A question for christians #2

[posthuman]

erm, what the difference between "real" and "fake" doubt is, i am not sure.

i doubt there is a difference - "really" - and seeing that stabbo is banned i "doubt" i will hear an explanation. again, "really"

 

[Human]

But not enough to give me a straight answer?

That tells me more than I'm happy to know.

To be honest with you Elin, whether he is Christian or not is absolutely irrelevant to whether you could have answered his question or not. He asked a direct question, regarding your Christians beliefs, and regarding anyone else's who wished to answer. He asked whether a Christian person can differentiate between what are genuine and valid doubts and what are doubts instilled by ''the devil'' -- you knew he wasn't Christian and you could have answered that question from a Christian persepctive, to enlighten him as to whether a Christian could genuinely differentiate between the doubts Satan causes and helpful doubts, if of course Satan's purpose is to deceive.

You asked if he was Christian because you assumed his question was motivated to mock your faith and make it deliberately difficult for you to answer without it seeming like the idea of being vigilant for doubts when Satan actually causes doubts and deceives was silly.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the silliness of that concept is why he wanted to understand both why you accept the concept and if there is a logical alternative way to view the dilemma that he hadn't previously thought of? No, you shut his search for information out by asking if he was in your clan, because of juvenile offence, born out of some idea that asking difficult questions shouldn't be allowed, like it's heretical to ask them.

Why is it offensive and disallowed and heretical to ask difficult questions?

I can hear your answer Elin, the silence of it making it even louder, ''because it just is''.

It's the same attitude the church and clergy have often had for hundreds of years and it's the very same reason that rational people asking genuine questions have little time for the church. We have to spend so much effort padding the egos of congregation and clergy, so much time phrasing and rephrasing questions over and over until eventually we realize, you simply don't want to answer them in a genuine, rationalistic way. It's because you don't have a rational answer, and when you don't have a rational answer it reminds you of the weak spot in your conviction.

That weak spot already existed long before Stabbo came here, though. It's not his fault it does. He isn't the reason for it. The reason for it is that you've already asked these questions yourself, in your own mind, and you, like Stabbo, failed to find a genuinely rational answer.

So it's heresy to ask them, now. Only people who are already part of the club and already accept, like you, that some questions shouldn't be asked, have the authority to ask those questions. What an irony! That's why you asked if he was Christian, and how he came to be one. You asked because you knew he wasn't Christian. If he was Christian, he wouldn't ask the question, just like you don't ask the questions anymore -- just like you don't allow them to be asked.

 

[GuitarPraise]

Say that the doubts that cause people to stop them from speeding does that debunk your statement, or does it still stand under some condition.

Doubts don't stop people from speeding. Believing that you could harm yourself or someone else would cause you to obey the speed limits. However if you doubt it will effect anyone you may choose to speed.

 

[Human]

Doubts don't stop people from speeding. Believing that you could harm yourself or someone else would cause you to obey the speed limits. However if you doubt it will effect anyone you may choose to speed.

Doubt can be applied to positive and to negative outcomes, and from positive and negative motives.

For instance, I can say ''I doubt it would be healthy to speed, seeing as there are children in the road''. I can also say ''I am sure it would not be healthy to speed''.

The first is doubt. The second is conviction. The result is exactly the same.

 

[Elin]

To be honest with you Elin, whether he is Christian or not is absolutely irrelevant to whether you could have answered his question or not. He asked a direct question, regarding your Christians beliefs, and regarding anyone else's who wished to answer. He asked whether a Christian person can differentiate between what are genuine and valid doubts and what are doubts instilled by ''the devil'' --
you knew he wasn't Christian

Are you sure about that?

and you could have answered that question from a Christian persepctive, to enlighten him as to whether a Christian could genuinely differentiate between the doubts Satan causes and helpful doubts, if of course Satan's purpose is to deceive.

You asked if he was Christian because you assumed his question was motivated to mock your faith

And you know this how?

You betray your inability to get outside your constricted paradigm which sees human reason as the source of all truth.

and make it deliberately difficult for you to answer without it seeming like the idea of being vigilant for doubts when Satan actually causes doubts and deceives was silly.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the silliness of that concept is why he wanted to understand both why you accept the concept and if there is a logical alternative way to view the dilemma that he hadn't previously thought of? No, you shut his search for information out by asking if he was in your clan, because of juvenile offence, born out of some idea that asking difficult questions shouldn't be allowed, like it's heretical to ask them.

Why is it offensive and disallowed and heretical to ask difficult questions?

I can hear your answer Elin, the silence of it making it even louder,
''because it just is''.

Are you sure about that?

You've got an active imagination. . .I'll give you that.

It's the same attitude the church and clergy have often had for hundreds of years and it's the very same reason that
rational people asking genuine questions have little time for the church.

Is there some question that I could perhaps help you with?

We have to spend so much effort padding the egos of congregation and clergy, so much time phrasing and rephrasing questions over and over until eventually we realize,
you simply don't want to answer them in a genuine, rationalistic way. It's because you don't have a rational answer, and when you don't have a rational answer it reminds you of the weak spot in your conviction.

Or. . .perhaps it's because their problem is not lack of rational answers,
their problem is lack of faith, which rational answers cannot remedy.

Answers from the domain of faith will not satisfy questions from the limited domain of human reason.

