Faith in Text or God

[PsychoticEpisode]

Like the chicken and the egg..... what came first, faith in God or faith in religious text? If there were no scriptures anywhere would people be so apt to put their faith in a God?

We could have relied on word of mouth but why didn't we? Too much to remember or the likelihood of losing something in the translation? I'm not so sure people would place their faith in a god that has no holy text backing him up.

Faith in a god would have been early man's mantra. I would assume that our first ancestors did not record God in some form but later when humanity had become more civilized there was an opportunity to write things down. Here we sit a few thousand years later and Bibles are at the forefront of most religious discussion. A person's faith seems to be more reliant on the validity of their Bible than God. 'God is because the Bible says so' argument. Is that the way it is, faith in the good book produces a faith in its main character? Perhaps it's due to God's unmistakable silence and inactivity. In this modern age, God certainly does not do anything like is written in holy text.

I'm curious if or how many theists believe in god because it is written in their ancient texts?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Fear came first because those who didn't believe in God or Gods were executed for their non beliefs.

 

[jb21]

the idea of god itself indicates who is abusing you forcing yourself to consider another right in cuting your freedom to decide for yourself, it is extremely against the conscious substance in everyone, you do what really is you alone always, so when you accept that you should be forced to you it would always mean that you consider yourself inferior as wrong

and that what the text say justifying god existence on men, god is justifying him in power on us because we are wrong, vicious cercle it is, he is wrong being in power and we get to be wrong when we dont believe ourselves

what is wrong should be the issue not who is wrong, who is should be to himself and to who objectively cares for him, this confusion between object and subject is meant to reduce the subject to a thing so god would be the only one

if god care for right, why wouldnt he loved the right in a way that provide a lot of successful lives to humans making the right alive, but no he prefer to force some to die for rights while he is watching the moment of death that would make him the right everyone die for

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

The original cause was fear of the unknown (& refusal to accept not knowing) and/or some beings being so much more powerful than primitive humans.
The original cause in present humans is being brainwashed from the time they're born.
I discussed in another thread how people don't actually believe the Holy Babble because they obviously don't live by most of it but I have said many times it's the BOOK they base their religion on. Without the book, where would they be?
Unless there is something in the human brain which causes it.
I wish I could see what would happen for the next several hundred years if all religious texts disappeared & couldn't be replaced. I wish I could know what would happen if a group of babies somehow grew up with no contact with other humans. (Of course I don't want that to actually happen.)

 

[CheskiChips]

The kabbala Torah wasn't written down until the 1500's, and it's still not fully written down. It's been word of mouth for at least 2000 years. People disagree to this day whether or not it should have ever been written down.

 

[Simon Anders]

Like the chicken and the egg..... what came first, faith in God or faith in religious text? If there were no scriptures anywhere would people be so apt to put their faith in a God?

We could have relied on word of mouth but why didn't we? Too much to remember or the likelihood of losing something in the translation? I'm not so sure people would place their faith in a god that has no holy text backing him up.

Faith in a god would have been early man's mantra. I would assume that our first ancestors did not record God in some form but later when humanity had become more civilized there was an opportunity to write things down. Here we sit a few thousand years later and Bibles are at the forefront of most religious discussion. A person's faith seems to be more reliant on the validity of their Bible than God. 'God is because the Bible says so' argument. Is that the way it is, faith in the good book produces a faith in its main character? Perhaps it's due to God's unmistakable silence and inactivity. In this modern age, God certainly does not do anything like is written in holy text.

I'm curious if or how many theists believe in god because it is written in their ancient texts?

Most people believe a wide set of things because they read them. This includes the scientific theories they believe. Certainly some people understand very well why the evidence points to the truth of certain theories, but very few people actually understand or could defend the theories. The same goes for people's opinions about politics, world events, history... and so on. In fact in regard to history we can see how easily quite rational people can believe in things like manifest destiny, the superiority of a certain culture, the inevitability of certain events, etc. because they read it in a book or newspaper or magazine.

