PDA

View Full Version : Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.



Gnostic Bishop
18-11-2014, 02:03 AM
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the O.T. says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason with God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes the mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths.

We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses.

Regards
DL


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3O1_3zBUKM8

Agent Smith
18-11-2014, 06:27 AM
But the real problem is, by abandoning reason for "faith", the church/sect members lose control over their violent/hard-line members, and it's generally impossible for them to reel in the charlatans/witch-burners/fatwa-callers.

antichrist
18-11-2014, 01:22 PM
But the real problem is, by abandoning reason for "faith", the church/sect members lose control over their violent/hard-line members, and it's generally impossible for them to reel in the charlatans/witch-burners/fatwa-callers.

I recently heard on the Religion Report on Radio National how they were burning 10 year old girls in Germany during witch craze - what fools religion make of us

Adamski
18-11-2014, 02:03 PM
Faith and reason are not opposites. My faith is based on reason and evidence - e.g. for Jesus' resurrection.

antichrist
18-11-2014, 02:39 PM
Faith and reason are not opposites. My faith is based on reason and evidence - e.g. for Jesus' resurrection.

I know, they are re-using all the graves due to all the resurrections. Who reached Heaven earlier Jesus or Mohammed who left 700 years later? When I seen the Resurrection in a movie Jesus was only travelling about 15 miles an hour- pretty slow for such a long journey.

Gnostic Bishop
19-11-2014, 01:13 AM
But the real problem is, by abandoning reason for "faith", the church/sect members lose control over their violent/hard-line members, and it's generally impossible for them to reel in the charlatans/witch-burners/fatwa-callers.

I blame literalism as well as faith for that. Literalism may have to come first to fundamentals.

Roman 10: 17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
19-11-2014, 01:17 AM
Faith and reason are not opposites. My faith is based on reason and evidence - e.g. for Jesus' resurrection.

What evidence do you have except a book that is obviously myth with it's talking animals and seven headed monster.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
19-11-2014, 01:26 AM
Faith and reason are not opposites. My faith is based on reason and evidence - e.g. for Jesus' resurrection.

Are you aware of what the scholarship is saying about the resurrection and why the main gospels do not narrate a resurrection.

Try listening from about the 11 min mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xH93PSZ6fQ

Regards
DL

Agent Smith
19-11-2014, 06:29 AM
BTW, even the Catholics have officially acknowledged evolution

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/pope-reminds-catholics-evolution-big-bang-are-true/

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2014, 07:35 AM
BTW, even the Catholics have officially acknowledged evolution

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/pope-reminds-catholics-evolution-big-bang-are-true/

So what? You act as if this is news. But Catholic officials for the last century have craved academic respectability from atheopaths who won't grant it anyway. See The Pope on evolution (http://creation.com/francis).

Capablanca-Fan
19-11-2014, 07:36 AM
Faith and reason are not opposites. My faith is based on reason and evidence—e.g. for Jesus' resurrection.

Totally right of course ↑↑↑ But atheopaths like GB and RW will still prattle on about their deceitful twistings about the meaning of biblical faith.

Gnostic Bishop
19-11-2014, 12:11 PM
BTW, even the Catholics have officially acknowledged evolution

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/pope-reminds-catholics-evolution-big-bang-are-true/

Indeed. Now if they can just work on their immoral tenets that begin with human sacrifice and the notion that they should profit from the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty. Then we can say they are progressing. Till then, look at the crap the world has to live with.

For the evils of religion to grow, read any scripture literally.

Any and all harmless beliefs are allowed by Gnostic Christians. We know that any myth can be internalized for good results and as esoteric ecumenists, we enjoy knowledge of all the myths that man has created about Gods.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&list=PLCBF574D

When there is a victim is when that view changes. Then you see why Christianity annihilated Gnostic Christianity. We do not let the evils of forced literalism go unopposed. To a tyrant like Constantine, we were poison. One of his first commands to his new Church was to kill off the free thinkers and of course, his new tool, his Church, did as bid. It was quite a ride for free thought for the next 1,000 years.

