Faith and facts

[osgart]

There is also the witness of the things we see around us, which we use our senses to detect, and reason on facts.

Much of what everyone learns is second hand news.

I forgot that the bible asks us to see things first hand and reason it out for ourselves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Would you mind please, explaining what gullibility is, and what faith is, and give an example for both, if you think they are different.

Gullibility? What do you mean?

When you date someone, you are getting to know that person. You are putting trust/faith that what he says about himself is true. When you get to know each other, your guard drops more and after that first hump of trust you start to see his view as truth or fact. Then, when he cheats or lies your faith is crushed.

It does not mean you are guillible. You had justification for your trust because of your relationship experience. Just it went badly. Guillibility isnt a bad word.

A lot of people who start to trust others will be guillible to an extent. Its part of the process of trust. Take down the ego and walk literaly blind towards the light. (Hence blind and now I see rather than experience and now I see)

I dont know what your question is asking, but my question is in Hebrews it says faith is believing in things unseen is true.....

If you need to experience your boyfriend's love before you know its true or fact, thats not faith. If you need to experience godly things to know gods love is fact, thats not faith.

In order for it to be a fact, you have to jump the ship or cliff, bring down your need for evidence, and accept whats given. Then base your experienecs on that.

My question is, in Hebrews it says faith is believing in things not seen are true. If you need (or do you need?) evidence/experience to have faith, isnt that a contradiction in the nature of faith as defined by the bible?

 

[nPeace]

Much of what everyone learns is second hand news.

I forgot that the bible asks us to see things first hand and reason it out for ourselves.

Actually many people came to believe in a creator, not through the Bible, but through nature's marvels.
I am going to create a post on this evidence later, so that I can reference it when needed.

 

[osgart]

Once a person is in the faith the bible instructs them to trust God with all their hearts and lean not on thy own understanding.

So its not a half hearted decision, but a forever commitment decision.

 

[nPeace]

Gullibility? What do you mean?

When you date someone, you are getting to know that person. You are putting trust/faith that what he says about himself is true. When you get to know each other, your guard drops more and after that first hump of trust you start to see his view as truth or fact. Then, when he cheats or lies your faith is crushed.

It does not mean you are guillible. You had justification for your trust because of your relationship experience. Just it went badly. Guillibility isnt a bad word.

A lot of people who start to trust others will be guillible to an extent. Its part of the process of trust. Take down the ego and walk literaly blind towards the light. (Hence blind and now I see rather than experience and now I see)

I dont know what your question is asking, but my question is in Hebrews it says faith is believing in things unseen is true.....

If you need to experience your boyfriend's love before you know its true or fact, thats not faith. If you need to experience godly things to know gods love is fact, thats not faith.

In order for it to be a fact, you have to jump the ship or cliff, bring down your need for evidence, and accept whats given. Then base your experienecs on that.

My question is, in Hebrews it says faith is believing in things not seen are true. If you need (or do you need?) evidence/experience to have faith, isnt that a contradiction in the nature of faith as defined by the bible?

I'll address this on Thursday.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Once a person is in the faith the bible instructs them to trust God with all their hearts and lean not on thy own understanding.

So its not a half hearted decision, but a forever commitment decision.

Would it be fair to say that (universal) facts arent needed for one to have faith and be commited to christ?

Since you dont know what god has planed, where would fact come in in relation to faith?

 

[osgart]

Would it be fair to say that (universal) facts arent needed for one to have faith and be commited to christ?

Since you dont know what god has planed, where would fact come in in relation to faith?

You would consider the source of your facts, and learn about it first hand.

Search all things to their ends.

Facts matter to a Christian. But oh boy look at what some people say is allegory, and what some say is literal fact.

Facts are a buy in or not to Christianity.

Thats why they have their own science and their own scientists.

But i am not a christian. I lived with christians though.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One does not need faith to believe in the Bible, or Jesus and his followers, for that matter. In the same way that we don't need faith to believe that there were Egyptian Pharaohs, or the Babylonian Annuls.
If Pharaoh walked into our bedroom, would we know it was him?
If he gave us his history, how would we know if we were hearing the truth?
I don't think many people really understand what faith is.

The Bible and Jesus certainly doesn't have the evidence that Egyptian pharaohs have. In fact , we still have the physical remains of the Pharaohs themselves for which we can construct their features for using forensic reconstruction.

Can't be said its the same thing for Jesus or any of the Apostle's for that matter.

But I'll say this for any modern day Christian, that faith is pretty much all you have.

