Backsliding

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Yes, don't put words in my mouth. 1) Yes, 2) Yes and 3) Yes

 

 

Yes, I believe all the Old Testament laws were moral, and God's laws are just. I also believe the New Testament is a new covenant and our behavior is to change based on the New Covenant. The laws have not changed. Our behavior has. I find it hard to believe you have not heard this before so by all means just cut to the chase.

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdanaryClay

 

Consider Merriam-Webster's definition

 

Main Entry:1faith

Function:noun

Inflected Form:plural faiths

Etymology:Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at BIDE

Date:13th century

 

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs *the Protestant faith*

synonyms see BELIEF

–on faith : without question *took everything he said on faith*

 

Main Entry:2faith

Function:transitive verb

Date:15th century

 

archaic : BELIEVE, TRUST

 

Exactly what part of having faith do you not get?

 

If you choose to "faith" something that I feel is not worthy of trust, belief etc. just what part of that do you not understand.

 

If the contextual meaning of the word faith gives you problems, I can't wait until you start teaching us about the trinity or eschatology, or transubstantiation or theological metaphysics.

 

Do you think you could possibly get past the word "faith" long enough to express yourself?

 

All this "tail chasing" is making me nauseous!

 

Just so you know

 

Main Entry:nauseous

 

Function:adjective

Date:1612

 

1 : causing nausea or disgust : NAUSEATING

2 : affected with nausea or disgust

 

Those who insist that nauseous can properly be used only in sense 1 and that in sense 2 it is an error for nauseated are mistaken. Current evidence shows these facts: nauseous is most frequently used to mean physically affected with nausea, usually after a linking verb such as feel or become; figurative use is quite a bit less frequent. Use of nauseous in sense 1 is much more often figurative than literal, and this use appears to be losing ground to nauseating. Nauseated is used more widely than nauseous in sense 2.

I did express myself here http://www.ex-christ..._80#entry811455

 

Faith is not irrational. To believe so either requires evidence or faith.

 

Just so I understand, "faith" is not irrational, ever?

 

It's fine if I have faith in something I know to be wrong, false, or irrational?

 

Why do I get the sense I'm wasting thread space or my faith that Ordinary Clay is competent.

 

My faith couldn't irrational, could it?

 

Hell, with proof I still have faith!

Are you saying faith is always irrational? No definition says anything about knowing the falsity of a belief. If you knew it was false it would not be faith.

[florduh]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

Why does Vigile claim faith is irrational?

 

Because it is irrational to believe something is true simply because you want to. Using your rules and definitions, it is equally rational to believe in Jesus, Voodoo, fairies, Santa and alien shape shifters. Faith is not a reasoned decision based on evidence or facts. It is the essence of an irrational act.

[OrdinaryClay]

You falsely believe faith is irrational.

 

Faith in this context is belief in something which has no evidence. Therefore, there is no reason to believe, therefore it isn't a rational thing to do since there is no reason to do it. Get it? If English isn't your first language, perhaps we can explain further.

I prefer the dictionary. Claiming Faith is irrational requires either faith to believe or evidence.

 

Okay then, I guess English is not your primary language.

 

What we're addressing here is definition 2. which you provided. It is belief based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

What is "spiritual apprehension?" It is defined in your quote, for one thing, as being not proof. Therefore, "spiritual apprehension" is something other than proof. If there is proof, no faith is needed; it is then not a belief but the recognition of a demonstrable fact. "Spiritual apprehension" is an emotional embrace of an idea, and that method of justifying belief can lead to belief in the story and authority of Jesus, Krishna, Jove, Odin or L. Ron Hubbard. In other words, with proof everyone will believe the same fact. Without proof, blind faith can be devoted to many and various things, real and imaginary. Deciding what is true by what you may think or feel independent of objective evidence is not rational.

Why does Vigile claim faith is irrational?

 

Because it is irrational to believe something is true simply because you want to. Using your rules and definitions, it is equally rational to believe in Jesus, Voodoo, fairies, Santa and alien shape shifters. Faith is not a reasoned decision based on evidence or facts. It is the essence of an irrational act.

 

I believe in nothing that I know to be false.

 

So you have proof for everything you believe?

[Spectrox]

 

Have you accepted faith can be complete trust in something or someone?

