Faith vs Faithfulness

[attila_the_hunny]

How do you seperate that from believing in something but not acting on it? In terms of the 4 possibilities between believing and acting, acting but not believing is on par with believing but not acting... I don't see the difference, except that acting is a physical form that is harder to do and generally carries more meaning to a whole lot more people than just oneself.

I find it extremely difficult to believe in something and not act on it. A situation where I haven't acted on something I truly believed in is not springing to mind. It's effortless to do so and is not a chore by any means. It means more to people when it's genuine, not just something done to appease. To the people who matter, anyway.
However, it's the reverse for not believing and acting. It's tedious and I see little point in doing it unless I was getting something out of it. That may make me sound selfish, but I dislike the idea of faking...in something serious, anyway (like loving someone I do not or believing in something I do not).

 

[Zhash]

Absolutely right. I operate on this principle - it does not exist unless it exists without the words. You are not your labels, you are the sum of your actions. You do not love if you do not show it. You do not have empathy unless you show it. You are not faithful unless you show it. You are nothing but your actions, and I will judge you upon those alone.

I agree completely!

 

[Totenkindly]

...I dislike the idea of faking...in something serious, anyway (like loving someone I do not or believing in something I do not).

I do feel that way too. I hate pretense. Usually what happens is either I change so now I do believe in what I'm doing (or become committed/love the person), or I have an internal struggle that continues until I have to stop what I am doing.

(The whole faith thing has often been like that for me, until recently. Among other things.)

Does that sound familiar at all?

I would guess it to have something to do with the INTP need to "define things cleanly and accurately" ... and behaving in a different way than one truly feels feels like a lie. (Similarly I also hate "cheering myself up" when I'm in a dark mood, that feels like a lie as well even if I know it's the best thing to do.)

 

[SolitaryWalker]

What if you dont get a chance to show it?

Think about a spiritual sage who retreats to the mountains to focus on his inner virtue.

Every time he comes down he is prepared to do good. He did good things after every time he went out to his retreat. You were not there to see any of it.

On the 6th time when he comes down, everybody left town, and therefore he does not have an opportunity to do good deeds. Does this mean that he is no longer good only because he didnt do good things? What he has on the inside does not mean anything at all?

Now compare the sage who is internally inspired to do good to somebody who just does good deeds in order to look good and does not have good will. Like the Pharisees in the Bible.

Obviously good people do good things, but if you think you're good only because you do good deeds, you're way off...

The real good exists internally, we are not capable of seeing it or let alone passing an assessment on that...deeds are only one way goodness manifests itself...so no..we are not in the position to be passing assessments on one's overall level of virtue because the best we can see is the way it appears only on the superficial level (deeds)..this isnt going to give us enough insight.

Perhaps if we learned to understand one's motives, than we may be in a more appropriate position, but thats a different story, this doesnt apply to making character judgments in conventional scenarios on strangers as you've insinuated there.

 

[ptgatsby]

I find it extremely difficult to believe in something and not act on it. A situation where I haven't acted on something I truly believed in is not springing to mind. It's effortless to do so and is not a chore by any means. It means more to people when it's genuine, not just something done to appease. To the people who matter, anyway.
However, it's the reverse for not believing and acting. It's tedious and I see little point in doing it unless I was getting something out of it. That may make me sound selfish, but I dislike the idea of faking...in something serious, anyway (like loving someone I do not or believing in something I do not).

I'm not sure I can see it that way. The best case is believing and acting, sure... but there are plenty of cases where acting does not involve believing (as you say, appeasing), but there are cases when the actions do not show your belief (say, abuse and love). This becomes extremely true when you talk about ideals - those that love war but won't participate. Those that talk about charity but do not help. Those that talk about rights but don't support them. Those that talk about democracy but don't vote.

I would equate belief without action as a lie just as much as action without belief.

Yes, that would be a notable difference: Believing in something and not doing it is worthless to everyone, whereas not believing in something but doing it anyway can actually still have positive impact on others, even if it's not benefiting you in the least.

(Then again, you don't KNOW if it is benefiting you, do you? Perhaps by doing something, you change yourself incrementally. Perhaps. It's a possibility. People are not stagnant, we are all part of the overriding system, so we are impacted by what we choose to do.)

The real question is if we talk about believing something, sorta, maybe and not acting... Kind of like a weak belief in Christianity and therefore no real drive to walk the path. That is a different scenario than saying you love someone when you hate them... that's more like being an Atheist and trying to walk the Christian path.