 

[questfortruth]

Why try to prove the validity of Christian truths such as making conclusions on historical findings and written testimonies when the basis of Christian religion is based on faith?

Why try to find facts to prove the validity of christianity yet sustain that we can't see the truth with our senses but only by faith?

As is.

This unites Religion and Science: ``put everything under Him, so that God may be all in all.'' 1 Corenthians 15:28.
How variety of Gods is reflected in Politics?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why try to prove the validity of Christian truths such as making conclusions on historical findings and written testimonies when the basis of Christian religion is based on faith?

Why try to find facts to prove the validity of christianity yet sustain that we can't see the truth with our senses but only by faith?

As is.

Faith in Christ means He was a real person who taught certain truths and performed particular deeds. Furthermore Faith means believing the gospels accounts on theological narratives such as the Divinity of Christ, being the Son of God, and the resurrection. If there is no literal truth to an historic Jesus then our faith is in vain.

 

[Sunstone]

Why try to prove the validity of Christian truths such as making conclusions on historical findings and written testimonies when the basis of Christian religion is based on faith?

Why try to find facts to prove the validity of christianity yet sustain that we can't see the truth with our senses but only by faith?

As is.

I think the reason you see so many Christians -- especially fundamentalists, it seems -- seeking factual verification of their claims is because they have very little genuine faith.

 

[Cacotopia]

This is the rift between the two parties that will exist, one requires them and has no faith and the latter has faith and does not need facts.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Why try to prove the validity of Christian truths such as making conclusions on historical findings and written testimonies when the basis of Christian religion is based on faith?

Why try to find facts to prove the validity of christianity yet sustain that we can't see the truth with our senses but only by faith?

As is.

The Christian Religion is not solely based on faith as you may think.

It's taking what is written that proves historical findings.
Such as the historical of Jesus death and Resurrection.
We can go either to the historical evidence of the bible to prove the historical evidence of Jesus or we can go outside of the bible for the historical evidence of Jesus.

In the bible we find the disciples of Jesus and many people who followed Jesus.

We find that many of these people gave their life for the truth which they held, so it wasn't by faith. But pure knowledge of actually hearing and seeing Jesus first hand.
But yet these people gave their life for what they saw and heard.

Now going outside of the bible, In the Roman Colosseum, many Christians were put to death by wild animals and burned at the stake, for not denouncing what they saw and heard of Jesus.

Had it been a lie, Why would anyone put themselves in being tore apart by wild animals and burned at the stake, When all this could haved been pervented just by saying it's all a lie.

But yet those Christians would not denounce what they saw and heard as a lie. But stood fast on what they saw and heard by Jesus.

So the bottom line is, it's not all about faith, but faith and truth what is written to be historical evidence, whether it's written in the bible or what is written outside of the bible as historical evidence that's provided.
That brings it, to be historical evidence.

But as it is, many people will say, where's the historical evidence to support the death and Resurrection of Jesus.
It's known to be fact that back in the Roman Colosseum, that many Christians were put to death for not denouncing what they saw and heard of Jesus.
So there's your evidence outside of the bible.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Much of what everyone learns is second hand news.

That's a point that should be at the forefront.

What good is it in proving the past , if nothing at all is happening right now that would provide enough credibility for it to considered and taken seriously?

As it stands, the Holy Bible is just an old collection of books written by an individual or group of unknown people(s) with absolutely no special qualities and verifications to show its veracity. Much less as being relevant in the context it was written.

 

[Looncall]

Faith in Christ means He was a real person who taught certain truths and performed particular deeds. Furthermore Faith means believing the gospels accounts on theological narratives such as the Divinity of Christ, being the Son of God, and the resurrection. If there is no literal truth to an historic Jesus then our faith is in vain.

That goes for much in the bible. Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, exodus etc , all quite clearly bogus.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That goes for much in the bible. Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, exodus etc , all quite clearly bogus.

They are not meant to be taken literally...unfortunately there are a sizeable number of Christians who believe it should be!

 

[Kenny]

Why try to prove the validity of Christian truths such as making conclusions on historical findings and written testimonies when the basis of Christian religion is based on faith?

Why try to find facts to prove the validity of christianity yet sustain that we can't see the truth with our senses but only by faith?

As is.

According to Lee Strobel, it doesn't seem to be incongruent. He tried to find facts, found the facts, trusted the results of what he found and then exercised faith (since he hasn't physically seen Jesus).

