|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,772 Year: 4,029/9,624 Month: 900/974 Week: 227/286 Day: 34/109 Hour: 0/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And what if the accounts disagreed on the location ? By a long way ? What if one said that the accident happened in London, and another said that it was in Bristol ? (UK cities). GDRs attempts to brush off the differences is - to my mind - another of his desperate rationalisations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: There is nothing in the Koran or the Book of Mormon that provides evidence of the truth of the religion, nothing,...
Nor in the Bible, either. That is only because you deny the truth of the Bible,... But I'm an equal opportunity denier. I deny the "truth" of the Bible, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Sutras, etc. Evidence isn't something perceivable only by believers. What you're describing is faith, not evidence and certainly not truth.
...but if we are being careful about what words mean, there is evidence there that isn't in the other religions. You make this point frequently, and the answer hasn't changed. Christianity is not the yardstick by which all religions are measured. Qualities possessed by Christianity but missing from other religions tells you nothing, because it's only comparing one made-up thing to another made-up thing.
If Jesus performed the miracles John describes in his gospel, which John says he described for the purpose of persuading readers to believe in Christ and receive eternal life through Him, it certainly is evidence. It is not evidence. I think you're confusing information with evidence. What the Bible provides is information. Some of it is true, some of it is false, some of it is internally or externally contradictory (or both), and some of it is unverifiable. None of it is evidence.
It's evidence of Christ's deity... No, it's not evidence. It's a claim that has no evidence.
...and therefore His power to save. But it's a claim of Christ's deity with no evidence, and to save us from something else that also has no evidence.
Only by denying the truth of the account is it not evidence,... Well, if you're going to repeat this fallacy again then I'll rebut it again. Evidence is not something you have to believe before you can see it.
...or as I put it earlier, by not regarding either Jesus or John as trustworthy. There's no evidence that Jesus or John were even real people, let alone that they were trustworthy. Given the supernatural claims, I would vote against their trustworthiness.
Miracles are evidence of Jesus' supernatural power of course,... Stories about miracles and supernatural powers are not evidence of miracles and supernatural powers.
...but you have to believe the account is honest and true. If you don't, then of course it is not evidence for you. Well, if you're going to repeat this fallacy yet again then I'll rebut it yet again. Evidence is not something you have to believe before you can see it.
But the other religions don't even make such claims in their writings and that of course was my point. They don't offer evidence, they assume belief and go from there. You've said this before, and it's just as untrue now as it was then. For example, we actually know the author of the Book of Mormon and how it came to be. We have the testimony of Joseph Smith of how a God named Maroni appeared to him and told him where to find golden plates which many people saw and that Smith translated. That's a heck of a lot more evidence than anything we have about where the words in the Bible came from. You just don't see the evidence for Mormonism because you deny the truth of Smith's visions and of the Book of Mormon. Please don't take what I just wrote as something I seriously believe. I'm just mimicking you now. Your claim of "you can only see the evidence if you believe" is silly.
I believe there is one short section in the Koran that is about some event or other... If this is saying that the Koran only describes one event, that is clearly incorrect. According to the Wikipedia article on the Koran:
quote: ...but not anything intended to prove the character of God IIRC. Wrong again. Much of the Koran is about the character of God. From the same Wikipedia article:
quote: Gee, how about that, the Koran proves the existence of God! Not even the Bible does that. Wow!
It's simply a fact that the Bible is predominantly historical... This is only true of the Old Testament, a history of the Jewish people up until the Maccabbees, whose books are apparently not part of all Christian canons. The New Testament is not historical. It's about Jesus and Paul's missionary work with a bit of revelation thrown in.
...and the purpose of that is to demonstrate God's actions in history as evidence of His reality and character. This is true only of the Bible. No, it is not true only of the Bible. The Koran does the same thing. The Koran doesn't recount as much history, but it does incorporate much of the Bible, though differing on some amount of details. See Wikipedia excerpt above.