That weak spot already existed long before Stabbo came here, though. It's not his fault it does. He isn't the reason for it.
The reason for it is that you've already asked these questions yourself, in your own mind, and you, like Stabbo,
failed to find a genuinely rational answer.

Are you sure about that?

Your limited paradigm views all truth as based in human reason.

So it's heresy to ask them, now. Only people who are already part of the club and already accept, like you, that some questions shouldn't be asked, have the authority to ask those questions. What an irony! That's why you asked if he was Christian, and how he came to be one.
You asked because you knew he wasn't Christian.

Are you sure about that?

If he was Christian, he wouldn't ask the question, just like you don't ask the questions anymore -- just like
you don't allow them to be asked.

Are you of the opinion that Christians owe him an answer that satisfies his reason, that
he has a right to such, and that he is being unjustly deprived of his right?

Your tone reflects a sense of injustice.

So what question would you like answered that is not being answered?

 

[Elin]

It would really be helpful in understanding your situation if you shared with us how you came to be a Christian and baptized as you say you have.

Elin I love you for chasing me around these threads, making inquisitive comments.

But not enough to give me a straight answer?

That tells me more than I'm happy to know.

eventually we realize you simply don't want to answer them in a genuine, rationalistic way.
It's because you don't have a rational answer, and when you don't have a rational answer
it reminds you of the weak spot in your conviction.

"What we have here is a failure to communicate". . .between the caterpillar and the butterfly.

There are aspects of butterfly reality that cannot be "rationally" explained in caterpillar terms nor
to the caterpillar's satisfaction, because some aspects of butterfly reality do not exist in
caterpillar reality (flight, for example), which causes no small amount of frustration on the part
of the caterpillar, disrupting and causing enmity in many a caterpillar-butterfly relationship.

And until the caterpillar is transformed (metamorphisis, Ro 12:2--metamorphoo) into a butterfly,
he cannot understand all butterfly reality.

So the caterpillar thinks, based on caterpillar reality, that the butterfly does not give him
"satisfactory" answers because of the butterfly's dishonesty and failure to deal with caterpillar truth,
which truth the caterpillar sees as the basis of all reality.

Only when he is transformed into a butterfly will the caterpillar understand and
cease to be frustrated by the butterfly's answers.

So my response to stabbo was to determine if ever he actually were a butterfly, as he thought he was,
which would explain why butterfly reality was not "rational" to him.

And I gather that you, likewise, are a caterpillar.

 

[MultilingualMessenger]

To be honest with you Elin, whether he is Christian or not is absolutely irrelevant to whether you could have answered his question or not. He asked a direct question, regarding your Christians beliefs, and regarding anyone else's who wished to answer. He asked whether a Christian person can differentiate between what are genuine and valid doubts and what are doubts instilled by ''the devil'' -- you knew he wasn't Christian and you could have answered that question from a Christian persepctive, to enlighten him as to whether a Christian could genuinely differentiate between the doubts Satan causes and helpful doubts, if of course Satan's purpose is to deceive.

You asked if he was Christian because you assumed his question was motivated to mock your faith and make it deliberately difficult for you to answer without it seeming like the idea of being vigilant for doubts when Satan actually causes doubts and deceives was silly.

Did you ever consider that perhaps the silliness of that concept is why he wanted to understand both why you accept the concept and if there is a logical alternative way to view the dilemma that he hadn't previously thought of? No, you shut his search for information out by asking if he was in your clan, because of juvenile offence, born out of some idea that asking difficult questions shouldn't be allowed, like it's heretical to ask them.

Why is it offensive and disallowed and heretical to ask difficult questions?

I can hear your answer Elin, the silence of it making it even louder, ''because it just is''.

It's the same attitude the church and clergy have often had for hundreds of years and it's the very same reason that rational people asking genuine questions have little time for the church. We have to spend so much effort padding the egos of congregation and clergy, so much time phrasing and rephrasing questions over and over until eventually we realize, you simply don't want to answer them in a genuine, rationalistic way. It's because you don't have a rational answer, and when you don't have a rational answer it reminds you of the weak spot in your conviction.

That weak spot already existed long before Stabbo came here, though. It's not his fault it does. He isn't the reason for it. The reason for it is that you've already asked these questions yourself, in your own mind, and you, like Stabbo, failed to find a genuinely rational answer.

So it's heresy to ask them, now. Only people who are already part of the club and already accept, like you, that some questions shouldn't be asked, have the authority to ask those questions. What an irony! That's why you asked if he was Christian, and how he came to be one. You asked because you knew he wasn't Christian. If he was Christian, he wouldn't ask the question, just like you don't ask the questions anymore -- just like you don't allow them to be asked.

You got all that from what she said? Goodness gracious. You sound like you were waiting to be offended and pounce and it could have been anyone.

I genuinely hope that peace enters your soul. Stat.

To the OP (even though he is gone, but maybe someone else reading has the same question), I think the issue is in the use of the word "doubt". I've heard of doubt being the opposite of faith, and I've heard of doubt being the enabler of faith, such that without doubt, leaving only certainty, there would be no faith. If you're going with the definition of doubt as the opposite of faith (or a lack of faith, if you will), then I think that would imply negative doubt, which would likely come from Satan, as he wouldn't want you to have faith. Also keep in mind that God tested people's faith. Think of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. That was a test. Since Abraham trusted that God would provide, he passed that test. So in that way, I'd say that faith is trust beyond doubt. That doubt (which could have led one to fail a test from God) would be negative.