As far as God being silent many people would say otherwise.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Most people believe a wide set of things because they read them. This includes the scientific theories they believe. Certainly some people understand very well why the evidence points to the truth of certain theories, but very few people actually understand or could defend the theories. The same goes for people's opinions about politics, world events, history... and so on. In fact in regard to history we can see how easily quite rational people can believe in things like manifest destiny, the superiority of a certain culture, the inevitability of certain events, etc. because they read it in a book or newspaper or magazine.

Can't say any better than that.

As far as God being silent many people would say otherwise.

I'm sure they would.

 

[Norsefire]

The concept originated before the scripture. It isn't logical that it happened the other way, unless God actually exists and really handed down the scripture to the people. If we assume that the god hypothesis is a product of human inquiry, then the concept has to originate before any details or scripture can be applied.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

The concept originated before the scripture. It isn't logical that it happened the other way, unless God actually exists and really handed down the scripture to the people. If we assume that the god hypothesis is a product of human inquiry, then the concept has to originate before any details or scripture can be applied.

I don't think anyone can argue against that but....

When does faith enter into the picture? If someone is chosen by God to write down His words then that person does not need faith but.....

The first thing a person of faith must have is the faith that the persons who wrote God's words actually had God present with them when it was done. The actual words have nothing to do with faith in God.

 

[Norsefire]

Faith comes into play in belief. That's why it's called faith: you can't prove that the person who wrote the Bible actually had God present (or that God Himself wrote it), you have to believe it.

The same way I can't prove that Constantine existed, but I have faith that he did.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Faith comes into play in belief. That's why it's called faith: you can't prove that the person who wrote the Bible actually had God present (or that God Himself wrote it), you have to believe it.

The same way I can't prove that Constantine existed, but I have faith that he did.

No kidding.....The power of the written word. True faith in God's words starts with the belief that the scribe knew for a fact that God dictated them.

We need a time machine that works.

 

[OilIsMastery]

Fear came first

Mohammed wasn't born until 570.

 

[flameofanor5]

The kabbala Torah wasn't written down until the 1500's, and it's still not fully written down. It's been word of mouth for at least 2000 years. People disagree to this day whether or not it should have ever been written down.

Yes, the Bible and Kuran were not fully written for a while. the idea of god existed before religious text.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Most people believe a wide set of things because they read them. This includes the scientific theories they believe. Certainly some people understand very well why the evidence points to the truth of certain theories, but very few people actually understand or could defend the theories. The same goes for people's opinions about politics, world events, history... and so on. In fact in regard to history we can see how easily quite rational people can believe in things like manifest destiny, the superiority of a certain culture, the inevitability of certain events, etc. because they read it in a book or newspaper or magazine.

That may be related to religious faith but it's no defense of it. Religion is not, unfortunately, the only thing people decide without logic & proper evidence, it's all wrong & 314 wrongs don't make a right.

As far as God being silent many people would say otherwise.

If gods do speak to some people & not others, they're playing mind games with us & treating us like lab rats. People hearing something in their heads is no evidence of gods.

The same way I can't prove that Constantine existed, but I have faith that he did.

I certainly have no faith that Constantine existed.

Yes, the Bible and Kuran were not fully written for a while. the idea of god existed before religious text.

The OP mentioned the chicken or the egg then moved on to why people believe now. How long did the idea of gods exist before oral stories were told? How many people had any notion of gods before oral books were spread around then down thru generations?

 

[Simon Anders]

That may be related to religious faith but it's no defense of it. Religion is not, unfortunately, the only thing people decide without logic & proper evidence, it's all wrong & 314 wrongs don't make a right.

I did not say it was right. What I was pointing out is that it is widespread in both secular and religious beliefs but only the latter seem to concern atheists. IOW when the 'right' belief is arrived at by poor methods it is fine.

If gods do speak to some people & not others, they're playing mind games with us & treating us like lab rats. People hearing something in their heads is no evidence of gods.

I did not say it was evidence. I was countering his statement. As far as your theory about what the relationship with God must be, I think you have a way to go to prove that one. You also need to distinguish between evidence for others and what might make sense for the experiencer to respect.

 

[Balerion]

I know I'm just saying what most everyone already said, but the idea of gods came before scripture. Oral traditions have been kept far longer than paper.

