Ironically, Tammy is demonstrating and confirming the very nature of the problem that has led to over 33k (and counting) faiths of Christianity alone: she's RIGHT and WE'RE wrong. Multiply that attitude by 7 billion people, and that would seem to give what we see about us today, esp since the rise of Protestantism centuries ago led to proliferation of heterodoxical beliefs, since the RCC lost governmental support for controlling heretics.
Similarly, the concept of a "pure" form of Christianity ever existing that we should strive to return to as a "true" form of worship is only a myth. We know from early Christian writings which record the attempts to stamp out heretical beliefs (eg Gnosticism) that Christianity ALWAYS existed with a spectrum of beliefs and canons, which shouldn't be surprising as it is a group that was BORN as heretical cultic offshoot from Jewish roots, which ALSO had evolved over time. The only CONSTANT is CHANGE.
But back to today, NONE of the religions are WRONG, per se, since they're ALL wrong: they all rely on a unique set of facts, interpretations, and beliefs to reach their conclusions, which is facilitated due to the Bible's "SHOTGUNNING" on issues, since it serves as the Big Book of Multiple Choice Answers. So if someone can think it or make it up today, it's going to fly with SOMEONE, and be challenged by SOMEONE ELSE.
Tammy, it's clear this discussion is going nowhere and only entering "endless loop" mode, since it's going to require agreeing to definitions for clearly-defined terms before proceeding ('faith', 'evidence', 'verifiable', 'proof'; that's even ignoring the obviously-problematic phrases like what 'hearing his voice' actually MEANS, since it too, carried different meanings that has changed over time). We'd also have to point out that ancient men had NO CLUE as to how human hearing actually works (they envisioned ideas passing through ether and entering the lungs, to be processed in the heart); we'd have to study their MISCONCEPTIONS in order to think in the proper context of ancient men.
And as you say, you're not a scientist/theologian/philosopher, so it's going to be absolutely necessary to define terms to reduce confusion, although that's going to be more pulling teeth/herding cats. Why? Humans get entrenched in their own beliefs, esp after they become a PART of their egos; that's going to make it nearly impossible to untangle the wheat from the chaff in order to create a model of reality that better approximates reality (which isn't even a valued goal for many believers; they only want to believe comforting ideas, since it's SOOOO much easier).
I honestly don't know what you are saying, except that faith is supposed to be blind, and if you have evidence or reasons for your faith... then your faith is weak or non-existent. That doesn't make any sense. Who puts their faith in someone or something without reason/evidence? Can you answer me that question, and then perhaps I might understand more what you are saying?
Christians do (or SHOULD), that's who! It's not like there's a lack of Biblical justification for making that statement, and some Christians DO make that statement, based on valid scriptural justification and support.
The phrase 'blind faith' doesn't appear ANYWHERE in the Bible: it's a man-made term that is of fairly-recent origin from non-theological sources, and is unnecessarily-redundant (with the use of a questionable intensifier 'blind', since the Bible often speaks in terms of the STRENGTH of faith (weak/strong), but as is typical of the Bible, it 'shotguns' on the evidentiary basis (the methods) for building that faith, i.e. unseen faith granted via 'Holy Ghost' VS Biblically-based knowledge of the nature of God VS learning of the men of faith and Jesus. It's a MESS, but the answer of the apologetist is to say ALL methods are valid and not mutually-exclusive, although anyone who thinks about it SHOULD realize that not ALL approaches can be right: you claim your voice tells you what is right and feels free to cherry-pick scriptures, which contradicts the Bible itself which assures readers that "ALL scripture is inspired, and beneficial", serving as the basis on which to build faith, etc. How can your voice AND the Bible be right?
(And here's where you claim they DON'T contradict.... sigh.... )
But anyway, notice that references to faith in the Bible are commonly based on unverifiable experiences, which often has been roughly translated as "blind faith": note the ANALOGY is to VISION, 'sight/seen' vs 'blind/unseen'. The Bible speaks of faith as 'unseen' evidence, and doesn't speaks of FAITH ITSELF being based on 'SEEN evidence'. 'Blind faith' is extra-Biblical, a much-later term foreign to theology, but introduced by modern believers who were RAISED in the World of science, which DEMANDS actual visible verifiable evidence.
Hebrews 11:1 defines Christian faith, "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see."
Note it's a two-part definition, where the first part refers to having confidence in what we WISH/DREAM will happen, and the second part demands certainty in UNSEEN evidence.