 

If you want to define faith as "complete trust" you can if you want to but then you need to ask yourself how you have reached that position of trust. Is it through peer-reviewed evidence? Is it because of the way you were brought up? Is it because you had a visitation from the Angel Gabriel and you got a warm, fuzzy feeling in your privates?

 

It is irrational to believe faith is irrational.

 

Not if you really are following the logic of the below set of statements:

 

Faith can be defined as belief without proof.

How do we get proof?

Answer: Through evidence, logic and rational argument (all of which are self-consistent).

Lack of proof is therefore lacking in evidence, logic and rational argument (lack of self-consistency).

Therefore faith could appropriately be defined as being irrational.

 

Every person on this board has faith in someone or something with no evidence or proof. We all place our trust in someone or something.

 

A ridiculous assertion! I define faith as belief without evidence. If you demonstrate to me something I believe in without evidence then guess what? I'll stop believing it. You do the same thing to a brainwashed Christian and they'll ignore the evidence. That's the difference. One worldview follows the evidence, the other leads it and distorts it.

 

If you want to define faith as having complete trust, is this trust due to some evidence of past transactions? I have trust in things for which I have sufficient (but perhaps incomplete) evidence. I grant trust to others tentatively and give them the benefit of the doubt (unless they display characteristics to me that show they are not worthy of that trust).

 

 

What's your point here? Funnily an irrational number is an imaginary number that doesn't exist other than as a mathematical concept involving the square root of minus one!

[OrdinaryClay]

If you want to define faith as having complete trust, is this trust due to some evidence of past transactions? I have trust in things for which I have sufficient (but perhaps incomplete) evidence. I grant trust to others tentatively and give them the benefit of the doubt (unless they display characteristics to me that show they are not worthy of that trust).

 

Is all your trust based on peer reviewed evidence? How did you decide the evidence was sufficient? In those you give the benefit of the doubt you have faith with no evidence.

[mymistake]

So how many pages will be wasted on OrdinaryClay pretending that "based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof" isn't "not logical or reasonable"?

[Spectrox]

 

Yes, I believe all the Old Testament laws were moral, and God's laws are just.

 

So you believe it is moral to stone to death an unruly child; commit genocide; to beat a slave as long as he doesn't die from it in 4 days; for a rape victim to be forced into marrying her rapist?

 

If you truly believe these are moral acts and are not just paying lip-service to the apologetics then you have lost the moral debate and it's not worth debating with you about any of this.

 

Morality = what is generally accepted as decent behaviour. It is about maximising the benefit to myself and others and minimising the harm to myself and others.

 

If your argument is an act is defined as moral because Story Book Bible God says so then my next question is "why do you believe the Bible?"

[florduh]

So how many pages will be wasted on OrdinaryClay.....

I'm done.

[TrueFreedom]

If you want to define faith as having complete trust, is this trust due to some evidence of past transactions? I have trust in things for which I have sufficient (but perhaps incomplete) evidence. I grant trust to others tentatively and give them the benefit of the doubt (unless they display characteristics to me that show they are not worthy of that trust).

 

Is all your trust based on peer reviewed evidence? How did you decide the evidence was sufficient? In those you give the benefit of the doubt you have faith with no evidence.

 

As I pointed out before, faith is belief with no evidence. We don't believe anything without reason or evidence. If we agree on this definition or characteristic of faith (belief based on no evidence or despite opposing evidence), you are the only one in this conversation who relies on faith rather than evidence. This characteristic of faith demonstrates its irrationality.

[Spectrox]

Is all your trust based on peer reviewed evidence?

 

Scientific claims yes. Not everything.

 

How did you decide the evidence was sufficient?

 

By applying logic, reasoned argument and an assessement of the evidence. Not by "faith". (My definition of faith seems to be different to yours. Not sure you understand what your own definition is - it is self-contradictory.)

 

In those you give the benefit of the doubt you have faith with no evidence.

 

I have assumed from past human interactions that almost everyone is not "out to get me" and that there are shared values when we live in a co-operative society. This is evidence I have accumulated all by myself. I didn't need to look it up in an immoral, self-contradictory, far-fetched delusion called the Bible.

