commit a sin, since it would simply be foolish. Yet I hear Christians all the time say that they were ‘weak’ or ‘tempted’ on a given occasion to sin, and so did so, thus jeopardizing their own rational best interest in enjoying infinite bliss for the sake of a brief moment of trivial indiscretion. But since sane people are never tempted to bend down and touch the third rail of a subway because they are tempted by a piece of candy they spot lying there, I would assume that no sane Christian would ever be tempted to sin. Since they so often do sin, however, demonstrates that they don’t really believe in the doctrine they profess.

Similarly, if I believed that my present life were just a brief test prior to a possibly infinite afterlife of heavenly bliss, nothing that goes wrong here could ever seriously bother me. If we were all at a giant garden party given by God, and he imposed a forfeit on someone and made him blind for the duration of the party prior to admission to Heaven at the end of the afternoon, that blindness would be no more distressing than being ‘it’ for a little while in a schoolyard game of tag. So the fact that Christians wail in despair when some serious but mundane tragedy ruins only this life for them makes me again suspect that they don’t really believe what they profess.

I do imagine that Christians seriously think that they believe, but this is only because they have never seriously examined the incongruities of their behavior in the situations I have sketched above.

dexter,
We are all sinners. To say we have no sin is the ‘sin of pride’. You may want to look this up in the Proverbs.
God the Father sent his beloved Son to die for our sins. I’m sure you are aware of the story.
It can be found in John. 3;16. The crucifixion can be found in Jn.19

Perhaps I’m not understanding what you saying.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[R_Daneel]

Not to lessen your two emergencies, but, you might not have been precisely “at Death’s door” yet.

Maybe not, but I thought I was. The paramedics had to use the “thumb of life”, because I flatlined. The point is that I was brought back, I sincerely believed that there is a very strong probability that I will die, and yet, I did not think about God, not for one second. Remember, all this is not really relevant, I was merely replying to Charlemagne’s post, where he asserted that on my death-bed I will be concerned about God.

The obvious extension of that belief, is that Christ is a lie.

Come on now. The obvious extension is that the story about Christ is a legend. A lie is a deliberate distortion of something one knows to be true.

We’re just telling you what we’ve been told since Christ, at the very least.

Certainly. I just do not believe that God (the Almighty Creator of all this Universe) would care about my belief or lack of it. I consider that beneath the dignity of such a being. I know you believe otherwise.

And, what do you attribute the utterly unthinkable, incorrigible stupidity of intelligent believers to?

I also met many, highly intelligent believers and atheists (and also some incredibly dumb ones, on both sides). I would not want to set up a “race” to find out which ones are the more intelligent.

But, in most cases (not all) the basic belief system gets established at a very young age, when there are no critical skills. This applies to me, too. Without going into all the details, I received a moderately religious upbringing. I was a believer until about my 20’s, and then it gradually disappeared. My brother is still a believer (even an elder in a Calvinist church).

To answer your question: I think (and I am presenting my opinion here) that to question one’s very basic beliefs happens rarely. It is just very uncomfortable to doubt what one has believed all one’s life. We are creatures of habit. That is why most people don’t even think about their own basic beliefs, much less take an effort to question them. Especially for Christians, since it is asserted that to question God is a mortal sin. Catholics are not allowed to question the authority of the Church, though of course they are allowed to doubt and question some minor, not very relevant points. More to the point: I do not consider this “utterly unthinkable, incorrigible stupidity” on the part of believers.

Now, when someone like me comes around and says that it is very illogical that the Almighty God would care about our lack of belief, and all you can answer: “well, we have been told that”, then I become a bit uneasy. Why would highly intelligent people disregard a logical corollary of what they believe and accept an illogical assertion, just because that assertion has been around for a long time?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Maybe not, but I thought I was. The paramedics had to use the “thumb of life”, because I flatlined. The point is that I was brought back, I sincerely believed that there is a very strong probability that I will die, and yet, I did not think about God, not for one second. Remember, all this is not really relevant, I was merely replying to Charlemagne’s post, where he asserted that on my death-bed I will be concerned about God. *

But you are already concerned about God, or why else would you be at Catholic Answers?

 

[reggieM]

Now, when someone like me comes around and says that it is very illogical that the Almighty God would care about our lack of belief, and all you can answer: “well, we have been told that”, then I become a bit uneasy. Why would highly intelligent people disregard a logical corollary of what they believe and accept an illogical assertion, just because that assertion has been around for a long time?