How can a Gnostic Christian, --- and any other free thinking moral person, --- not judge other's morals when seeing someone hurt other because of the same Church's teachings today?

Can you ignore such things if you have decent morals? Impossible. Especially with Islam pulling the same murderous, freedom stifling ****.

We must discriminate and judge constantly. Every law is a compulsion on all of us to judge.

It is my view that all right wing literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists, --- as well as those who do not believe. Literalists hurt their parent religions --- and everyone else, be he a believer or not. Literalists and the right wing of religions make us all into laughing stocks. Their God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution has got to go. So must beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic. These are all evil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2zhlDbMfDg

They also do much harm to their own fellow adherents.

African witches and Jesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI

Jesus Camp 1of 3
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48b_1185215493

Death to Gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyuKLyGUHNE

For evil to grow my friend, all good people need do is nothing. Fight literalism when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

Regards
DL

Adamski
20-11-2014, 12:13 AM
What evidence do you have except a book that is obviously myth with it's talking animals and seven headed monster.

Regards
DLGB / DL it must be remembered that the 7 headed monster in Revelation 12 (representing Satan as the chapter explicitly says) was in a vision. Things in visions do not have to be described as they are in reality. But in this case Scripture gives a great word picture of how nasty the devil really is.

Yes, there was a talking ass in the story of Baalam and indeed the serpent (Satan again) talked in Genesis 3. I have no problem believing both of those occurrences were real.

Gnostic Bishop
20-11-2014, 07:01 AM
GB / DL it must be remembered that the 7 headed monster in Revelation 12 (representing Satan as the chapter explicitly says) was in a vision. Things in visions do not have to be described as they are in reality. But in this case Scripture gives a great word picture of how nasty the devil really is.

Yes, there was a talking ass in the story of Baalam and indeed the serpent (Satan again) talked in Genesis 3. I have no problem believing both of those occurrences were real.

In the Jewish tradition, there is no Satan.

But if you are a believer in talking animals, I wish you the best and I hope you seek help.
Your indoctrination and brain washing is complete.
You no longer think as an intelligent person would.

Regards
DL

MichaelBaron
23-11-2014, 11:02 PM
''Faith'' is something that each and every person has. Not believing in God...is also kind of ''faith''. Therefore, the whole argument against ''faith'' is not justifyable.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2014, 01:24 AM
''Faith'' is something that each and every person has. Not believing in God...is also kind of ''faith''.

No it isn't. I get really tired of these kinds of overgeneralised claims that are made by people who have no standing to speak for every other person alive's psychology, and generally no idea what they are talking about, just trying to smother differences between viewpoints in trite nonsense and kill the meanings of useful words in the process.

One thing that doesn't help is that there is a popular understanding of what religious faith is, and apparently a different specialised understanding of it that Christians who have studied their own views more carefully are more likely to advance. The first concept is basically "faith" without thinking one has adequate objective evidence or caring whether one does, the second is faith in the (mistaken) belief that the evidence warrants it. I believe GB is attacking the first more than the second, but I could be wrong about that.

But whichever way it is looked at, if you don't believe in God this doesn't necessarily mean you have some kind of active personal trust in the godlessness of the universe - it may just mean you're not convinced there is a God. We don't think of lacks of belief in yetis, living thylacines, giant cosmic turtles, aliens abducting Kirsan, 2+2 being 5 or jammo comebacks to ACF-rated chess as matters of faith so why should a mere lack of belief in something someone else believes in called "God" be any different? Especially given that those holding this belief often admit they can see why it looks ridiculous to outsiders, and frequently appeal to personal experience as a counter to this.

antichrist
24-11-2014, 09:27 AM
No it isn't. I get really tired of these kinds of overgeneralised claims that are made by people who have no standing to speak for every other person alive's psychology, and generally no idea what they are talking about, just trying to smother differences between viewpoints in trite nonsense and kill the meanings of useful words in the process.

