What is the Point in "Believing?"

1. 60

   maestrowhitposted 15 years ago

   I mean, what does it accomplish? I see so many different "belief" systems being argued and discussed on these pages. I haven't yet seen a single hardcore Christian being persuaded towards non-belief by an equally hardcore Atheist - or vice-versa. I'm not saying that it is idiotic to try to persuade; it is a natural urge that people seem to have. But all this arguing OBVIOUSLY does nothing to persuade. So what does is really accomplished? As I see it, the only thing that is accomplished is that the people who discuss and argue become more strengthened in their respective belief systems by means of pouring over their logical, or faith-based foundations. When confronted by a challenging, potentially belief-shattering opposition, they are faced with the task of defending their beliefs. Some people do this by explaining themselves logically, using explicit, easily verifiable descriptions. Other people do not speak the language of logic and reason, but instead rest their entire argument on some kind of institution. In either case, the real accomplishment is a firmer root, or rather, a more developed arsenal against any doubt of one's correctness or righteousness.
   
   So it seems like the answer to my question is - the point in believing in something is entirely self-serving. Why tell believers there is no God? Why tell non-believers there is a God and a punishment for not believing? The only reason someone would do this is because they feel strongly enough against the opposite belief, that they want to take action against it. Otherwise, pure certainty in one's belief system would not require one to evangelize.
   
   Does everyone want world peace and unity? Apparently not, and that's probably why world peace and unity do not exist at this time. People don't want it. If peace and unity were at the top of everyone's priorities, imagine what hard-wired religious structures would begin to collapse. All we are is a race of humans. That is something we can all agree on, so what is the problem? Why do we need to believe in something for ourselves when we can look around us and know all things for all people?
   
   Isn't a belief system supposed to offer general well being in some form or other? If the only well being that a belief system offers is that of the individual who believes it, then what good is it? If that's all a faith system is, then what does it matter what other people believe? Why do some people need others to be wrong in order for themselves to be right, if the only purpose of their belief system is personal fulfillment?
   
   I can  confidently say that my system of beliefs is not a system of beliefs. What I have running through my brain is knowledge of reality. And in that reality, everyone benefits. My purpose in speaking of these things is to benefit everyone. Yes, I do oppose certain beliefs - the ones that are entirely self-serving and do nothing to lend to social well - being. I oppose people who spread fear. Fear hurts people on many levels, and from first hand experience, I know that the Truth contains nothing even resembling fear.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      I commend you on this article as your outlook is wonderful!!! I am Christian and it hearts my heart when others argue, when we should always respect others beliefs. But for thousands of years humans have been arguing over religion and their beliefs, so unfortunately I don't know if it will end now.

      replyreport
   2. 57

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Welcome to Mark's world
      
      Good luck spreading your non-belief system.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         maestrowhitposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         What's funny to me is that I'm sure this thread will not generate near as much traffic as one that might invite people to fight and argue. It seems like the more offensive a person is, the more interest they draw. If I were to write a thread telling everyone that their sins are going to be punished and they should change their ways or burn in Hell, I would have people jumping in to take sides of the argument. The same goes if I were to say that Christians are the essence of evil - the pit of all that is wrong.
         But tell everyone that you believe in getting along and sacrificing correctness and pride for the sake of harmony, and people seem to get bored.

         replyreport
   3. 59

      mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      knowledge leads to understanding which leads to peace and then love which is the basic fabric of this universe or God.Truth is love. If peace was realy desired the religious structures would not collapse but merge into one another.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         mohitmisraposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Its an ancient system in India where two scholars or philosophers would debate.Debating is good if one sticks to intelligence where both grow at the end of the debate.
         I believe I meet or come across a person either because there is an exchange of knowledge or love required or may be both.

         replyreport
2. 60

   maestrowhitposted 15 years ago

   Thanks. Yeah, I don't think it can all be resolved so easily. I honestly think something extreme would have to happen to bring about world unity and peace.

   replyreport
   1. 71

      AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Now we do know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      AEvansposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      Now we do know that isn't going to happen anytime soon.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         maestrowhitposted 15 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but I believe (there's that word again) that it WILL happen. Many people believe that just the opposite is bound to happen.

         replyreport
3. 0

   sandra rinckposted 15 years ago

   All I have to say is Romans 3:11-21( something like that)
   
   I bring it up all the time because it took me a while to understand it, even when almost, if not everyone does not agree, which is fine by me because what I see is "deception". 
   