In the first case, you aren't being untrue to yourself and beliefs by acting on your beliefs - in the second, I think you are being untrue to yourself. The main point is that if you claim a belief, that belief is meaningless unless you act in accordance with it... however, any act you take is not meaningless regardless of the belief that drove it. It is slightly asymetrical in preference of the act.

 

[darlets]

"Not so. People who doubt can have great faith because faith is something you do, not something you think. In fact, the greater your doubt the more heroic your faith."
I do believe in Zeus, I do, I do. So delusion is great and the less evidence you have to go on and the more you just have to blindly believe the more "heroic" you are.

"I learned that it doesn't matter in the least that I be convinced of God's existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don't even know how the VCR works."
Great now we're discouraging thought and accepting ignorance as allowable.
It's all to hard to think about lets all just give up and listen to the priest.

"What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action..."
So after we're told basing beliefs on no evidence is heroic, thinking is frowned upon and ignorance is O.K lets go forth and have some action. Oh goodie, I can't wait to see the results of this. Please let him mistake a chainsaw for a toothbrush.

How much longer can we afford, as a species, to accept this as a desirable way to make decisions.

If George Bush said he consulted his horoscopes and they said to invade Iraq what would you think of him? But his allowed to say he asked God and God spoke back to him.

 

[Totenkindly]

"Not so. People who doubt can have great faith because faith is something you do, not something you think. In fact, the greater your doubt the more heroic your faith."
I do believe in Zeus, I do, I do. So delusion is great and the less evidence you have to go on and the more you just have to blindly believe the more "heroic" you are.

Hmmm. I see what you mean, based on just this excerpt, and how it could be taken the way you suggest...

I guess I reached a different conclusion about the text because I've read the majority of Gordon's blog entries (written over the course of the last 5 years?) and also have had a similar "spiritual journey" -- so I understand the context of his comments. I know where he has been, where he is at, and where he wishes he was but wasn't. I also am familiar with many of his practical daily life decisions and his personality, based on his narratives. So there's a lot of context of which you wouldn't be aware just from this entry...

While he speaks in general terms, he really is speaking from the context of being trained for (and believing in) Christian ministry (which involves the specific following of Yahweh and Jesus, hence a very defined moral code that is different than the stories developed around Zeus and the Greek pantheon); and then finding himself challenging his own beliefs and everything he has based his whole life upon.

The dilemma? He believed in the moral nature and value of Christianity, as a way to live. But he no longer had the practical evidence he needed to support his faith as "true" -- in fact, believing in God seemed to make no practical difference, prayer seemed to have no discernable effect, etc.

So empirically, he felt he could not believe in his faith. But values-wise, he believes the faith is true.

"I learned that it doesn't matter in the least that I be convinced of God's existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don't even know how the VCR works."
Great now we're discouraging thought and accepting ignorance as allowable.
It's all to hard to think about lets all just give up and listen to the priest.

That really wasn't what he was saying.

"What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action..."
So after we're told basing beliefs on no evidence is heroic, thinking is frowned upon and ignorance is O.K lets go forth and have some action. Oh goodie, I can't wait to see the results of this. Please let him mistake a chainsaw for a toothbrush.

That really wasn't what he was saying either.

How much longer can we afford, as a species, to accept this as a desirable way to make decisions.

Just to note: There's a very large difference between RLP and the mindless Christianity you're attacking. (If it means anything, at the least, RLP is uniformly attacked by the group you're describing -- and the more they fit your stereotype, the more they seem to take issue with him. Lumping him in with those who diametrically oppose his message seems a little silly to me.)

Sorry that I turned this into a "defend RLP" post, when I did ask for responses and got what I asked for. Just take this as a "things aren't quite how you categorized them" response and review the link/site in the OP if it matters to you to learn more. (If not, no biggie either.)

 

[darlets]

Jen, to me, this notion that it doesn't matter what I believe only what I do is incorrect.

Actions do not exist in a vacumn.

Beliefs lead to Action which lead to outcomes and outcomes feed back (reinforce or change) into our Beliefs.

Take for example a New Earth Creationist(N.E.C) and an Old Earth Creationist (O.E.C) arguing with a skeptic on Global Warming. The N.E.C and O.E.C can make the exact same argument base on data for the last 6000 years and the skeptic is well and truly justified in dismissing the N.E.C reasoning because the N.E.C themselves dismisses 200,000 years of climatology.

