Stephen T-B

Ed should ask himself if is it necessary to have faith – principally faith in the existence of God – in order to be a Christian.
If it is, then he must beware looking for proofs of God's existence for if he were to find them, he would have certain knowledge of it.
Faith is only required in the absence of certain knowledge; where that exists, faith is expunged.
Consider motor cars.
Does he need faith to believe in them?
No, because if he were to stand in the middle of a freeway he'd soon be killed by one.
With certain knowledge of God's existence, Ed would be a Christian without need of faith.
The whole point about religious belief is that the existence of the gods which believers worship can never be proved; if it were, they wouldn't be believers and they wouldn't have a religion.

Duvenoy

"Oh," said God. "I didn't think of that!" and he disappeared in a puff of logic. (Slightly mangled Doug Adams.)

Welcome Stephen!

d

Boro Nut

Stephen T-B, with your concise explosion of the god myth I think you have just ruined it all for most of the population of this planet, you selfish selfish bastard.

Boro Nut

Stephen T-B

I suspect I've got it all wrong.
I should have.
My father, his father, two of his grandfathers and one of his great-grandfathers were all ministers.
My uncle is a Fransican Friar.
I am descended, so my family claim, from a brother of William Tyndale who was strangled and burnt at the stake for translating the Bible into English.
I should be a believer.
I have tried to be a believer.
I have failed.
The White Queen told Alice it is possible to believe anything if you practice hard enough.
But that is in Looking-Glass Land, and I don't live there.
Does Ed?

missus_gumby

Stephen, I would say that you have won. That you have gained freedom. That you have embraced reality for what it is. That you have escaped millennia of unfounded assertions.

How can it be classed as failure, if all you failed at searching for was something that wasn't there in the first place? Surely it's a triumph to absent oneself from a wild goose-chase!

Martin

PS I wouldn't be surprised if this thread was moved elsewhere.

scigirl

I don't mind keeping it here since it sort of goes along with the Ed debates.

scigirl

Atticus_Finch

I don't know Ed or what his response would be to this thread. However, I would like to share with you my understanding of "faith" in the context of Christianity.

I am convinced that Christianity is based on history and evidence. I am convinced that God exists, that Jesus lived, worked miracles, claimed to be God incarnate, was crucified, died, was buried and rose again (bodily) on the third day. I do not mean to restart the debate on the scientific and historical evidence for these convictions but reference to them is necessary to make the distinction between my understanding of Christian "faith" and that suggested by others here.

It does not require "faith" to be convinced of these things. A counter example would be the "Big Bang". You may be convinced that the universe began with the "Big Bang". If I am not so convinced then your belief takes on a "faith" like appearance to me because I think you are ignoring the evidence that convinces me that another cause brought the universe into existence.

The "faith" required of Christians is in the promises of God. I must accept by faith that Christ's death will atone for my sins, that God wants the best for me, that there is a place in heaven for me (etc. not meant to be a complete or even representative list). These promises are not subject to any type of verification. As an example, you may have faith that your best friend will catch you if you fall backwards in the classic confidence exercise. However, your faith in your friend's actions are completely immune to verification. You can fall back and be caught 10 times in a row but it is no proof that your friend will catch you the next time.

Therefore, the faith required of Christians is not like "faith" in the existence of automobiles and more like "faith" in the fact that your friend will catch you when you fall.

Regards,

Finch

P.S. I am always in favor of references to Douglas Addams. The problem of the Babble Fish has perplexed the faith for centuries. LOL

hezekiah jones

Counter example? We observe the universe expanding. It's expanding right now. The Big Bang didn't happen, it's happening. Anyway the universe obviously "began" prior to its expansion. There was already something there. So the universe didn't necessarily "begin" with the Big Bang.

But how exactly is your personal credulity an effective counter example to your belief that some ancient Jewish guy was a god?

Why don't you take a look at the evidence. You can see it. How can we see your god? With our hearts?

What evidence?

Atticus_Finch

In your zeal to defend your belief in the Big Bang, you have totally missed my point. My point was not to debate origins of the universe or life. My point was to explain my understanding of what "faith" is and is not.

Suffice it to say that I do not dispute that the universe is expanding, however, I see in the immaculate design of the universe and life evidence of a designer.

Regards,

Finch

P.S. You are so amazed that anyone would question the "Big Bang", let me ask you a question. If there is no God, how did the universe come into existence? Whatever your answer, can you believe it without invoking "faith".

Edited to add "P.S."

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Atticus_Finch ]</p>

Daydreamer

The universe did not 'come into existence' because it has always been - there was simply a singular event we call the Big Bang where, for reasons not yet entirely understood, we have the first manifestations of matter and energy in our 4-dimensional universe.