"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain).

[O'Darby]

The thread title is a famous quip by Mark Twain, who was not an atheist (more of a deist) but wrote scathingly about what "Christianity" had become even in his day (“merciless, money-grabbing and predatory").

On Amazon, I was struck by the honesty of an atheist's review of a scholarly work of theology that I had also read: "I read this, just as I've read many works of Christian theology and apologetics. And yet I remain an atheist. I can't simply make myself believe things I don't believe."

My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing. Those four corners are what science has discovered about reality and what I have experienced and observed about reality. Just to cite an example, you could put me in front of a firing squad and I couldn't will myself to believe the earth is 6,500 years old. I could pretend to believe this to keep from being shot, but I could never make myself believe it.

In the 50+ years since my conversion experience, I've seen the evangelical community move in the direction of what seems to me a bizarre literalist, inerrantist understanding of Scripture. There is no such thing as being too extreme a literalist inerrantist. How extreme you claim to be is some sort of litmus test as to whether you're a "real" Christian.

What is this mindset and how does it work? I couldn't live in the state of cognitive dissonance it requires. Is it all pretense, some notion that pretending to believe what you know ain't so is somehow pleasing to God? Is the idea that human life is some sort of test as to whether you're a "real" Christian who accepts the Bible at face value or a doubter who trusts your own lying brain and eyes?

I do think there is a huge amount of pretending, for whatever reason. But this can't be the sole explanation. Some Christians - many, even - do manage to sincerely believe things that strike me as preposterous and that fly in the face of what science and scholarship have established to a level of certainty.

I suspect that most who hold the literalist inerrantist positiion would say the truth of their position is something the Holy Spirit has revealed to them, that it's an indication of a deeper and stronger faith than mine, but I wonder: How many mature Christians have evolved from a position like mine to a positiion of extreme literalism and inerrantism? How many have evolved in the opposite direction? My guess is, the results would be very lopsided. How many, as @St. SteVen suggests in his brainwashing thread, have been indoctrinated into an extreme position and have simply never questioned it or whether they really believe it or are merely pretending?

As I said on another thread this morning, I have found it extremely liberating and beneficial to my mental health to accept that the Bible is the word of God in only the broadest sense of expressing a core message and essential spiritual truths. Trying to read it literally; obsessing over obvious scientific and historical inaccuracies; attempting to reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions; wondering why so much of it doesn't speak to me as enlightened or spiritual at all; yada yada - this is just no longer part of my faith at all.

Can the literalist inerrantists say anything new or convince me I'm wrong? Or will you simply ignore this thread because to you "thinking" is antithetical - dangerous, even - to "believing"?

 

[St. SteVen]

The thread title is a famous quip by Mark Twain, who was not an atheist (more of a deist) but wrote scathingly about what "Christianity" had become even in his day (“merciless, money-grabbing and predatory").

Great topic, thanks.
Since Mark was not an atheist, I wonder what he meant by this.

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain).​

Probably intended to be tongue-in-cheek humor.
Poking fun at Christians that believe things that most would dismiss.

If something "ain't so", what is it?
- False?
- Unprovable?
- Questionable?
- Deceptive?

The Bible seems to define faith as believing what
you can't prove one way or the other.
- We believe there is a God.
- We believe Christ paid our death penalty.
- We believe that there is an afterlife to enjoy.
And much more.

Is there evidence for these things? Sure.
Is it undeniable? No.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing. Those four corners are what science has discovered about reality and what I have experienced and observed about reality. Just to cite an example, you could put me in front of a firing squad and I couldn't will myself to believe the earth is 6,500 years old. I could pretend to believe this to keep from being shot, but I could never make myself believe it.

Four corners.
Are you putting God in a box? - LOL

The four corners definition stood out to me.
Interesting.

Maybe some need to think outside the box. ???

I suppose there would be many ways to diagram this issue.
Maybe concentric circles, or even a Venn diagram.

If concentric circles:
The things we are most certain about would be in the center.
Things of diminishing certainty would be in the circles moving outward.
Away from our certainty center.

And everyone would be different in this regard. (assuming)
In churches where you are allowed to think for yourself.

Just brainstorming here. (not allowed at church) - LOL

/

 

[MatthewG]

I liked reading “Unknown Stranger” or “mysterious stranger” by mark twain. I read a little bit of his book “about Adam and Eve,” and seen the movie “adventures of Mark Twain.

