|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Tension of Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Yes I have faith that the gospels passed the tests, but as I've said, I could not possibly have faith in anything that didn't pass such tests. 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.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat writes: Christianity is the effect of the story. Everyone on earth was affected by the story. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The fantasy that Christianity was spread based on the story is simply that; a cute story. 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.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: I reject the idea of fog in the case of the miracles of Jesus, as I already explained. 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.
I'm so beyond doubting the clear testimony of scripture I just can't understand how anyone manages to deny it. You have to imagine people being amazingly stupid or evil to think such a thing. Pretty simple people too, not the Machiavellian geniuses they'd have to be. You accept your scripture on faith, just as adherents of other religions accept their scripture on faith.
It's actually funny to think you believe the miracles of Jesus were not electrifying enough to make an impact on history, when Christianity grew to dominate the western world for two thousand years, fully embracing all the miracles as reason for us to believe in His salvation as John intended. The miracles of Jesus were so electrifying that no one recorded them at the time.
Paul of course was a major agent in its spread but all Paul did was teach Christ anyway. Very successfully.
Christianity does not worship Paul no matter how hard people try to make him the leader of the religion. Paul was the founder of Christianity.
Just stories about witnesses?. Oh my aching head. Again you have to imagine people evil enough to invent witnesses to invented miracles and able to succeed with such a subterfuge in transforming the western world from paganism to Christianity. Or you just have to imagine a very dedicated evangelist carrying the message of Christ to scattered communities.
And why pick Jesus who failed to save them from the Romans which so many had expected the Messiah to do? Christ brought spiritual salvation.
Why not one of the other wannabe Messiahs who showed up around that time? Does it make any difference who Paul chose to name as his Messiah?
Oh and they had to invent such interesting characters as John the Baptist... John the Baptist managed to achieve historical mention.
...and Simeon and Anna who prayed constantly in the temple and so on. Unverifiable.
Yes I have faith that the gospels passed the tests, but as I've said, I could not possibly have faith in anything that didn't pass such tests. Sheesh. If they'd actually passed the tests it wouldn't be faith, it would be fact. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: As you just pointed out, I DIDN'T say He changed the meaning of the commandments, He revealed their true spiritual depths. That's one way of looking at it. Another way is that he was adding new rules related to existing commandments:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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.
People dont gather to watch fireworks based on evidence that gunpowder makes colorful explosions. Phat writes:
No they don't. Hope of future fireworks doesn't hold a candle to actual present fireworks.
They gather due to the belief that unity strengthens future hope. Phat writes:
They voted for Trump based on stupidity.
They voted for Trump, as an example, based on hope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Modulous writes: I don't use the words "testimony" and "attestation" the same way you do.
I've noticed. But since I'm the one who used the term, the important thing is what I meant by them. But that's a "Queen of Hearts" argument. You're misusing the terms.
Pragmatics beats semantics in this instance. 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.
The point being that your argument against my argument doesn't impact my argument. So your argument fails. If there is an argument against my argument, you should present that instead. (aside) Anyone reading this want to guess what he's talking about? You're referring to this:
Percy writes: Modulous writes: Percy writes: John isn't quality reliable evidence I agree. But that doesn't alter what I said about it increasing the probabilities. It doesn't make it correct, either. 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?
I know you think otherwise, and I understand your tentativity arguments, but it doesn't mean nothing's impossible. I wouldn't argue nothing is impossible. I would only argue that we can't say what those things are with 100% certainty. It's an interesting philosophical argument, but I think in this case pragmatics beats semantics. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Fix the equations, accidentally used ">" where I meant "<".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Modulous writes: I guess one can make fictional characters say whatever one likes.
Erm. So? I'm simply explaining why what the character said doesn't contradict what the God character said earlier. Putting your own words in Jesus' mouth is at best an expression of opinion.
Faith was still incorrect to say that Jesus changed the meanings of those commandments Faith didn't say that. Oh, she pretty much did (Message 862):
Faith in Message 862 writes: Remember that Jesus explained that the commandment against adultery forbids adultery in the heart and not just outward behavior, also the commandment against murder forbids hating someone in your heart. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: 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.
Try advertising a fireworks show and then doing nothing for two thousand years. Hope of future fireworks doesn't hold a candle to actual present fireworks. 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.
They voted for Trump based on stupidity. Granted it was stupid but it was still hope. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
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.
... I would argue that Jesus was not here to put on a show or to drum up support for a religious movement. Phat writes:
It isn't always about money. Look at Trump.
... 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. Phat writes:
Hoping for the wrong things is not good.
Granted it was stupid but it was still hope.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Putting your own words in Jesus' mouth is at best an expression of opinion. If you don't want to analyse what people in a book mean, then I suggest you don't.
Oh, she pretty much did 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
But that's a "Queen of Hearts" argument. You're misusing the terms. 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.
It isn't semantics, it's definitions.
quote: You think tentativity argues that the probability of anything lies in the range 0 > p >=1. Given our limited knowledge 1 > p > 0 would make more sense
I think some things are impossible I agree.
Is there a compelling reason we need to settle this in a thread titled The Tension of Faith? 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.
It's an interesting philosophical argument, but I think in this case pragmatics beats semantics. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024