I just get angry when someone tells me that my faith is made up or that logic always trumps belief.
I'm telling you that logic trumps belief. Even Paul told the Hebrews that faith is the evidence of things not seen. What is seen simply does trump belief.
...why am I so disappointing?
Because lashing out at logic (and crashfrog) only emphasizes the weakness of your faith. Is logic such a threat to your beliefs? I asked you a while ago, are you anchored to your faith or to your doctrines? Is your foundation really faith at all or is it fear of reality?
You get mad at fundies for asserting positive truth claims yet are militant that yours should stand. I never came to your table here...you came to my topic. All I ask is that you acknowledge that I can believe anything I so choose without you having to frame the issue as to whether or not it is logical. I don't recognize the authority of your logic, and if you refuse to see the God that exists regardless of your logic, I refuse to see the authority behind your logic. Call me crazy! :)
lashing out at logic (and crashfrog) only emphasizes the weakness of your faith. Is logic such a threat to your beliefs? I asked you a while ago, are you anchored to your faith or to your doctrines? Is your foundation really faith at all or is it fear of reality?
Maybe I am crazy. I have experienced many many instances that I judged to be mystical. I suppose that some folks think that James Randi can fly in the window and disprove every supernatural truth claim ever reported. I don't know. Honestly. It is frustrating to me that I can't prove my beliefs to you. Perhaps it was meant to be that way, though.
I'll be the judge of whether or not I am crazy...and so far, the verdict is 50/50 ;)
Anastasia's point is diametrically opposed to yours. Her position is that God doesn't want to preserve the accuracy of his message, lest we all be forced into believing the exact same thing. I'd think twice before you tried to employ her views in your favor; they don't fit.
You're mistaken. I would maintain that God's message has been preserved, and one of the present forms is quite probably 100% accurate.
But the copies that contain imperfections may still contain such a preponderance of accurate information as to be profitable. I do not believe 100% accuracy is required in the book of Galations before one can be saved via understanding John's Gospel, for example.
I'm not going to restrict God to using any single method. Preserving is preserving.
Then, obviously, his fervor is not evidence for the truth of his views, now is it?
Yet, you offer it as evidence, anyway. You've gone from zero to disingenuous in a little under 2 posts.
Even if that were true, at least I started at zero.
But once again, you try to change what I said. I have consistently maintained that the martyr is sincere. 'Honest' would also apply. Is sincerity a concept so foreign that you cannot comprehend the term?
I don't see why it's necessary to do so. We've already established that martyrdom is no evidence for the veracity of religious dogma. You've directly admitted it, in fact.
You should frame this one. It's your best attempt yet to mislead. "martyrdom ALONE is not evidence for the veracity of a martyr's claim" is what I've said. Martyrdom does rule out the possibility that the martyr is telling lies on purpose. I made it clear from the very first that the martyr may have been misled.
Nice try, compared to your others. But do you not consider the possibility that the third parties who read will see your game for what it is? You insult their intelligence when you continue on this course. They might overlook a single mistake, but you continue to clarify yourself for them.
By the way, why do you fear my little statement so much? You appear terrified of the ramifications, while you maintain that you still don't understand it. Refute it, or let me proceed in peace.
You have a large pool of martyrs available, and yet not one single example? Perhaps you might spend more time investigating and less time making posts like this (although that one really was your best).
I suppose that some folks think that James Randi can fly in the window and disprove every supernatural truth claim ever reported.
The problem is that you wish you could prove your supernatural claims by natural symptoms. The supernatural - if it exists - inherently has no natural symptoms. It can not be "proven".
It is frustrating to me that I can't prove my beliefs to you.
That's the nature of belief. Your beliefs belong to you alone, even if there are others who seem to have similar beliefs. They can not be transmitted. Only your thoughts about your beliefs can be transmitted - which is why it is important to think about them.
I'll be the judge of whether or not I am crazy...
Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. The "crazy" person is the least qualified to judge his own craziness - another reason why it is important to have your beliefs anchored in reality and logic.
Phat writes: I just get angry when someone tells me that my faith is made up or that logic always trumps belief. That is my faith. It may not always appear logical. Besides...why am I so disappointing? I may be reacting off the cuff, but I am being honest, if a wee bit immature.
Take heart, oh Pacmanesque seeker. I have for you an example of intuition vs. logic.
Just try to hit a pitched ball with a bat using logic. The formulae are easy to find. You can do math in your head, right? Use a calculator if you must.
I think intuition's a much better tool for the job.
It might be erroneously argued that the intuition is unreliable since most baseball players have batting averages under .300. The sport has been tuned in relation to the observed limits of our abilities. It's much easier to hit a slow-pitch softball, and most batted balls are fielded for outs. There wouldn't be much game if it was slow-pitch and no fielders, would there? Just easy batting practice, and in batting practice most balls are hit. See?
Reason and logic have their place. They are great when used for the purposes God intended. It isn't just baseball; all sports rely on automatic calculations being performed which we do not consciously supervise. We can command our intuition to engage, but we can't keep up with it.
You can't even Walk effectively without intuition calculating where & how to move what part, and at what speed; how to maintain balance, and probably other things I can't think of.
Intuition works at such lightning speed that we shouldn't be surprised at all that we are unable to translate everything we know into a satisfactory argument. This doesn't mean we don't know it, and it surely doesn't mean the intuition/heart/gut/instinct are inferior. These elements are so mysterious they may be separate, or they may be one thing. They serve us quite well.
