who is right or wrong because you feel you're right.
This is not what does not concern me. What does not concern me (or my faith)... is that Cofty believes God does not exist.
Well it should because otherwise, you are simply trusting some feeling that your evidence is unassailable AND you're making the conclusion (without proper examination) that Cofty's evidence is wrong.
I'll leave the first part of that for now, and address the second. Cofty does not have evidence. That is the point. He does not have evidence that he considers to be 'sound' FOR God. He has arguments... all of which are circumstantial. He has no concrete evidence. Indeed, his position is that there is not enough evidence for him to believe in the existance of God.
This, in no way, conflicts with the evidence that I DO have.
So... as i stated... it does not concern me.
And I could not make these statements had I not engaged in discussion and debate with Cofty, so as to know what his arguments are.
I understood what you were trying to say by making the comparison between you Cofty. You were simply trying to show that you arrived at different places via similar impetus. But what you missed that I was trying to tell you is that while the method is important, your foundation is equally important. And therefore, whatever that foundation is can make one of you or both wrong.
Of course the foundation is important. I agree 100%.
There is a process of deduction in logic. The deductive process is always correct (i.e. if A=C and B=C then A=B). But given at least one false premise, the conclusion will be incorrect even thought the process is flawless.
Okay...
(But I am not sure that the last part is true. I just finished reading something in a critical reasoning book, that said that a false premise does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is not true. The conclusion can still be true, even if one or more premises are false)
So, I don't see how you can be so certain without a proper examination of your "evidence".
But I have examined my 'evidence', Etude.
Do you, now? Why then would you abandon the "reality" that was the Jehovah's Witnesses? I bet you were pretty sure then at some point that you were on the right course and that you held the "Truth". But that changed. Of course, I'm assuming you are here because you were either born in it or were roped into it.
I was not born into it and also not baptized.
I studied for two years. I kept sending my conductor home with questions, questions, questions, that she could not answer. She got me book after book after book so that I could look for myself, lol.
I did, however, come to believe that they were God's channel... but that they were just wrong about stuff (the stuff that I could not accept and did not make sense), but that eventually God would show them the truth. Truth that I already knew, but that God's channel could not see... lol. I get the 'ridiculousness' of that.
The truth is though... by the time I had convinced myself that I would eventually just come to believe what they told me and that the fault must be mine and not theirs; I no longer wanted the truth. I wanted to stop thinking. I was tired of trying to make it fit... when it so clearly did not fit. I wanted to be told what to think, and what to do, and in such a way, I would also have no responsibility because i was just listening to God's channel. How could He then blame me if His channel taught me wrong? It would be their fault, and not mine. Right? (wrong)
I remember exactly what it felt like when I turned off my thinking. It was like a cloud covered over my brain. Like looking out through a fog. Blinders on, nothing else getting through. That was 'belief' based on wanting/choosing to believe something. That was wishful thinking.
It lasted a week. Then I read something in the red revelation book that I had previously misunderstood, and knew that I could not join - right or wrong. I stopped my study on the next session and starting researching and thinking again.
This experience that i had with the jw's is one of the ways I know the difference between blind belief... and faith. Because I am SO clear now. I am thinking. I am listening. I am testing. I am not afraid to research anything. I don't have to ignore evidence. Indeed, the only way i could NOT believe is if I DID ignore evidence and so, lie to myself.
My faith is based on evidence. It has foundation.
I didn't assume you had failed to exercise critical thinking about everything, just about one thing. So, I apologize for that insinuation.
I accept your apology, but there is no need for one at all. I knew what you meant. I don't tend to get offended that easily :)
Nevertheless, your claims about your "evidence" seem anecdotal. Only you know you can trust it; only you can hear his voice; only you do not challenge the evidence. What about making sure and using the same rules as everyone else does (mainly logic) to see if evidence holds up? That's what I meant by "critical thinking".
I know what you mean. But you do not seem to understand that I have examined the evidence before me.
Most explorations in Historical Criticism (the examination of the canon) have established the uncertainty of the Bible and therefore the shaky foundations of what most Christians believe. I would think that someone desirous to live in truth would want to put his or her faith to the test to see if it holds up. That means looking beyond what supports ones already established conviction and going for what contradicts it. That's the kind of examination I suggested you do. There are ways of going about that.
My faith is not in the bible, Etude. The bible is a tool; a witness (or at least it contains several accounts of what witnesses reported and some later wrote down).
A finger pointing to the moon... is not the moon. (thank you to the one who gave me that analogy, once again)
The bible is not my foundation; it just does some pointing TO the foundation. Christ... is my foundation.
Someone mentioned (but I can't find it now) that it seems every other person has his/her own definition of what "faith" is. In some definitions it is simply an indication based on some other evidence. For others, it's simply credulity (believing just because). One thing it is not is evidence. If you have evidence, there is no need for faith, as NewChapter plainly put it. So, you need to clearly define that and not just by your own interpretation. You need to acknowledge the difference. Otherwise, there's no point in posting about things we all disagree upon.
Faith is based upon evidence; upon something; upon a foundation; same as anything that you know or believe. That something can be false; hence the examining of that something.
There are various definitions of faith in the dictionary, depending upon what one is speaking about.
I did give mine earlier.
Faith is the assurance of the thing hoped for (not based on hope... the assurance of what is hoped for); the certainty (knowing) of something not yet seen.
Based on this, faith is knowing.
Why? Because faith is based on evidence; and based on what is heard. This is why Chirst said that His sheep would hear His voice. This is why he also said that if you have faith and do not doubt... you would receive what you ask. Noah had faith in what he heard, and so he built an ark. Abraham had faith in what he heard; he believed God, and what God told him did come to pass. Same with Moses. The apostles heard as well, and Peter was praised because of his faith for hearing and believing in what he heard about Christ, revealed to him from God.
Christ also spoke of foundations. Weak foundation... the first bit of trouble and that faith is gone. Strong foundation... and nothing can take that faith.
You can continue to believe in whatever you believe in. But, the reasons for believing can change. It is simply a choice. Just do it wisely. You can't state that you use the written word of Christ when there's so much evidence to show that Christ not his disciples wrote anything.
You mean... his disciples wrote, not Him, right?
I know. I also know that Luke investigated what others witnessed and claimed... and this does not mean that he was witness, himself, to anything.
But like I said... the written word is not the foundation of my faith. Had a hand in pointing me toward the One who IS the foundation of my faith, is all.
So where do you want to start tackling this issue? You can start with "evidence" or you can just pick a point and let us crows peck at it.
Etude, I have been here for almost three years now. The crows have pecked at everything I have shared ;) None have touched my faith... because the foundation of my faith is not weak.
Peace to you,
tammy
