[zapp196]

As we grow older, we gain knowledge of who God is, and other aspects of Christianity. But what does this knowledge accomplish? What about child like faith?

I have found that this "knowledge" many time suffocates our faith in God. Don't get me wrong, this is nothing wrong in pursuing answers the hard questions. But when we (I) get purely focused on questions, we lose sight of the purpose.

Child-like faith, God talks about it in the New Testament, He says we need faith like that. Here is the Question: What is a child's faith rooted in? What is the difference between my faith in God and the five year-old child on the playground?

I invite you all to ponder and discuss this.

-Pennell

[jrb4him]

I often thought about this very same thing. I kinda think it has to do with the fact that as a kid you know your parents have everything the best for you and you don't worry about what your going to eat next or anything like that. I think growing in the faith CAN (shouldn't, but can) lead us away from that because we begin to rely in our own strength to come up with solutions rather than trust in our heavenly Father to provide for us.


Just my two cents on the subject
Jason

[Qingu]

Child-like faith always struck me as a throwback to the faith of Abraham.

Imagine the blind, unquestioning faith it would take to take your beloved son up a mountain, tie him up, and sacrifice him. Most adults question authority and use their own reason and conscience to inform their decisions. Not Abraham. God told him "kill your son," and that's exactly what he set out to do—no questions ask. Just like a small child blindly obeying his parents.

Interestingly, such "childlike faith" is often rewarded in many different religions. Yahweh of course rewards Abraham for his blind faith in sacrificing Isaac. So too does the Quran promise rewards for people who blindly believe it. Jesus praises those who believe without seeing.

Childlike faith is a valuable asset if you're trying to win over and hold followers into your cult. You certainly don't want the followers of your religion to question its tenets or its legitimacy.

[zapp196]

@ Qingu
i don't think that child like faith is blind faith. When you tell a child to do something, most often than not they will ask "why?" Children, when asking "why," are many time looking for truth (which is another discussion), and christians are called to seek God. But many time christians get caught up in all the questions and for get how God wants them to live. We are to live love, and how that is done is up for interpretation.

if child like faith is a throw back to Abraham, why is it talked about in the new testament?

-One last thing, do you have a thread or blog telling/explaining why you are an atheist?

@ jrb4him
look above. Children are carefree beings, are they not

-Pennell

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by zapp196

@ Qingu
i don't think that child like faith is blind faith. When you tell a child to do something, most often than not they will ask "why?" Children, when asking "why," are many time looking for truth (which is another discussion), and christians are called to seek God. But many time christians get caught up in all the questions and for get how God wants them to live. We are to live love, and how that is done is up for interpretation.

Did Abraham ask why?

For that matter, do you think children asked "why" in OT times? They'd get beaten or killed for disrespecting their parents.

if child like faith is a throw back to Abraham, why is it talked about in the new testament?

Abraham's faith is Paul's salvific model. It's all over the NT.

-One last thing, do you have a thread or blog telling/explaining why you are an atheist?

It's not that complicated. I don't see any evidence for the existence of gods.

As for "why do you think other people should be atheists," that's because I find the morality of the holy books of major religions absolutely appalling.

[zapp196]

Did Abraham ask why?

no, but he had faith that God would provide a sacrifice (it would look to be blind); Genesis 22:8 "Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together."

another account is, he (then Abram) is called by God to pick up and go. (Genesis 12)

but, that is not what i was saying/asking. My original post asked if all the intellectual knowledge i have gained (which is not much) detracting from my faith in who God is. This is no easy to justify to one who finds no basis for a god.

Paul was, if i remember correctly, was a pharisee before he was an apostle. he was well versed in OT scripture. He was writing to a people who also knew and could relate to the OT. (btw, i don't think i understand the use of the word "salvific," and yes i looked up the definition ) The Jews closely relate to Abraham; therefore, it is logical to teach with model that the students are familiar with.


What i am trying to say is that, theology sometimes gets in the way of loving others. God calls me to love Him and others, yet when I get stuck on the "issues" i lose sight of it.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Interestingly, such "childlike faith" is often rewarded in many different religions. Yahweh of course rewards Abraham for his blind faith in sacrificing Isaac.

The object of the "faith" here is God's promise -- Abraham trusted that God's promise to build a "new humanity" of descendents through Isaac would be fulfilled, that even if Isaac were killed God could raise him from the dead. So the point has nothing to do with "blind faith," i.e. being blinded to the reality of what's going on. Instead it was about being unblinded by trusting God's promise.

