critical thinking made ez

Bob, thanks for posting something that has given some of us all a lot of enjoyment in reading and thinking about. I for one, have really enjoyed your arguments and input, thanks. I look forward to more. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Epitome

BOB: Well, it seems we are still stuck on defining the word faith. I hate it when discussions digress into semantic issues.

Me too, especially when someone keeps insisting on THEIR definition- which is required for them to win the argument. That's why I lurk.


I have serveral issues with your point that might help clear the air.


...Testimony in court is given under oath (an oath taken on the Bible interestingly enough) and under thorough cross examination with legal recourse in the event of willfully false testimony. Therfore the Bible is not evidence in that sense.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The Bible is the written account of the disciples who were eye-witnesses.

As well if the Bible then refers to itself as evidence it again is not eveidence in any sense.

Jesus referred to the old testiment law and prophets as evidence that he was who he said he was.

The other evidence that the Bible is sound is if the teachings of Jesus ring true and when followed produce the 'fruit' he promised they would... this IS subjective... but doesn't a jury have to decide if a witness is telling the truth based on their own experience?

An analogy to what you said would be that if in answer to your questioning of the evidence for my statements I merely said "because I said so" and told you to accept that as evidence.

It would greatly depend on what kind of person you were and what you were saying. If you were a doctor and you were giving me your professional opinion or if you were my father, whom I love and trust... "because I said so" might be enough...

However, I wouldn't be completely beyond scrutinizing even the most trust-worthy person if I found more credible evidence to contradict the testimony.

So it seems that Epitome's definition of faith is oxymoronic in a sense because clearly you can not combine evidence with faith.

You don't even give me a chance to reply before you declare yourself the winner with YOUR definition.

Epitome:*politely excuses herself*
PS&gt; This is why I lurk...

BOB"So you lurk because you don't want to have discussions with people who don't agree with or who don't support your own belief system?

Not at all. I don't want to have discussions with people who insist on logical falacies. This board is FULL of people who claim they don't believe in God because it doesn't make sense 'logically' But then to see their arguments, they don't have a CLUE what logic is.

EPitome: [b]I'm glad I peeked back in... it seems you've come to a definition which I can completley agree with....

BOB:That was too easy.

No... one thing you'll find about me is that I have no issue conceding a point, if I find it sound and valid- again something I rarely see done here...

I don't have a problem with your definition that Faith is based on 'subjective' evidence.... until you went and said that 'subjective' evidence isn't evidence, describing your own definition ridiculous and claiming your version of 'evidenc' is the same as MINE...


BOB: First of all subjective evidence IS an oxymoron.

See above.

BOB: You could say instead that Christian Faith is a belief based on subjective interpretation of evidence.

*LOL* You slay me. ALL belief is based on subjective interpretation of evidence... Unless you're claiming to be able to be completely objective...

BOB:....if I did believe in God or the Bible as the word of God it would be a totally subjective belief. A belief that would not and could not (since that is God's intention) rest on logical proof or material evidence (since material evidence is not subjective).

*sigh* I've already gone over this... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

[quote]
faith
n.
2.Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence



Whereever you got that definition from, it doesn't jive with the Biblical definition of Faith, which is what Christians refer to when they use the word. For instance, Romans is a book based on logical proof... yet Paul says we must have Faith. YOU would probably say that Paul is just as 'weird' as the Christians here arguing... probably so... but it does make it pretty clear what we're doing is NOT against our religion- which I think is your point?

BOB:Well I guess that clears up the definition debate..

NOT!

BOB:...love as an emotion can be totally subjective. But that does not mean it can not be objective. If someone loves someone or something wouldn't they show it? Ones actions are fact, and objectively measurable. So if someone says they love you and show you through their actions that they love you then you have edivence to believe that that is true....

Which is what Christians belief God did when he sent his son to die for us...

Let me ask you a question before we continue this...

Do you maintain that the Jesus did not exist?

Because to me that is an objective reality... historic FACT. Whether or not he was who he says he was is subjective. Whether or not the disciples witness testimony of his resurrection is accurate is based on subjective interpretation of their testimony- I believe them.

Epitome

Edit explaination from CTMEZ: Epitome, you had me down as the author of Bob's statements so I change out the names only in this post.

