What is faith to you?

[Kurieuo]

-Historicity of christ existing
-existence of records possibly indicating a factual resurrection
-S&D existing from outside reading instigated by a separate topic here.
-The historicity of exodus and judges
-I do have a drastically changed view of islam
-Compatibility of the christian God and modern science (outside listening)

Ryan, if it matters...

I'm a little curious about what caused you to more actively seek at this point in your life.
But, unlike some others here, I see the path you are on seems to be going in one direction.

I'm always reminded of the spiritual journeys we all take, kind of like in The Pilgrim's Progress (if you've ever read that).
You probably don't see it, but I really do feel that you're heading the right way. It's just a matter of time.
And when you arrive, I pray that you'll let us all know.

As for doubt. There is nothing wrong with doubting.
The key is having a healthy skepticism, not just of the position being considered but also the position we would otherwise hold.

At the same time, FL is right that some things just won't be evidently seen until the cloud is removed.
I doubt he means this as an insult, or in the same sense as Mormons. Keep in mind he was once non-Christian.
I saw the same thing with my wife also who could not see the truth.
And then John Newton's song Amazing Grace: "Was blind, but now I see."
This common refrain is evidenced over and over again through Christian conversion.

There is kind of a chicken and egg scenario with Christianity, and coming to belief in Christ.
We can't force ourselves to belief, but at the same time to see the full truth we need to believe.
Which comes first? It's a Christian debate that has happened for centuries -- whether God elects us to be saved, or whether we choose God.

We are certainly to seek Him out, and by that, rationally pursuing God is a main tool.
As well as trying to experience God through churches or the like -- wherever you think you might find Him.

But then, at the same time, God needs to respond and reveal Himself to us.
So it seems to me seeking truth leads you to a knowledge of God, but it won't get you fully there.

Perhaps this is the where the element of "faith" comes in. I'm not sure it's necessarily a blind leap.
Something mystical happens. It's hard to put into words. Hard to describe the experience, but you will know.
God comes in and fills in the chasm that we must cross to belief.
It happened to my wife in an instant. The transforming and belief was instant. You could see it -- I saw it happen.
It was strange. It makes my hair stand up on end just remembering the moment God made her heart melt.

We can't get all the way to God so at some point He reveals himself to us.
And it is in that moment of completion a newborn faith in Christ is born.

So I encourage to just continue seeking out God, and the truth.
Christ said, he was the way, the truth and the life.
If true, then truth leads you a little closer to Christ and will ultimately help set you free.

[B. W.]

Objection 1:

I'll probably butcher this understanding as well but I'll give it a shot:

It seems that I must be a Christian to understand "evidence" for it. What is meant by this? If this is true how can I come to the christian faith with a rational foundation, or is that even possible?

Question 2:

What part in faith should/does physical/historical fact play? Is it even required for faith? My previous assumption was that it is, as such evidence makes it a rational trust.

#1If you look at Jac's post responding to you again, he answered these two objections. Do you see that?

The only other thing I see to add to Jac's long comment is found in Objection One and that is to ask this question:

#2What is it that makes you think that faith is not built upon a rational foundation?

On the second objection question I will answer also with another question:

#3Concerning you concept of Fred as unloving and unfeeling, how did you come to that same conclusion about the Judaic/Christian concept of God?

#1- Yes

#2 My misinterpretation of FL has been clarified. Once again I hope to fred that i'm interpreting this correctly. ( is this clarification of FL's point?)

But what does that mean? Jesus and those who follow Him--and Scripture in particular--claims that means that God insists that we believe that He, Jesus, is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing that we have life in His name. Now, what evidence is there for THAT? The answer is none. You either believe that or you don't. No evidence can prove it. That is special revelation. It is highly motivated, I think, by general revelation. But it is special revelation all the same and cannot be proven by reason or deduction. It can only be supported.

#3- I don't think I did?

1- Glad that you understand what Jac was saying... what did you learn from it?

2-What is it about the quote that you do not understand?