I think that the idea that faith requires doubt comes from knowing that we have faith in things unseen, whereas if those things were plainly seen by everyone, there would never be doubt, but never quite faith either (there would just be knowledge of things seen). Doubt that enables faith, in the sense that we know and see just enough for it to be a decision of our own will to believe, is a good thing. It allows us to exercise our free will to choose to have faith, or not. If everything was given, there would likely be no non-believers (or at least, only those cynical beyond reason would be non-believers), and if absolutely nothing was given, there would likely be no believers. So in that sense, some given with a little mystery and the belief in that mystery, that faith-enabling doubt, would be positive. Satan wouldn't give that, because again, he doesn't want you to have faith.

This is the way I understand the matter. I hope this helps!

 

[Human]

Are you sure about that?


And you know this how?

You betray your inability to get outside your constricted paradigm which sees human reason as the source of all truth.


Are you sure about that?

You've got an active imagination. . .I'll give you that.


Is there some question that I could perhaps help you with?


Or. . .perhaps it's because their problem is not lack of rational answers,
their problem is lack of faith, which rational answers cannot remedy.

Answers from the domain of faith will not satisfy questions from the limited domain of human reason.


Are you sure about that?

Your limited paradigm views all truth as based in human reason.


Are you sure about that?


Are you of the opinion that Christians owe him an answer that satisfies his reason, that
he has a right to such, and that he is being unjustly deprived of his right?

Your tone reflects a sense of injustice.

So what question would you like answered that is not being answered?

Nobody owes anybody else anything. The point here isn't about objectively defining the debt of information that one person may or may not owe someone else. it's about you stifling discussion because you, like Stabbo, couldn't find a satisfactory answer to the questions asked.

Why else would you avoid his question and infer he doesn't deserve to ask it?

lol.

Denial.

 

[Human]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate". . .between the caterpillar and the butterfly.

There are aspects of butterfly reality that cannot be "rationally" explained in caterpillar terms nor
to the caterpillar's satisfaction, because some aspects of butterfly reality do not exist in
caterpillar reality (flight, for example), which causes no small amount of frustration on the part
of the caterpillar, disrupting and causing enmity in many a caterpillar-butterfly relationship.

And until the caterpillar is transformed (metamorphisis, Ro 12:2--metamorphoo) into a butterfly,
he cannot understand all butterfly reality.

So the caterpillar thinks, based on caterpillar reality, that the butterfly does not give him
"satisfactory" answers because of the butterfly's dishonesty and failure to deal with caterpillar truth,
which truth the caterpillar sees as the basis of all reality.

Only when he is transformed into a butterfly will the caterpillar understand and
cease to be frustrated by the butterfly's answers.

So my response to stabbo was to determine if ever he actually were a butterfly, as he thought he was,
which would explain why butterfly reality was not "rational" to him.

And I gather that you, likewise, are a caterpillar.

Childish nonsensical explanations to avoid the question, because YOU don't even properly understand ''butterfly reality'', which is why you can't answer it! You didn't even try.

He wanted a direct answer. That could have been given from whatever perspective you decided to answer it. You could have just given him one instead of beating around the bush.

 

[PeterJens]

The first question you need to answer is what is doubt?
A sin is an action that hurts another, causes harm, is unjustified etc. Doubt is a function of understanding. There are 6 stages to communication. What is meant to be said, what is said, what this actually means, what is heard, what is thought to have been heard, what is thought to be the meaning of what is heard.
Now at each stage of the process corrections, comparisons have to be made. Doubt is the point at which things in your model of your understanding does not make sense and needs resolving. Without such a process you would never grow up, learn new things, or refine your understanding. So rather than doubt being evil it is the confirmation of what is real and what is not. The problem is this change is also challenging because it suggests we got something wrong. Well duh!!! We are mortal sinners after all, so until we are like the Lord, which we will never be, we will always suffer from our limitations, but need to depend on His inspiration and love to help guide us through.
So be very carefull to label ideas and their source before you understand what is being said and you "know" the reality.....

 

[Richie_2uk]

Ok that helps.

We all have doubts right, now most of us take our doubts seriously because they warn us of things. What my OP is asking, is if satan can also cause christians to have doubts about things to, how does the christian know whats a legitimate doubt and whats not.

Doubt is doubt no matter who caused it or what prompted you or who started it. When we doubt as a Christian, I'm sorry to say this, which may cause people to react against it to disagree. but when we doubt, there is something not right in our Christian walk. By that I mean there is something of a weakness. and its that what the devil attacks. A strong Christian give no leaniance to the devil influences. But a weak christian has many open door for the devil to sneak in and attack. Doubt is a very big problem in our Christian walk. It is something we really need to look close at. Because if you allow God to close that door of doubt, the devil will have less impact on our weakness. Look how even the appostles doubted Jesus even when Jesus showed many miracles and signs and wonders right in front of there eyes, they still doubted him even then.

Luke 24:38
And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? Even in the time of Jesus the world had doubts, so its been a huge problem since then. and still is today.