Ok, consider this …

God created us and cares for us. For the sake of the argument, you can accept it.

God cares about everything we do. Nothing illogical here.
God respects our freedom, does not want to force us. Nothing illogical.
Those who do not want to live with God for eternity are not forced to do so. Nothing illogical.
Living forever in denial of, and/or hatred of the God who loves you is Hell. Follows logically.

Where is the problem that you see here?

 

[R_Daneel]

But you are already concerned about God, or why else would you be at Catholic Answers?

No, my friend, the reason is quite different. I am curious about the ways and means how the religious mind works. It seems that we are unable to engage in a meaningful conversation, since we cannot agree on the meaning of even the simplest words. Too bad, but I see no way to bridge the gap.

 

[R_Daneel]

Ok, consider this …

God created us and cares for us. For the sake of the argument, you can accept it.

1. God cares about everything we do. Nothing illogical here.
2. God respects our freedom, does not want to force us. Nothing illogical.
3. Those who do not want to live with God for eternity are not forced to do so. Nothing illogical.
4. Living forever in denial of, and/or hatred of the God who loves you is Hell. Follows logically.

Where is the problem that you see here?

I see some huge problems.

1. I see no sign that God cares about us.
2. God only respects the freedom of the strong ones, never the weak ones.
3. There is no sign that there is a heaven or a hell (though allegedly Detriot comes close )
4. Hell is a place of torture which is reserved for those who do not believe in God, and thus fail to worship God. And I still see no sign that God “loves us”.

But as we agreed with JDaniel, it is impossible to conduct a conversation, since we are unable to agree on such simple concepts as “love” when we speak of God’s love.

 

[reggieM]

I see some huge problems.

1. I see no sign that God cares about us.

That’s the premise that you accept in order to follow the argument.

1. God only respects the freedom of the strong ones, never the weak ones.

How did you discover that?

1. There is no sign that there is a heaven or a hell (though allegedly Detriot comes close )

You’re arguing a completely different point.
Your initial claim was the idea that “God cares about unbelief” was illogical and the only response is “God told us”.
I just showed, however, that within the Catholic context it is perfectly logical.

1. Hell is a place of torture which is reserved for those who do not believe in God, and thus fail to worship God. And I still see no sign that God “loves us”.

Ok, we could address this completely different argument that you’re offering now, but I have to wonder if you’ll just change the topic again.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

No, my friend, the reason is quite different.* I am curious about the ways and means how the religious mind works.** It seems that we are unable to engage in a meaningful conversation, since we cannot agree on the meaning of even the simplest words. Too bad, but I see no way to bridge the gap.*

This curiosity is a grace that God has given you to find out why others are drawn to Him and you are not.

 

[Moonstruck888]

God respects our freedom, does not want to force us. ?

Oh that’s good. God does not want to force us? We can do as he says or face the hazard of torture beyond imagination and without limit of time after our death, but God is not trying to coerce us in any way to worship him?

 

[LilyM]

Oh that’s good. God does not want to force us? We can do as he says or face the hazard of torture beyond imagination and without limit of time after our death, but God is not trying to coerce us in any way to worship him?

Well, if God does coerce it’s in the same sense that a parent might coerce a child who’s been taking drugs into stopping by saying ‘do what I say or face the hazards of a life of addiction’. In other words threatening the child with all sorts of horrors that the child can’t possibly imagine for a length of time - lifelong - that it can’t possibly fathom from the height of its teenage wisdom.

The parent doesn’t want the child to worship it, of course. Or to obey it for the sake of obeying it. There’s no ego involved. The parent simply knows the truth - that addiction and the consequences of it are awful - better than the child, and having authority and superior knowledge exerts it in the child’s best interests.

Same with our sin - we can’t see how horrible our sin is, God can. God wants to preserve us from the horror of it. Of course you’re going to say ‘but God could make us avoid sin in the first place’. But it WOULD mean God interfering with our free-will.

Saying God could make us beings who HAVE free will and yet inevitably exert that free-will not to sin - or who don’t suffer bad consequences when we do sin - is as nonsensical as saying God could make 2+2=5. By definition 2+2 does NOT equal 5, but 4. We humans figured that out by our God-given logic. God is always supremely logical, even when, His logic being greater than ours, we can’t grasp it.

By definition God leaving us free-will but also with no option but to do the good, or leaving us able to do evil but not suffer the natural consequences that flow from that evil (and which inhere in it) is like saying ‘God can make 2+2=5’.

