tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post7753771524640000924..comments2023-05-24T06:02:06.480-05:00Comments on Chuck's Chatter: Believers Arguing on Behalf of Their BeliefsChuck Doswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-3494463421214529902013-02-17T14:30:18.581-06:002013-02-17T14:30:18.581-06:00John Colquhoun,
Thanks for the correction on the ...John Colquhoun,<br /><br />Thanks for the correction on the citation. If I quote from the bible, that is <i>not</i> an implicit admission that I accept any of it as truth, or even historically correct. Generally, when I quote from the bible, it's to illustrate what some believers accept as both absolute truth and absolute historical fact.<br /><br />I've discussed the definition of faith at some length. There are two diametrically-opposed definitions: belief based on evidence and belief <i>not</i> based on evidence. I respect your right to disagree, but I think most christians are using the latter, not the former definition. Generally, most christians I know consider it a virtue to believe in something for which no credible evidence can be found.<br /><br />Evidently, you think you have compelling evidence (although I don't accept it as even credible) and so your position is that your belief is based on evidence. Scriptures can't be used as evidence at all, in my opinion.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-78878645249704241022013-02-17T00:10:21.297-06:002013-02-17T00:10:21.297-06:00Chuck, I was delighted to learn you believe that J...Chuck, I was delighted to learn you believe that Jesus said the words you quoted. <br /><br />Actually, they are from Mark 10:15 rather than Mark 10:16. To understand the Bible or other writings, context often important. Mark 10:13-16 (ESV) says the following:<br />Mark 10:13 And they were bringing children to him that he might touch them, and the disciples rebuked them. <br />Mark 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God.<br />Mark 10:15 Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”<br />Mark 10:16 And he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands on them.<br /><br />Jesus’ followers, the disciples, had little regard for children, they did not think them important enough to be in Jesus’ presence. Jesus’ view is quite different. He wants even children to come to him, hence into the kingdom of God. To be in the kingdom of God is to live with Jesus as your ruler. Jesus says to enter it is necessary to come like a child. Children are trusting; especially where there is evidence that trust is justified. Children do nothing deserve or earn their relationship with God, needing to accept it as a gift. For any person to come into the kingdom of God they must trust, or have faith, in Jesus. As you say, we Christians accept Jesus as “Lord and Saviour”, but not without evidence.<br /><br />You believe that Jesus said the words in Mark 10:15, but do not believe that he is Lord. Christians believe that he is Lord from Mark’s gospel, because he: had power over evil spirits, Mark 1:23-26; healed sickness, Mark 1:30&31; cured a leper, Mark 1:40-42; healed a paralytic and forgave his sins, Mark 2:1-12; is Lord of the Sabbath, Mark 2:23-28; fed five thousand from five loaves and two fish, Mark 6:35-43; etc. He demonstrates the power of God. <br /><br />If it is rational for you to believe that Jesus said the words of Mark 10:15, why is it irrational to believe he is Lord based on the evidence of the writings of the same author?<br /><br />Christians believe that Jesus is Saviour from Mark’s gospel because he: predicted his death, how he would die and then rise to life, Mark 8:31; said how to receive salvation, giving one’s life to Jesus, Mark 8:35; died as he predicted, Mark 15; and rose to life as predicted, Mark 16:1-7. <br /><br />If it is rational for you to believe that Jesus said the words of Mark 10:15, why is it irrational to believe he is Saviour based on evidence of the writings of the same author?<br /><br />Concerning the definition of “faith”, while recently browsing the "Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms" (Grenz, Guretzki &Nordling, IVP, 1999), on p41 I read the following:<br /><br />"Duns Scotus, Scotism (c.1266-1308). A medieval Franciscan monk, philosopher and theologian who generally opposed the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. Scotus argued that faith is more a matter of exercise of will than reason. As a result, Scotism is the assertion that when the conclusions of philosophy (reason) come into conflict with the conclusions of theology (faith), the conclusions of faith must be accepted. Eventually the name Duns (dunce) became a term of ridicule, especially by certain Protestant Reformers, for those who believe without reason."<br /><br />So should we, therefore, label the definition of "faith" that says it is not based on reason or evidence the "dunce definition"?<br /><br />John Colquhounnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-63312109353123599872012-09-30T11:51:35.462-05:002012-09-30T11:51:35.462-05:00A footnote ... I recently learned of an idea of Wi...A footnote ... I recently learned of an idea of William James regarding the so-called "Will to believe doctrine". <br /><br />As noted in Wikipedia, <br /><br />"This idea foresaw the demise of evidentialism in the 20th century and sought to ground justified belief in an unwavering principle that would prove more beneficial. Through his philosophy of pragmatism William James justifies religious beliefs by using the results of his hypothetical venturing as evidence to support the hypothesis' truth. Therefore, this doctrine allows one to assume belief in God and prove His existence by what the belief brings to one's life."<br /><br />This doctrine offers no evidence to justify belief, but postulates the value of belief (in the absence of evidence) in accordance with the presumed good things that flow from having this irrational belief system. Clearly, this ignores all the negative things that could flow from an irrational belief, or perhaps assigns them less weight (for no logical reason).Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-60617160463355627782012-09-20T13:36:03.163-05:002012-09-20T13:36:03.163-05:00Thanks for posting this Chuck. It now makes sense...Thanks for posting this Chuck. It now makes sense to me why I do not feel compelled to defend or prove my faith to anyone. It’s my choice to believe as I do, period.Matt Bunkershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05142540073314268644noreply@blogger.com