Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

skeptisism doesnt seek truth...its the seat of doubt reducing everything to a state of uncertainty. Apparently everything is relative and there is no definitive truth to a skeptic. Your own statement shows this is true "Truth is, as a skeptic, I can't be sure"for those on the side of faith, they are much more open in their attitude that truth can indeed be found while i agree that a lot of people dont test their belief, many do, and so your generalisation is not accurate. this is an unfair question. You are assuming that the genesis account is not based on 'reason and logic' when in fact it is.the account says that God made the animals 'according to their kinds'. this is in harmony with the natural world. Animals reproduce according to their kinds, species dont interbreed. It is exactly what we see in nature.Yet evolution does not agree with that, it says that over time speciece changed thus developing more new species. Well that is not what we see in nature. Birds remain birds no matter how varied they become. Cats remain cats no matter how different they appear. Dogs are still dogs and horses are still horses. so what sort of faith are you talking about here? faith in doctrinal beleif or faith in a creator who made us? Im confused. can you explain what you mean by this?
Are you talking about the possiblity that we evolved rather then were created?

prophecy is one of the ways people 'test' God and the bible. Im pretty sure that if it werent for prophecy there would be a lot less believers

\i think people have the wrong idea of what faith is.
to me faith is as the bible says"an assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not yet beheld" Hebrews 11:1Paul explained it this way to show that christians have an assured expectation of the promises of God because they have seen a demonstration of those 'future realities'Jesus showed that in the future there would be a resurrection of the dead by bringing people back to life. He showed that in the future all sicknesses would be cured by curing all sorts of sicknesses. These were 'demonstrations' of 'realities though not yet beheld'So for me, faith is based on that evidence, its not blind.

i agree that its good to question things and to have some form of evidence to go by. Its because of what we see in nature as to why I dont beleive in evolution. within a species there are changes yes. But never have we seen one species turn into a new species. You are placing a degree of blind faith in this becuase it is unseen and the explaination is that it happens over a very very long time. that is blind faith. You believe somethign that you cannot see and that noone has EVER seen.

i guess thats the difference between skeptics and people of faith, one believes that the truth lies with God, the other beleives that truth will never be 100%

gradual change within its own defined species, yes, but not into a completely new species. DNA determines what a species is, not random changes...and the genes allow for great variety within the species. i think its important to distinguish between idealism and faith...the hijackers and the whole terrorist movement is a politically motivated one which uses religion as its justification. It is always going to possible to manipulate a person who does not question the reasons behind their beliefs which is why we Should question them.For christians, the bible should be their standard for making this comparison. yet there are many examples of how christians practice their religion on the basis of mans word (ie doctrines) rather then on what is found in the bible. If you ask a regular muslim they will tell you its wrong to kill, yet if you ask a polically motivated angry muslim, he'll declare a jihad on you and use the koran to justify his actions. I do agree with you that we must question our beliefs and our religions...even people in the bible questioned some of Gods decisions, so its not 'unchristian' to do this, so long as we do it with the right motive and be prepared to accept the answer we are given.
Just from what you've said in this thread, I feel that you have gone too far in that you've accepted evolution as the basis for your existence. Just as no one can show you God, no one can show you evolution either. You know that it is said to happen over such a long period of time that no one can see it...you accept that. Yes evolution sounds possible, but how do you know they are correct?did you realise that there are many scientist who dont believe in evolution? Have you ever wondered why there is an area of doubt in the ToE?I would strongly encourage you to look at the side of evolution that shows all the reason why there is doubt before you conclude that there is no God.

yes there is. You can compare mans doctrines to the bible and if they differ, you take the bible as the true doctrine and you throw mans doctrine in the bin.As an example, the six days of creation is not a bible doctrine. It is mans doctrine.
Genesis uses the word 'Yohm' which is translated as 'day' in genesis.
This word does not mean a 24hour length of time therefore it does not make sense to say the earth was made in six literal days.the fact that Genesis says that all six creative days were made in 'one day' shows that 'day' is being used figuratively in genesis. It is only mans ideas that place the creative days as literal days.So then what you have to decide is if you can put your trust in the bible as Gods word and believe it, or if you'd rather be told by some other person what Gods word means. That is the option we all have. I choose the former, i dont believe in the six literal days of creation. I have learned that they 'days' are figurative as is seen by the use of the hebrew word 'Yohm' not blind faith. If you want evidence of God apart from the physical world, then look at the bible and the prophecies contained therein. Prophecies that came true are empirical evidence of Gods existence and can greatly add to ones faith, and being able to see God. i have proposed a new topic especially with this in mind. the evidence for evolution is very poor. Phillip Johnson, a professor of criminal law at the University of California at Berkeley wrote who researched the evidence that scientists use to prove evolution and from his research there was a book writen entitled 'Darwin on Trial'this book shows how little evidence they actually have to prove ToE. as I said, look at prophecy in the bible and you might be as convinced as I am.

