According to Christianity

[Stranger]

I never claimed I'm an atheist. Prove I'm an atheist You see how shifting the burden of proof appears nonsensical?

Now you see how you are now attempting to shift your burden of proof? 'Truthfulness' is in the eye of the beholder (Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Christian, other...)

For all intensive purposes, when you state 'If you don't believe the declaration of the Bible, then don't. You have not changed the truthfulness of it at all.' Your are effectively asserting that YOUR belief is proven, and it is up to me to disprove it. When in reality, no God is the default position.

Just like me telling, 'yeah, my specific one true believed alien exists. Your lack in belief does not disprove it.'

I didn't claim in my statement above that you did. Why should I prove you're an atheist?

I am not shifting anything. Truth is found in Jesus Christ alone. And truth is found in the Scriptures which declare Jesus Christ.

I am asserting exactly what I said. Neither your lack of belief nor my belief changes the truthfulness of God, Christ, or the Bible.

Believe in aliens if you want. Doesn't bother me.

Stanger

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't claim in my statement above that you did. Why should I prove you're an atheist?

I am not shifting anything. Truth is found in Jesus Christ alone. And truth is found in the Scriptures which declare Jesus Christ.

I am asserting exactly what I said. Neither your lack of belief nor my belief changes the truthfulness of God, Christ, or the Bible.

Believe in aliens if you want. Doesn't bother me.

Stanger

LOL! You just validated everything I assessed about you

I was giving you examples of 'burden of proof' shifting. You claimed you don't do it. But in the very next sentence, you state, and I quote:

'I am not shifting anything. Truth is found in Jesus Christ alone. And truth is found in the Scriptures which declare Jesus Christ.'

Now look up logical fallacies and see that you just committed two major ones... Which are...

1) Burden of proof fallacy - 'You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.'
2) circular reasoning fallacy - 'the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.'

I honestly do not know why I waste further time trying to get through to you. Maybe I just care too much...

 

[Stranger]

LOL! You just validated everything I assessed about you

I was giving you examples of 'burden of proof' shifting. You claimed you don't do it. But in the very next sentence, you state, and I quote:

'I am not shifting anything. Truth is found in Jesus Christ alone. And truth is found in the Scriptures which declare Jesus Christ.'

Now look up logical fallacies and see that you just committed two major ones... Which are...

1) Burden of proof fallacy - 'You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.'
2) circular reasoning fallacy - 'the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.'

I honestly do not know why I waste further time trying to get through to you. Maybe I just care too much...

No, I simply said Jesus Christ is the Truth as are the Scriptures which declare Christ. I do not require you or anyone else to prove it.

If it is circular reasoning, so be it. That doesn't bother me either.

Care for what?

Stranger

 

[mjrhealth]

I want to know how someone can believe in Jesus without having a reason to believe in him.

Inj simple terms. one day I walked out of a catholic church, a voice said to me, " there is something wrong with all of this". about 12 years or so later, without ever tending "church" again or reading a bible, my dad come over, wants to go to church, i walk in give my life to teh Lord, being walking with Him ever since. Like I said, no reason, there is very little reasoning when it comes to God, its just the way it is, and Im glad, I would rather it that way.

 

[cvanwey]

No, I simply said Jesus Christ is the Truth as are the Scriptures which declare Christ. I do not require you or anyone else to prove it.

If it is circular reasoning, so be it. That doesn't bother me either.

Care for what?

Stranger

Well then, prepare for a lot of future attempts with others demonstrating flagrant errors in 'your' logic, and good luck out there...

If you do not care to actually be right, but instead simply want to assert things with no justified and valid reasoning, I guess that's all on you isn't it.

I care, in the sense that I'm wasting valuable time exchanging dialogue with you, and you are effectively trying to nit pick tiny things, to try and one up me. All-the-while, are completely misplacing and redirecting my responses.... It gets frustrating...

Peace

 

[cvanwey]

No. You are not calling the shots here.

You quoted Jesus, and I asked you if He only believed what you hold Him accountable for, or did He know it? You want answered prayer, answer the question.

Okay, I answered your question. Now will you pray for me please, like you said you would in this response once I answered you first? I'm really looking forward to my amputated limb to grow back, as promised from Holy Scripture. I've been without it for a decade now.

 

[Stranger]

Well then, prepare for a lot of future attempts with others demonstrating flagrant errors in 'your' logic, and good luck out there...

