More Christian love.

[truetrini]

When I walk I have faith that gravity will not cause me to hurl into out of space.  When I go to bed I have faith In will awake in the mroning.  I have faith, just not in a God..or gods.

Check out Hume's Induction Problem

Problem of induction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge. That is, what is the justification for either:

   1. generalising about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white," before the discovery of black swans) or

   2. presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold).

The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method. Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later. A more recent, probability-based extension is the "no-free-lunch theorem for supervised learning" of Wolpert and Macready.

So, maybe tomorrow morning, gravity will fail and you will be hurled into space 

And maybe when you die you will sprout some wings and ascend into some spiritual shangri-la in the heavens?

from a nut to a butterfly...ain't evoultion wonderful?

 

Actually, you know I doh believe in that spiritual shangri-la .   When I die, my organs going to someone who could use them (if they still good).  And hopefully, I will live on as fond memories of my relatives and friends.  That is all I hope for.

But the nut to butterfly concept pretty funny

So why you wasting time arguing about existence of God or Gods..yuh should jes live.....and enjoy life...to the fullest.

you mean like how you do?

Show me where I ague about the existence of God..I state my opinion on his NON EXISTENCE

[Preacher]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

While reading this thing I thought it amazing that we can even attempt to separate faith from God regardless of religion.  Faith is what I would call the "God gene."  It's in everyone. The same way God created the world is the same way we create our worlds and interact with it.  It's all by faith.  It actually takes more faith to not believe in a heavenly Father than to believe.  To not believe in God takes a lot of doing, considering that we all believe in something bigger than ourselves.  There is ALWAYS something.  Some ideology, theory or thesis. 

The funny thing is though, those that claim there is no God suddenly find him in the midst of peril.  Without thinking they quickly abandon their views and call to heaven.  "OH GOD!!!!" They call as if they new Him all along.  The call is as pure and sincere as a child calling for the help of a father, whom he/she "believes" can do something to help their situation.

There was a french philosopher called Voltaire.  Voltaire was very proud of his atheism.  One time during a debate he boldly claimed that in 50 years the bible would be just another book if in print at all.  Voltaire was a very intelligent and respected philosopher.  On the night Voltaire died he laid in bed tied like an animal.  His friends tried to relieve his torment by getting him drunk but to no avail.  He kept screaming about things coming for him. At the end he sat up in bed and said, "I am damned, I am damned."   His maid said all the money in the world is not worth watching an infidel die.  Today his house is owned by the bible society.  The bible is still here and he is not.

There aren't any atheists on the front lines of war either.  Being confronted with our mortally releases true reality.  It "prepares us to meet our marker" so to speak.  At the end, all men believe.  For many it's to late to put any action to the faith we had all along.  And that's the damn misery of it. 

[just cool]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

While reading this thing I thought it amazing that we can even attempt to separate faith from God regardless of religion.  Faith is what I would call the "God gene."  It's in everyone. The same way God created the world is the same way we create our worlds and interact with it.  It's all by faith.  It actually takes more faith to not believe in a heavenly Father than to believe.  To not believe in God takes a lot of doing, considering that we all believe in something bigger than ourselves.  There is ALWAYS something.  Some ideology, theory or thesis. 

The funny thing is though, those that claim there is no God suddenly find him in the midst of peril.  Without thinking they quickly abandon their views and call to heaven.  "OH GOD!!!!" They call as if they new Him all along.  The call is as pure and sincere as a child calling for the help of a father, whom he/she "believes" can do something to help their situation.

There was a french philosopher called Voltaire.  Voltaire was very proud of his atheism.  One time during a debate he boldly claimed that in 50 years the bible would be just another book if in print at all.  Voltaire was a very intelligent and respected philosopher.  On the night Voltaire died he laid in bed tied like an animal.  His friends tried to relieve his torment by getting him drunk but to no avail.  He kept screaming about things coming for him. At the end he sat up in bed and said, "I am damned, I am damned."   His maid said all the money in the world is not worth watching an infidel die.  Today his house is owned by the bible society.  The bible is still here and he is not.

There aren't any atheists on the front lines of war either.  Being confronted with our mortally releases true reality.  It "prepares us to meet our marker" so to speak.  At the end, all men believe.  For many it's to late to put any action to the faith we had all along.  And that's the damn misery of it. 

I eh go lie, yuh real live up tuh yuh name in this post here breddren. on another note, there's one verse in the bible and the quran that does set this atheistic view straight. yuh can't make the def tuh hear nor the blind tuh see, so leave them in their darkness, deaf dumb and blindly wondering on, they will soon come tuh know" !

[pecan]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

Well, actually, is a atheist who start this thread.  Not JC.

Just shows how the world unfolds according to set of arcane rules that may or may not have been created by God.

[ribbit]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

While reading this thing I thought it amazing that we can even attempt to separate faith from God regardless of religion.  Faith is what I would call the "God gene."  It's in everyone. The same way God created the world is the same way we create our worlds and interact with it.  It's all by faith.  It actually takes more faith to not believe in a heavenly Father than to believe.  To not believe in God takes a lot of doing, considering that we all believe in something bigger than ourselves.  There is ALWAYS something.  Some ideology, theory or thesis. 

The funny thing is though, those that claim there is no God suddenly find him in the midst of peril.  Without thinking they quickly abandon their views and call to heaven.  "OH GOD!!!!" They call as if they new Him all along.  The call is as pure and sincere as a child calling for the help of a father, whom he/she "believes" can do something to help their situation.

There was a french philosopher called Voltaire.  Voltaire was very proud of his atheism.  One time during a debate he boldly claimed that in 50 years the bible would be just another book if in print at all.  Voltaire was a very intelligent and respected philosopher.  On the night Voltaire died he laid in bed tied like an animal.  His friends tried to relieve his torment by getting him drunk but to no avail.  He kept screaming about things coming for him. At the end he sat up in bed and said, "I am damned, I am damned."   His maid said all the money in the world is not worth watching an infidel die.  Today his house is owned by the bible society.  The bible is still here and he is not.