Originally Posted by zapp196

Child-like faith, God talks about it in the New Testament, He says we need faith like that. Here is the Question: What is a child's faith rooted in? What is the difference between my faith in God and the five year-old child on the playground?

Hi Pennell. What's at issue in Luke 18 is humility and gratitude. The Pharisee "humbly" offers "gratitude" for how great he thinks he is, and the rich young ruler arrogantly and self-confidently goes to Jesus to see how he can get all he wants while ignoring mercy and justice toward the poor. The children who were coming to Jesus were not arrogant, they were lowly; the children who were coming to Jesus were not self-serving, being simply content to be with the King if they thought much at all.

[Mason718]

Qingu makes a legitimate point, and that is that child-like faith is indeed a great way to keep people under control. However, the basis for child-like faith is not that a person acts foolishly and believes everything he or she is told, but more or less to be able to accept things on a basis of feelings and thoughts, not necessarily sight and touch. Faith is the very premise for religion of any kind, and in a sense it's a reason for living. If God popped out of the heavens and proved He existed, then God would not exist. But at any rate, it's not child-like obedience, it's child-like faith. Most of the major players in the Bible and in the history of Christianity were rabble-rousers, including Christ Jesus, the very pinnacle of the belief system.

Also, asking someone why they're an atheist is not exactly a fantastic way to approach someone. All belief systems rely solely on theoretical situations and can never be absolutely proven or disproven. The thing people need to understand, especially Christians, is that the atheistic belief system is not only equally viable, it is technically the logical original position. (The only problem with logic is that it is inherently meaningless in a debate about a God who can easily defy logic, but that's a different discussion altogether.)

Well, I'm rambling now, please forgive me.

[Chrysostom]

Hello, Mason. I'm John. Nice to meet you.

Originally Posted by Mason718

However, the basis for child-like faith is not that a person acts foolishly and believes everything he or she is told, but more or less to be able to accept things on a basis of feelings and thoughts, not necessarily sight and touch.

You'll be very hard-pressed to find the dichotomy between reason and emotion in the Bible.

Originally Posted by Mason718

If God popped out of the heavens and proved He existed, then God would not exist.

I don't see why this is the case. Few people in the Bible are at all uncertain that God is really out there. For them faith is not an instrument of knowledge but instead a commitment to God's promises.

Originally Posted by Mason718

Also, asking someone why they're an atheist is not exactly a fantastic way to approach someone. All belief systems rely solely on theoretical situations and can never be absolutely proven or disproven.

I don't understand how these two sentences are connected.

Originally Posted by Mason718

The thing people need to understand, especially Christians, is that the atheistic belief system is not only equally viable, it is technically the logical original position.

If you're working on a Cartesian epistemology then yes that's true, but I don't see why we need to follow Descartes.

Originally Posted by Mason718

(The only problem with logic is that it is inherently meaningless in a debate about a God who can easily defy logic, but that's a different discussion altogether.)

God can easily defy logic? Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "logic."

[Mason718]

Hey, John, glad to meet you too. I'm just gonna clear up the jumbled mess of words above:

You'll be very hard-pressed to find the dichotomy between reason and emotion in the Bible.

Good point, let me reiterate. What I was trying to say was that Most of the major players in the Bible had child-like faith, but that didn't mean they necessarily had child-like obedience or foolishness. They followed God, but not necessarily the church or government of the day. In fact, most were hated and reviled by society as a whole, and almost all the apostles died awful deaths. I wasn't trying to necessarily separate reason from faith, but rather faith in mankind from faith in God.

I don't see why this is the case. Few people in the Bible are at all uncertain that God is really out there. For them faith is not an instrument of knowledge but instead a commitment to God's promises.

True, but more often then not, the people who believed in God in the Bible already believed in Him, but just needed a nudge in the right direction, such as some kind of proof. If God came out of the Heavens and proved He existed, the basis for Christian belief, faith in the things that are unseen or unproven is moot. That wouldn't be a problem except for one thing. According to the Bible, God is not willing any should perish, if He proved He existed (as He did the pharaoh in Exodus) and that person didn't want to believe, his or her heart would be hardened away from God. People who believe He exists usually have had personal experiences to some extent that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, but these kinds of proof don't necessarily hold up with others, since they can be viewed as hearsay or even outright lies. I hope that clears it up a little.

I don't understand how these two sentences are connected.