 

[St. SteVen]

What is this mindset and how does it work? I couldn't live in the state of cognitive dissonance it requires. Is it all pretense, some notion that pretending to believe what you know ain't so is somehow pleasing to God? Is the idea that human life is some sort of test as to whether you're a "real" Christian who accepts the Bible at face value or a doubter who trusts your own lying brain and eyes?

Cognitive dissonance. Yup.
Most aren't aware that they have it. Has to be pointed out by someone else.
And we all have it to some degree. Some more than others.

I would posit that most of these really do believe this stuff.
I don't recall anyone sheepishly whispering that they don't REALLY believe this stuff.
Most believe it, and many are capable of defending it is some fashion.

I suspect that most who hold the literalist inerrantist positiion would say the truth of their position is something the Holy Spirit has revealed to them, that it's an indication of a deeper and stronger faith than mine, but I wonder: How many mature Christians have evolved from a position like mine to a positiion of extreme literalism and inerrantism? How many have evolved in the opposite direction?

Yes. That would be a natural progression.
I heard one testimony of moving that direction.
It can only be maintained with a maniacal focus on apologetics.

I just remembered where I saw it. This is a fascinating interview.
Frankly, Lisa Gungor comes off as very unsettled.
Alisa Childers kills it. IMHO

Can the literalist inerrantists say anything new or convince me I'm wrong? Or will you simply ignore this thread because to you "thinking" is antithetical - dangerous, even - to "believing"?

I imagine that the backlash will be to accuse you of being an unbeliever, or being anti-Bible,
since your thoughts doesn't align with "what God told them".
(thus playing the God card to end the discussion)

I mean, "Good heavens, there is not one single scripture in your OP to back this up!" - LOL

/

 

[Phil .]

My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing.

That wouldn’t be faith then, that’d be belief(s).

Those four corners are what science has discovered about reality and what I have experienced and observed about reality.

Science is a belief. You’ve never actually experienced science. Iknowright!? Sounds crazy.
At first.

Just to cite an example, you could put me in front of a firing squad and I couldn't will myself to believe the earth is 6,500 years old. I could pretend to believe this to keep from being shot, but I could never make myself believe it.

Why 6,500 years?

Do you believe there is a second before now, or a second after now?

In the 50+ years since my conversion experience, I've seen the evangelical community move in the direction of what seems to me a bizarre literalist, inerrantist understanding of Scripture. There is no such thing as being too extreme a literalist inerrantist. How extreme you claim to be is some sort of litmus test as to whether you're a "real" Christian.

As there is only ‘now’, it’s not a matter of “real Christians” and “unreal Christians”… it’s a matter of delusion or not.

What is this mindset and how does it work? I couldn't live in the state of cognitive dissonance it requires.

What’s it.

Is it all pretense, some notion that pretending to believe what you know ain't so is somehow pleasing to God? Is the idea that human life is some sort of test as to whether you're a "real" Christian who accepts the Bible at face value or a doubter who trusts your own lying brain and eyes?

I do think there is a huge amount of pretending, for whatever reason.

Defense of a nonexistent separate self. Technically not a reason.

But this can't be the sole explanation. Some Christians - many, even - do manage to sincerely believe things that strike me as preposterous and that fly in the face of what science and scholarship have established to a level of certainty.

Nothing’s happening.

I suspect that most who hold the literalist inerrantist positiion would say the truth of their position is something the Holy Spirit has revealed to them, that it's an indication of a deeper and stronger faith than mine, but I wonder: How many mature Christians have evolved from a position like mine to a positiion of extreme literalism and inerrantism? How many have evolved in the opposite direction? My guess is, the results would be very lopsided. How many, as @St. SteVen suggests in his brainwashing thread, have been indoctrinated into an extreme position and have simply never questioned it or whether they really believe it or are merely pretending?

Christianity is not about evolving, it’s about unfettering. When all beliefs are dispelled, only the truth can remain… no matter how preposterous the truth may have been previously believed to be.

As I said on another thread this morning, I have found it extremely liberating and beneficial to my mental health to accept that the Bible is the word of God in only the broadest sense of expressing a core message and essential spiritual truths. Trying to read it literally; obsessing over obvious scientific and historical inaccuracies; attempting to reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions; wondering why so much of it doesn't speak to me as enlightened or spiritual at all; yada yada - this is just no longer part of my faith at all.

That ‘me’ is central, before everything heard & read… isn’t it so?

What’s that?

Can the literalist inerrantists say anything new or convince me I'm wrong?

it’s not that you’re wrong, it’s just that inerrantists is a belief. (“Not me”.)