3-Pertaining to Fred as unloving comment made... the way you presented it, that is how it came across. Let me try to explain why I mentioned it a bit further...

There are several degrees of Deist thought on this. For ease of terms I'll label them as Hard core, Middle core, and Soft core deism. They all hold the same idea that God being the divine clock maker who made the universe and then sits back and lets it go however it goes. Hard core deism makes God out as an amoral agent, who does not care about anything he made. Middle core deism tones this down a bit and says God might intervene once in a while to keep the clock repaired and going but does care what happens until the next tune up. Soft core deism softens the hard and middle even more by granting that God maybe even more active in creation than the others pose but is still aloof from his creation as evidenced by letting evil, chaos, etc and etc, exist.

These three terms I used are oversimplifications of the degrees that Deism falls under. So please note that I use these as a point of reference only for identification the flavors of deism individuals like the most. I said all this to make this point which goes back to your FRED illustration and that is this: Deism bases its knowledge on observation of the known universe and world and seeks to make God out as an inactive or partial (active) agent in this mortal world due to the existence of evil and chaos. Thus they reason that God also must be unloving and indifferent to those whom he created evidenced by the experiences of mortal living due to suffering. Some suffering is due to natural laws of nature and thus excused away but others are caused by human agents which is reasoned as evidence of an aloof clock maker God.

Though deist do not deny God's existence, they do deny (depending on the flavor of deism they hold) God's compassion, care, and love in creation. They cannot, seems to me, be able to reconcile the nature of God as explained in the Judaic-Christian scriptures as being caring, loving, concerned about the affairs of humanity due to the evil in the world. They use the chaos people do to each other and the scenes of nature as proof that God is indifferent according to their degree of deism they hold. These are the things that hinder deist to grasp what Christian faith really is. To them, it is irrational.

Deist, can and do understand natural faith as Jac and K pointed out to you. Natural trust between parent and child is but one example of natural faith. But of the faith that FL and others mentioned about God, well, not so much. How could anyone trust God who is so indifferent to the plight of his creation as in a parent child relationship stumps them on the issue of faith due to the evil, dysfunction, and darkness in this world. This is what appears to me to be your biggest hindrance to understanding Christian faith: how can or why should anyone have faith in God who, appears so aloof, distant, uncaring, unfeeling in this natural world?

So is that you and where you are at?
-
-
-

[Audie]

You get the gist.

I get the gist. There are eyewitness accounts of Jesus' life after crucifixion but a non-believer won't accept them. Biblical Jericho has been excavated in part but a non-believer will see nothing there. The general area of Sodom & Gomorrah has been tentatively identified but a non-believer will not accept the evidence presented. I could go on but I'm sure you get the idea: whatever evidence is offered, you will doubt it.

The problem isn't with the evidence, the problem is with you. You don't want to see, so any evidence presented will always come up short. Been there, done that...

FL

People have been finding Noahs Ark for centuries.

The problem if it is one, is that the people making such claims have only that claims. Some are obvious hoaxes, admitted to,
Or there is the Noahs Ark Park where you can go see a geosyncline of roughly boat shape.

http://www.noahsarksearch.com/davedeal.htm

"All the truth asks is a hearing".

Seriously, read it! You like the rest of us need to know who your friends are. The "S and G found!" people are the same people as the arkers.

S and G may have existed. Who knows. A tentative guess at where they may have been is
evidence of nothing but that someone has a made guess.

The sites that talk about how they have been discovered should have anyone
with intellectual self respect in rapid retreat and disavowal of any connection. Credible archaeological evidence for
Sodom and Gomorrah? Give me a break.

Interesting mental gymnastics to find a way to take such naivete and flip skepticism into a fault on the part of people
not so easily gulled.

Actually, its a lot worse in various ways, not disincluding the false
and rather uncharming cliche about "no evidence is enough" for an "unbeliever".

I think you are better than that. Go forth, and show you are.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

People have been finding Noahs Ark for centuries.

