Faith - A divine attribute...

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic.

Well, I think we can agree on that.

amused,
Scofflaw

Dades

Zillah wrote:

no more valid than the assumption of Mary.

What assumptions did she make?

And yeah, Sangre, don't be telling people posting in your own thread to shut up.
Let's not have the discussion turn out like that one in the "Enemies of Reason" thread.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

What assumptions did she make?

That the bloke in her bedroom was the Archangel Gabriel?

The Atheist wrote:

And yeah, Sangre, don't be telling people posting in your own thread to shut up.
Let's not have the discussion turn out like that one in the "Enemies of Reason" thread.

Sorry.

contritely,
Scofflaw

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Your rudeness does little to alleviate the weakness of your argument. All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic. My interpretation takes into account Thomas' previous experience of Jesus and concludes that he had grounds for faith.

"Grounds for faith"...sounds like something of an oxymoron. How is faith any different at all from regular belief if it needs grounds? I believe the news will be on TV on RTE tonight at 9 like it always is, but I don't have faith that it will. How would you distinguish faith from any other form of belief?

Also, do you think the following scenario is plausible, if not preferable: The authors of the Bible wildly embellished or invented the supernatural powers of Jesus of Nazareth, but portrayed the reaction of Thomas with greater accuracy; hence his reaction was quite logical given that he had not had magic powers demonstrated to him. Bear in mind, I'm not asking if this is what you believe, whether you like the scenario, or if it is the most likely, merely whether you think it is plausible.

Dades

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry.

What are you sorry about? That you stayed in that thread as long as you did?

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

What assumptions did she make?

That one can fly physically into Heaven by going up?

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

What are you sorry about? That you stayed in that thread as long as you did?

More my public display of disaffection, really...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Zillah wrote:

That one can fly physically into Heaven by going up?

Okay, I know I started it... but let's all move on!

"Faith - A divine attribute" - a discussion worth staying on-topic for (unusual, I know).

PDN

Zillah wrote:

"Grounds for faith"...sounds like something of an oxymoron. How is faith any different at all from regular belief if it needs grounds? I believe the news will be on TV on RTE tonight at 9 like it always is, but I don't have faith that it will. How would you distinguish faith from any other form of belief?

I would say that faith (certainly in its religious sense) is not groundless, but neither is it the kind of belief that is based on pure logic leading to an inevitable and inescapable conclusion (as in a mathematical equation).

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of Christian faith in action? That way we can discuss an actual act of faith as understood and practiced by Christians rather than an atheist's distorted parody of faith (I would use the term 'straw man' but it's been a bit overused around here of late).

A few months ago I found myself in a situation where my monthly outgoings were going to exceed my income. This, according to the Micawber Principle, results in misery. I needed an extra 922 euro from somewhere in the next week or else I was going to see cheques and direct debits bouncing all over the place (not a good testimony for a Christian pastor - people are much more likely to say, "You of all people should demonstrate financial integrity" than if you are a plumber or a lab technician).

Now, I knew I could partly alleviate the problem by one simple measure. As with many evangelical Christians I practice tithing. I give 10% of my gross salary into the offering basket at church (well, these days it's often done via internet banking or standing orders, but you get the idea). My wife and I have followed this practice religiously (no pun intended) for 21 years. We believe that the Bible teaches that God will financially bless us if we continue in this practice of tithing. That is an act of faith. Now, if I decided, just for once, to withhold, or even delay, my tithe then I would be half way to meeting the deficit. It wouldn't solve the problem totally, but it would be a partial solution.

My wife and I decided, by faith, to pay our tithe as usual and to trust God to fulfill his end of the deal. We didn't tell anyone else about our situation. We just prayed. However, it got to the weekend and the expected blessing had still not arrived. We needed 922 euro to put in the bank before start of business on Monday or else I was in big trouble.

That Sunday we had a guest preacher in our church. I'd never met this guy (an American) but he had preached the previous year when I had been away in Africa and everyone had enjoyed his ministry. I was amazed when, half way through his sermon, this guy announced that God had spoken to him back home in the US and instructed him to get everyone to give in a special offering to bless the senior pastor (me). However, this 'word from God' had actually come to him a full year earlier, but he had refrained from acting upon it last year because, contrary to his expectations, I had not been present the previous time he had preached. Now he wanted to be obedient. He also stressed that he had never done anything like this before in any church where he had preached.

