Is there such a thing as a Christian?

with my trusty quarterstaff.. =)

 

OK,
1. This is very true. This shows right now that it is impossible to be a true christian.
2. This also shows that the bible contradicts itself time and time again. How can you rely on a fictional book to give you answers about your lord? I'm not trying to be mean. I just want to know the rational in that.

 

They don't think its a fictional book.

Id assume that when faced with a contradiction in the bible its thought that there is something wrong with their interpretation.
My Jehovah witness cousin describes it as "a text which is absolutely 100% true".

Also: Your using logic to measure a system that has nothing to do with evidence and falsification.

 

I think Jesus was a good man.
Better than me

he CERTAINLY had more compassion

Without thought i would 'remove all human beings over 12' including myself.. and let our species start again

As to the question is the bible the word of god...
Is house at pooh corner.. its a better read

 

As a Christian, I don't think logic is just another opinion, or that irrationalism is immune to criticism simply because it rejects evidence and falsification. Although I believe that the important questions about meaning depend on faith, faith must be consistent with known evidence, and can't involve logical contradictions. If we dismiss logic and evidence, there's no point of continuing a discussion. We should all just say "I believe", and be done with it.

 

Its one thing to call it non-overlapping magesteria, but I don't understand
how faith can be consistent with known evidence.

 

To me (and Martin Luther), faith is an educated bet on the nature of ultimate reality, coupled with the confidence to follow a course of action consistent with one's best judgment. By definition, faith is consistent with known evidence, but the ultimate meaning of known evidence is always ambiguous. Faith fills in the gaps. But when faith disregards scientific evidence, it rests on thin ice. It could be true that science is wrong. It has been before. But I wouldn't bet on it, or before I did so, I'd ask if possibly my faith is misplaced. When I read, as I have in the Christian sanctuary, that the world is 6,000 years old, based on biblical geneology, and that scientific evidence that there were Paleolithic and Neolithic cultures millenia earlier than that are erroneous, and the faculties of several scientific disciplines who have devoted their lives to painstaking research on the matter are charlatans or dupes of the Darwinists, I have faith that the fundies are out to lunch. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet my soul on it.

 

What do you mean by the 'meaning of known evidence' being ambiguous?

Like, the presence of life forms being evidence for the supernatural (fine tuning) OR the idea that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it, and is thus not profound (like you being surprised that you have eyes)?

And what do you mean by faith if it is consistent with known evidence while being able to disregard known evidence?

 

heeh2, when you put your money in a bank on Tuesday and some one robs the bank on Wednesday what happens. Were you crazy or unreasonable to have faith that your money would be safe from theft?

Must have had a reason to trust that the money would be there or we wouldn't put it there to begin with.

Some measure of faith is necessary for the critical mind to allow for probability or possibility to emerge. We are always rolling the dice again in every instant, that our lives will be consistently going down the path we set for it.

 

we can roll the dice without expectation

 

Do you? Do you not hope for success? Is there one thing that we do not do for our own good?

 

I agree with how this type of faith functions, though I don't call it 'faith'.

My problem is when someone claims faith has two functions that contradict each other, and don't want to just use two words to describe the two different functions.

Its confusing to me...

I put my money in the bank because its harder to take from there. Its not me hoping someone will not take it from the bank that leads me to make deposits. Its the 9 inch bullet-proof glass and vault. Besides, my bank insures all accounts up to like $300,000.

where does 'we' begin?

I never asked my heart to beat....

 

Took a while to get here, but I understand the confusion.

I have discussed these distinctions many times with believers because they by and large do not understand the measure of belief that is required to achieve results in time. Many believe that belief itself represents a sound resurrection technology, that if they believe with enough force in a particular idea, they earn eternal life. So people who believe this way will ignore any contravening evidence against that belief, as a matter of virtue.
Their reward is a somewhat maudlin nostalgia for an imagined future event.

However you hear me harping on a little willingness to allow for probability.
Described as the faith of a mustard seed, the smallest of all seeds. It is paying attention to the feedback loop of experience with the expectation that there is something to learn. "Unless you become as little children, you cannot enter." The thing that makes heaven accessible to little children is that they are wholly trusting, open minded.

The most famous religious personality in the western world, encouraged in no uncertain terms, the scientific method.

Seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened for you, ask and you shall receive. Do not judge by appearances, but rather use right judgment.

The reward for this approach is that the truth sets us free from ignorance.
Results in time.

A good time to take that measurement is if someone is holding your head under water.
You find that you aren't exactly ambivalent about being here.

 

Well that's sort of my point... The circumstances of being submerged in water
deprive your lungs of oxygen causing you to gasp for air. If you were suddenly
transported to one of Jupiter moons, you wouldn't keep reading this message.
We are aware of ourselves, but we're still molecular machines...

My response depends on your response because my own good is a circumstance
just like everything else is.

I didn't mean to suggest ambivalence though. I think that's a different subject.