I am assuming then that you believe moving away from freedom is irrational. Let me know if that is wrong.

Is it rational to choose irrationality intentionally? — David Mo

1) I think it is a preference to choose to lose freedom. It's not my preference, though in smaller ways and certain situations we all allow others to control us. The doctor's office. In a terrorist attack. In the military. In a corporation as an employee. So there is a wide spectrum and small to larger compromises. But even in those more radical versions where one ends up like a slave: in certain but not all cults, as an illegal immigrant working in sweatshop type conditions (and often living on the work premises), we are talking about people making choices based on values. So working from their values (and goals) they may be perfectly rational, but doing something neither you or I would want to do - and perhaps also you and are are lucky enough not to think the latter scenario is actually better than freer options that do not provide food for our families because we are better off. 2) I choose non-rationality rationally all the time. There are all sorts of decisions I make where I do not analyze in the ways generally associated with reason and logic. Now perhaps my implicit knowledge has been arrived at through some unconscious rationality, but I have to black box that. These can be decisions that have to be made quickly. They can be decisions where a vast array of factors are present and my gut reactions have been good (or in any case better than thinking it out verbally). There's a reason we evolved a mixed set of methods to arrive at decisions. Then there is the whole gut decisions on issues I simply cannot reason about, right now anyway. Is this a simulation and does that make a difference and other apriori type stuff. There's a vast array of social stuff that I use intuition for, though I often reflect later and this may or may not hone my intuition. Now this all may be a tangent, but honestly I think people are often reluctant to acknowledge how mixed their epistemologies are. How mixed the ways they arrive at decisions are. Irrational is pejorative, so I use non-rational for those processes that are not linear verbal thinking with the goal of being logical, parismonious etc.

Faith is general used as a term focusing on religion. But we all make assumptions because they seem to work for us or we don't even notice them and without some kind of scientific or deductive base. Our ideas about parenting, the opposite sex, how to succeed, when we have been rational long enough on an issue, who to avoid, how to determine what we want, when to be on alert, how to solve all sorts of problems that come up where rational analysis would need to much time or there is information overload or we have done it so long intuition is best, and so on. Some people have excellent intuitions, in general or in specific areas. It is rational to allow for that non-rational process to lead to decisions in many areas of life. It would be irrational to make all decisions rationally.

Pardon me if this went far off on a tangent or three.

Faith is the typical starting point for all Science, “believe it or not”. All Science starts with assumption and hypothesis, therefore equating itself with a faith, of sorts, but is nonetheless removed from most “spiritual” thought. After quite a bit of research into this very topic, our Science is built upon a house divided. To “believe” in the firmness of a watery, ever-changing momentum, depending upon whose perspective one chooses to side with, is merely an open display of force. This force, invisible as it is, is governed by the very laws of motion that most natural scientists agree would only apply to things we can process via sensory data. Given the dilemma brought forth here, I am rather forced to agree that our Science and our scientists are more persuaded in a faith than a Science. One cannot deny the utter invisibility of the so-called “energy”. As elusive as it may be, one cannot deny its effects on that which may be sensed. Here again though, our sensory data is said to be processed by a brain that we only see in dead animals, and yes, humans as well. But if this organ of repute would be a liar, an intelligent liar at that, how would we ever be the wiser? Seems to me to be more of a faith issue to believe there is any such thing as solidity, yet force the opposite. Yes there is water and yes there is steel, but if any Science dares make a claim to Truth, the very existence of which Absolutely dissolved every single lying experience. Truth cannot even in the slightest be divided. It either is, or is not. The sensory perception of lies does not validate the lies experienced whatsoever. It merely means the lies believed have more momentum than the Truth believed. To disregard all this, merely to appease the prideful, is to have a greater faith than most of Science is willing to admit as of yet. All the past alchemists saw this, and all died trying to “balance” what can only be dissolved. The lies only have the life that we give them. They are indeed a Fire to overcome, but once overcome, the experience of Truth clearly dominates the senses, “everywhere the sole of your feet shall go”. Faith in the Truth is to reach the belief needed to experience the Truth. Basing truth on experience is utterly circular and infinite, when put in context of Jesus Christ saying, and our psychology reaffirming, “as you have believed, so be it done unto you”. The laws of motion assure us that the momentum of belief will surely affect our experiences. It takes faith to seriously question what most believe is concrete. But the application of this faith leads to a belief that must change things, at least within our realm of experience and influence. This too is why witches were burnt for the charge of sorcery. But I digress.

