Jesus Christ, Our Saviour

[Owlswing]

Jesus Christ Saves...is a sign seen outside many Christian establishments. Faith, is the key-word, here, and those who seek Jesus earnestly are seldom disappointed. There are forces at work that faith delivers into our own individual realm of being...and here, if I'm able, I would like to discuss Faith, instead  the mechanics behind our faith.

I have stated my argument against Christianity on more occassions than most here wish to recount and it is this - that Christians fail totally to understand that their entire religion and all its beliefs and ramifications are based upon FAITH and not on FACT.

It has been stated on these boards so many times that it hardly bears repetition that there is absolutely no proof whatsoever of the divinity of the Galilean carpenter there is only the faith of his followers.

Until Christians are willing to acknoweledge this fact, their entire belief system is based upon the lie that it is anything more than faith!

[ippy]

Nope.

How about giving an example of faith, (religion based faith), showing its rational side?

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Test them.

I say if you jump off a high build you will fall and die.

You could believe the opposite by faith if you like. But I suggest you do not try it

Firstly It could be the headquarters of the Acme Matress disposal company.....next to it's store of matresses so I cannot agree that what you say is true.


Secondly I have more faith in the laws of nature that the likelihood of death by jumping than in God providing a miracle, circumventing his laws of the universe, which as we have seen, do not guarantee death from jumping anyway, just to make you look foolish.


And if someone did and died what of it. How does that help you.


If you still feel you have never exercised faith...how many motorway bridges have you been over lately?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How about giving an example of faith, (religion based faith), showing its rational side?

Regards ippy

Be rational believes he has no faith but repeatedly demonstrates he has. He then redefines 'faith' for a better fit.


We have faith and we have reason.


People like yourself, to me, confuse atheism with reason.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have stated my argument against Christianity on more occassions than most here wish to recount and it is this - that Christians fail totally to understand that their entire religion and all its beliefs and ramifications are based upon FAITH and not on FACT.

So faith is lies and untruth, then?
Would you consider yourself a man of faith?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have stated my argument against Christianity on more occassions than most here wish to recount and it is this - that Christians fail totally to understand that their entire religion and all its beliefs and ramifications are based upon FAITH and not on FACT.

Unfortunately Jesus is probably an historical figure.


Is faith totally ineffectual Owlswing? or not? You cannot have it both ways.

[Gordon]

The New Prescription is not a scientific text book and will not help those looking to it for prescription and bypassing the God who inspires it.

You seem to be focussing on it as a ''cause'' for what strikes me as a caricature Christianity and Christians.

That isn't Christianity so your guesses are as good as mine. In Christianity you put your trust in God who then or prior to that trust illuminates elements of the bible. The bible is more like a head up display than a monolithic thing.

If you are having a bad reaction to the New Testament then something is happening in your spiritual life IMV. Even I would say a feeling that it is there to stop people having a bit of fun.

In other words you don't know how to verify the accuracy of the contents of the Christian Bible, and the NT in particular, so as to justify your feeling that the Christian Bible is trustworthy. Your position is, essentially, that it floats your boat: that may well be sufficient for you but it is clearly insufficient in respect of the specifics of what it claimed in the Christian Bible/NT being historically accurate.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In other words you don't know how to verify the accuracy of the contents of the Christian Bible, and the NT in particular, so as to justify your feeling that the Christian Bible is trustworthy. Your position is, essentially, that it floats your boat: that may well be sufficient for you but it is clearly insufficient in respect of the specifics of what it claimed in the Christian Bible/NT being historically accurate.

I do not see the New testament as you do Gordon and I have told you how I approach it and how it verifies itself to me I find it verified where it has provided guidance for me and the existence of the risen Christ is certainly verified to me.

On the other hand attempts to falsify the New testament seem most unsuccessful, boiling down to nothing more than incredulity and attempts to suggest that I wanted to believe are personally, way of the mark.

[Shaker]

I do not see the New testament as you do Gordon and I have told you how I approach it and how it verifies itself to me I find it verified where it has provided guidance for me and the existence of the risen Christ is certainly verified to me.

Which was proven where, exactly?

[ippy]

Be rational believes he has no faith but repeatedly demonstrates he has. He then redefines 'faith' for a better fit.


We have faith and we have reason.


People like yourself, to me, confuse atheism with reason.

'We have faith and we have reason', how do you reconcile the two?


'People like yourself, to me, confuse atheism with reason'.

Strictly speaking I'm not an atheist, I'm just someone that sees no good evidential reason to take such irrational superstition based beliefs seriously, no confusion there.

Regards ippy

[Gordon]

I do not see the New testament as you do Gordon and I have told you how I approach it and how it verifies itself to me I find it verified where it has provided guidance for me and the existence of the risen Christ is certainly verified to me.

Which is fine as a statement of personal faith - the question is, would your approach to verification work for me too? Hard to say since you've haven't explained how you went about it.

On the other hand attempts to falsify the New testament seem most unsuccessful, boiling down to nothing more than incredulity and attempts to suggest that I wanted to believe are personally, way of the mark.

Except that nobody, and certainly not me, is seeking to falsify the NT: I'm just asking you to justify how you verified it to your own satisfaction in order to see if the same process (or whatever it was) you employed would work for me too.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'We have faith and we have reason', how do you reconcile the two?


