Originally Posted By ecdc >>I thought the entire point of having faith in anything is that faith often trumps reason and logic, not the other way around. And the more unshakeable faith is, the more reason and logic don't matter. Not to belittle people of faith here, either, but I've always thought that's the way it worked.<< I actually agree, SPP. I'm taking the time with RC Collins because so many of his posts have not claimed that faith is just that, faith. They've claimed that the divinity of Jesus is "historical fact" (his words). They've claimed that the writings of the early Christian fathers, coupled with the Bible and other ancient documents, show that Christianity is logically tenable, while he then turns around and insists that other faiths are not. RC Collins seems to take this to an extreme, but it's my experience that many religious people want to employ logic when it suits them, then abandon it and say "well, it's a matter of faith so you can't really challenge me on it" when that becomes convenient. You can't have it both ways, and if it really was a personal faith that understood that by definition, it was not using reason and logic, then I think I'd find organized religion to be much more palatable. Instead, even looking at DlandJB's sincere posts, she's trying to use logic and reasoning to explain why God does the things he does. Then, when pressed on it, she says "Hey, I can only say what I believe." Fair enough, but if believers are going to try and use reason to explain their faith, they should expect to be challenged on the reasoning they use. I've never challenged posts by Kar2oonMan, Dabob2, etc., because they've always made it clear that their faith is their own personal beliefs and they've never tried to suggest that it's somehow better than someone else's, or more logical or reasonable. (I'm not trying to pick on anyone by using names, I'm just trying to cite examples.)
Originally Posted By DlandJB Instead, even looking at DlandJB's sincere posts, she's trying to use logic and reasoning to explain why God does the things he does. Then, when pressed on it, she says "Hey, I can only say what I believe." Fair enough, but if believers are going to try and use reason to explain their faith, they should expect to be challenged on the reasoning they use. >>>>>>>>>> I don't mind being challenged, but I am no theologian. I will read something or learn it and it satisfies a need for reason and logic. But God has blessed me with a delightful "Dory" like brain that holds on to facts much like a colandar holds on to water. I can't quote chapter and verse (yet) with few exceptions. Yet, I know. I can suggest an author named Lee Stroble - a journalist and former atheist who went after the "real" story of Jesus and became a believer on the way. He has written several books and has a number of dvds out too. He is impressive in the scope of his research and he is very compelling. In my opinion, God doesn't require everyone who believes to be a scholar but there are profound scholars who can answer the tough questions if you are really seeking the answers.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>But again, you're implying that because science doesn't yet have all the answers, that necessitates the existence of God. That science does not yet (and may never) explain all truth, does not mean there's a God. It's quite the leap to say otherwise.<< And that’s not what I did. I'm saying that it is reasonable to believe there is a God based on what we DO know. >>>>That’s not what I said. I gave the various possibilities for the existence of the universe. You haven’t offered any more alternatives.<< I feel no need to provide various alternatives. Your argument is like saying "There are blue fairies that live in the forest when humans aren't around. What other alternatives do you have for what happens in the forest when humans aren't around?"<< Wrong. You KNOW the universe exists. You don’t know that blue fairies exist, or at least you haven’t claimed to. I was arguing based on something you already know. >>Instead, what you repeatedly do is assign tremendous weight to the "evidence" that supports your point of view, while discounting and casually tossing aside that evidence that doesn't, without giving it its due. Further, you toss aside the "evidence" that other religions use to sustain themselves, insisting it doesn't cut it, while insisting yours does.<< You are putting this out as an assumption, because you don’t cite any specifics. But your assumption is wrong. >>They've shown that the Gospels in the New Testament were written long after the death of Jesus, by people who used the oral traditions and myths surrounding Jesus to promote their own political agenda.<< This is incorrect. Some scholars assert this, other scholars don’t. There are some very good reasons to believe that the Gospels have reliable information about Jesus. Luke, for example, was almost certainly written in the 50s or ealier. Really, some of the scholars prefer late-dating to fit *their* political agenda. >>Finally, why is it the ones with the outrageous claims demanding the evidence to the contrary?<< I started this thread to talk about how Christians are encouraged, not prohibited, by the Bible from seeking medical help, and people jumped in to attack my faith. So, I asked them to back up what they were saying. In this case, they were the ones making the challenges.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>>>Random by whose standards? Why do you think your observations are complete?<< Again, another perfect example of religious rhetoric in place of reason and logic. When nonbelievers present inconsistencies in God's behavior, which is demonstrable by citing that behavior claimed by believers, such as who he blesses, when he interferes with free will, etc., the response is "well, we don't know everything about God. Who are you to question him or judge him!" I'm not the one claiming this is what God does.