   And what is it?  Well It says, "the path to peace is paved in destruction...never did they know that there never was any fear of God."
   
   Read as a person who fears God, I though, well; If I mess up, then I should fear God, so I need to keep myself in check.  You know do my best not to repeat the things that others do, that I also find in myself and correct them for myself,
   
   read another way from the same perspective, it says to me, that these people who are causing mass destruction or even domestic disturbances do not fear God otherwise they would not have done such things because peace is only achievable with peaceful means..
   
   read as a person who does not fear God, it reads; fear of God paved the way to peace in total destruction because these people were lawless and took what was good and made it bad but they never had to do any such thing because there is no reason to fear God.  Had they replaced all that God fearing stuff with Love of God stuff, then the path to peace would have been paved with love, not ruines.
   
   The point of believing is very concerning because this indicates that a peaceful road was already given but it has been ruined with fear. 
   
   Like picking up stones and placing them where they see a pot hole, but they didn't realize that they removed the first one removed "corner stone". 
   
   It is utter ignorance at best, which doesn't mean they are decietful or mean or war mongers or anything of the sort, it means that they didn't realize that removing the corner stone from its possition made the bridge weak.  And the corner stone is or was...Jesus or love or many other peaceful things and all the other names that are good names etc...you get the point. 
   
   Now after the road or bridge has become weak, they say "restore the glory to God".  Fighting for the corner stone to put it back in its rightful possition and still (as in the ot) they cannot seem to listen.
   
   Over and over again it goes until finally the cornor stone looks like all the other rocks and people are picking through the rubble with "hope".  Now every rock a person picks up, they "believe" or hope that "this rock is the cornor stone", and when the rock fails to hold what is already broken together, they are still hoping for a miracle and that this bridge will fix itself if we just find that rock and put it back.
   
   Again, it starts when finally it dawns on them, ok we have to use all these rocks and put the bridge back together and the last rock that is set in place is the cornor stone. 
   
   So it is no surprise that there are so many defintitions, beliefs, understanding etc. of God and they are all forgivable, why?  Because no one knows exactly which stone was the foundation.  Sure call it Jesus, call it God call it whatever you want, but in the end, you never knew that there was no need for a corner stone without a foundation- last is first and first is last and you can walk across a slowly crumbling bridge if you are gental or "care" "full". 
   
   sorry about the tange...what does it accomplish?  Knowledge, understanding, compassion, forgiveness, love, peace, humbiality, sorrow, hope, joy, teamwork, faith, hope and an understanding that "God" is in All things, or in this case all the rocks build the foundation in which the last rock is the key.
   
   So what caused this one to need to fill the pot hole and remove the first stone? the fear that the bridge was weak and needed to be fixed.

   replyreport
4. 0

   mikeq107posted 15 years ago

   Well I have not been to the religious forum for a while...but their are 3 things I Know for sure...God is in heaven...Satans in Hell...and Mark knowles is the God of hubpages LOL
   
   Sorry mark could not resist that one....cheers Mike :0)

   replyreport
   1. 57

      Mark Knowlesposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      You have my permission to grovel.....

      replyreport
5. 60

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   Maybe your 'believing problem' is a bit philosophical, something most people are not used to. One contingency to the belief thing is you better believe in such things as: what will injure and kill one, if one wants to live a more longish life.