... my religion is more pick and shovel. — unenlightened

Like "my language", what does that mean?

think it is a preference to choose to lose freedom. — Coben

That is impossible. The man who chooses to submit to the will of another is doing so freely and weighing the advantages of doing so. The doctor knows more than I do, the master protects me from greater evils, my employer pays me a good salary, etc. If he thinks that by doing so he has lost the use of reason and freedom he is definitely deceiving himself. At any time he can revoke his decision rationally and freely. In other words, reason and freedom are two indispensable elements of the human condition. The believer who chooses the blindness of faith does so because he wants to, even if he then tries to hide this choice and become a slave of his god or his tyrant.

What needs to be discussed is whether there are special circumstances in which it is preferable to renounce reason and freedom. And I am not talking about banal circumstances. Turning irrationality and submission into a life project seems to me to be contemptible.

Faith is the typical starting point for all Science, “believe it or not”. All Science starts with assumption and hypothesis, — PseudoB

A hypothesis is not faith. It is something provisional that must be contrasted in experience. No scientist says that a hypothesis is true before it is tested. Faith is blind, by definition. It believes that it is sufficient in itself to proclaim a truth superior to any other.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (Gal. 2:16). — Nikolas

Written by a technically illiterate person. 1. He says the same thing three times. 2. He does not realize that he just did that. 3. he calls the one and very same thing all these three: the premise, the reasoning and the conclusion. 4. He (the person who originally wrote this passage) does not realize that he is a blockhead.

“Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” — Nikolas

You are saying nobody has any faith, not even like a grain of mustard seed. No occurrance of moving mountains by saying a few words, and by saying a few words only, has been demonstrated to move mountains. Not even the bible has any passage of this. So the obvious concluson is that nobody has any faith.

The other conclusion is that whoever considers the bible true, is either incapable of rational thought, or else decides not to practice his god-given duty to use his own brain for its originally intended purpose, for crying out loud.

I'm not being critical but obviously you are unaware of the difference between faith IN Christ and the Faith OF Christ. Yet people attack Christianity and faith unaware of this essential distinction. — Nikolas

Because the difference is a complete nonsequitor. Come over to my place, move the mountain in front of my house, and I'll change my by your unapproved ways.

I understand what you are saying. You are saying that it is a linguistic nuance, a non-understanding of which is the block that stops the world from becoming Christian.

How many Christians do you know in your immediate circles who never even thought of spotting this distinction, let alone understanding it?

And I really, but really am itching to challenge you to demonstrate that YOU understand the difference, and theh after that demonsrate that your understanding is correct.

One caveat: you are not allowed to use logic, clear thinking of a sound mind, in this endeavour. You have survived and built a huge faith by doing the requirements of the caveat; why stop now? the going is still good, you still are in complete denial of the falsehoods in the bible, so just carry on, and enjoy the ride.

Truly I tell you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, — Nikolas

This is a first occurrance of naming size of faith by volume. A person has a faith the size of a mustard seed. The other person has faith of a bucket of water. A third person has the faith of a couple of D-Cups. yet another man has the faith of the Cromaides Supernova.

If you think this is stupid, then the only other interpretation (linguistically valid), is that mustard seeds themselves have faith. Size is not given in this instant, but mustard seeds are potentially capable of moving mountains, and luckly they don't because we haven't taught them how to speak. Once a mustard seed acquires language skills, with its faith it can move mountains with just a few words. Google maps would be exhausted constantly rubbing out mountains from the maps and putting them somewhere else where the mustard seed says it must go. Would be a veritable programming nightmare. But it would be not impossible, and chances are Google would hire enough programmers to adapt to this changing world.

That is impossible. The man who chooses to submit to the will of another is doing so freely and weighing the advantages of doing so. — David Mo

In some way they are doing this, sure. I am saying this in response to what I thought was your assertion that people never do this. They do. People prefer not to have to make choices. They vary in the degree of how much they avoid this and how they avoid this. They vary wildly in this. But people give away power all the time in a diverse set of ways. I am not saying this is right or good or bad or wrong. I am saying people do this. How lovely to not have to figure out WHICH expert is right for example. For example. a family member was sick. She went the normal medicine route at first but after a bit, given their treatment options and prognosis, she went alternative. Most people will not do this. Now she chose an alternative treatment with scientific support and she survived - using the regular doctors to moniter the changes which they did not understand. This took extreme bravery on her part. She decided to trust her abililty to determine which expert to believe. Most people will choose whatever the dominant expert is. Most people do not want to put themselves in a position to be actively responsible: this can be anything from clothes, to how one is supposed to view the opposite sex in one's subculture, to parenting, to health, issues where one can choose between experts or follow the experts of one's team and not think about it much exept to justify after the fact why the choice is the right one.