........................

very well spoken in response to wishy washy. He is like Tolstoy trying to make everybody happy - though he denies it.

MichaelBaron
24-11-2014, 09:32 AM
No it isn't. I get really tired of these kinds of overgeneralised claims that are made by people who have no standing to speak for every other person alive's psychology, and generally no idea what they are talking about, just trying to smother differences between viewpoints in trite nonsense and kill the meanings of useful words in the process.

One thing that doesn't help is that there is a popular understanding of what religious faith is, and apparently a different specialised understanding of it that Christians who have studied their own views more carefully are more likely to advance. The first concept is basically "faith" without thinking one has adequate objective evidence or caring whether one does, the second is faith in the (mistaken) belief that the evidence warrants it. I believe GB is attacking the first more than the second, but I could be wrong about that.

But whichever way it is looked at, if you don't believe in God this doesn't necessarily mean you have some kind of active personal trust in the godlessness of the universe - it may just mean you're not convinced there is a God. We don't think of lacks of belief in yetis, living thylacines, giant cosmic turtles, aliens abducting Kirsan, 2+2 being 5 or jammo comebacks to ACF-rated chess as matters of faith so why should a mere lack of belief in something someone else believes in called "God" be any different? Especially given that those holding this belief often admit they can see why it looks ridiculous to outsiders, and frequently appeal to personal experience as a counter to this.

So for instance I believe there are some higher powers...but do not follow any religion. Does it mean I have no ''faith''? P.S. Jammo Comeback at some senior event is actually possible as long as the event is weak enough for him to do well.

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2014, 09:53 AM
One thing that doesn't help is that there is a popular understanding of what religious faith is, and apparently a different specialised understanding of it that Christians who have studied their own views more carefully are more likely to advance.
I should hope so. So it would be better for opponents to deal with that, rather than insist that Christians define "faith" as brownie points in Heaven for credulity.


The first concept is basically "faith" without thinking one has adequate objective evidence or caring whether one does, the second is faith in the (mistaken) belief that the evidence warrants it. I believe GB is attacking the first more than the second, but I could be wrong about that.
Not in this case. GB's arguments pertain only to the first kind. Yet he even wrote "The God of the O.T. says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]" which should show that the biblical faith is not that.


Especially given that those holding this belief often admit they can see why it looks ridiculous to outsiders, and frequently appeal to personal experience as a counter to this.
I don't admit the first, and try to avoid the second, and even refuse requests to "give your personal testimony," which is more common in the USA than in Australia.

Gnostic Bishop
24-11-2014, 11:22 AM
''Faith'' is something that each and every person has. Not believing in God...is also kind of ''faith''. Therefore, the whole argument against ''faith'' is not justifyable.

Faith is not justifiable.
Faith without facts is for fools and not everyone is the fool you say they are.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
24-11-2014, 11:28 AM
So for instance I believe there are some higher powers....

Believe based on what?

And even if there is a higher power, whatever that means to you, why would you want to kowtow to that higher power?

Does might make right? Do morals not matter to you? How do you know this higher power is moral?

Regards
DL

antichrist
24-11-2014, 11:31 AM
If that higher power either created evil or tolerates evil it has a lot to answer for

Rincewind
24-11-2014, 11:35 AM
Not in this case. GB's arguments pertain only to the first kind. Yet he even wrote "The God of the O.T. says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]" which should show that the biblical faith is not that.

That depends on how you reconcile that position with John 20:29. ... Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2014, 12:19 PM
So for instance I believe there are some higher powers...but do not follow any religion. Does it mean I have no ''faith''?

Not necessarily. But you seem to be extending from the idea that it is possible to have faith that is not religious, to the idea that everyone has faith, and that is a massive leap that is totally unwarranted.