Or will you simply ignore this thread because to you "thinking" is antithetical - dangerous, even - to "believing"?

Thinking is the thought, “thinking”.
Thinking, thoughts, are never actually perceived.

Nothing is as unexpected as the truth.

 

[St. SteVen]

Do you believe there is a second before now, or a second after now?

I hope there will be lunch. - LOL

/

 

[Phil .]

I hope there will be lunch. - LOL

For sure. We can eat together in the future.

 

[St. SteVen]

Thinking is the thought, “thinking”.
Thinking, thoughts, are never actually perceived.

There it is.
I knew there was a reason I couldn't understand your posts. - LOL

/

 

[St. SteVen]

For sure. We can eat together in the future.

That would be great, but...
What future?

/

 

[BlessedPeace]

The thread title is a famous quip by Mark Twain, who was not an atheist (more of a deist) but wrote scathingly about what "Christianity" had become even in his day (“merciless, money-grabbing and predatory").

On Amazon, I was struck by the honesty of an atheist's review of a scholarly work of theology that I had also read: "I read this, just as I've read many works of Christian theology and apologetics. And yet I remain an atheist. I can't simply make myself believe things I don't believe."

My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing. Those four corners are what science has discovered about reality and what I have experienced and observed about reality. Just to cite an example, you could put me in front of a firing squad and I couldn't will myself to believe the earth is 6,500 years old. I could pretend to believe this to keep from being shot, but I could never make myself believe it.

In the 50+ years since my conversion experience, I've seen the evangelical community move in the direction of what seems to me a bizarre literalist, inerrantist understanding of Scripture. There is no such thing as being too extreme a literalist inerrantist. How extreme you claim to be is some sort of litmus test as to whether you're a "real" Christian.

What is this mindset and how does it work? I couldn't live in the state of cognitive dissonance it requires. Is it all pretense, some notion that pretending to believe what you know ain't so is somehow pleasing to God? Is the idea that human life is some sort of test as to whether you're a "real" Christian who accepts the Bible at face value or a doubter who trusts your own lying brain and eyes?

I do think there is a huge amount of pretending, for whatever reason. But this can't be the sole explanation. Some Christians - many, even - do manage to sincerely believe things that strike me as preposterous and that fly in the face of what science and scholarship have established to a level of certainty.

I suspect that most who hold the literalist inerrantist positiion would say the truth of their position is something the Holy Spirit has revealed to them, that it's an indication of a deeper and stronger faith than mine, but I wonder: How many mature Christians have evolved from a position like mine to a positiion of extreme literalism and inerrantism? How many have evolved in the opposite direction? My guess is, the results would be very lopsided. How many, as @St. SteVen suggests in his brainwashing thread, have been indoctrinated into an extreme position and have simply never questioned it or whether they really believe it or are merely pretending?

As I said on another thread this morning, I have found it extremely liberating and beneficial to my mental health to accept that the Bible is the word of God in only the broadest sense of expressing a core message and essential spiritual truths. Trying to read it literally; obsessing over obvious scientific and historical inaccuracies; attempting to reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions; wondering why so much of it doesn't speak to me as enlightened or spiritual at all; yada yada - this is just no longer part of my faith at all.

Can the literalist inerrantists say anything new or convince me I'm wrong? Or will you simply ignore this thread because to you "thinking" is antithetical - dangerous, even - to "believing"?

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Hebrews 11:1

Something that is obvious in scripture is that God is needy.

​

And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.
Matthew 21:22

The ancients called the faith,the religion of the slaves.
It promised them, if they remained enslaved and obeyed their masters,they'd be rewarded.

Yet,to remain enslaved one has to feel inadequate,lacking.

The promise of a better life after we're dead,if we keep the faith as some insist is our responsibility in order to secure our Salvation, is a promise to look forward to.

While praying for freedom,when a slave,healing when sick,money when poor,z d having nothing change will lead one to another belief. Their faith isn't strong enough.

Leading back to the slave mentality of inadequacy and self blame. It's a circular consciousness. Holding faith in a great God,yet putting responsibility for security upon ourselves.

At work there is someone,we never see who, that leaves tracts in the women's bathroom.

I found Jesus going number 2!

I worked with someone years ago who was also Christian. We talked about the Bible,faith,at lunch.

One day she said, I can't rationalize what I'm asked to accept. I can't think. All I can do is believe,so I don't go to Hell.