If you do not care to actually be right, but instead simply want to assert things with no justified and valid reasoning, I guess that's all on you isn't it.

I care, in the sense that I'm wasting valuable time exchanging dialogue with you, and you are effectively trying to nit pick tiny things, to try and one up me. All-the-while, are completely misplacing and redirecting my responses.... It gets frustrating...

Peace

I didn't say I don't care to be right. I do. But with God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, I know I am right. Actually it is all on God.

I am simply reacting to your statements. It is not about trying to one up on anyone. The fact is this. You may be able to win the argument. I may lose the argument. I may not have enough knowledge or ability to answer and defeat your argument. But, though I lose the argument, it doesn't change the truth of what I believe. And though I lose the argument, it doesn't change my faith in Jesus Christ.

Stranger

 

[bbyrd009]

Tell me how one may distinguish the use of faith, as a valid pathway to truth, if using nothing but faith?

for this i would suggest/realize a different definition of "faith" than the one we are given in Sunday School wadr, where "faith" is turned into "believe without question." You can reflect on the meaning of "ask, seek, knock," and even "fruit" in this context imo. And even "truth est'd in the mouth of two or three witnesses," but i'll work that in next

 

[bbyrd009]

Meaning, If a Muslim and a Christian are attempting to validate truth in their statements, and they both use faith, and faith alone, who's correct?

neither one imo, if one has to be incorrect. If you rephrased this Q i would reply differently i guess, but the problem comes there when they try to validate "truth" rather than "fruit," i guess is my main objection...ya.

"Truth in their statements" seems like a noble goal, huh, and i certainly understand seeking this.
"they both use faith, and faith alone" i've already voiced my objection to, there @ one's def of "faith,"
and i also might say that they can both be right, but i guess this seems impossible huh lol

part of the problem there imo is that the question assumes that a Boundary Stone can be crossed with impunity, and i would ask you to reflect on this also. So you can see that your Q is really...complex, and you could simplify it by say making the Muslim into a Catholic or something, or even better yet two different Prot sects, so no boundary stones are being involved--it's not like the tension is any less anyway right--and then a better answer might resolve.

if two ppl are attempting to validate any truth in their statements, they should first be aware that they are deceived, like we all are
if they both used faith alone they would both get on the plane without attempting to validate any truth, based on the fruit
(ha actually neither one of them would go anywhere near a plane based upon the fruit imo, but that requires a full grasp of all of the fruit; a plane is a bad example here)

 

[bbyrd009]

This is why faith is belief without evidence ;-) In and of itself, faith serves no valid purpose, other than an emotional yearning for something to actually be true, because they already believe it.

imo that will get you to guys like Benny Hinn, who of course wouldn't go anywhere near a hospital, right, but bam believe faith is belief as long as it serves you. Faith is the evidence for me now. Or to put that another way even if i had never seen an airplane and was being asked to board one, i would not deny the evidence of many thousands of ppl all boarding airplanes and taking off as i witnessed, while others landed and deplaned safely, or at least i hope i wouldn't.

again, the analogy isn't perfect, but it will do, since we do have ppl that do deny the evidence, right, and they might be seen as those with "no faith."

 

[bbyrd009]

So if I spend time alone with a competing claimed holy text, could I then achieve the same validated result you speak of?

ha another tough Q to answer, bc syntax lol. Could you see how they are in agreement? Imo that is very possible, yes. Dunno about probable, but possible. It would be much easier for an Oriental, raised to reason the way Scripture was written. Tough for someone trying to apply logic though.

As to "validated result," i s'pose still yes, only the result might not be one we like, lemme go see what "validated result" we are talking abou there...brb

ya, my post was too long to extract what "validated result" you might be referring to, sorry. I think i get you but i don't want to assume. I can say that the same fruit is achieved in any model that produces "works meet for repentance," imo.

 

[bbyrd009]

You appear to be confusing or misusing words.

ha well someone is, definitely. Tares are now weeds, faith is now beliefs, the world is no diff from the earth, seed = money, life more abundantly really means death more abundantly now, on and on

 

[cvanwey]

I didn't say I don't care to be right. I do. But with God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible, I know I am right. Actually it is all on God.

I am simply reacting to your statements. It is not about trying to one up on anyone. The fact is this. You may be able to win the argument. I may lose the argument. I may not have enough knowledge or ability to answer and defeat your argument. But, though I lose the argument, it doesn't change the truth of what I believe. And though I lose the argument, it doesn't change my faith in Jesus Christ.

