Worship only counts if you base it on faith, not proof of god's existance?

by AdaMakawee 21 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AdaMakawee
    AdaMakawee

    I was reading an article online, about the upcoming Vatican ruling on a Shrine in the Balkins. The shrine is built in a place where people say the virgin mary has been appearing, and people have been going there in the hundreds of thousands sort of like the Lourdes thing. After the article, which supposes that the pope will rule that this is all from satan and meant to lead people away from the church, there were comments from people regarding the phenomena, the expected ruling, etc.

    This one caught my eye, because this person believes that worship only counts if it's based on faith of gods existance and not absolute proof of god's existance. Any thoughts on this, other than the guy's a crackpot? Here is his comment:

    One of the common theories put around concerning Medjugorije is that these manifestations are the work of Satan.

    One of the common responses is “Why would Satan do something which only reinforces faith in God?”

    The answer is obvious. God requires faith from his followers. Faith means you believe without evidence.

    If God were to provide direct evidence that he exists, there would be no need for faith. Because direct evidence would mean God is a fact, not a belief.

    Why believe something which is proven? You don’t need to *believe* something is true, because evidence means you *know* it is true.

    So why would Satan create these manifestations? Because it destroys faith. People think there is actual evidence god exists, so they no longer need faith.

    Those people who view the miracle might worship God. But they worship him because they saw *evidence* he exists. Not because they have faith he exists.

    And if people don’t have faith in God, where do they end up? You guessed it. Oblivion.

    So think. All those people going to see the manifestations, might just end up on the highway to hell courtesy of the deceiver’s clamshell tricks.

    I don’t know about you, but why would anyone want to risk their soul in such a way? True faith shouldn’t need proof anyway.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    The answer is obvious. God requires faith from his followers. Faith means you believe without evidence.

    This always puzzled me because we are instructed to 'Prove all things' at 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and then we're contrarily instructed to believe without evidence. This doesn't jive!

  • AdaMakawee
    AdaMakawee

    I wondered how he backs up that statement? Anyone know a scripture that says that? Is this a Catholic thing or true for all christians?

  • WTWizard
    WTWizard

    Anyone that claims that something only counts if you believe it without proof could well be pulling a scam. And that includes God Himself.

    People are supposed to believe that God exists, and that He is loving and wants the best out of us. This despite widespread evidence right from the Bible itself that God is nothing more than an Almighty Lowlife Scumbag. He has always been that way, and Satan saw right through Him. That's why Satan spoke up, at risk to his own life--he was entrusted in guarding mankind, and he did an exemplary job (too good for Jehovah, who turned out to be man's worst enemy). You see widespread cases of God killing people including babies in the Bible, for no reason other than minding their own business. Yet, you are supposed to love such a Being.

    Truth is, there is no absolute proof of God's existence. And, even if anyone could prove God exists, they would need to prove (without using specious arguments or circular reasoning) that He really has my best interests at heart and not just to pull off a scam. Virtually all the evidence I have ever seen is that God is always against me, and will fight tooth and nail to keep fulfillment out of my life and the system that is designed to prevent me from ever attracting the opposite sex in place and functioning in that capacity. Yet I am supposed to love that.

    While there is no absolute proof of God's existence, I believe there is sufficient evidence to positively rule out the existence of a LOVING God.

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    This highlights my entire view of what is wrong with 'faith'. Imbecilic to assume that we should 'believe' in preference to 'know' isn't it? Yet we see the debate here all the time. Believe is easy, when it is make-believe.

    Jeff

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    "When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer, superstition ain't the way" - Stevie Wonder

  • Narkissos
    Narkissos

    Seems like a new version of Douglas Adams' "Babelfish paradox" -- an absolute proof of God's existence would formally prove he doesn't exist... :)

    Seriously, this is a terrible reduction of the notion of "faith" or "belief" to its cognitive dimension; from this perspective "belief" stands closer to "opinion" than to "knowledge". However those notions are not mutually exclusive. In ordinary speech, you do not cease to believe something because you know it.

    More importantly imo, in the Bible there is much more to "faith/belief" (pistis) than this cognitive (or pseudo-cognitive) aspect: the (emotional? psychological?) dimension of trust. When people are said to "believe" in God, it doesn't mean they think God exists. It means they rely on him.

    The antithetical pairs are also interesting: faith is opposed to sight (as is hope); love is opposed to knowledge.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    As per hebrews, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

    Notice it doesn't say anything about no evidence or no proof.

    Thomas believed after he saw and he was with Jesus all the time, Jesus told him that "blessed are those that believe without seeing" and truly, to believe without seeing is a gift of the HS, but Jesus did miracles and appeared after his ressurection for a reason, even his apostles NEEDED to see.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Narkissos, I have questions about these two ideas you posted:

    : In ordinary speech, you do not cease to believe something because you know it.

    : When people are said to "believe" in God, it doesn't mean they think God exists. It means they rely on him.

    When something is known, such as 2+2 = 4 or the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, no faith / belief is necessary.

    Other ideas are assessments on known things, but are not provable. George W. Bush was the U.S.A. president for 8 years until 1/20/2009, this is fact. Was he one of the worst presidents in history? That is not provable or disprovable.

    Finally there are unprovable things/ideas such as deities and flying spaghetti monsters. People who believe raise what they think is evidence, such as creation and the effect such deity has had on their life. People who don't believe point to general injustice in this world, among other things.

    However, isn't it true that believers really think God exists? That is the essence of belief.

    Non-believers (and I acknowledge I am one) do not know whether he exists, but think the evidence of a God as described by religion (he cares, he takes sides in human disputes, etc.) is unlikely.

  • Gopher
    Gopher

    Psacramento, at the line where proof and evidence ceases, that's where faith begins. The Bible describes faith in terms of believing the unseen, and says it takes a special person to have the kind of faith that pleases God.

    If there were solid factual evidence (such as the Catholics looked for in the relics like the Shroud of Turin) for every item of faith, faith would no longer be necessary because the religions would be teaching only facts. But they cannot, because religions deal in the realm of the unseeable and unknowable -- and even in the historically unverifiable.

    It takes faith (and I'm not demeaning anyone who has faith, I'm just stating what my Christian girlfriend tells me) -- and that's what makes religion including Christianity what it is.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit