Why Faith and not rather explicit evedence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CSUNGerrie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CSUNGerrie

Guest
Hello,
Recently I have been thinking about why the Lord chose for us to follow him through faith and not through very explicit, very clear evidence/experience. There are certain benefits to coming to know someone through faith vs. explicit evidence. What do you all think those are?
Also, does anyone know of any good resouces (i.e. internet, or books) that discuss further some of these benefits?

I know Kierkegaard discusses this in one of his books but I cant locate which one.
 
why the Lord chose for us to follow him through faith and not through very explicit, very clear evidence/experience.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that there is still explicit evidence in the form of miracles that are happening in Christianity.

Besides that, God wants us to do things which please him and without faith it is impossible to please him (Heb 11:6).
 
Thank you 1edyson and WesleyF. I agree that there is enough evidence to believe if one only wanted to believe based on evidence. But my question was more related what are the benefits to believing even in the absence of evidence. What does faith and obedience do to the human heart that made God choose to use these tools as a way for people to follow him. Secondly, my question is, what would be the consequences of not following by faith but by following only by evedence. So say… God instructed one of his angels to eternally fly over the atlantic ocean in full view of everyone. At which point, there should be no doubt that the supernatural exists and that God exists. however, wouldnt this take away something important from a faith based relationship?

Jim Baur, could you elaborate in your answer?
 
In your personal interactions with others in your life, do you find any difference between someone who does something for you because they want to, and someone who does something for you because they have to? Or, how about the other way around. How do you feel when you do something for someone just because you want to, as opposed to doing something because you have to, or will suffer penalty if you don’t?

I don’t know anyone who feels the same way when they buy someone special a bunch of flowers as they do paying their taxes.
 
CSUNGerrie said:
Thank you 1edyson and WesleyF. I agree that there is enough evidence to believe if one only wanted to believe based on evidence. But my question was more related what are the benefits to believing even in the absence of evidence. What does faith and obedience do to the human heart that made God choose to use these tools as a way for people to follow him. Secondly, my question is, what would be the consequences of not following by faith but by following only by evedence. So say… God instructed one of his angels to eternally fly over the atlantic ocean in full view of everyone. At which point, there should be no doubt that the supernatural exists and that God exists. however, wouldnt this take away something important from a faith based relationship?
Click to expand...
yes, it would. If we were compelled to believe (by unmistakable evidence) then our belief would not result from faith and would not result in love. God is love and He created us to be in loving relationship with Him. He gave us free will so we could freely choose to love and obey Him - or to reject Him. He did not want robots, but friends. He loves us enough to risk the possibility of rejection, despite the fact that He could compel us to believe and obey. This is why He created a situation where His creatures would be asked to choose - because that choice, that free will, is an essential component of love.
 
CSUNGerrie said:
Hello,
Recently I have been thinking about why the Lord chose for us to follow him through faith and not through very explicit, very clear evidence/experience. There are certain benefits to coming to know someone through faith vs. explicit evidence. What do you all think those are?
Also, does anyone know of any good resouces (i.e. internet, or books) that discuss further some of these benefits?

I know Kierkegaard discusses this in one of his books but I cant locate which one.
Click to expand...
 
DOShea said:
In your personal interactions with others in your life, do you find any difference between someone who does something for you because they want to, and someone who does something for you because they have to? Or, how about the other way around. How do you feel when you do something for someone just because you want to, as opposed to doing something because you have to, or will suffer penalty if you don’t?

I don’t know anyone who feels the same way when they buy someone special a bunch of flowers as they do paying their taxes.
Click to expand...
I see your point here. But it seems like a faith based relationship doesnt frequently result in people following because they want to and are happy doing it. Following by faith is often a great struggle for people who wish it were otherwise.

At the same time, I feel that people who follow God because they have to (lets say fear of hell) sometimes will eventually develop a deeper intimate relationship with God after they have begin a joyful communication with him.
 
NHInsider said:
yes, it would. If we were compelled to believe (by unmistakable evidence) then our belief would not result from faith and would not result in love. God is love and He created us to be in loving relationship with Him. He gave us free will so we could freely choose to love and obey Him - or to reject Him. He did not want robots, but friends. He loves us enough to risk the possibility of rejection, despite the fact that He could compel us to believe and obey. This is why He created a situation where His creatures would be asked to choose - because that choice, that free will, is an essential component of love.
Click to expand...
very beautiful answer NH. Could you say more about why does faith make it more likely that the result in Love and why following by unmistakable evedence can most likely lead not to a love relationship with God.