To get to teh root problem of it in your own lives, I think you need to say to God, look there is doubt somewere in my heart, only you can show me were it is so that I can ask you in faith and belief to get rid of it for good, and fill that hole with your wisdom. God knows we can't do it ourselves, hence why the problem stil exist today probably more worse than in the time of Jesus. To know what is legit or not is not the question, the question should be how do we recognise the devil's influence of doubt gets in our hearts and were that open door of doubt. That needs to be closed.

 

[PeterJens]

Doubt being described here is doubt Jesus is the Son of God, that God exists, that God cares. There is a christian sub culture of language which is often not spoken but assumed. These kind of doubts are the foundation of why you believe. Jesus wants you to know he is the Son of God, He did rise from the Dead, and love does conquer all. Oddly a lot of "christians" discover they are christians in name but not substance, or by culture, or choice due to circumstance. Jesus talked about this in the parable of the seed and sower. What will embed you in Jesus is knowing who and what he teaches. Yes the enemy will use circumstance and problems to cause you to doubt Gods care, his meaning in your life, the desire to follow when it is so much more easy to give up. But for those who are called, those who are children of the Kingdom all his efforts just make us stronger, teach us the Lord delivers. What is eternal are the acts of love you do for others, that have significance, not how many people come to the Lord, or how important you are, or how you are recognised, or how much you earn, or who you manage. Once the enemy gets you distracted, you can become weak, but you need not be so. Look up and see the Lord who died for you....

 

[Elin]

"What we have here is a failure to communicate". . .between the caterpillar and the butterfly.

There are aspects of butterfly reality that cannot be "rationally" explained in caterpillar terms nor
to the caterpillar's satisfaction, because
some aspects of butterfly reality do not exist in caterpillar reality (flight, for example), which causes no small amount of frustration on the part of the caterpillar, disrupting and causing enmity in many a caterpillar-butterfly relationship.

And until the caterpillar is transformed (metamorphisis, Ro 12:2--metamorphoo) into a butterfly, he cannot understand all butterfly reality.

So the caterpillar thinks, based on caterpillar reality, that the butterfly does not give him "satisfactory" answers because of the butterfly's dishonesty and failure to deal with caterpillar truth, which truth the caterpillar sees as the basis of all reality.

Only when he is transformed into a butterfly will the caterpillar understand and cease to be frustrated by the butterfly's answers.

So my response to stabbo was to determine if ever he actually were a butterfly, as he thought he was, which would explain why butterfly reality was not "rational" to him.

And I gather that you, likewise, are a caterpillar.

Childish nonsensical explanations to avoid the question, because
YOU don't even properly understand ''butterfly reality'', which is why you can't answer it!
You didn't even try.

Caterpillars, because they do not understand butterfly reality, are in no position to make such evaluation.

He wanted a direct answer. That could have been given from whatever perspective you decided to answer it.
You could have just given him one instead of beating around the bush.

He wanted a direct answer in caterpillar terms regarding butterfly reality.

Likewise, you assume that I agree with his premise, and should answer accordingly.

Add to that, not all butterfly reality can be explained in caterpillar terms.

You are a good demonstration of this very analogy in the "childish nonsense."

This is the kind of response I expect from caterpillars.

 

[Elin]

Nobody owes anybody else anything.
The point here isn't about objectively defining the debt of information that one person may or may not owe someone else. it's about
you stifling discussion because you, like Stabbo, couldn't find a satisfactory answer to the questions asked.

Why else would you avoid his question and infer he doesn't deserve to ask it?

It's not about deserving, it's about capacity to understand.

This one can be understood only from the inside of butterfly reality, which caterpillars are not.

lol.

Denial.

Well, let's give it a try and see how well you do.

First of all, unanswered questions about Scripture are not doubts.
One wonders how such things can be true until their questions are answered, but that is not doubt.
That is simply the curve of understanding.

There were many things I did not understand or see how they could be true until I studied the Scriptures, which by the Holy Spirit gave me the understanding I was seeking.

However, doubts about the veracity of Scripture are something else, and are due to an unregenerate disposition.

The newly regenerated will have many questions and lack much understanding,
but they don't doubt the truth of Scripture, they just don't understand the truth it presents.
The more they come to understand through the Holy Spirit, the fewer questions they have
and the more solidly they are established in understanding their faith.

Doubts about the veracity of Scripture occur in those who are not regenerated, even though
they make a profession of faith. They do not have the disposition of the regenerate, their
hearts are not really disposed or prepared to receive the word as divine truth, its impression
on them is not deep and durable because they have no root of rebirth,
no living source--no eternal life, within them.

Transformation (metamorphoo--Ro 12:2) from unregenerate (caterpillar) to regenerate (butterfly)
is the only way not to have doubts about the veracity of Scripture.

So the answer to the question of how one knows if doubts are "legitimate" or "illegitimate" is:
all doubts of the veracity of Scripture are due to the unbelief of the unregenerate, and have no
bearing on the Scriptures themselves.

And keeping in mind that answers to all questions regarding understanding the Scriptures depends
first of all on walking in faith and obedience (Jn 7:17).

So our obedience is the first thing we should check if we have doubts about the veracity of Scripture.

 

[Human]

It's not about deserving, it's about capacity to understand.

This one can be understood only from the inside of butterfly reality, which caterpillars are not.


Well, let's give it a try and see how well you do.

