NationStates Jolt Archive

The people who defend their religious beliefs with the greatest ferocity have the weakest faith. Those with strong faith are not threatened by the unfaith of others and do not questions their own beliefs simply because others do.

A wise philosophy. Makes me glad the only time I debate theology is in defense of myself or another.

Ill defend my faith as a Christian if it's insulted or questioned as well as faith in America. But usually I don't get really out of control with it unless I really get excited.

I try to be a fairly open-minded christian (others that dislike me beg to differ...)

And lets not forget that a strong defense is often a good offence. Those who attack the religions of others aren’t any better when it comes to their faith.

Yeah, that makes sense, but is not 100% true.

Take, for example, the Spanish. They take the defense of their religion to the extreme (Indian Missions, The Inquisition, etc.) but they are very devout Catholics, for the most part...Oh and I almost forgot the war with the Islamic Moors!

Anyway, on the contary, some people I know are too unfaithful to their religion to defend it when it's being criticized.

But I will agree, that truly faithful people don't need to defend their religion to other's, just to themselves. Those who must defend it to others...are insecure!

* The Rep of Komokom thinks this theory of weak faith = strong defence ties in to prove his own atheism well ...

" Yeah, I'm atheist, now fuck off my door step already, I'm not buying any "

/ End my theological ( or lack there-of ) argument. :D

Yeah, that makes sense, but is not 100% true.

Take, for example, the Spanish. They take the defense of their religion to the extreme (Indian Missions, The Inquisition, etc.) but they are very devout Catholics, for the most part...Oh and I almost forgot the war with the Islamic Moors!

Anyway, on the contary, some people I know are too unfaithful to their religion to defend it when it's being criticized.

But I will agree, that truly faithful people don't need to defend their religion to other's, just to themselves. Those who must defend it to others...are insecure!

I agree with you for pretty much most of it. One thing I had is "Those who must defend it to others...are insecure!" I fsomeone says "Your God is weak!" or publicly makes fun of Jesus in a disresctful manner. I will get after them. Just because no one makes fun of my Savior. But for th emost part I'm fairly low key and don't care if people call me Jesus Freak or whatever Christian insults you can throw. Usually I justs mile and say thanks.

And lets not forget that a strong defense is often a good offence. Those who attack the religions of others aren’t any better when it comes to their faith.

Very true. Attacking a person for their religion is as much a sign of insecurity of belief as attacking a person for their lack of religion.

Yeah, that makes sense, but is not 100% true.

Take, for example, the Spanish. They take the defense of their religion to the extreme (Indian Missions, The Inquisition, etc.) but they are very devout Catholics, for the most part...Oh and I almost forgot the war with the Islamic Moors!

Anyway, on the contary, some people I know are too unfaithful to their religion to defend it when it's being criticized.

But I will agree, that truly faithful people don't need to defend their religion to other's, just to themselves. Those who must defend it to others...are insecure!

The Inquisition wasn't a defense of faith, it was a series of acts perpetrated in the name of a specific dogma. The Inquisition was the result of that part of the Bible that says that converting others is a good deed, not the result of someone questioning the belief of Spanish Catholics. The wars between Christians and Muslims are at the same time a good and bad example of my point. The wars that are the result of specific dogma like the one mentioned before are bad examples, but the wars that result primarily from the differing opinion on the word of God are good examples.

You are right, it is not only the entirely secure who choose not to defend their beliefs from sheer conviction, but those whose belief is weak or casual are often found ignoring challenges and insults.

:)

* The Rep of Komokom thinks this theory of weak faith = strong defence ties in to prove his own atheism well ...

" Yeah, I'm atheist, now fuck off my door step already, I'm not buying any "

/ End my theological ( or lack there-of ) argument. :D

Not quite...

The people who come to your doorstep attempt to convert you do so not because they are insecure in their beliefs and wish to have your support, but because they are commanded to by the dogmas of their religion.

Not quite...