I was blown away. If what he was saying was correct then God had known a full year beforehand that I needed a financial blessing, and had made preparations to meet that need (I don't know why that should amaze a guy who believes in an omniscient God, but it did). So the church gave in a special collection for me (having already given in the regular weekly offering earlier in the service). I found it pretty embarrassing, but it was needed! The offering came to exactly 1025 euro. So I took off the 10% tithe to go straight back to God (yes, always round it up to the nearest euro) and was left with 922 euro!

Now, people can, and probably will, criticise this on several levels. But the practical outcome was that our faith was rewarded by the blessing we expected (although from a totally unexpected source).

My wife and I had no logical, scientific, or mathematical guarantee that our faith would be rewarded. We have also seen many faithful Christians in other countries who suffer great hardship and poverty due to persecution or discrimination. So we know that Christians have no automatic exemption from financial disaster. In still giving our tithe that month we probably violated several economic principles. So was our faith blind or groundless? No!

1. Our faith was supported by our past experiences. Our entire married life has been a succession of God blessing us wonderfully and proving the truth of his promises.
2. Our faith was also supported by the experiences of others. We have heard other Christians testify how they continued to tithe under pressure and how God provided in unusual or unexpected ways.
3. Our faith was supported by our understanding of tithing as a biblical principle. We have discovered that obeying other biblical principles and teachings (following sensible hermeneutical principles to ensure we are interpreting the Bible correctly rather than indulging in wishful thinking) has benefited us greatly. Therefore we had added confidence that the Bible would also prove beneficial in this area.

This has been a rather long and rambling post, but I hope it helps explain why Christians talk of faith as being supported and having 'grounds'. Faith is not blind, but neither it is a mathematical certainty.

Incidentally, it is not just Christians, or even theists, who see faith as a virtue. Some great scientific discoveries were the product of an individual's faith flying in the face of skeptics (I'm thinking of the likes of Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers). Likewise, great sportsmen and women often have a faith in their ability that would not, in the early years, appear to be justified. I think most people realise that, without such faith, the world be a duller, less creative, and more depressing place.

Myksyk

PDN wrote:

Incidentally, it is not just Christians, or even theists, who see faith as a virtue. Some great scientific discoveries were the product of an individual's faith flying in the face of skeptics (I'm thinking of the likes of Thomas Edison and the Wright Brothers). Likewise, great sportsmen and women often have a faith in their ability that would not, in the early years, appear to be justified. I think most people realise that, without such faith, the world be a duller, less creative, and more depressing place.

This is a tiresome conflation of 'religious faith' and 'confidence'. As one has nothing to do with the other the point is vacuous.

PDN

Myksyk wrote:

This is a tiresome conflation of 'religious faith' and 'confidence'. As one has nothing to do with the other the point is vacuous.

Well, I was addressing the concept of 'faith' as defined by the OP who said "Last time I checked it was quite sensible to require substantive proof (where available) before committing to a particular belief (religious or not)."

I'm sorry for addressing the OP rather than magically guessing what is going on in your head.

Myksyk

PDN wrote:

Well, I was addressing the concept of 'faith' as defined by the OP who said "Last time I checked it was quite sensible to require substantive proof (where available) before committing to a particular belief (religious or not)."

I'm sorry for addressing the OP rather than magically guessing what is going on in your head.

No, you were conflating 'belief in one's ability' (confidence) and 'committment to a belief without proof' (unsupported conviction). As one has nothing to do with the other and since the OP was only talking about the latter, your point remains vacuous.

PDN

PDN wrote:

All interpretations are not equally valid, because certain interpretations lend themselves to reason and logic.

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, I think we can agree on that.

amused,
Scofflaw

No, I am quite serious. Sangre appears to be arguing that, since there is no one agreed interpretation endorsed in triplicate by God, then I am wrong to call his interpretation a 'misrepresentation'. This carries the implication that all interpretations are equally valid which, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us into a morass of postmodernistic relativistic goo.

For example, you could start a thread arguing that John 3:16 commands Christians to rape and cannibalise the children of non-believers. Then when a Christian (quite reasonably) points out that John 3:16 says no such thing, you could reply by saying, "Well I interpret it that way. How dare you argue that your interpretation is better than mine? Shut up."

