The Tension of Faith

quote:

---

If I had only two witnesses and they disagreed with who was driving a car - both accounts would be thrown out. With three - all accounts are suspect, but we'd side with the two that do agree normally.

---

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.

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. 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. 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. No, it's not evidence. It's a claim that has no evidence. But it's a claim of Christ's deity with no evidence, and to save us from something else that also has no 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. 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. Stories about miracles and supernatural powers are not evidence of miracles and supernatural powers. 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. 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. If this is saying that the Koran only describes one event, that is clearly incorrect. According to the Wikipedia article on the Koran:

quote:

---

It sometimes offers detailed accounts of specific historical events,...
...
Quran recounts stories of many of the people and events recounted in Jewish and Christian sacred books (Tanakh, Bible) and devotional literature (Apocrypha, Midrash), although it differs in many details.

---

Wrong again. Much of the Koran is about the character of God. From the same Wikipedia article:

quote:

---

The central theme of the Quran is monotheism. God is depicted as living, eternal, omniscient and omnipotent (see, e.g., Quran 2:20, 2:29, 2:255). God's omnipotence appears above all in his power to create. He is the creator of everything, of the heavens and the earth and what is between them (see, e.g., Quran 13:16, 50:38, etc.). All human beings are equal in their utter dependence upon God,[better source needed] and their well-being depends upon their acknowledging that fact and living accordingly.

​

The Quran uses cosmological and contingency arguments in various verses without referring to the terms to prove the existence of God.

---

Gee, how about that, the Koran proves the existence of God! Not even the Bible does that. Wow! 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. 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. 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. 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. The Bible is not the only religious book of impeccable character and regarded as a completely trustworthy source that has thousands of commentaries. There's a lot of fiction out there - claiming that "no fiction reads like that" is a very unlikely claim. 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. Doesn't seem unlikely to me. In fact, it seems pretty much what most preachers try to do, persuade parishioners. 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. More accurately, this is your somewhat misinformed and ignorant Christian understanding. If John is true then it is accurate information, not evidence. There is no evidence that it is true. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

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 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. Your kind of faith is unnecessarily complicated.-Percy

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. 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. 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? 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. 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

There is evidence in other religions that just isn't there in Christianity. And if the miracles in the Quran or Hadith happened as described is that evidence? Would the Quran miracle be evidence of Allah's divinity and power over the heavens? So faith comes first, then the things you have faith in are evidence? Well there are the miracles in Islam. The miracles in Buddhism:

quote:

---

he appears and vanishes; he goes unhindered through a wall, through an enclosure, through a mountain, as though through space; he dives in and out of the earth as though it were water; he walks on water without sinking as though it were earth; seated cross-legged, he travels in space like a bird; with his hand he touches and strokes the moon and sun so powerful and mighty; he wields bodily mastery even as far as the Brahma-world

---

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.... 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. 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.... 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. But if those other religions are true, then their religious claims must also work as evidence.... What about the idea that educated and intelligent men invented those mere fishermen etc as characters? 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:

---

When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.

​

Hammurabi, the prince, called of Bel am I, making riches and increase, enriching Nippur and Dur-ilu beyond compare, sublime patron of E-kur; who reestablished Eridu and purified the worship of E-apsu; who conquered the four quarters of the world, made great the name of Babylon, rejoiced the heart of Marduk, his lord who daily pays his devotions in Saggil; the royal scion whom Sin made; who enriched Ur; the humble, the reverent, who brings wealth to Gish-shir-gal; the white king, heard of Shamash, the mighty, who again laid the foundations of Sippara; who clothed the gravestones of Malkat with green; who made E-babbar great, which is like the heavens, the warrior who guarded Larsa and renewed E-babbar, with Shamash as his helper; the lord who granted new life to Uruk, who brought plenteous water to its inhabitants, raised the head of E-anna, and perfected the beauty of Anu and Nana; shield of the land, who reunited the scattered inhabitants of Isin; who richly endowed E-gal-mach; the protecting king of the city, brother of the god Zamama; who firmly founded the farms of Kish, crowned E-me-te-ursag with glory, redoubled the great holy treasures of Nana, managed the temple of Harsag-kalama; the grave of the enemy, whose help brought about the victory; who increased the power of Cuthah; made all glorious in E-shidlam, the black steer, who gored the enemy; beloved of the god Nebo, who rejoiced the inhabitants of Borsippa, the Sublime; who is indefatigable for E-zida; the divine king of the city; the White, Wise; who broadened the fields of Dilbat, who heaped up the harvests for Urash; the Mighty, the lord to whom come scepter and crown, with which he clothes himself; the Elect of Ma-ma; who fixed the temple bounds of Kesh, who made rich the holy feasts of Nin-tu; the provident, solicitous, who provided food and drink for Lagash and Girsu, who provided large sacrificial offerings for the temple of Ningirsu; who captured the enemy, the Elect of the oracle who fulfilled the prediction of Hallab, who rejoiced the heart of Anunit; the pure prince, whose prayer is accepted by Adad; who satisfied the heart of Adad, the warrior, in Karkar, who restored the vessels for worship in E-ud-gal-gal; the king who granted life to the city of Adab; the guide of E-mach; the princely king of the city, the irresistible warrior, who granted life to the inhabitants of Mashkanshabri, and brought abundance to the temple of Shidlam; the White, Potent, who penetrated the secret cave of the bandits, saved the inhabitants of Malka from misfortune, and fixed their home fast in wealth; who established pure sacrificial gifts for Ea and Dam-gal-nun-na, who made his kingdom everlastingly great; the princely king of the city, who subjected the districts on the Ud-kib-nun-na Canal to the sway of Dagon, his Creator; who spared the inhabitants of Mera and Tutul; the sublime prince, who makes the face of Ninni shine; who presents holy meals to the divinity of Nin-a-zu, who cared for its inhabitants in their need, provided a portion for them in Babylon in peace; the shepherd of the oppressed and of the slaves; whose deeds find favor before Anunit, who provided for Anunit in the temple of Dumash in the suburb of Agade; who recognizes the right, who rules by law; who gave back to the city of Ashur its protecting god; who let the name of Ishtar of Nineveh remain in E-mish-mish; the Sublime, who humbles himself before the great gods; successor of Sumula-il; the mighty son of Sin-muballit; the royal scion of Eternity; the mighty monarch, the sun of Babylon, whose rays shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I.

​

When Marduk sent me to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of the oppressed.

---

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. 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.

Please give me one example from the Koran that you think is a miracle and what you think it is evidence of. Thank you.

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.

quote:

---

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 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 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 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.

And where did you get that fiction? Here is the definition of faith from the Oxford Dictionaries website:

quote:

---

Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

---

If you think you can prove it, it isn't faith. Well, since your religious beliefs have no evidence, I'd say your beliefs are based upon faith. 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 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. 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. That is correct. That is incorrect. That, too, is incorrect. 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. 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." 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. Sure. In that sense it's a work of persuasion. It isn't a collection of evidence. Since you have no evidence, what else could it be but a blind leap of faith. That's what all religions are. 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

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.

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.

Actually, the miracles make it clear the Bible is fiction.

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.

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.

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 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. 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. 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. \\ 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. 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. 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.