would you read anything with a pre concieved notion of what it means or would you read it first and based on what you've read, form your notion?im sure you would read it first...however this is not what happens with the bible. People are taught all about it before they have a chance to read it. Well take a look at Genesis 2:4
"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the DAY (Yohm) that God made the heaven and the earth"Here all six creative 'days' are being called by 1 'day'How can that be if 'day' refers to 24hours? There are many other scriptures that also use the word 'day' to refer to a time in history such as "in the 'days' of Noah" or "in the 'day' of the harvest" (the harvest taking place over several weeks)

Hi Melindoor I know what i've said may seem a little ambiguous so im going to give you an example of how the bibles doctrine is openly different to mans explaination of itI'll use the example of the church doctine about the human soul.

quote:

---

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: Nepes [ne′phesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole manman as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15,17; 13.37).1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

​

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms (pp. 27, 28), says: In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.Edition published by P.J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

​

Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines Ne'phesh (soul) as: the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17,11 Dt 12,23: (249 X) ... soul = living being, individual, person.

---

This is the correct meaning for the term 'soul' It is the living breathing person. You are a soul, I am a soul. All breathing creatures, including the animals, are souls.Now look at what the bible says about 'souls' 1. living things are souls
Genesis 1:20 And God went on to say: Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls and let flying creatures fly over the earth upon the face of the expanse of the heavens. 21And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that moves aboutGenesis 2:7 7And Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul2. Souls can die
Ezekiel 18:4 "The soul that is sinningit itself will die.Acts 3:23 Indeed, any soul that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people. 3. the death of the soul leads to unconsciousness
Ecclesiaties 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20 says: There is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit [ru′ahh] ... All are going to one place. They have all come to be from the dust, and they are all returning to the dust.But what is church doctrine regarding the soul?

quote:

---

New Catholic Encyclopedia states: The Christian concept of a spiritual soul created by God and infused into the body at conception to make man a living whole is the fruit of a long development in Christian philosophy.

​

Wiki Link
"The Church teaches that immediately after death the soul of each person will receive a particular judgment from God, based on the deeds of that individual's earthly life.[120][122] This teaching also attests to another day when Jesus will sit in a universal judgment of all mankind.[21][123] This final judgment, according to Church teaching, will bring an end to human history and mark the beginning of a new and better heaven and earth ruled by God in righteousness.[120][124]

​

There are three states of afterlife in Catholic belief. Heaven is a time of glorious union with God and a life of unspeakable joy that lasts forever.[120][122] Purgatory is a temporary condition for the purification of souls who, although saved, are not free enough from sin to enter directly into heaven. It is a state requiring penance and purgation of sin through God's mercy aided by the prayers of others.[120][122] Finally, those who chose to live a sinful and selfish life, did not repent, and fully intended to persist in their ways are sent to hell, an everlasting separation from God

---

Without me concluding this for you, are you able to see the obvious differences in what the church knows and what they teach? And how their doctrine differs from the bible?If you can see that, then you can see true doctrine. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

if you are unsure if the bible is the word of God, what sort of evidence (apart from God telling you himself) would you need to know if it really was the word of God?

Hi Radz,i did go away for a week so i apologize for not seeing this post soonerim not catholic, im a JW. We are not associated with any church. Yes, that is exactly what i'm saying.The important thing to take into consideration when reading the bible is to remember that it was not written in english but in Hebrew.The first thing that we need to know is what the original words meant in hebrew and a lot of research has gone into understanding the original language.The Hebrew word she’ohl′ occurs 65 times in the Masoretic text. In the King James Version, it is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit. The Catholic Douay Version rendered the word 63 times as hell, once as pit, and once as death. In addition, at Isaiah 7:11 the Hebrew text originally read she’ohl′, and it was rendered as Hades in the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and as hell in the Douay VersionThere is no English word that conveys the precise sense of the Hebrew word she’ohl′

quote:

---

Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276):

​

Sheol was located somewhere ‘under’ the earth.... The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and the bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentilesall slept together without awareness of one another.

