|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
I told you, I'm agnostic.
that doesnt apply if you were on a jury with a defendant claiming God told them to murder.
Logic requires that you entertain any possibility,
yea or nay, no matter how improbable, until proven (to your satisfaction) otherwise.
A jerk like you would say "Prove God Didnt"
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2 |
Faith as a belief held without the support of evidence can prove true or false depending on whether actual evidence comes along. Then there is the matter of probability. How probably is it that Islam is correct, or Hinduisms Brahman, or Zeus living atop Mt Olympus.
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
What about your faith-? Its on display every time you post, yet you exempt it from your own critique. Equivocation. If I point out what the essential definition of faith is, it is not my definition but the given definition as used in the English language. I am not making anything up., Blount used the recognized definition of faith back in the 1600's, as quoted. I can and do support what I say. You are a critic of the idea of obtaining knowledge through faith. That fact has been demonstrated on this site beyond any doubt (in numerous posts by you and conversations in which you've participated) . Yet you exempt yourself from the strictures of your own criticism because materialism (which you adhere to with near religious devotion) holds that the metaphysical freedom of the mind (the idea that the mind is actually free to apprehend truth) is an impossibility. In which case, truth is an impossibility and in which further case, it is nonsense to even employ language for any purpose. (This is the quintessence of nihilism). The only way to escape this conundrum is to deny the truth of materialism (which you refuse to do) while incessantly talking as if truth is a genuine possibility and while simultaneously while slavishly following a philosophy that denies that there is any such thing as truth. You are therefore very much like that Cretin who said that all Cretins are liars. Faith and knowledge are two entirely different things. Faith is a belief held without the support of verifiable evidence....while knowledge is a high degree of certainty built upon verifiable, objective evidence. We know, for example that the Sun, Moon and Stars exist, but take it on faith that a God or gods exist. Two entirely different things. When people testify, they are describing their subjective evaluation of what they believe happened, their interpretation of events, which needs to be verified using objective information., Which is why witness testimony is not always sufficient and at time notoriously unreliable.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2 |
Faith as a belief held without the support of evidence can prove true or false depending on whether actual evidence comes along. Then there is the matter of probability. How probably is it that Islam is correct, or Hinduisms Brahman, or Zeus living atop Mt Olympus.
"Faith is like a piece of blank paper whereon you may write as well one miracle as another." ~ Charles Blount (1654-1693)
You are not correct. Faith is not as you say ….”a belief held without the support of evidence…..” That may be your thinking but it most certainly not biblical nor in line with basic Christian tenets. In brief, here are the basics: First, faith is “being sure of what hope for and certain of what we do not see.” Now, your natural mind will object and say that I am describing belief without any evidence for that belief. (see Hebrews 11:1) Your dictionary may describe faith as simply as “belief in and devotion to God.” There is more to it than that. So, second, faith is a gift….. a gift….. from God. He gives that faith to us. Yep, that simple. God gives us the faith to believe in Him and to be “certain” of what we do not see. This is the “proof” that God provides to us and for us. (see Ephesians 2:8-9) As had been referred to previously…. “…He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.” (see Hebrews 11:6) Hebrews, if you understand the verse, supports what I said. It says exactly what I said, only more poetically. Faith is a sense of surety based on the things hoped for, faith is its own 'evidence' - which is not actually evidence in terms of verifiable information that anyone can access, ie, your reasons for believing in god is not based on objective evidence....hence the reason why your belief is classified as a matter of faith...faith is believing in things unseen and non detectable, the Hindu faith, Islamic faith, etc, etc... Well, here again we have non-Christians telling Christians what the Bible teaches. Not uncommon. Oh well, go your own way, it seems right to you. I am not teaching anyone anything by merely pointing out what is in the bible. The bible tells us that God creates evil, that God has a friendly wager with satan at the expense of much suffering and pain to family, servants and livestock, considered to be mere possessions of Job, that God drowned the whole world and cursed generations for the sins of the fathers, etc, etc. It is not me making this stuff up or trying to teach anyone anything, just pointing out what is there for the sake of balance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15 |
or following on to my previous post, prove he didn't.