The may make the N.E.C rethink their views on religion or on the Green House Effect.

The N.E.C belief affects the outcome and that outcome may affect their beliefs.

Catholic priest act by discouraging condom use in aids ridden villages but it's the belief that it's better for a human to catch and die from aids than burn in hell is where the act stems from.

Voting against the cervical cancer vacine is the act, the belief that it's better for women to develop cancer and die than burn in hell is the belief.

Trying to ban the pill is another example of this.

It very much matters what you believe because it affects your actions. Beliefs about souls and hell affect peoples actions.

"What do I know of existence?"
The author knows a lot more about existence than he would have if he lived 500 years ago, a 1000 and 100,000 and this changes his moral outlook.

Our technology and our history influences our morals. The pill had a big influence on womens rights and a group of Chrisitans standing up and saying we disagree with slavery despite it being condoned by the bible had a big influence on slavery, firstly in the U.K then in America.

To dismiss our increasing understanding of our existance and it's influences on our morals is in itself promoting ignorance, we believe this because we believe this.

For example it's one thing to say the church and state should be seperate, but people need to understand why that is and how it came about and acknowledge the struggling and sacrafice people forth by women and men in the past.

To say what do I know about existence is a slap in the face to all the painful lessons we've learn along the way to a better understanding of it.

Surely the knowledge that genetically all the human "races" are practically the same is a piece of knowledge about our existence and it has big affects on our moral outlook.

"Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really."
When people are afflicting terrible acts upon others because of their beliefs in God/s it's very much your business.

Maybe I'm wrong but he seems to be promoting living in a bubble of ignorance to me.

 

[Totenkindly]

Jen, to me, this notion that it doesn't matter what I believe only what I do is incorrect...

...Maybe I'm wrong but he seems to be promoting living in a bubble of ignorance to me.

I hate to sound like I'm just being obstinate... but did you bother to read anything else he has written, to better put his comments in context of his larger philosophy?

I'm asking because:
1. He would agree with the gist of what you said here.
2. I would agree with the gist of what you said here.

The gist of what you said here is not what is inaccurate.

It's the context you're wrapping his comments in that is inaccurate.

That's all.

Honestly, if you don't get it or don't want to invest in more reading to understand the context, fine. It's not a big deal, and you're not required to read any more. I'm just telling you that the conclusions you're drawing do not accurately represent what I know of his personal life philosophy.

 

[darlets]

Honestly, if you don't get it or don't want to invest in more reading to understand the context, fine. It's not a big deal, and you're not required to read any more. I'm just telling you that the conclusions you're drawing do not accurately represent what I know of his personal life philosophy.

I plead guilty to the first part "I don't get it" but not the second "don't want to invest in more reading to understand the context".

Can you please give me a few specific examples of his work that explain this broader philosophy because I've read three of his articles and they don't seem too.

The ones I've read seem to be defining the good that humans do as Religion/Christianity and the bad as human nature.

"I don't know what to say about this. It's so terribly sad to me that my own faith tradition is so frequently warped and skewed, becoming hurtful to powerless people. I try to remind myself of one of our central doctrines - humanity is screwed up. And everything we get involved with - including religion, maybe especially religion - gets screwed up too.

Take a look at the article and let me know what you think. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

This is the sort of thing that authentic Christians around the world should publicly and loudly denounce."

What exactly does he mean by "authentic Christians"? I doubt the Christians his excluding deem themselves not to be authentic. I could go on, but I think I would just increasingly annoy you which is not my intent. You're a big fan of his work I take it?

 

[Totenkindly]

I plead guilty to the first part "I don't get it" but not the second "don't want to invest in more reading to understand the context".

Can you please give me a few specific examples of his work that explain this broader philosophy because I've read three of his articles and they don't seem too. ...

Hi Darlets,

I'm tired tonight and don't have the energy for it right now, plus I need to respond to a few other PMs and such... but I think I will just try to explain how *I* understood it and create some examples for you, when I can. Is that okay?

I'm sorry I didn't engage you better, earlier, on this, I just didn't know how to approach it, but I think that is the process I will take...

So anyway, keep an eye out for it tomorrow sometime, hopefully...