The people who come to your doorstep attempt to convert you do so not because they are insecure in their beliefs and wish to have your support, but because they are commanded to by the dogmas of their religion.

1) I know.

2) They Know.

3) I was trying to point out, I'm atheist, I know it, they know it, and my "belief" is "strong" because I put up frick all defence apart from walling off the gibbering voices out-side. It was ... never-mind.

* No offence, but this could develop into (argh) theological debate I'm in here, and I'd much rather go shoot illegal things in True Crime. I have great priorities, :D

Yes, I've often noticed that those who take the greatest offence, can only preach and hate it when they are confronted about their beliefs. If you have strong faith, you can stick to your guns without making an ass of yourself. I think this applies to even non-religious instances.

Um, so is it ok to just debate religious topics in general? All in all, I'm actually getting something out of this...

In that case, I could say the same about those thousands of posters who randomly choose to start debates on religion, and constantly feel the need to insult my faith. I, on the other hand, have never gone into a thread and said "Atheists are stupid," (at least until now). I have, however, seen plenty of people say "christians are stupid," in threads relating to abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage. Therefore, your argument goes both ways. In fact, it even includes you, since this seems to be another way of insulting those christians who dare to defend their beliefs online.

The people who defend their religious beliefs with the greatest ferocity have the weakest faith. Those with strong faith are not threatened by the unfaith of others and do not questions their own beliefs simply because others do.
Agreed, heartily. I often find myself in religious debate; not because of a desire to convert or stamp out the opposition, but because I find myself absorbing new information and gaining new insights from each one, no matter what the other person's religion happens to be. The only times I come away feeling like I haven't gained anything are those wherein I get stonewalled by someone who feels the need to "defend their faith" from any sort of questioning whatsoever.

Agreed, heartily. I often find myself in religious debate; not because of a desire to convert or stamp out the opposition, but because I find myself absorbing new information and gaining new insights from each one, no matter what the other person's religion happens to be. The only times I come away feeling like I haven't gained anything are those wherein I get stonewalled by someone who feels the need to "defend their faith" from any sort of questioning whatsoever.

Well said. I think I've said it about three times by now somewhere on the generals, but a great deal of my thoughts and ideas comes straight out of other religions. People who seek to convert or "prove the other side wrong" are silly.

There is nothing more tiresome than one who would attack my beliefs instead of living their own. I have been prayed for in other faiths, and I take the words and ritual to be a blessing given, in the spirit that it is given. I bless and curse in that same spirit. That is how I live.

So I say: Bless you all, and do not believe the lies written in books, or in anyone elses heart: they are there to ensnare you.

If you must believe, then believe in yourself.

Jim JMM

Well said my friend, ironically this is my main philosophy on Athiesm. Just LIVE damnit. Believe what you believe but live it to the fullest otherwise you are wasting your time.

The people who defend their religious beliefs with the greatest ferocity have the weakest faith. Those with strong faith are not threatened by the unfaith of others and do not questions their own beliefs simply because others do.

<-- You are now entering the Devil's Advocate zone. Please keep all limbs inside the car. -->

So if I accuse someone of being a pedophile, if they are truly comfortable in the fact that they are not a pedophile, they should feel no need to debate me on the matter? And if they feel the need to defend themselves, they are in fact unsure whether they have sexual urges towards children?

Faith isn't the only factor in defending a belief or idea against attack. Principles, pride, morals, etc all play a part in how deeply someone if affected/offended by a comment. You cannot really fault someone for defending themselves against an attack (in my opinion).

Now if they feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees, that is a different matter.

<-- You are now leaving the Devil's Advocate zone. Please come again. -->

I've seen people that simply refuse all argument or just react quite apathic towards any critique or comment on their beliefs. And if they respond, they just use some answer they read somewhere, "God is everywhere my son", "Jesus loves you", "don't hate, love". I don't call this having a strong faith. Its avoidant. People who can't discuss their faith, don't know their faith. They're stuck and aren't open for other opinions.