There aren't any atheists on the front lines of war either.  Being confronted with our mortally releases true reality.  It "prepares us to meet our marker" so to speak.  At the end, all men believe.  For many it's to late to put any action to the faith we had all along.  And that's the damn misery of it. 

preacher, where you get that chain upaccount about voltaire on his death bed? they say the same thing about darwin - how he had a death bed conversion. is some priest come up with that.

ah find this belief in god based on very selective vision and hearing. belief that is based on cherry-picking evidence to suit a preconceived claim doh meet the test of reason. this is the same logicial flaw with creationism - e.g. the proof that god exists is that god exists. but yuh won't learn logic or reason from a religious text. yet some believer would tell yuh ALL yuh need to know is in de bible/koran/etc.. i.e. doh bother with anything else. better yuh learn to recite de bible backwards before yuh open a book on aristotle or descartes. what value is a faith that is not tested?

preacher, tell me why it is that yuh ask 100 believers what they think God is and yuh will find disagreement amongst them? ironically, dis confusion doh affect non-believers.

[Bakes]

Okay I have a window of time to respond in some depth...

Hmmm . . I don’t share your conclusion that the concept of a Justified True Belief (JTB) is a false dichotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

This is but one definition of knowledge and like any hypothesis, it is subject to challenge (and has been challenged).

As I said=> False dichotomy.  To begin with you're using a definition of KNOWLEDGE... albeit one singular definition by your own admission. Religion isn't derived from "KNOW-ledge" because by definition faith and knowledge (synonymous in this regard with "belief" above) are mutually exclusive.  Either the belief is derived by faith or it's based on knowledge one or the other, it can't be both.  We have FAITH precisely because we don't KNOW for fact. This is why I said that faith and belief in the context you offer are incompatible.  Just as you cannot hope to contain the infinite (a thorough understanding of God) within the finite (the human mind), similarly you cannot fit faith into any knowledge derived mold because inevitably "faith" fails the definition and what you end up with is either a conclusion that it's irrational, or that it is flawed.  Again, a false dichotomy.  Using night as the baseline to describe day, conclude that day is not night and therefore day is false (or illogical) for not being night, thereby arriving at a pre-determined conclusion.

But within the context that I used it, "belief" and "faith" are not mutually exclusive nor do I see the basis for your argument that there is “no such thing as justified or unjustified belief”. In fact, one can argue the opposite. Beliefs can be based on empirical evidence i.e. they are justified or they can be unjustified as religious Faith tends to be.

Of course they are... as I described above.  Your contextual use of "belief" is one derived by empirical evidence, as you yourself say.  There is no way to rationalize, gauge, measure or calibrate the process by which we derive our faith.  It is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable and you cannot insist on forcing it into a discursive mold which it cannot fit... only to then pronounce it broken for not having fit the limited mold you started with.  More below...

Religious Faith describes a belief of something without adequate reason or justification.  In this context, ‘Justification’ is just a reason for holding a belief and should not be viewed as a word loaded with judgment.

Again.... according to YOUR limited definition.  If you limit the definition of faith to some subjective standard as "something without adequate reason or justification" then of course you end up with a flawed conclusion.  It's no different than European anthropologists insisting during the early 20th Century, that the mark of an intelligent civilization is the development of a written language.  They then used that limited definition to advance their own agenda in pronouncing African civilization as primitive, for having fallen short of their stinted criteria.  By that definition African civilization was doomed to fail their test... just as by limiting "belief" along some "knowledge" tautology dooms it to fail that stinted standard.

To answer you comment about “ 'I'm not sure where all that "justified believer" talk come in' the concept of a 'justified believer’ is related to the posts on Faith and is not a non sequitur.
Continuing from above... and addressing this statement directly... speak to any Christian and they will likely be able to articulate for you a justification (or "just reason") for their faith.  If however you base acceptance of that justification on some arbitrary "adequate" standard, then by definition you subjectively reserve the right to denounce faith as being not adequate enough.  You cannot assert proprietary rights to the application of "adequate justification" and then apply circular logic to then pronounce "faith" as being "unjustified". By starting with that subjective, arbitrary standard you establish the false dichotomy from the onset.

The use of the JTB to analyze Faith leads to the humorous conclusion (IMO) that atheists and non-atheists have much in common if this logic is applied equally to both beliefs.  This is not a comment on the accuracy of the concept of JTB.  Hence it is not a “false dichotomy” nor "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"...

Of course you can claim the night is really day and day is really night, the evidence notwithstanding... that is your right.  The incongruity of your logic has been dissected with as much detail as I can spare at this time, but if you insist that it still makes sense then who am I to argue with you?

[pecan]

Okay I have a window of time to respond in some depth...

Hmmm . . I don’t share your conclusion that the concept of a Justified True Belief (JTB) is a false dichotomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justified_true_belief

This is but one definition of knowledge and like any hypothesis, it is subject to challenge (and has been challenged).

As I said=> False dichotomy.  To begin with you're using a definition of KNOWLEDGE... albeit one singular definition by your own admission. Religion isn't derived from "KNOW-ledge" because by definition faith and knowledge (synonymous in this regard with "belief" above) are mutually exclusive.  Either the belief is derived by faith or it's based on knowledge one or the other, it can't be both.  We have FAITH precisely because we don't KNOW for fact. This is why I said that faith and belief in the context you offer are incompatible.  Just as you cannot hope to contain the infinite (a thorough understanding of God) within the finite (the human mind), similarly you cannot fit faith into any knowledge derived mold because inevitably "faith" fails the definition and what you end up with is either a conclusion that it's irrational, or that it is flawed.  Again, a false dichotomy.  Using night as the baseline to describe day, conclude that day is not night and therefore day is false (or illogical) for not being night, thereby arriving at a pre-determined conclusion.

