Faith and facts

[nPeace]

Oh great my soul depends on an accurate historical record.

In a way, yes.
Romans 15:4 . . .For all the things that were written beforehand were written for our instruction, so that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope.
Paul said it.

 

[viole]

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.

A bit like those guys who sacrificed themselves, their family and children, because of the truth of a UFO hiding behind a comet that will pick up their souls.

They also stood for what they believed it was true, and were ready to die for that, as they did.

You underestimate the power of delusion, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Faithofchristian]

A bit like those guys who sacrificed themselves, their family and children, because of the truth of a UFO hiding behind a comet that will pick up their souls.

They also stood for what they believed it was true, and were ready to die for that, as they did.

You underestimate the power of delusion, I am afraid.

Ciao

- viole

I thought I was speaking about Christians and not about some people who go about Sacrifices their children over some UFO.

 

[Dawnofhope]

@CG Didymus It is apparent there is no limit to how far Bahais go to interpret scriptures to fit their religious beliefs. Here is one clear demonstration.

Do you mean considering the historic and cultural context of verses, or taking into account modern biblical scholarship?

Notice the reasoning.
If you read more from the link, you would notice that the same reasoning is applied to where Jesus is called Lord, and Savior.

Interestingly, Moses - whom Bahais consider a Manifestation of God - said this:
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
15 Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to him. 16 This is in response to what you asked of Jehovah your God in Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, ‘Do not let me hear the voice of Jehovah my God or see this great fire anymore, so that I do not die.’ 17 Then Jehovah said to me, ‘What they have said is good. 18 I will raise up for them from the midst of their brothers a prophet like you, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he will speak to them all that I command him. 19 Indeed, I will require an account from the man who will not listen to my words that he will speak in my name.

If Moses is a Manifestation of God, that is, one and the same as all the others, why did he say, "raise up a prophet like me"? Why not say, "Jehovah will raise me up."?
According to the reasoning used, would they not all be one prophet?

No.

Moses brought the Torah, Jesus the Gospel and Muhammad the Quran. Moses and Jesus were like each other in that they brought forth or manifested a revelation from God.

There were not the same as they were different people physically. The Message of each was different as they were suited to the capacity of their people. That is why having some understanding of history and culture is important rather than endlessly quoting scripture.

What about the earlier claimed Manifestation of God - Abraham. Where did he prophesy of a coming?

To me, it seem adrian009 is questioning the authenticity of the Gospels, but yet the Bahais refer to those same books - Matthew and Luke.
So I am not sure how one can reason on scripture, with that kind of reasoning.

The revelation from Abraham has been lost to time.

Actually I question whether @adrian009 believes anything in the Bible. If Moses is considered a Manifestation of God, and he led the Exodus, why would adrian009 say something like this?

Baha'is do not insist all of the Bible needs to be taken literally. When it so clearly contradicts what science has established as fact, we need to differentiate the theological from the historic, allegoric from fact.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Do you mean considering the historic and cultural context of verses, or taking into account modern biblical scholarship?

No.

Moses brought the Torah, Jesus the Gospel and Muhammad the Quran. Moses and Jesus were like each other in that they brought forth or manifested a revelation from God.

There were not the same as they were different people physically. The Message of each was different as they were suited to the capacity of their people. That is why having some understanding of history and culture is important rather than endlessly quoting scripture.



The revelation from Abraham has been lost to time.



Baha'is do not insist all of the Bible needs to be taken literally. When it so clearly contradicts what science has established as fact, we need to differentiate the theological from the historic, allegoric from fact.

Yeah and that's what the Serpent told Eve back in the garden of Eden, You will not surely die. In other words you don't have to take God's word on everything. This is why we're in this mess. Because Eve did not take God's literally.

So here comes Baha's saying not to take God's word literally. Sounds a bit like the Serpent.

 

[viole]

I thought I was speaking about Christians and not about some people who go about Sacrifices their children over some UFO.

Yes, but the point is:

1) Being ready to die for X, does not add anything to the plausibility of X. As my example showed.

Singling out Christians, as a special case for which 1) does not apply, is question begging, and therefore logically fallacious.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yeah and that's what the Serpent told Eve back in the garden of Eden, You will not surely die. In other words you don't have to take God's word on everything. This is why we're in this mess. Because Eve did not take God's literally.

So here comes Baha's saying not to take God's word literally. Sounds a bit like the Serpent.

Who needs reason when you have faith, eh?

 

[Hawkins]

Do you regularly provide date time and location together with regular evidence with what you quote?

You missed the point. The point is there's no evidence and whatsoever supporting what George Washington ever said, such as the one in the quote. Yet we take it as a fact that the quote is from him. That's the way how faith works. It is an example of faith leading to facts without evidence. To put it another way, we don't need evidence (simply because we can't have) to take it as a fact that the quote is from Washington. We take it this way by faith!

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yes, but the point is:

1) Being ready to die for X, does not add anything to the plausibility of X. As my example showed.

Singling out Christians, as a special case for which 1) does not apply, is question begging, and therefore logically fallacious.

Ciao

- viole

It seems as you do alot of running around in circles, why not just say ( yes) or ( no)
Would haved been alot easier than going about it the way you did.

In speaking about Christians, Which group of Christians are you in reference to ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Who needs reason when you have faith, eh?

Here's back at you, Who needs science when you have faith?

 

[DustyFeet]

... behold Lot.

sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what's the connection to Lot?

 

[Audie]

Here's back at you, Who needs science when you have faith?

Not sure what you mean. On what level do you see them
as comparable, or, that one could exchange one for the other?

