Remember that Dutch comic about Mohamad?

[Variol (Farseer) Elmwood]

Alrighty then,
I think we've pretty much beat the crap out of it. Shall we stick a fork in it?

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Maybe i'm not following as I don't see a connection between these examples and the context. I've seen a plane fly before so I know it is possible. There is no faith required in the fact that it can get off the ground, and that the people can get it off the ground. They have proven they can, and if I don't believe them they can show me. There may be a level of trust involved, such as the trust you place in the pilot being sober and the company who hired him being meticulous..?

A similar process happens with any faith. By faith Peter walked on water, because he saw Jesus walking on water, and just did it. No doubt. You see a plane take off, and so get on another plane. No doubt?

Certainly when I sing, I have faith I am going to hit the note before I hit it. And so I do. When I teach singing, I time and again, see students do what they have never done before, because the teacher in front of them sings something they need to replicate, which they then do so without time to doubt. So they do it. Confidence is 80% of singing. Lots of little tries and errors so you understand your parametres, and with some logic, have faith that you can sing certain notes.

But tell me this. If you were at an airport, and 4 planes crashed prior to your flight, how much faith in your aircraft would you have?

Faith is proceeding with something you do not know for certain. Some things are easy and almost automatic to have faith in. Others take much more faith.

But a strong faith in God is a logical thing. My faith in any case, is based on observation and analysis of cause and effect, along with self experimentation. I believe God "speaks" to me (to use a simplistic description) encouraging me to what is beneficial to me, my wife or my friends.

I have repeatedly tested this over the years, ignored it to my detriment, followed it when it seems crazy, and found that my life goes better when I listen and do what he says, and much worse when I ignore it.

So after an accumulation of experiences like this, my faith and trust in God builds. I believe he loves me. I believe he answers prayer. I believe he is with me in good times, bad times and in between. I can see, looking at what has happened in my life with longer perspective, that many of the "bad" things were actually good. That there is a certain sense of direction to events I had no understanding of.

My life thus becomes a conversation. I try and thank him for each moment, with it's colours, sounds, feelings, thoughts, sensations. If, as an artist, all he created was the room I'm in now, it's brilliant, and I'm glad to be alive to experience that art!

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Jaradu The difference between science and religion is that one is negotiable, the other isn't. I'm perfectly willing to change or alter my beliefs in light of new evidence, whereas a religious person is rewarded for doing the opposite, calling it "faith", and getting a big pat on the back.

??

Faith is constantly being revised with new understanding. Just as science is. Faith grows man.

Originally Posted by dplax The problem with books like the Bible, the Quran, etc... is that they can be interpreted in many ways. At times it is possible to find a passage that can be interpreted for something and then to find another passage for the opposite.

Only if you take it out of context bro. The Bible needs to be read in entirety or at least contextual understanding, so that an apparently odd verse makes sense. Otherwise you may take a poem as a commandment for example.

Originally Posted by dplax Well since I don't currently have any of the books readily available and it has been years since I read either of them (out of curiosity) I don't have an easily available example, but a pretty striking example would be that many Christian groups use the Bible as their holy book, yet they have different ideas (homosexuality for example). Or some people interpreting the Qu'ran as needing to blow themselves and a couple dozen people up and others living their lives in peace. I know these aren't concrete examples, but I don't have much to work with here and since I am at work wouldn't want to stray too much among websites.

The differences about homosexuality depend entire on which testament the person is using. If you've read the new testament, the sins of homosexuality so abhorred in the old testament are placed in context under the statement: "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

Every human is imperfect: gay, straight, married with 7 kids, divorced and remarried 13 times, a rapist, a virgin etc etc etc

The point is the old testament should give us God's intent for human development.
Obviously if humans are to reproduce, man and woman are intended to be having sex.
If genetic diseases are to be avoided, incest and affairs resulting in half-siblings everywhere, are to be prohibited.
But there are other laws, about:
* not eating shellfish (as they eat ocean poo)
* not eating pork (which goes rotten quickly)
* using a shovel to bury your poo (avoid flies)
* keeping mothers and newborn kids in isolation for a month after birth (to prevent disease and death)
* having a day off each week
* having a year of jubliee every 50 years to remove debt and start from zero (could we have this one this year please? remove third world debt anyone??)

