The Tension of Faith

If you desire to have faith He will give it to you too. Eternally? Are you being abused by God? He says He treats all equally, providing for both "the just and the unjust" It's hard to see how you have any complaints. And again, you could still turn out to be one of the Elect, nobody knows until it's a done deal. If you don't like God you are quite free to ignore Him, even say terrible things against Him, but you've been told the truth so if you go on rejecting it that's on your head, not God's. He sent the means of salvation from Hell, He's made sure you know about it, it's up to you in the end. Meanwhile He's taking care of you as He does the entire human race, fallen bunch of ingrates that we all are, you have no complaint. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The apostle John tells us that what he wrote in his gospel is intended that we "might beleive" In other words he described evidence for us, to persuade us to believe. Jesus' miracles done in the presence of the disciples he conwsiders to be evidence that should lead us to believe in Him and have salvation through Him. The second quote refers to the fulfillment of a prophecy as evidence to lead us to belief. And those who believe in Christ, put our faith and trust in Him, believe what scripture says about Him because of the evidence given there that supports His identity as the Messiah and Son of God. Really you are simply preferring one kind of evidence over another, that's all. However, there is no evidence that I know of for any religion except Christianity, unless you consider all a religion's followers' claims to be evidence. Hindu gurus and adepts for instance claim to experience all kinds of supernatural phenomena, and there is a lot of agreement among them about that, so you could be persuaded to Hinduism by their claims. I was originally persuaded to the reality of the supernatural and even some idea of "God" from such Hindu testimonies myself. But no religion has a savior from sin and punishment in the next life except Christianity, and evidence for the Savior and salvation is given in the Bible. It's all there, but with so many working so hard to discredit it there's little wonder if you refuse to recognize it.You need evidence in order to believe in the basics, in order to begin to have faith in the things that can't be evidenced. There's no way to evidence the reality of salvation, but John gave evidence from Jesus Himself so that you can trust in Him when He promises salvation. Faith is the evidence of things unseen, but Jesus was seen and did miracles so that we might believe to the extent of having faith in the realities we can't see, on the basis of what trustworthy people tell us. If you refuse to recognize Jesus or John as trustworthy then of course you will not have the necessary evidence to go on and learn about truths that can't be known in any way other than faith. Certainly. That's how we know how the physical universe behaves, and it has led to all kinds of further discoveries.It's also how we know that Jesus is God (yes He said so) and has the power to save us from Hell, promising it to those who believe in Him; and with that knowledge we are equipped to learn all kinds of other things about spiritual and supernatural realities that can only be learned through faith since they can't be directly evidenced. Well, it does to me. The evidence is there, as John says, but many refuse to accept it. Those who do can be said to receive it as a gift of God.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I may forget sometimes to say it, but most of the time I very very carefully and specifically do NOT 'vilify Catholics." It is the institution, the Roman Catholic institution, the RCC, and most specifically the papacy, that is the Harlot Church of the Book of Revelation: utterly pagan, superstitious, contrary to scripture, Anti-Christ.Nevertheless the gospel is preserved in the liturgy so that there are some who belong to the RCC who serve Christ, not the papacy, not Mary, not the pagan superstitions, but Christ. Pascal was one of them. He excoriated the Jesuits for their duplicitous sophistries. There always have been true Christians in the RCC. There could not have been a Protestant Reformation if there weren't. I'm often puzzled by the fact that the true Christians don't rise up against the institution, or at least leave it. They'll even defend it though it is contrary to the Bible and even their own commitment to Christ. It has a powerful hold on its members. It took Luther and other Reformers a lot of time and work before they began to see its errors in the light of scripture.Scripture says "Come out of her, My people, lest you partake of her plagues." That is God talking to those who belong to Him but stay in the Harlot Church, which is ultimately slated for God's judgment in the form of plagues.