Ashamed to be Texan - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/19/2005 12:40:48 AM · #1163

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by bear_music:
And to tie this together with my earlier comment, proof is irrelevant anyway when it comes to belief in the Lord. Faith is everything, and this is what He asks of us. A neccessary component of "faith" is "lack of proof"; if a thing CAN be proven, faith does not enter the equation any longer.

This is SO important it cannot be overstressed; to a believer, "proof" is irrelevant because he "knows", and this is as it should be. Any who choose to mock people of faith because they cannot "prove" their beliefs do not understand what faith is, nor do they understand how important it is to a man's spirit to have faith.

Not only that, but there is no way to convince these naysayers otherwise except by bearing witness and by example. It is absolutely impossible to offer a sustainable proof on matters of faith.

Hence, my closing words int he earlier post.

Peace, Robt.

Originally posted by scalvert:
The bible can provide spiritual guidance and hope for those with faith, but attempts to reconcile the text as literal fact will only highlight its irrationality, thereby making it more difficult to attract followers. You're better off sticking to the positive messages and avoid direct comparisons to physics and other modern science.

This question about faith has been rolling around in my head since bear_music posted earlier, and now scalvert has raised the issue again; so, a question to RonB (or anyone else who would like to have a go at it):

First, do you agree with bear that "faith is everything" and that attempts at proof are irrelevant and impossible? If you do agree with his statements above, then why do you insist on trying to prove the Bible text as literal fact?

Judith,

That's a very good question that you posed to Ron, an honest and thought-provoking one. This is what was rolling around in my brain when I wrote the above. By my personal definition (and this is just me, personally, I'm nor pushing this definition on anyone) faith ceases to exist when truth is proven. To believe something is true absent verifiable proof is to have faith. And I'm not alone in thinking this. Ask any thoughtful cleric, and s/he will agree this has validity practically every time.

That said, your categorization of the search for Biblical proof as "irrelevant and impossible" is not quite reasonable. In the context of true faith it may be irrelevant, but no search for truth and knowledge is totally irrelevant. And who are we to say it's impossible? Many once-impossible things have been accomplished.

As for your question to me, I perhaps better should have said "how important to a man's spirit it can be to have faith". When I was writing that, I was thinking that people of true faith that I have known tend to be thoughtful, generous, forgiving persons. There's something about believing in God, so to speak :-) (Not all followers of a religion have true faith, of course, and true faith can be held even by those who follow no organized religion. In my opinion of course.) In any case, I was thinking specifically of these people, and how important their faith is to them and their world view, and was thinking how fundamentally wrong it is to mock a person's faith, or to attack it in any way.

Nevertheless, my answer would be what I said above: it's important because there's something about believing. Not necessarily in "the church" (whichever church, because I have differences of opinion with all of them, basically) but in God. I can't explain it, you either feel it or you don't. I don't think less of people if they don't believe. We just see things differently, is all. I never have these discussions in real life, or hardly ever. I just go about my business.

It doesn't particularly please me as having this faith characterized as "faith in an irrational belief system", which seems a tad snide, but in any event faith and rationality are like different parts of the brain, you know? I don't think it strengthens faith to try to reason it out, especially, and I don't think the fact that it is beyond reason, so to speak, invalidates it.

Thanks for asking.

Robt.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/19/2005 12:44:27 AM · #1164

Originally posted by scalvert:

I contend that at least some parts are fiction, perhaps intended simply as fables to teach a lesson rather than offer historical accounts

Christ himself uses many passages in the gospels to teach via this method. It is through this method that his word becomes timeless and applicable to multiple generations. It is also important to understand the "times" or social structure surounding Christ in the first century. Another reason to acquire a "red letter" edition.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 00:49:00.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/19/2005 12:56:26 AM · #1165

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
I do not believe that every passage in the Bible is literal. In fact I specifically believe that some passages are intentionally figurative.

That seems like a more reasonable (and defensible) position. I contend that at least some parts are fiction, perhaps intended simply as fables to teach a lesson rather than offer historical accounts (Noah's Ark), and others were added by the church itself to exert power or appease it's audience (endorsing slavery). The story of the Flood is too easily disproven with common sense and slavery conflicts with our modern morality.

Rather than calling them "fiction", why not call them "myths"? That's closer to the spirit of the thing. IF we accept that much of the Old Testament is allegorical and figurative, we are free to seek the wellsprings, the sources, of the allegories and figures. And we will find, ine xamining myths, usually a kernel of plausibility or truth at their core.