If Hebrews 11:1 doesn't seem like a foolish approach to life to you, DEMANDING that one place confidence in unproven and unrealistic pipe-dreams and fantasies, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing, which I recently bought from the WTBTS.
As you SHOULD know by now, the 'not seeing' phrase in Hebrews 11:1 doesn't refer to a limitation on visual perceptions only, but also refers to being imperceptible by all of our sensory capabilities, eg not being seen by the eyes, not heard heard by ears, not felt by our skin. Biblical faith by definition is NOT based on perceptible phenomena: if it's perceptible by your sensory organs, it's not contributing to your belief in God and Jesus by FAITH, but by direct experience, by SEEN evidence. While SEEN evidence CAN support one's belief in God, it does NOT build one's faith.
Hebrews 11:1 IS describing BLIND FAITH, since it describes INVISIBLE/undiscernable/undetectable/evidence. By definition, that places the evidence upon which Biblical faith is based as OUTSIDE the realm of science's ability to detect it. For if it WERE perceivable/detectable/measureable, it wouldn't be subject to FAITH, but VERIFIABLE.
Now if someone's belief in God were partly based on say, the evidence of God as is seen in the creations about him (Paul's claim to the Greeks, which is nonsense, as anyone who knows anything about biology soon learns there's TONS of evidence pointing to EVOLUTION and NO evidence pointing to God). But to play along with our creationist believer, then that evidence he mistakenly attributes as the handiwork of God does NOT contribute to his belief in God via FAITH, but since it is VISIBLE evidence that supports his BELIEF in God, it gets chalked up to NON-FAITH-BASED rationale, or even reasoning (eg our past direct observations, which accounts for our BELIEF in gravity. We fully expect it to work tomorrow, as it does today. Gravity doesn't require FAITH: you're subject to it's effects, whether you accept a belief in it or NOT).
Instead, the Bible considers it praiseworthy to have a faith that does NOT demand evidence, as shown by Jesus' response to doubting Thomas in the Gospel of John:.
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." John 20:29.
2 Corinthians 4:18: "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."
Romans 8:24: "For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?" (NIV)
Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding."
HECK, here's an entire page written by a Christian who opens with the example of the Israelites, who supposedly witnessed more visible evidence (miracles) than any other people at any other time in history, but obviously lacked faith, nevertheless (which makes sense, when speaking of Biblical faith).
http://www.youmustbesaved.com/preview_019.htm
OF course, the illogic in the account that Christianity failed to consider if that if Israelites failed to respond even after seeing OVERWHELMING DIRECT VISIBLE PROOF of God's power and love by performing various miracles that even saved their lives, only to fall back to building a golden calf the first chance they got, then WHY did Jesus come to perform the same miracles when the magic show strategy had proven so ineffective in the wilderness with the Jews, 1,200 yrs before?
(Yeah, don't think about it TOO hard: it doesn't make any gob-smacking sense; apparently God doesn't know that one definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.)
Oh, that site directly contradicts the claims of other Christian apologetists, who attempt to move the goal-posts to redefine faith and deny 'blind faith', and even to claim that God can be PROVEN to exist:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=11&article=444
That guy claims that unverifiable second-hand accounts of evidence of miracles ARE supposed to be persuasive to anyone living 2,000 yrs later, even continuing to cite the inerrant infalliability of God's word as his proof! Yeah, that MAY work for 90% of Bible believers who've NEVER bothered to determine that claim is BS, but even you can recognize how even Jesus' complaints of "lying scribes" bring the claims of Biblical infallability into question.
Oh, on this:
Well, now you've gone and inserted a cause, even though earlier you said that you would not try and diagnose someone over the internet. An actual doctor would know better than to even try, not without some EVIDENCE, other than studies conducted on other people that may or may not support the conclusion you are drawing. I do not have auditory hallucinations.
You DO realize that you're demonstrating your OWN ignorance of basic medical terms here, since 'auditory hallucinations' is NOT a diagnosis, but a SYMPTOM (which you may or may not even experience; I see now you've flip-flopped on that claim, denying experiencing auditory hallucinations above).
Point being, you relied on an invalid untrue belief to reach a faulty conclusion to make an allegation which just isn't true: I didn't diagnose you with jack (which would be silly anyway, even if I COULD/WOULD; for one, I don't give away services for FREE).
Again, you seek to apply a negative motive to me... why is that?
Since that conclusion is based on flawed assumptions, and 'negative motives' is a value judgment in itself, why should I accept YOUR moral judgment?
I don't think most people even understand WHY they do what they do; most people don't have malicious motives to account for their actions.