But within the context that I used it, "belief" and "faith" are not mutually exclusive nor do I see the basis for your argument that there is “no such thing as justified or unjustified belief”. In fact, one can argue the opposite. Beliefs can be based on empirical evidence i.e. they are justified or they can be unjustified as religious Faith tends to be.

Of course they are... as I described above.  Your contextual use of "belief" is one derived by empirical evidence, as you yourself say.  There is no way to rationalize, gauge, measure or calibrate the process by which we derive our faith.  It is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable and you cannot insist on forcing it into a discursive mold which it cannot fit... only to then pronounce it broken for not having fit the limited mold you started with.  More below...

Religious Faith describes a belief of something without adequate reason or justification.  In this context, ‘Justification’ is just a reason for holding a belief and should not be viewed as a word loaded with judgment.

Again.... according to YOUR limited definition.  If you limit the definition of faith to some subjective standard as "something without adequate reason or justification" then of course you end up with a flawed conclusion.  It's no different than European anthropologists insisting during the early 20th Century, that the mark of an intelligent civilization is the development of a written language.  They then used that limited definition to advance their own agenda in pronouncing African civilization as primitive, for having fallen short of their stinted criteria.  By that definition African civilization was doomed to fail their test... just as by limiting "belief" along some "knowledge" tautology dooms it to fail that stinted standard.

To answer you comment about “ 'I'm not sure where all that "justified believer" talk come in' the concept of a 'justified believer’ is related to the posts on Faith and is not a non sequitur.
Continuing from above... and addressing this statement directly... speak to any Christian and they will likely be able to articulate for you a justification (or "just reason") for their faith.  If however you base acceptance of that justification on some arbitrary "adequate" standard, then by definition you subjectively reserve the right to denounce faith as being not adequate enough.  You cannot assert proprietary rights to the application of "adequate justification" and then apply circular logic to then pronounce "faith" as being "unjustified". By starting with that subjective, arbitrary standard you establish the false dichotomy from the onset.

The use of the JTB to analyze Faith leads to the humorous conclusion (IMO) that atheists and non-atheists have much in common if this logic is applied equally to both beliefs.  This is not a comment on the accuracy of the concept of JTB.  Hence it is not a “false dichotomy” nor "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"...

Of course you can claim the night is really day and day is really night, the evidence notwithstanding... that is your right.  The incongruity of your logic has been dissected with as much detail as I can spare at this time, but if you insist that it still makes sense then who am I to argue with you?

I do appreciate your response because it is a well thought out argument which causes me to examine my line of reasoning.      Thanks for your insight and taking the time to reply. Appreciated.


I don’t disagree with your logic as hinged on what I infer to be your definition of the word "justification". But here is where I think we diverge.  I am using the word justification in a strictly technical sense (which I have repeatably stated up front).  But when I read your response I have to conclude that you have attached moral and judgmental attributes to my use of the word “justification’ which naturally leads you to the erroneous conclusion that I have pronounced religious faith 'broken' and that my argument is incongruous.

Consider Hebrews 11:1-3

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible."

That quote says it all.

I am not limiting my definition of Faith to an arbitrary standard as you state.  Faith is what it is:   assurance of things unseen (unproven, unseen i.e unjustified). And that is not a condemnation of Faith. Rather, that is an elevation of the concept of Faith. Faith is to be cherished, not denounced. To believe in something when you have no justification, to have complete trust without question, without doubt, without a construct to lean on, is what I call religious Faith. That is the absolute definition of faith.  No justification, but you still believe in an absolute being who loves you. (this is where I disagree with Preacher as it takes more courage to believe in the absence of proof that it takes to believe in the presence of proof).

So you and I will agree to disagree. 

btw, I did speak with some Christians about “just reason” for their faith and contrary to what you though they might have said, they did not give me justification for their faith. Rather, they gave explanations (not justifications and there is a difference between the two words).  And the two I spoke to today both said, paraphrasing, there is no need to justify my faith. It just is, but here are some explanations as to why I have faith ....

The day we justify our religious Faith is the day when God manifests on earth in a physical and quantifiable manner.  And when we justify faith, it no longer become faith but a Natural Law.

Of course you can claim the night is really day and day is really night, the evidence notwithstanding... that is your right.  The incongruity of your logic has been dissected with as much detail as I can spare at this time, but if you insist that it still makes sense then who am I to argue with you?

Do you really want me to answer that question?   

[just cool]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

While reading this thing I thought it amazing that we can even attempt to separate faith from God regardless of religion.  Faith is what I would call the "God gene."  It's in everyone. The same way God created the world is the same way we create our worlds and interact with it.  It's all by faith.  It actually takes more faith to not believe in a heavenly Father than to believe.  To not believe in God takes a lot of doing, considering that we all believe in something bigger than ourselves.  There is ALWAYS something.  Some ideology, theory or thesis. 

The funny thing is though, those that claim there is no God suddenly find him in the midst of peril.  Without thinking they quickly abandon their views and call to heaven.  "OH GOD!!!!" They call as if they new Him all along.  The call is as pure and sincere as a child calling for the help of a father, whom he/she "believes" can do something to help their situation.

There was a french philosopher called Voltaire.  Voltaire was very proud of his atheism.  One time during a debate he boldly claimed that in 50 years the bible would be just another book if in print at all.  Voltaire was a very intelligent and respected philosopher.  On the night Voltaire died he laid in bed tied like an animal.  His friends tried to relieve his torment by getting him drunk but to no avail.  He kept screaming about things coming for him. At the end he sat up in bed and said, "I am damned, I am damned."   His maid said all the money in the world is not worth watching an infidel die.  Today his house is owned by the bible society.  The bible is still here and he is not.