A fierce defense is probably a sign of weakness, or it is a sign the believer has very strong faith and is very senisitive when critisized.

Someone who can discuss his faith and doesn't avoid any issues can enjoy my deepest respect. You should always be open to the constructive opinions of others.

In that case, I could say the same about those thousands of posters who randomly choose to start debates on religion, and constantly feel the need to insult my faith. I, on the other hand, have never gone into a thread and said "Atheists are stupid," (at least until now). I have, however, seen plenty of people say "christians are stupid," in threads relating to abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage. Therefore, your argument goes both ways. In fact, it even includes you, since this seems to be another way of insulting those christians who dare to defend their beliefs online.
I think it is usually (not always) we see a complete blind following of faith that just baffles us … (not trying to start a fight) it just seems they are the most blind currently ( I hate to say it … being razed in a catholic household) but they just seem to be …

In that case, I could say the same about those thousands of posters who randomly choose to start debates on religion, and constantly feel the need to insult my faith. I, on the other hand, have never gone into a thread and said "Atheists are stupid," (at least until now). I have, however, seen plenty of people say "christians are stupid," in threads relating to abortion, the death penalty, and gay marriage. Therefore, your argument goes both ways. In fact, it even includes you, since this seems to be another way of insulting those christians who dare to defend their beliefs online.

I have acknowledged that my point goes both ways and have not particularly targeted Christians or any other religious group. I made a blanket statement which I believe applies widely, even outside questions of religion.

<-- You are now entering the Devil's Advocate zone. Please keep all limbs inside the car. -->

So if I accuse someone of being a pedophile, if they are truly comfortable in the fact that they are not a pedophile, they should feel no need to debate me on the matter? And if they feel the need to defend themselves, they are in fact unsure whether they have sexual urges towards children?

Faith isn't the only factor in defending a belief or idea against attack. Principles, pride, morals, etc all play a part in how deeply someone if affected/offended by a comment. You cannot really fault someone for defending themselves against an attack (in my opinion).

Now if they feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees, that is a different matter.

<-- You are now leaving the Devil's Advocate zone. Please come again. -->

Well, I think one's own paedophilia is fairly easily knowable while the nature of the universe or the existence or non-existence of God are rather abstract and unknowable, so the comparison is somewhat lacking. I would argue that the only reason a person would argue against an accusation of that sort would be to convince others, not to convince themself, to avoid getting a bad reputation for no reason.

Reading some of the replies to my post I'm beginning to think that I may not have worded my post ideally. I am talking specifically of defense of faith, not defense of dogma, a distiction which I think may not be clear. Faith is entirely individual and has nothing to do with the practice of a set of dogmas or a religion. The dogmas of a specific religion (prayers, laws, customs) are often critisized (many Christians are attacked for their beliefs with regards to homosexuality), and defense of specific dogma says nothing about a person's faith. It does say something about a person's level of committment to their faith, but I must emphasize, it says nothing about the surity of that faith.

I've seen people that simply refuse all argument or just react quite apathic towards any critique or comment on their beliefs. And if they respond, they just use some answer they read somewhere, "God is everywhere my son", "Jesus loves you", "don't hate, love". I don't call this having a strong faith. Its avoidant. People who can't discuss their faith, don't know their faith. They're stuck and aren't open for other opinions.

A fierce defense is probably a sign of weakness, or it is a sign the believer has very strong faith and is very senisitive when critisized.

Someone who can discuss his faith and doesn't avoid any issues can enjoy my deepest respect. You should always be open to the constructive opinions of others.

Not all people who react a certain way do so for the same reason. I am not saying that everyone who chooses to ignore attacks on faith do so because they are sure of their belief, but I am saying that people who do not choose to ignore attacks are not sure of their beliefs. A familiarity with formal logic with bear out the difference clearly (All A is B therefor at least some, but not necessarily all B is A).