And again your believing it is not the point, the point is that if it is true then it works as evidence, and those who do believe it is true regard it as evidence and base our faith on what it reveals. The point is that if it is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. You believe the Bible's information is true because of your faith, not because there's any evidence that the information is true.
Whether yours agree with mine is not the point, the point is that Paboss is wrong, we do not have to accept all the religions as equal. I don't think Paboss was saying that we "have to accept all the religions as equal." I think he was more saying that there was nothing to judge any as being more or less true than the others.
I judge the Bible to be God's word and therefore a completely trustworthy source of knowledge, based partly on its own character, partly on the thousands of commentaries that regard it the same way, partly on the people I know who regard it the same way and so on. I wish I could persuade you of that but if I can't I cant. The Bible is not the only religious book of impeccable character and regarded as a completely trustworthy source that has thousands of commentaries.
The Bible is full of descriptions of acts of God and especially of Christ, miracle upon miracle upon miracle, which John rightly gives as evidence of the deity of Christ and reason to accept God's plan of salvation and the supernatural character of Christ. And what is your evidence that what John wrote was true, that he wasn't just passing on stories that were made up? The very character of his writing for starters, no fiction reads like that... There's a lot of fiction out there - claiming that "no fiction reads like that" is a very unlikely claim.
...and the idea that the humble disciples of Jesus, mere fishermen etc., could or would invent such complex fiction is harder to believe than the accounts themselves; I haven't seen anyone claim that the Gospel stories were the invention of the disciples. Maybe I missed where someone has said that, but the claim I have seen is that Christianity is the invention of Paul. I don't think anyone knows the origin of the stories in the Gospels - they seem to have been invented post-Paul.
...the unlikelihood that he [you do like your pronouns - I think you're referring to John now] would claim to have the objective of writing about Jesus' actions and teachings in a way that might persuade his readers of His reality and powers,... Doesn't seem unlikely to me. In fact, it seems pretty much what most preachers try to do, persuade parishioners.
...the fact that millions have believed it to be true and changed the world by their belief and so on and so forth. You might look up, to rebut with something specific, what the Buddhists accomplished in Viet Nam to change their government. And this by peaceful means, a quality absent in much of Christian history.
Again, this is the Christian understanding... More accurately, this is your somewhat misinformed and ignorant Christian understanding.
...and your having a different view doesn't change the fact that it is intended as evidence and if true then certainly IS evidence for the claim that Jesus is God who saves us from Hell. If John is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. There is no evidence that it is true.
You are free to disbelieve it, but I think that keeps you from the greatest happiness possible to a human being. Why do you have the conceit that what makes you happy is the formula for happiness for everyone else? I might also add that you don't seem very happy. You're usually in a bad and intolerant mood.
I'd say there is a great deal of similarity between the "idiocies" (your word) of the Book of Mormon and the Bible. Based on what? Have you read the Book of Mormon? I read a few chapters many years ago and found it so laughable and stupid and boring I couldn't go on. We could argue about individual differences in the ability to assess literary qualities but that wouldn't get us anywhere so all that can be said is that we see these things differently. Yeah, like you I read the Book of Mormon but could only get so far. "Laughable and stupid and boring" sounds like an accurate description. Why the Mormons don't see it I have no idea. But except that it reads much more poetically (as long as you read the KJV or a similar translation and stay away from the more modern but more literal translations), the Bible has the same qualities as the Book or Mormon, and also the Bhagavad Gita and the Koran.
These particular stories are evidence if they are true. If you don't believe they are true that doesn't change the fact that if they ARE true they are evidence. Evidence isn't something you see only if you believe. The Bible contains information, not evidence. If the information is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. There is no evidence supporting the supernatural accounts in the Bible.
...and there is nothing even remotely comparable in the other religions. Christianity is not the standard by which all other religions are judged. Actually, rightfully it is. The Bible is the only source of the true history of the world, and it shows that all the other religions are the work of the fallen angels in cahoots with the fallen human nature we inherit since the Fall. Wow, what a collection of insupportable claims. There are no rules for objectively judging religions. In particular there is no rule that Christianity is the religion by which all other religions must be judged.