 

[JivinJeffJones]

Likewise, we think having faith means being convinced God exists in the same way we are convinced a chair exists. People who cannot be completely convinced of God's existence think faith is impossible for them.

Not so. People who doubt can have great faith because faith is something you do, not something you think. In fact, the greater your doubt the more heroic your faith.

I learned that it doesn't matter in the least that I be convinced of God's existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don't even know how the VCR works.

What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action...
Responses? Ideas?

Firstly I'd like to point out that the word for "faith" and the word for "faithfulness" are exactly the same in the NT.

Having said that I have no idea how the author of the quoted article justifies his assertions biblically. How does he reconcile his views with the definition of faith put forth in Hebrews 11:1 - that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen?

His idea of what faith and faithfulness is looks a lot to me like Paul's idea of the Law.

 

[Cerpin_Taxt]

In our world we have separated mind from body to our great loss. Here a man may betray his wife and neglect his children, but say he loves them "down inside".

Bullshit. There is no "down inside." Love is something you do, not something you feel.

I dont agree with that last part, I dont think Love is necessarily something you do. I do however agree with the first part....somewhat

 

[Totenkindly]

I'm sorry, Darlets, I have been preoccupied most of the week and did not get back to you.

Rather than responding to specific comments, I will explain as best as I can why I identified with RLP.

First of all, I started with a faith young in life (Christianity), and even when things got hard or did not make sense to me, for whatever reason, my basic premise of "God being there" did not fade. I just considered it a matter of finding him.

So I built quite a faith, learned a lot, put together a very big picture of life and values and what was important and what was not. My morality was constructed, and much of what I learned in the Bible (conceptually) seemed to play out IRL fairly closely, reinforcing my belief.

But I also had many doubts. The political platforms and details of the religious doctrine I often saw promoted by your evangelical/conservative Christian churches gnawed at my sense of intellectual coherency, seemed presumptive, etc. Much of what was asserted to be "true" (and then have other doctrines built up on it) seemed to me to be uncertain at best, and unprovable.

And as I got older and my experience and knowledge expanded, I found myself more and more unhappy. As RLP says in the earlier parts of his essay, he ran across some disturbing things in his work ... such as when a doctor said that someone only had a 10% survival rate from a sickness, 9 times out of 10 (regardless of earnest prayer), the person died anyway. And in the last few years, allowing myself to look at the Bible with new eyes, in a new frame of reference, drove me to reevaluate my own process of interpretation. Because of this shift in approach, suddenly the things I had just assumed to be true now were show to be just that: assumption.

And I am an intellectual person. I cannot just accept something because it supports the values I want to believe, or it supports my agenda, or because those around me are pressuring me to accept it. Intellectually, I can only credit something as much "truth" as is warranted, and otherwise do need to stamp on it, "Uncertain!" for all the parts that have not been shown to be clear to me. I have to be nuanced and honest.

I realized that much of my faith was not based on a choice to believe, instead I simply thought I saw evidence and had been letting that dictate my decision to follow God. Now that the evidence had "changed" because my perspective had changed and I had reoriented myself, what was I to do?

The Christian God and the basic concepts represented in Christianity still conform to what I believe to be true about psychological growth and health, in life. (There are many specific doctrinal points I am no longer sure about.

So, my intellect does not allow me to "believe" in God. I can't show that he is true. For all intent and purposes, I don't believe in God. He might not actually exist. I don't "know" that he exists anymore.

But I believe in what Christianity stands for, the general values it promotes (giving, self-sacrifice, patience and the fruit of the spirit, community, humility, acceptance of responsibility for my acts of culpability, etc.).I can see those things. They are what I believe to be true.

So, like RLP, I might not "believe" in God (he might or might not be there), but I still believe I can be as faithful to the values that Christianity promotes, because I do believe in them and have experienced them as being true.

Does that make sense? This is not "law" (referring to JJJ's comments) -- I am not doing this to win forgiveness or earn a place in heaven or winning some unnknown God's approval -- I am doing the good things because i believe they are what is true and beautiful in the world... whether or not God is even there.

Honestly, I don't know how much of this I can change. Like it or, Christianity has been part of my life for a very long time, and realistically I do not know how much a person can jettison. It's still my frame of reference and what I compare new experiences to. Sahara was immersed in Islam and despite leaving it, it still forms a basis for how she interacts with new experiences and ideas... and the same exists for me as well.


