|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6220 days) Posts: 53 From: Seymour, Indiana, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What to believe, crisis of faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How do you know what to believe/trust/put your Faith in?
We seem similiar. I went to 12 years of Catholic school before goin to a public college and diving deep into science. I immediately lost my faith, even considered atheism, but then I realized there was something about my life that science couldn't explain. This is when I turned back to the teachings of Jesus, which most of faith is based on. It seemed to me that Jesus had a very good explanation for the things that I was qustioning and I turned back towards Catholicism. Basically, I believe Jesus.
So how can i trust the Bible? Personally, all those jewish stories of the old testament don't make a lot of sense to me. The teachings of Jesus do. The assumption I'm making is that what the bible says Jesus said is what he did say, even though its been overly translated, the message itself is righteous.
How can I believe in something created by man?
Well, scientifically speaking, it doesn't matter if our observations are absolutely true, it matters that the same observation can be repeaed. This is all we can absolutely know, is what we can replicate, otherwise it doesn't matter. You can have the absolutely truthful observation that the lock ness monster exists, but unless science can repeat the observation, it will assume that it does not exist.
I can't trust what others have observed
I don't belive this, I think you can. Have you actually crossed the Pacific Ocean to see that there's other continents over there? Or do you trust what others have observed? (might be a poor analology) my point is that you can trust many of the observations that others have seen. Understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Religion tries to convince you that it's better to make up a belief and hold it with perfect certainty than to develop tentative, evolving conclusions based on what information you can gather about the world around you. CF, you sound like a creationist explaining evolution, but visa versa.
Science cannot deliver anything but tentative conclusions. The question you need to ask yourself is whether or not that's going to be good enough for you. Thats good enough for me.
If believing in an absolute truth and not having any doubt whatsoever is what you want then stick with religion. Cmon now...."not having any doubt whatsoever"? Thats bullshit. Is this still the new Crashfrog, or the old one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm curious, where do you stand on the EvC thing? whats your take? To speak for CF, he's a secular humanist (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Hi TheLiteralist,
I realize you are not respondng to me but I saw some things I wanted to reply to.
If the Bible is false, what do you lose by continuing to believe it? The actual truth. The truth that we can empirically explain to others as being the truth.
If it's true, what do you lose by giving up your faith in it? I'm guessing eternal salvation.
but you don't believe God is capable of keeping His word free from corruption. For me, there's no doubting that god isn't capable of keeping his word free from corruption, its just that he is so removed from our everyday lives that he allows corruption.
Yet, Jesus (God in the flesh) -- in the New Testament -- freely quotes from the Old Testament and never once indicates that there are problems with it. Also, he never once indicates that the old testament is literally true. It is ambiguous enough to see it either way. Jesus spoke of Jonas but never said he literally lived inside the whale. Plus, if you compare 3 gospels you'll get 3 different quotes from Jesus that have differing amounts of lierallism that Jesus puts on the story, none of which he claims that Jonas actually lived inside a whale. To provide an example.
Out of curiousity, which parts do you think man has changed to an extent that the original meaning has been twisted to serve mankind's purpose? the 10 commandments
Your point about the catholic holidays, instead of proving that the Bible is false, indicates that the Catholic Church is a pagan, political organization that has nothing to do with the Bible. The Catholic Church disregards many, many plain Biblical teachings. lets just say I turn the other cheek
An excellent observation. Many people never really think about this and think that what they believe is something they've come up with on their own...a conclusion they reached...when, in fact, it is just someone else's conclusion they came in contact with. When I was taught science in college, almost every conclusion i was taught was taught along with the way to come about that conclusion on my own. The simplest explanation being, my theory is that if you drop this ball it will fall. Don't believe me? here's a ball....drop it. We did the labs and discovered so many of the conclusion they told us we would that I stopped having to do the labs to believe them. Kinda like how I believe Jesus' word.