I was merely saying that since, in truth, no one can prove any belief system to be true hence ('belief' system), then technically all are equally viable. Additionally, God gave people the right to choose what they want to believe, so we shouldn't look down on each other. No one was doing that, really, but I was rambling by that point. The only way Christians can approach members of other belief systems is with a kind, understanding attitude, and they need to know that people believe what they believe for a reason, and people need to respect that about each other.

If you're working on a Cartesian epistemology then yes that's true, but I don't see why we need to follow Descartes.

I don't think you understand what I was getting at. All I was saying is that there is proof for both sides, but the evidence for scientific and atheist beliefs are usually better founded in a so-called logical playing field.

God can easily defy logic? Maybe I just don't understand what you mean by 'logic.'

If you believe in God and disagree with this, I'm interested to here why. Logic is a human invention, and human minds can only comprehend things in respect to their own logic. The easiest analogy i can think of is that trying to comprehend every facet of the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, and infinite creator of all existence is like trying to apply Earthly physics to Saturn. I hope you know what I mean. Human logic is by nature imperfect, and therefore the conclusions we draw always have some chance of being imperfect. The Bible says that God's ways are above our ways, and additionally he raised people from the dead, turned water into wine and blood, sent fire from heaven, walked on water, and all kinds of crazy things that don't logically add up to a human mind.

Anyway, pleasure talking with you, I hope that cleared it up. See ya around.

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Mason718

Good point, let me reiterate. What I was trying to say was that Most of the major players in the Bible had child-like faith, but that didn't mean they necessarily had child-like obedience or foolishness. They followed God, but not necessarily the church or government of the day. In fact, most were hated and reviled by society as a whole, and almost all the apostles died awful deaths. I wasn't trying to necessarily separate reason from faith, but rather faith in mankind from faith in God.

Okay, this reads differently and while a bit individualistic doesn't say what I was reading before. Before it seemed that you were saying that these men were right because they trusted their hearts rather than their sight, which does mesh with a few centuries of Western romanticism but forgets that "the heart is deceitful above all things."

Originally Posted by Mason718

True, but more often then not, the people who believed in God in the Bible already believed in Him, but just needed a nudge in the right direction, such as some kind of proof.

I don't even see that, really. When anybody asked for or got an evidential sign it was always about something new that God was doing, not that God was really out there. E.g., Abraham's covenant-cutting ceremony, Gideon's fleece, Moses's burning bush, or Thomas's hand-touching.

Originally Posted by Mason718

If God came out of the Heavens and proved He existed, the basis for Christian belief, faith in the things that are unseen or unproven is moot.

This is what I don't understand. Why, if God revealed himself plainly, would faith be moot? After all, Jesus had faith, yet surely Jesus was more than privy to God's plain self-revelation?

Originally Posted by Mason718

That wouldn't be a problem except for one thing. According to the Bible, God is not willing any should perish, if He proved He existed (as He did the pharaoh in Exodus) and that person didn't want to believe, his or her heart would be hardened away from God.

This is the point where I'm not tracking with you, assuming that this is the explanation of why "God-proof" would make faith moot. (If this is not that explanation then I do understand what you're saying.) Here even you yourself point out that when confronted with "evidence" the heart turns itself as it desires (this is why only God's life-giving Spirit can bring about faith for our dead hearts), which would mean that rather than making faith moot, our reaction to "God-proof" actually makes evident our faith.

Originally Posted by Mason718

I was merely saying that since, in truth, no one can prove any belief system to be true hence ('belief' system), then technically all are equally viable. Additionally, God gave people the right to choose what they want to believe, so we shouldn't look down on each other. No one was doing that, really, but I was rambling by that point. The only way Christians can approach members of other belief systems is with a kind, understanding attitude, and they need to know that people believe what they believe for a reason, and people need to respect that about each other.

In some cases, asking somebody why they are as they are is in fact exactly what they want to hear. More than anything, modern people love to talk about themselves. Many atheists love to talk about why they are atheists. So I think you must have meant something different by "asking someone why they're an atheist" than I'm reading. Do you mean, demanding that the person prove her atheism? That reading makes some sense to me.

Originally Posted by Mason718

I don't think you understand what I was getting at. All I was saying is that there is proof for both sides, but the evidence for scientific and atheist beliefs are usually better founded in a so-called logical playing field.