There aren't any atheists on the front lines of war either.  Being confronted with our mortally releases true reality.  It "prepares us to meet our marker" so to speak.  At the end, all men believe.  For many it's to late to put any action to the faith we had all along.  And that's the damn misery of it. 

preacher, where you get that chain upaccount about voltaire on his death bed? they say the same thing about darwin - how he had a death bed conversion. is some priest come up with that.

ah find this belief in god based on very selective vision and hearing. belief that is based on cherry-picking evidence to suit a preconceived claim doh meet the test of reason. this is the same logicial flaw with creationism - e.g. the proof that god exists is that god exists. but yuh won't learn logic or reason from a religious text. yet some believer would tell yuh ALL yuh need to know is in de bible/koran/etc.. i.e. doh bother with anything else. better yuh learn to recite de bible backwards before yuh open a book on aristotle or descartes. what value is a faith that is not tested?

preacher, tell me why it is that yuh ask 100 believers what they think God is and yuh will find disagreement amongst them? ironically, dis confusion doh affect non-believers.

Have you ever heard of ah book called, :the bible the quran and science " by maurice bucaille ? i think you need tuh do some reading before making such a bold statement.

in this book there are a lot of scientific references made and compared with modern day scientific findings, you could also goggle another lecturer call  DR. zakir naik.

some of the earliest great scientific minds came out of bagdad post islamic era when the west was in their dark ages, and most of them were great islamic scholars as well, plus in the earliest days of european scientific beginnings, the church spear headed a lot scientific research.

in the quran, ppl are urged to disprove it, even in the purity of the grammar it appears to be miraculous,and over the centuries nuff ppl were challenged tuh put forth ah single verse like it, many sceptics has tried and all failed just to produce one verse with the eloquence and profound meaning.

there are so many books written on this very subject, bias and unbiased. one of the most disheartening thing about the religious and atheistic position is the bold way in which they invoke and negate the existence of divinity.

one of the most memorable thing i've heard was, "some ppl can't even understand the wall street journal, but they expect tuh understand divinity".

with our little 5 % brain capacity, we barely could stand tuh unravel metaphysics, let alone the universe, or even our own planet, but they want tuh understand and solve something greater than them all. good luck human kind with allyuh bold position taking, i believe if man had access to their full cerebral capacity then nothing in life would longer be a mystery, and all would be known.

[Bakes]

Apologies in advance for the length of the response... but I did promise that I'd have more time at the end of the week, lol

I do appreciate your response because it is a well thought out argument which causes me to examine my line of reasoning.      Thanks for your insight and taking the time to reply. Appreciated.

I don’t disagree with your logic as hinged on what I infer to be your definition of the word "justification". But here is where I think we diverge.  I am using the word justification in a strictly technical sense (which I have repeatably stated up front).  But when I read your response I have to conclude that you have attached moral and judgmental attributes to my use of the word “justification’ which naturally leads you to the erroneous conclusion that I have pronounced religious faith 'broken' and that my argument is incongruous.

Why would you conclude assume that I have "attached moral and judgmental attributes" to your use of "justification"?  All I did was address what you wrote... not what I thought was going on in your head as you wrote it, that's a fool's game to impute intent where there is none, oftentimes it's a process that only serves to reveal our own subconscious influences rather than those we impute them to.

Mind you, I never offered any definition of "justification" so it probably wouldn't be wise to "infer" something that doesn't exist and base the sum of your response on that non-existent factoid.  You offered that "justification" is some inadequate REASON for holding a belief.  You also offered that faith is having that belief without adequate justification.  Lest we get hung up on your misunderstanding of my understanding of YOUR use of justification, let us substitute "reason" instead.

YOU claim that faith is having a belief w/o adequate "reason".  Again I must ask... where did you get that definition?  Using the very tautology you offered,

1. this limited definition of "faith" is true
2. You believe it is true
3. you are justified in your belief that "faith" by definition is adoption of a belief system absent adequate justification reason

My entire point to you is that you don't get to set the parameters and restrict the definition to suit a model more conducive to your conclusion.  I was never concerned with any moral or judgmental undercurrents to your statements

Consider Hebrews 11:1-3

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval. By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible."

That quote says it all.

I am not limiting my definition of Faith to an arbitrary standard as you state.  Faith is what it is:   assurance of things unseen (unproven, unseen i.e unjustified). And that is not a condemnation of Faith. Rather, that is an elevation of the concept of Faith. Faith is to be cherished, not denounced.
To believe in something when you have no justification, to have complete trust without question, without doubt, without a construct to lean on, is what I call religious Faith. That is the absolute definition of faith.  No justification, but you still believe in an absolute being who loves you. (this is where I disagree with Preacher as it takes more courage to believe in the absence of proof that it takes to believe in the presence of proof).

I'm curious as to why you think that the verse from Hebrews is a "definition" and not an explanation? If I explain to you what a dog is have I defined it?  The anonymous author of the Book of Hebrew was exhorting believers to remain true to their belief and have hope that their troubles were not going by unheeded by God.  By no means can either of us impute an intent to limit faith to just that "definition".

You claim that you're not limiting your definition to an arbitrary standard and to an extent you're right... you offer malleable standards, one of which is arbitrary "belief w/o reason/justification".  If it's not arbitrary then perhaps you could explain how you came about the definition?  What is its source?

As for the bolded "To believe in something when you have no justification..." again with the justification, lol.  You'd have to define justification so that I could better respond without being accused of misunderstanding your usage.  Let's use "reason" instead... are you using reason in the sense of "rationality"?  That is to say, "faith" is irrational? From a scientific standpoint I agree... but by necessity if you try to use science (a methodology derived from observation, calculation, documentation etc.) then how does that not guarantee that one would arrive at any other conclusion but that faith is "irrational" or without "reason" as you put it?

Again though, reason does exist for faith just not in some quantifiable scientific sense that you insist (by limiting it to a scientific definition).  Same too you attribute to faith a characteristic of acceptance without question... a failed puritanical ideal.  Of course my personal belief is that an intelligent God didn't creat intelligent beings in his own image, only for them to unintelligently just accept their lot w/out question.  By that definition then Job was not a man of faith... was he?  He certainly seemed to question why certain things were happening to him.  As did David... in the Book of Psalms.