   replyreport
6. 65

   aka-djposted 15 years ago

   EVERYONE BELIEVES ! ! (something)
   There is NO such thing as "no believing". The words faith and believe are not religious words. We use "believing" and "faith" every day. Just me writing this post indicates faith. Faith that (has me believe) someone will read it, and maybe follow up on it. When evidence is presented in a court of law, people are there to find the truth, and it involves "believing" the testimony and evidence presented. When a parent asks their teenager a question, they either believe the answer or not.
   The situation re-religious faith is the application of the (very) same faculty. That's where things become confusing. Once I was a "non-believer" in Christ, then I got born again, now I am a beliver. Equally, a Muslim that became a convert to that religion, did so because they used their "faith/beliveing" faculty, and chose to adhere to that line of teaching.
   The point (for me at least) is twofold, when it comes to stating by "beliefs" or faith perspective.
     1) Jesus gave us a command to preach,teach & make converts etc. Matthew 28; 19-20
     2) Discussions challenge my accepted position, and helps me dig deeper, to (hopefully)       grow as a person.
   So it's not a case of "arguing" per se, but trying to either clarify ones point, to try to get the message through to the other person. Ultimately, their response is their decision!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      maestrowhitposted 15 years agoin reply to this

      But would you ever consider another person to be just as "right" as you, even if they believe something completely different? And if not, how far would you take it, hypothetically speaking, if you were confronted with someone with opposing beliefs to yours? If you had to make a  choice between helping your fellow man but admitting you were wrong about your faith, or maintaining your claim of faith while denying aid to a hurting individual, which would you chose? Can you answer this question boldly without getting hung up on its hypothetical, unrealistic nature? What would you rather do - help a man in need or hold on to your beliefs? If I had to, I would renounce any beliefs I have if they prevented me from showing true compassion towards another person.

      replyreport
7. 60

   knolyourselfposted 15 years ago

   "So it's not a case of "arguing" per se, but trying to either clarify ones point, to try to get the message through to the other person. Ultimately, their response is their decision!"
   My sentiments exactly, 'cept from different points of view.

   replyreport
8. 78

   t.keeleyposted 15 years ago

   Debate is pointless. People will believe what they will. It's just that simple. I know I have a seat under me, I believe it won't break, so I am sitting on it because I need rest. That is simple belief. And I believe it!

   replyreport
9. 59

   VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 15 years ago

   Believing or denying God... and believing that God and this God is one's own freedom.  Others have no right to go into that.  If all believe that God created us, then why should we fight in his name? God will never accept fighting among his creations. Let all religions flourish.. no one need advocate on behalf of a God.  Simply keep praying your God.  He will look after everything.

   replyreport
10. 71

    sunforgedposted 15 years ago

    In my own exposure to competing views of salvation/religious thought,belief systems i have always been far more influenced by  the actions and attitudes of a supporter, when and if making any changes to my own beliefs.
    
    i.e. The message contained in a Popes sermon on a pulpit (marketing)
    
         A biography of John Paul II (more revealing)
    
         An autobiography of John Paul II ( more revealing marketing)
    
    
    Words are so easy to say, action conveys a far more legitimate message..IMO

    replyreport
11. 65

    Eng.Mposted 15 years ago

    I think we all have rights to do for two parties
    
    the first party is God who created us, we have to worship him
    
    and the second is people that we don't fight them to persuade them of our ideas and beliefs
    
    we may fight bad people to spread justice and the freedome of faith for those who need them but we don't fight somebody or hate him because he is different
    
    for example( I know that many wont agree with me ) :
    
    muslims had to fought in the beginning of the message to deliver the message for people whome their rulers didn't want them to receive it
    they didn't fight to enforce them to get into Islam
    the prophet Muhammed was so kind to people who were nonmuslims
    
    It is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) had a Jewish neighbor who used to throw garbage in his way, but when the Prophet heard one day that the neighbor was sick he went to visit him
    
    so my point is that our relation to God has nothing to do with our relation with people
    we have to treat people equally
    
    in fact, fighting over religions  is only a reason for many people to feel of their fake superiority
    we are the problem not religions

    replyreport