But again, your not believing it doesn't change the claim that it is true and that millions believe it to be true. Even more millions believe that some other religion is true, or that no religion is true. If you want to make millions your criteria, you're outnumbered.
I hope for your sake, however, that you may come to believe. Unlike you I have been constant in my beliefs since I was a kid. They come from inside and they are held on faith, not evidence. But I would of course change my beliefs if presented with evidence that is actually evidence rather than stories. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
How on earth could anyone have faith in someone or anything else without having some evidence of the trustworthiness of that person or situation or whatever? Gee, I don't know, how could someone keep ignoring the true definition of the word faith: not having evidence or reasons for what you believe.
Faith in God or Christ or Buddha or Allah doesn't just pop into someone's head out of the blue, it is the result of accumulated knowledge about God or Christ or the history of the religion or even just your trust in many family members who believe. Faith in God is not a matter of knowledge. It comes from the heart, not the head and not history and not family. Anyone who believes what their family believes or what most people around them believe or what a book tells them is not following their heart. Faith comes from within.
Once you have such faith you then can build on it with faith in other things that aren't evidenced, such as the promises of God, because of your basic faith in the person or the Bible or whatever that was based on evidence of the person or book's trustworthiness. Your kind of faith is unnecessarily complicated. -Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Im on vacation and I dont want to spend a lot of time on this so I just want to respond to this. Gee, I'm on vacation, too, and having the time of my life today. We overdid it yesterday and so we're taking a day to recover. Just sitting around has been wonderful.
I have not claimed that faith requires evidence. Faith does not require evidence. Oh, okay. When you responded to Paboss's Message 492 that was a reply to Faith's Message 491 about evidence I just assumed you were supporting her position.
My claim is that there is evidence in the fact that the NT exists. I'm definitely sure I'm not getting this. Are you saying that the fact that the NT exists means it contains evidence? Or something else?
That is evidence which can be accepted or rejected. Okay, I think you mean that the NT's existence means it contains evidence. I disagree, of course. The NT contains information, some true, some false, some internally or externally contradictory (or both), and some unverifiable. The NT does not contain evidence.
We can discuss the strength of that as evidence, and on that we will obviously disagree, but the fact remains that it is evidence. I would phrase this differently. We can discuss how well supported the NT stories are supported by evidence, but the NT itself is not evidence. Obviously the backdrop of 1st century Judah is factual information, but there's no evidence of the supernatural stuff, no evidence for the Jesus stories themselves, and certainly no evidence for the wilder stuff, like the Book of Revelation. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
That is only because you deny the truth of the Bible, but if we are being careful about what words mean, there is evidence there that isn't in the other religions. There is evidence in other religions that just isn't there in Christianity.
If Jesus performed the miracles John describes in his gospel, which John says he described for the purpose of persuading readers to believe in Christ and receive eternal life through Him, it certainly is evidence. And if the miracles in the Quran or Hadith happened as described is that evidence?
It's evidence of Christ's deity and therefore His power to save. Would the Quran miracle be evidence of Allah's divinity and power over the heavens?
Only by denying the truth of the account is it not evidence, or as I put it earlier, by not regarding either Jesus or John as trustworthy. So faith comes first, then the things you have faith in are evidence?
But the other religions don't even make such claims in their writings and that of course was my point. They don't offer evidence, they assume belief and go from there. Well there are the miracles in Islam. The miracles in Buddhism:
quote: There are miracles all over the place in Hinduism - Lakshmi showering the poor with gold coins as a reward for selflessness after a prayer was issued. Krishna rescued 16,000 women from hell and married them all and simultaneously lived with them all in different houses so as to preserve their honour in the society they were in. Sri Padmapadacharya walked on water, Adi Shankara drank molten iron (and didn't die) to teach his followers the folly of copying all of his actions....