 

[lightgigantic]

Like the chicken and the egg..... what came first, faith in God or faith in religious text? If there were no scriptures anywhere would people be so apt to put their faith in a God?

We could have relied on word of mouth but why didn't we? Too much to remember or the likelihood of losing something in the translation? I'm not so sure people would place their faith in a god that has no holy text backing him up.

Faith in a god would have been early man's mantra. I would assume that our first ancestors did not record God in some form but later when humanity had become more civilized there was an opportunity to write things down. Here we sit a few thousand years later and Bibles are at the forefront of most religious discussion. A person's faith seems to be more reliant on the validity of their Bible than God. 'God is because the Bible says so' argument. Is that the way it is, faith in the good book produces a faith in its main character? Perhaps it's due to God's unmistakable silence and inactivity. In this modern age, God certainly does not do anything like is written in holy text.

I'm curious if or how many theists believe in god because it is written in their ancient texts?

sometimes scripture is refrenced as non-different from god since faith in it enables one to approach him.

IOW if one has faith in scripture, they have the means to practice. Better to have faith in a mere sentence of scripture than every scripture under the sun on one's shelf.

Of course there is the issue of scipture (or more evidently, comprehension on what are the essential aspects of scripture) being corrupted - therefore we commonly see that religious disciplines being frequently re-established by empowered personalities or (even god himself)

(BTW, according to the timeline presented in the vedas, 5000 years is modern history)

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

sometimes scripture is refrenced as non-different from god since faith in it enables one to approach him.

Shouldn't you start with this......

True faith in God's words starts with the belief that the scribe knew for a fact that God dictated them.

IOW if one has faith in scripture, they have the means to practice. Better to have faith in a mere sentence of scripture than every scripture under the sun on one's shelf.

Some scripture isn't worth the ink? Hmmmm, why does God bother?

Of course there is the issue of scripture (or more evidently, comprehension on what are the essential aspects of scripture) being corrupted - therefore we commonly see that religious disciplines being frequently re-established by empowered personalities or (even god himself)

We could certainly use God's help there. It would be bice if everyone could understand it the same way don't you think?

(BTW, according to the timeline presented in the vedas, 5000 years is modern history)

Nice try What do you think sans vedas?

 

[lightgigantic]

Psychoticepisode

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
sometimes scripture is referenced as non-different from god since faith in it enables one to approach him.
”
Shouldn't you start with this......

“
True faith in God's words starts with the belief that the scribe knew for a fact that God dictated them.

ok
sure

”
“
IOW if one has faith in scripture, they have the means to practice. Better to have faith in a mere sentence of scripture than every scripture under the sun on one's shelf.
”
Some scripture isn't worth the ink? Hmmmm, why does God bother?

not sure why you suggest that its not worth the ink

“
Of course there is the issue of scripture (or more evidently, comprehension on what are the essential aspects of scripture) being corrupted - therefore we commonly see that religious disciplines being frequently re-established by empowered personalities or (even god himself)
”
We could certainly use God's help there.

sure

It would be bice if everyone could understand it the same way don't you think?

it would also be nice if everyone was on the same level of realization too - of course given the nature of the material world, its not a scenario likely to manifest anytime soon ...

“
(BTW, according to the timeline presented in the vedas, 5000 years is modern history)
”
Nice try What do you think sans vedas?

probably something like the default position of someone who considers their brief span of a few years as sufficiently broad and culturally enriched to dictate the entire length and breadth of world history

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I did not say it was right. What I was pointing out is that it is widespread in both secular and religious beliefs but only the latter seem to concern atheists. IOW when the 'right' belief is arrived at by poor methods it is fine.

That seems so with most atheists. It also seems so with most theists. This & other aspects of perception, "knowledge" & belief grossly negatively affect probably 99% of people & probably 98% can't realize/admit it & don't give a damn.

I did not say it was evidence. I was countering his statement. As far as your theory about what the relationship with God must be, I think you have a way to go to prove that one. You also need to distinguish between evidence for others and what might make sense for the experiencer to respect.

I don't equate proof of something to convince me necessarily with proof for others. I know I ate pancakes today but I can't prove it to others.
But would you tell us of such an experience?