St. Paul told the Bereans to 'test everything'. To me, that doesn't sound like uncritical acceptance of doctrine.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 4, 2024, 11:53 pm
Thread Rating:
In Christianity, blind faith is good faith
|
(May 13, 2015 at 11:56 am)ChadWooters Wrote: St. Paul told the Bereans to 'test everything'. To me, that doesn't sound like uncritical acceptance of doctrine. Just as long as they get the "right" answer eh. How many times has the church hidden and repressed facts to maintain the illusion of the myth? You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis. (May 13, 2015 at 7:41 am)Randy Carson Wrote:(March 30, 2010 at 11:01 am)Rwandrall Wrote: Lots of Christians i met say that their belief is based not on blind faith, which is not what God wants. God wants a reasonable faith based on your life experience. They are wrong. Did you really create an account to reply to a 5 year old thread? Because, wow....
"I was thirsty for everything, but blood wasn't my style" - Live, "Voodoo Lady"
Quote: Believers today do not have that direct evidence; they must rely on the indirect or circumstantial evidence. I would like to see some indirect or circumstantial evidence. All the clowns ever manage to poop out is hearsay written in a bunch of heavily-edited old books of horseshit. RE: In Christianity, blind faith is good faith
May 13, 2015 at 6:44 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2015 at 6:59 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 13, 2015 at 8:46 am)robvalue Wrote: There is no evidence of Jesus written by eyewitness. We have hearsay accounts after the fact. Nope. In a court of law, circumstantial evidence is given EQUAL WEIGHT to direct evidence. Circumstantial Evidence Definition: Evidence which may allow a trial judge or jury to deduce or logically infer a certain fact from other established facts, which have been proven. Justice Best in the 1820 case, King v Burdett: "When one or more things are proved, from which our experience enables us to ascertain that another, not proved, must have happened, we presume that it did happen, as well in criminal as in civil cases." A presumption of fact. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness (known as direct evidence). And yet that evidence may be essential to completely prove a case. In these instances, the lawyer will complete the evidence by providing the judge or juror with evidence of circumstances from which a juror or judge can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly; it is proven by the evidence of the circumstances; hence, "circumstantial" evidence. Fingerprints are an example of circumstantial evidence: while there may be no witness to a person’s presence in a certain place, or contact with a certain object, the scientific evidence of someone’s fingerprints is persuasive proof of a person’s presence or contact with an object on which the fingerprint was found. In 1854, Justice Maule gave this example in R v Burton: "If a man go into the London Docks sober without means of getting drunk, and comes out of one of the wine cellars very drunk ... I think it would be reasonable evidence that he had stolen some of the wine in that cellar...." In 2004, the Canadian Judicial Council gave this example: "(A) witness might say that he or she had seen someone enter the courthouse lobby wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella, both dripping wet. If you believed that witness, you might conclude that it was raining outside, even though the evidence was indirect. Indirect evidence is sometimes called circumstantial evidence." In a criminal law context, the Alberta Court of Appeal stated, in R v McEwan, that: "On the one hand it is said that circumstances cannot lie. "On the other hand it is said that truth is stranger than fiction. "For my part I cannot but think that there is ordinarily greater certainty in proof by direct than by circumstantial evidence. In the case of direct evidence error may arise from mistake or untruthfulness. “In the case of circumstantial evidence the same chances of error arise and there is the additional chance of error in fallacious inference by the Court. But whether I am right or wrong in the view that I have expressed, no useful purpose is to be served by contrasting two methods of proof which are in no sense opposed the one to the other and each of which is in daily use to complement the other. "Proof by circumstantial evidence being a matter of logical reasoning from facts admitted or established in evidence there is always the danger of the tribunal of fact, whether it be Judge or jury, jumping to conclusions from certain facts without due regard to other facts which are inconsistent with the hypothesis which the first set of facts seems to point to.... "There being no direct evidence, the case must rest, on the circumstantial evidence alone, and the general rule is that to amount to proof such evidence must be not merely consistent with guilt but inconsistent with innocence. "(T)he Court should be satisfied not only that the circumstances proved are consistent with the commission of the suggested act but that the facts are such as to be inconsistent with any other rational conclusion than that the evil act was in fact committed." REFERENCES: Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Direct Evidence Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of Evidence Duhaime, Lloyd, Legal Definition of the Rule in Hodge's Case King v Burdett 1 St. Tr. (N.S.) 111 (1820) R v Burton 1854 Dears. 284 R v McEwan [1933] 1 DLR 398[/font][/size][/color] (May 13, 2015 at 9:06 am)Pyrrho Wrote: In the context of religion, faith is believing things without proper evidence. If one uses proper evidence, there is no need for the word "faith" at all. This is somewhat obscured by the fact that, like many words in English, it has multiple definitions:What is faith? St. Thomas Aquinas defined it this way: The Act of believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the Divine truth at the command of the will moved by the grace of God. (Summa Theologica II-II.2.9)[/INDENT] In this definition, there are three things at work:
The grace of God is primary and precedes an act of faith. The will makes a free choice to respond to the grace of God. The intellect responds to the command of the will and assents to a divinely revealed truth. Faith is not based upon emotions or upon a lack of reasoning but a choice to believe something is true because a trustworthy authority has told us it is true. Divine Faith is believing something to be true based upon the fact that God said so. Most of what we know in life is based upon our human faith that someone else who tells us something is a trustworthy authority. For example, we trust our doctors to tell the truth about our health, we trust scientists to tell us about the world around us, and we trust historians to tell us what has happened in the past. In the same way, we exercise divine faith when we trust in something that God has said to be true. The Crucial Question How do we really know that God has spoken? Specifically, how do we know that Christianity is true and other religions are false? Aquinas said that Christianity is reasonable to believe for three reasons:
So, are there miracles and prophecies that accompany the teachings of Christianity? Jesus seemed to think so. John 10:37-38 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.” RE: In Christianity, blind faith is good faith
May 13, 2015 at 7:01 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2015 at 7:03 pm by Simon Moon.)
(March 31, 2010 at 6:16 am)tackattack Wrote: Do you believe Orodes III was king of Parthia in 6AD? If so please site a source other than josephus, since he's not accepted for context of Jesus either. There are coins made at the time Orodes III existed with his image. There is a direct line from kings that immediately preceded him, and followed him, also with images and coins. Quote:Plus I have a lot of other documentation that references JC. Of course you do. Too bad they all come from sources that weren't born or lived contemporaneously with JC. And to make things worse, there were plenty of historians that lived at the right time, in the right place and were known to report on religious leaders, that failed to mention JC. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. RE: In Christianity, blind faith is good faith
May 13, 2015 at 7:03 pm
(This post was last modified: May 13, 2015 at 7:06 pm by Randy Carson.)
(May 13, 2015 at 12:37 pm)KevinM1 Wrote:(May 13, 2015 at 7:41 am)Randy Carson Wrote: This is a misunderstanding of what Jesus was saying to Thomas. To a new member of the forum, the thread appears as current if you aren't careful to check to OP date. In my "home" forum, this post would never have appeared to a new user at all. My apologies. (May 13, 2015 at 1:06 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote: Believers today do not have that direct evidence; they must rely on the indirect or circumstantial evidence. Then you are misinformed about the historical reliability of the New Testament. For example, when do you think that the gospels were written? Late first century? Early Second? Or were the gospels written much earlier than skeptics like to admit? (May 13, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nope. In a court of law, circumstantial evidence is given EQUAL WEIGHT to direct evidence. Do you appreciate the difference between circumstantial evidence and hearsay? Because what you have is the latter, not the former. The "eyewitnesses" of Jesus are never named, nor are they the ones writing the accounts; what you have are accounts written by anonymous authors, decades after the fact, claiming that there were eyewitnesses, with no contemporary first hand sources to validate this. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to reach a conclusion, but this? This is a claim, by people in no position to know, that such evidence exists, maybe; it's the equivalent of you appearing in court and saying "a friend of a friend of mine told me that he totally saw the evidence!" They aren't remotely the same thing. Quote:Faith is not based upon emotions or upon a lack of reasoning but a choice to believe something is true because a trustworthy authority has told us it is true. Divine Faith is believing something to be true based upon the fact that God said so. How did you determine that god was a trustworthy source, outside of his own claims to be trustworthy? Quote:Most of what we know in life is based upon our human faith that someone else who tells us something is a trustworthy authority. For example, we trust our doctors to tell the truth about our health, we trust scientists to tell us about the world around us, and we trust historians to tell us what has happened in the past. In the same way, we exercise divine faith when we trust in something that God has said to be true. ... Except that doctors, scientists, and historians all provide evidence in support of their claims that justifies that trust. I'm so sick of this lazy equivocation from you believers. Quote:The Crucial Question
Quote:Other aspects of the Christian faith cannot be demonstrated by reason, but it can be shown that they are not in conflict with reason. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be demonstrated from reason, but the Trinity can be defended by reason which can show that the doctrine of the Trinity is not unreasonable. Oh boy! So you're making a claim that miracles and prophecies are real, and then justifying that with a part of the book that makes that claim? I love circular arguments! Whee! So round!