But beyond all this it seems obvious to me that many people prefer even more radical losses of freedom. Being attracted to a Hitler or Stalin or even quite nice versions (a guru who is gentle and nice but does give out the rules). This is a preference. It is a prefence many people have. It is not illogical or logical. It is something they desire. They want someone to make choices for them. Given that want it is logical to find someone. It seems to me you are mixed is and ought. Or really is and value. They have different values from you and from me for that matter. But what one wants one's life to be like in this general way is not illogical. Ants are not less logical than bull elephants because the latter are more individualistic and less collective in their behaviors. And humans vary in their tasts wildly.

Like "my language", what does that mean? — 180 Proof

Like I already said, it's what I do. Are you asking for an account of my life? It doesn't include a lot of church-going.

Like trusting ... obeying ... submitting ... — 180 Proof

I haven't noticed people doing a lot of this - especially not Abrahamic religionists. This is Christian theory, maybe, but practice is rather different. My claim here is that faith is practice, not theory. That's my theory and this is my practice.

No scientist says that a hypothesis is true before it is tested.

No person gets out of bed without believing the floor is there and will hold them. In order to test a hypothesis, one needs faith in the things they hold to be true. To challenge core agreements takes faith in the unseen. To get past sensory data running the show, faith is required. We have all seen things that we are forced to justify by some rational means, but this is surely to keep us from going insane. If it applies “here”, it should apply “there”, and due to that very agreement, we apply our will, and move to test our predictions.

Knowledge maintains and solidifies, according to Scripture. They term it “Belief”. Faith is to get one to the Belief that changes things typically Experienced. But if one takes the Experience as the only possible outcome, without trying to believe otherwise, without trying to do the work to reach that Belief, one stays in a sphere of the same controlled system; taught to experience what they experience.

The bigger issue here is when experience is misinterpreted as Truth. We all experience lies daily. But it takes “faith, the substance of things unseen”, to affect change Legally.

To challenge core agreements takes faith in the unseen. — PseudoB

Excuse me, but I find your writing rather confusing. You use too many colloquial expressions and it is not easy to follow your arguments.
But, to begin with, you should focus on the subject a little. We were not talking about beliefs in everyday life, but whether science is supported by some kind of faith. If you are talking about science, to say that you have faith in the invisible is to confuse things. Science talks about a multitude of invisible entities: forces, electric charges, protons, etc. What makes them scientific is not that they are visible, but that they are indispensable conditions to explain visible phenomena. Do not confuse visible phenomena with scientific entities.

That is why it can be said that every scientific statement is justified by experience, not that every scientific entity is visible.
What falls outside the field of science is what is not a phenomenon nor can it be part of a theory with predictive power, that is, it has no basis in experience of any kind. This is the case with fairies and cherubs. For different reasons they are excluded by scientific thought. If you want to believe in them you will have to get faith. This is not the case with atoms or magnetic fields. This is no a question of faith but of evidence.

If you are clear about this, we can go on.

If it applies “here”, it should apply “there”, and due to that very agreement, we apply our will, and move to test our predictions. — PseudoB

No. Predictions are not a matter of will. Prediction is the basis of the scientific method because one can control the facts by means of it . The position of the moon at any given time is predicted and the rocket lands in the Sea of Tranquillity. You cannot predict nor control facts by faith. As has been proved countless times, religious prophecies are either very vague or fail miserably. The scientific method, based on prediction, has had enough success over the centuries to be called knowledge. The failure of prophecy has brought about enough failure that it can be said to be based on illusory thinking.

So much for science. If you object no more we can move on to the thinking of the common man.

Believing something you don't know.

We were not talking about beliefs in everyday life, but whether science is supported by some kind of faith.

Sir, I follow you quite well. I just don't understand how the laws of force and momentum can ever allow for something concrete, when all they seem to offer is a watery perception that changes from person to person? Here, if allowed, I would dare to mention the "sorcery" or "mind control" of popular education, being tested and then reinforced in society via classes and such. Taking the very momentum of belief, and forcing it upon the lesser, thereby determining/forcing a specific outcome.

Now to bring this back to faith, the reason certain writings are so "undefined", is because there is only One Who is meant to decide the manifestation of those things, at that appointed time. On could say that this indeed is the basis of faith. Not needing a determined form until the determined form is brought to manifestation.