First of all, unanswered questions about Scripture are not doubts.
One wonders how such things can be true until their questions are answered, but that is not doubt.
That is simply the curve of understanding.

There were many things I did not understand or see how they could be true until I studied the Scriptures, which by the Holy Spirit gave me the understanding I was seeking.

However, doubts about the veracity of Scripture are something else, and are due to an unregenerate disposition.

The newly regenerated will have many questions and lack much understanding,
but they don't doubt the truth of Scripture, they just don't understand the truth it presents.
The more they come to understand through the Holy Spirit, the fewer questions they have
and the more solidly they are established in understanding their faith.

Doubts about the veracity of Scripture occur in those who are not regenerated, even though
they make a profession of faith. They do not have the disposition of the regenerate, their
hearts are not really disposed or prepared to receive the word as divine truth, its impression
on them is not deep and durable because they have no root of rebirth,
no living source--no eternal life, within them.

Transformation (metamorphoo--Ro 12:2) from unregenerate (caterpillar) to regenerate (butterfly)
is the only way not to have doubts about the veracity of Scripture.

So the answer to the question of how one knows if doubts are "legitimate" or "illegitimate" is:
all doubts of the veracity of Scripture are due to the unbelief of the unregenerate, and have no
bearing on the Scriptures themselves.

And keeping in mind that answers to all questions regarding understanding the Scriptures depends
first of all on walking in faith and obedience (Jn 7:17).

So our obedience is the first thing we should check if we have doubts about the veracity of Scripture.

There's a term coined many years ago for what you describe here. It's called ''blind faith''.

 

[MultilingualMessenger]

There's a term coined many years ago for what you describe here. It's called ''blind faith''.

It's not blind if they can see.

 

[Human]

It's not blind if they can see.

''Seeing'' is a metaphorical concept in the bible for ''recognizing'' or ''understanding''. If you believe, but don't comprehend, then you believe without comprehension, without understanding. That is ''blind belief''.

I believe evolution because it has evidence, I comprehend it, I recognize it, I'm enlightened to it. I believe the sky is blue, because I ''see'' it. Regarding the question at the beginning of this thread, people here ''believe'' that watching out for the devil's doubts is warranted, yet they don't understand why or how one can look out for the devil's doubts if the devil is that author of doubt and all doubt. How can you know if something is a bad doubt or a good doubt, if the devil is the author of doubt itself?

That can't really be answered to a level where there is consistent comprehension, yet people still believe, without understanding it, that one should beware doubt.They believe it without understanding it, and that is the very definition of blind faith.

It's like people in Europe believing in the bible even though it was written in Latin and read in Latin and they spoke English and couldn't read it or understand it. But they believed it, whether through fear of social or public reprisal or whether through the fact that it was the cultural norm or whether through conditioning and brainwashing or perhaps they just pretended to believe in order to avoid a flogging, who knows? But their belief wasn't based on any understanding.

And considering the context of the question at hand, neither is your's.

You guys accept the contradictions and explain them away with ''all will be revealed in the end'', but the contradiction and conflicts still remain. You believe, blindly, without any evidence, that ''all will be revealed in the end'', you believe that atheists like me somehow can't understand this notion, we are just ''caterpillars'' and you are ''butterflies'' and the idea of faith is beyond our comprehension, but in fact I understand the notion perfectly well. It is not that faith is beyond our comprehension, it is that the idea of faith lies firmly within our comprehension. It is the acceptance of faith regardless of reason that we do not accept -- that does not mean that we do not understand what faith is. It is not doubt of faith or ignorance of faith that leads me to deny the validity of the JudeoChristian God, it is understanding of ''faith'' that does so.

I understand perfectly well. You believe so blindly in your faith that you consider that blindness -- your willful acceptance of contradictions and unanswered questions -- to have brought you to a metamorphosed state of understanding beyond natural human reason. But it is not from beyond human reason that you believe, it is from lack of human reason that you believe.

That is the pinnacle of ''blind faith''.

 

[Elin]

Well, let's give it a try and see how well you do.

First of all, unanswered questions about Scripture are not doubts.
One wonders how such things can be true until their questions are answered, but that is not doubt.
That is simply the curve of understanding.

There were many things I did not understand or see how they could be true until I studied the Scriptures, which by the Holy Spirit gave me the understanding I was seeking.

However, doubts about the veracity of Scripture are something else, and are due to an unregenerate disposition.

The newly regenerated will have many questions and lack much understanding,
but they don't doubt the truth of Scripture, they just don't understand the truth it presents.
The more they come to understand through the Holy Spirit, the fewer questions they have
and the more solidly they are established in understanding their faith.

Doubts about the veracity of Scripture occur in those who are not regenerated, even though
they make a profession of faith. They do not have the disposition of the regenerate, their
hearts are not really disposed or prepared to receive the word as divine truth, its impression
on them is not deep and durable because they have no root of rebirth,
no living source--no eternal life, within them.

Transformation (metamorphoo--Ro 12:2) from unregenerate (caterpillar) to regenerate (butterfly)
is the only way not to have doubts about the veracity of Scripture.

So the answer to the question of how one knows if doubts are "legitimate" or "illegitimate" is:
all doubts of the veracity of Scripture are due to the unbelief of the unregenerate, and have no
bearing on the Scriptures themselves.