In that case this board would become meaningless with everbody, like Humpty Dumpty deciding that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Then there's no point in debating anything.

Surely it is much more reasonable, and logical, to apply hermeneutical principles and to try to determine the correct interpretation of any text, be it a passage of Scripture or just one of Scofflaw's more gnomic posts?

PDN

Myksyk wrote:

No, you were conflating 'belief in one's ability' (confidence) and 'committment to a belief without proof' (unsupported conviction). As one has nothing to do with the other and since the OP was only talking about the latter, your point remains vacuous.

Confidence can be in someone else's ability, not just your own. You can have faith in your spouse, in a political movement, or, indeed, in God.

Also I have already addressed the OP's definition of faith (unsupported conviction) earlier in the thread. It is a parody. True faith has grounds, or support.

So I am conflating nothing and leave the vacuousness to others.

Myksyk

Sidestep all you wish. Saying that the 'faith' of Christians or theists is the same thing as the confidence demonstrated by creative, pioneering scientists or young athletes is vacuous.

Sangre

PDN wrote:

No, I am quite serious. Sangre appears to be arguing that, since there is no one agreed interpretation endorsed in triplicate by God, then I am wrong to call his interpretation a 'misrepresentation'. This carries the implication that all interpretations are equally valid which, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us into a morass of postmodernistic relativistic goo.

I was actually telling you not to accuse me of misinterpreting with the purpose of mocking religion. My rudeness was a result of something I found quite obnoxious.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

No, I am quite serious. Sangre appears to be arguing that, since there is no one agreed interpretation endorsed in triplicate by God, then I am wrong to call his interpretation a 'misrepresentation'. This carries the implication that all interpretations are equally valid which, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us into a morass of postmodernistic relativistic goo.

For example, you could start a thread arguing that John 3:16 commands Christians to rape and cannibalise the children of non-believers. Then when a Christian (quite reasonably) points out that John 3:16 says no such thing, you could reply by saying, "Well I interpret it that way. How dare you argue that your interpretation is better than mine? Shut up."

In that case this board would become meaningless with everbody, like Humpty Dumpty deciding that "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." Then there's no point in debating anything.

Surely it is much more reasonable, and logical, to apply hermeneutical principles and to try to determine the correct interpretation of any text, be it a passage of Scripture or just one of Scofflaw's more gnomic posts?

I wouldn't deny it for an instant! There are of course "interpretations" of any text that are nothing of the kind, and can be supported only by serious contortions. I was referring, though, to the question of whether reason and logic lend themselves to interpreting the the text as being the word of God, or not.

Of course, for the same passage there will still remain several interpretations of roughly equal validity. Hermeneutics supplies no more certainty than does any other science, alas (somewhat less than most sciences, by virtue of being a little more subjective).

In any case, I believe you support the idea that one is at liberty to pick and choose what sciences one accepts?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sangre

Tbh someone who has studied law at undergrad and postgrad level I'd never purposely say that all interpretations for anything are equally valid.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

This has been a rather long and rambling post, but I hope it helps explain why Christians talk of faith as being supported and having 'grounds'. Faith is not blind, but neither it is a mathematical certainty.

Curiously, this is not unlike "trusting to one's luck", or indeed gambling, come to that. From the point of view of rational analysis, what stands out is the usual cohort of statistical and teleological confusions. I'd have to ask, under those circumstances:

Why could the money not have been provided earlier? Do you feel it was necessary for God to yank your chain a little by waiting until the last minute?

Had the money problem arisen from extraordinary expenditures, or would it have been a foreseeable shortfall?

Has God provided every time you have had a shortfall, or is this an example of 'survivorship bias', where we count the 'lucky' after the fact? Do you think God provides in every case where this happens (rhetorical!)?

What other expenses could you have cut instead of your tithe?

My interpretation here would be that you were lucky on this occasion, but God's beneficence appears to share with ordinary pagan luck the characteristic that it is unwise to rely on it if you don't have to - and nearly all of us have turned to luck where nothing else has offered, and sometimes it has worked. As a result of various human mental quirks, we remember these occasions rather better than the ones where it didn't work.

The coincidence in amount is spooky, but, realistically, it's only one in a thousand, given the amounts.