I must congratulate you on this observation. Many people confuse evidence with interpretations of evidence, and, before you know it, the interpretation becomes a "fact." Please don't use that word "fact", it is traditional creationist gobbledegook that has nothing to do with science. And IMO the scientists' interpretation of evidence can be concidered eveidence if they are a credible source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
TheLiteralist writes: Yet, Jesus (God in the flesh) -- in the New Testament -- freely quotes from the Old Testament and never once indicates that there are problems with it.Me writes: Also, he never once indicates that the old testament is literally true. It is ambiguous enough to see it either way.Jesus spoke of Jonas but never said he literally lived inside the whale. Plus, if you compare 3 gospels you'll get 3 different quotes from Jesus that have differing amounts of lierallism that Jesus puts on the story, none of which he claims that Jonas actually lived inside a whale. To provide an example. TheLiteralist writes: Jonah 1:17 says:
Now the LORD had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. It was a "great fish" (not a whale). The Bible makes it clear that this was a miraculously prepared fish, too. Science does not disprove the Book of Jonah. Fish or whale is irrelevant to my argument. When you say that Jesus “freely quotes from the Old Testament and never once indicates that there are problems with it”, it sounds like you’re support biblical literalism with the teachings of Jesus. My argument is that Jesus doesn’t support biblical literalism. One of the passages that comes up on this is that Jesus “freely quotes” the story of Jonas so the story must be literally true. My first reply to you on this topic was to show that Jesus referring to the OT doesn’t mean the story is literal.
TheLiteralist writes: Out of curiousity, which parts do you think man has changed to an extent that the original meaning has been twisted to serve mankind's purpose?
Me writes: the 10 commandments
TheLiteralist writes: You think the Bible is corrupted, and you consider the 10 commandments to be among the sections that men have corrupted. May I ask: all ten, or just some of them? If not all ten, then which ones do you think were corrupted? I think the 2nd and 10th commandments were ”corrupted’. The 2nd one was removed entirely and the 10th was split into two separate commandments, 9 and 10, so that there would still be 10 after the removal of the 2nd one.
#2 writes: 2. "Thou shalt not make to thee a graven thing (image), nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that in the waters under the earth: Thou shalt not adore (bow down to) them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exo 20:4-5) this was removed
#10 writes: 10. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his."(Exo 20:17) This was changed into 2 commandments
#9 writes:
9. "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."#10 writes: 10. "You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour." So now we still have 10.
The organization I belong to -- the United Pentecostal Church, International I’ll leave my opinions of your church out of this. Have you ever spoke in tongues? If you have you should start a thread on the experience as I am interested in what it is like to someone who has.
the UPCI website writes: He can do more for the sick and the diseased than can all earthly doctors and surgeons combined. Do you guys refuse treatment for people and leave it up to God?
When they tell me that all living things -- from dragon flies to water moccassins -- evolved from a single cell over 3 billion years, I don't believe them. What about less extreme views of evolution? Do you believe that evolution doesn’t occur?
The word fact, even when used sarcastically, isn't gobbledygook. It becomes gobbledygook in this context:
TheLiteralist writes: Many people confuse evidence with interpretations of evidence, and, before you know it, the interpretation becomes a "fact." A scientific interpretation is not considered ”fact’ by the scientists. It is a misunderstanding by creationists that they do.
And IMO the scientists' interpretation of evidence can be concidered eveidence if they are a credible source. Perhaps. However, that doesn't amount to being the truth. In science we don’t consider interpretations to be truth. In a sense, the truth is unknowable, unless you’re a mathematician.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
God says that we have the same ability to judge right from wrong as all gods do. I've seen you claim this before. This is your interpretation and I think it is wrong. The bible said we became like the gods but it didn't say we're the same as them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
King James version:
Genesis 3:5 writes: For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil. Genesis 3:22 writes: Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever When I saw CF make this claim before his quote, iirc, had the word 'like' in it. And he claimed it said that we had the same knowledge of G&E that god has. I pointed out that our knowledge could be like his while his could be different than ours. It doesn't really matter though. The versions are too different to know what its really suppose to mean.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
didn't see this before mine went through.
I think the metaphor is clear that, in regards to moral sense, we have the same faculty that divine beings do. I just don't think its that clear, that we are the same as the divine.
If there's a difference in regards to that moral sense its certainly not specified in the Bible. Yeah, it just isn't clear enough to me. I don't really feel like arguing about this anymore.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024