Monolithic Faith

Discussion in 'Religion, Beliefs and Spirituality' started by Postal Blowfish, Feb 11, 2011.

  1. #1 Postal Blowfish, Feb 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 11, 2011
    If you tell me your faith can never be challenged, you are a fool. It will always be challenged. If you tell me that it cannot fail, it is not really faith. The possibility must always exist for faith to fail or faith becomes certainty and is meaningless (to the faithful). Faith does not start with your birth, it is taught to you. That teaching can come from mortals, and if it does then you must always remember that. I do not know but I do have faith that faith can also come from a divine source and in that case you are justified in having it, but if you do not also accept that your faith may be delusion then again it becomes certainty and is meaningless.

    Because you are not born with faith, it cannot be monolithic and unchanging. You come upon it by some means, so if you suggest to me that once you have it you can never be without it, it sounds foolish to me. You didn't always have even the ability to understand it, so you cannot convince me that it is a permanent thing to humanity, yours or anyone else's, and besides - if it is a permanent thing given to you at birth, it misses its own point.

    I've had faith in god. I know what it means to interpret scripture generously to God, giving him responsibility mostly for the best things and leastly for the worst things. When I began to equalize the responsibility and give God universal responsibility for all things, I began to understand not only a hypocrisy in God and religion but in the followers of religion as well.

    Now I am told my religious life was a lie. It was a lie - I've said that - but my faith was genuine. I watch with interest as the flock of God divides itself, unaware of the blasphemy they are committing. They say their god is the best, or their practice is the best, and other practices are inferior. They read symbols out of prophecy and interpret them. They interpret the scripture. They dare speak for God?

    They can't have their cake and eat it too. Either they must follow their scripture word for word, or they must commit the blasphemy of telling others what God really meant when this or that was written. They give their god a bad name. They tell us that religion is petty, that their god is vain and selfish, and will punish those who believe but don't believe properly. They are the proof of the evil of blind obedience to an interpreted creed.

    Surely their god is kind enough to forgive them their transgressions, even if they interpret their law to suggest that it wouldn't.

    I sometimes look down even on myself for the crime of being too generous, but I have been thinking about it and I still quite like the notion that no one will be punished - not even those who commit God's worst crimes. These hypocrites who pretend that their "wisdom" is greater than that of others certainly won't be rewarded, regardless of what they think. For they do not even seem to understand the wrongness of their behavior and will be unable to find the humility to ask for forgiveness.

    If we are all God's Children, then a good god will not play favorites.
  2. I agree faith is not faith if it has no flaws or things to be questioned that would make it a fact.
  3. yeah so faith is thinking something is real when no facts are present. so couldnt you loosely translate faith to mean gullible or naive? cause we all know all religions a bunch of shit, even people who say they believe it deep down they must know its all nonsense.
  4. Hey Postal, you know I don't think I've seen anyone else on this site talk about God, religion, faith etc as much as you....I always wonder about ppl who talk so much about it, if they are seeking answers for themselves possibly? Or what, I mean you i just can't figure cause you really do talk about this topic alot and I may be wrong but i thought you were definately a non believer in God?

    I don't understand all that you had in your post, but i do understand the parts I left here and reposted. Yes we are not born with faith, we are all born the same, like with a clean slate, it is for each individual to decide if they want to even have faith in a God or not. As far as saying faith can fail, i don't like that word, I would say everyone's faith if they have it that tested. You either decide, to heck with it, I don't believe there is any higher power up there in control or not. Your faith can grow or diminish or be non existant. Faith to me in NO way can be a delusion, a delusion is believing in something that doesn't exist because you have a mental problem. No i don't think ppl across the world who believe there is some kind of God are mental cases, just simply a personal choice to have faith or not.

    Yes there can be hypocrisy in religion, in many kinds of religion, not because of God but because of what some ppl and religions do with it. We are not perfect down here, far from it, so many things can go crazy down here. I know some religions like to boast they are better than others, but you can't lump all ppl with faith and say we are like that, I don't think that way at all, i look at faith in God as a personal thing, following no one religion, to think that any one thing is better than another and judge others is human error and wrong, it isn't for any of us down here to judge anyone for any reason at all, so i do think that is wrong when it happens.