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! (May 13, 2015 at 7:27 pm)Esquilax Wrote:[*](May 13, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nope. In a court of law, circumstantial evidence is given EQUAL WEIGHT to direct evidence. Not exactly. I'm making the claim that a historically reliable book records the testimony of individuals who saw the miracles. So, the question will hinge on whether the authors of the NT were telling the truth. (May 13, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Incorrect. That's not what the scholarly consensus is, on this matter, even among christian historians. Actually, we know for a fact that the names associated with the gospels weren't present in the initial works- none of them ever identify themselves within the text, or claimed to be who you're claiming they are- and that those autographs were, in fact, added in the second century by the early church. We also know that the idea that those autographs correspond to the actual biblical figures was added later still, by bishops like Papias. You don't have any evidence or reason to think that the biblical authors were their textual namesakes, beyond the say-so of people that similarly didn't have any evidence, but since you didn't bother presenting any evidence for your claim anyway, beyond asserting that you have it, I guess I don't have to seriously interact with it, now do I? Come back when you've got that evidence that the entire body of biblical scholars and historians don't have, though! Quote:Second, they were not written "decades" after the fact...unless 2-3 "decades" is sufficient to be a problem for you. First of all, 2-3 decades is multiple decades, hence my usage of the plural was entirely justified, and not worthy of the scare quotes you put around it. Secondly, when the average age during the time period topped out at like 35, you betcha two or three decades is a problem for the texts in question. Quote:However, the oral tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 probably dates to within 5-10 years of the resurrection, and Paul got that early creed from the apostles personally as he points out in Galatians. So people made a claim, and then claimed it to other people that believed it... big ol' game of chinese whispers... well, good thing those never mutate. Quote:Now, about the circumstantial evidence. If I look out the window, and see rain falling, that is direct evidence. If, instead, I see people coming into the courtroom closing their wet umbrellas, that is circumstantial evidence that it is raining outside. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus; if you want to dismiss Luke and Mark because they are simply recording (accurately) what they were told by other eyewitnesses, fine. But the evidence is stronger than you suggest. Again, you don't have any evidence that the authors- which the consensus of your scholars say are anonymous- are who you're claiming they are, so unless you can provide anything more solid than the bare assertion, I'm going to stick with the conclusions of people who are actually trained to know. But there's also this: what you're saying isn't at all like your hypothetical here. What's actually happening is that somebody has slipped a note under your door, claiming that it's raining outside, and some other rando tells you that the note writer is an eye witness to the rain. Meanwhile, you cannot hear the rain, or see the rain through the windows; all the direct evidence does not support the conclusion that it's raining, yet you'll accept that it is raining because a note said it is, and someone else said the note was written by an eyewitness. Quote:Some would say that God has provided evidence of His existence. Some would be wrong. Quote:Not exactly. I'm making the claim that a historically reliable book records the testimony of individuals who saw the miracles. Well, since you can't establish who the authors of the NT even were, despite your baseless protestations to the contrary, you have rather a hard job on your hands just to begin with. Not to mention all the areas where the new testament's account of events is directly contradicted by what we know about history to begin with...
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Possibly Related Threads... | |||||
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Post | |
The blind trust can lead to faith | theBorg | 63 | 11126 |
August 17, 2016 at 1:16 pm Last Post: Edwardo Piet |
|
Orthodox Christianity is Best Christianity! | Annoyingbutnicetheist | 30 | 7933 |
January 26, 2016 at 10:44 pm Last Post: ignoramus |
|
Well that's that christianity good riddance | dyresand | 11 | 3437 |
May 15, 2015 at 10:46 am Last Post: Nope |
|
Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith" | watchamadoodle | 112 | 19460 |
March 28, 2015 at 11:57 am Last Post: Esquilax |
|
Christianity vs Gnostic Christianity | themonkeyman | 12 | 8940 |
December 26, 2013 at 11:00 am Last Post: pineapplebunnybounce |
|
Moderate Christianity - Even More Illogical Than Fundamentalist Christianity? | Xavier | 22 | 19323 |
November 23, 2013 at 11:21 am Last Post: Jacob(smooth) |
|
Taking blind faith and willful ignorance to a new level | libalchris | 5 | 2994 |
May 14, 2012 at 4:40 am Last Post: znk666 |
|
Robbing people blind.. for Jesus, of course. | Erinome | 65 | 28415 |
April 2, 2012 at 5:18 pm Last Post: R-e-n-n-a-t |
Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)