Not strong faith, strong committment to dogma. One's belief need not be strong for one to defend what those beliefs lead one to with fervency. Surity of faith is beyond reproach, and some people of surest faith are also strongly committed to the dogmas that faith has given them, but a strong defense of dogma is not a sure sign of strong faith.

Faith is not a virtue. And there is no need to defend one's faith. And you can surely not conclude from they way someone defends his/her faith that the faith of that person ist weak or strong.
And some of you seem to confuse faith with religion. Jews, Christians, and Muslims share the same faith, but they have different religions. The subject of these religions is the same but not the manner in which it is persued.
And some of you seem to believe that faith is something neccessary, but it is not. If you just try to be a good human being, then your god, if he exists, will be content.

Faith is not a virtue. And there is no need to defend one's faith. And you can surely not conclude from they way someone defends his/her faith that the faith of that person ist weak or strong.
And some of you seem to confuse faith with religion. Jews, Christians, and Muslims share the same faith, but they have different religions. The subject of these religions is the same but not the manner in which it is persued.
And some of you seem to believe that faith is something neccessary, but it is not. If you just try to be a good human being, then your god, if he exists, will be content.

I think there are people who will disagree with your first few sentences, but you're right, sort of, in your second section. Faith and religion are different things, but they are interconnected. Faith in the sense of belief (Which is how I intended it originally) is not the same for Jews, Muslims, and Christians. Though they all believe in the God of Abraham they each have individual differences in other areas of their belief. Some dogma says that good intentions alone are enough, some say that good deeds are enough, and some demand belief and faithful observance of specific commandments to please God.

"Methinks the Lady doth protest too much."
-Hamlet.

Well, I think one's own paedophilia is fairly easily knowable while the nature of the universe or the existence or non-existence of God are rather abstract and unknowable, so the comparison is somewhat lacking. I would argue that the only reason a person would argue against an accusation of that sort would be to convince others, not to convince themself, to avoid getting a bad reputation for no reason.

Reading some of the replies to my post I'm beginning to think that I may not have worded my post ideally. I am talking specifically of defense of faith, not defense of dogma, a distiction which I think may not be clear. Faith is entirely individual and has nothing to do with the practice of a set of dogmas or a religion. The dogmas of a specific religion (prayers, laws, customs) are often critisized (many Christians are attacked for their beliefs with regards to homosexuality), and defense of specific dogma says nothing about a person's faith. It does say something about a person's level of committment to their faith, but I must emphasize, it says nothing about the surity of that faith.

While it is true that many people are criticised for the principles of their faith, there are many who are criticised simply for having faith in something that cannot be proven. When a person questions their faith, he is usually questioning two things: the basis of their faith, and their intelligence for having that faith.

I've found few cases where someone questions the principles of a faith, but finds the person's choice to hold that faith to be without complaint. Usually if you deny one or more of the principles of their faith, you deny their faith itself.

But I'm just rambling now. I probably did misunderstand the original message. o.o;

I wouldn't say that defending your faith is necessarily a sign of weakness. Now, if it involves a screaming match or equivalently stupid things, then yes (now, I WILL get angry and possibly fire back if someone insults my intelligence or tries to act like I believe blindly or makes a hateful slur against religion, because that's a sign of intolerance on the other side)...but if someone's willing to defend their religion in terms of debate, it may well be they have a strong faith and are just curious to test their understanding. At least, that's how I feel it is for me...when I wade into these debates, it tends to be because I want to test my own ability to respond to some of the different criticisms, or in other cases because I want to learn something new from somebody.

I'm probably not as strong a debater as some, though--and sometimes I just have to bow out. But the thing about that is, I do not bow out because of a fear that if I continue, I will somehow be "defeated". I just decide I don't need to expend my energy that way anymore--because regardless of what happens in the debate, I still have the same feeling, the same faith. A large part of my faith owes to very private experiences and contemplations that for me, are enough. And I am comfortable in that.