I don't really think it's a case of "transferred trust" or whatever. It's just that he happened to have heard from early childhood that God exists, etc; so he takes it as a given. Almost all of us have that conditioning. Some of us decide, for various reasons, that it doesn't hold water.
2007-11-16 06:38:30
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
I know people who questioned and struggled against our Christian upbringinga nd finally decided it was arrogance for them to think they were so much smarter than the 2,000 year line of people who came before them and they simply stopped worrying about getting it right and started participating in the mystery. Also, Catholics have a great humility instilled in them that the leadership are experts in theology and the individual doesn't just get to make up whatever she likes think she's outdone them all.
When I started questioning Christianity I asked every fellow Evangelical Christian I considered credible why we believe the Bible is infallible. No one, including the people I knew with fancy MDivs and PhDs had an answer for me other than they received it that way from their folks. Finally an elder answered, "Because that's what the early church believed."
In other words, each generation since receives the Bible as infallible because a previous generation far removed said it was. And we can't find out whether we trust them or not because they all died almost 1,900 years ago. But we do know via the writings of the early church fathers that they combined the traditions they received directly from or once removed from the apostles with their own life experience and spiritual experiences and determined which writings authentically reflected the faith and which did not. And they hashed this out in council after council and came up with something the majority could agree on.
Ultimately I decided the Bible is fallible. back in the day, that caused me to become agnostic, then atheist. Then I found whole denominations of Christians who would say, "What's your point?"
See, they do believe because the language, the culture, the text, the community, the practice of Christianity does to them what it says it will do. And though many of us believe that language is one of several legitimate ways to describe reality, the proof is the very real sensation of having lost track of a fundamental hole in the soul. As they say.
2007-11-16 06:47:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, not as tidily put as that.
Even with thinkers and people I respect, I reserve the right to consider, and to differ If I think I have grounds.
The other side of that coin is that it's exceedingly unlikely that I'm going to have a profound idea, or grasp a deep truth, that no-one out of the billions who have gone before has ever had.
And starting thought from scratch in every area isn't really a practical proposition.
So somewhere between following the herd (or even the leader of the pack), and wandering off into the wilds on my own, lies an appropriate way to handle other people's beliefs, suggestions, teachings...
The double whammy here is, of course, that we absorb a lot of these teachings, including a lot on how to evaluate issues, from our parents and our society before we get a chance to think critically about *that*.
"I think my tool-kit may be broken.
I'll just get my tool-kit and fix it. Ah."
Edit: for Ledbetter...
"Tradition is the ultimate democracy.
It means giving your ancestors the vote."
2007-11-16 06:53:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by Pedestal 42 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I can't really fault him, but I think he should re-evaluate who his sources are.
I do have a list of things I believe because credible people say they're so, and usually I look for reasons why the credible people would want to lie. Almost everything I believe is on the authority of other people.
Global warming is the best example. I'm not a climatologist, a physicist, or really qualified to speak about it. But I look at the fact that *EVERY* scientific organization accepts global warming except the Petroleum Geologists Association, which is the only organization that would have a vested interest.
There are innumerable things I accept on the credibility of an authority, from the Earth rotating around the sun to the efficacy of drugs to environmental science. My own research is very limited to one area of discipline.
2007-11-16 06:39:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by STFU Dude 6
·
6⤊
0⤋
Amalikites, yes, the ones that sacrificed their children in fire as offerings to their gods and committed indecent acts like incest and bestiality but God waited for over 400 years that they would repent of their acts. Egypt's firstborns - Was that a sudden without warning situation? Did all the firstborns of Egypt die or just the ones that didn't fear God's warning and convert to the Israelites? Flood - Would you prefer to live a world full of Hitlers, Stalins, Osama Bin Ladens and Hannibal Lectors? 42 teenagers killed by 2 she-bears is questioned by many Jewish rabbis if it ever really happened and viewed by many as being more of a legend than fact. God is God and opposed to evil. Why do you have a problem with being opposed to evil? Would you rather serve a god who cares less and is apathetic to evil men? A god who isn't concerned with justice or preserving life? Some do and it's no surprise they're in insane asylums. It's amazing how quickly one can criticized God for being so "unfair" until when they lose someone important to them in a crime or immoral brutality and they start demanding justice - a justice that couldn't exist without the Christian God.
2016-05-23 10:28:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It would probably be too hard from him to consider another possibility seems it's been brought up by it and so used to it. However, that's how it is for all religious believes. They believe the priests, or whomever, because they are "credible" or even the Bible may be known as "credible". It depends on the person to come around, if he can be open-minded and not afraid to think of other possibilities then he should consider questioning his beliefs.
2007-11-16 06:42:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Cindy 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's true to a point. But there are a great many things that I was told that I later investigated to check for truth. My religion (I have none), my politics, the way I view many things in life are a complete 180 from how I was raised to think.
As far as faulting him, maybe both yes and no :) We are all products of our environment and upbringing, and that can't be faulted. But at some point, shouldn't we check our parents' and friends' facts?
2007-11-16 06:42:31
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I suppose that I believe because my parents did as well, but as they were school teachers and dad was a minister off and on (He started as a minister, then taught school, finally he did both) I spent a lot of time learning the bible and christian science. Recently I started reviewing what I knew about creationism and the Bible and checking for evidence... You know the rest of the story.
2007-11-16 06:40:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Pirate AM™ 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I have it on good authority that the movie "Lions for Lambs" sucks.
I believe it to be true, even though I have no direct personal evidence of it myself.
But several people whose opinions I have no cause to doubt have told me that it sucks.
Several movie reviews, and their comments, lend credence to the theory of suckage.
And the trailers do indeed look truly awful.
So that is something I believe without any first-hand experience. However I still require some evidence to support that belief.
2007-11-16 06:41:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes, all my life.
I believe that you should spell Neighbor instead on nabor. Although when you look at it, the second one makes more sense. But, that's the way my English teacher told me it's done.
The vast majority of things we are taught in school is like this. Math, literature, science, we have to take it all on faith. So, I see no reason why the same could not be true of religion.
best wishes.
2007-11-16 06:42:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Odindmar 5
·
2⤊
0⤋