Stranger

I certainly don't doubt your faith/belief. However, I would love to understand how you actually 'know' you are right? So far, you are presenting logical fallacies, which will certainly not validate, or convince anyone else. Anyone can go on a forum, and assert things. However, this is not very useful, if you are trying to help others (which is what I thought part of the reason a forum even exists).

Thnx

 

[cvanwey]

for this i would suggest/realize a different definition of "faith" than the one we are given in Sunday School wadr, where "faith" is turned into "believe without question." You can reflect on the meaning of "ask, seek, knock," and even "fruit" in this context imo. And even "truth est'd in the mouth of two or three witnesses," but i'll work that in next

Well, this is a Christian forum, which means the Christian trusts within the words within the Bible, which is the book the Christian has 'trust/faith/belief' to be true. In accordance with stated and claimed holy scripture, one must acknowledge the many verses applied by one's believed book, such as: Hebrews 11:1, Hebrews11:6, Mark 11:22-24, Ephesians 2:8-9, 2 Corinthians 5:7, James 2:14-26, Matthew 21:21-22, and Luke 17:5.

Faith is applied as a rather large proponent, as to a 'justified reason' for belief.

This is where I again must differ.... Again, if faith is a large reason for validating, proving, or believing something to be true, and a Muslim and a Christian both use it, regardless of their definition of faith, who is right, who is not right? Of course, this is assuming that one of the two represents a true dichotomy.

 

[bbyrd009]

In accordance with stated and claimed holy scripture

...which can only be Quoted in English, note

 

[bbyrd009]

Faith is applied as a rather large proponent, as to a 'justified reason' for belief.

i would go further than this, and state that the two have been conflated completely now, they are now as synonymous to most ppl as they are to most translations. This despite the fact that there are 5 words for belief, and only 1 for faith; so the "justified reason" for belief is not justified at all, and is actually a chimera made from bad definitions and unfounded expectations (about our inheritance, etc)

Beliefs actually function as an impediment to learning more knowledge imo, bc after all knowledge brings sorrow. Beliefs are much more comfortable, right.
As long as they are not questioned anyway

Love...has faith in all things

 

[cvanwey]

i would go further than this, and state that the two have been conflated completely now, they are now as synonymous to most ppl as they are to most translations. This despite the fact that there are 5 words for belief, and only 1 for faith; so the "justified reason" for belief is not justified at all, and is actually a chimera made from bad definitions and unfounded expectations.

Beliefs actually function as an impediment to learning more knowledge imo, bc after all knowledge brings sorrow. Beliefs are much more comfortable, right.
As long as they are not questioned anyway

Love...believes all things

Though I enjoy reading your responses, which do provide wisdom; pardon my selfish nature for a minute....

A Muslim states the Holy Qur'an is correct, because it says so. The Christian states the Holy Bible is correct, because it says so. By what mechanisms could actually be used to validate which one is certainly incorrect? I will take the liberty in concluding that, no definition of 'faith' would apply to concluding the actual answer.

So how might one go about formulating an intellectually honest conclusion, verses what makes one feel good?

Your thoughts?

 

[bbyrd009]

This is where I again must differ.... Again, if faith is a large reason for validating, proving, or believing something to be true, and a Muslim and a Christian both use it, regardless of their definition of faith, who is right, who is not right?

you begin by saying that we differ here, but i don't see where you illustrate the difference, sorry. You didn't answer the Q iow, or otherwise address it to show a difference? hope that is clear lol

 

[bbyrd009]

By what mechanisms could actually be used to validate which one is certainly incorrect?

By ppl, who all have a blind spot in front of each eye, and cannot find over 95% of creation, you mean? lol

my reply here would be that the beginning premise is flawed, if you are seeking to "validate which one is certainly incorrect."
a determination is being attempted there iow, and the result can only be incorrect, as we can also witness by watching two logical Protestants go at it, no need to cross/move boundary stones at all, see. So "Muslim" here is really just a kind of a distraction imo

 

[Helen]

By what mechanisms could actually be used to validate which one is certainly incorrect? I will take the liberty in concluding that, no definition of 'faith' would apply to concluding the actual answer.

I think that is why it is called F.A.I.T.H.

Faith is believing what and Who we cannot see. right ?
Faith is what it is all about.