[OrdinaryClay]

If you want to define faith as having complete trust, is this trust due to some evidence of past transactions? I have trust in things for which I have sufficient (but perhaps incomplete) evidence. I grant trust to others tentatively and give them the benefit of the doubt (unless they display characteristics to me that show they are not worthy of that trust).

 

Is all your trust based on peer reviewed evidence? How did you decide the evidence was sufficient? In those you give the benefit of the doubt you have faith with no evidence.

 

As I pointed out before, faith is belief with no evidence. We don't believe anything without reason or evidence. If we agree on this definition or characteristic of faith (belief based on no evidence or despite opposing evidence), you are the only one in this conversation who relies on faith rather than evidence. This characteristic of faith demonstrates its irrationality.

 

He just said he gave people the benefit of the doubt.

 

atheists inevitably equivocate on what evidence is. The story line usually goes that all they believe in is empirical evidence which is blatantly false. so are saying you have no faith in anything?

[merck]

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Yes, don't put words in my mouth. 1) Yes, 2) Yes and 3) Yes

 

 

Yes, I believe all the Old Testament laws were moral, and God's laws are just. I also believe the New Testament is a new covenant and our behavior is to change based on the New Covenant. The laws have not changed. Our behavior has. I find it hard to believe you have not heard this before so by all means just cut to the chase.

So, do you believe that the Law is still moral today? Would a slave owner in the American South in the 1800's be morally accountable if he killed on of his slaves? Is it morally permissible for me to kill my child today? Recall that the Psalmist wrote that "The Law of the Lord is perfect"(ps 19:7)

 

Further, you say that these laws are moral. A moral action is something that ought to be done. If A, B ought to be performed. If the Law is still moral, you are morally required to carry it out. If the New Covenant changes what actions are to be performed, then it changes the morality. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Law is moral or the New Covenant is moral.

[OrdinaryClay]

Is all your trust based on peer reviewed evidence?

 

Scientific claims yes. Not everything.

 

How did you decide the evidence was sufficient?

 

By applying logic, reasoned argument and an assessement of the evidence. Not by "faith". (My definition of faith seems to be different to yours. Not sure you understand what your own definition is - it is self-contradictory.)

 

In those you give the benefit of the doubt you have faith with no evidence.

 

I have assumed from past human interactions that almost everyone is not "out to get me" and that there are shared values when we live in a co-operative society. This is evidence I have accumulated all by myself. I didn't need to look it up in an immoral, self-contradictory, far-fetched delusion called the Bible.

So your faith is based on your own subjective analysis of the situation. My faith is also based on my own subjective analysis of the situation.

[TrueFreedom]

If you want to define faith as having complete trust, is this trust due to some evidence of past transactions? I have trust in things for which I have sufficient (but perhaps incomplete) evidence. I grant trust to others tentatively and give them the benefit of the doubt (unless they display characteristics to me that show they are not worthy of that trust).

 

Is all your trust based on peer reviewed evidence? How did you decide the evidence was sufficient? In those you give the benefit of the doubt you have faith with no evidence.

 

As I pointed out before, faith is belief with no evidence. We don't believe anything without reason or evidence. If we agree on this definition or characteristic of faith (belief based on no evidence or despite opposing evidence), you are the only one in this conversation who relies on faith rather than evidence. This characteristic of faith demonstrates its irrationality.

 

He just said he gave people the benefit of the doubt.

 

atheists inevitably equivocate on what evidence is. The story line usually goes that all they believe in is empirical evidence which is blatantly false. so are saying you have no faith in anything?

 

When I do not have sufficient reason or evidence to believe something and I must make a decision without desired information, I exercise hope. The way that I define faith it serves no good purpose, and I do not value it or have any desire to exercise it. At times we all need to trust but verify, but we do not need to resort to faith.

[Spectrox]

So your faith is based on your own subjective analysis of the situation. My faith is also based on my own subjective analysis of the situation.

 

I don't have faith in anything - Faith being belief with no evidence not your woolly definition. There is some subjectivity involved because people are making their own individual assessments. But the methodological approach the individual uses yields different results and different beliefs. Time and time again, the best way of homing in on the truth of any claim has been demonstrated to be a rational one - i.e using logic, reasoned argument, evidence, consistency, the scientific method. I'm not convinced you undertake any serious analysis about what you believe or don't believe. You want to believe because you want to believe. I don't - for good reasons. What are your reasons for believing the Bible to be true?

