Can you justify by mere faith?

can-you-justify-by-mere-faithIn a recent debate that I have in Luneta, a “Born-Again” pastor has the guts to engage me on this tautology about the existence of his god. Well…if you asked me personally, I’m getting sick and tired of the issue since even if it took us all night till morning on the squabble, there will still be no fruitful proof this pastor can show me. Anyway, in the length of our debate, the pastor told me that “faith” is required to confirm the existence of God.

Asked any Christian on the definition of “faith” and he will gladly state the verses found on Hebrew 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
They interpret this verse (just like always) that to have faith is confirmation on an invisible God.

Unfortunately, the word “faith” in this verse is more of a disproof on the existence of God and these unwilling clowns haven’t cared to notice it. Remember that the New Testament was written in Koine Greek. The word faith is translated as “pistis” which means “reliance” or “trust”. A guarantee of something hoped for ( Grk: elpizo – Expect and wish. Something you are wishing in the near future.) WHAT!!!!???? Wait a minute there? If God already exists, then why are you still hoping about it? You said that this god already exist and you firmly believe that this god is already here, watching me typing and defying its existence, if so, why are you sounding like you are still hoping that someday in the near future, this god might exist?

That’s what the problem with faith. The word justify that today this god concept doesn’t really exist and believers are still in the dark…hoping that someday this god might come into being. Now, if we use faith as a proof about god, then we are just telling the non-believers that “Hey there brother, my God doesn’t exist today but maybe tomorrow (and I’m hoping that this day will come true…*crossing his fingers and wishing on shooting stars.) That I will personally bring Him here and then both of you will debate about His existence.” Now isn’t that proof a baloney?

Now back on the debate. The pastor tried to retaliate by saying that God is so far away (Uhum…) and that they are “hoping” that he will come. HAHAHAHAHA! Now is that an excuse or what? Are we talking about a man in a red cape flying somewhere out there in the wide blue yonder? What happened with God is everywhere?

So I recommend to my Christian friends…never use “faith” in justifying your stand on the existence of your god concept. Remember, any person that tried to use faith as evidence on the existence of God has tacitly admitted that his god concept doesn’t exist.

8 comments

  1. "Go up the rooftop of any building, take a deep breath and jump down and out. I’m sure you’d prove gravity exists."

    Hmmmmmmm very honest and practical. :p

  2. To Edward:

    "I think God exists. I can’t prove it just as I can’t prove that gravity exists…"

    Go up the rooftop of any building, take a deep breath and jump down and out. I'm sure you'd prove gravity exists.

  3. I think the focus in the justification by faith of the born-again is more on the context of salvation. of being saved rather than on the existence of God.

    I think God exists. I can't prove it just as I can't prove that gravity exists. Though I can feel the presence of both. And can feel the absence of both. Believing in God is not merely on intellect. Its on the heart also.

  4. I agree… that there is no proof that God exists. That to have faith in His existence is a choice. And that the making the decision to do so is normally a reaction humans take on to explain what cannot be explained and to throttle on in the midst of a hard life. But if to have God means being able to look forward and have hope despite being a terribly hopeless situation and to know that such coincidences that allow us to thrive in this hopelessmess is proof of His existence then why destroy that faith?

    There really is no scripture or old text that could affirm the foundations of faith. The Bible of whatever religion as people know is only an interpretation of what was written. And what was written may not have even been that significant because they are all very very very old and are not all always fictional, some are merely forms of literature. To take these writings literally could be very misleading and misguiding to the reader. Apart from that, not everyone has access to the ACTUAL writings, we only have what people SAY was written there. They could've easily been altered.

    The sad reality of faith is that it is more complicated than rituals and rules. It is more influencing that just giving strength to live fully. While it has the power to help people move mountains it also has the power to destroy them. People who proclaim themselves as messengers, servants, or men of their God proclaim themselves as leaders of the religious and even use, mislead and abuse their power over their followers. They even seem to believe that their self-proclaimed power gives them exception over the morals they so heartily and strogly preach and force upon their followers.

    I have faith, I believe that a supreme being that is God creates and watches over me and the rest of the world. I thank him and I look up to him for help… but in my own words and owdn heart. And each time that I have reached out to Him, I have never been let down… It is not a faith I will force upon you. It is something I have chosen to believe in… and do so with my whole heart and of my own accord. Perhaps inspired by education on religion but not sustained by it's preaching.

  5. ofcourse, everyone is entitled of their opinion and have the free will to choose what to believe in and how to live. Religion and law, supposedly controls the use and execution of man's freedom, so that it may not be abused and used to hurt others. That ofcourse, could only happen if the people who enforce them are pure and actually follow the same morals, rules and laws without fail. And if their own laws and religion doesn't hurt or judge others as well. The golden rule asked us to "do not do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you", but Confucious seems more original and appealing to tell us "to do unto others what you want others to do unto you" I think God or none, religious or not, if men could live by this one rule we'd all be doin' just fine.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here