Reincarnation is taught in Hinduism and its offshoot, Buddhism, and you may come back as an animal rather than as a human being. I personally know a practicing Buddhist who has become afraid of what will happen to her when she dies because this is what she is taught. The reason Jesus is called "the hope of all nations" or "the desire of all peoples" and similar phrases is because they understand that there is suffering after death, and that Jesus is the only salvation from it that is offered.'' For Buddhists there is salvation in the form of Nirvana. The Buddha shows the path to escape from the cycle of suffering and karma. Likewise, Hinduism has moksha.
There are also multiple Hells in Buddhism, each designed for the punishment of a particular sin, which I learned early on in my investigation into religion before I ended up a Protestant Christian. which astonished me since we usually only hear of Hell in the Christian context. They often call them Naraka. In Chinese religion they are Diyu - ruled by the Yama Kings. There are frozen places, boiling places - mountains of knives you might be thrown off....
I believe there is one short section in the Koran that is about some event or other but not anything intended to prove the character of God IIRC Seriously, it's only as long as the book of Genesis. I have audiobook version of it if your eyes can't take it. I linked to 54 above - where the Noah story and the Lot situation are quickly recounted as proof of God's character.
And again your believing it is not the point, the point is that if it is true then it works as evidence, and those who do believe it is true regard it as evidence and base our faith on what it reveals. But if those other religions are true, then their religious claims must also work as evidence....
the idea that the humble disciples of Jesus, mere fishermen etc., could or would invent such complex fictionw is harder to believe than the accounts themselves; What about the idea that educated and intelligent men invented those mere fishermen etc as characters?
the unlikelihood that he would claim to have the objective of writing about Jesus' actions and teachings in a way that might persuade his readers of His reality and powers, Seems likely that someone might have the objective of writing about another person's actions to persuade people of their reality and power. Certainly we see that in other texts, especially religious ones. Sometimes people even write about themselves that way too.
quote: That's from a legal document, not even a religious text. Looks like a pretty blatant attempt to persuade people of the power, abilities and majesty of Hammurabi.
doesn't change the fact that it is intended as evidence and if true then certainly IS evidence for the claim that Jesus is God who saves us from Hell. Anyway, the takeaway here is that evidence should be something that indicates something is true. You can't say, 'if the claim is true, that is evidence that the claim is true' in any reasonable fashion. You have faith the claim is true. You can say that testimony is evidence of the truth of the claim. The strength of that evidence is open to debate, and there are many contradictory testimonies that people have made regarding the nature of gods, the afterlife etc. You have faith in the testimony in the Bible. You don't have corroborating evidence for that testimony. You only have the testimony and your faith in it. If a witness stood up and said you were a murderer, you might argue that technically that is evidence you are a murderer - but you'd also say people would have to be gullible to believe it without corroboration. That witness may have people that accept the testimony on faith. They, for whatever reason, trust the witness. But they don't have anything beyond their faith in the testimony. The testimony is the evidence - and its weak - and should be considered with skepticism without corroboration. Now those people that trust the witness - they probably have good reasons. They've known them for years, they're not ones to invent lies or nonsense, spin stories. They've known this witness to have been honest - even to their own detriment on a number of occasions etc. But nobody has reason to trust the Gospel writers - or indeed any of the authors of the books, letters etc in the Bible. For the most part, we don't know who they are, why they took pains to write those words, and whether there was any incentive other than recording truth for them to do it. Writing was not a cheap art - somebody likely compensated them for their works. Why would anyone pay? Maybe it strengthened their hold over a religious community whose tithes were someone's livelihood? We don't know. So how can we trust? The fact that many of the books contain a historical narrative isn't cause to trust the authors. That they claim the people and deities they write of have power to save us is not a reason to trust them. So why trust them? There is no reason. And that's what we mean when we say you have Faith and no evidence. You have nothing to justify your faith but your faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Please give me one example from the Koran that you think is a miracle and what you think it is evidence of. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That definition is just a silly idea about what faith is, that grew up over the last century. I see it expressed here a lot but it isn't faith, nobody would have faith in anyone or anything that has no evidence whatever. This notion of a blind leap that became popular in the last century out of "liberal" Christianity was always a false idea. John clearly says he intentionally wrote about Jesus' doings in order to persuade people to believe in Him, in His fulfillment of the prophecies of the Messiah, in his nature as God, etc. etc. That's certainly evidence he's talking about. But as I keep saying, once you have faith in Christ then you can have faith without any additional evidence in things He tells us. That is unevidenced faith in the thing itself, but it's based on solidly founded faith in Christ Himself.