One of the passages that has continually come to mind as I reflect on the benifits of faith is what God said to the isrealites about why he had them wander in the desert. i believe he said something like, “so that you would know your own heart.” it seems like this is relavant to the benifits of a faith based relationship. It gives us the oppertunity to look at our own heart for God. We get the ability to reflect on how deep our love really is. is it only based on the good things he has done for us? Only based on the undeniable evedence that he can destroy us, or is it based on self knowledge and a desire know for God by searching for him.

But I am still curious to hear peoples opinions on this matter.
 
Hmm. I don’t know that I have anything profound to add.

If the evidence compels me to believe something, there isn’t really any interaction/relationship at all, loving or otherwise. The chair is there, if I sit on it, it holds me up - I am compelled by evidence to acknowledge the existence of the chair and - it’s no big deal. I don’t have a relationship with the chair, I just sit upon it.

If I accept something that cannot be “proved” by evidence, that acceptance establishes a relationship. I rest on God’s strength and rely upon His faithfulness, not because I can prove scientifically that He is there and offers me love, but by faith.

It’s not by chance that the Bible often uses the metaphor of marriage for the relationship between God and His people.

In human love, I have to believe that my lover loves me. I have to trust that what I have experienced is real, that the love I think I am feeling is genuine and will continue. I have to trust my lover in order to fully enter into the relationship. I cannot prove any of this scientifically - and if I refuse to risk the relationship without scientific proof, I will never marry.

Does that help?
 
Can you come up with anything that would be clear?

For example, St Athanasius writes that God makes the water fall from the sky, it is taken up by vines, which produce grapes, and ferments to wine. Jesus did the same thing, water to wine.

One example God does regularly, one quickly. Same action, same author. One convinces some, one convinces noone.

If it was clear, we would call it ‘nature’ and say God’s hand is not to be found in this evidence.
 
NHInsider said:
Hmm. I don’t know that I have anything profound to add.

If the evidence compels me to believe something, there isn’t really any interaction/relationship at all, loving or otherwise. The chair is there, if I sit on it, it holds me up - I am compelled by evidence to acknowledge the existence of the chair and - it’s no big deal. I don’t have a relationship with the chair, I just sit upon it.

If I accept something that cannot be “proved” by evidence, that acceptance establishes a relationship. I rest on God’s strength and rely upon His faithfulness, not because I can prove scientifically that He is there and offers me love, but by faith.

It’s not by chance that the Bible often uses the metaphor of marriage for the relationship between God and His people.

In human love, I have to believe that my lover loves me. I have to trust that what I have experienced is real, that the love I think I am feeling is genuine and will continue. I have to trust my lover in order to fully enter into the relationship. I cannot prove any of this scientifically - and if I refuse to risk the relationship without scientific proof, I will never marry.

Does that help?
Click to expand...
Yes! Very interesting answer. The evidence we could rely on only tells us that there is a God. It says nothing about what kind of relationship he wants from me. Just like marrying someone is proof that the person wants to be with you. It does not say whether you will definitely be faithful to one another in the future. In fact, given the current divorce rate, it seems we have to base much our belief in our spouse willingness to remain with us on much faith. Thank you NH
 
Evan said:
Can you come up with anything that would be clear?

For example, St Athanasius writes that God makes the water fall from the sky, it is taken up by vines, which produce grapes, and ferments to wine. Jesus did the same thing, water to wine.

One example God does regularly, one quickly. Same action, same author. One convinces some, one convinces noone.

If it was clear, we would call it ‘nature’ and say God’s hand is not to be found in this evidence.
Click to expand...
I am a bit confused here. Could you elaborate a bit more? What book does Saint Augustine mention this?
 
Wrong saint.

Saint Athanasius.

He also uses the image of a man with enough grain to make bread.
The throws it into a field. Later that year, he harvests the wheat.

From 5 loaves, he feeds 5000. God wrote large, but for us to see the miracle, Jesus wrote in small letters.

This is cited by CS Lewis in ‘God in the Dock’

If it happens all the time, we investigate it, formulate laws, and call it nature. If the laws fail, we add probablities, and still call it laws.

I was once the size of a pin head (at conception). The miracle of my life we call nature because it happens all the time. But when it fails, we compute the probablity of conceived people dieing before birth. Still nature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top