There is a telling example in the Gospels where Jesus manages to offend many of his followers by discussing himself as being wine and bread and needed to be eaten and drunk -- which sounded uncomfortably like cannibalism to the crowd. Disparing at how many has left, Jesus looks at his disciples and says, "Are you going to leave me too?"

And Peter says, "Where else are we going to go?"

Like it or not, whether or not God exists, Christianity and what it advocates is the best thing I have found in my life.

 

[sundowning]

Hooooo-kay....

Any other responses?

Well, I'm sorry for being so critical - I didn't realize that was a position you with which you personally identified. It just seemed liked a lightweight philosophy, trying but failing to put a unique spin on something that - if you're already open to it - does not need improving.

 

[Usehername]

Dontchya love when you're procrastinating and come across an awesome thread when you're read everything current?

I love RLP. Especially b/c he said he's an INTJ and thus he is that much cooler. I'm all about the actions rather than words. I could discuss further but I really should get back to what I was procrastinating about.

 

[Totenkindly]

RLP blogged about a recent e-mail that rather faced this issue, so I thought I would include a link to his clarification.

October 29, 2007 - 12:20pm

Dear RLP,

Regarding your story about yourself, you said "people who cannot be completely convinced of God's existence think faith is impossible for them." What of those who go beyond this? Those who are pretty much completely convinced there is no God or gods at all, and yet still want to believe?

I'm sure you must deal with feeling like you're living a lie at times - what about the ethical issues of promoting something you don't have reason to believe is true, of teaching by example that it's ok to believe and follow something because you want it to be true and like the results? How do you reconcile this?

James

*************

Dear James,

I understand what you are saying, and I've struggled with the question of faith and belief for many years. I am by nature a skeptic. I don't know why; I've always been like that. I want to understand things and I don't like easy answers. And yet I am not only a part of the Church, but the pastor of a congregation. That is rather counter-intuitive, I know.

At issue is the question of how you will think about Christianity. Is it primarily a set of doctrines that one must believe? And how exactly is "believe" defined?...<continues in detail>

 

[sassafrassquatch]

I don't mind the vents. Just don't mistake it for an intelligent level of conversation.

Fine.

I received an email from someone puzzled about the grief I experienced when I gave up on God. This person felt liberated when she left Christianity.

I understand how some would feel that way. Many of you only know Christianity from bad books, TV preachers, and the people who watch them. If that were all I knew of Christianity I would celebrate my liberation from it all the days of my life.

The author appears to be employing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. He is claiming that his version of Christianity is the correct version and the churches to which the people who feel liberated belonged were the wrong kind. There is no way to prove which Christian denomination is true let alone any particular religion.

But I was exposed early to the real stuff - Top Shelf Christianity - Deep and Old Christianity. This kind is practiced by people who work until they stink and take life in great draughts. Their hands are as rough as their hides, and they DO their faith in secret, hiding their good works in obedience to Christ. They know how to love and be loved in return. Their laughter is loud and has its roots in joy.

These Christians don't want your money and they don't advertise. You will only find them if you MUST find them. These are the ones who took me to Mexico as a boy and showed me pain and joy. They hid nothing from me.

I was also blessed by being exposed to the right kind of Christian thinkers. C.S Lewis and his friend J.R.R. Tolkein. Frederick Buechner, Carlyle Marney, and Thomas Merton. Will Campbell who wrote “Brother to a Dragonfly” and Eberhard Arnold. Frederick Dale Bruner and Martin Luther King Jr.

He goes on to elaborate on his "correct" brand of Christianity without showing any evidence as to why it must be the One_True_Faith other than it makes him feel good.

You did understand there was more to this than religious TV and the drivel they sell in those awful Christian bookstores, right? After all, Christianity didn't sustain itself for twenty centuries by shitting Hallmark cards before a live studio audience.

Christianity has survived for 2,000 years through violence, imperialism, fear and appealing to people's fear of death by providing them with a comforting belief in a blissful afterlife.

That's it. I pushed all my chips across the table. The preacher bet it all. Why? Because the idea that there is a God who cares for us busts my heart wide open.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18

This does not sound like the will of a caring God.

My old demons still haunt me. Voices whisper to me on dark nights, saying, “You know there is no God. You're wasting your life and you are a fool.”

That sounds like the voice of reason. Maybe you two should have a long conversation, I think it would do you some good.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't mind the vents. Just don't mistake it for an intelligent level of conversation.