This should be interesting, Christians...

[Kenneth R.]

You've not presented any evidence. Arguing over interpretations of a text is quite different than offering evidence for believing a text reveals truth.

If your conclusion is reached by logical proof, you're not reliant upon faith by very definition. Leaps of faith cannot be rationally justified.

you've missed my point again. perhaps i'm not explaining it well enough.

faith is an extension of logic.

i use logic to find evidence that X is true.
i can't at this time prove without doubt that X is true, but it is clear that a lof of evidence points to this.
i then say "faith" is the assumption "ok, this is true based on evidence and reasoning."

it is also based on trust, trust that your faith is well placed. i used an example before, if you stand on an edge of a cliff, you won't jump unless you have a parachute or other means to land safely. this is your basis. you make certain, check and double check, question and doubt, until you think you're certain that your parachute works. you wouldn't jump otherwise of course. that's logic & reasoning. then trust, you trust that the parachute won't rip or fail you. this trust and the action of stepping off is faith. it is based on reasoning and evidence that leads you to trust that you will not fail.

it is extremely difficult to describe to someone who doesn't believe in it.

and yes, i have presented substantial evidence. you likely haven't read it. as i've stated before, the evidence does not prove that this is all true. it strongly suggests. the last step is up to interpretation.

 

[Sepsis]

Sorry I can't respond with much, I've printed out the thread and I'll read it on the crapper tonight. Then I'll be able to join the discussion.

 

[Demiurge]

I think we're probably defining "reason" differently. Reason gives a priori knowledge. Faith exists in its absence. If there is logical proof, there is no need for faith because the truth will be accepted by all who grasp the concepts.

If you could conclude that "Christ is the son of God" by rational means, the religion would fall apart, anyway. Everyone would accept the truth as they do "2 + 2 = 4." Believers cannot be saved by faith because it is now gone. Objective uncertainty is required.

Reason isn't exactly about finding evidence, either. Conclusions reached through empiricism are fundamentally different.

I'm not trying to make a value judgment about your religion in this case. I am trying to explain faith and religion.

Out of curiosity, have you read any Kierkegaard? I think you would find him interesting.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i think you're wrong again. as i've shown, i've presented the evidence. i believe based on this evidence that X is true. you however, do not. therefore there is need for faith. and not all who see such evidence will interpret it alike. therefore they will not all understand.

if i conclude that Christ is the son of God by rational means, then there would be no need for faith. that conclusion cannot be made. it can only be concluded on faith, based on reason, as i have already stated many times. Believers are not saved by belief alone. they are saved for acting upon that belief in an attempt to better themselves and the world around them as Christ taught. Objective uncertainty, i would agree, IS required.

How can one explain religion and faith without personally knowing them? i believe it is i who is trying to explain faith. religion is another matter, often confused with faith and belief. religion is a system of practices and rules many believers adhere to. it is the organizational end of the spectrum. it's not personal, and therefore i find it much less important because it is (these days anyway) often administrated by human beings who are just as faulty as we followers are. i prefer to search for the answers myself or at least participate in the process, not sit on a bench and be "told" what is and what is not.

 

[Demiurge]

I don't believe you've caught on to what compelled me to respond in the first place. I take issue with your assertion that your belief in Christ is based on reason. It demonstrates that you do not know what "reason" is exactly. I've tried to explain, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in. Meaningful communication between the two of us doesn't seem likely.

How can one explain religion and faith without personally knowing them?

Fallacy noted..

i believe it is i who is trying to explain faith. religion is another matter, often confused with faith and belief.

There is no confusion on my part.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i believe there is confusion on your part. and no fallacy at all. i do know what reason is. please keep the insults to a minimum, they don't add to this discussion at all.

 

[speed]

Silent Song, you are an interesting guy. On the surface of it, you seem to be anything but an religious guy, yet you are. I just fail to see what religion or faith of the Christian persuasion? I suppose you are free believer in christ taken with his ideas and teachings on free will, and not his teachings on a communal worship community?

SO I guess I am saying you are most assuredly not a Catholic or Orthodox if you believe in your own personal jesus. Yet I dont know what kinf of protestant you are either? A smart one I suppose. But if you were smarter you wouldnt attack other peoples conception of God.


I say join the agnostic movement; its much more honest to say you know nothing, nor can prove or disprove nothing on matters concerning God or all that nonsense. Perhaps we will die and see Odin or Zeus? Who can disprove it or prove it?

 

[Kenneth R.]

i can't prove who or what you will see when you die. I do have some idea of what I may see. Either eternal damnnation for my sins or the gates of heaven.

I am a Christian. i won't call myself catholic, protestant, anglican, or any of the subscribed religions. i am simply one who believes in Christ.

however, as you say, he taught that people should gather, and worship together. I have no problem going to any of the above mentioned (and other) churches. i don't necessarily agree with all their doctrines. i prefer to gather with others like me and we primarily follow this format:

opening in songs performed by a group of musicians to which everyone sings along. words are posted on a powerpoint for those who don't know them. everyone does in fact sing, it's quite extraordinary

then proceeds the topic of the day, sometimes a speaker presents a verse or idea and we are given a presentation on what it could possibly mean and how to apply it in our lives. we can enter this discussion and share critique and our interpretations.

then there are announcements for events to be held in the short term future. these include sports, videogames, any typical activity with groups of people as well as study of the bible and helping out the community.

lastly, we again sing more songs in closing, which typically ends in going to a restaurant or playing racquetball in the gym afterwards. no one is required to attend or come every time. you come because you want to, and it is encouraged to help each other with our understanding of God's message and what it means to us. everyone has some differences so we all have something to add to the experience.