Faith is putting trust in "things unseen" but it has to be grounded in good reasons for believing in those things unseen. And everybody here knows that. If someone says there is a large pink but invisible unicorn suspended over your head you aren't going to believe it because out of the blue like that you have no grounds to believe it. but if Christ tells us He is going to prepare a place for us in heaven those who trust Christ based on what the Bible reveals about Him believe that He is preparing a place for us. If you don't believe in Christ's trustworthiness you won't believe He's preparing a place for us either, but the first is necessary to believing the second. Name ONE thing or person you have faith in that is not founded on some kind of evidence of his or its trustworthiness. Our minds don't work that way. John's writing down evidence in order for us to believe is needed. In fact the whole Bible was written to convince us of the reality of God and His character. Christianity is never based on a blind leap of faith. Why would Jesus have bothered doing all the miracles He did? ALL traditional mainstream theology says He did it all to validate His claim to be the Messiah promised throughout the OT. Or why did God do the miracles in the OT either? The burning bush, the plagues on Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea etc etc etc. It's utter nonsense to think faith is possible without evidence that convinces we are right to have faith. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That someone wrote something is not very good evidence. (I say someone because we don’t know who wrote John - and we do know that there were some additions by another writer). Especially when there are good reasons to doubt it’s reliability in a number of areas (and there are). It certainly shouldn’t be sufficient evidence. Then again, writing to persuade is rather different than writing to provide evidence. Someone writing to provide evidence would tell us how they know the things they claim.
quote: But you don’t have Christ saying that. You have someone saying that Christ said that. You need to place an awful lot of trust in the Bible before you can get to what you wrote. And the evidence is very much against THAT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22492 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: That definition is just a silly idea about what faith is, that grew up over the last century. And where did you get that fiction? Here is the definition of faith from the Oxford Dictionaries website:
quote: If you think you can prove it, it isn't faith.
I see it expressed here a lot but it isn't faith, nobody would have faith in anyone or anything that has no evidence whatever. Well, since your religious beliefs have no evidence, I'd say your beliefs are based upon faith.
This notion of a blind leap that became popular in the last century out of "liberal" Christianity was always a false idea. Yeah, sure. If you could prove your beliefs with evidence you wouldn't be using the word faith, you'd be using the word proof. You'd be talking about the your proven tenets instead of the tenets of your faith.
John clearly says he intentionally wrote about Jesus' doings in order to persuade people to believe in Him, in His fulfillment of the prophecies of the Messiah, in his nature as God, etc. etc. That's certainly evidence he's talking about. John described events for which there is no evidence. There are many non-canonical Gospels that have just as much evidential support as John, i.e., none. Stories are not evidence.
But as I keep saying, once you have faith in Christ then you can have faith without any additional evidence in things He tells us. That is unevidenced faith in the thing itself, but it's based on solidly founded faith in Christ Himself. There you go with the two types of faith again, one evidenced, one not. There is really only one type of religious faith, the kind that comes from within and that stands firm no matter the evidence from the real world.
Faith is putting trust in "things unseen"... That is correct.
...but it has to be grounded in good reasons for believing in those things unseen. That is incorrect.
And everybody here knows that. That, too, is incorrect.
If someone says there is a large pink but invisible unicorn suspended over your head you aren't going to believe it because out of the blue like that you have no grounds to believe it. but if Christ tells us He is going to prepare a place for us in heaven those who trust Christ based on what the Bible reveals about Him believe that He is preparing a place for us. If you don't believe in Christ's trustworthiness you won't believe He's preparing a place for us either, but the first is necessary to believing the second. But Christ didn't "tell us He is going to prepare a place for us in heaven." The Bible says he told us that. It's a story that you've chosen to accept based upon faith, not evidence. And believing in the trustworthiness of Christ, indeed that such a person ever existed, is something you also accept based upon faith, not evidence. If you had evidence you'd produce it, but you don't. All you have is a book that you keep claiming contains evidence but is just a collection of stories, many of them fanciful, fantastical, impossible.