[OrdinaryClay]

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Yes, don't put words in my mouth. 1) Yes, 2) Yes and 3) Yes

 

 

Yes, I believe all the Old Testament laws were moral, and God's laws are just. I also believe the New Testament is a new covenant and our behavior is to change based on the New Covenant. The laws have not changed. Our behavior has. I find it hard to believe you have not heard this before so by all means just cut to the chase.

So, do you believe that the Law is still moral today? Would a slave owner in the American South in the 1800's be morally accountable if he killed on of his slaves? Is it morally permissible for me to kill my child today? Recall that the Psalmist wrote that "The Law of the Lord is perfect"(ps 19:7)

 

Further, you say that these laws are moral. A moral action is something that ought to be done. If A, B ought to be performed. If the Law is still moral, you are morally required to carry it out. If the New Covenant changes what actions are to be performed, then it changes the morality. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Law is moral or the New Covenant is moral.

 

You've fabricated a contradiction between the Old and New Testament by equivocating on a single word.. The actions one takes given a moral ought is separate from the morality else it would be called a moral "do". The context of the time period while not changing the laws does change our actions. Clearly what we are taught to do is different, but the law remains.

 

(Mat 5:17) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

(Mat 5:18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

Jesus addressed this issue squarely. We told us how to behave but that the law was still valid.

[Galien]

That term suggests to me that you view your period of rejection of Christian teachings as a period when your judgment was led astray by sin or sinful desires - I'm just concluding that from my experience with the term "backsliding." Does this mean that you can demonstrate to yourself that your insights then entailed or were based on false conclusions from evidence?

 

The Christian life is not easy. We all have doubts. Why I fell away, and why I have come back, I dont know. I am trying to figure it out.

 

I thought it was quite easy actually, except for the other fucking christians who wouldn't know what humility was if it crawled up their ass and laid eggs. People miss the whole point, you cant prove how the earth got here either way, and neither can anyone else. Maybe if you put that energy into learning humility as jesus suggested instead of arguing things you cannot prove, the church will actually have one decent person in it. Good luck with that

[Spectrox]

OrdinaryClay, last time I saw you on here, I asked you a few questions and you never answered them.

 

1. Do you believe God is moral?

2. Do you believe the law in the Bible accurately represents God's morality?

3. Do you believe that the Gospels are an accurate representation of what Jesus' did, said, and represented?

 

Yes, don't put words in my mouth. 1) Yes, 2) Yes and 3) Yes

 

 

Yes, I believe all the Old Testament laws were moral, and God's laws are just. I also believe the New Testament is a new covenant and our behavior is to change based on the New Covenant. The laws have not changed. Our behavior has. I find it hard to believe you have not heard this before so by all means just cut to the chase.

So, do you believe that the Law is still moral today? Would a slave owner in the American South in the 1800's be morally accountable if he killed on of his slaves? Is it morally permissible for me to kill my child today? Recall that the Psalmist wrote that "The Law of the Lord is perfect"(ps 19:7)

 

Further, you say that these laws are moral. A moral action is something that ought to be done. If A, B ought to be performed. If the Law is still moral, you are morally required to carry it out. If the New Covenant changes what actions are to be performed, then it changes the morality. You cannot have it both ways. Either the Law is moral or the New Covenant is moral.

 

You've fabricated a contradiction between the Old and New Testament by equivocating on a single word.. The actions one takes given a moral ought is separate from the morality else it would be called a moral "do". The context of the time period while not changing the laws does change our actions. Clearly what we are taught to do is different, but the law remains.

 

(Mat 5:17) "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

(Mat 5:18) "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

 

Jesus addressed this issue squarely. We told us how to behave but that the law was still valid.

 

How to say nothing in about 100 weasel words.

 

Did God ever repeal any of his out of date laws? Humans manage to repeal bad laws for reasons of clarity and morality - why can't God?

[OrdinaryClay]

That term suggests to me that you view your period of rejection of Christian teachings as a period when your judgment was led astray by sin or sinful desires - I'm just concluding that from my experience with the term "backsliding." Does this mean that you can demonstrate to yourself that your insights then entailed or were based on false conclusions from evidence?