I'm not talking about Noah's Ark. Even I don't give any credibility to such "discoveries". As far as I'm concerned, any discovery of Noah's Ark is on the same level as "scientific" investigations of ghosts or extraterrestrials. There are kooks in every discipline...

I was referring to serious archaeological digs in Israel and Jordan. These digs have uncovered many biblical sites and have confirmed the biblical account...to the dismay of atheists such as yourself!


Subcribe to Biblical Archaeology Review like I do or forever hold your peace...

FL

PS Don't worry Biblical Archaeology Review isn't a sick-o Christian publication. The Publisher is a secular Jew and the contributors & columnists are scholars... I suspect mostly atheist scholars...

[Audie]

People have been finding Noahs Ark for centuries.

I'm not talking about Noah's Ark. Even I don't give any credibility to such "discoveries". As far as I'm concerned, any discovery of Noah's Ark is on the same level as "scientific" investigations of ghosts or extraterrestrials. There are kooks in every discipline...

I was referring to serious archaeological digs in Israel and Jordan. These digs have uncovered many biblical sites and have confirmed the biblical account...to the dismay of atheists such as yourself!


Subcribe to Biblical Archaeology Review like I do or forever hold your peace...

FL

PS Don't worry Biblical Archaeology Review isn't a sick-o Christian publication. The Publisher is a secular Jew and the contributors & columnists are scholars... I suspect mostly atheist scholars...

That is all very well. S and G are in the noahs ark category, tho.

And the "evidence always short" bit, thats such a moldy canard but you're going to stick to it?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

That is all very well. S and G are in the noahs ark category, tho.

Nope, honey, they are not. S & G were at a fixed location, and tentatively identified at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Noah's Ark floated around and was made of wood. Even though timbers of the Temple may have been discovered (see Biblical Archaeology Review) it is almost impossible to know where the Ark came to rest. And the ship's wood may very well have been used as fuel for fire and to burn sacrifices. All of this puts "discoveries" Noah's ark in the Flying Saucer category...this and the fact that no serious archaeological research has had anything to do with Noah's Ark.

Sorry..those are the facts.

FL
.

[B. W.]

Biblical Archaeology Review is one of my favorites and is at least honest.

That is a good choice, Audie, to read and expand your open mind...
-
-
-

[Audie]

That is all very well. S and G are in the noahs ark category, tho.

Nope, honey, they are not. S & G were at a fixed location, and tentatively identified at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Noah's Ark floated around and was made of wood. Even though timbers of the Temple may have been discovered (see Biblical Archaeology Review) it is almost impossible to know where the Ark came to rest. And the ship's wood may very well have been used as fuel for fire and to burn sacrifices. All of this puts "discoveries" Noah's ark in the Flying Saucer category...this and the fact that no serious archaeological research has had anything to do with Noah's Ark.

Sorry..those are the facts.

FL
.

If you want a fact, try that there never was an ark or a flood. If you do think those were real, we may as well quit here.

Here is another fact or two..
IF there really were such places as S and G, they have not been found.

To say that they have been tentatively identified is a huge stretch.

Its the kind of stretch that scientists dont care to make, as egg-in-face is not their favourite condition.

[B. W.]

Here is an interesting article

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-or ... ence-00358

There is evidence of thick ash in this region that suggest some sort of major heat did destroy cities in the area...
-
-
-

[RickD]

That is all very well. S and G are in the noahs ark category, tho.

Nope, honey, they are not. S & G were at a fixed location, and tentatively identified at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Noah's Ark floated around and was made of wood. Even though timbers of the Temple may have been discovered (see Biblical Archaeology Review) it is almost impossible to know where the Ark came to rest. And the ship's wood may very well have been used as fuel for fire and to burn sacrifices. All of this puts "discoveries" Noah's ark in the Flying Saucer category...this and the fact that no serious archaeological research has had anything to do with Noah's Ark.

Sorry..those are the facts.

FL
.

If you want a fact, try that there never was an ark or a flood. If you do think those were real, we may as well quit here.

Here is another fact or two..
IF there really were such places as S and G, they have not been found.