Here again though, requires a certain mindset that is not allowed in education systems. The education forces a mindset, that one must indeed go against the grain and fight the fires of the world mind. The hive-mind, if you will. To fight against this mind is a fire. The Truth though, believed, is a Fire, by which to put the fires of the world under subjection. This requires a faith, to reach the belief it takes to overcome the momentum of the hive-mind.

Forgive me for trying to shine some light on an obviously hard to even hear topic. The cognitive dissonance though, is founded on momentum of agreements. The only way to step out of those agreements, to experience something new, requires faith.

I just don't understand how the laws of force and momentum can ever allow for something concrete, when all they seem to offer is a watery perception that changes from person to person? — PseudoB

I'm sorry to say that I still don't know what you're talking about. The only law of momentum I know says:

For two or more bodies in an isolated system acting upon each other, their total momentum remains constant unless an external force is applied. Therefore, momentum can neither be created nor destroyed.

It is a law of physics. Sociology has its own laws. I don't know what it has to do with education and social classes.

Now to bring this back to faith, the reason certain writings are so "undefined", is because there is only One Who is meant to decide the manifestation of those things, — PseudoB

It seems to me that you are a bit solipsistic. I mean you carry your own closed line of thought.
If you don't respond to other people's comments this discussion goes nowhere. I'm sorry.

Sir Mo,

let's start one step at a time. What is your core issue with my stream of thought? If you base all your issues with my writing upon a universal understanding of the laws of physics, then I simply contest, with a faith and biblical basis. I'm not saying u have to agree with me either. But a scientific basis for a philosophical conversation can only go as far as the "sphere" allows. I am coming from outside that sphere, and simply pointing out two contrasting views, and foundational points of each, that do seem to cause a divide. A separation. And rightly so. The psychology of man is a simple basis for argument here. Most shrinks would agree that the agreements one holds, determine what a person will say and do, given a specific situation. It's all based on the laws of momentum, applied to things non-physical, being thoughts and agreements with those thoughts. When put in perspective of the media we are constantly bombarded by, with a basic education as a typical education, then one can simply and easily see the chance for possible indoctrination. I'm not saying you have been indoctrinated, but simply that any belief founded on a divided system such as force and potential energy, is doomed to fail, eventually. All of nature backs this up. This is not so easy to accept, due to the cognitive dissonance and the life we have given to lies immediately fending for self. Funny, the bible calls these lying beliefs, "idols". It all begins to make some amazing sense if one is willing to look past the so-called "science" they have been taught, and start to question the more foundational things: How do u experience anything at all? A brain and a nervous system, right? Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, and skin, all sending data to a brain to interpret, right?

So what if Jesus said something that totally dissolves a brain altogether??

Like you, if you're not going to answer my questions, then I will call this conversation over with too, but it does not have to be. I have some extremely wild things that I see, and I can admit that. It took me quite a while to not argue with myself. So I know how hard the path is to reach certain conclusions and accept the validity of them. But if ur basis for argument is science, then I stand on the common sense that force requiring potential energy to become more forceful, is a house divided, and cannot stand the test of time.

So what is faith??

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -- Hebrews 11:1 KJV

But I can go much, much farther with this line of reasoning than most are willing to hear.

If you wanna destroy "science" with me, I'm happy to entertain the notion.

Are u???

For 1, Faith is not Belief. Belief has the ability to change things, according to Scripture, and according to most magical books. Pacts and rituals and such are all to reinforce a Belief. But had the person had no faith in the rituals, no further action could be taken. Even Jesus Himself was limited by a town's unbelief.

In His healing of the centurion's servant, Jesus told the man to "Go! As you have believed, so be it done unto you".

Now we can easily contest science here, at least as far as how most have been taught. They have been taught to believe a criteria based upon sensory data, when the belief itself determines the sensory data.

Do you see a problem here?

Now comes the issue of momentum of belief, or as is biblically known as "iniquity".... the momentum of lying beliefs. They affect how we experience our world. And it take quite the effort to overthrow these lying beliefs, once believed. Kinda like trying to un-know something. Not so simple. Once we know it, we know it.

That is not to say it cannot be done tho. But then it becomes threatening to societies everywhere, because this "believer" of some "idea", actually stands to restructure the entire lying system.

Therefore, that is why Pilot allowed the Jews to crucify the Master.

Faith is to get us to a belief that changes things.