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is nothing in the Koran or the Book of Mormon that provides evidence of the truth of the religion, nothing, but again there is nothing in any religion but Christianity that offers salvation from eternal punishment. The Koran is full of instructions and commands to be obeyed, but no history, the Book of Mormon is fictional history but it offers nothing as proof of anything.Besides a person certainly CAN assess one body of claims as true and the rest false, there's nothing that requires anyone to accept them all, especially since they all contradict each other particularly in their portrait of the character of God.The Bible is full of descriptions of acts of God and especially of Christ, miracle upon miracle upon miracle, which John rightly gives as evidence of the deity of Christ and reason to accept God's plan of salvation and the supernatural character of Christ. Not so, those are all ridiculous parodies that offer no salvation to anyone. There is reason to believe they were all invented in order to pre-empt the genuine Savior who was promised all the way back in Eden, which was of course known to all humanity even though twisted and distorted by the fallen nature and the demonic "gods" that usurped God's place. Bunch of silly fakes. Christ is the real thing and John is giving the evidence that demonstrates it. there is no comparison between the idiocies of Mormonism and the sterling truths of the Bible, but believe whatever you want. The evidence John gives is sufficient to demonstrate the truths of Christianity but not everyone will be persuaded. Clearly you haven't made a careful comparison anyway or you'd see the absurdity you are claiming. Well, you're completely wrong, your comparisons are absurd.Again, Christianity alone offers eternal life through Christ's sacrifice and John mustered his accounts of His miraculous works as evidence, and there is nothing even remotely comparable in the other religions. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Luther gives the biblical reasons to recognize the Pope as Antichrist. You are right I'm not up on all of that, I'd have to go look it up. For starters, however, the very idea of a Pope or human head of the entire Church, is contrary to the whole spirit of Christianity. The very idea of a "vicar of Christ" is synonymous with Antichrist. Vicar is short for "vicarious" which means substitute, or occupying the place of Christ. That idea is Antichrist.I was once reading a book by a priest that called the Pope "the head of the Church" -- that was back in the early years of my reading about religions and thought I would end up a Catholic -- and the idea bothered me a great deal. Even though I was maybe not even yet a Christian I knew that idea had to be wrong. The next time I opene the Bible it fell open to one of the two verses that say "Christ is the Head of the Church." The next time it fell open to the other verse.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The foundation of the Church Christ built is not the man Peter but his testimony given by God the Father and not "by flesh and blood." The idea that Peter was ever a Pope is so ridiculous I don't know how you all keep on with it. He was never in Rome for starters. It is utterly absurd that one Bishop just up and made himself head of the entire Church over all the other bishops of his day, and then made up a supposed lineage back to Peter. The whole thing is a monumental lie.

That is only because you deny the truth of the Bible, but if we are being careful about what words mean, there is evidence there that isn't in the other religions. If Jesus performed the miracles John describes in his gospel, which John says he described for the purpose of persuading readers to believe in Christ and receive eternal life through Him, it certainly is evidence. It's evidence of Christ's deity and therefore His power to save. Only by denying the truth of the account is it not evidence, or as I put it earlier, by not regarding either Jesus or John as trustworthy. Miracles are evidence of Jesus' supernatural power of course, but you have to believe the account is honest and true. If you don't, then of course it is not evidence for you. But the other religions don't even make such claims in their writings and that of course was my point. They don't offer evidence, they assume belief and go from there. Punishment in the afterlife is part of every major religion, though it varies as to duration and content and so on. Reincarnation is taught in Hinduism and its offshoot, Buddhism, and you may come back as an animal rather than as a human being. I personally know a practicing Buddhist who has become afraid of what will happen to her when she dies because this is what she is taught. The reason Jesus is called "the hope of all nations" or "the desire of all peoples" and similar phrases is because they understand that there is suffering after death, and that Jesus is the only salvation from it that is offered.'' Christmas hymns such as "Joy to the World" and lines like "...to save us all from Satan's power when we had gone astray, "O Tidings of Comfort and Joy" etc., say this, implying that Jesus offers a comrfort and joy not available otherwise to anybody. Whether you believe it or not is not the point, the point here is that it implies a universal expectation of suffering after death that has no relief except through Jesus.There are also multiple Hells in Buddhism, each designed for the punishment of a particular sin, which I learned early on in my investigation into religion before I ended up a Protestant Christian. which astonished me since we usually only hear of Hell in the Christian context.There's a particular painting I haven't been able to find but here's one from Burma: A Burmese image of HellFrom this page:
Buddhist Hell Paintings Google imagesMy eyes are bad enough that I can't make out much of the imagery but that page is what showed up under that title. I believe there is one short section in the Koran that is about some event or other but not anything intended to prove the character of God IIRC. It's simply a fact that the Bible is predominantly historical and the purpose of that is to demonstrate God's actions in history as evidence of His reality and character. This is true only of the Bible. And again your believing it is not the point, the point is that if it is true then it works as evidence, and those who do believe it is true regard it as evidence and base our faith on what it reveals. It's a general point: we make such assessments all the time. Whether yours agree with mine is not the point, the point is that Paboss is wrong, we do not have to accept all the religions as equal. I judge the Bible to be God's word and therefore a completely trustworthy source of knowledge, based partly on its own character, partly on the thousands of commentaries that regard it the same way, partly on the people I know who regard it the same way and so on. I wish I could persuade you of that but if I can't I cant. The very character of his writing for starters, no fiction reads like that and the idea that the humble disciples of Jesus, mere fishermen etc., could or would invent such complex fictionw is harder to believe than the accounts themselves; the unlikelihood that he would claim to have the objective of writing about Jesus' actions and teachings in a way that might persuade his readers of His reality and powers, the fact that millions have believed it to be true and changed the world by their belief and so on and so forth. Again, this is the Christian understanding and your having a different view doesn't change the fact that it is intended as evidence and if true then certainly IS evidence for the claim that Jesus is God who saves us from Hell. You are free to disbelieve it, but I think that keeps you from the greatest happiness possible to a human being. Based on what? Have you read the Book of Mormon? I read a few chapters many years ago and found it so laughable and stupid and boring I couldn't go on. We could argue about individual differences in the ability to assess literary qualities but that wouldn't get us anywhere so all that can be said is that we see these things differently. All religion is about the Other World, it's about supernatural things, it's about angels and demons and the like, it's about one God or many gods, it's about where humanity fits into all that, and a realm of punishment for the wicked after death is part of most of them in one form or another, also versions of "paradise" where the good are rewarded. I think they all contain some elements of the truth and quite a bit of distortion, which is why God gave us the Bible so we'd have the trustworthy truth about it all.As I mentioned before since there is no promise of relief from the punishments envisioned in most religions it can be a scary prospect for some who believe in them. The point is that the offer of salvation from punishment in the afterlife is a great thing if you have never had such an idea before. However all those fake religions about the dying gods that preceded Christ do show some memory retained by the human race of God's promise to send such a salvation, and again the idea that He brings "Joy to the world" and saves us all "from Satan's power" makes Christianity THE religion of religions.This is what most Christians believe, and again your not believing it doesn't change what it claims to be. These particular stories are evidence if they are true. If you don't believe they are true that doesn't change the fact that if they ARE true they are evidence. Actually, rightfully it is. The Bible is the only source of the true history of the world, and it shows that all the other religions are the work of the fallen angels in cahoots with the fallen human nature we inherit since the Fall.But again, your not believing it doesn't change the claim that it is true and that millions believe it to be true. That's the way it has always been, some believe it, some don't, and will continue to be the case until the world ends.I hope for your sake, however, that you may come to believe.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The entire history of Christianity recognizes that John wrote his account of the great acts and miracles of Jesus as evidence to persuade readers to put their trust in Him. It certainly is evidence. Both are evidence, you merely have a prejudice in favor of direct evidence that you yourself can witness, as did Thomas. So does that mean if you go and tell someone else of what you witnessed but that person is not in a position to see it that your witness is false or isn't evidence? We're in the same position toward Thomas and John's account of Thomas' seeing Jesus' wounds as Thomas was in relation to his fellow disciples who had told him of the resurrection that he refused to believe. Witness evidence IS evidence, that is recognized in courts of law after all, and that's why John could describe as evidence his own written account of all the things Jesus did that his readers are not in a position to witness personally. Witness evidence is always weaker, but when you have ten people you've been with for a long time telling you the same thing, not to trust them shows a failure on your part more than on theirs. When you have the gospel accounts of John having endured two thousand years gathering millions of people who believe it is true just as John presented it, the problem is with those who refuse to believe it, not with John or others who have passed it on. Jesus said that those who believe without seeing are "blessed" because that is the kind of evidence most of us have, without any possibility of having direct experience of the things told to us, and if we refuse to believe it we have nothing at all.Yes Jesus also