I could go on and on deconstructing your definitions... but I'd like to believe that my point is sufficiently proved that once more, you can't limit the definition of faith only to then turn around and apply circular logic to say, "faith doesn't meet the definition, therefore..."

So you and I will agree to disagree. 

btw, I did speak with some Christians about “just reason” for their faith and contrary to what you though they might have said, they did not give me justification for their faith. Rather, they gave explanations (not justifications and there is a difference between the two words).  And the two I spoke to today both said, paraphrasing, there is no need to justify my faith. It just is, but here are some explanations as to why I have faith ....

The day we justify our religious Faith is the day when God manifests on earth in a physical and quantifiable manner.  And when we justify faith, it no longer become faith but a Natural Law.

Lol... why would you think I'd expect any particular answer?  Christians are not homogenous in thought friend, I simply said "speak to any Christian and they would likely be able to justify their belief for you".

Some people simply have never given it any thought they just go with their 'feelings'.  Faith makes them feel comfortable, secure and imparts a sense of belonging... among other things.  So they never took time to question it.  Indeed... they were thought to NOT question, merely accept.  Not so?

Do you really want me to answer that question?   

Sure, why not?

[Preacher]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

While reading this thing I thought it amazing that we can even attempt to separate faith from God regardless of religion.  Faith is what I would call the "God gene."  It's in everyone. The same way God created the world is the same way we create our worlds and interact with it.  It's all by faith.  It actually takes more faith to not believe in a heavenly Father than to believe.  To not believe in God takes a lot of doing, considering that we all believe in something bigger than ourselves.  There is ALWAYS something.  Some ideology, theory or thesis. 

The funny thing is though, those that claim there is no God suddenly find him in the midst of peril.  Without thinking they quickly abandon their views and call to heaven.  "OH GOD!!!!" They call as if they new Him all along.  The call is as pure and sincere as a child calling for the help of a father, whom he/she "believes" can do something to help their situation.

There was a french philosopher called Voltaire.  Voltaire was very proud of his atheism.  One time during a debate he boldly claimed that in 50 years the bible would be just another book if in print at all.  Voltaire was a very intelligent and respected philosopher.  On the night Voltaire died he laid in bed tied like an animal.  His friends tried to relieve his torment by getting him drunk but to no avail.  He kept screaming about things coming for him. At the end he sat up in bed and said, "I am damned, I am damned."   His maid said all the money in the world is not worth watching an infidel die.  Today his house is owned by the bible society.  The bible is still here and he is not.

There aren't any atheists on the front lines of war either.  Being confronted with our mortally releases true reality.  It "prepares us to meet our marker" so to speak.  At the end, all men believe.  For many it's to late to put any action to the faith we had all along.  And that's the damn misery of it. 

preacher, where you get that chain upaccount about voltaire on his death bed? they say the same thing about darwin - how he had a death bed conversion. is some priest come up with that.

ah find this belief in god based on very selective vision and hearing. belief that is based on cherry-picking evidence to suit a preconceived claim doh meet the test of reason. this is the same logicial flaw with creationism - e.g. the proof that god exists is that god exists. but yuh won't learn logic or reason from a religious text. yet some believer would tell yuh ALL yuh need to know is in de bible/koran/etc.. i.e. doh bother with anything else. better yuh learn to recite de bible backwards before yuh open a book on aristotle or descartes. what value is a faith that is not tested?

preacher, tell me why it is that yuh ask 100 believers what they think God is and yuh will find disagreement amongst them? ironically, dis confusion doh affect non-believers.

i.e. doh bother with anything else. better yuh learn to recite de bible backwards before yuh open a book on aristotle or descartes. what value is a faith that is not tested?

Brother the bible is not against science.  But let me break this thing down.  Were you and your parents born in T&T?  Because if your grand mother saw you write this "what value is a faith that is not tested?"  You would be in trouble.  But let's just assume that your wisdom is beyond the generation before you.  What about the thousands of generations before them and the billions of people on this planet that have come and gone believing in a greater Being?  You don't think faith has been tested?  Maybe you have found something new under the sun.      Let me ask you this.  Do you believe in the spirit world?  To be consistent your answer should be no.  If so, then you must also assume that you don't have a spirit or a soul because those things can't be measured by science.  If that is the case where to you get your moral compass from?  Oh yes aristotle or descartes.

I have tested faith and found God is real.  I can't share my findings with you because there is no scientifically controlled environment that God could fit in.  I would say that He has changed me in my spirit and soul.  But wait...you don't have those......let me see.   I wrote a song about it.  Wanna hear it? Hear it goes.

V2
Check this thing look...I know the man real
To succeed you need more than just zeal
Drop upon yuh knees and me say tell Him how yuh feel
He never miss a thing He hears every appeal
Just open yuh heart and let Him come eeeen
Listen to meh chat and me say hear me styleeeen
No man can stand against the Supreme Beiiiiiin
If yuh die in yuh sin you'll no what I meeeaan

Somebody even post on youtube for yuh 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGE1fpKNL_I&feature=related

[pecan]

Apologies in advance for the length of the response... but I did promise that I'd have more time at the end of the week, lol

Let me ponder your post.  Well articulated but I need to absorb it and I dont have time this weekend

[Bakes]

Apologies in advance for the length of the response... but I did promise that I'd have more time at the end of the week, lol

Let me ponder your post.  Well articulated but I need to absorb it and I dont have time this weekend

Yeah man... no rush.

[truetrini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5SRwuo3fOk

Look at the whole video...was she justified?  Please look at the video in its entirety.

[Preacher]

She's obviously upset with the policies of the RC Church.  Lucky for her it wasn't a picture representing Muhammad or some great Islamic Cleric.  All Sinead did was take an influential platform given to her and use it to stir up people's thought.  That's the right of any artist and I respect her for it. 