Name ONE thing or person you have faith in that is not founded on some kind of evidence of his or its trustworthiness. You're confusing two different definitions of faith. When you say, "I have faith in our company's management," you're using the definition of faith that reads, "confidence or trust in a person or thing." When you say, "I have faith in God in heaven," you're using the definition of faith that reads "strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."
Our minds don't work that way. John's writing down evidence in order for us to believe is needed. John was not writing down evidence. He was writing down stories that had been passed down to him from others. When you write, "The car went down the road," you are not writing down evidence. Words on paper are not evidence. You are merely recording your observations, which may or may not be accurate.
In fact the whole Bible was written to convince us of the reality of God and His character. Sure. In that sense it's a work of persuasion. It isn't a collection of evidence.
Christianity is never based on a blind leap of faith. Since you have no evidence, what else could it be but a blind leap of faith. That's what all religions are.
Why would Jesus have bothered doing all the miracles He did? ALL traditional mainstream theology says He did it all to validate His claim to be the Messiah promised throughout the OT. Or why did God do the miracles in the OT either? The burning bush, the plagues on Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea etc etc etc. It's utter nonsense to think faith is possible without evidence that convinces we are right to have faith. How do you know any of these miracles really happened? How do you know they're not just stories in a religious book designed to convince people to a particular set of religious beliefs? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
But someone just writing that there's a broken window with a baseball on the floor is not evidence. You don't consider, for example, newspaper articles described contemporary events to be evidence? Because that kind of evidence is frequently cited here. Yet your current description does not distinguish the Gospel According to Luke, from a story in the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps a little more care in explaining why Bible stories are not evidence, or at least are not reliable evidence may be in order. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: In fact the whole Bible was written to convince us of the reality of God and His character. Christianity is never based on a blind leap of faith. Why would Jesus have bothered doing all the miracles He did? Actually Faith, in almost all of the miracles reported in the Bible stories Jesus did miracles because something needed doing and in fact NOT to convince us of the reality of God and His character. A great example is the time Jesus made the beer run at the wedding bash. Not only did he only do it because Momma Said, Momma Said, he did not even take credit for it.
In the Feeding of the 5000, Jesus simply responded to a need and not to amaze the rubes. Not once in any of the various versions of that story does Jesus ever say "Here, hold my beer and watch me do this!" It's John, not Jesus, that makes the claim that the goal of the miracles was to convince us of the reality of God and His character. Jesus simply did what was necessary at the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
Actually, the miracles make it clear the Bible is fiction.
In fact the whole Bible was written to convince us of the reality of God and His character. Christianity is never based on a blind leap of faith. Why would Jesus have bothered doing all the miracles He did?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
While I don’t entirely agree with Percy a story written by a credulous and biased unknown using unidentified sources - or sources which aren’t any better - decades after the events is never going to be good evidence. Even without additional evidence of unreliability - which we have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Please give me one example from the Koran that you think is a miracle and what you think it is evidence of. Thank you. I already gave you "The Hour has come near, and the moon has split" and that this evidence that God has power over the heavens. Also the Global Flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1470 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
John described events for which there is no evidence. There are many non-canonical Gospels that have just as much evidential support as John, i.e., none. Stories are not evidence. True stories can be evidence, and John described miracles performed by Jesus as evidence of His deity so that people reading about them might believe in Him.
There you go with the two types of faith again, one evidenced, one not. There is really only one type of religious faith, the kind that comes from within and that stands firm no matter the evidence from the real world. There is no such thing. Human beings need to have some reason for believing anything. Once we believe that Jesus is the Son of God/Messiah then we also believe all the things He tells us and don't need evidence other than His saying them in order to believe them. That is faith in things unseen, based on our knowledge that Jesus is God and Lord.