You mentioned Noah. There is, for example, tantalizing evidence that within the time-frame when Noah supposedly lived there was a cataclysmic flood within the Fertile Crescent. Geological evidence shows that the shoreline of the Black Sea was 550 feet lower than it now is. It is believed that the Bosporus Strait was at that time sealed, and that rising sea levels breached the barrier and the Mediterranean flooded in. I'm not aware that this has been proven, and I may have some details wrong, but that's the general idea.

Christianity isn't the only religion indigenous to the middle east that has a flood myth. It shows up back in Sumerian times, I think, way back when... It's easy to suppose something dramatic happened, and myths are the way those things get passed down through millennia.

So IF you're willing to allow creative license in the creation of the Old Testament, things open up quite a bit on the rationality scale, don't you think? Genesis as a metaphor of the Big Bang and all that followed isn't that far-fetched at all, if you think of it...

Note that this is all Old-Testament stuff, far predates Christianity. That's where all the arguments seem to be coming from. The New Testament can make much stronger objective claims of historicity.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 00:57:51.

Flash

Nikon D700

11/19/2005 12:59:41 AM · #1166

The reason that I am stressing a "red letter" edition of a Bible, is that once one "sees" first hand how few words are actually "quotes" of Christ, then one can start to extrapolate from the rest of the texts a truer meaning. In other words, if Christ is the son of God, and the "savior" for the world, then all scripture must be compatible with the spoken (quoted) words of Christ. Therefore, any intrepretation of any passage, must "fit" within Christ's intended message. If one does not decern the actual words attributed to Christ (difficult due to the "dryness" of some books - therefore red letters make it easier), then one cannot possibly be prepared for the true understanding intended from scripture.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 01:04:49.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/19/2005 01:08:47 AM · #1167

Originally posted by Flash:

That makes sense.

R.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

11/19/2005 02:57:16 AM · #1168

Originally posted by bear_music:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by bear_music:
And to tie this together with my earlier comment, proof is irrelevant anyway when it comes to belief in the Lord. Faith is everything, and this is what He asks of us. A neccessary component of "faith" is "lack of proof"; if a thing CAN be proven, faith does not enter the equation any longer.

This is SO important it cannot be overstressed; to a believer, "proof" is irrelevant because he "knows", and this is as it should be. Any who choose to mock people of faith because they cannot "prove" their beliefs do not understand what faith is, nor do they understand how important it is to a man's spirit to have faith.

Not only that, but there is no way to convince these naysayers otherwise except by bearing witness and by example. It is absolutely impossible to offer a sustainable proof on matters of faith.

Hence, my closing words int he earlier post.

Peace, Robt.

Originally posted by scalvert:
The bible can provide spiritual guidance and hope for those with faith, but attempts to reconcile the text as literal fact will only highlight its irrationality, thereby making it more difficult to attract followers. You're better off sticking to the positive messages and avoid direct comparisons to physics and other modern science.

This question about faith has been rolling around in my head since bear_music posted earlier, and now scalvert has raised the issue again; so, a question to RonB (or anyone else who would like to have a go at it):

First, do you agree with bear that "faith is everything" and that attempts at proof are irrelevant and impossible? If you do agree with his statements above, then why do you insist on trying to prove the Bible text as literal fact?

Judith,

That's a very good question that you posed to Ron, an honest and thought-provoking one. This is what was rolling around in my brain when I wrote the above. By my personal definition (and this is just me, personally, I'm nor pushing this definition on anyone) faith ceases to exist when truth is proven. To believe something is true absent verifiable proof is to have faith. And I'm not alone in thinking this. Ask any thoughtful cleric, and s/he will agree this has validity practically every time.

That said, your categorization of the search for Biblical proof as "irrelevant and impossible" is not quite reasonable. In the context of true faith it may be irrelevant, but no search for truth and knowledge is totally irrelevant. And who are we to say it's impossible? Many once-impossible things have been accomplished.

As for your question to me, I perhaps better should have said "how important to a man's spirit it can be to have faith". When I was writing that, I was thinking that people of true faith that I have known tend to be thoughtful, generous, forgiving persons. There's something about believing in God, so to speak :-) (Not all followers of a religion have true faith, of course, and true faith can be held even by those who follow no organized religion. In my opinion of course.) In any case, I was thinking specifically of these people, and how important their faith is to them and their world view, and was thinking how fundamentally wrong it is to mock a person's faith, or to attack it in any way.

Nevertheless, my answer would be what I said above: it's important because there's something about believing. Not necessarily in "the church" (whichever church, because I have differences of opinion with all of them, basically) but in God. I can't explain it, you either feel it or you don't. I don't think less of people if they don't believe. We just see things differently, is all. I never have these discussions in real life, or hardly ever. I just go about my business.