'People like yourself, to me, confuse atheism with reason'.

Strictly speaking I'm not an atheist, I'm just someone that sees no good evidential reason to take such irrational superstition based beliefs seriously, no confusion there.

Regards ippy

'We have faith and we have reason', how do you reconcile the two?


'People like yourself, to me, confuse atheism with reason'.

Strictly speaking I'm not an atheist, I'm just someone that sees no good evidential reason to take such irrational superstition based beliefs seriously, no confusion there.

Regards ippy

Firstly a definition which renders faith in opposition to reason is not a good one as I outlined to Be Rational.

Secondly, what do YOU mean by reason? Reason as logic should take no side in any dispute between materialism and any broader ontology. If it sides with materialism it ceases to be reason and becomes the very 'faith' you say it opposes....and that is what Be Rational does repeatedly.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is fine as a statement of personal faith - the question is, would your approach to verification work for me too? Hard to say since you've haven't explained how you went about it.

No it's a statement that rather than seeing it as some management manual, book of rules, or heaven forbid a formulaic science book as I suspect you are insisting it should be it is a mixture of things some mundane including a mystery only opened by the illumination of God. The only way I think I can help you on that is to tell you to explore anything that strikes you personally whether positively or negatively.


You say you aren't out to falsify it but already have by impuning it's reliability IMB.

[ippy]

Firstly a definition which renders faith in opposition to reason is not a good one as I outlined to Be Rational.

Secondly, what do YOU mean by reason? Reason as logic should take no side in any dispute between materialism and any broader ontology. If it sides with materialism it ceases to be reason and becomes the very 'faith' you say it opposes....and that is what Be Rational does repeatedly.

Reason as described in a dictionary:   reason | Definition of reason in English by Oxford Dictionaries
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reason
Definition of reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event, the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements log.

I think that's the definition you're looking for Vlad.

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Reason as described in a dictionary:   reason | Definition of reason in English by Oxford Dictionaries
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/reason
Definition of reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event, the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements log.

Yes and?

if you have decided that a cause can only be material then that is materialism. Just as if you say that evidence can only be material.

If you then go on to say that only materialists can be reasoning you just compound the fact that there is no material evidence that materialism is correct.

Also you court the question what is the cause of material? To entertain this question must be reasonable although I think Dawkins wants thoughtful exploration of the cause of causes shut down...presumably on the grounds of unreasonability.

[BeRational]

Firstly It could be the headquarters of the Acme Matress disposal company.....next to it's store of matresses so I cannot agree that what you say is true.


Secondly I have more faith in the laws of nature that the likelihood of death by jumping than in God providing a miracle, circumventing his laws of the universe, which as we have seen, do not guarantee death from jumping anyway, just to make you look foolish.


And if someone did and died what of it. How does that help you.


If you still feel you have never exercised faith...how many motorway bridges have you been over lately?

Lots, but no faith required. I understand they are designed and tested, and have a chance of failure.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lots, but no faith required. I understand they are designed and tested, and have a chance of failure.

If there is risk of failure, why are you prepared to use them?

I have faith that they are tested and in who tested them......and so do you. Can you tell me what bridges have been tested and when. If there is any part of that process that you are leaving to chance then you are showing faith.

[BeRational]

If there is risk of failure, why are you prepared to use them?

I have faith that they are tested and in who tested them......and so do you. Can you tell me what bridges have been tested and when. If there is any part of that process that you are leaving to chance then you are showing faith.

Because nothing is certain, and the level of risk is known. That is the reality we live in.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because nothing is certain, and the level of risk is known. That is the reality we live in.

So you admit to making decisions or taking lines of thought based sometimes of having no actual evidence.


you have filled you're own criterion for having faith.

[BeRational]

So you admit to making decisions or taking lines of thought based sometimes of having no actual evidence.


you have filled you're own criterion for having faith.

No why would you think that?

I have evidence that bridges are designed and tested ( I even know an engineer that does this).
I know that no system is perfect, so there will be an element of risk, and I judge the risk to be small.

No faith is required.

You can believe ANYTHING by faith, so by definition this cannot be a reliable path to truth.

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

If so, you must NEVER use faith.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No why would you think that?

I have evidence that bridges are designed and tested ( I even know an engineer that does this).
I know that no system is perfect, so there will be an element of risk, and I judge the risk to be small.

No faith is required.

You can believe ANYTHING by faith, so by definition this cannot be a reliable path to truth.

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

If so, you must NEVER use faith.

Faith is unavoidable if you are defining faith as the opposite of knowledge.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can believe ANYTHING by faith,

An individual cannot believe anything since belief is exclusive.

[BeRational]

An individual cannot believe anything since belief is exclusive.

What does that mean.

People can and do believe all sorts of things just on faith.

Do you accept that faith is not a reliable path to truth?

Do you care if your beliefs are true?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What does that mean.

People can and do believe all sorts of things just on faith.

Including Materialism and scientism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you accept that faith is not a reliable path to truth?

1: You seem to have faith that there have to be paths to truth.
2: You seem to be saying that the truth cannot come to you. That seems like a faith position.