    But to think that God expects us to be perfect and follow every word, word for word how you said, good god, maybe a perfect saint could do that, but i've never heard of one. We are only human, doing the best we can do, the golden rule is one of the biggest rules that would be nice if everyone could follow, along with good morals, and trying not to harm your neighbor....we are all gonna fail and sin tho, it's expected, asking for forgivness and believing in God, whatever God you might follow, that is what I was taught are the 2 biggest things that will save you in the end. Again no one is perfect, that's why we ask for help and forgiveness when we fall.

    And no God doesn't play favorites, haha, thankfully, think i would be S.O.L. if that was the case.....
  5. #5 Postal Blowfish, Feb 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 16, 2011
    faith can be gullible, that does not mean it is always gullible.

    There are good reasons for it. The top one is that I'm inclined to think there could be a god, and I do not want to be deceived into placing my faith in the wrong supernatural being, or give the god a bad name by adopting exclusive beliefs. This is probably a latent desire from when I had faith before I started seeing the problems in religion.

    To imply that it can be tested also implies that it can persist or fail. You said faith cannot be a delusion, I think you might have misunderstood me. A delusion is the belief in something that isn't real (this probably simplifies the definition greatly). If you have faith in something that has no proof, then either your faith will eventually be justified or you are having a delusion. I'm not trying to say they're the always the same thing, but they can possibly be. In fact, if you have faith in a god that says all other gods do not exist, then it must be that all the other religions have faith in a delusion.

    Let me repeat this from another thread: I do not believe the nature of humanity is good or bad, but actually both. I think everyone is a hypocrite in some way, and I don't mean to imply that's a bad thing. You are correct, I have a habit of generalizing and simplifying things (otherwise no one would finish reading one :)). For example, I will often say "Religion is bad!" What I really mean is closer to "Exclusive Religion is bad!" I can try to include that word more often, if it would please you. My problem is the motive to divide that comes with exclusivity, not the idea of God.

    The golden rule is great, but it conflicts with the other rules. I actually prefer the silver rule ( That's a short read, but the gist is this: do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. Almost the same thing. The golden rule promotes positivity, the silver prohibits negativity. I would rather not do something to someone else I would consider right and they might consider wrong.

    I don't want to post to be contrary to your views, but if you're a Christian look at Deuteronomy. You're probably going to think no one should follow half of those rules, and I would have to then ask why should they exist at all then? The idea of a monolithic and unchanging faith is accountable for this. God should allow us to update the scripture so that it no longer contains laws that are barbaric to present day society, because it's fairly obvious that they were meant for an elder people. That, or we should follow those laws. I would not follow them myself, and I know the Catholic Church has edited its canon before.

  6. I don't know, something unfulfilling about the silver rule. It leaves us in a passive harmless state, I prefer a state filled with purpose that stands by my morals, values, logic, emotion, and convictions.

    I think happiness is achieved through doing good for others, not simply avoiding harm. Apathy can be just as cruel as harm, even though I know you're not implying watch someone die and standby; but you get my point. There has to be a drive towards good for happiness.

    Now obviously, neither is carved in stone. I personally believe objectively neither holds ground, but that doesn't mean your life's purpose shouldn't be carved subjectively and given meaning.
  7. "Morals." "Values." "Logic." "Emotion." "Convictions."

    Contradictions. Inventions meaningful to you, but are they meaningful to the rest of us?

    Probably not as much as you think.

    The golden rule allows people to preach to other people who do not want to hear it. You can say "I love my God, so I would love to hear the Good News, therefore I can pester my community about it!" Granted, you could also tell yourself "I would not want to be pestered about Islam, so I will not do preach God to someone without asking them first." You can do one or the other, but this second one would be the silver rule.