The major difference here is really that you choose to attribute to an external agency what is equally attributable to the no less arcane workings of humanity and chance - and if that makes you feel blessed, I could hardly wish to win my case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of Christian faith in action?

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of blind fortune in action?



Less than a week ago I was cycling home from my part time job. It began to rain almost as soon as I left work, and this caused me great upset as in my bag was a brand new laptop, and the bag was in no way resistant to water. I stopped under some cover to ponder my situation.

I was in a bind. The cover I was under was not very good and both myself and my laptop were slowly getting wet. If I cycled home the laptop would almost certainly suffer damage from the water. Then again, were I to remain at my current location it would be ruined eventually anyway. I wanted to simply get a taxi home, to save both myself and the laptop from a soaking, but the road was very quiet and I would have to walk for at least ten minutes to find a busier road to get a taxi, which would again, expose my laptop to a great deal of water.

And then, unlikely of all unlikelies, I spot, sitting on the path, no more than ten feet from me, a discarded umbrella. No living soul nearby to claim ownership, it was simply sitting there, waiting to be picked up. Elated at my good fortune, I locked my bike to a nearby railing, grabbed the umbrella and walked to a main road and promptly got a taxi.

Without that umbrella my laptop would have almost certainly been soaked thoroughly. I made no prayers, begged no entity to help, I was in fact quite dejected and hopeless, and despite all of that, blind, utterly improbable luck landed an umbrella right in front of me. To add a delicious degree of symmetry to the situation, I'll point out that my laptop was worth slightly more than 922 euro.

Your story has less to do with faith as it has to do with good fortune. Human beings occasionally experience equally unlikely events of both wonderful and terrible fortune. Your decision to interpret such events in a religious context is predictable, but hardly convincing.

karen3212

I think that different people, for different reasons, see having great faith as a virtue. I am only surmising here, no facts really.

Once upon a time, and still in some places, having great faith meant that one would be more likely to uphold and die for the traditions of one's people.

One person's great faith might help support/reinforce the faith of those around, who may need that to hold onto their own faith, which might make them feel more joy in their own beliefs.

Death is probably a huge factor in this too. If a child/adult that has great faith is dying, I think it may be easier for all of those that love them.

Preachers/Priests would have preached it as a virtue too, which would have helped them in the running of other peoples’ lives. Moreover, we know, here at least in Irlandia, how powerful and influential said preacher’s word can be in a society.

By the way, does a preacher not have to disclose to the church his income? Is there such a thing as an accountant in common? Are US preachers better salesmen than Irish ones? Forgive me, I am a little cynical at times

PDN

Zillah wrote:

Perhaps it would help if I gave an example of blind fortune in action?



Less than a week ago I was cycling home from my part time job. It began to rain almost as soon as I left work, and this caused me great upset as in my bag was a brand new laptop, and the bag was in no way resistant to water. I stopped under some cover to ponder my situation.

I was in a bind. The cover I was under was not very good and both myself and my laptop were slowly getting wet. If I cycled home the laptop would almost certainly suffer damage from the water. Then again, were I to remain at my current location it would be ruined eventually anyway. I wanted to simply get a taxi home, to save both myself and the laptop from a soaking, but the road was very quiet and I would have to walk for at least ten minutes to find a busier road to get a taxi, which would again, expose my laptop to a great deal of water.

And then, unlikely of all unlikelies, I spot, sitting on the path, no more than ten feet from me, a discarded umbrella. No living soul nearby to claim ownership, it was simply sitting there, waiting to be picked up. Elated at my good fortune, I locked my bike to a nearby railing, grabbed the umbrella and walked to a main road and promptly got a taxi.

Without that umbrella my laptop would have almost certainly been soaked thoroughly. I made no prayers, begged no entity to help, I was in fact quite dejected and hopeless, and despite all of that, blind, utterly improbable luck landed an umbrella right in front of me. To add a delicious degree of symmetry to the situation, I'll point out that my laptop was worth slightly more than 922 euro.

Your story has less to do with faith as it has to do with good fortune. Human beings occasionally experience equally unlikely events of both wonderful and terrible fortune. Your decision to interpret such events in a religious context is predictable, but hardly convincing.

