Faith and facts

[Unveiled Artist]

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.

 

[Audie]

If ya gots facts then ya dont need faith

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If ya gots facts then ya dont need faith

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

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

There's not even a single character written in the pages of the Bible that ever required faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

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 because faith alone is blind can't see the truth with our senses but only by faith?

As is.

. . . because faith alone is blind. There is no proof in any religious belief and that is vain search indeed. I belief the failure of this journey is circular reasoning to justify Christianity, and the failure to appeal to a quest for a more inclusive universal.

 

[shunyadragon]

There's not even a single character written in the pages of the Bible that ever required faith.

The conclusions of belief require faith, and not any words in the Bible in and of themselves.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There's not even a single character written in the pages of the Bible that ever required faith.

Yet, what is the logic of the contradiction?

What is the reasoning to say something is a fact when the nature of deriving religious christian conclusions are based on faith?

A child may believe he sees an airplane in the clouds. I know the logic behind why he thinks is so regardless if he is correct in his assessment of the negative space between the clouds.

 

[nPeace]

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

You're right.
I think if we ask, what are facts, and we have the correct understanding of what facts are, then we would realize that facts and faith are not at odds with each other, but can be quite compatible.
In fact, some persons have the mistaken view that faith does not require evidence. They use the term blind faith, but faith is not blind.
Or at least it might depend on what people have in mind, when they use the word faith.

I usually refer to faith, as described at Hebrews 11:1, which is based on evidence.
This kind of faith requires we use all our senses - logic and reason, and a sound mind are a must. Otherwise, we are just believing without any valid reason, and the word for that is gullibility.
Romans 1:7; 12:1

 

[Jollybear]

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.

If someone hears the christian message and believes it without a direct experience, thats faith.

If they have a direct experience, thats knowledge. That experience could be anything from an angelic encounter, a holy Spirit filling, a out of body travel, a audable voice speak.

And the more solid ones that rule out halucinations are the veridical experiences.

However, its only veridical for the experiencer. Its still anecdotal to others who hear there testimony.

No one can use a emperical method on there uncontrolled experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You're right.
I think if we ask, what are facts, and we have the correct understanding of what facts are, then we would realize that facts and faith are not at odds with each other, but can be quite compatible.

In fact, some persons have the mistaken view that faith does not require evidence. They use the term blind faith, but faith is not blind.

Or at least it might depend on what people have in mind, when they use the word faith.

I usually refer to faith, as described at Hebrews 11:1, which is based on evidence.

This kind of faith requires we use all our senses - logic and reason, and a sound mind are a must. Otherwise, we are just believing without any valid reason, and the word for that is gullibility.
Romans 1:7; 12:1

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.

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.

If you dont need evidence to have trust in god, I feel thats what that verse means. Believing something that you dont need experience for. Faith before experience not based on experience/evidence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If someone hears the christian message and believes it without a direct experience, thats faith.

If they have a direct experience, thats knowledge. That experience could be anything from an angelic encounter, a holy Spirit filling, a out of body travel, a audable voice speak.

And the more solid ones that rule out halucinations are the veridical experiences.

However, its only veridical for the experiencer. Its still anecdotal to others who hear there testimony.

No one can use a emperical method on there uncontrolled experience.

I would say a better word is Truth rather than fact; but, I can see how an experience can be a fact to that person hence why they use the word.

If they believed without experience, Id assume thats what Hebrews is referring to. Experience is a result of faith not a confirmation for it.

I see so often in our media etc that its the other way around. People need experience, what they "see" before they have faith. By definition, hebrews speaks of blind faith (which is repeatitive) not evidence based faith.

Would anyone believe in god without needing experiences?
Cause I think thats were hebrews is getting at.

 

[nPeace]

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.

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.

If you dont need evidence to have trust in god, I feel thats what that verse means. Believing something that you dont need experience for. Faith before experience not based on experience/evidence.

I haven't identified any facts. What I said was, if we have the correct understanding of what facts are, then we would realize that facts and faith are not at odds with each other, but can be quite compatible.

In other words, have we identified the facts? Are those with faith denying the facts? Are they at odds?
If the evidence based faith includes facts, then there is no disagreement.

 

[nPeace]

I would say a better word is Truth rather than fact; but, I can see how an experience can be a fact to that person hence why they use the word.

If they believed without experience, Id assume thats what Hebrews is referring to. Experience is a result of faith not a confirmation for it.

I see so often in our media etc that its the other way around. People need experience, what they "see" before they have faith. By definition, hebrews speaks of blind faith (which is repeatitive) not evidence based faith.

Would anyone believe in god without needing experiences?
Cause I think thats were hebrews is getting at.

Apparently you don't seem to understand. Or should I say, we don't understand it in the same way.
How do we know that water particles are striking our face?
Whether you know or not, you feel the effects. You don't see the reality, but you know what you are experiencing, and you know there is a cause.
Identifying the cause is open, unless you have already been informed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yet, what is the logic of the contradiction?

What is the reasoning to say something is a fact when the nature of deriving religious christian conclusions are based on faith?

A child may believe he sees an airplane in the clouds. I know the logic behind why he thinks is so regardless if he is correct in his assessment of the negative space between the clouds.

Faith really isn't that strong. It's actually unreliable at best for sure.

You need fact. Or at least something based on fact by which to identify.

Assuming Jesus had existed....

I mean nobody's ever seen Jesus. No one knows who Jesus looks like. How would faith ever help in identifying Jesus if he were ever to walk in the door? A requirement of something factual would be needed in order to identify Jesus otherwise. Without fact he would be treated like all the Jesus's that had appeared here on Religious Forums.