 

The Christian life is not easy. We all have doubts. Why I fell away, and why I have come back, I dont know. I am trying to figure it out.

 

I thought it was quite easy actually, except for the other fucking christians who wouldn't know what humility was if it crawled up their ass and laid eggs. People miss the whole point, you cant prove how the earth got here either way, and neither can anyone else. Maybe if you put that energy into learning humility as jesus suggested instead of arguing things you cannot prove, the church will actually have one decent person in it. Good luck with that

They you have faith God did not create the earth?

[OrdinaryClay]

The bottom line is we all have faith because we all have some belief we hold through subjective reasoning. We trust it to be true based on our life experiences. Having such faith is not irrational, and it is just weasel words to claim otherwise. There is good evidence that God exists and Christ is who He says He is. That said there are many truths a Christian must take on faith. We can not possiblly know everything. There is nothing wrong or irrational about it. Non believers simply cling to the notion of faith being irrational to comfort themselves.

[mymistake]

Did God ever repeal any of his out of date laws? Humans manage to repeal bad laws for reasons of clarity and morality - why can't God?

 

Good question. Even more telling is "Why did God make those bad laws in the first place?". After all in the OT God supposedly enforces His decrees on pain of death. The Christians cannot use "Ancient Israelites wouldn't accept it" as an excuse because God threw all kinds of death at those who rebelled. If God could have advanced their culture, given them respect for women, understanding of disease, understanding of how the world actually works then these things would have been legitimate cause to worship God. Instead the OT just put people in bondage to the Temple of Jerusalem, which was Ezra's goal when he created the OT.

 

 

Edit:

Oh and religion is rational! See?

http://www.dwasifar.com/?p=498

[Spectrox]

The bottom line is we all have faith because we all have some belief we hold through subjective reasoning. We trust it to be true based on our life experiences.

 

Subjective reasoning is not faith (even by your own clumsy definition). Trust is based on sufficient (but not necessarily conclusive) evidence.

 

Having such faith is not irrational, and it is just weasel words to claim otherwise.

 

Stop stealing my phrases.

 

There is good evidence that God exists and Christ is who He says He is.

 

Which Christians seem completely unable to provide. The Christ figure shares many similarities with older pagan gods e.g. having superpowers, dying and returning god, born of a virgin etc.

 

That said there are many truths a Christian must take on faith.

 

If they were true, faith would not be required to believe them. Faith is not a path to truth. Faith is gullibility.

 

We can not possiblly know everything.

 

True. And if we don't know something (have justified true belief) then I'm a big fan of people saying "I don't know" instead of making shit up.

 

There is nothing wrong or irrational about it.

 

There is - as has been argued coherently by several on this thread.

 

Non believers simply cling to the notion of faith being irrational to comfort themselves.

 

There are so many flaws in your thinking and argumentation. They've been addressed innumerable times and you have ignored them or mixed up your definitions or changed the language every time.

 

The Bible cannot be rationally justified, either morally or factually. All you are doing is tying a ribbon around a turd and trying to hide the smell.

[ShackledNoMore]

Dear OC,

 

Aliens from the Andromeda galaxy sent a space probe to earth that landed on my back yard.

 

While I was asleep, a tiny flying monkey from the space probe entered my body through my nose and started producing tiny nanobots, which are now circulating through my blood. Every night, he clones himself into more tiny flying monkeys which fly out my butt while I am asleep and enter into more and more people's bodies to release nanobots into them. At the right moment, the Andromedans will activate the nanobots and make us their zombie slaves to facilitate their invasion of earth.

 

I do not have any evidence for this, I know it by faith, so you know that it is not an irrational belief.

 

I am glad you understand and do not think that my complete trust and confidence in our soon to be overlords' plot is irrational, because I can't understand why, but everyone else here thinks I am an idiot.

[wndwalkr99]

Throw out a few random logical words and phrases. Misapply them in horrendous fashion. Pretend no one notices you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Do a little victory dance for Jesus. Go tell your friends atheists are stupid.

Atheists are inconsistent. You falsely believe faith is irrational. Why, maybe it makes you feel better. I don't know.

 

Maybe you should start by defining faith, yourself. Go ahead. Make my day...