So you believe things till disproven? IF you were on a jury where a christian defendant claimed God told him to kill his child, The burden is for the court to prove a God didnt do such? You would tell other jury members that you believe the defendant without any proof? No, actually the burden is on the prosecutor only to prove the Christian actually murdered his child. Motivation is not relevant. Our legal system cares not about motivation in matters of guilt or innocence.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Motivation is not relevant.
Our legal system cares not about motivation in matters of guilt or innocence.
Of course motivation is relevant, thats why a person may be convicted of negligent homicide rather first degree premeditated murder 1.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15 |
You are a critic of the idea of obtaining knowledge through faith. That fact has been demonstrated on this site beyond any doubt (in numerous posts by you and conversations in which you've participated) . Yet you exempt yourself from the strictures of your own criticism because materialism (which you adhere to with near religious devotion) holds that the metaphysical freedom of the mind (the idea that the mind is actually free to apprehend truth) is an impossibility. In which case, truth is an impossibility and in which further case, it is nonsense to even employ language for any purpose. (This is the quintessence of nihilism). The only way to escape this conundrum is to deny the truth of materialism (which you refuse to do) while incessantly talking as if truth is a genuine possibility and while simultaneously while slavishly following a philosophy that denies that there is any such thing as truth. You are therefore very much like that Cretin who said that all Cretins are liars.
I too am a critic of knowledge gained through faith. Belief may be gained through faith. Belief is not knowledge. Many have faith and believe things which are demonstrably false. Many have faith and believe things which are contrary to the knowledge and beliefs of others. Knowledge tells us only that one or both must be wrong. Knowledge is gained through observation and interpretation of those observations.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2 |
Yes, equivocation is used as means of justifying faith.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,062 Likes: 3
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2019
Posts: 6,062 Likes: 3 |
You are a critic of the idea of obtaining knowledge through faith. That fact has been demonstrated on this site beyond any doubt (in numerous posts by you and conversations in which you've participated) . Yet you exempt yourself from the strictures of your own criticism because materialism (which you adhere to with near religious devotion) holds that the metaphysical freedom of the mind (the idea that the mind is actually free to apprehend truth) is an impossibility. In which case, truth is an impossibility and in which further case, it is nonsense to even employ language for any purpose. (This is the quintessence of nihilism). The only way to escape this conundrum is to deny the truth of materialism (which you refuse to do) while incessantly talking as if truth is a genuine possibility and while simultaneously while slavishly following a philosophy that denies that there is any such thing as truth. You are therefore very much like that Cretin who said that all Cretins are liars.
I too am a critic of knowledge gained through faith. Belief may be gained through faith. Belief is not knowledge. Many have faith and believe things which are demonstrably false. Many have faith and believe things which are contrary to the knowledge and beliefs of others. Knowledge tells us only that one or both must be wrong. Knowledge is gained through observation and interpretation of those observations. Can you prove that you are the person who writes checks in your name? The very idea (the assumption) that you are you is an idea held on the basis of "faith". It cannot, in the final analysis, be empirically demonstrated. Likewise, the belief in the metaphysical freedom of the mind a belief (upon which all "knowledge" ultimately depends) is a belief held on the basis of faith.
Tarquin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,553 Likes: 11
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,553 Likes: 11 |
Christians believe to be the ultimate source of proof, the Bible. The other side dismisses the Bible out of hand...They don’t view the Bible with reverence like Christians do.