But the new testament shows us Jesus' love, atoning death and how faith in him covers our deviance from God's intent. If anything, the law of the old tesament presents us with an unreachable bar we cannot jump across, while the new testament shows Jesus jumping over the bar for us.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Illumina Drathiran'ar Then where do black people come from?

Micro-evolution, the way humans have bred dogs and horses, or the way Humans vary from person to person, family to family or so-called "race" to "race" is not the same thing as mutation into new species. "Black" people are not a different species of human! lol

That's the great thing about science... It doesn't care if you accept it. It just is

One can say the same thing about God.
But what we're talking about is what we KNOW about Science. We're looking at the same data, but arriving at different conclusions. I'm not rejecting the science, just the theory about the science.

Originally Posted by Stratos Instead, the arguments tend to be theological or ethical. "If we've evolved, where doeas morality come from", "Does evolution mean that the Fall of Man isn't real? No sins? But Jesus died for our sins" and so on.

Stratos I've never heard someone defend creationism in such a way. Sorry if that's been your experience, that would be frustrating.
All of those things - morality, fall of man etc - can still exist in an evolutionary worldview by taking Genesis symbolically.
The question of how the earth formed something we're in the process of discovering, but all we're doing is looking at the effects. None of us were there to witness it, so degrees of speculation, faith in those speculations and hypothesis are always going to exist. We create THEORIES about what we observe.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Lavindathar Remember the Holy Crusades? just an example of an early religious war, far before cars were around. And most modern day killer diseases hadn't even appeared yet. I bet the % of wars where religion is a factor, is very high maybe.

Did you know that the American civil war to end slavery caused proportionally more deaths than any other war America has been involved in? Some things take war to achieve. War, while universally loathed, may not actually be as bad as the result of perpetually capitulating to unthinkable evils.

However, that's an aside. Let's look at the crusades.

#1 'Christendom' lost. They got their butts kicked. If anyone has a right to be bitter, it's Christendom. It was an unmitigated disaster on so many levels.

#2 I would again say that FEAR and GREED were the primary causes of the crusades, and that religion was used to motivate both poor peasants in France, and poor nomads in the middle east to kill each other.

#3 If the crusades was really about Christianity vs Islam, then why did the 4th crusaders sack Constantinople, the capital of Orthodox christianity, and an indisputably 'Christian City' (whether a Christian city can actually exist on earth at all is another discussion)

The 4th crusade didn't even make it to "the holy land".

War is not caused by religion, but by the base human experiences of fear, greed, hate, revenge, etc etc. Though one could also say LOVE may propel someone to defend a family, mixed in with FEAR of their being hurt.

[Stratos]

Originally Posted by Yorick Stratos I've never heard someone defend creationism in such a way. Sorry if that's been your experience, that would be frustrating. All of those things - morality, fall of man etc - can still exist in an evolutionary worldview by taking Genesis symbolically. The question of how the earth formed something we're in the process of discovering, but all we're doing is looking at the effects. None of us were there to witness it, so degrees of speculation, faith in those speculations and hypothesis are always going to exist. We create THEORIES about what we observe.

Of course, but if you interpret Genesis literally as an historical event it becomes fairly difficult to combine it with the theory of Evolution. The line of reasoning tend to go:

Evolution -> no Garden of Eden -> no Fall of Man/Original sin -> no point in Jesus death -> no point of life.

It usually isn't described as openly as the above but the arguments are sometimes there if you puzzle it together.

[Jaradu]

Originally Posted by Yorick ?? Faith is constantly being revised with new understanding. Just as science is. Faith grows man.

If faith is adaptable then doesn't that undermine the infallibility of holy texts? Especially for a literalist such as yourself.