<< You wrote as though you know everything there is to know, and you were claiming God’s actions were random. They appear random to you. Fine. But that doesn’t mean they are, in fact, random. >>If you're going to say that god does such and such, you should be able to explain why.<< There are some things I know God does or has done based on Scripture. Other things, I assume He has done. >>>>I’m still waiting for someone to explain to me why these things are objectively wrong. You seem to think God is a “jerk†because there is evil in the world. Without God, there is no good or evil…there just is stuff you don’t like. Why should the universe be the way you like?<< Ah, the old, "morality without God isn't possible" argument. Of course there can be "good and evil" without God.<< There can be morality, but it is nothing more than your opinion. >>Humans can determine just fine what is "good and evil."<< The Nazis didn’t think they were evil. >>We can come to a general consensus, built around principles of not harming others.<< Wait a minute. Why should it be a general consensus? Why it is wrong to harm others? Where the hard, scientific proof? >>Last time I checked, it's ok to eat a ham sandwich on a Saturday; but the Bible sure speaks out pretty clearly on that.<< It’s certainly not okay of you’re a Jew living in ancient Isreal. But do you have a problem distinguishing between things like ceremonial and moral? And between Israel and the rest of the world? Christians and others? >>>>God has told us to punish murderers. Absent any objective sign from God that he commanded Dan Lafferty to kill, we should process Dan by our laws.<< But what if Dan wasn't a murderer? What if God commanded him to kill?<< Then God doesn’t condemn him. >>Fowler isn't at all trying to make anyone seem unenlightened.<< Since enlightenment is the highest level of his model, then I think the logical conclusion is that people who haven’t reached that level are unenlightened in his model. But why do you have faith in Fowler’s model?
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>>>Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that I exist. If you disagree that I exist, you’re spending an awful lot of time on a figment of your imagination.<< The fact that you exist doesn't at all address your belief in God.<< It’s called a first principle. It is a starting point. >>>>Let me clear that up for you. I start with the assumption that there are writings about Jesus.<< Hmmm. You seem to start with the assumption that Jesus is lord,<< I start with the assumption that there are writings about Jesus, then consider what those writings say and where they came from. >>Further, if he's god, why is the sacrifice necessary at all?<< Why ask me questions if you’re just going to respond to my answer with “That’s speculation!†or some similar dismissal? Having some sort of definitive action take place in human history is helpful. At least it has been helpful to me, and billions of other people have indicated it has been helpful for them, too. This happened in front of the world, so to speak, in front of believers and unbelievers – an objective demonstration instead of just an internal, subjective feeling.
Originally Posted By RC Collins SingleParkPassholder >>I thought the entire point of having faith in anything is that faith often trumps reason and logic, not the other way around.<< I made my decision to have faith based on reason, logic, and what I knew, not in conflict with that I knew. I believe faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. >>Most people of faith don't blithely arrive at their points of view, either.<< What was the recent statistic? More then 40 percent of Americans claim a “religion†different from the one they grew up with? Some of those people change for marriage, or whatever. But there are a lot of people choosing their religion, not simply sticking with their parents’ religion because it was there all along.
Originally Posted By RC Collins ecdc: >>They've claimed that the divinity of Jesus is "historical fact" (his words).<< It either happened, or it didn’t. I base my belief that it did happen largely on certain historical facts. If those facts are not correct, then huge chunks of the historical are also likely incorrect. >>They've claimed that the writings of the early Christian fathers, coupled with the Bible and other ancient documents, show that Christianity is logically tenable, while he then turns around and insists that other faiths are not.<< I don’t really know a lot of other faiths that are based on whether a single even actually happened or not. There are a few. But yes, if Christianity is true, than anything the conflicts with that truth is false. If what YOU believe is true, then what I believe is false. >>RC Collins seems to take this to an extreme, but it's my experience that many religious people want to employ logic when it suits them, then abandon it and say "well, it's a matter of faith so you can't really challenge me on it" when that becomes convenient.<< I can point to, say, the land of Isreal. I can’t point to a spot on the sidewalk and say “There’s God! See, He’s Triune!†So, yes, some things are logical and observable and spelled out and other things aren’t. >>I've never challenged posts by Kar2oonMan, Dabob2, etc., because they've always made it clear that their faith is their own personal beliefs and they've never tried to suggest that it's somehow better than someone else's, or more logical or reasonable. (I'm not trying to pick on anyone by using names, I'm just trying to cite examples.)<< If you're a logical person, than automatically, whatever is in conflict with that which you've embraced you consider false, or you embrace THAT instead, or something else. Don't be patronizing. Or, does anyone care to admit they don’t really believe what they claim to; they simply profess it for other reasons?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I can't speak for anyone else, but I can't "admit" that because that's not where I'm at. I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus. I also recognize that there IS a leap of faith involved in that.