---

In Hebrew the meaning of sheol was quite clear. It was where people go when they die...back to the earth in an unconscious state.Understanding this makes every occurance of the english word Hell in the bible simply mean 'the state of death'
so when the bible writer says 'you will go down to hell forever'...it simply means you will die.It does not mean you will be living on in some fiery place of eternal torment forever. We need to understand the bible in the language it was written in...when we do that, we begin to see the difference in bible teachings and those of the churchs. If the bible says A+B=C but someone else says A+B=D and another says A+B=E then JW's will always trust the bible as the source of truth.There are several ways to test a teaching. One is to look at the orignal language. Another way is to look at the history of a teaching and who first presented it and why. Then the teaching has to be compared to the bible itself to see if its consistent with mutliple bible writers.Hell is good example of how the teaching can be easily debunked.1. Hell is translated from Sheol, a word that means an unconscious state of death.2. When compared to other bible writers its clear that hell cannot be what the church says it is. Did the Hebrew Bible writers say that conscious life and hot activity exist in Sheol or hell? No, quite the opposite! Instead of blazing fire it is described as a land of darkness. (Job 10:21) Instead of a place of soul-chilling shrieks it is described as a place of silence. (Ps. 115:17) The Catholic Douay Bible, at Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10, says: The living know that they shall die, but the dead know nothing more, or as the King James Version says, the dead know not any thing, it would be impossible for them to know conscious torment.3. When we research the origins of 'hell' its clear that they are pagan in origin. Ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs of the nether world is pictured as a place full of horrors, andispresidedover by gods and demons of great strength andfierceness. this is very true. That being the case then surely you'd agree that God (if you believe he exists) must also have his own view of reality. If he does then the only way to know what it is to get it from the source that is said to come from him...the bible.

Hi Razd,im very sorry to hear that, I hope things improve for you soon. yes exactly. sheol and hades mean the state of being dead. So if we replaced every occurance of the word Hell in the bible with either of these words, the idea of a place of fiery torment is no more. The hebrew language is pretty well established. I dont think any scholars are in debate over the meaning of 'sheol' or 'hades'. We are fortunate that God saw fit to have the holy scriptures translated into Koine Greek. When the Jewish scholars translated the Septuagint version of the Hebrew OT, we can be confident that they translated it accurately for they were the original speakers of the hebrew. So while the original ancient hebrew is no longer a spoken language, they know a lot about it thru the SeptuagintI dont believe there are any disagreements in different parts of the bible. When you take out the false ideas such as hell for instance, the bible is in perfect harmony.Do you have any examples in mind?With regard to scholars and their disagreements, its certainly encouraging to know that many of them have spent their lifes work in trying to understand the scriptures. Sadly, for a long time one of their greatest obstacles has been the church itself. We are pretty fortunate now that so many bible manuscripts have been found and researched that their is a fairly strong concensous on the original meanings of wordsWhat is encouraging for me is that I've been studying hebrew with jewish teachers this year and i'm finding, so far, that my understanding is in harmony with their understanding. This has certainly strengthened my confidence in the Watchtower society and the information that I get from them. I believe they are most definitely teaching the truth as it was known by the original writers. by that do you mean the bible itself?

Hi melindoor I have always believed in a creator of the natural world. I can remember in school arguing with my science teacher about evolution and about the likelyhood of the world just happeningI was completely skeptitical about evolution even before i did any serious study of the bible and even before I was a part of any religion (I grew up in a non religous household)It was this skeptisism that made me interested in learning about God, i went to a few different places, i tried the mormons, i tried my local christian fellowship church (cant remember who they were) I tried the Orange people (buddism) i also went to the church of scientology for a short (Very short) while.What made me listen to the JW's was the fact that they were able to show me proof of the bibles truth via prophecies. Not only that but the most profound truth for me was that God was more then just a force, he had a personality a name and a purpose. To learn that God had a name was like a light going on and to learn about the prophecies made me realise that the bible writers must have been guided by a higher power.