[ January 04, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>

Epitome

CTMEZ: OH! Sorry about that... Thanks so much for fixing it for me... I'll be much more careful next time.

Epitome

Bob *insert witty nic here*

Thanks alot CTME for you comments
I would also like to thank you Epitome for your arguments as well. It has all been cause for thought on my own part.
In answer to your question, I do not know if Jesus Christ existed. I personally have not seen the evidence, or been explained the evidence so I have firm conclusion. Someone once told me that Jesus was a hippie and that the Bible was a loose interpretation written mostly by members of the catholic aristocracy to support their agenda. Besides that I haven't done any real research into corroborating secular evidence of his existence. However this discussion was never meant to tackle the issue of the existence or God or Jesus, so that's my defense for ignorance on the issue.
I must admit also that as I stated I am an amature at this game so I may have made many errors in my arguments.

I think as far as it stands this discussion has perhaps reached my limits, and that I will only end up repeating myself if I participate further, so you will understand if I watch from the sidelines any further action.

To CTME I hope to see you around as well, I'll watch out for you

Rafe

Went to <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=faith" target="_blank">Dictionary.com</a> and found these definitions of faith:

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5 he body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

The first definition is one that I like. It in no way inhibits logic, facts, belief, truth, etc, etc.

Also, an important fact to consider in this whole debate is what the original hebrew/greek word is that was translated into the english word faith. Here is a link for your viewing pleasure:

<a href="http://unbound.biola.edu/strongs/index.cfm?lang=English" target="_blank">The Unbound Bible</a>
Under 'Search for an English Word' type in faith.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: Rafe ]</p>

Tercel

Tercel replies: I am not an advocate of universalism if that is what you mean. I merely believe that belief in Jesus and God is not necessary, nor sufficient to go to heaven. Yes, I believe it is possible for an atheist, you included, to go to heaven. I would again recommend <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002538&p=" target="_blank">this link</a> to you in which I expound and clarify my views in detail.

Tercel

I merely think that the average person's understanding of "faith" is wrong.
The word the Bible writers used was originally rendered into English as faith meaning trust. Unfortunately, languages change over time. The meaning of the word "faith" over the centuries has changed significantly. (The dictionary now gives 7 or so different definitions of the word.) You can now have faith; Or faith in someone; Or believe the faith; or believe on faith etc.
The rising anti-christian movement who is all to happy to willfully misinterpret faith as belief against the evidence or without evidence, has certainly not helped things.
So now when a person sees the word "faith" they are more likely to think of the wrong meaning of it than what the Biblical writers would have meant by the term. And it is made all the worse when the averagely ignorant Christian also gets the idea that this is indeed what is meant by "faith".

The most used meaning of faith is not trust, true. However if you will consult the appropriate dictionaries, thesauruses' etc you will find it is a valid one.

Well done.

I think you will trust that God exists when you meet him, so that's hardly the issue to me. But whether or not you will be willing to sumbit to God and serve him in the trust that he knows (and is) best or you will decide to go your own way, remains to be seen.

And I'm saying that since faith=trust, (And Epitome has more than amply demonstrated that your understanding of faith was not that of the Bible writers) that your point is pointless.

Tell me, do you mean that you no longer trust that this thread is going anywhere? -Or are you here experiencing <strong>unevidenced belief</strong> about this thread not going anywhere?

Tercel

Bob *insert witty nic here*

Thanks Tercel, I must admit that it seems this discussion is premature in that for their to be any significant headway made first their must be an agreement on at least the terms. You pointed out that faith may mean several things currently. Of course then one adopts the definition that serves himself the most so perhaps this thread should move into a more serious discussion of the definition of the meaning of the word faith, specifically how it is meant in the Biblical context (since that is our context of discussion here). Then once that area has been decided we could again move back into this realm.

In the discussion of the meaning of the word faith the only predisposition that I have is that the meaning must be consistant and logical. Both in its use in discussions and in the interpretation of what is said in the Bible. If this is not the case then any enlightened discussion is pointless as it would become a competition of wills, with everyone trying to enforce there own subjective opinions on to others.

Also the definition must be full and clear, not open to interpretation,

Lastly on my comments on losing faith in the thread, it was a toungue in cheeck comment that was designed to provoke the desired response. Perhaps a low blow for this kind of discussion, but none the less the end result (my amusement) was fullfilled. Thanks again