Sure he could, technically, but it would defy logic. The definition of free-will is having the option to choose between good and evil. The definition of logic is the faculty by which we figure out that 2+2 will always =4 and not 5 or 3.

God being the supreme embodiment of logic, and the very embodiment of free-will, He knows the value and pleasure of those two traits. Knowing it, He values them in us so much that He wouldn’t want to interfere with them. Have you read the Gospel story of the farmer who, having planted his crop, sees weeds sprouting up among the wheat? His workers ask him if he wants to pull up the weeds and says ‘no, because you’ll end up pulling up wheat as well - instead, let them grow together, it will be easy to separate them at the harvest’.

This, I think - this sense of free-will being SO precious in spite of the pain and suffering it brings that God treasures it and knows, really, that we treasure it too - is the part of the logical pattern you seem to be missing.

Have you never had a person (or a situation) be both a pain in the keester AND at one and the same time such a joy and blessing in your life that you’ll happily take the pain in the keester bits along with the good? Those of us who have, I think, come very close to the mind of God.

 

[R_Daneel]

Well, if God does coerce it’s in the same sense that a parent might coerce a child who’s been taking drugs into stopping by saying ‘do what I say or face the hazards of a life of addiction’. In other words threatening the child with all sorts of horrors that the child can’t possibly imagine for a length of time - lifelong - that it can’t possibly fathom from the height of its teenage wisdom.

Except that the “wages” of sin are not a natural consequence of it, unlike the “using drug” leads to “addiction”. It is a deliberate act of God to punish those who do not “love” or “worship” him. Also, if the teenager wants to, he can investigate for himself the evidence that “drug use” leads to “addiction”, and what addiction does to him. There is no way to ascertain that there is a hell, and observe the judicial process of being sentenced to eternal torture. If you wish to bring an analogy, why not make it at least a little bit accurate?

 

[R_Daneel]

That’s the premise that you accept in order to follow the argument.

Why would I do that? The mere word of the believers is not evidence.

How did you discover that?

By observing that God does not interfere to protect the weak, and since you yourself asserted that God “respects” the free will of the attacker. There are two “wills” which clash, that of the attacker and that of the victim. God allows the attacker to prevail - therefore God places a “higher value” on the attacker’s free will than the victim’s free will.

You’re arguing a completely different point.
Your initial claim was the idea that “God cares about unbelief” was illogical and the only response is “God told us”.
I just showed, however, that within the Catholic context it is perfectly logical.

Ex falso quodlibet.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well, if God does coerce it’s in the same sense that a parent might coerce a child who’s been taking drugs into stopping by saying ‘do what I say or face the hazards of a life of addiction’. In other words threatening the child with all sorts of horrors that the child can’t possibly imagine for a length of time - lifelong - that it can’t possibly fathom from the height of its teenage wisdom.

There’s a huge distinction here. God created hell. God actively decides who goes to hell and who doesn’t. When we die we are judged and then “justice” dispensed at the will of God.

Do you think that an infinite punishment for finite crimes is dispensing wisely?

The parent doesn’t want the child to worship it, of course. Or to obey it for the sake of obeying it. There’s no ego involved. The parent simply knows the truth - that addiction and the consequences of it are awful - better than the child, and having authority and superior knowledge exerts it in the child’s best interests.

So, God is powerless to stop people from going to hell then, just as the father of the child who experiments with heroin is powerless over the consequences?

Same with our sin - we can’t see how horrible our sin is, God can. God wants to preserve us from the horror of it. Of course you’re going to say ‘but God could make us avoid sin in the first place’. But it WOULD mean God interfering with our free-will.

And why doesn’t he? We have an illusion of free will, I’ll grant you that, but free will is worthless if it leads inexorably to suffering and damnation.

Saying God could make us beings who HAVE free will and yet inevitably exert that free-will not to sin - or who don’t suffer bad consequences when we do sin - is as nonsensical as saying God could make 2+2=5. By definition 2+2 does NOT equal 5, but 4. We humans figured that out by our God-given logic. God is always supremely logical, even when, His logic being greater than ours, we can’t grasp it.

Yes. A lot of malevolent psychopaths are logical.

His logic is greater than ours, we can’t grasp it? ROTFL!!! He can’t even take the cross sectional area of a jawbone and divide it by 32.