 

[O'Darby]

Four corners.
Are you putting God in a box? - LOL

I'm sure you understand what I'm saying, but I'll try to clarify for others:

I said, "My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing." This isn't saying that science, philosophy, experience, etc., must define my faith.

To say that would obviously be false. Faith concerns ultimate metaphysical realities such as God that are outside the natural order, which is the domain of science and experience. Philosophy, science, experience and reasoning can - and I believe do - point toward God, but if I insisted on fitting the eternal transcendent God within that framework then I'd be making a category mistake.

What I'm saying is: Philosophy, science, experience, reasoning, etc., define me. This "me" can believe only that which I'm capable of believing. I don't see how it could be otherwise for anyone. If I can't trust the mind and senses with which I've been blessed, what do I have? This is true both of what I'm capable of believing about the natural order (e.g., is the earth 6,500 years old or 14.7 billion?) and about metaphysical realities such as the existence of God and what He might be like (e.g., is He the God of Christianity or the God of Islam?).

The eternal transcendent God obviously doesn't have to satisfy me. He could be the Allah of Islam - but the only me I have is incapable of believing that. He could be the God of the literalist inerrantists - but the only me I have is incapable of believing that. Not because I'm incapable in the abstract but because I'm incapable on the basis of everything my mind and senses tell me.

When it comes to literalist inerrantism, we're not really talking about God. We're talking about the Bible, a book. If one insists on reading it as a literal, inerrant historical and scientific treatise, one bumps one's head on mutiple disciplines of science that have shown its history and science to be false, inaccurate or wildly improbable. Even at the theological level, to try to harmonize all the inconsistencies and contradictions requires more mental juggling and tap-dancing than I'm capable of or would expect the literally inerrant word of God to require (hence the umpteen warring branches and denominations of which "Christianity" is comprised; hence the fussin' and feudin' on forums such as this).

So my "four corners" statement says nothing per se about God but rather about me and what I am capable of believing about the Bible. I am capable of believing it is the inspired word of God in a very broad sense that conveys God's essential message to humanity. The four corners of what I am capable of believing leave me incapable of viewing it as some magic book that is to be understood literally and inerrantly down to the finest detail.

This is from the famous Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy: "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood." Why would I put me in this box that would require me to exist in a state of profound cognitive dissonce and mouth words I could never really believe? Why would anyone do this? If literalist inerrantists want to insist this isn't what they're doing, then what are they doing???

 

[O'Darby]

Oh, dear, my original post made @ScottA sad . Now we're looking a substantive response as to why it made Scott sad.

If none is forthcoming, I shall be .

 

[ScottA]

The thread title is a famous quip by Mark Twain, who was not an atheist (more of a deist) but wrote scathingly about what "Christianity" had become even in his day (“merciless, money-grabbing and predatory").

On Amazon, I was struck by the honesty of an atheist's review of a scholarly work of theology that I had also read: "I read this, just as I've read many works of Christian theology and apologetics. And yet I remain an atheist. I can't simply make myself believe things I don't believe."

My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing. Those four corners are what science has discovered about reality and what I have experienced and observed about reality. Just to cite an example, you could put me in front of a firing squad and I couldn't will myself to believe the earth is 6,500 years old. I could pretend to believe this to keep from being shot, but I could never make myself believe it.

In the 50+ years since my conversion experience, I've seen the evangelical community move in the direction of what seems to me a bizarre literalist, inerrantist understanding of Scripture. There is no such thing as being too extreme a literalist inerrantist. How extreme you claim to be is some sort of litmus test as to whether you're a "real" Christian.

What is this mindset and how does it work? I couldn't live in the state of cognitive dissonance it requires. Is it all pretense, some notion that pretending to believe what you know ain't so is somehow pleasing to God? Is the idea that human life is some sort of test as to whether you're a "real" Christian who accepts the Bible at face value or a doubter who trusts your own lying brain and eyes?

I do think there is a huge amount of pretending, for whatever reason. But this can't be the sole explanation. Some Christians - many, even - do manage to sincerely believe things that strike me as preposterous and that fly in the face of what science and scholarship have established to a level of certainty.

I suspect that most who hold the literalist inerrantist positiion would say the truth of their position is something the Holy Spirit has revealed to them, that it's an indication of a deeper and stronger faith than mine, but I wonder: How many mature Christians have evolved from a position like mine to a positiion of extreme literalism and inerrantism? How many have evolved in the opposite direction? My guess is, the results would be very lopsided. How many, as @St. SteVen suggests in his brainwashing thread, have been indoctrinated into an extreme position and have simply never questioned it or whether they really believe it or are merely pretending?

