Why have faith at all?

[lelinator]

But faith remains no matter what.

But the greatest of these is love. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of faith. So be careful when you extol the virtues of faith, for without love and humility, faith is simply self-righteousness.

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

The fundamental reason why I believe in Jesus Christ is that I find that the christian concept of God and of divine love is the highest possible concept.

So why take such a simple concept and load it down with all the dogmatic baggage that religion imposes upon the simple concept of loving the lord thy God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself?

I am not sure to understand your question, but I’ll try to answer.
My point is the concept of Jesus Christ as God willing to be crucified for us, is certainly a truth; therefore the historical Jesus of the Gospels is the true God.
This implies that through the Bible and the Church, founded by Christ, I can learn Christ’s teachings.

 

[meltzerboy2]

As the Bob Dylan song “Forever Young” says: “May you grow up to be righteous,” and Joan Baez has occasionally added in her version “but not too (righteous).”

 

[lelinator]

This implies that through the Bible and the Church, founded by Chirst, I can learn Christ’s teachings.

The teaching is this… Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And your neighbor as yourself.

Or if you prefer…Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

If I do these things, what need have I of a church?

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

This implies that through the Bible and the Church, founded by Chirst, I can learn Christ’s teachings.

The teaching is this… Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. And your neighbor as yourself.

Or if you prefer…Do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with thy God.

If I do these things, what need have I of a church?

First of all, are you sure that you really love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself?
The fact that Christ founded a Church should make us understand that we need a Church. All believers are members of a community and they should help and strenghten one another in their spiritual growth. So, we need one another to learn to love more and more the Lord and our neighbour. Faith is a path towards sanctity, and we have to walk together.

 

[lelinator]

First of all, are you sure that you really love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself?

I’m quite sure that I don’t, but I try. I’ll leave the question of how well I do it up to someone else to decide.

The fact that Christ founded a Church should make us understand that we need a Church.

Or so claims the church at least. I for one sincerely doubt it.

 

[Pattylt]

And agnosticism followed to its logical conclusion is solipsism.

It’s ok…I haven’t followed it to any logical conclusion! . It’s a safe place to park my tushy until something else happens. If nothing does, well, then I kept my options open for nothing I guess!

 

[Mmarco]

Mmarco:

First of all, are you sure that you really love the Lord with all your heart and your neighbour as yourself?

I’m quite sure that I don’t, but I try. I’ll leave the question of how well I do it up to someone else to decide.

I do not think that the point is to do it up to someone else to decide, but that that we can help one another to do better.

Mmarco:

The fact that Christ founded a Church should make us understand that we need a Church.

Or so claims the church at least. I for one sincerely doubt it.

The word “church” appears about 70 times in the New Testament. How can you doubt it?

 

[Veritas6]

What evidence is there for Christianity over Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other religion?

I wish I could give you a solid answer pertaining to evidence, but can this friend accept the existence of the Unmoved Mover from philosophical arguments?

why does it appear that there are so many contradictions or errors in traditional belief?

Does your friend have specific contradictions?

Biblical criticism has demonstrated quite well the evolution of Israelite religion and it appears to not be that different from the other religions in the near east at that time. Why should I believe it’s superior?

People living during that time had their own conception of what God is, but the unique aspect of the Israelites is God is a single Creator. Why is that a problem that the religion “evolved”? Many Israelites worshipped the One True God, but some didn’t deny the existence of other “gods” (henotheism). They might be wrong but they knew the true God had made contact with them.

Listen to this podcast by Jimmy Akin about “God and the gods” - it’s a good introduction to this topic: God and the gods

Here is an article by Jimmy about this: The Court of God – Jimmy Akin

the cosmology it presents is the primitive cosmology of the ancient near east and many core ideas in Judaism and Christianity come from that

The Bible isn’t a science book, what do you think you’d get from a prescientific age? I would suggest it’s a more poetic understanding of the universe, but you can’t fault anyone from that time for lacking scientific knowledge - it wasn’t that important. Does your friend have specific verses trying to explain a cosmology that has since been refuted?

why should I then believe that the cherbuim have an ontological existence over any other near eastern mythological creature?