This might be what you are hearing... but you are not hearing it from me.
See, that's a fundamental limitation of ALL forms of communications: the interpretation is not under the direct control of the speaker, and speakers often communicate messages without even realizing what they're revealing; likewise, people are prone to hearing what they want to hear.
Christ speaks to everyone; all are invited... and your post above shows me only that you are just trying another technique to make sure that anyone who does hear from the Spirit shuts up about it. People can talk philosphy, people can talk science, people can talk religion and the bible... but don't you dare talk about the Spirit of Christ being alive, and speaking. Just an attempt to shame someone to silence, so that no one gives witness to the truth of Christ. Might work with some, for a little while. Won't work with me.
Sigh, the infamous Christian persecution complex is kicking into high-gear, I see? Really, Tammy, you DO understand that as ex-JWs, most of us are aware of THAT particular flavor of an exploitable personality trait of humans?
Oh, and did you ever consider I'm trying to HELP prevent you from repeating the same mistake you made by joining a cult, in the first place? If you still believe in Jesus, you're prone to joining OTHER groups, since belief in Jesus and God is fundamentally associated with setting people up for blind obedience to someone who claims having been delegated Divine Authority to issue orders in His name.
On this:
Doesn't prove that GOD changed with time... which is what you claimed.
NOPE: why in the HELL would I even say THAT? I said that the DEPICTION of God's character changed with time, not that "God changed with time". It would be SILLY for me to claim that God changed with time, since, perhaps you forget that I'm an ATHEIST which means I DON'T believe in ANY God(s)? HOW could something I don't even believe exists CHANGE with time?
You said that there is a progression in the bible of how God changed with time; then you also said that things were later tampered with. So how can you know if there is a gradual change with time, if as you said, things were later tampered with or added in?
Do you not realize that 'tampering' by definition suggests changing or altering the evidence? If we say someone tampered with legal evidence, it implies they CHANGED it, altered it, typically in order to destory it's incriminating nature (eg wiping their fingerprints off a knife, so it can't be traced back to them upon later lab testing). MOST people wouldn't engage in tampering with evidence "just because". So you're arguing a silly point, a distinction without a difference now, as I don't really care WHEN the change in the Bible happened, or even WHAT the motives of the redactors were (whether well-intentioned or not: the old saying is the road to Hell is paved with good intentions). It's just the fact that change HAS occurred that I'm noting, the EVOLUTION of words with time, done for various reasons (whether to bolster a certain desired theological belief, or to destroy incriminating evidence after science revealed the Bible's past ignorance, etc).
So from that misunderstanding, there is no need for me to comment on the rest of your spiel against me, yes?
No, but since I can't remember the original point I was making anyway, it doesn't really matter.
Read the rest of Hebrews 11, and you'll see that Paul did not mean faith is based on nothing. All those men of faith heard and believed, and obeyed. Exactly what I have been saying. You want to go and say that I am making up some book of tammy... but it is right there in that same chapter, and you are ignoring it.
You clearly missed MY counter-point that Paul was saying that YOU, Tammy, need to base YOUR faith on the basis of reflecting on the Torah's accounts of the men of faith second-hand, and taking THEIR accounts of experiences as a matter of FAITH. Paul is saying that YOU need to trust that their accounts are accurate, and YOU need to base your faith upon the Bible's reporting of THEIR experiences with God. That's WHY Paul offers these stories as exemplary for building faith. Elsewhere the Bible offers OTHER ways to build faith, but since Paul clearly defines Biblical use of faith, his letter carries weight.
Hebrews 11:1 says what faith is: knowing; confidence; assurance.
2/3 (66%) ain't bad (well, actually it constitutes a FAILING grade in many courses), but Hebrews 11:1 does NOT mention "knowledge" (gnosis). Now GRANTED, there are OTHER scriptures which mention building faith by gaining a knowledge of God, but it ain't Hebrews 11.
It certainly does not say that faith is based on nothing. It doesn't even speak about what faith is based ON.
It IMPLIES that we increase our faith by learning about the men of old (who were held in high esteem based ON their faith, which Paul clearly says was based on UNSEEN evidence in their examples, a demonstration of trust for which they earned God's approval), but that's not explicitly stated. Paul offers examples of how they HAD to use faith by acting on God's promising of some unseen future event to occur, eg Noah's Flood), but AGAIN, YOU as the reader are EXPECTED to build YOUR faith based on second-hand accounts of THEIR experiences and showing faith, NOT by YOUR OWN direct experience (which isn't even classified as acting on faith).