[Preacher]

TC check this.      Look she singing ah religious song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FJYXad_J7k&feature=rec-LGOUT-exp_stronger_r2-2r-5-HM

[ribbit]

TC thanks for starting this thread.  Much respect to every post and every view.

While reading this thing I thought it amazing that we can even attempt to separate faith from God regardless of religion.  Faith is what I would call the "God gene."  It's in everyone. The same way God created the world is the same way we create our worlds and interact with it.  It's all by faith.  It actually takes more faith to not believe in a heavenly Father than to believe.  To not believe in God takes a lot of doing, considering that we all believe in something bigger than ourselves.  There is ALWAYS something.  Some ideology, theory or thesis. 

The funny thing is though, those that claim there is no God suddenly find him in the midst of peril.  Without thinking they quickly abandon their views and call to heaven.  "OH GOD!!!!" They call as if they new Him all along.  The call is as pure and sincere as a child calling for the help of a father, whom he/she "believes" can do something to help their situation.

There was a french philosopher called Voltaire.  Voltaire was very proud of his atheism.  One time during a debate he boldly claimed that in 50 years the bible would be just another book if in print at all.  Voltaire was a very intelligent and respected philosopher.  On the night Voltaire died he laid in bed tied like an animal.  His friends tried to relieve his torment by getting him drunk but to no avail.  He kept screaming about things coming for him. At the end he sat up in bed and said, "I am damned, I am damned."   His maid said all the money in the world is not worth watching an infidel die.  Today his house is owned by the bible society.  The bible is still here and he is not.

There aren't any atheists on the front lines of war either.  Being confronted with our mortally releases true reality.  It "prepares us to meet our marker" so to speak.  At the end, all men believe.  For many it's to late to put any action to the faith we had all along.  And that's the damn misery of it. 

preacher, where you get that chain upaccount about voltaire on his death bed? they say the same thing about darwin - how he had a death bed conversion. is some priest come up with that.

ah find this belief in god based on very selective vision and hearing. belief that is based on cherry-picking evidence to suit a preconceived claim doh meet the test of reason. this is the same logicial flaw with creationism - e.g. the proof that god exists is that god exists. but yuh won't learn logic or reason from a religious text. yet some believer would tell yuh ALL yuh need to know is in de bible/koran/etc.. i.e. doh bother with anything else. better yuh learn to recite de bible backwards before yuh open a book on aristotle or descartes. what value is a faith that is not tested?

preacher, tell me why it is that yuh ask 100 believers what they think God is and yuh will find disagreement amongst them? ironically, dis confusion doh affect non-believers.

i.e. doh bother with anything else. better yuh learn to recite de bible backwards before yuh open a book on aristotle or descartes. what value is a faith that is not tested?

Brother the bible is not against science.  But let me break this thing down.  Were you and your parents born in T&T?  Because if your grand mother saw you write this "what value is a faith that is not tested?"  You would be in trouble.  But let's just assume that your wisdom is beyond the generation before you.  What about the thousands of generations before them and the billions of people on this planet that have come and gone believing in a greater Being?  You don't think faith has been tested?  Maybe you have found something new under the sun.      Let me ask you this.  Do you believe in the spirit world?  To be consistent your answer should be no.  If so, then you must also assume that you don't have a spirit or a soul because those things can't be measured by science.  If that is the case where to you get your moral compass from?  Oh yes aristotle or descartes.

I have tested faith and found God is real.  I can't share my findings with you because there is no scientifically controlled environment that God could fit in.  I would say that He has changed me in my spirit and soul.  But wait...you don't have those......let me see.   I wrote a song about it.  Wanna hear it? Hear it goes.

V2
Check this thing look...I know the man real
To succeed you need more than just zeal
Drop upon yuh knees and me say tell Him how yuh feel
He never miss a thing He hears every appeal
Just open yuh heart and let Him come eeeen
Listen to meh chat and me say hear me styleeeen
No man can stand against the Supreme Beiiiiiin
If yuh die in yuh sin you'll no what I meeeaan

Somebody even post on youtube for yuh 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGE1fpKNL_I&feature=related

preacher, what yuh saying here? it sound like yuh giving your 2 cents on my and my family's life experiences with faith based on your own experience and expecting me to meekly agree that you know better than my own two eye. STEUPS. that is typical preacher talk because allyuh only know de standard religious paradigm of interaction: leader and follower and de followers blindly obeying de leaders. i eh built for that. yuh duck my question.

[truetrini]

Irish bishop Donal Murray resigns over abuse report
Dr Donal Murray has resigned as Bishop of Limerick
Dr Donal Murray has resigned as Bishop of Limerick

An Irish bishop has resigned, weeks after his handling of child sex abuse allegations was severely criticised.

A report on abuse by priests in the Dublin Archdiocese found Donal Murray's handling of one case while an auxiliary bishop in the 1980s was "inexcusable".

The Vatican said the Pope had accepted his resignation as bishop of Limerick.

Dr Murray said: "I know full well my resignation cannot undo the pain that survivors of abuse have suffered in the past and continue to suffer each day."

The Murphy report into abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese from 1975 to 2004 was highly critical of the Catholic church hierarchy's handling of priests suspected of being child abusers.

   
To all survivors of abuse, I repeat that my primary concern is to assist in every way that I can on their journey towards finding closure and serenity
Dr Donal Murray

Q&A: Bishop's resignation

The report said many bishops were more concerned with preserving the reputation of the church rather than protecting children.

It found that during Dr Murray's time as an auxiliary bishop in Dublin from 1982 to 1996, he was dismissive of complaints about a priest who went on to abuse again.

Dr Murray said on Thursday he had taken time to study the report in full before deciding to resign.

"I humbly apologise once again to all who were abused as little children," he said.

"To all survivors of abuse, I repeat that my primary concern is to assist in every way that I can on their journey towards finding closure and serenity.