The only time faith adapts is in the face of overwhelming evidence where it would be ridiculous not to adapt. If you're confident your god-of-the-gaps exists, then fine, but for some we see a pattern emerging. (ie. as things explained by science goes up, things explained by religion goes down)

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Stratos Of course, but if you interpret Genesis literally as an historical event it becomes fairly difficult to combine it with the theory of Evolution. The line of reasoning tend to go: Evolution -> no Garden of Eden -> no Fall of Man/Original sin -> no point in Jesus death -> no point of life. It usually isn't described as openly as the above but the arguments are sometimes there if you puzzle it together.

And yet the Roman Catholic Church manage to work it together.

Evolutionism is not atheism.

[Yorick]

Originally Posted by Jaradu If faith is adaptable then doesn't that undermine the infallibility of holy texts? Especially for a literalist such as yourself.

There's a difference between the adaptability of faith, and the constancy of the written word. The text doesn't change, but how one understands that text and how they apply it in their life does change.

The only time faith adapts is in the face of overwhelming evidence where it would be ridiculous not to adapt. If you're confident your god-of-the-gaps exists, then fine, but for some we see a pattern emerging. (ie. as things explained by science goes up, things explained by religion goes down)

Not so. Christianity is what's called a progressive and revelatory faith. People alive today should have more understanding of God because we've been able to see the work of the Holy Spirit through generations. In the book "the victory of reason" http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason.../dp/1400062284 it is explained what effects this approach to faith had on society's progression.

Here's a quick review:

From Publishers Weekly It is a commonplace to think of Christianity and rationalism as opposite historical and philosophical forces. In this stimulating and provocative study, Stark (The Rise of Christianity) demonstrates that elements within Christianity actually gave rise not only to visions of reason and progress but also to the evolution of capitalism. Stark contends that Christianity is a forward-looking religion, evincing faith in progress and in its followers' abilities to understand God over time. Such a future-based rational theology has encouraged the development of technical and organizational advances, such as the monastic estates and universities of the Middle Ages. Stark contends that these developments transformed medieval political philosophy so that democracy developed and thrived in those states, such as northern Italy, that lacked despots and encouraged moral equality. Stark concludes by maintaining that Christianity continues to spread in places like Africa, China and Latin America because of its faith in progress, its rational theology and its emphasis on moral equality. While some historians are likely to question Stark's conclusions, his deftly researched study will force them to imagine a new explanation for the rise of capitalism in Western society. (Dec.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by Jaradu If faith is adaptable then doesn't that undermine the infallibility of holy texts? Especially for a literalist such as yourself. The only time faith adapts is in the face of overwhelming evidence where it would be ridiculous not to adapt. If you're confident your god-of-the-gaps exists, then fine, but for some we see a pattern emerging. (ie. as things explained by science goes up, things explained by religion goes down)

Adaptable faith doesn't undermine the infallibility of holy texts. Rather it underlines the fallibility of human believers.

My personal faith has adapted dramatically over time as my understanding of the holy texts increased. Just as scientists change their opinions with new evidence or evidence presented in a clearer manner.

A good example of adaptable faith is Jim Bakker. I saw an interview he gave after being released from prison and have to admit I was very impressed. When asked about the lifestyle he and Tammy Faye led before prison, Jim answered that it was HIS fault. HE had taken one verse of the Bible (where God promises to reward those faithful to Him) and used it to convince himself he deserved all the wealth and luxury he was enjoying. Once God took it away and brought him down from his worldly heights, Bakker said he realized how wrong he had been. It wasn't the Bible that failed, it was Jim Bakker.

The same is true for the verse that God will grant the desires of your heart if you believe in Him. That doesn't mean God is going to give me the Powerball number this week (though it sure wouldn't hurt my feelings if He did ). It means that, as a Christian grows in fellowship with God through the Holy Spirit and understanding of God's Word, our desires more closely resemble God's desire for our lives. Now sometimes, it does lead to financial success and security, but not always.