The words "religion" and "faith" exist to differentiate certain kinds of belief-based attitude from the general set of all belief-based attitudes. If we declare that all belief-based attitudes are religions or faiths then we may as well not have words like "religion" and "faith" as using them in this way makes them redundant.

antichrist
24-11-2014, 12:32 PM
Strictly speaking what is the use of faith, god, highe powers etc if they do not make any difference to life? just a waste of time in our precious short lives - maybe they survive to give hope to the hopeless and to those whom consider themselves hopeless

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2014, 01:32 PM
That depends on how you reconcile that position with John 20:29. ... Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.

Yawn, stretch, old news. This is contrasting faith with sight, not with reason or evidence, consistent with the other many passages of Scripture affirming logic (http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation). Long ago, I pointed out (http://creation.com/not-circular-reasoning#endRef9):

Note, some contextually illiterate critics claim that the ‘doubting Thomas’ passage (John 20:24–31) promotes a blind faith. In reality, Thomas’s problem was rejection of ample evidence—the testimony of at least 11 men whom he had gotten to know intimately over at least the past three years, plus personal experience of the miraculous powers of Jesus, including raising Lazarus from the dead and even an empty tomb.
Also, almost all future potential converts thereafter would have less direct evidence than Thomas did, although still ample. So Jesus could not allow Thomas to ‘set an example’ to spoiled skeptics who demand God’s personal appearance before them before they are willing to believe, as if God were their personal genie at their beck and call. See also Holding, J.P., Blessed are ye who whine: does John 20:29 promote a ‘blind faith’? (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/john2029.php)

Capablanca-Fan
24-11-2014, 01:35 PM
If that higher power either created evil or tolerates evil it has a lot to answer for

I agree—He tolerates you (http://creation.com/why-death-suffering#_Free_will_defense?).

Kevin Bonham
24-11-2014, 01:50 PM
So Jesus could not allow Thomas to ‘set an example’ to spoiled skeptics who demand God’s personal appearance before them before they are willing to believe, as if God were their personal genie at their beck and call.

Any "skeptic" who would accept just the apparent personal (?) appearance of God before them as convincing evidence is actually far from spoiled but too gullible and unworthy of the label. The less extraordinary hypothesis based on such "evidence" is that one has fallen into some kind of delusional state.

antichrist
24-11-2014, 02:14 PM
Any "skeptic" who would accept just the apparent personal (?) appearance of God before them as convincing evidence is actually far from spoiled but too gullible and unworthy of the label. The less extraordinary hypothesis based on such "evidence" is that one has fallen into some kind of delusional state.

The other day in Byron I swore I send a girl a friend who had not seen for only few weeks. Looked exactly like her - turned out was not her. Our senses can delude us.

Rincewind
24-11-2014, 03:20 PM
This is contrasting faith with sight, not with reason or evidence

Isn't sight just a way of collecting evidence? While Thomas discounted eye-witness testimony as possibly mistaken seeing first hand was sufficient. Jesus' words then placate the masses to accept a lower standard of evidence.

Gnostic Bishop
24-11-2014, 11:23 PM
If that higher power either created evil or tolerates evil it has a lot to answer for

Or to be proud of, --- if, as some say, it is connected to free will. I see free will as something we have naturally and not something that can be given.

Free will is something man takes. It cannot be given. It can only be forcibly denied.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
24-11-2014, 11:32 PM
Strictly speaking what is the use of faith, god, highe powers etc if they do not make any difference to life? just a waste of time in our precious short lives - maybe they survive to give hope to the hopeless and to those whom consider themselves hopeless

Rome would have perhaps needed that to keep the slaves in check as they outnumbered the Romans.

The idea that a God would die for a slave may be ridiculous to a free man, but to a slave with nothing, it might make him sheepishly serve and never rebel against his owner.

Rome was quite intelligent in using Christian lies if that was the case.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop
24-11-2014, 11:40 PM
I agree—He tolerates you (http://creation.com/why-death-suffering#_Free_will_defense?).

In Canada, we have laws that say if a man sits there and tolerates a crime without trying to prevent it, he is held culpable almost like an accessory would.

Would you sit back and do nothing while you could prevent a crime?

If not, why would you follow a God who would?

Regards
DL