Which illustrates to me that God looks after even reprobate atheists. I would have thought anyone stupid enough to transport a laptop in a non-waterproof bag on a bicycle, given the weather we've had this Summer, deserves to have their laptop destroyed. If God were as vindictive as you like to portray him then he would have ensured your laptop got soaked in order to hinder you from posting comments on these boards that annoy theists. But no, God took pity on you, seeing that you were dejected and hopeless.

And how do you thank God for this wonderful intervention? You use the incident to argue against the power of faith. Ingrate.

Seriously, I posted an example of faith, which ,on this occasion, produced a positive outcome. I could equally have posted one that had a negative outcome. What I find interesting is that both yourself and Scofflaw appear more interested in debunking the positive outcome, attributing it to luck, than you do in the story's main point - that faith is not blind but rests on 'grounds' of support.

Could this be that you have a need to debunk such incidents because otherwise they might shake your faith (that there is no God)? Therefore you have a vested interest in avoiding facing up to any evidence that points to the contrary?

PDN

karen3212 wrote:

By the way, does a preacher not have to disclose to the church his income? Is there such a thing as an accountant in common? Are US preachers better salesmen than Irish ones? Forgive me, I am a little cynical at times

I don't think a preacher has to disclose his income to the church. We do it voluntarily. All our members receive a yearly financial statement and audit detailing all items of income and expenditure, including the salaries of myself and other staff. They do not, of course, have any idea of what my outgoings are.

US preachers are, undoubtedly, better salespersons (a bit of gender inclusivity since preachers in my denomination are both male & female) than Irish ones.

PDN

Sangre wrote:

I was actually telling you not to accuse me of misinterpreting with the purpose of mocking religion. My rudeness was a result of something I found quite obnoxious.

If you choose to post on a message board then other people will probably disagree with you at one point or another. They may even tell you that you are wrong. That is not obnoxious, not at least to me.

You presented an interpretation of a Scripture passage that, contrary to more widely accepted and contextual interpretations, made it easy for you to present faith as something totally unsupported. As such it was, in my opinion, a misrepresentation. It's not the first time it has happened on this board and it won't be the last. When I see it happening, whether it is deliberate or accidental, then I will try to point it out. If others find me obnoxious for doing so then I won't lose any sleep over it.

If I do the same thing here or on the Christianity board, for example if I accuse atheists of acting in a way that you feel is a misrepresentation, then you have a perfect right to object. I promise that I won't tell you to shut up.

Dades

Good stories, PDN and Zillah. Nice to hear a bit of real life experience to sit with the constant conjecturing we all do.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Which illustrates to me that God looks after even reprobate atheists. I would have thought anyone stupid enough to transport a laptop in a non-waterproof bag on a bicycle, given the weather we've had this Summer, deserves to have their laptop destroyed. If God were as vindictive as you like to portray him then he would have ensured your laptop got soaked in order to hinder you from posting comments on these boards that annoy theists. But no, God took pity on you, seeing that you were dejected and hopeless.

And how do you thank God for this wonderful intervention? You use the incident to argue against the power of faith. Ingrate.

Ooh - didn't see that analysis coming.

PDN wrote:

Seriously, I posted an example of faith, which ,on this occasion, produced a positive outcome. I could equally have posted one that had a negative outcome. What I find interesting is that both yourself and Scofflaw appear more interested in debunking the positive outcome, attributing it to luck, than you do in the story's main point - that faith is not blind but rests on 'grounds' of support.

Could this be that you have a need to debunk such incidents because otherwise they might shake your faith (that there is no God)? Therefore you have a vested interest in avoiding facing up to any evidence that points to the contrary?

What, like wars, famines, rapes, murders, that kind of thing? Are you seriously suggesting, PDN, that I should honestly weigh these little "evidences" of divine goodness against the mountains of evidence for God's malevolence, callousness or absence? That your €922 balances the Congo?

Oh, I forgot. Those are Man's fault, the fault of his fallen condition and sinful nature. What is bad is us, what is good is God. Silly of me to neglect that important piece of psychology.

No, PDN, your €922 doesn't "shake my faith".

regards,
Scofflaw

Talliesin

MoominPapa wrote:

Faith and trust are not the same thing, faith is wishful thinking, trust is based on a reasonable expectation that certain standards will be adhered to

Both trust and faith are based on an expectation that certain things will likely happen. Whether it is a reasonable expectation or not is another matter.