"I asked the Holy Father to allow me to resign and to appoint a new bishop to the diocese because I believe that my presence will create difficulties for some of the survivors who must have first place in our thoughts and prayers."

Dr Murray held talks about his future with the Pope in the Vatican last week.

He said Pope Benedict had accepted his resignation on Monday but agreed that Dr Murray should return to Limerick to allow him to be in his diocese when the announcement was made.

'Inexcusable'

The Murphy report said Bishop Murray did not deal properly with the suspicions and concerns that were expressed to him in relation to one priest, Fr Tom Naughton in 1983.

A short time later, factual evidence of Naughton's abusing emerged in another parish.

The Murphy report found Bishop Murray's failure to reinvestigate the earlier suspicions was "inexcusable".

In May 1998, Naughton pleaded guilty to six counts of indecently assaulting three boys in 1985 and 1986. He was jailed for three years, reduced on appeal to two-and-a-half years.

On Wednesday, Naughton was jailed again - this time for three years for sexually abusing an altar boy between 1982 and 1984.

[truetrini]

Archbishops at centre of cover-up

Four Catholic archbishops of Dublin have been criticised for covering-up clerical child abuse in a damning report into how the crimes were handled by the Dublin diocese.

The archbishops were in charge of the area from the outbreak of the World War II- known as the Emergency in the Republic of Ireland - through to Vatican II and the rise of the "Celtic Tiger".

They presided over a period of unprecedented social, religious and economic change in the country.

Throughout the decades however, the four men appear to have taken a very similar approach to tackling the issue of clerical child abuse - an issue which would eventually bring down a government and rock the Irish Catholic Church to its very foundations.

Only one of the four, the former Cardinal Desmond Connell, is still alive to witness how their actions have been assessed by Thursday's report.

John Charles McQuaid (Archbishop of Dublin 1940-1972)
Archbishop John Charles McQuaid
Archbishop John Charles McQuaid

Born in Cavan in 1895, his term of office saw the Catholic population of Dublin grow from approximately 630,000 to over 800,000 people while the number of clergy and religious increased by over 50%.

He created over 60 new parishes, built more than 80 new churches and around 350 schools.

He was described as a powerful and conservative figure who wielded much influence in all aspects of Irish society.

His opinion was sought on the wording of the Irish constitution and he was said to have heavily influenced the Republic's founding father and first Taoiseach, Eamon de Valera.

Dermot Ryan (Archbishop of Dublin 1972-1984)
Archbishop Dermot Ryan
Archbishop Dermot Ryan

Viewed as more approachable than his predecessor, Archbishop Ryan continued with the established policy of moving rather than removing those accused of abusing children.

The high point in his term of office was the visit of Pope John Paul II to the Republic of Ireland in 1979.

After his death, the pope said of both him and his successor that the Lord had called them to himself too quickly.

"Both were moved in their service of the Church by a profound sense of personal accountability to Christ," the pope said.

Archbishop Ryan gifted land at Dublin's affluent Merrion Square, which had been ear-marked for a new church, to the people of the city.

Kevin McNamara (Archbishop of Dublin 1985-1987)
Archbishop Kevin McNamara
Archbishop Kevin McNamara

An outspoken figure against divorce and abortion, he was co-consecrated as Bishop of Kerry by the now disgraced Bishop Eamon Casey, who he succeeded in the role in 1976.

The Irish charity One in Four, which supports victims of sexual violence, has alleged that as Archbishop of Dublin, Kevin McNamara sought legal advice about how to deal with allegations of clerical abuse.

He is said to have taken out an insurance policy to protect church finances from compensation claims.

His period in office was short-lived though and he died suddenly in April 1987.

Cardinal Desmond Connell (Archbishop of Dublin 1988-2004)
Cardinal Desmond Connell
Cardinal Desmond Connell

The former head of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Dr Connell was in office when the first, very public clerical child abuse scandal broke.

It involved the Northern Ireland-born priest Fr Brendan Smyth who was convicted of over more than 90 charges of child sexual abuse.

The civil authorities' failure to take action over Fr Smyth eventually brought down the government and redefined the relationship between church and state.

The high-profile coverage of the case opened the flood gates, as hundreds of other victims of clerical abuse who had stayed silent for years finally contacted the authorities.

In the years of furore that followed, Desmond Connell repeated the mistakes of his predecessors by opting for internal inquiries as opposed to passing on details of the allegations to the Irish police.

In 1995 he finally handed over the names of 17 suspects to civil authorities, a figure which must be seen in context with the hundreds of complaints identified by his successor, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin.

Before his retirement in 2004, Dr Connell publicly asked for forgiveness from all those he had offended.

At the time, his successor said history would recognise that Dr Connell had acted in accordance with his conscience when handling clerical sex abuse scandals.

The two are said to have strongly disagreed last year, however, when Dr Connell caused outrage by mounting a High Court action to block the child abuse inquiry getting access to thousands of church files on clerical abuse.

[truetrini]

Vatican 'snubbed Ireland church abuse inquiry'
A church congregation
The handling of allegations of child sex abuse in Dublin was investigated

The inquiry into sex abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland has disclosed that the Vatican ignored formal requests for information.

The inquiry asked for details of reports on abuse sent to the Vatican by the Dublin archdiocese in 2006.

The Vatican did not reply but told the Irish Foreign Affairs department the request "had not gone through appropriate diplomatic channels".

The inquiry condemned church leaders for covering-up abuse for decades.

The Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, which was published on Thursday, covered a period from 1975 to 2004.

The commission said it was independent of the government and therefore did not regard it as appropriate to use diplomatic channels when seeking information.

A request for information from the Papal Nuncio also was ignored.

In February 2007, the commission wrote to the Dublin-based Papal Nuncio asking him to forward all relevant documents in his possession.

It also requested that he confirm whether he had any such documents but the Papal Nuncio did not reply.

Ashamed

Earlier this year, the commission again failed to receive a reply after sending the Papal Nuncio extracts from its draft report which referred to him and his office, as it was required to do.