We all know how faith had served the respondents so far with those who claim they were Jesus givin that if the real one ever arrived they would know the difference, faith so far has pointed out that every single Jesus here is regarded as being not the real McCoy, so it's extremely doubtful faith would even work at all perchance a real Jesus among all the fake Jesus's decided to introduce himself as the genuine article. Everybody would still go on saying as before that Jesus on an internet forum is still a fake.

The only reason why faith looks so good to so many people is that it's actually "reliable" when it points out there are no real Jesus's posting on an internet forum, so you end up with the "reason" that Faith must work. Without fact, that "reason" pretty much gets blown out the door whenever it doesn't work.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I haven't identified any facts. What I said was, if we have the correct understanding of what facts are, then we would realize that facts and faith are not at odds with each other, but can be quite compatible.

In other words, have we identified the facts? Are those with faith denying the facts? Are they at odds?

If the evidence based faith includes facts, then there is no disagreement.

Im saying once you justify faith with evidence, its no longer faith its fact. If you believe blind faith without need of evidence, then that relates to what Hebrews is saying. If you need experience for justification, I think thats missing the point in believing in things not seen are true.

I have to be more detailed with examples. I get the concept: faith and fact are not at odds since many who have faith experience things that justify it as fact.

What Im saying is, since that justification or experience is something seen, wouldnt that be a contradiction to having aith without needing experiences (physical evidence) to justify it?

In other words, if one has faith, if going by hebrews, why does one need evidence to justify it?

Apparently you don't seem to understand.
How do we know that water particles are striking our face?
Whether you know or not, you feel the effects. You don't see the reality, but you know what you are experiencing, and you know there is a cause.
Identifying the cause is open, unless you have already been informed.

Do you need these things to have faith?

Do these experiences justify your faith or a result of it?

If the experiences justify your faith, Id see that as a contradiction since things we see isnt the basis of faith (according to hebrews).

If experiences is the result of faith, its not a contradiction just a cause and affect relationship.

 

[nPeace]

Faith really isn't that strong. It's actually unreliable at best for sure.

You need fact. Or at least something based on fact by which to identify.

Assuming Jesus had existed....

I mean nobody's ever seen Jesus. No one knows who Jesus looks like. How would faith ever help in identifying Jesus if he were ever to walk in the door? A requirement of something factual would be needed in order to identify Jesus otherwise. Without fact he would be treated like all the Jesus's that had appeared here on religious forums.

We all know how faith had served the respondents so far to those who claim they were Jesus givin that if the real one ever arrived, faith so far has pointed out that every single Jesus here is regarded as being not the real McCoy, so it's extremely doubtful faith would even work at all perchance a real Jesus among all the fake Jesus's decided to introduce himself as the genuine article. Everybody would go on saying as before that Jesus on an internet forum is still a fake.

The only reason why faith looks so good to so many people is that it's actually "reliable" when it points out there are no real Jesus's in an internet forum so you end up with the "reason" that Faith must work. Without fact, that "reason" pretty much gets blown out the door when it doesn't work.

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.

 

[osgart]

The bible says faith is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.

I bet that is inferring direct revelation by God by witness of the bible and by the presence of the holy spirit.

I suppose the faith is produced by evidence of spiritual realities to the inner experience of humans seeking the very truth of things. Thus a dishonest approach is fruitless, and an honest approach availeth much.

Christianity has its own unique standards by which all are judged by according to its tenets.

The bible also says beware of science so falsely called.

So right away Christians are supposed to be separate from the world while sojourning through it.

I can totally see a person experiencing desparate delusions as to the reality of their own inner experience. The desire to live forever in perfect justice is a strong one for those who get swept up in a religion sincerely. Others who are insincere use the church for gain and manipulate the masses.

 

[nPeace]

Im saying once you justify faith with evidence, its no longer faith its fact. If you believe blind faith without need of evidence, then that relates to what Hebrews is saying. If you need experience for justification, I think thats missing the point in believing in things not seen are true.

I have to be more detailed with examples. I get the concept: faith and fact are not at odds since many who have faith experience things that justify it as fact.

What Im saying is, since that justification or experience is something seen, wouldnt that be a contradiction to having aith without needing experiences (physical evidence) to justify it?

In other words, if one has faith, if going by hebrews, why does one need evidence to justify it?


Do you need these things to have faith?

Do these experiences justify your faith or a result of it?

If the experiences justify your faith, Id see that as a contradiction since things we see isnt the basis of faith (according to hebrews).

If experiences is the result of faith, its not a contradiction just a cause and affect relationship.

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

 

[osgart]

The bible invites people to search out God's ways, to see if these things are so.
To try God, and see if its all true.

So i assume christians have their very own standards of objectivity.

 

[nPeace]

The bible says faith is the substance of things hoped for, evidence of things not seen.

I bet that is inferring direct revelation by God by witness of the bible and by the presence of the holy spirit.

I suppose the faith is produced by evidence of spiritual realities to the inner experience of humans seeking the very truth of things. Thus a dishonest approach is fruitless, and an honest approach availeth much.

Christianity has its own unique standards by which all are judged by according to its tenets.

The bible also says beware of science so falsely called.

So right away Christians are supposed to be separate from the world while sojourning through it.

I can totally see a person experiencing desparate delusions as to the reality of their own inner experience. The desire to live forever in perfect justice is a strong one for those who get swept up in a religion sincerely. Others who are insincere use the church for gain and manipulate the masses.

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