And keeping in mind that answers to all questions regarding understanding the Scriptures depends
first of all on walking in faith and obedience (Jn 7:17).

So our obedience is the first thing we should check if we have doubts about the veracity of Scripture.

There's a term coined many years ago for what you describe here. It's called ''blind faith''.

That's simply "caterpillar talk". . .spoken like a true caterpillar.

In butterfly reality, "blind faith" the result of rebirth by the Holy Spirit into eternal life,
which gives one the gift of faith (Php 1:29; 2Pe 1:1; Ac 18:27; Ro 12:3).

And you have just demonstrated why I did not answer the trolls' question.
He is a caterpillar. . .and cannot understand butterfly reality.

 

[MultilingualMessenger]

''Seeing'' is a metaphorical concept in the bible for ''recognizing'' or ''understanding''. If you believe, but don't comprehend, then you believe without comprehension, without understanding. That is ''blind belief''.

I believe evolution because it has evidence, I comprehend it, I recognize it, I'm enlightened to it. I believe the sky is blue, because I ''see'' it. Regarding the question at the beginning of this thread, people here ''believe'' that watching out for the devil's doubts is warranted, yet they don't understand why or how one can look out for the devil's doubts if the devil is that author of doubt and all doubt. How can you know if something is a bad doubt or a good doubt, if the devil is the author of doubt itself?

That can't really be answered to a level where there is consistent comprehension, yet people still believe, without understanding it, that one should beware doubt.They believe it without understanding it, and that is the very definition of blind faith.

*It's like people in Europe believing in the bible even though it was written in Latin and read in Latin and they spoke English and couldn't read it or understand it. But they believed it, whether through fear of social or public reprisal or whether through the fact that it was the cultural norm or whether through conditioning and brainwashing or perhaps they just pretended to believe in order to avoid a flogging, who knows? But their belief wasn't based on any understanding.

And considering the context of the question at hand, neither is your's.

You guys accept the contradictions and explain them away with ''all will be revealed in the end'', but the contradiction and conflicts still remain. You believe, blindly, without any evidence, that ''all will be revealed in the end'', you believe that atheists like me somehow can't understand this notion, we are just ''caterpillars'' and you are ''butterflies'' and the idea of faith is beyond our comprehension, but in fact I understand the notion perfectly well. It is not that faith is beyond our comprehension, it is that the idea of faith lies firmly within our comprehension. It is the acceptance of faith regardless of reason that we do not accept -- that does not mean that we do not understand what faith is. It is not doubt of faith or ignorance of faith that leads me to deny the validity of the JudeoChristian God, it is understanding of ''faith'' that does so.

I understand perfectly well. You believe so blindly in your faith that you consider that blindness -- your willful acceptance of contradictions and unanswered questions -- to have brought you to a metamorphosed state of understanding beyond natural human reason. But it is not from beyond human reason that you believe, it is from lack of human reason that you believe.

That is the pinnacle of ''blind faith''.

So I've re-read my response to the OP, which is here for your reference:

To the OP (even though he is gone, but maybe someone else reading has the same question), I think the issue is in the use of the word "doubt". I've heard of doubt being the opposite of faith, and I've heard of doubt being the enabler of faith, such that without doubt, leaving only certainty, there would be no faith. If you're going with the definition of doubt as the opposite of faith (or a lack of faith, if you will), then I think that would imply negative doubt, which would likely come from Satan, as he wouldn't want you to have faith. Also keep in mind that God tested people's faith. Think of Abraham and his willingness to sacrifice Isaac. That was a test. Since Abraham trusted that God would provide, he passed that test. So in that way, I'd say that faith is trust beyond doubt. That doubt (which could have led one to fail a test from God) would be negative.

I think that the idea that faith requires doubt comes from knowing that we have faith in things unseen, whereas if those things were plainly seen by everyone, there would never be doubt, but never quite faith either (there would just be knowledge of things seen). Doubt that enables faith, in the sense that we know and see just enough for it to be a decision of our own will to believe, is a good thing. It allows us to exercise our free will to choose to have faith, or not. If everything was given, there would likely be no non-believers (or at least, only those cynical beyond reason would be non-believers), and if absolutely nothing was given, there would likely be no believers. So in that sense, some given with a little mystery and the belief in that mystery, that faith-enabling doubt, would be positive. Satan wouldn't give that, because again, he doesn't want you to have faith.

This is the way I understand the matter. I hope this helps!

And nowhere do I see evidence of blind faith.

So why are you writing of my "willful acceptance of contradictions and unanswered questions"? You know nothing of my mental processes. We Christians have been commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37). You may be surprised to find that I personally take that "with all your mind" part very seriously. We are to seek information, not reject it, and make a decision to love God consistently. That takes mindful consideration.

You're being a bit of a hypocrite. You say you believe evolution because it has evidence, you comprehend it, you recognize it, and you're enlightened to it, and that you believe the sky is blue, because you ''see'' it. This is the same reasoning that people have argued about God's voice, His work in the world, miracles, deliverance, Satan's influence and other matters of faith. But you will not concede those--conclusions backed up by the same reasoning: experience. Then you criticize religious people for having what you see as blind faith, but then don't take too kindly to the fact that we don't drop everything and believe you and yield to your "better" reasoning. Blind faith is bad unless we have blind faith in you. Talk about contradiction.