Faith will do nothing to help you find where to drill for oil,
science will do nothing to help you trust / have faith in
your spouse.

You may well have an idea there, maybe you could
explain it?

 

[Audie]

sorry if this sounds ignorant, but what's the connection to Lot?

Lots faith in God was sorely tested, was it not?
But he showed his virtue by trusting, despite the ill treatment.

 

[Audie]

Yeah and that's what the Serpent told Eve back in the garden of Eden, You will not surely die. In other words you don't have to take God's word on everything. This is why we're in this mess. Because Eve did not take God's literally.

So here comes Baha's saying not to take God's word literally. Sounds a bit like the Serpent.

I am no fan of Bahai, but that seems like really going
out of your way to find an excuse to attack someone's
religion-as Satanic, no less. TSK.

 

[viole]

It seems as you do alot of running around in circles, why not just say ( yes) or ( no)
Would haved been alot easier than going about it the way you did.

In speaking about Christians, Which group of Christians are you in reference to ?

Yes.

Ciao

- viole

 

[leroy]

If ya gots facts then ya dont need faith

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 simply means “trust” I have faith / trust God in an analogous way I trust my wife.

I trust that my wife is currently working and not In some cheap hotel having sex with some other guy.

Obviously I can’t prove with 100% certainty that my wife is not cheating on me, (I am not spying her, I don’t have hidden cameras, etc.) but I have good reasons to trust her.

This doesn’t mean that I will trust her despite any evidence, if someone presents a solid proof that she is cheating on me, I would accept the evidence. And my trust in her would vanish

Same is true with God, I can’t prove with 100% certainty that God exists, but there are good reasons to believe in him (and no comparable good reasons to reject his existence) which is why I have faith / trust in God.

Sufficient evidence can potentially vanish my faith.

My guess is that you are building your case upon a straw man; to have faith in God doesn’t mean believing in God despite any evidence. If you insist that this is the definition of faith, then I would say that I don’t have what you call “faith” in God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Faith simply means “trust” I have faith / trust God in an analogous way I trust my wife.

I trust that my wife is currently working and not In some cheap hotel having sex with some other guy.

Obviously I can’t prove with 100% certainty that my wife is not cheating on me, (I am not spying her, I don’t have hidden cameras, etc.) but I have good reasons to trust her.

This doesn’t mean that I will trust her despite any evidence, if someone presents a solid proof that she is cheating on me, I would accept the evidence. And my trust in her would vanish

Same is true with God, I can’t prove with 100% certainty that God exists, but there are good reasons to believe in him (and no comparable good reasons to reject his existence) which is why I have faith / trust in God.

Sufficient evidence can potentially vanish my faith.

My guess is that you are building your case upon a straw man; to have faith in God doesn’t mean believing in God despite any evidence. If you insist that this is the definition of faith, then I would say that I don’t have what you call “faith” in God.

I was referring to Hebrews: faith is believing in things hopeful despite unseen. The whole Bible is based on hope despite something you can't see.

Going by what I hear mostly, god is spirit and not earthly, and evidence is earthly, why would evidence be part of a christians foundation of truth when the bible is more concerned with the hope (or trust) over evidence?

Even in our US media geographic channels for example, focus on finding christian relics as proof (as said) of the bibles validity. That wouldn't be necessary for that purpose if the foundation is based on hope and not things seen.

Get me?

 

[Audie]

My guess is that you are building your case upon a straw man; to have faith in God doesn’t mean believing in God despite any evidence. If you insist that this is the definition of faith, then I would say that I don’t have what you call “faith” in God.

I am not building a case, nor is there a strawman,
but that is ok.

You are agreeing with me, for the most part, however
differently you phrase it. I am insisting on no definition,
far from it. I am the one who so often complains about
equivocation games re the word faith.

I can see having faith in God. A lot of "I dont know
how, or what, but I dont have to." That is ok, I can
see that.

Having faith that the Bible is the word of God, and
all of it true etc, well that is another matter.

Facts seriously get in the way, there. And it seems
everyone has his own facts about what it all means.

I can kinda see god rolling his eyes and saying
something like, "Honestly, you people!"

 

[leroy]

I was referring to Hebrews: faith is believing in things hopeful despite unseen. The whole Bible is based on hope despite something you can't see.

Going by what I hear mostly, god is spirit and not earthly, and evidence is earthly, why would evidence be part of a christians foundation of truth when the bible is more concerned with the hope (or trust) over evidence?

Even in our US media geographic channels for example, focus on finding christian relics as proof (as said) of the bibles validity. That wouldn't be necessary for that purpose if the foundation is based on hope and not things seen.

Get me?

Exactly, faith is believing “Despite unseen” not “Despite any evidence to the contrary” the analogy of my wife still applies, “I trust (have faith) that she in is not in a hotel having sex with another guy” despite I am not observing her in this moment.

 

[leroy]

I am not building a case, nor is there a strawman,
but that is ok.

You are agreeing with me, for the most part, however
differently you phrase it. I am insisting on no definition,
far from it. I am the one who so often complains about
equivocation games re the word faith.

I can see having faith in God. A lot of "I dont know
how, or what, but I dont have to." That is ok, I can
see that.

Having faith that the Bible is the word of God, and
all of it true etc, well that is another matter.

Facts seriously get in the way, there. And it seems
everyone has his own facts about what it all means.

I can kinda see god rolling his eyes and saying
something like, "Honestly, you people!"

The only point that I am making is that faith (trust) and evidence are not mutually exclusive, you can (at least in principle) have both; you can have faith in “something”, and have evidence that suggest that “it” is reliable.


Agree?