The Vatican told The Irish Times it "was a matter for the local church involved".

A senior Vatican spokesman said diplomatic practice required that outside requests made to the governance of the Vatican pass through diplomatic channels, in this case the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin and the Irish Embassy to the Holy See in Rome.

The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland has said he is deeply sorry and ashamed by the child abuse the report had revealed.

Cardinal Sean Brady also apologised for the way the Church covered-up the crimes.

The report also found that on occasions senior police officers colluded in the cover-up.

The commissioner of the Irish police, Fachtna Murphy, apologised for the police failure to protect victims.

Victims groups are now calling for a similar inquiry to take place in every diocese in Ireland.

However, the Auxiliary Bishop of Dublin Eamonn Walsh has said he does not believe that should happen.

He said it would be better for the Church to use its "time, energy and money" to improve child protection measures.

[just cool]

Any articles on the atheistic murderous russians, chzecks and north koreans?? what about an article on the countless murders of women and children from behind the atheistic iron curtain?

what about the women who was raped by atheistic communist soldiers over the yrs?? what about russia, who enslaved their nieghbors for yrs while trying tuh add afghanistan to their collection and collected instead ah memorable cutarse??

what about you who keep posting all these annoying articles tuh rile up the board?? while most of them are missrepresentations. why yuh doh get ah real life??

[truetrini]

Any articles on the atheistic murderous russians, chzecks and north koreans?? what about an article on the countless murders of women and children from behind the atheistic iron curtain?

what about the women who was raped by atheistic communist soldiers over the yrs?? what about russia, who enslaved their nieghbors for yrs while trying tuh add afghanistan to their collection and collected instead ah memorable cutarse??

what about you who keep posting all these annoying articles tuh rile up the board?? while most of them are missrepresentations. why yuh doh get ah real life??

you is ah real tun-tun.

annoying articles to rile up which board is only you getting riled up yuh fowl f**ker  lol  yuh acting like I write the articles I posting...steups

[ribbit]

so far the talk on the forum on belief and faith has been centred on the belief/faith in [a] God.

what about belief/faith in religious prophecy?

alot of de main religions have prophecies.

jews in israel trying to birth a red heifer.

people through history called napoleon, hitler, stalin, etc.. de antichrist.

cults claiming de end of de world on such and such a date - mass suicide.

so far, none of de prophecies happen.

do de believers *really* believe in dese prophecies?

[truetrini]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769


Well yes!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha  WWJD?

[STEUPS!!]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769


Well yes!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha  WWJD?

waiz yuh point? 

steups!

[truetrini]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769


Well yes!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha  WWJD?

waiz yuh point? 

steups!

Why don't you ask the people who put Biblical verses on munitions?  Why don't you ask Yahoo why they posted the article for the entire world to see?


wHY NOT ASK abc WHY THEY CARRIED SUCH A STORY?
I MADE A POST, THAT WAS MY POINT.

steups.

Like you fall and hit yuh facking head in Morvant?  Steups again.  Look at the clip and see what my point is. 

[Preacher]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769


Well yes!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha  WWJD?

WWJD?   Wait and see soon you'll get to ask Him yourself.  Hopefully it's on this side of eternity.   

[truetrini]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769


Well yes!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha  WWJD?

WWJD?   Wait and see soon you'll get to ask Him yourself.  Hopefully it's on this side of eternity.   

I was asking what would jack do.....

[Preacher]

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/secret-jesus-bible-codes-on-u-s-military-weapons-17700769


Well yes!

hahahahahahahahahahahaha  WWJD?

WWJD?   Wait and see soon you'll get to ask Him yourself.  Hopefully it's on this side of eternity.   

I was asking what would jack do.....

What Jack would do, he already did it.   

[davidephraim]

Well said JC!

[truetrini]

L.A. cardinal deposed for 5 hours in abuse lawsuit
By Drew Griffin, CNN Special Investigations Unit
February 1, 2010 7:32 p.m. EST


Cardinal Roger Mahony was deposed in a civil suit focusing on a priest who was convicted of molestation, sources say.

(CNN) -- The head of the largest Catholic archdiocese in the United States faced a grueling five-hour deposition last month, answering questions about his knowledge of abusive priests and his attempts to prevent the information from reaching police.

A spokesman for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, California, would not answer further questions about Cardinal Roger Mahony's deposition in a civil lawsuit.

"A transcript has not been made available to the archdiocese," spokesman Tod Tamberg said. "When the transcript is made available to the public, you [CNN] may resubmit your questions."

CNN reported last year that the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles had launched a federal grand jury investigation to determine if Mahony violated the law in his response to the molestation of children by priests.

Tamberg said the archdiocese's attorneys "have been told that Cardinal Mahony is not a target of the investigation."

Sources close to the investigation said both the federal investigation and the civil lawsuit focus on one priest in particular -- Michael Baker, who was defrocked and is serving a 10-year prison term for molesting three children.

Baker, who confessed to Mahony in 1986, has twice appeared before the federal grand jury, sources tell CNN.

Mahony failed to disclose Baker's self-reported crimes to police on several occasions and instead allowed Baker to seek treatment options while moving him from parish to parish, sources close to the investigation said.

In a deposition released last year, Monsignor Richard Loomis, the former vicar of clergy for the archdiocese, said under oath that he wrote a memo in 2000 advocating that the archdiocese inform police about allegations of sexual abuse against Baker. Mahony, Loomis testified, directed him not to report the allegations.

The Archdiocese of Los Angeles released information about Baker to the police in March 2002. Baker was convicted in 2007.

The archdiocese, with 288 parishes in 120 cities throughout southern California, serves more than 4 million Catholics, according to its Web site.

Mahony has dealt with accusations he covered up sex-abuse cases for years. Three years ago, the archdiocese agreed to pay $660 million to 508 people who claimed they were victims of abuse by priests.