Wicknight wrote:

Religion on the other hand has the market cornered on comforting answers. And people like this. You will often here people with theistic leanings, simple say "I cannot accept that" when confronted with something like evolution or the big bang. They don't want this these things to be true because they are not comforting answers. And people around this person will hold this non-acceptance as something that is actually good, admire the fact that this person won't let go of his desire to find a comforting answer, because they themselves want there to be a comforting answer.

Of course one of your examples - the big bang - was postulated by a committed theist, indeed he was a Jesuit priest. Clear counter-example right there.

Of course people want comforting answers, but that doesn't explain all religious faith by a long shot. Nor are atheists immune from seeking them.

Wicknight wrote:

Of course this backfires a bit when someone says "I know God will drive the infidels from our land".

Personally, I'm happier if they sit around waiting for God to do it

Fallen Seraph wrote:

I have faith that the scientific method will will eventually provide answers to the question of where the universe came from. Where does that leave me standing?

In the same place as any theist. There is no scientific proof that science will eventually provide the answers you want. There's some scientific evidence to suggest such a belief is unfounded (some things are provably unknowable in particle physics and in mathematics and that could perhaps get in the way of some of the answers you want being found).

Zillah wrote:

Its the same answer as to why the modern West still ... a fear of the "occult" ...

Atheists are welcoming us occultists into the fold now? Oh goody

PDN wrote:

I don't think a preacher has to disclose his income to the church. We do it voluntarily.

Depends on how you are incorporated (or not), in which jurisdictions, and so on. You can run a non-incorporated organisations of any sort without publishing accounts - legally you are engaged in a private enterprise. If you incorporate to obtain limited liability, non-profit organisation status for tax purposes and so on then you may be obliged to publish accounts depending on where and how you incorporate.

Zillah

PDN wrote:

Seriously, I posted an example of faith, which ,on this occasion, produced a positive outcome. I could equally have posted one that had a negative outcome. What I find interesting is that both yourself and Scofflaw appear more interested in debunking the positive outcome, attributing it to luck, than you do in the story's main point - that faith is not blind but rests on 'grounds' of support.

We're debunking your story because you claim the positive outcome counts as "grounds" for your belief in God. I'm pointing out that improbable good things happen to all kinds of people all over the world regardless of the stories they tell themselves. Unless your faith consistently provides statistically impressive positive outcomes then the occassional improbable event does not constitute grounds. You say it counts as grounds for faith in the God of the Bible, a Muslim would claim his faith in Allah has been upheld, some other nutbar might thank the aliens of Deneb IV for their intervention-- None of you have a leg to stand on, you're all just making it up.

Talliesin wrote:

Atheists are welcoming us occultists into the fold now? Oh goody

Just don't go around convincing people that your charms and potions suffice for medical treatment, and don't charge money for whatever rituals you're making up this week, then we'll have no problems.

PDN

Zillah wrote:

We're debunking your story because you claim the positive outcome counts as "grounds" for your belief in God. I'm pointing out that improbable good things happen to all kinds of people all over the world regardless of the stories they tell themselves. Unless your faith consistently provides statistically impressive positive outcomes then the occassional improbable event does not constitute grounds. You say it counts as grounds for faith in the God of the Bible, a Muslim would claim his faith in Allah has been upheld, some other nutbar might thank the aliens of Deneb IV for their intervention-- None of you have a leg to stand on, you're all just making it up.

Maybe you should read my post again?

I did not state that the positive outcome constituted my 'grounds' for faith. I listed 3 other factors that were the 'grounds' for our faith. You ignored these and proceeded to immediately try to debunk the positive outcome. That is revealing.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Maybe you should read my post again?

I did not state that the positive outcome constituted my 'grounds' for faith. I listed 3 other factors that were the 'grounds' for our faith. You ignored these and proceeded to immediately try to debunk the positive outcome. That is revealing.

Why? I have my disagreements with some of what is written in the Bible, and I think it's utter foolishness to treat it as the word of God, but as a manual for "positive living" the NT is no worse than most of the others. That you try and live life positively, and that this makes life a positive experience for you, is hardly a surprise, and I'm afraid that if you want to use it as evidence for your God, you'll have to accept it evidence for a lot of other Gods too.

slightly perplexed,
Scofflaw