    I would agree for the most part that there is no overarching axiom for life.
  8. #8 rex8000, Feb 17, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 17, 2011
    Agreed about the overarching axiom, and from that I deduce and believe you should base the purpose and meaning in your life on what's subjectively meaningful to you.

    And people should be allowed to preach to others about what they believe, no matter how pestering it is. Because how about those beliefs and movements that are good? It has to be leveled. The golden rule allows for this by leveling the playing field and saying to do what you would have someone do to you, which is based on what you truly believe is right.

    Simply put, the golden rule allows for a more honest approach to what we can learn subjectively about life, morals, values, etc. And apply these things wholeheartedly, or not. And it allows for people to preach to others, so that others may learn. Even if they learn from the fact that the person preaching makes no sense to their personal logic and reason.
  9. We'll have to agree to disagree (unless we agree on what I am about to say):

    They are both useful. I suspect I might have brought up the silver rule so that it could be considered along side the golden rule.

    What is meaningful to me: hate no one, and avoid divisions. The latter piece is why I do not forget the silver rule.

  10. Yes, I take the opposing side so we can each enrich our own perspectives by glimpsing at each other's, and we can subsequently meet in the middle gradually and learn.

    Hating no one and avoiding divisions are meaningful to me, but I'd have to add sacrifice for others, personally.
  11. I forgot my new word, Community. In which, I take it to be implied that there would be some sacrifice.

  12. good post blowfish, iv always seen faith as more of a drive, like you said it does not arrive from birth but it gets inspired at a later time... when we get that inspiration its purpose is to drive us to find the truth of the matter, instead people tend to use it to cover up there doubts

    this line got me haha love it i always felt the same

    there is a reason its suppose to be the "Living word" its because someone can read a verse one day and get one message and read it another day and get another from it, there is not one interpritation for anything

    the Christian idea of a "Creed" was brought about by the Romans, The ancent Masters of Stealing other Cultures ideas

    take a look at juadism[where christianity has its true roots], they dont restrict the word of god to one interpritation, in fact they ENCORAGE discussion and debate on the meaning of scripture....

    the only wrong belief is a belief your not willing to rationalize

    Tao verse 76:
    Men are born soft and supple;
    dead, they are stiff and hard.
    Plats are born tender and pliant;
    dead, they are brittle and dry.

    Thus whoever is stiff and inflexible
    is a disciple of death.
    Whoever is soft and yielding
    is a disciple of life.

    The hard and stiff will be broken.
    The soft and supple will prevail.
  13. Daodejing knocked me off my feet. My life formed lessons for me before I even read it, and I mean right before I read it. I was having thoughts like "the whole truth cannot be told," and "to succeed, embrace failure." That thought about the truth is right there in the very first line. What a smashing coincidence! And the other thought is right in line with many of the notions that follow.

    The Way that can be known is not a constant Way.

    It was there even before I was ready for it, made itself known to me effortlessly, and continues to be useful after I found the book that had this idea. The entire first chapter cut deep into me. I suddenly feel a strong desire to learn to read Chinese language.
  14. haha that is crazy! i remember the first day i read the Tao te Ching , i later looked up Lao Tzus birthday and it was the exact day i had first read it

    haha i found that alil bit of a coincidence, yours is cooler though i say lol
  15. Is there an actual birthday? I studied the work for my Chinese philosophy class, and the secondary reference I have noted that it's often considered a consolidated work. It means "the old master," right? That name even suggests the author(s) are unknown.
  16. lol yeah its a matter of debate whether he was real, i like to believe he was thou

    i was googling "Taoist Holidays" and it had his birthday as one, my guess is that the more religous taoist follows in chinese history gave him a birthday to mark on the calander just out of patronage, kinda like christians did with jesus
  17. Interesting, I wonder when that happened. I have only studied Confucian thinkers so far, but this sort of ritual propriety would have interested them. On the other hand, I take it from the Daodejing it may not have interested Laozi at all.
  18. haha yeah, Taosim got very very superfical at a point in history, it was all about government positions, alchemy [the alixer of immortality] and other bullshit things

    but at the same time always was the hermits in the forest perserving the true flame

Share This Page