mormonx wrote:I don't know what kind of faith you have, but my faith is not without evidence. but my Faith is based in a historical person, Christ. My faith is being sure of what I hope for in Christ and certain of his promises and deeds.
I agree, Jesus was probably a historical person. But that's where your evidence ends. There are all kinds of historical people. Where's your evidence that Jesus is some kind of god? That he rose from the dead? That he's around today?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
mormonx wrote:I don't know what kind of faith you have, but my faith is not without evidence. but my Faith is based in a historical person, Christ. My faith is being sure of what I hope for in Christ and certain of his promises and deeds.
I agree, Jesus was probably a historical person. But that's where your evidence ends. There are all kinds of historical people. Where's your evidence that Jesus is some kind of god? That he rose from the dead? That he's around today?
haha.. I didn't say faith was in 100% proof text, or even empirical data, that would be an atheist view. We would have to start a new thread for this but I think there is reasonable proof there is a God > I have "faith" that this evidential God is loving based on the evidence of love that is me and the desire to be loved > I think there is reasonable proof that this God is intelligent > I think there is reasonable proof that the old testament text is reliable, in that it has made it through history to us > I have reasonable proof that the New testament is reliable, meaning I believe we have most of, the jest of, what was written in antiquity > I think there is reasonable proof that Jesus was real and a rabbi > I have reasonable proof that he was crucified > I have reasonable proof that a group of jews thought something miraculous had happened and died for that belief > I have faith, and my eyes have been opened by a new birth, that these jews were telling the truth.
But that's where your evidence ends.
Is It? Is there no evidence that Paul is the original author of at least seven of the pauline letters? Even an atheist Scholar would say yes. Is there no evidence that Christ was crucified? etc.. There is plenty of evidences, the question is only do you believe those evidences. Your talking about evidence of the miracles. No, we do not have evidence for those. We only have evidence of how people reacted to supposed miracles. I take God on his word that they happened "faith."
Well, I defined faith as belief in the absence of credible evidence. If you dispute that definition, you should be prepared to provide credible evidence.
I did dispute that. And the point of your thread is the question of the utility of faith.
However, I think you've answered the initial question in the part I've bolded. Although I would contend that it really helps you make nonsense of the world,
So you really weren't asking so that you could know our position, you were asking to deride it. How surprising.
but perhaps can provide some shallow comfort in times of trouble.
Strangely, I find it extraordinarily comforting that the Creator of the universe knows me, cares for me, and is concerned with what I do. NOt terribly shallow at all.
Well, I defined faith as belief in the absence of credible evidence. If you dispute that definition, you should be prepared to provide credible evidence.
I guess you are the one to determine "credible" evidence. What was your doctoral thesis on? And why should your subjective definition of faith mean anything. My definition of faith means turtles have hair on their balls. You can't just make up a definition of a word and ask people to argue against it. Or I guess you can and you have. If your going to discuss a historical term the smart thing ti do would be to know what people meant by that term in the application that you are arguing. Not some google definition.
Well, I defined faith as belief in the absence of credible evidence. If you dispute that definition, you should be prepared to provide credible evidence.
Besides Mormons are a easy target when it comes to evidence arguments. They don't have any. The only reason a atheist would hang here is because they can't hang with the big dogs. Try http://www.premier.org.uk/ for a right proper Christian ass kicking ;-)
Mad Viking wrote:Why does god require faith is the question at hand.
Most spirits sent into this life were faking it in the pre-existence. If they had the love of God there, then they would have faith here. This life proves that. Enjoy.
Wow...
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
mormonx wrote:Faith is falling into a loved ones arms and being sure they will catch you. If you have no proof that that loved one is standing behind you, your an idiot.
And yet... This is the exact situation you are in when you place your faith in god. You have no proof he is even there.
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
Hoops wrote:Strangely, I find it extraordinarily comforting that the Creator of the universe knows me, cares for me, and is concerned with what I do. NOt terribly shallow at all.
Is it comforting to think that God knew the 12 year old girl that Warren Jeff's abused? Did He care for her enough to prevent that abuse happening?
'Church pictures are not always accurate' (The Nehor May 4th 2011)
Morality is doing what is right, regardless of what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, regardless of what is right.
mormonx wrote:Besides Mormons are a easy target when it comes to evidence arguments. They don't have any. The only reason a atheist would hang here is because they can't hang with the big dogs. Try http://www.premier.org.uk/ for a right proper Christian ass kicking ;-)
I'd love to take an ass whipping right here on this backwater board. Please mormonx, make your case for the existence of god.
"Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis" - Laplace
Well, I defined faith as belief in the absence of credible evidence. If you dispute that definition, you should be prepared to provide credible evidence.
I did dispute that. And the point of your thread is the question of the utility of faith.
However, I think you've answered the initial question in the part I've bolded. Although I would contend that it really helps you make nonsense of the world,
So you really weren't asking so that you could know our position, you were asking to deride it. How surprising.
but perhaps can provide some shallow comfort in times of trouble.
Strangely, I find it extraordinarily comforting that the Creator of the universe knows me, cares for me, and is concerned with what I do. NOt terribly shallow at all.
You disputed my definition, but have still failed to dispute it substantively - in other words, prove me wrong by providing evidence.
My perspective on the comfort value of faith is someone who has been both faithful and faithless. Faith didn't really add all that much comfort. Being someone with no faith now, I can see that.
Please, don't expect special consideration for your superstitious beliefs. All belief is open to criticism.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.