Many nonbelievers attack Christianity by attacking the Bible. If someone gave up on Christianity because of something in the Bible or something about the Bible, they may have given up on Christianity unnecessarily. Even if someone is leaning towards the door and is about to leave Christianity because of something in the Bible or something about the Bible, they don’t have to leave. And here’s why that is - Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century. So what happened...? What did they believe...? What did they know...? Why is it that people are so quick to (and so easily persuaded to) walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t even exist when Christianity began...? How we talk about the Bible can be an obstacle. And what we point to as the foundation of our faith...for most Christians...unfortunately, is the Bible. We’ve been taught...unfortunately...that the Bible is the foundation of our faith. What served as the foundation of faith for the first century church...? We should take the cues about the foundation of our faith from those who were closest to the action...the first century, first followers of Jesus. What was the foundation of Peter’s faith; where did Peter get his hope; how is it that he was now walking around in the open - being bold and confident and preaching - whereas before, he was afraid and hid for his life...? The foundation of his faith was not something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of his faith was what he’d seen. What should be the foundation of our faith...? What should be the center of our confidence...? Peter would say “that’s easy...the resurrection.” The foundation of our faith is not a book - it is an event. The Bible did not create Christianity. The Christians eventually created the Bible. The foundation of our faith is not a cleverly cobbled together group of manuscripts. Peter believed what he believed because of what he saw. He saw Jesus die, and later, he saw the risen Jesus. The resurrection is the foundation of the Christian faith.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,711 Likes: 2 |
You are a critic of the idea of obtaining knowledge through faith. That fact has been demonstrated on this site beyond any doubt (in numerous posts by you and conversations in which you've participated) . Yet you exempt yourself from the strictures of your own criticism because materialism (which you adhere to with near religious devotion) holds that the metaphysical freedom of the mind (the idea that the mind is actually free to apprehend truth) is an impossibility. In which case, truth is an impossibility and in which further case, it is nonsense to even employ language for any purpose. (This is the quintessence of nihilism). The only way to escape this conundrum is to deny the truth of materialism (which you refuse to do) while incessantly talking as if truth is a genuine possibility and while simultaneously while slavishly following a philosophy that denies that there is any such thing as truth. You are therefore very much like that Cretin who said that all Cretins are liars.
I too am a critic of knowledge gained through faith. Belief may be gained through faith. Belief is not knowledge. Many have faith and believe things which are demonstrably false. Many have faith and believe things which are contrary to the knowledge and beliefs of others. Knowledge tells us only that one or both must be wrong. Knowledge is gained through observation and interpretation of those observations. Can you prove that you are the person who writes checks in your name? The very idea (the assumption) that you are you is an idea held on the basis of "faith". It cannot, in the final analysis, be empirically demonstrated. Likewise, the belief in the metaphysical freedom of the mind a belief (upon which all "knowledge" ultimately depends) is a belief held on the basis of faith. That's not how it works. Though it is a fine example of equivocation.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,134 Likes: 5
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 31,134 Likes: 5 |
or following on to my previous post, prove he didn't.
So you believe things till disproven? IF you were on a jury where a christian defendant claimed God told him to kill his child, The burden is for the court to prove a God didnt do such? You would tell other jury members that you believe the defendant without any proof? No, actually the burden is on the prosecutor only to prove the Christian actually murdered his child. Motivation is not relevant. Our legal system cares not about motivation in matters of guilt or innocence. Not true. In the above case the court may consider an insanity plea.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15 |
Can you prove that you are the person who writes checks in your name? The very idea (the assumption) that you are you is an idea held on the basis of "faith". It cannot, in the final analysis, be empirically demonstrated. Likewise, the belief in the metaphysical freedom of the mind a belief (upon which all "knowledge" ultimately depends) is a belief held on the basis of faith.
Spouting metaphysical garbage does not make it so. Obviously I can prove, to any reasonable observer, that I write a check. I can prove that when the electrical circuit is broken, the light goes out. That I am me is demonstrable. That is the very definition of imperical evidence. That which can be received by means of the senses. Particularly through observation of patterns and behavior through experimentation. That which can be received by means of the senses is knowledge. Faith is not gained through the senses. It is generated in the mind.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 26,069 Likes: 15 |
or following on to my previous post, prove he didn't.