But a scientific basis for a philosophical conversation can only go as far as the "sphere" allows. I am coming from outside that sphere — PseudoB

Excuse me, but you entered the sphere of science when you stated that science is based on faith. I have replied to you about this. If you do not want to pursue this issue, I have no problem. Let's go outside.

It's all based on the laws of momentum, applied to things non-physical, being thoughts and agreements with those thoughts. — PseudoB

The laws of social psychology - if they exist - are not like the laws of physics. You call the "law of momentum" a simple empirical generalisation : many people are strongly influenced by some (which?) social agents. This is not very precise but we can take it as a starting point. I agree. The churches are a good example. Many people are indoctrinated by them and lose their ability to think for themselves. The priest says "Kill!" and they kill. "Hate X!" and they hate X. MIchel Foucault wrote a very good book on the techniques of indoctrination by confession in the Catholic Church. But the scenes of mass hysteria in other Christian meetings or the killers of Allah are other examples among many others.

So what if Jesus said something that totally dissolves a brain altogether?? — PseudoB

Well, now it seems that you want to enter into biblical exegesis. I don't mind. I know something about it. I suffered from the Church's indoctrination techniques for a few years. But in my readings of the Bible I never found Jesus engaged in "dissolving" brains. If so, what a danger!

So what is faith?? — PseudoB

If you are going to take a two thousand year old doctrinal text as an English dictionary we are lost.
At the time of the Epistle to the Hebrews there was no science in the present sense and the author does not seem to know anything about his philosophy of the time. For example, Plato believed that the true reality is invisible but he did not claim by faith but by reason. That is why defining faith as the knowledge of the invisible is neither clear nor distinct.

If you want to take a biblical reference I think Paul is a better reference.

For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. (1 Cor 1:21)

You see: Faith is the knowledge that God gives to believers against the wisdom of reason. Pure irrationality. This has if it means anything.

If you wanna destroy "science" with me, I'm happy to entertain the notion. — PseudoB

I don't want to destroy "science" with you. I will not go into Pauline fanaticism. I think that irrationality is a bad option for man. But I will be glad to discuss abut this with you on the plane of rational arguments. If you come here to indoctrinate with Sunday sermons I am not interested at all.

Faith is not Belief — PseudoB

Faith is a type of belief. Belief means an opinion or idea that is held to be true. Faith is a belief that is not based on rational arguments. It is a pure opinion. These are the usual meanings of the word faith.

If you think that faith is not a belief, define both terms to know where we are going.

Do you see a problem here? — PseudoB

I don't have a problem. You have a problem. Science does not believe in sense data without reason. It uses sense data to predict facts. Belief in sense data is not irrational but is based on the success of the prediction. Your problem is that I have already explained this to you a day ago and you are ignoring my explanation.
Please answer this, and we can continue.

Faith is to get us to a belief that changes things. — PseudoB

The lights of reason promoted by enlightened philosophers have led to open societies and the doctrine of human rights. What has faith contributed? The wars of religion and the inquisitorial fires. Of course, faith manages to change things... towards intolerance and sectarianism. It would be better if it did not change them.

I find two beliefs trying to coexist, in your attack on faith. Don’t get me wrong, I see the very same inquisition fires and fanatical groups, but on all sides of the coin. To me, there is that which feeds life, and appears to be that which feeds death.

Life grows.

Death consumes, and is never full.

I personally cannot separate faith from science. Any time we place a set of laws on our actions, to reach a specific goal, it’s a science we are seeking. So then I guess I have to retract my desire to “destroy science”.

I am set on the belief of the Bible, and more from common sense than anything. But if looked at as a Science of how to achieve the miracles discussed, along with a path to Heaven, it does seem rational. One “the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand” finally gets understood as the Mind, a great many miracles become attainable.

That is another word needing defined as well. What is a miracle? A manifestation of Truth in a world full of lying experiences.

If the Bible claims to be the Truth, then our Science should be seeking to reach those goals. Not a Science to “do as thou wilt”.

But again we get sidetracked from our main topic. “What is faith”?

First of all, this “2000 year old doctrinal book”, as you described it, is a compilation of 60 books, from multiple places, having no more communication than horseback delivered messages, traveling through opposition much less restrained than our times, yet still managing to reach the cohesion necessary to be understood and practiced. Different writers had never communicated with others whatsoever. Yet all come together perfectly.

The control tactics of the church buildings of the past are despicable. Yes it gets worse as time goes on. Just because it’s not openly torching people does not mean it’s less extreme measures are less effective.

Let’s separate the buildings from the writings tho. If one claims a faith, it should be in the writings, or founded therein. Not an organization of man.