As I said on another thread this morning, I have found it extremely liberating and beneficial to my mental health to accept that the Bible is the word of God in only the broadest sense of expressing a core message and essential spiritual truths. Trying to read it literally; obsessing over obvious scientific and historical inaccuracies; attempting to reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions; wondering why so much of it doesn't speak to me as enlightened or spiritual at all; yada yada - this is just no longer part of my faith at all.

Can the literalist inerrantists say anything new or convince me I'm wrong? Or will you simply ignore this thread because to you "thinking" is antithetical - dangerous, even - to "believing"?

You have expressed a good and honest question and dilemma. Unfortunately, you and science, and the literalist inerrantist are all wrong. Actually, most of Christendom has also suffered under the same issue, and Israel before them, and all before that since Adam.

It is given to me to give you the correct answer:

​

Your stated issue centers around the age-old question of: How old is the, world, earth, or universe? The answer, is: All of the above...which is a play on words.​

​

The question that must first be understood, is: What is the world, the earth and the universe? The answer, is: It is all a [partial] manifestation of what is above and spiritual, in God. Partial, as in "lower" and a "dim" image of what is otherwise greater in God.​

​

As such, according to the lineage of the first Adam in unfolding reproduction, each person has been put in the position stated by God, saying, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— Genesis 3:22. Meaning each has been given an equal number of opportunities to do so, according to "each one in his own order" 1 Corinthians 15:23, or time. Meaning: To each their own beliefs made manifest--complete with evidences, etc...even if many believe it is all "new every morning" Lamentations 3:23--because it is.​

​

Unfortunately, looking across to others beliefs and manifestations, it all just becomes confusing "until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled" Luke 21:24.​

 

[St. SteVen]

Something that is obvious in scripture is that God is needy.

Could you unpack that a bit. Thanks.
My tendency would be to say the opposite.
What are you seeing here?

/

 

[marks]

The Bible seems to define faith as believing what
you can't prove one way or the other.

Rather,

Hebrews 11:1 KJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What if we were to stick to this definition?

Much love!

 

[St. SteVen]

The ancients called the faith,the religion of the slaves.
It promised them, if they remained enslaved and obeyed their masters,they'd be rewarded.

Yet,to remain enslaved one has to feel inadequate,lacking.

That's fascinating.
Yet even masters are slaves to someone.

The promise of a better life after we're dead,if we keep the faith as some insist is our responsibility in order to secure our Salvation, is a promise to look forward to.

While praying for freedom,when a slave,healing when sick,money when poor,z d having nothing change will lead one to another belief. Their faith isn't strong enough.

This is a horrible thought, but someone had brought up the OT passage about the siege of Jerusalem that was
so bad the people were eating their babies. Someone commented that they were probably offing them to Moloch,
Meaning they had given up on God.

Leading back to the slave mentality of inadequacy and self blame. It's a circular consciousness. Holding faith in a great God,yet putting responsibility for security upon ourselves.

We have a line in one of our worship songs that reads:
"I don't know what you're doing, but I know what you've done."

One day she said, I can't rationalize what I'm asked to accept. I can't think. All I can do is believe,so I don't go to Hell.

Glad you brought this up. I hope @O'Darby doesn't overlook it.
This motivation of fear brought to us by spiritual extortion by the threat of fear is a powerful thing.
If we believe our spiritual leaders, they hold us captive with their doctrinal threats.
No need to give ANY rational thought to a threat you believe. Fear is enough.

/

 

[O'Darby]

Rather,

Hebrews 11:1 KJV
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What if we were to stick to this definition?

Much love!

Fair enough, but "things hoped for" and "things not seen" pretty well take us into the realm of things about which we can hold convictions but not know with certainty. If we could know them with certainty, faith would not be required. I don't need faith that my golf clubs are sitting in the corner. Even if were in another room, I could objectively verify with certainty that they were there.

Mark Twain's quip and my post are aimed at the notion of faith being a matter of either pretending or somehow convincing ourselves that we can believe things that run counter to what our minds and senses tell us can possibly be true. I used the Young Earth example just because it is a stark one: Science knows to a level of certainty that the universe and the earth are billions of years old. If I think the Bible requires me to believe they are thousands of years old, how do I mentally juggle what I know to be true with what I think "faith" requires me to believe?

My own little definition of faith is "Living as though my convictions were true while accepting that they might not be."

 

[O'Darby]

worked with someone years ago who was also Christian. We talked about the Bible,faith,at lunch.