The fundamental problem at the base of your entire argument is that you seem to have a default of denial of any religious person's account of their experiences. You want to talk about faith and understand it, but yet you discount what those who actually have faith have to say on the faulty basis that there is no reasoning in faith, since you do not understand the reasoning. And since you do not understand it, nobody understands it, even those who gave it. That "I don't see it, so it's not there" mentality. Frankly, that is a foolish and arrogant way of thinking. You believe, as an atheist, that you know more about theism than theists, and consequently, that you know more about not just what theists believe but how they believe it. You presume to know more about believing in God than people who believe in God. How arrogant to speak on the mental and spiritual processes of another. What you are doing, is speaking for a group of people with the purpose of speaking against that same group of people. How simple it must be to argue against an opponent you've created yourself that conveniently has weak spots in all the areas in which you are strong. You don't get a cookie for that.

Honestly, I think you want faith to be blind and sans reason. Because if you concede that faith and reason can not only coexist, but thrive together, then you'd have to concede that faithful people are not the blithering idiots you think they are. You'd have to concede that people come to a decision of faith, the basis of their lives, on more than a whim. You reject everyone's reasoning not because you don't understand it, but because you don't want to understand it because you want to believe that people have faith without reason, and that you, being the sole reasonable one, must be above faith. You don't want to dig any deeper because you're afraid of finding that the reasoning of faithful people is (gasp!) reasonable, because that would shatter your blind belief in the blindness of belief.

You're obviously quite capable of reasoning. I just genuinely hope that you use your reasoning ability to reason that others too can reason.



*Though it's not the most important part of this post, I just want to comment that Europe has many, many languages, of which English is but one, and a number of said languages have Latin roots--not to mention that people can and have studied Latin. Not that everyone understood it, but I found this example a bit faulty in itself, on top of it not being quite analogous to the question.

 

[Human]

So I've re-read my response to the OP, which is here for your reference:
And nowhere do I see evidence of blind faith.

So why are you writing of my "willful acceptance of contradictions and unanswered questions"? You know nothing of my mental processes.

Tell me how an all loving God torturing souls for eternity is not a contradiction with two diametrically opposing linguistic terms, then we'll talk.

We Christians have been commanded to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).

It's self fulfilling. You are commanded to believe or threatened with torture, so you do what is commanded and attempt to believe. You attempt to believe fully because you are commanded to believe fully and anything contrary you discard because you must believe. Your belief is circular, self-validating, not of rational deduction.

You may be surprised to find that I personally take that "with all your mind" part very seriously. We are to seek information, not reject it, and make a decision to love God consistently. That takes mindful consideration.

I seek information, constantly. That is why I'm at university, that's why I do anything really. I, like you, ask big questions. ''Is there a God'', ''Is this what we're here for?'' Everyone asks these. And as I ask these I realize that as humans on this tiny planet in the middle of an entire universe, we are disconnected; we are impotent in the face of the scale of the cosmos, and so we look to the sky, see the rain, and ask ''what's the purpose?''

But when we really think about it, asking ”what is the existential purpose of raindrops?” is sort of like asking ”what emotion is a cloud''. Raindrops don't have any reason beyond simply the antecedent factors that led to their existence.

I mean, raindrops do lots of wonderful things — they bring water on dry land, give lifeblood to the plants and soak us when we least expect it, but it is not a valid question to ask ”Who meant for them to do so?”

It seems to me that questions like these take our desire to ascribe meaning just one step too far. We know the raindrops nourish, we know they provide water, we know they wet the landscape and bring rainbows that amuse us, but I don't believe that the raindrops are designed for our amusement just because I'd like to think myself so important. Our amusement is just a product of our perception of the rainbow; the antecedent physical factors that led to the raindrops falling are reason enough for their existence; that they water the plants and feed the rivers is actually purpose enough to satisfy me.

For you, it isn't, and so they must have been designed, fashioned and placed here just for you.

To be honest, I think the notion is a tad arrogant –a notion that exalts you up to the self appointed throne as the pinnacle of existence for which all things were made. For me, being part of it all is enough.

You're being a bit of a hypocrite. You say you believe evolution because it has evidence, you comprehend it, you recognize it, and you're enlightened to it, and that you believe the sky is blue, because you ''see'' it. This is the same reasoning that people have argued about God's voice, His work in the world, miracles, deliverance, Satan's influence and other matters of faith. But you will not concede those--conclusions backed up by the same reasoning: experience. Then you criticize religious people for having what you see as blind faith, but then don't take too kindly to the fact that we don't drop everything and believe you and yield to your "better" reasoning. Blind faith is bad unless we have blind faith in you. Talk about contradiction.

You and I both see the blue sky. Everyone does. Reason dictates that there is a blue sky. You and I do not see God. Now, please enlighten me as to the last time God visited you in a burning bush, spoke with a booming voice from the heavens, parted seas for you to cross, where you did ''greater miracles than Christ'' and healed the sick with just your touch, turned water to wine, or the last time you created a snake from a staff and a staff from a snake, saw prophetic visions that came true, led the largest slave labour workforce in the history of mankind out of Egypt on a forty year trek across the Egyptian deserts and managed to leave absolutely no archaeological evidence behind whatsoever, survived a global flood after hearing God's instructions to build an ark of such size that it is physically and fundamentally unable to bear the force of torsion, or indeed got that new car you prayed for one week.