 

[Intoxicator]

Do you accept the fact that you may be wrong? Do you have any doubt at all in the existence of your god? Do you not think, even alittle, that you may be following the wrong god or that there is no god? I am an atheist, but I leave room in my mind for the possibillity that I may be wrong, and I accept this. Do you do the same?

 

[speed]

I think at last he is beginning to Scissors. But ones ego doesnt deflate that quickly. He seems to be quite an intellgent guy. Im sure in a few years he may wake up and decide he no longer is omniscient in the ways of Christ.

I call you Scissors to also become a agnostic; one cannot go around being an atheist and admit they may be wrong! Why such an admission proves you really should be an agnostic, and not even concern yourself with the existence of things that cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Do you accept the fact that you may be wrong? Do you have any doubt at all in the existence of your god? Do you not think, even alittle, that you may be following the wrong god or that there is no god? I am an atheist, but I leave room in my mind for the possibillity that I may be wrong, and I accept this. Do you do the same?

do i accept that i may be wrong? yes.
do i have doubt? yes, sometimes.
do i think i may be following the wrong or there is no god? No. i do not.


"at last he is beginning to"
incorrect. i have always held to the above statements and what you've said have no bearing on them.

speed i tell you right now i am not omniscient in the ways of Christ. no human is. i aspire to follow him, and i do my best to do so in my life. in no amount of years unto my death will i renounce it.


"proof" is a subjective thing. we all know what "opinion" means. we often confuse other words, however. a "fact" is a widely accepted opinion. no more and no less. not all opinions are facts, but all facts are indeed opinions.

 

[speed]

Oh I had no hope or desire of chaging your mind, I am not a Christian remember. I just noticed cracks in the jesus armor is all.

 

[Intoxicator]

I think at last he is beginning to Scissors. But ones ego doesnt deflate that quickly. He seems to be quite an intellgent guy. Im sure in a few years he may wake up and decide he no longer is omniscient in the ways of Christ.

I call you Scissors to also become a agnostic; one cannot go around being an atheist and admit they may be wrong! Why such an admission proves you really should be an agnostic, and not even concern yourself with the existence of things that cannot be proven or disproven.

Technically I'm an agnostic atheist. I doubt the existence of a god, but don't totally rule out the possibillity of one. It's only rational to keep your mind open to all possibilities, rather than closing it to the things you don't like and only accepting the things you do.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Technically I'm an agnostic atheist. I doubt the existence of a god, but don't totally rule out the possibillity of one. It's only rational to keep your mind open to all possibilities, rather than closing it to the things you don't like and only accepting the things you do.

you are correct.

but at some point, must you not come to a conclusion which of those paths you will follow? (or create your own).

you can open as many doors as you want, but if you don't step through any of them you're just standing still.

 

[Intoxicator]

I don't believe there is a god and I don't even like the idea of there being a god. But, as I said before, it would be foolish to completely close my mind to the idea that there is a god. I don't totally rule out the possibillity. I keep my mind open to new ideas, but I fight for the atheist side, because that is the side that makes the most sense to me. Basically, I'm an atheist with an open mind. I realize others have their own beliefs but that doesn't mean they're wrong and I'm right or vice versa.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i respect that.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

I don't believe there is a god and I don't even like the idea of there being a god. But, as I said before, it would be foolish to completely close my mind to the idea that there is a god. I don't totally rule out the possibillity. I keep my mind open to new ideas, but I fight for the atheist side, because that is the side that makes the most sense to me. Basically, I'm an atheist with an open mind. I realize others have their own beliefs but that doesn't mean they're wrong and I'm right or vice versa.

that's a good philosophy

 

[Zhou Tai 04]

i can't prove who or what you will see when you die. I do have some idea of what I may see. Either eternal damnnation for my sins or the gates of heaven.

I am a Christian. i won't call myself catholic, protestant, anglican, or any of the subscribed religions. i am simply one who believes in Christ.

however, as you say, he taught that people should gather, and worship together. I have no problem going to any of the above mentioned (and other) churches. i don't necessarily agree with all their doctrines. i prefer to gather with others like me and we primarily follow this format:

opening in songs performed by a group of musicians to which everyone sings along. words are posted on a powerpoint for those who don't know them. everyone does in fact sing, it's quite extraordinary

then proceeds the topic of the day, sometimes a speaker presents a verse or idea and we are given a presentation on what it could possibly mean and how to apply it in our lives. we can enter this discussion and share critique and our interpretations.

then there are announcements for events to be held in the short term future. these include sports, videogames, any typical activity with groups of people as well as study of the bible and helping out the community.

lastly, we again sing more songs in closing, which typically ends in going to a restaurant or playing racquetball in the gym afterwards. no one is required to attend or come every time. you come because you want to, and it is encouraged to help each other with our understanding of God's message and what it means to us. everyone has some differences so we all have something to add to the experience.

Sounds pretty similar to my church. I am also a Christian. And I agree with all of your views expressed in this thread.

 

[monoxide_child]

i'm kinda assuming that most of the people on a "philosopher" type forum would be not Christian, and, based on that, i'm thinking re-animating this thread would revive the philosopher's forum

 

[monoxide_child]

i want to hear Carmen Rock's opinion on this subject