I personally think some of the comments on this site can get pretty ridiculous at times, more importantly, they can utterly obliterate an otherwise important message. However, you know what is said about opinions and how they are like a particular body part (everybody’s got one, and they all stink). The thing I have seen that truly ruins credibility is when atheists/agnostics/whatever pontificate about the Bible, yet they don’t believe in it in the first place.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (193)
sorted by:
What if the bible is in fact made up to control you? Would that make you the biggest 'body part?' You can't answer that because the problem with faith is it disallows you from even considering that what you believe in could be wrong.
True faith does not disallow you to question your beliefs.
Right, that is the problem. From my perspective to fully mature as a thinking human being it is necessary to deeply explore whether everything one thinks and believes is wrong.
Correct, examining one's beliefs whether spiritual or political is important. If you cannot defend your own opinions to yourself how can you defend them to anyone else. I welcome discussions with those that disagree with me whether they be leftists or atheists.
Our country would be a better place if people could have discussions without anger and frustration. The issue with that is, many many people have emotional attachments to their beliefs and the emotions often times outweigh facts.
That being said, faith is something a little different. Faith does not need to be backed up with facts/science.
The anger you refer to is intentionally added by subverters. The CFR was created in 1921, and everyone was taught in school to behave irrationally as you describe, due to their influence.
Some of just rebel against their agenda :)
Yes! More emphatically, Jesus teaches us to do this, repeatedly.
Why then do they try to discredit God, Jesus, the Bible? Makes no sense. First the Bible was made up to control us, that didn't work, now it's obsolete?
I don't understand what you are saying here. If it is a lie then it doesn't matter if anyone "tries" to discredit it. It would be a lie no matter what. Once it was known then obsolescence would naturally follow.
And if it's not a lie?
Then it would be true wouldn't it?
100% false.
All you're saying is that you have no idea what Faith is ( as the word is used in this context)
complete trust or confidence in someone or something
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
You're attempting to define Faith as belief, and this doesn't seem circular to you.
You would do much better to admit the topic is foreign to you.
Because I am not that much of an idiot.
“Faith” has been hijacked by Atheists over the past few decades and has been redefined to mean “blind faith.”
Biblical faith is anything but blind.
Biblical faith was always based on evidence.
Christianity is a look before you leap kind of faith, not a leap before you look kind.
That which has evidence requires no faith. You are just aware of the evidence.
1828 definition
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.
In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar.
Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.
That’s true of blind faith. I prefer to be an Acts 17:11 kind of guy.
How do you decide if something in the scriptures is true?
That’s for each individual to decide on their own. My point with the post is it’s silly to argue about what scripture does and doesn’t say if you don’t believe in it in the first place. As I’ve commented elsewhere here, that’s like arguing about what color male unicorns are when you don’t believe in unicorns in the first place.
It's not like arguing about that at all. It's like someone telling you they read an ancient account that male unicorns are white with shades of purple therefore that is the truth and you doubting the veracity of the account.