The Tension of Faith

Sorry but that is just nuts Phat as well as demonstrably false. Lots and lots of folk believe that some message is true and has great value when in fact the message is plain bollix.All it is evidence of is the fact that the messenger may believe that the message is true and has great value and says absolutely nothing about whether or not there really is any validity or value.

ok if what you say is true how would we ever agree on a value for the message?And as we will discuss over in the Sproul topic, do any of his messages have any value in today's world?Is there any future for Biblical Christianity?What if they are right and we are in a spiritual war of ideas and don't know it?

I'm just going on what you said. You claimed that you will know miracles are real when there is evidence. Both Modulous and I say that the Gospel accounts are evidence. Ergo.... Logic then dictates that I, (and I'll stop speaking for Modulous), know that the miracles are real.People look at the evidence of the miraculous accounts in the Gospel and with that evidence choose by faith whether to believe that they accurately reflect what happened or not. But you have only decided that they are lies based on further evidence. Of course it's about faith, but without the evidence of the Gospel accounts we would nothing to have faith in. It is like the story of a world wide flood. The account of the event is in the Bible. That is evidence, but based on other evidence I don't have belief or faith that the story is an accurate depiction of what happened.

Let’s consider Joseph Smith. We know that he was a con-artist, that his translations were inventions, that the Book of Mormon history is fiction. And there are more negatives there.Yet, his success as a messenger can’t be denied.

You listen to John Locke and test the message against logic, reason and reality but remember that reality always trumps logic or reason. They certainly generate cash flow. If there is to be a future then there can be no future for Biblical Christianity except as a limited cult. I can think of no greater waste of time or energy than a spiritual war of ideas.

Or maybe Muhammad who is quoted as saying:

Modulous was actually saying something different. This is from his Message 812: Modulous is arguing that the existence of the Gospel of John increases the probability of the miracles described therein, and that even if the values of those probabilities happened to be very low, they're still greater than zero. Paul's message has survived for religious reasons and not as a result of historical analysis. Why do the myths of religion, if myths they be, have to be associated with dishonesty? Where man's yearning for understanding his place and purpose in the universe are involved, hope and yearning win out over facts for many people. Indeterminable, and since the messengers are people, a species not known for perfection, not necessarily the most relevant factor.--Percy

OK how about a spiritual war of behaviors! What if the Biblical Christians are right, there is a personal good and a personal evil and humans are the chess pieces in this cosmic game of brinksmanship?You might say that if this were true the proper response would be to laugh at it. But what if that response itself played into the hands of one of the combatants?

I think you and Modulous might diverge on the point about "knowing" that the miracles are real. Modulous was working with probabilities. But on the important point you and Modulous are in agreement, that the Gospel accounts represent evidence of miracles.I of course don't agree. Things that happen in the real world leave evidence behind, and the gospel accounts contain not evidence of miracles but stories about people witnessing miracles. True evidence is subject to analysis using the scientific method, and no evidence of that sort is available in the gospels. My message to you would be to have faith in the truth of the gospel accounts.--Percy

Again, that is simply utter stupidity.The proper response is to do what Jesus said and laugh at the Biblical Christians.AbE: and laugh at their God and their Satan and sell popcorn to those watching the farce.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

My pardon to the board if I am repeating what has gone before. I would just like to address Faith's initial post regarding a belief in Hell and a theist's (not necessarily just Christians) belief in it as the final destination of all those not in their particular sect. Faith's friend's dilemma is a logical follow-on from his faith in what he has been taught. This is, to me, one of the most heinous traps of religions, more specifically those of the Abrahamic beliefs. They set up a situation where the world is divided between those that burn and those that don't. To people of conscience it causes great angst and worry over the ultimate fate of people they love/like. To people of bigotry it justifies hate and marginalisation of others. To others it spurs them to involve themselves in apologetics and even politics where they van supposedly do 'the most good' and try to save 'souls'. The latter is especially worrisome because the good of secular society plays second fiddle to their specific dogmas. What you end up with are groups that interfere with the implementation of social justice: same-sex marriage, LBGTQI rights, civil rights, the teaching of science, personal biological rights etc.

Hi Phat. Let's assume what you say is correct - that we are involved as pawns in a "...cosmic game of brinksmanship? ". I wouldn't "laugh" at it. I would consider it a matter of great concern. Firstly, if this was true we would have to divine the nature of the players. Who are they and what are their goals? In other words which theology do we assume is 'real'. Only by doing that can we choose which side to support - or not. Irrespective of the motives and goals of the combatants one has to ask the question: 'Must I/we get involved?' What if we abandon all theisms and their attendant beliefs altogether? Would that play into the hands of one of the combatants? Again it boils down to the question of WHO are these combatants? What evidence supports the choice of 'WHO'? There is an almost infinite variety of nuanced choices. For me, I reject the notion altogether as having no objective evidence, not for any of it. THIS world is the one that matters, to us, to those we love. It is HERE that we make choices of how to build functional, equitable and harmonious societies. We don't need the incoherent, subjective dogmas of a plethora of theistic beliefs in order to accomplish this.

That then is true for all his historical written accounts. Some may have certain physical evidence as well but written accounts by your definition are useless as evidence. You would have to define what you mean by that. Are you referring to the social gospel message or are you referring to the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts?

Certainly there are some Christians who believe that the faith is all about where we wind up when this life comes to an end, and that is decided by whether or not one gives ascent to a specific version of Christian doctrine.Scripture actually says that it is about the heart choosing to love our neighbour and even our enemies sacrificially, regardless of our doctrinal beliefs. That is what draws us closer to God. Most of the world outside of North American fundamentalists would be in agreement with that understanding of the Christian faith.Just one example would be, (as I pointed out earlier in this thread), the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were pretty much despised by the Jews. My contention is that if Jesus was telling that parable today it would be the parable of the good Muslim.

Including the part of my quote that you left out makes it clear that I was talking about evidence of miracles: Concerning miracles, a supposed physical phenomena, I don't see how hearsay accounts of eyewitnesses is amenable to any scientific analysis. If you want people like me to accept miracles as real world phenomena then we're going to need real world evidence. Right now the evidence for miracles seems to be of the same quality as the evidence for leprechauns, Santa Claus and Bilbo Baggins. The details of where and how you place your faith is your personal decision. If your decision is to have faith in the historical veracity of the gospel accounts then I endorse your right to your faith. But if your decision is that your faith is backed by evidence that say things about the real world (as opposed to the spiritual world) then such evidence has standard means of evaluation, beginning with the scientific method.--Percy