It doesn't particularly please me as having this faith characterized as "faith in an irrational belief system", which seems a tad snide, but in any event faith and rationality are like different parts of the brain, you know? I don't think it strengthens faith to try to reason it out, especially, and I don't think the fact that it is beyond reason, so to speak, invalidates it.

Thanks for asking.

Robt.

And thanks for responding. I feel compelled first to clear up a few misunderstandings, and then I'll get to the meat of what I want to say in response to your answer. I used the words "irrelevant" and "impossible" not in relation to the search for truth and knowledge but, rather, because those are precisely the words you used to characterize the attempt to prove one's belief in God.

Also, I meant no disrespect in my use of the word "irrational," but it is my honest opinion that religious beliefs are not governed by or predicated on reason, or, as you put it, are beyond reason, and in that sense irrational.

Like you, I never had discussions about these matters in my real life. I just, as you said, went about my business and never gave much thought to any of this. In fact, my closest lifelong friend, who is a devout Jew, was quite shocked to discover a few years ago that I didn't believe in God. The discussion about it only, finally, came up in the context of our current political situation. Also, I had (up until a few years ago) only experienced the "good face" of religion, so to speak, with respect to several different groups of political allies with whom I worked in behalf of various progressive causes, who also happened to be motivated out of deeply held religious convictions. So it was not in my nature and not my habit to question or judge or mock anyone's faith. I took it as a given, naively as it turns out, that religious conviction was a motivating force for positive change, at least in the United States in my lifetime.

However, I've had to rethink my naive assumptions in the face of the rise of fundamentalism, in this country and beyond. Someone in another thread argued recently that Jesus Christ wouldn't necessarily be opposed to torture, and quoted something from scriptures to back up his contention! One has to question the meaning of everything religious when the teachings of Christ can be used to such perverse ends. So if some of us are hostile or seem to be mocking sometimes, those sentiments aren't directed at people of good will, such as yourself, but at the self-righteous charlatans who wouldn't know faith if they tripped over it.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/19/2005 03:35:37 AM · #1169

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

That's interesting. I contradicted myself didn't I? That's SO easy to do discussing stuff like this, as this thread has shown repeatedly. There are contextual differences that mitigate, but...

For the post in its entirety, good job. I might offer that distortions and nonsense and wickedness promulgated "in the name of" is sufficient reason to despise the distorters, but not sufficent reason to lose faith. It's not God who's doing the distorting, it is men. There is no end to the wickedness men can do, God or no God.

Robt.

Didymus

Canon EOS-20D

11/19/2005 04:10:34 AM · #1170

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Walt Whitman, "Song of Myself"

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

11/19/2005 07:01:26 AM · #1171

Originally posted by bear_music:

There is no end to the wickedness men can do, God or no God.

Robt.

Amen!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/19/2005 09:57:29 AM · #1172

Originally posted by bear_music:

You mentioned Noah. There is, for example, tantalizing evidence that within the time-frame when Noah supposedly lived there was a cataclysmic flood within the Fertile Crescent. Geological evidence shows that the shoreline of the Black Sea was 550 feet lower than it now is. It is believed that the Bosporus Strait was at that time sealed, and that rising sea levels breached the barrier and the Mediterranean flooded in. I'm not aware that this has been proven, and I may have some details wrong, but that's the general idea.

I posted a link to a TV program about this a few pages back.
[quote=bear_music]
So IF you're willing to allow creative license in the creation of the Old Testament, things open up quite a bit on the rationality scale, don't you think? Genesis as a metaphor of the Big Bang and all that followed isn't that far-fetched at all, if you think of it...
Check out Isaac Asimov's story "The Last Question." It's anthologized in his book Opus 100. Maybe we should all also check out his two-volume Guide to the Bible : )

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/19/2005 11:07:21 AM · #1173

Which thread has the argument about evolution vs ID? (Or which one doesn't?)

I wanted to post this link to a article about a new exhibit on Darwin.

Review of the exhibit

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 12:34:25.

Gracious

11/19/2005 01:06:26 PM · #1174

persimon, Don't you think that voting is fair? Just curious, should we ignore the majority? We still enjoy a democracy here in the USA and other places. Would you like to see democracy be replaced by a different form of government? Just curious.

"Well, it happened. The people have spoken. The people of this state approved an amendment 3 to 1 that will ban homosexuals from getting married. It will now be written in the constitution that marriage will be defined as a union between a man and a woman. I can't believe something like this has ended up in the constitution. Very scary and sad."

Evolution is a theory not a fact. Creation isn't allowed in text books, but evolution is. I don't think evolution should be banned, but neither should creation.

[quote=persimon] Next thing you know, Texas will want to amend the constitution to ban evolution from all text books and make the gas-guzzling Hummer the official state vehicle.

Message edited by author 2005-11-19 13:23:37.