The Tension of Faith

I could and do. Even if somehow it was prioven that the stories were made up, I believe that the Hope is eternal as is the Spirit. Jesus lives through the Spirit within us. Nobody will ever likely find evidence of this Spirit for if they did, they would quantify and reduce its value. Belief was never designed to be verified by proof or by evidence.Belief is a free choice...not a safe bet based on evidence to support it.

The evidence seems to show that it is not the story of Christ at all but rather the political fact of Christianity becoming the State Religion of the dominate world wide power in the West that was the effective factor. This is also true for most other religions; it is not the tenets of any given religion that are the driving force but rather the political, cultural and economic advantages that effect change.Christianity became the dominate force when the choice was prosper as a Christian or die as a Heathen.The same is seen in other religions, Islam in countries where the government is Muslim, Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism in ares where the current power is in the hands of one of those religions.The fantasy that Christianity was spread based on the story is simply that; a cute story.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Christianity is spread via shared hope. A common Spirit.People dont gather to watch fireworks based on evidence that gunpowder makes colorful explosions. They gather due to the belief that unity strengthens future hope. People dont usually gather or agree based on evidence. They voted for Trump, as an example, based on hope. The evidence is proving rather disappointing.

People decide based on their pocketbook or life. Christianity was spread not by hope but by fear and threat; often by imposed power and law. Until recently to be an open atheist or Jew or Muslim or Buddhist in a Christian dominated State meant a direct threat to your livelihood, often even your life.But wait, there's more. Often being a Roman Catholic Christian in a Protestant Christian dominated State meant the same direct threat to your livelihood, often even your life. Often being a Protestant Christian in a Roman Catholic Christian dominated State meant the same direct threat to your livelihood, often even your life. And the list goes on. Pennsylvania was established as a refuge for Quakers who were persecuted by the Pilgrims, Maryland as a Roman Catholic refuge from the Protestant Church of England.

You didn't quote anything, so I'll have to repeat what I said. "Fog" is just shorthand for imprecision, inaccuracy, expectations overwhelming actual perceptions, post event influences, misremembering, crowd influence, etc. You seem to be saying that in the case of miracles the human imperfections I've listed just disappear, that people observing miracles suddenly have perfect perception and cognition. If you truly believe this then it is based upon faith alone. You accept your scripture on faith, just as adherents of other religions accept their scripture on faith. The miracles of Jesus were so electrifying that no one recorded them at the time. Very successfully. Paul was the founder of Christianity. Or you just have to imagine a very dedicated evangelist carrying the message of Christ to scattered communities. Christ brought spiritual salvation. Does it make any difference who Paul chose to name as his Messiah? John the Baptist managed to achieve historical mention. Unverifiable. If they'd actually passed the tests it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact.--Percy

That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that he was adding new rules related to existing commandments:

quote:

---

Matt 5 21-22 "You have heard that it was said to an older generation, 'Do not murder,' and 'whoever murders will be subjected to judgment.' But I say to you that anyone who is angry with a brother will be subjected to judgment.

​

Matt 5:27-28 You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

--Percy

Yes they do. They go to a fireworks show because they expect to see something they've seen before. Try advertising a fireworks show and then doing nothing for two thousand years. No they don't. Hope of future fireworks doesn't hold a candle to actual present fireworks. They voted for Trump based on stupidity.

But that's a "Queen of Hearts" argument. You're misusing the terms. It isn't semantics, it's definitions. You're calling things testimony and attestation that definitely aren't. According to you this sentence is testimony and an attestation. (aside) Anyone reading this want to guess what he's talking about?You're referring to this: We've been through the argument before. In the interests of brevity I've tried to stop repeating myself.But I don't see why we need to resolve this argument. You think tentativity argues that the probability of anything lies in the range 0 < p <=1. I think some things are impossible and that the probability of anything lies in the range 0 <= p <= 1. Is there a compelling reason we need to settle this in a thread titled The Tension of Faith? It's an interesting philosophical argument, but I think in this case pragmatics beats semantics.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix the equations, accidentally used ">" where I meant "<".

Putting your own words in Jesus' mouth is at best an expression of opinion. Oh, she pretty much did (Message 862): --Percy

For what it's worth, I came across the term 'unused material' which is information not considered evidence by either side in a court trial. (Technically, it's stuff gathered by the prosecution that they don't need and/or can't use. If it could be of use to the defense the prosecution must make it known to them.)The stuff we're talking about is just material, not evidence.

Oh so you are going with this analogy, eh? In that case, I would argue that Jesus was not here to put on a show or to drum up support for a religious movement. Paul is another issue. Perhaps people are called to make their own fireworks for the benefit of the cause...but if there is no money in it, few would be as fanatical as Paul was with no hope of an entitlement due to their efforts. These days kids are unimpressed with fireworks when they have special effects from the technology available. The problem is that we are an audience expecting to be entertained rather than rolling up our sleeves and helping others. I am guilty of this. Granted it was stupid but it was still hope.

I think He was definitely here to drum up support for Judaism (the spirit, not the letter). And the people who wrote about him definitely made show business an aspect, or they needn't have mentioned the miracles at all. It isn't always about money. Look at Trump. Hoping for the wrong things is not good.

If you don't want to analyse what people in a book mean, then I suggest you don't. Repeating it is hardly convincing. She did not. See?She explained what Jesus said, as quoted in Matthew. Jesus was not changing the meaning of the commandments, and Faith was not saying he did. He was explaining theirs more to them than the letter of the law, as described in the quotes I provided from Mark and Paul. I also quoted the original character, God, who literally said Thou shalt not have anger in your heart.

I disagree. But this disagreement is pointless.Do you know what I mean or not?If someone writes 'I saw a man enter Catherine Howard's bedchamber with gifts while she lived with the Dowager Duchess of Norfolk.' and we find this letter today, I would say this is the testimony of an alleged eye witness. You can call it an eye witness report or eye witness account if you like. The word in choice doesn't really matter.

quote:

---

Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēmantikos, "significant")[1][2] is the linguistic and philosophical study of meaning, in language, programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. It is concerned with the relationship between signifierslike words, phrases, signs, and symbolsand what they stand for, their denotation.
...
It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation

​

Semantics - Wikipedia

---

Given our limited knowledge 1 > p > 0 would make more sense I agree. Its up to you I suppose.I argue that John is evidence of miracles.
I provide a mathematical argument to support this argument.If my argument stands, then John is evidence of miracles and having faith in those miracles has a basis in evidence. Exactly, the facts on the ground are we can't know what is impossible. We can only assign probabilities.Whether we're brains in jars, brought into existence last Thursday, or apes with pretentions of wisdom. We can only have various degrees of confidence in any of them.Since you aren't going to persuade Faith that John et al are not evidence, it doesn't seem very practical to continue along that line. Perhaps the pragmatic solution would be to argue focus on the lack of corroboration and intrinsic unreliability than argue about their status as evidence.

.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.