So I'm not quite sure what you are trying to address.

Since anyone can read scriptures and draw different conclusions regardless ones religion, what criteria do you use to judge what is fact? If you said truth, Id understand but saying fact, I dont.

Example?

Faith of things not seen that are truth doesnt sound like fact based but trust based. So, if you are looking at evidence to confirm your faith, that evidence or something seen kind of contradicts what that verse implies.

One doesn't need evidence to "confirm" your faith. The evidence simply confirms what you believed.

You go to work expecting, by faith, that the company has money in the bank and isn't lying to you. When you cash your check, the evidence of the cash confirms what you believed.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The Christian Religion is not solely based on faith as you may think.

It's taking what is written that proves historical findings.
Such as the historical of Jesus death and Resurrection.
We can go either to the historical evidence of the bible to prove the historical evidence of Jesus or we can go outside of the bible for the historical evidence of Jesus.

In the bible we find the disciples of Jesus and many people who followed Jesus.

We find that many of these people gave their life for the truth which they held, so it wasn't by faith. But pure knowledge of actually hearing and seeing Jesus first hand.
But yet these people gave their life for what they saw and heard.

Now going outside of the bible, In the Roman Colosseum, many Christians were put to death by wild animals and burned at the stake, for not denouncing what they saw and heard of Jesus.

Had it been a lie, Why would anyone put themselves in being tore apart by wild animals and burned at the stake, When all this could haved been pervented just by saying it's all a lie.

But yet those Christians would not denounce what they saw and heard as a lie. But stood fast on what they saw and heard by Jesus.

So the bottom line is, it's not all about faith, but faith and truth what is written to be historical evidence, whether it's written in the bible or what is written outside of the bible as historical evidence that's provided.
That brings it, to be historical evidence.

But as it is, many people will say, where's the historical evidence to support the death and Resurrection of Jesus.
It's known to be fact that back in the Roman Colosseum, that many Christians were put to death for not denouncing what they saw and heard of Jesus.
So there's your evidence outside of the bible.

When I took art history we went over the process of Christian history and to some extent, the bible. A lot of things in the bible are recording in history. The Buddha is recorded in his events and miracles from Indian cosmology. Pagans have their stories because they are written in history as well.

So, no one is debating the bible has historical facts. It's also well know people died for their faith. That's true too.

The faith part in the supernatural is not a historical findings. God isn't a historical finding just what his followers said about him. Likewise Buddha to his Dharma and Pagans to their gods. It really depends on the person what they get out of history in relation to their faith.

I'm not bias to which religion is true. They are all similar in historical findings and in part supernatural truths.

Given god etc are things not seen, Hebrews mention (and the gospel) the foundation of faith is not fact/what you see etc but faith/trust something is real despite the evidence thus facts.

It's easy to validate god by drawing conclusions for historic events. But if you need them to verify your faith, that's what the OP is addressing.

Drawing supernatural conclusions based on historical evidence is fine. I'd like to talk more about that but it gets nowhere. Saying those conclusions prove supernatural existence is a totally different story.

How do you base supernatural experiences from people not so long ago (yet none today for some reason)

According to Lee Strobel, it doesn't seem to be incongruent. He tried to find facts, found the facts, trusted the results of what he found and then exercised faith (since he hasn't physically seen Jesus).

So I'm not quite sure what you are trying to address.


Example?


One doesn't need evidence to "confirm" your faith. The evidence simply confirms what you believed.

You go to work expecting, by faith, that the company has money in the bank and isn't lying to you. When you cash your check, the evidence of the cash confirms what you believed.

I'll come back. I addressed the OP as questions not statements. So, out of observation, I probably can't give you examples and details because I'm not familiar with any answer to form opinions about facts in relation to faith.

 

[Audie]

Basically. But Im sure there is logic behind the contradiction.

I dont think logic or contradiction have anything to do with it.

If you have proof, then faith is not even a topic.

Faith is a highest value in Christianity; behold Lot.

Probably this is a result of "making a virtue of
necessity".

 

[Audie]

According to Lee Strobel, it doesn't seem to be incongruent. He tried to find facts, found the facts, trusted the results of what he found and then exercised faith (since he hasn't physically seen Jesus).

So I'm not quite sure what you are trying to address.


Example?


One doesn't need evidence to "confirm" your faith. The evidence simply confirms what you believed.

You go to work expecting, by faith, that the company has money in the bank and isn't lying to you. When you cash your check, the evidence of the cash confirms what you believed.

Facts?