Faith and Reason, Part 3

[AlanRussellFuller]

Hope should be based on reason, and therefore faith.1Pe_3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:Joh 4:48 Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. 1Jn_5:6...And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. Truth isn't without reason. That's plenty of reason to believe.

[laflugantabastardo]

"Satan's chalice". That's what I call the vagina.

[hopelessone15]

I wouldn't mind talking about "Satan's chalice."

[Hot0Water0Heater]

"Faith" is the greek word for "pistis" which is belief based on evidence or adherence to detail...that's the best shot I got, my tip is just to be careful next time when you quote Scriptures, you weren't accurate at certain verses, it's as if you tried to memorize it

[ProfMTH]

Where wasn't I accurate?

[Hot0Water0Heater]

In some places my Bible uses different words to express what the verses you quote say

Also to quote you: "Revelation is the grounding of faith, revelation is presented as a reason to believe. But it's not presented in terms of reason itself"

My definition of faith is just belief with evidence. You can't prove that all the objects in the universe are composed of very small, indestructible building blocks. But the atomic theory is reasoneable nonetheless, even though theory generally means guess

[ProfMTH]

"In some places my Bible uses different words to express what the verses you quote say."

Well, *that* doesn't mean I was inaccurate. lol

"My definition of faith is just belief with evidence."

OK. Just keep in mind that no such definition appears anywhere in the Bible. That's primarily what the discussion in this video series as about. Thanks for your comments.

[Hot0Water0Heater]

But in your video you agree that the Bible teaches that "the power of God"(miracles?) are cited as evidence for faith. Miracles happen nowadays although you might disagree with me on this point

I agree that the arguments for God like the first cause argument are very shaky and have been significantly weakened scientifically. I have faith because I had a personal revelation from him and because many people say the same thing, their lives were changed significantly after they prayed for Jesus

[beriukay]

Scientific theory does not mean guess. You lose all credibility when you say this. Atomic theory makes predictions that are accurate to a scale that a virus would call minuscule. If faith could actually move mountains, it might deserve the word "evidence" but it can't, so it doesn't.

[unclexbob]

the prof is way too nice. The Ascension was added 200 years after the death of Christ. Which I know he has read about, from some of his book reference in other video's. Not sure why he didn't bring this fact up in the "reason" issue. You would think such an important event during the reserection, would have been noted well enough to be note worthy sooner than 200 years later, eh?

[ronpaul20082]

unclexbob,

Please site your scholarly sources for this evidence.

Thanks.

[Veritas48]

I must say this exchange has been wonderful. It has seriously made me think long and hard about what I believe and why. I still hold to every view I proposed but I have sharpened my intellectual knife so-to-speak as to the issue surrounding my beliefs. I hope, in any way, I have helped you do the same.

[ProfMTH]

Indeed you have.

[ronpaul20082]

ProfMTH, here's one way to use video evidence to to solidify and substantiate faith that is based on hope and the EVIDENCE of things not seen. See if you can come up with a clear hypothesis on how the following video was assembled:

Google INSTANT BABY DELIVERY

[ProfMTH]

By the way, Veritas48, any thoughts on why, when Peter and the other disciples are in Jerusalem, they never invite anyone to go have a look at the empty tomb? Wouldn't showing it to people have been a somewhat powerful empirical demonstration of Jesus' resurrection?

[Veritas48]

Couple things could be said about this. For one, Peter very well could have mentioned this and it simply wasn't recorded. Also, because they were claiming everywhere they went that Jesus was risen, it could have very well been kicking a dead horse. Another issue could have been that we have records of the Jews claiming the disciples stole the body, hence they already knew of the issue.

[ProfMTH]

Interesting. All plausible in the context of the story, I suppose. Though it seems "kicking a dead horse" is impossible when the issue is what the New Testament describes as the greatest event ever: Jesus eternally transcending death. As for the purported Jewish tale that the disciples stole the body, well, my sense is that's fraught with problems. But that's another kettle of fish for another time. Thanks for the response.

[ronpaul20082]

"As for the purported Jewish tale that the disciples stole the body, well, my sense is that's fraught with problems."

The accusation of the disciples stealing the body is what modern day historians and scholars use in order to establish the empty tomb. It actually works to a Christian's advantage.

[Veritas48]

Good stuff. I guess we must agree to disagree. My sole intention was to inform people that biblical faith is not a blind leap of faith. I agree that faith is granted through revelation at times but also that the the factual statements regarding the faith claim must support the way the world really works. This is why these claims are defended by Paul and the like.

[ProfMTH]

Hmm, I don't know, Veritas48, after reading that comment I'm getting the feeling that our positions may be closer than you wish to allow. ;-) In any case, an excellent and interesting exchange.