By definition God leaving us free-will but also with no option but to do the good, or leaving us able to do evil but not suffer the natural consequences that flow from that evil (and which inhere in it) is like saying ‘God can make 2+2=5’.

Then I put it to you that omnipotent, omniscient God, with his power beyond limit, if he has any moral conscience at all, should have created a Universe where 2 + 2 = 5.

Sure he could, technically, but it would defy logic. The definition of free-will is having the option to choose between good and evil. The definition of logic is the faculty by which we figure out that 2+2 will always =4 and not 5 or 3.

Are we having a contest to see who can fit the most tautological inexactitudes into one post here? He shouldn’t have given us the ability to choose evil. In doing so he was wrong.

Evil in the context of a loving creator is inherently self contradictory. In the context of an evolving species living in a dog eat dog biosphere, evil is easy to understand.

God being the supreme embodiment of logic, and the very embodiment of free-will, He knows the value and pleasure of those two traits. Knowing it, He values them in us so much that He wouldn’t want to interfere with them. Have you read the Gospel story of the farmer who, having planted his crop, sees weeds sprouting up among the wheat? His workers ask him if he wants to pull up the weeds and says ‘no, because you’ll end up pulling up wheat as well - instead, let them grow together, it will be easy to separate them at the harvest’.

Spare me the propaganda, please.

This, I think - this sense of free-will being SO precious in spite of the pain and suffering it brings that God treasures it and knows, really, that we treasure it too - is the part of the logical pattern you seem to be missing.

Yes, nuclear warheads, biological weapons, Zyklon B, Sarin nerve gas, electroshock therapy, exocet missiles…

The beautiful logic of it all… It’s a revelation. Praise God, I was blind and now I see! The evil of mankind is logic that is glorious to behold!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

So, God is powerless to stop people from going to hell then, just as the father of the child who experiments with heroin is powerless over the consequences?

Exactly. In His mercy He offers the grace to be saved from hell, but we may choose or reject that grace. Are you powerless to choose it?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck

So, God is powerless to stop people from going to hell then, just as the father of the child who experiments with heroin is powerless over the consequences?

Exactly. In His mercy He offers the grace to be saved from hell, but we may choose or reject that grace. Are you powerless to choose it?

If God has limitations, then what sets him apart from us? Why should we worship him as a superior being?

 

[reggieM]

Oh that’s good. God does not want to force us? We can do as he says or face the hazard of torture beyond imagination and without limit of time after our death, but God is not trying to coerce us in any way to worship him?

Notice how you changed the word “force” to “coerce”. That does make a difference. Freedom is preserved, although the one who loves us tries to win our affection. But we remain free to refuse.

 

[reggieM]

Why would I do that? The mere word of the believers is not evidence.

In order to understand the logic, you have to accept the premise that God exists. You based your argument on a question about God. Now, to claim that the very existence of God is really your problem is to invalidate your complaint.
If you want to know something about God, that follows an acceptance (even for the sake of argument) that God exists.

You do this quite often. Keep in mind, your questions are this:

“If God exists, then why would he be concerned about unbelief”.

Notice the premise that you accept … “I’ll accept, for sake of argument, that God exists …”

So, I used that method and showed the logical consistency.

Now you decided to change the argument to “I don’t think God exists”.

So, your argument is … “If God exists, I still don’t think he exists”.

By observing that God does not interfere to protect the weak, and since you yourself asserted that God “respects” the free will of the attacker. There are two “wills” which clash, that of the attacker and that of the victim. God allows the attacker to prevail - therefore God places a “higher value” on the attacker’s free will than the victim’s free will.

One reason you can’t judge that is because you don’t know the purpose of the attack and what the ultimate meaning of the result of it is.

Again, you are not able to say that a person’s death is “the best thing that could have happened to him”. Right?

Now you need to know how God protects the weak and the strong. How does God respond to prayer? How does God give everyone what is best for each person?

How do you know if a person is spiritually weak or strong?

Again, God allowed Christ to suffer on the Cross.

Was Christ the weakest man in that event? How would you determine that?

It’s essential to think about Christ’s crucifixion and what it means.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Moonstruck

*If God has limitations, then what sets him apart from us? Why should we worship him as a superior being? *

God has a definite nature. It is no sign of impotence that God chooses to do one thing rather than another. We should worship Him as a superior being because He is a superior Being. He is the ground of all our being. It is a poor son who does not respect a loving father, a Father who holds out the promise of eternal bliss … for a price … the price of obedience to His will, which is good, not evil.