And their presence can hinder "rational" thought as well. It's easy to stray from pure "objectivity" when the supergenius within has already provided the answer, so we must always be aware of our own prejudices. Christians are not a special case. This applies to everyone.
I wrote: Nobody knowingly dies for a lie. (I must emphasize 'knowingly', as there have been martyrs for false causes.) Thus WE can be certain that the New Testament was written honestly. Unless those men were somehow deceived, their word is good.
While some have objected, none have been able to produce a single example which would falsify my statement. This feels almost like science. I don't maintain that it is, but we are at least dealing with potential falsification, which is more than can be said of... (I won't sidetrack myself).
There is now the question of mistakes on the part of our witnesses. We have good reason to trust them, but what if they were fooled? I haven't time to compile a list of all the events in the New Testament. I shan't do so. I have decided to focus on a single event. That's right - just one.
When Jesus rose from the dead, His victory was complete. If He did indeed rise, what serious objection can remain? "Oh, He rose from the dead alright, but I don't believe he healed such-and-such leper..." That won't cut it. On the flip side, no matter how many lepers, lame, and blind He healed, if He remains dead He is of no use to the Christian or anyone else.
I Cor. 15  Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.  Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?  But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:  And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.  For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.
This is then very important. The gospel stands or falls here, does it not? One cannot accept as fact that Jesus rose from the dead, and reject the rest of the message. One cannot accept as fact that Jesus did not rise, and accept it.
In order to rise from the dead, Jesus must first have died. The Romans were experienced professionals when it came to crucifixion. They'd been at it long enough to know that breaking the legs would speed up the process, and that death could be verified by thrusting a spear into the victim's side. Doubt of Jesus' death is clearly unwarranted.
John 19 23 Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.  They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.  Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.  When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!  Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.  After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.  Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.  When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.  The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.  Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.  But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:  But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.  And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
A number of witnesses and disciples were present, and they observed many details down to the parting of raiment. There is no opportunity for them to be fooled on this point.
Jesus' body was taken away, wrapped for burial and placed in a tomb. The tomb was sealed with a stone, and placed under guard. Some apologists focus upon the subsequent removal of the stone, and the absence of Jesus' body. They make strong case, but I don't remember how it goes, exactly.
John 20  Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.  And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.  Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.  And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.  But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.  The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.  And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.  Then saith he to Thomas, reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.  And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.  Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.  And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:  But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
First we have only Thomas missing, then Jesus returns again when Thomas is present. How does a dead man manage to fool so many people? Verse 30 assures us that many other signs were done, and this can be verified by consulting the other gospels. No dead man could pull this off, and nobody else could pass for Jesus under these circumstances.
So they must've made it all up in that case, right? These are Martyrs we're talking about. Martyrs don't die for lies.
(IIRC John wasn't killed outright for the faith, but died in prison. I wish my memory was better. Sorry, folks. If I'd thought of it sooner, I might have chosen another account. Ah, the joys of being imperfect...)
If now anyone tells a Christian their faith is blind, based only upon something imaginary, this is no cause to doubt. This is cause to pray for those who are unaware of the truth, for it is well-established. Those who gave their lives that we might be assured have not died in vain.
Ringo writes: Because lashing out at logic (and crashfrog) only emphasizes the weakness of your faith. Is logic such a threat to your beliefs? I asked you a while ago, are you anchored to your faith or to your doctrines? Is your foundation really faith at all or is it fear of reality?
Lashing out at logic? Really?
All Phat said was
I just get angry when someone tells me that my faith is made up or that logic always trumps belief.
But of course, it is blasphemous to contend logic might just not trump everything! Shame on you Phat! How can you be so disrespectful of another's religion? What would St. Spock say?
Judging from your repeated use of the question "why not?", it appears you did not read or did not understand the I Cor. 15 verses. It might also be that you did not understand some of what I wrote as well, as these things were covered.
Perhaps if you look up I Cor. 15, it might help. Would you like some links? I can probably locate some newer versions that employ more modern English if that will help.
No. Jesus' death and resurection don't effect the Gospel at all.
I have never heard of any Christian denomination that would claim this. Is there one? As we are in "Faith and Belief" this statement seems out of place if there isn't; and the Islamic view of Jesus is not our concern here. It's commonly accepted that Christians at least know what the term "gospel" refers to. "Christianity" can be broadly interpreted, but I've never heard it refer to faith in a lifeless corpse - without exception the faith is always in a LIVING Saviour. You might like to invent a straw man theology, but I don't think it would be appropriate or wise to do so.
Ringo writes: This is not the thread to answer those questions. We have a whole forum devoted to examining whether or not the Bible is historically accurate.
I'm fully aware of what this thread is about. I suggest you return to the first post and read it, as I and others have done. If it is appropriate, I may post some of these things elsewhere when I have the time and inclination to do so. Thank you for suggesting it.
I'm sure you'd prefer that I'd run around in circles forever, trying in vain to force you to admit that you understand my previous posts. But that's not what happened, now is it? And I don't intend to run in circles here, either. Got it?
Since you continue to maintain there are issues I should doubt, but am afraid to; perhaps you can help by providing another example. Don't get me wrong; I see you've raised the issue that faith itself should be doubted, simply because it is faith. You've also to convince us that all faith is essentially "blind". Trouble is: I've already evaluated these issues; they're old enough to retire and they're no longer a challenge.
Speaking only for myself, a brand new, fresh doubt would be in order. Not some worn-out has-been, but a talented rookie. One not based on bogus assumptions or incomplete reasoning. I doubt that I'll be able to abandon my faith, so don't get your hopes up.