To say that they have been tentatively identified is a huge stretch.

Its the kind of stretch that scientists dont care to make, as egg-in-face is not their favourite condition.

Audie,
How can you claim that it's a fact that there never was an ark or flood?
Even if there's no evidence that an ark existed, how can you claim it's a fact?

[Audie]

Here is an interesting article

http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-or ... ence-00358

There is evidence of thick ash in this region that suggest some sort of major heat did destroy cities in the area...
-
-
-

Looks like one of those woo-woo sites* that shows photos of rock formations and claims they are the remains of buildings.

Volcanic ash is not necessarily hot when it lands. When if is, you tend to get "welded tuff".

volcanic ash in desert areas will blow with the wind and collect in low lying areas, especially ponds. There was a lot of that in Eastern Washington after St. Helens.

Its not surprising that there is ash to be found in the middle east. it is surprising, tho, that anyone of reasonable mind would decide that finding ash would lead so automatically to the unsupportable statement that "major heat" somehow "destroyed cities".

Burial in ash would be the ideal preservation environment.


* here is a better woo woo site...
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm

[Audie]

That is all very well. S and G are in the noahs ark category, tho.

Nope, honey, they are not. S & G were at a fixed location, and tentatively identified at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Noah's Ark floated around and was made of wood. Even though timbers of the Temple may have been discovered (see Biblical Archaeology Review) it is almost impossible to know where the Ark came to rest. And the ship's wood may very well have been used as fuel for fire and to burn sacrifices. All of this puts "discoveries" Noah's ark in the Flying Saucer category...this and the fact that no serious archaeological research has had anything to do with Noah's Ark.

Sorry..those are the facts.

FL
.

If you want a fact, try that there never was an ark or a flood. If you do think those were real, we may as well quit here.

Here is another fact or two..
IF there really were such places as S and G, they have not been found.

To say that they have been tentatively identified is a huge stretch.

Its the kind of stretch that scientists dont care to make, as egg-in-face is not their favourite condition.

Audie,
How can you claim that it's a fact that there never was an ark or flood?
Even if there's no evidence that an ark existed, how can you claim it's a fact?

Clarify first please what you mean by ark and flood? If its some guy put some sheep and things on as raft during a river flood, lets drop it here.

[RickD]

That is all very well. S and G are in the noahs ark category, tho.

Nope, honey, they are not. S & G were at a fixed location, and tentatively identified at the southern tip of the Dead Sea. Noah's Ark floated around and was made of wood. Even though timbers of the Temple may have been discovered (see Biblical Archaeology Review) it is almost impossible to know where the Ark came to rest. And the ship's wood may very well have been used as fuel for fire and to burn sacrifices. All of this puts "discoveries" Noah's ark in the Flying Saucer category...this and the fact that no serious archaeological research has had anything to do with Noah's Ark.

Sorry..those are the facts.

FL
.

If you want a fact, try that there never was an ark or a flood. If you do think those were real, we may as well quit here.

Here is another fact or two..
IF there really were such places as S and G, they have not been found.

To say that they have been tentatively identified is a huge stretch.

Its the kind of stretch that scientists dont care to make, as egg-in-face is not their favourite condition.

Audie,
How can you claim that it's a fact that there never was an ark or flood?
Even if there's no evidence that an ark existed, how can you claim it's a fact?

Clarify first please what you mean by ark and flood? If its some guy put some sheep and things on as raft during a river flood, lets drop it here.

Me clarify? You are the one that asserted that it's a fact that there never was an ark or flood. I assumed that since you were discussing biblical events, that you were referring to Noah's ark.

[Audie]

There was no world wide flood, as described in the bible. If you think there was,
fine.

[RickD]

There was no world wide flood, as described in the bible. If you think there was,
fine.

You are joking, right?

We've been over this before. There's no reason why you or anyone else can't take the bible literally, and believe Noah's flood was not worldwide.
But this is usually the point that you realize you've stepped out of your comfort zone, and bail on the discussion.