Here's your chance: Stump the Christian Chump

[sandy whitelinger]

A Honda. In Acts they were all in one Accord.

You win the free ticket.

 

[McBell]

Does faith depend upon evidence?

Yes it does.
SOMETHING convinced them to have faith.
By the very definition of evidence, that something is evidence.

now that something being convincing evidence some might argue is a different story.
And on one hand I agree.
However, on the other hand I would have to disagree.

Evidence is subjective.
Especially when said evidence is for faith.

"WordNet (r) 2.0"
evidence
n 1: your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to
base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung
cancer is very compelling" [syn: grounds]
2: an indication that makes something evident; "his trembling
was evidence of his fear"
3: (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact
whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is
established or disproved
v 1: provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's
behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high
fever attested to his illness"; "The buildings in Rome
manifest a high level of architectural sophistication";
"This decision demonstrates his sense of fairness" [syn:
attest, certify, manifest, demonstrate]
2: provide evidence for; "The blood test showed that he was the
father"; "Her behavior testified to her incompetence"
[syn: testify, bear witness, prove, show]
3: give evidence; "he was telling on all his former colleague"
[syn: tell]​

 

[angellous_evangellous]

When you lay out the chronology of the Christian version of history, from Genesis, to the flood, to the Israelites, to Jesus, to "the end times", the question I keep coming back to is: Is that really the very best this "god" could do? That's the most effective, efficient way an allegedly perfect being could mange a universe?

Good question.

I have thought about this before because the Calvinist theologian John Piper has a theory that he calls "the best of all possible worlds." It means that he thinks the order of the universe is as best as it possibly can be. I don't agree with him.

This kind of question is truly beyond me - at least on the cosmological level. But it occurs to me that people like Dawkins can understand the universe through mathematical equations (etc), which is the highest form of human reasoning. The universe is ordered enough that we can understand it through mathematics, and that's as efficient as it gets.

But the quite messy history of Israel in the Bible - I think - is from their destruction and captivity in Babylon. While there, they had to recoincile "why it happened" with their faith in one God. The root of the problem was they didn't kill everyone that they needed to during the conquest and therefore worshipped false gods which angered God and put them in a world of crap.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What's up with that Trinity thingy? Three separate gods? Jeeez... Ooops...
The son, the Father and the Holy Ghost/Spirit?

Talk to us, daddy. Spill the beans.

I call the "Trinity" a false monotheism. This means that no one would ever come up with the doctrine of the Trinity by studying the NT. We have to be told about the Trinity from early and late Christian theologians.

The false monotheism of Christianity stems completely from the theological problems related to the deification of Jesus. In many ways it is a cheap way to continue a Jewish monotheism while having a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. For example, if we remove the "Son," it's quite easy to see that the Father and the Holy Spirit are One. Of course, the exeriment to remain united with Judaism failed - and in fact it was abortive, fizzeling out in the first generation of Christianity.

However, the OT is genuinely important in the formation of the Trinity in early Christian thought. It was critical for them to have one God (well, most of them) and so the Trinity develops - one God in essence with three persons.

To me it's a beautiful doctrine, but it is logically false.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

what kind of car did the apostles drive?

Honda Accord

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What exactly are "the riches" of [God's] goodness and forbearance and longsuffering... from Romans 2:4 KJV?

The "riches" describe the depth of "goodness and forbearance and longsuffering."

So the "riches" are "goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Does faith depend upon evidence?

That's a matter of perspective, and therefore depends on your standard of evidence.

For example, if someone demands a high standard of evidence, it is not faith but reasoned interpretation of scientific or philosophical data that causes them to accept something as true. This is not faith to me.

If a person has a lower standard of evidence - when someone can believe something without the reasoned interpretation of scientific or philosophical data - that to me is "faith."

 

[lunamoth]

That's a matter of perspective, and therefore depends on your standard of evidence.

For example, if someone demands a high standard of evidence, it is not faith but reasoned interpretation of scientific or philosophical data that causes them to accept something as true. This is not faith to me.

If a person has a lower standard of evidence - when someone can believe something without the reasoned interpretation of scientific or philosophical data - that to me is "faith."

Thank you! Do you see any distinction between faith and belief?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Thank you! Do you see any distinction between faith and belief?

It depends. I wouldn't have a problem with someone translating the Greek pistis as "faith" or "belief." In NT theology, I don't think that there's a difference.

The main thing is not to confuse faith / believe in Christ/God with belief in something proven by science or philosophy. The standard of proof is what significantly changes the meaning of the word in a particular context.