So you believe things till disproven? IF you were on a jury where a christian defendant claimed God told him to kill his child, The burden is for the court to prove a God didnt do such? You would tell other jury members that you believe the defendant without any proof? No, actually the burden is on the prosecutor only to prove the Christian actually murdered his child. Motivation is not relevant. Our legal system cares not about motivation in matters of guilt or innocence. Not true. In the above case the court may consider an insanity plea. Okay, you got me. A person would have to be insane to think "The Devil made me do it" would get them off on a murder charge.
People who choose to brew up their own storms bitch loudest about the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,001
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,001 |
[/quote]Many nonbelievers attack Christianity by attacking the Bible. If someone gave up on Christianity because of something in the Bible or something about the Bible, they may have given up on Christianity unnecessarily. Even if someone is leaning towards the door and is about to leave Christianity because of something in the Bible or something about the Bible, they don’t have to leave. And here’s why that is - Jesus’ most devout first century followers never owned a Bible, never read a Bible...because there was no Bible to be had or read. But these men and women turned the world upside down; they’re the reason that people worship Jesus today; and they never held a Bible because there was no Bible until the fourth century. So what happened...? What did they believe...? What did they know...? Why is it that people are so quick to (and so easily persuaded to) walk away from faith because of a book that didn’t even exist when Christianity began...? How we talk about the Bible can be an obstacle. And what we point to as the foundation of our faith...for most Christians...unfortunately, is the Bible. We’ve been taught...unfortunately...that the Bible is the foundation of our faith. What served as the foundation of faith for the first century church...? We should take the cues about the foundation of our faith from those who were closest to the action...the first century, first followers of Jesus. What was the foundation of Peter’s faith; where did Peter get his hope; how is it that he was now walking around in the open - being bold and confident and preaching - whereas before, he was afraid and hid for his life...? The foundation of his faith was not something he’d read or had read to him. The foundation of his faith was what he’d seen. What should be the foundation of our faith...? What should be the center of our confidence...? Peter would say “that’s easy...the resurrection.” The foundation of our faith is not a book - it is an event. The Bible did not create Christianity. The Christians eventually created the Bible. The foundation of our faith is not a cleverly cobbled together group of manuscripts. Peter believed what he believed because of what he saw. He saw Jesus die, and later, he saw the risen Jesus. The resurrection is the foundation of our faith.[/quote]
Excellent post.
"I'd rather have an Army of Asses led by a Lion, than an Army of Lions led by an Ass." (George Washington)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,001
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,001 |
Antlers, this is one of my favorite lines from your post.
[/quote] ...the Bible can be an obstacle. And what we point to as the foundation of our faith...for most Christians...unfortunately, is the Bible. We’ve been taught...unfortunately...that the Bible is the foundation of our faith.
[/quote]
Unfortunately.
"I'd rather have an Army of Asses led by a Lion, than an Army of Lions led by an Ass." (George Washington)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
What about "the devil made me do it because God
Gave the devil the task of doing so"
We know from some CF christians that killing
and even genocide sanctioned by a God is just fine.
How dare a court of law question the faith
of a christian that is charged with purposely
killing their child and using God as their defence.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,906 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,906 Likes: 8 |
"The 375HH is the greatest level of power you can get for the investment in recoil." (JJHack)
79s and losttrail, biggest waste of air.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,001
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,001 |
Antlers, that was so well said.
I never forgot what Keith Green once said. "God is not subject to the 'word' but rather the word is subject to him."
Thanks again for that great post.!
"I'd rather have an Army of Asses led by a Lion, than an Army of Lions led by an Ass." (George Washington)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,906 Likes: 8
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 10,906 Likes: 8 |
Antlers, that was so well said.
I never forgot what Keith Green once said. "God is not subject to the 'word' but rather the word is subject to him."
Thanks again for that great post.!
Very true
"The 375HH is the greatest level of power you can get for the investment in recoil." (JJHack)
79s and losttrail, biggest waste of air.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 101
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 101 |
Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and bible interpretation...
|
|
|
|
|
559 members (1badf350, 22250rem, 1lessdog, 1minute, 1beaver_shooter, 12344mag, 66 invisible),
2,422
guests, and
1,258
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,949
Posts18,519,247
Members74,020
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
