Again no shred of evidence. Just unsubstantiated assertions.
The evidence of what happened to the 120 in Acts 2:1-4 was enough proof to convince 3000 souls (Acts 2:41) to believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
This may not be proof to you, but it is valid proof that has been given for 2000 years to the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 2:47 And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.
Without sitting down with you and spending hours discussing your life and family background, your attempt to believe in the Christian faith, ect, it's not possible to answer your question.
So you can't even take people like Rahvin and myself at their word when they say they were Bible reading, God loving, obedient Christians who through critical thinking and further study determined the Christian faith to be a farce.
Paul had a similar encounter with some so-called disciples in Acts 19, and Paul asked them this one question in Acts 19:2,
Actually Paul never said they were not true Christians or disciples, he just rebaptized them in the name of Jesus and laid hands on them because they were originally converts of John the Baptist not Jesus and thus never recieved the teaching of the Holy Spirit by Jesus.
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
If not, this could be the reason why you turned away from the Christian faith. Read the rest of what happened to these men in Acts 19:3-7.
Sounds like your a "once save, always saved" breed of Christian. This is just another attempt by Christians to seperate themselves from fall-aways by saying they were not true Christians in the first place. This is the common "not a true Scottsman" logical fallacy.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
The evidence of what happened to the 120 in Acts 2:1-4 was enough proof to convince 3000 souls (Acts 2:41) to believe in Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
I also read that Mohammed was the last prophet of God and that we should be obedient to his teachings in the Koran. So why are you not being obedient to God in respect to Mohammed's teachings?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Actually I have high confidence that these definitions are consistent with common usage of these terms, while I have low confidence of the reason behind your statement, based as it is on emotion.
You are also confusing "not based on logical proof or material evidence" with "irrational" when these are not a mutually exclusive dichotomy.
Its the type of statement meant to produce prejudice rather than rational discussion.
Curiously what is "meant" is understanding, rather than prejudice. Strangely, pointing out that some beliefs are false is not prejudice, rather it is reality. There is gray distance\area between
quote:"rational" (where we define rational as "based on logical proof or material evidence").
and
There is "rational" "unrational" "nonrational" and "irrational" and some concepts are neither "based on logical proof or material evidence" nor "irrational" ...
Beliefs only become "irrational" when they are at odds with reality, contradicted by the facts. Such as belief in a flat earth, or a young earth.
The worlds definition of what constitues Faith is not even close to what the scriptures or reality would suggest.
The logical fallacy of special pleading? Claiming that your faith is somehow different and superior to other faiths?
Of course you also fail to provide anything to show that your assertion here "... rest(s) on logical proof or material evidence" when you make this statement.
Looks like the definition still fits. Like a glove.
This may not be proof to you, but it is valid proof that has been given for 2000 years to
brainwash
the followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And which followers would those be? The Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox, the Episcopalians, the Methodist, the Free-Will Baptists, the Independent Baptists, the Southern Baptists, the Anglicans, the Mormans, the Jehova's Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Presybetarians, the Pentecostals, the Church of Christ, the Independent Christian Church, the Christian Scientists, the Quakers, the Shakers, the Lutherans, the Unitarian Universalists, the Congegationalists, the Trinitarians, the Amish, the Church of God, the Gnostics, or the World Wide Church of God? (By the way this is a mere spatering of the some 10,000+ Christian denominations/sects that exist out there, each of which believe they understand God and the Bible best).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
... and Paul asked them this one question ... If not, this could be the reason why you turned away from the Christian faith.
Ah yes, the old "you didn't really believe when you claim you did and that is why you do not believe now" cop out, the assumption that faith once really really really acquired will never fail.
This is just your failure to understand those that did and don't.
The discussion has turned to focus on evidence, but if there's evidence, where's the faith?
In his final revision in Message 5 the thread originator said:
Reality Man writes:
What is Faith? or what it is about faith that makes people so determined that what they believe in is as real as the keyboard I'm typing on.
Anyone who's convinced there's evidence for what they believe is not operating on faith, and this thread is about faith. What participants actually seem to be discussing is why some people see evidence where there is none.
Anyone who's convinced there's evidence for what they believe is not operating on faith, and this thread is about faith. What participants actually seem to be discussing is why some people see evidence where there is none.
The faith lies in the unknowns, i.e. how can anything be eternal, etc.
Like my bridge analogy, some freeway bridges do indeed fall with travelers plunging to their death. However the evidence that few bridges fail bolsters the faith in the majority which do not. The more corroborating evidences one has for one's hypothesis, the more one can argue for the hypothesis.
There is an element of faith in science. Science assembles what the scientists regard as evidence for the hypothesis. The more evidence, the more substantial the hypothesis becomes. Scientists, both Biblically inclined and secularly inclined end up with unknowns which require an element of faith; faith bolstered by the evidence relative to the knowns.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
And you must have missed the post you're replying too and the three posts that replied to post #29 They told you as well as I could that you've confused what you believe with why you believe it.
Once again, what you believe is not the question, but why you believe it.
For the wider audience, it occurred to me while pondering this thread that I am one who should be answering this question. As far as I can tell, I, with the possible exception of DannyPartridge, am the youngest person here. Nearly everything I believe is based on faith in those who tell it to me. There is some selection of my own in whom I give more weight to. My uncle got a lot. My mum next to nothing.
My uncle would answer my questions all day long. Whatever I could ask he'd be able drop the question into a whole system (theory) that tied it to something I'd already learned. The more I talked to him the more things joined together.
My mum goes right to the Bible for everything. Every bit is a separate piece. And she has no idea where the white goes when the snow melts.
I have faith in science because it is self correcting.
Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
My mum goes right to the Bible for everything. Every bit is a separate piece. And she has no idea where the white goes when the snow melts.
Listen to your mum. She has enough savvy to understand that the white melts into the soil so when the cows eat the green grass grown in the soil the white comes out in the milk.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
There is an element of faith in science. Science assembles what the scientists regard as evidence for the hypothesis. The more evidence, the more substantial the hypothesis becomes. Scientists, both Biblically inclined and secularly inclined end up with unknowns which require an element of faith; faith bolstered by the evidence relative to the knowns.
The problem I have with this attempt to equate different levels of faith is that it ignores the tentativity of science.
Faith is not tentative.
The more evidence that a theory is valid means that it is robust, and more likely to survive the next test, either intact or as a special condition (newton's gravity operates with sufficient accuracy to guide rockets to mars, so it is useful in the special condition of local gravity calculations). However a scientist does not believe a theory is absolute truth.
Nor does the "faith" you have in bridges compare to the faith you have in your god.
"Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?"
If not, this could be the reason why you turned away from the Christian faith. Read the rest of what happened to these men in Acts 19:3-7.
Sounds like your a "once save, always saved" breed of Christian. This is just another attempt by Christians to seperate themselves from fall-aways by saying they were not true Christians in the first place. This is the common "not a true Scottsman" logical fallacy.
No, I just believe in the Scriptural salvation as explained by Jesus and by Peter. I have met a few Christians who started well, then turned away from the Lord. I have met many Christians who have "sometimes" doubted their salvation, yet persevered and remained faithful to the Lord. But I have not met any Christians who received the Scriptural salvation of Acts 19:1-7, and turned away from the Lord.
I also read that Mohammed was the last prophet of God and that we should be obedient to his teachings in the Koran. So why are you not being obedient to God in respect to Mohammed's teachings?
Allah of the Quran is not the Yahweh God of the Bible, and Muhammad is not Yahweh God's messenger.
God's true messenger declared this to those who can hear His voice,
John 6:27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." 28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
™ Version 4.2
