Tercel

Perhaps. How exactly am I supposed to know what I would do if I had lived a completely different life?

Tercel

It's called "Multiple Attestation", and it's probably the singular most powerful of all Historical-Critical criteria.

Perchance

I'm not contesting that. However, why accept that something is true based on just numbers? Shouldn't there be more than that? And shouldn't doubts be listened to?

It may just be my love of complication, but it seems as though sometimes a person ignores contradictory accounts- especially in matters of religion- or refuses to give tham any credence at all just because they don't accord with what that person wants to believe. Not to say you are doing this. But why not give them a chance, rather than slam the door?

-Perchance.

sighhswolf

Giving a chance means listening and applying some real thought to the information presented.
Tercel at least is not a fundamentalist and seems to have a liberal interpretation of texts, in most instances.
I think it is well we remember that holy texts and religion in general, are based not on evidence but faith and emotion.
There is a very good reason for having church members extremely involved in social interaction within a closed group.
There are those who are actually afraid of listening to reasoning and logic contrary to their chosen faith.

The strength of testimony determines the degree of involvement in religion, and it is a very tough thing to keep that strength at max. levels.
When doubt begins to creep into the testimony
it must be reinforced in some way, if not it will deteriorate to non-active levels and eventually to non-belief.

Not in all cases but in a large number of cases people are afraid to test the limits of their faith.
They do not want to have that security blanket threatened in any way.
I think in all honesty, that most modern christians are for the most part "religious agnostics", who dont believe that their chosen faith is strong enough to stand against 21st century science, but they WANT to believe.

A fairly complex issue, dealing with personal
convictions and the strength of those convictions when stressed to the limit of rationality.

Wolf

Perchance

sighhswolf:

I think you're right. It just puzzles me that, if someone knows or even suspects that his beliefs are on shaky ground, he would want to cling to them instead of seeking out ways to test them. After all, if his beliefs truly are strong, then they won't shatter. If they do shatter, then the somewhat bewildered person can find new ones that will survive the tests he's thought of.

I suppose this is where the "emotion" part comes in.

-Perchance.