The belief in angels comes from faith; we trust in what God has revealed. That’s why I argue no one can accept the Resurrection without first accepting the existence of God - the Unmoved Mover. If your friend can accept this, we can allow miracles to occur and work our way down to investigate miracle claims and consider if Christianity has significant weight compared to other religions.

I personally think of the Catholic Church as a compelling proof for the truth of Christianity. 2000 years of consistent authority with consistent teachings - and these teachings continue to be unpopular with the world today; the Church has not changed to “fit in” with the world. Sure individual clerics (and even a Pope privately) can have heretical ideas, but the truth from the Church has never changed. Have your friend challenge that.

 

[Veritas6]

Why should I have faith in absence of compelling evidence?

That is a subjective claim in which everyone has differing degrees of what is compelling. Your friend needs to first use reason to prove the existence of God, then you can faith in everything else (indeed, without God, one cannot have faith in anything because then nothing would exist!).

 

[Lucy_1]

I think there is some good circumstantial evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and if Jesus rose from the dead, at that point we’re obligated to believe everything he says about himself.

 

[goout]

Devil’s advocate here (currently debating an agnostic).

Sure maybe you can argue philosophically for the existence of God but, why believe that God is Yahweh of the Bible? There are thousands of religions out there, and the adherents of those religions believe in them just as strongly as other adherents in other religions. What evidence is there for Christianity over Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism or any other religion? And on top of that, why does it appear that there are so many contradictions or errors in traditional belief? When reading the Hebrew Bible Yahweh appears as no more than a tribal deity, indeed Biblical criticism has demonstrated quite well the evolution of Israelite religion and it appears to not be that different from the other religions in the near east at that time. Why should I believe it’s superior? Why should I have faith in absence of compelling evidence? It seems that many religions, especially the Abrahamics, often move the goal post in defining what God is in light of theological developments or philosophical developments or scientific ones. For example, although the Bible certainly isn’t a science book and isn’t trying to teach science, the cosmology it presents is the primitive cosmology of the ancient near east and many core ideas in Judaism and Christianity come from that. The cherubim, for example, seem to be based off the ancient near eastern mythological creatures known as the lamassu, why should I then believe that the cherbuim have an ontological existence over any other near eastern mythological creature?

The Christian God, or God of the bible, is unique in several aspects. I am only going to propose one of them here: non-competitiveness.

God is not in competition or battle with other gods. And God’s abundant goodness is not in competition with God’s own creation and creatures. God’s goodness does not detract from that of others.

As an example: the burning bush. God manifests in the burning bush that is not consumed. God’s presence sets creation ablaze yet does not consume it. (thanks to Bp Robert Barron for presenting this idea in his talks).

And of course, all of revelation in the OT leads up to Christ. In Christ God comes to meet man at the depths of depravity and suffering, at cost to God. God lowers God’s self to suffer even death through Christ.

Even though it’s true that other religions have fragments of revelation of the true God,
there is no other God like the true God.

It’s like fatherhood: there are many fathers, and many degrees of devotion of fathers to children. Then there are exceptional fathers who go to the limits of sacrifice. How much more in Christ does God manifest his unique love for us. There is nothing else like it in all the world’s religion.

 

[ralfyman]

Why Believe? | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[Xarto]

One of the priests in my parish said that… “Faith is our response to the presence of God”.

I was always struck by that and for me it makes sense. I

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

dogmatic baggage

People get really upset that certain concepts are true and others false.

Then they fling the word “dogma” around to show that they (the speaker) have nothing but purity of heart, in contrast to people who “insist” on truth.

 

[lelinator]

People get really upset that certain concepts are true and others false.

You do recognize the irony in that statement…right?