You're making a leap here, and an interpretation, that Paul listed those men as all the assurance a true christian needs to base their faith upon, rather than that Paul was showing examples of what faith IS, and what faith DOES (not that these men should be the 'evidence' for others' faith).
Paul defines faith, explains how these elders were recognized by God for their faith, and offered as EXAMPLES of faith, even with Hebrews 11 referred to as the "Faith Hall of Fame"! I never CLAIMED that they were listed as the only examples as the exclusive means for building faith: otherwise you wouldn't need the rest of the Bible and the Gospels.
Paul would not have said that anyone's faith should be based on anyone other than Christ, Himself. Christ is the Rock. Christ the foundation. Christ the cornerstone. He was explaining faith... not telling people to put their faith on these men.
Now you're scripture-twisting (straw-manning) Paul, since he NEVER SAID that anyone is supposed to place their faith in LONG-DEAD men (!), but to build their faith in God and Jesus by reading THEIR OT ACCOUNTS where they SHOWED faith. By reading of their FAITH in God, you are SUPPOSED to be able to build your OWN faith in God.
So Read it again and weep. Paul defined faith, and listed these characters as examples of faith, where one could build their own faith in God (and Jesus) BY PROXY.
And if you can use the term verifiable in this sense, lol... I don't see why you had a problem with me using it above. That Christ speaks is verifiable in the bible as well, which, even though you might not believe that, you can verify as to what my faith is supposed to be about, even if you don't believe that it actually happens.
Going with "internal validation" of the Bible, huh?
So no kidding? You mean the book that tells you that God and Jesus exists and are going to wipe out humanity again if you don't do what they say ALSO tells you what you have to do to be saved? Imagine the luck! I don't suppose it also says that people who don't believe in Gods are fools, too, by any chance?
AGAIN, you need to look up internal (self-referential) validation, as the Bible offers ALL the ANSWERS, and DEMANDS you ignore ALL other external evidence.
I've given examples on this forum. They will not meet your requirements. The "BEST" examples are personal, at least to this date, and involve others, and I am not putting them here.... tec
Well thanks for admitting that they are of no relevance or significance to anyone else BUT you.... adamah
And you talk about me using weasel words?
Look at what you did above. I did not say what you stated. I said they won't meet YOUR requirements. You changed that to 'no relevance or significance' to anyone else but you'. Now if you are simply trying to infer that, then how in the world could you even know something like that? Do you know who else I speak with, who else might have found relevance or significance in things that I have shared with them? No, you don't. Just because something is not acceptable or even relevant or significant to you... does not mean that it is not acceptable or relevant or significant to everyone.
I wasn't speaking for "everyone", just for those who actually demand verifiable proof, AKA rational people. Unlike you, I have actual real-world experience with the evidence standards utlized in science, so as hard as it may be for you to imagine, I DO know what I'm talking about on what constitutes compelling evidence. You tell me the evidence doesn't meet MY standards (and the odds are high that you are CORRECT, and I don't need to take it on FAITH, since you've proven unable to present ANY evidence), and that means it likely won't meet the requirements of OTHERS, since we all agree to similar commonly-accepted methods and standards of 'proof' in science.
First, lets stick with accuracy. I said the "best" examples are personal, and INVOLVE OTHERS, and so I am not putting them out there.
Second, do you keep your mouth shut just because some might cause problems for you if you open your mouth?
Third, it is not a matter of favorites... or even a person (me) being good (no one is good, and that is not a platitude)... but merely one of faith.
Those are non-answers, and changing the subject.
(Snipped a bunch of quibbling....)
Why do you insert the word 'jibe'. Is that not a weasel word?
Do yourself a favor and look up what 'weasel word' means, since 'jibe' is NOT a weasel word. It just ISN'T, no way, no how.
Well, I accept everything that Christ said. Interpretations made of what He said, perhaps not. I simply do not accept anything that is in contradiction to what Christ taught, by word or deed. (or I assume I am misunderstanding something, but nothing TRUE is aginst Christ).
EVERYTHING Jesus and others said is subject NOT ONLY to translation errors, but INTERPRETATION, ESPECIALLY since Jesus lived in a foreign culture, spoke a foreign ancient language, and lived 2,000 years ago. The authors of the Gospels wrote them about 40 yrs AFTER the events are claimed to have occurred, so didn't have first-hand experience and weren't eyewitnesses to the events they recorded. You ARE aware that the names of the Gospels are NOT the the authors of the accounts, right? They were writing with an agenda, where the orthodoxy changed over time.
Adam