Belief in a religious context is an assent to a particular dogma. Belief in the scientific context means intellectually assenting to an interpretation of natural facts. That's not the same thing.

 

[lunamoth]

Belief in a religious context is an assent to a particular dogma. Belief in the scientific context means intellectually assenting to an interpretation of natural facts. That's not the same thing.

Do you think any humans are smart enough to comprehend and appreciate these different forms of belief, or are we eternally doomed to equate the two?

 

[doppelganger]

Q3. How many seminary Ph.D. students does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Unknown. Students only write commentaries about the screwing in of light bulbs done by others. :flirt:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you think any humans are smart enough to comprehend and appreciate these different forms of belief, or are we doomed to equate the two?

Absolutely.

All that's needed, IMHO, is a basic understanding of science and religion. To me, the basic differentiation is elementary and accessible to anyone. They may not articulate the difference between the two definitions of belief as I have written it, but I think that most of us can wrap our heads around the basic principle.

Consider how few people on RF say that atheists have just as much faith as the religious in God. It's only evangelical Christians who can't see past the end of their nose.

 

[doppelganger]

Belief in a religious context is an assent to a particular dogma. Belief in the scientific context means intellectually assenting to an interpretation of natural facts. That's not the same thing.

The connotation of pistis/"belief" as an affirmation of certainty in a proposition about reality is much later than the New Testament writings though, isn't it?

The etymology of "belief" traces the word back to the 12th century as derived from geleafa, the root of which in turn was galaub meaning "esteemed or held dear", from which we also get an etymological cousin of "belief" - our word "beloved."

So early equations of "belief" with pistis or, more likely for the era, the Latin fides (from which we get "faith"), was equating "faith" with love or trust rather than statements of certainty about propositions of dogma. That seems to be much, much later than the NT.

 

[doppelganger]

The online etymology dictionary:

Online Etymology Dictionary

"Belief" being limited to connote "mental acceptance of something as true" dates to the 16th Century.

 

[doppelganger]

To me it's a beautiful doctrine, but it is logically false.

Though you can make a lot of money borrowing money from Christians. For every three dollars they give you, you return one. After all 1=3.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The connotation of pistis/"belief" as an affirmation of certainty in a proposition about reality is much later than the New Testament writings though, isn't it?

The etymology of "belief" traces the word back to the 12th century as derived from geleafa, the root of which in turn was galaub meaning "esteemed or held dear", from which we also get an etymological cousin of "belief" - our word "beloved."

So early equations of "belief" with pistis or, more likely for the era, the Latin fides (from which we get "faith"), was equating "faith" with love or trust rather than statements of certainty about propositions of dogma. That seems to be much, much later than the NT.

Every word that we use in translation has a different etemology than that of the Greek.

And as you know, the whole point of etemology is to show how words began, and how they changed. The word "faith" may have come from the Latin fides, but that doesn't mean that it carries with it any Latin connotation in its current English usage. Same thing with "belief." We don't use a 12th century dictionary to interpret Greek words today.

I've never heard of "belief" or "faith" being used in its earliest etemological context... and most other words for that matter.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The online etymology dictionary:

Online Etymology Dictionary

"Belief" being limited to connote "mental acceptance of something as true" dates to the 16th Century.

Ah, to more directly answer your question: you can't define Greek words using English etemology. You would have to do a word study on pistis and not the words used to translate it into English to address your question.

 

[doppelganger]

I've never heard of "belief" or "faith" being used in its earliest etemological context... and most other words for that matter.

I agree. So where in the NT is pistis used in the sense of our modern usage of "belief" - "mental acceptance of something as true" or "profession of certainty in an ontological proposition"? And what were Christians using the word "belief" or its predecessors or relatives - like "fides" - to connote about their religion in between the time of the NT and the time of the 16th century when the notion of pistis/belief/fides/faith all got folded into the single notion of "mental acceptance of something as true"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree. So where in the NT is pistis used in the sense of our modern usage of "belief" - "mental acceptance of something as true" or "profession of certainty in an ontological proposition"? And what were Christians using the word "belief" or its predecessors - like "fides" to connote in between the time of the NT and the time of the 16th century when the notion of pistis/belief/fides/faith all got folded into the single notion of "mental acceptance of something as true"?

Off the top of my head, I think that Hebrews 11.1 comes pretty close:

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I'm more curious about how it's used in the philosophers. I'll have to look it up later.

 

[doppelganger]

Off the top of my head, I think that Hebrews 11.1 comes pretty close:

11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I'm more curious about how it's used in the philosophers. I'll have to look it up later.

The rest of that chapter gives examples construing pistis as obedience - as in a "faithful dog." That's different than belief in dogma.