1Sam. 8 clarifies this issue rather clearly.

Again tho, we are back to “what is faith”?

If as you say, faith and belief are one and the same, then we must indeed trash the entire book that says we can reach these “miracles” by faith, which you say is belief. If that is all the further you choose to search it out, then that is all that you will get.

Faith questions the norm. Just because it is accepted that “what goes up must come down”, Faith challenges that belief.

But it’s what one puts their faith in that matters. Faith in man? Or faith in the Truth? Faith in experience? Or faith in the Truth?

Only by Faith can we reach experience of the Truth, due to the circular problem of basing our truth off of experiences. That is not how the Book says to experience the Truth. So we experience lies, and justify them as Truth. But if we can experience lies, that throws a damaging blow to our science, wouldn’t u say??

As for the wars caused by Faith, that one is a bit touchy, but I will try.

If one looks at what helps “life” grow, and what helps “death” grow, the murder of murderers would in fact be “life sustaining”, thereby justifying even the wars in the Bible itself.

Taken out of context tho, this would be used as license to do as thou wilt.

No different than restraining a child from running into traffic. Are u withholding their freedom from them?? Or saving a life?

To wipe out an entire nation, would only be justified by God Alone. Otherwise it is the eugenicists that believe that the whole must be destroyed.

Now if God chose to do so, is He not justified?? How He chooses to do it, using man, or fire from Heaven, or whatever other method, seems to me justified. If “we have nothing that wasn’t given”, as the Bible claims, then that includes our thoughts, and leaves only two sides for their source.

Their is a science to the miracles of Jesus Christ. That science tho, has been twisted, and used to murder and steal and rape and pillage.

To look past the supposed boundaries of societies, is to ask to be put outside society, and that, most find to be insanity to chase after.

It is a monster to wrestle with. To be looked down on from all of society, simply because you challenge the ways of that society. But to do that, it risks your housing, food, friendships, etc.

That requires Faith.

To begin to dissolve the lying risks.

Force requires potential energy to grow more forceful, right? Are not the risks forcing upon the mind?? And who gives the life to the risks?

You are the PE.

Unless you’re gonna say that the risks are there regardless of whether or not you believe them to be? Now we enter into the hive-mind. Society.

I'm sorry, I'm not interested in hearing sermons.

I respond with valid data.

Hi TheMadFool,

It seems to me as though in your post you claim that the faith that Christians have in Christ is based on a certain set of miracles He performed (such as the ones you mention feeding five thousand with a loaf of bread, etc.) I would like to offer an alternative, however. The notion of faith I have is not one that is based directly from the miracles Christ performed. After all, how could my beliefs be founded directly on evidence I can’t set my eyes to or perceive on my own. But what I (at least myself) claim my faith to be based off is on the testimony of such miracles. I know it sounds even more far-fetched that believing directly on said miracles Christ performed. But I believe this account of faith avoids a common problem of perceiving it as beliefs on the basis of no evidence. But are testimonies not an acceptable means of evidence in court? I believe it is not irrational to have faith in Christ and His person based on testimonies from His time and the miracles He performed. I do not wish to persuade you into believing, of course. But I do aim to offer a more rational understanding on the notion of faith at least some Christians have. If I am not wrong, I believe the hard part of holding a faith in Christ is not necessarily believing in the miracles described, but rather in believing the sources by which we come to know of said miracles. Suppose you were to bear witness to a miracle such as Christ healing a crippled by standing 1 foot away from the act. Such an example, it seems to be (and I would love to hear your thought ) puts into perspective what is truly hard about having faith in Christ. I personally believe it is harder due to the available sources in which we need to believe in order to have faith in Him, than it is hard due to the surprising miracles we read about in the Bible.

Let me know what you think! Pleasure talking to you.

— Joaquin

But are testimonies not an acceptable means of evidence in court? — Joaquin

In no court would an anonymous and contradictory text written hundreds of years ago (it is not very well known when) be admitted as testimony, telling fantastic stories with the obvious purpose of lifting up to the heavens someone we do not know for sure existed.

To believe in the testimony of the gospels is to swim against the tide. Even Christian exegetes recognized long ago (Bultmann, Schweitzer, etc.) that the gospels cannot be taken as historical documents.

If your faith is based on that testimony it has very little basis.

Hi David Mo,

My mistake. I did not intend to claim that testimonies of the Bible written thousands of years ago would be admitted as valid testimony today. I only meant to make a distinction between faith based on miracles and faith based on testimony.