gave Paul direct evidence, but again we have to believe Paul about that, and the writers who tell it to us so we are in no better position concerning their personal experience than we are concerning the testimony of the disciples who witnessed the resurrection that Thomas refused to believe, This is why Jesus gave direct evidence, to show that it makes no difference to those who don't get to experience it, always the majority must believe the witnesses or have nothing at all to persuade them due to their own stubborn distrust. All the disciples and many others who saw Jesus, thousands, had direct evidence of His miracles. Thousands witnessed the multiplying of the loaves and fishes. All over Galilee and Judea there would have been people who saw family members healed and raised from the dead and set free from demons. But you'll only believe in such things if you have the same direct experience? There was nothing more credulous about them than about us, it's just a conceit to think so. If Thomas needed direct proof, he's just like you. As a matter of fact in the beginning when I was learning about religions and didn't yet believe in any particular religion, I had quite a struggle with much of what Christianity asks us to believe that I had formerly rejected. I would say that it was the accumulation of evidence in its favor as I went on studying that finally overcame my doubts. Evidence of all sorts including the biblical witness evidence to miracles and the testimony of all sorts of believers. I even found the testimony of those who went on rejecting it to be helpful evidence toward believing in many cases. Where did I "assume" anything? I said "if they are true" then they are evidence. How one arrives at the assessment of their truth is another subject; the fact remains that IF they are true then they are evidence. It's only if you dismiss them as fiction that they can't be evidence for anything, but if you accept them as true, say perhaps because you judge John to be a faithful witness, then they are evidence for you and become a basis for receiving salvation through Christ, which is what John hoped. Such evidence can be a door into hitherto completely unsuspected supernatural realities. Of course multiple millions, even billions, of believers in "gods" isn't sufficient for you. If you witnessed an apparition of a "god" would you believe that? Try telling someone else about your experience and they will say there is no evidence of gods just as you now do. "But uh, I saw one..." well you're dreaming or nuts or something, there are no gods. And then of course there is the Bible which is a remarkable collection of testimonies to a particular one and only God., that millions upon millions have believed.You address the rest of your message to GDR but perhaps I'll venture a response: There's no connection with Harry Potter involved, and GDR may think the phenomena in question were just metaphorical or something, but it reads as straight fact and that's how traditional Christians read it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How on earth could anyone have faith in someone or anything else without having some evidence of the trustworthiness of that person or situation or whatever? Faith in God or Christ or Buddha or Allah doesn't just pop into someone's head out of the blue, it is the result of accumulated knowledge about God or Christ or the history of the religion or even just your trust in many family members who believe.Once you have such faith you then can build on it with faith in other things that aren't evidenced, such as the promises of God, because of your basic faith in the person or the Bible or whatever that was based on evidence of the person or book's trustworthiness. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

Then I have to opt out of the discussion since I couldn't get through your post. Except to say that such a weird assertion which gives no picture of a split moon to ascertain what on earth it claims to mean, can't compare to the narratives of Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes with particular amounts left over after feeding the thousands who came to hear Him. If you actually think such a nonsensical vague statement can compare with the miracles of Jesus or the parting of the Red Sea or any of it there is really nothing to discuss, it's a huge waste of time.

They aren't believable miracles and I don't even know if they are miracles. The comparison with Bibical descriptions of miracles is too pathetic to bother with.

I was merely trying to point out that when it comes to things invisible, or only whimsically visible, like "gods" you need sterling character to be believed and even that won't do it in an atmosphere of determined debunkery such as EvC, because it's all a matter of being believed, you can't prove it. I've been claiming that the Bible gives great evidence for its miracles, lots of witnesses, lots of detailed description, amd it builds over time from one generation to another too. John's desire to present information about events he witnessed so that his readers could believe and receive salvation from Jesus who did them, shows the need for evidence, which he provided to good purpose if he convinced many, which he must have.The signs that the Bible is the truth are numerous and convincing, there is simply no comparison with any other religion, the idea is laughable, and the attitude of unthinking debunkery here has gone beyond any reasonable level that would deserve an answer. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.