The fundamental problem at the base of your entire argument is that you seem to have a default of denial of any religious person's account of their experiences.

Only if there is no clear evidence so suggest it wasn't a delusion. Occam's razor; heard of it?

You want to talk about faith and understand it, but yet you discount what those who actually have faith have to say on the faulty basis that there is no reasoning in faith, since you do not understand the reasoning.

Faith, as I have seen, has no true reasoning. Why are climate deniers mostly religious? Conspiracy nuts, mostly religious? YEC's, mostly religious? Faith is enabled not by a special understanding that is beyond and above natural reasoning, but by the willful suppression of natural reasoning.

And since you do not understand it, nobody understands it, even those who gave it.

I understand the concept of faith perfectly well, as do you. That I don't indulge in the faith -- which is an acceptance of an unproven notion contrary to both evidence and my natural sense as a result of a variety of emotional and psychological factors -- is not evidence that I cannot make sense of what faith is.

That "I don't see it, so it's not there" mentality. Frankly, that is a foolish and arrogant way of thinking.

Nobody sees it. When was the last time you healed the sick with a touch of your hand? When was the last time you saw the face of God or heard his voice?

You believe, as an atheist, that you know more about theism than theists, and consequently, that you know more about not just what theists believe but how they believe it. You presume to know more about believing in God than people who believe in God.

I know about reason, I understand the common psychological factors inherent in the mass religious. I know that ultimately we ascribe a meaning to our lives because honestly, in the face of a universe that has never paid any attention to us, it is a human need for all of us to create from it some sense of human purpose, otherwise life seems dark and meaningless. The difference between you and I is that I am learning to accept that that I am just a temporary occurrence. I will die, and it will be after a rare existence full of rain and sunshine, within which I make my own purpose (as do you, actually. Yours is religion).

You and I, MM, are small on a cosmic scale, but learning that the universe needs nothing from us, that it pays us no attention, just makes it all the more beautiful to think that we, you and I, the people on this planet, are each others' entire universe.

That's a great thought I think.

How arrogant to speak on the mental and spiritual processes of another. What you are doing, is speaking for a group of people with the purpose of speaking against that same group of people. How simple it must be to argue against an opponent you've created yourself that conveniently has weak spots in all the areas in which you are strong. You don't get a cookie for that.

You're speaking about my mental processes right now, methinks.

Honestly, I think you want faith to be blind and sans reason. Because if you concede that faith and reason can not only coexist, but thrive together, then you'd have to concede that faithful people are not the blithering idiots you think they are.

Faith in reasonable ideas is a reasonable form of faith. I believe such a faith could thrive with reason, yes.

You'd have to concede that people come to a decision of faith, the basis of their lives, on more than a whim.

I wouldn't call psychological child indoctrination a decision, nor cultural indoctrination. I wouldn't call emotionally bullying people into accepting a millennia old exploitation of natural human fear of death much of a decision either.

You reject everyone's reasoning not because you don't understand it, but because you don't want to understand it because you want to believe that people have faith without reason,

Having a reason for faith, and having reason, are different things.

and that you, being the sole reasonable one, must be above faith. You don't want to dig any deeper because you're afraid of finding that the reasoning of faithful people is (gasp!) reasonable, because that would shatter your blind belief in the blindness of belief.

What is reasonable about it? Tell me, because here's what I see:

Blind faith is to be so convinced in something without tangible evidence that a person accepts it as fact. This belief can get to a point where a person can consider themselves to be in a metamorphosed state of understanding beyond natural human reason, and this type of conviction is extremely dangerous because facts are no longer able to contend with fiction.

Now, lack of faith in a particular idea is not because the faithless (that's me) don’t understand what ”faith is”. On the contrary, I understand the notion of faith perfectly well. Nor is any person’s natural reason - the reason that allows them to think freely - born out of deliberate, willful opposition to some eternal, cosmically objective religion; our sense of natural reason exists before many of us even encounter religion.

It seems to me like people with unshakeable faith in something would say that the faithless (that's me again) are simply too ”worldly” and ”scientific” to be able to cultivate faith. The faithful (that's you) will deny anything that goes against their own faith and attempt to impress their faith upon others, often by force. But actually, it is not from some inability to think big that I don’t have faith, nor is it from some deliberate rebellion against God. The reason I don't faith is because the idea of faith lies firmly within, and subject to, my natural reason. The acceptance of the ”faith” contrary to reason does not make natural sense.


I think the faithful (that's you again) seem to think that their faith is enabled by having some special perspective that is beyond and above natural reason, whereas I tend to think that it is enabled from the willful suppression of natural reason. Ultimately, if anyone is willing to believe something that requires them to suppress their natural reason, and they consider their belief both beyond and superior to natural reason itself, then that belief is blind. Not only blind, but dangerous.

You're obviously quite capable of reasoning. I just genuinely hope that you use your reasoning ability to reason that others too can reason.

Fear factors - hell, punishment, judgement, fire, pain, social exclusion, wrath of a being sopowerful as to have been said to have created the entire universe.
Reward factors - heaven, peace, revenge (sickeningly), elitism, superiority, acceptance, love, warmth, kindness, fulfillment, joy.
Control variables - prophesy, futurism, ''all will be revealed in the end''.

I understand perfectly well the attraction of religion.