Then they fling the word “dogma” around to show that they (the speaker) have nothing but purity of heart, in contrast to people who “insist” on truth.

If you’re upset with the manner in which I’ve characterized Catholic teaching, then defend it. I’m a solipsist, people insult my beliefs all the time, but I don’t consider such insults as a reason for me to be offended. It’s a reason for me to learn to defend my beliefs, because if I can’t defend them, then why do I have them? If there isn’t a clear reason for me to believe what I do, then perhaps my beliefs are just as foolish as people say they are.

If you can’t defend your beliefs against the insults that people throw at them…then maybe they’re right.

 

[Tommy999]

If you can’t defend your beliefs against the insults that people throw at them…then maybe they’re right.

Either that, or maybe they’re just more seasoned debaters than the Christian believer they’re talking to.

If the people throwing the insults were to debate one of the Catholic Answers team such as Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, or others, they would encounter people with the same faith but who are also expert apologists who can defend Catholicism/Christianity very well against anyone.

If you don’t believe it, call Catholic Answers Live any weekday and see for yourself.

 

[lelinator]

Either that, or maybe they’re just more seasoned debaters than the Christian believer they’re talking to.

If the people throwing the insults were to debate one of the Catholic Answers team such as Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, or others, they would encounter people with the same faith but who are also expert apologists who can defend Catholicism/Christianity very well against anyone.

In which case we should acknowledge the earnestness of the other persons position, and graciously agree to disagree. The best that any of us can do is to judiciously defend our position. Yes, some of us may be better at it than others, but all of us can try. It’s the nobler course, rather than to simply be offended.

 

[AlsoRan]

Wow - you raise a lot of deep questions in your post. I am 100% certain I can’t answer any of them to either your satisfaction, or the satisfaction of anyone else reading my post. What I can do, is present reasons and explanations. They are not air tight. They are open to challenge. I am happy for them to be challenged. They are merely food for thought.

There is no evidence for Christianity over Judaism, Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism. That is, there are no facts or information that indicate we should. This should not surprise us.

Christianity is not about ‘being over’ any other religion. Christianity in fact teaches there is truth in other religions. Christianity teaches Judaism was given to the children of Israel by God. As such, Judaism can’t be wrong. There are many similarities between Christianity and Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism.

The big difference is belief in Jesus Christ, in that Christianity teaches he was the Incarnate God. The Incarnation is a belief, and one that is impossible to prove in terms of the available body of facts. To me, facts that would prove Jesus was the Incarnate could never in a physical sense exist. For that reason, I would run with your agnosticism in that you can’t prove anything about God. This said, many things that cannot be proven are true.

The Israelite religion - it wasn’t much different to any other of the time. In fact, it was influenced by other religions. Scholarship suggests the Israelite view of God was influenced by tribes and peoples around them. Should we consider this unusual? Scholarship tells us the Bible is testimony to that. In the minds of people Yahweh was a tribal deity, and that belief evolved. Is that not something belief should do?

Did the person of Christ, as portrayed in the NT, intend to demonstrate to Jews their perception of God was all wrong? The reason I say this is I see such a contrast between the image of God Christ portrayed, and the image of God portrayed in the OT?

Concerning the existence of God, I am not persuaded there is any physical evidence. But, I am also of the view it is not possible to produce any physical evidence for the existence of God, and the absence of physical evidence does not of itself render something untrue. Also, what is true can very readily be disproved.

What you believe is up to you. What you believe does not have to be superior in order to be true. When you believe something, you should believe because it enhances your life in some way. If your belief does enhance your life in some way, you do not need to prove it,.

If you think others should follow the same path in life as you, you would seek to convince them to do so. If you see no need for others to follow your path, and have no desire to persuade them to do so, you would not seek to convince them of anything. You would be happy to leave them to make their own decisions, irrespective of that they are.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m not insulted.

I just think it’s funny.

Funny peculiar, mostly , but also a little bit of funny haha.