You said that "the atheistic belief system... is technically the logically original position," and it's this "logically original position" that I think is so crucial to what's going on here. I was assuming that you meant that our thought should proceed from that standpoint and perhaps eventually work out to the conclusion "God exists," then move forward from there. Based on context your "atheistic belief system" is secular humanist Anglo-American scientistic atheism, so what you're saying is that all people should privilege a certain rich, white, recently-developed thought system. A broader reading of you would be to assume just some sort of humanism -- I start with no beliefs but myself, and work up from there, so I start with no God -- and I think that's probably what you're really getting at.

This view legitimates itself with the grammar of "burden of proof" and "objective reasoning," but in fact it is far from fully respecting the burden of proof of objective reasoning because it carries with it assumptions about who and what man is. Man is the thinking self on this view but it has not proven this. Once we accept this anthropology all the philosophy of the modern period follows, but there is nothing to compel us to accept it as the original logical starting point.

Originally Posted by Mason718

If you believe in God and disagree with this, I'm interested to here why. Logic is a human invention, and human minds can only comprehend things in respect to their own logic. The easiest analogy i can think of is that trying to comprehend every facet of the all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, and infinite creator of all existence is like trying to apply Earthly physics to Saturn. I hope you know what I mean. Human logic is by nature imperfect, and therefore the conclusions we draw always have some chance of being imperfect. The Bible says that God's ways are above our ways, and additionally he raised people from the dead, turned water into wine and blood, sent fire from heaven, walked on water, and all kinds of crazy things that don't logically add up to a human mind.

I've been a logic tutor and have taken several courses in advanced mathematical/symbolic logic but honestly have trouble understanding what people mean when they use the word 'logic," probably because it's one of those words with a very fluid, broad range of uses. Here you seem to mean, physicalist expectations about what the world is like. This is a good way of using the word, I think, because there are many logics and many rationalities but social ideologies (particularly of the secular humanist Anglo-American physicalist scientistic atheist variety we've been talking about here) tend to legitimate themselves on the grounds that they follow the "one" logic/rationality (i.e., the ones on which their intelligibility is built).

Originally Posted by Mason718

Anyway, pleasure talking with you, I hope that cleared it up. See ya around.

Absolutely. Peace to you.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by zapp196

As we grow older, we gain knowledge of who God is, and other aspects of Christianity. But what does this knowledge accomplish? What about child like faith?

I have found that this "knowledge" many time suffocates our faith in God. Don't get me wrong, this is nothing wrong in pursuing answers the hard questions. But when we (I) get purely focused on questions, we lose sight of the purpose.

Child-like faith, God talks about it in the New Testament, He says we need faith like that. Here is the Question: What is a child's faith rooted in? What is the difference between my faith in God and the five year-old child on the playground?

I invite you all to ponder and discuss this.

-Pennell

A group of my middle school students and I discussed this, and I offered the point that children ask questions. A great deal of them. I think the childlike aspect doesn't mean cutting out the questions, it's the cynicism. The Bitter will ask hard questions just to flummox, annoy, and confound the person they're questioning. They're not necessarily seeking an answer. The Childlike asks hard questions because they truly want to know. They are seeking an answer.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Mason718

Logic is a human invention, and human minds can only comprehend things in respect to their own logic. Human logic is by nature imperfect, and therefore the conclusions we draw always have some chance of being imperfect. The Bible says that God's ways are above our ways, and additionally he raised people from the dead, turned water into wine and blood, sent fire from heaven, walked on water, and all kinds of crazy things that don't logically add up to a human mind.

********! Deductive logic - consistency, implication, etc. are part of who God is! He's not inconsistent! MANKIND DID NOT INVENT LOGIC ANYMORE THAN MANKIND INVENTED MOTHER****ING GRAVITY

[danlong]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Child-like faith always struck me as a throwback to the faith of Abraham.

Imagine the blind, unquestioning faith it would take to take your beloved son up a mountain, tie him up, and sacrifice him. Most adults question authority and use their own reason and conscience to inform their decisions. Not Abraham. God told him "kill your son," and that's exactly what he set out to do—no questions ask. Just like a small child blindly obeying his parents.

So you say that Abram had nothing compelling for his action? As I recall Noah lived another 59 years after Abram was born in the land of Ur. Somehow being around the guy that heard God and floated around the world for a year seems pretty compelling to me.

[athanatos]

I like C.S. Lewis' description of what studying theology was about. It is like a map to help clarify the way. Otherwise, you will have a lot of wanderings. God cannot be fully known, but He can be known.

Faith is not the lack of knowing where to go and going anyway. It is the going the right way despite the risks, because you trust God to carry you through it.