But Christ didn't "tell us He is going to prepare a place for us in heaven." The Bible says he told us that. It's a story that you've chosen to accept based upon faith, not evidence. And believing in the trustworthiness of Christ, indeed that such a person ever existed, is something you also accept based upon faith, not evidence. If you had evidence you'd produce it, but you don't. All you have is a book that you keep claiming contains evidence but is just a collection of stories, many of them fanciful, fantastical, impossible. As John said, he wrote about Jesus' miracles as evidence that He is deity. It's evidence I believe. John produced tons of evidence. It's evidence if it's true. You dismiss it as false so it can't be evidence for you. It is evidence for me because I believe the writers are honest reporters of what they actually witnessed. I think it takes a very strange kind of blindness to deny the reality of Jesus or John, but in any case I have evidence because of their reality that you don't have.
John was not writing down evidence. He was writing down stories that had been passed down to him from others. When you write, "The car went down the road," you are not writing down evidence. Words on paper are not evidence. You are merely recording your observations, which may or may not be accurate. Have you personally performed the experiments and observations Francis and rick performed, or Newton or Einstein? Or do you believe their conclusions as written down? "The car went down the road" may very well be evidence, say in a trial as reported by a witness to the events the defendant is being tried for. It may be very important to know that the car went down the road in this case, rather than standing still or going off the road etc. If another witness says the same thing it becomes even more trustworthy evidence, and of course John in many of his accounts is describing the same events the other gospel writers also describe. John was not repeating stories told by others, he was an eyewitness of what he described, and his presence with Jesus is confirmed by the other gospels. \\
Since you have no evidence, what else could it be but a blind leap of faith. That's what all religions are. The Bible is evidence, just as the written reports of Francis and Crick's studies of the DNA molecule are evidence of its double helix form. Nobody makes a blind leap of faith in anything whatever. You have to have reasons. And by the way, the word "faith" really properly only blongs to Chrsitianity. It is its central tenet, that we are "saved by faith and not by works lest any man should boast." By believing that salvation comes through Christ's death on the cross we are saived. That is faith, and it is faith in "things unseen" based on our being convinced that Christ has the power and the will to do this for us. That is an active faith that accomplishes salvation. In reality there is no faith required in any other religion. Allah didn't do anythoing one has to have faith in, one just believes he is God and can gell us what to do. Pretty much the same with other religions. Faith is specific to Christianity, we have an actual Person whose character is presented on every page, in whom we are to have faith, meaning trust for ssalvation, trust to guide us, trust to protect us where promised, and so on. Allah doesn't promise such things so there is no need for faith. Hinduism says if you're good enough you may escape coming back as an animal. Where's faith required in that scenario? Buddhism says if you are adept at meditation you may achieve Nirvana and the extinguishing of the bad karma that would have you come back as an animal or put you in one or more of the Buddhist hells. If you have to work for your salvation faith is not involved. But we are to give ourselves up completely to Christ as the sole cause of our salvation. That's faith, total dependence on Him.
Why would Jesus have bothered doing all the miracles He did? ALL traditional mainstream theology says He did it all to validate His claim to be the Messiah promised throughout the OT. Or why did God do the miracles in the OT either? The burning bush, the plagues on Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea etc etc etc. It's utter nonsense to think faith is possible without evidence that convinces we are right to have faith. How do you know any of these miracles really happened? Because I recognize the truthfulness of the reporters and all those who have believed they really happened. They're very convincing if you pry yourself loose from your baseless prejudices against them.
How do you know they're not just stories in a religious book designed to convince people to a particular set of religious beliefs? I think for most Christians answering that would involve describing our daily experience of evidences that it all works together in amazing ways, all of it mutually confirming. This idea that anyone could have the ability to design such a book is really so ludicrous it's beyond explaining. I don't even think that about other religions. People write what they know or believe with sincerity. Even the Satan-inspired Mohammed was convinced of what he was writing. Nobody has the ability or the desire to invent such stuff, but especially the Bible. Only God would know enough to write the Bible. Anyway don't you think we've done this to death by now? Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024