One day she said, I can't rationalize what I'm asked to accept. I can't think. All I can do is believe,so I don't go to Hell.

@St. SteVen hoped I wouldn't overlook this, but what can I say? "All I can do is believe" - even though I can't really believe, can't rationalize what I'm asked to accept, can't even think? What does "believe" even mean in this context? Shut down my brain and mouth the words, or what? Could someone actually think this sort of "belief" was pleasing to God?

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said. "One can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. There goes the shawl again!”​

― Lewis Carroll​

 

[Peterlag]

The thread title is a famous quip by Mark Twain, who was not an atheist (more of a deist) but wrote scathingly about what "Christianity" had become even in his day (“merciless, money-grabbing and predatory").

On Amazon, I was struck by the honesty of an atheist's review of a scholarly work of theology that I had also read: "I read this, just as I've read many works of Christian theology and apologetics. And yet I remain an atheist. I can't simply make myself believe things I don't believe."

My own faith must at least fit within the four corners of what I'm capable of believing. Those four corners are what science has discovered about reality and what I have experienced and observed about reality. Just to cite an example, you could put me in front of a firing squad and I couldn't will myself to believe the earth is 6,500 years old. I could pretend to believe this to keep from being shot, but I could never make myself believe it.

In the 50+ years since my conversion experience, I've seen the evangelical community move in the direction of what seems to me a bizarre literalist, inerrantist understanding of Scripture. There is no such thing as being too extreme a literalist inerrantist. How extreme you claim to be is some sort of litmus test as to whether you're a "real" Christian.

What is this mindset and how does it work? I couldn't live in the state of cognitive dissonance it requires. Is it all pretense, some notion that pretending to believe what you know ain't so is somehow pleasing to God? Is the idea that human life is some sort of test as to whether you're a "real" Christian who accepts the Bible at face value or a doubter who trusts your own lying brain and eyes?

I do think there is a huge amount of pretending, for whatever reason. But this can't be the sole explanation. Some Christians - many, even - do manage to sincerely believe things that strike me as preposterous and that fly in the face of what science and scholarship have established to a level of certainty.

I suspect that most who hold the literalist inerrantist positiion would say the truth of their position is something the Holy Spirit has revealed to them, that it's an indication of a deeper and stronger faith than mine, but I wonder: How many mature Christians have evolved from a position like mine to a positiion of extreme literalism and inerrantism? How many have evolved in the opposite direction? My guess is, the results would be very lopsided. How many, as @St. SteVen suggests in his brainwashing thread, have been indoctrinated into an extreme position and have simply never questioned it or whether they really believe it or are merely pretending?

As I said on another thread this morning, I have found it extremely liberating and beneficial to my mental health to accept that the Bible is the word of God in only the broadest sense of expressing a core message and essential spiritual truths. Trying to read it literally; obsessing over obvious scientific and historical inaccuracies; attempting to reconcile inconsistencies and contradictions; wondering why so much of it doesn't speak to me as enlightened or spiritual at all; yada yada - this is just no longer part of my faith at all.

Can the literalist inerrantists say anything new or convince me I'm wrong? Or will you simply ignore this thread because to you "thinking" is antithetical - dangerous, even - to "believing"?

Faith has been defined and explained so many different ways that it's a difficult concept to grasp, but “trust” is simple to understand. The lexical sources listed above defined it when they defined pistis as a confidence, a firm persuasion, a conviction based on the reliability, or trustworthiness... of the person or thing that is trusted. Trust also has to have an object and by that I mean something that is trusted. The human mind cannot “just trust” because we have to trust something. It can be God, our spouse, our friend, or even that the sun will come up tomorrow, but trust requires an object because we have to trust some trustworthy thing.

Once again it was the Catholics that gave us the definition that has been used to ridicule Christians and admittedly “believing in something for which there is no proof” and that seems like a questionable practice. So how did that non-biblical definition of “faith” develop? Doctrines were brought into Christianity over the centuries that were not biblically sound and some were not even logical. When those doctrines were questioned because there was no proper biblical answer is why the answer often given by the church authorities was simply “take it by faith.” The history of the Christian Church has many examples of wonderful Christians who were pressured or tortured into taking things “by faith” that did not make sense to them. Thus, over time “faith” came to mean a belief in something for which there is no proof, and the average Christian is not enough of a linguist to know that the commonly accepted definition of faith is not the actual biblical definition of the Greek and Latin text, and so they wrongly think that “belief in something for which there is no proof” is a biblical definition of “faith.”