The line values faith, but values it over reality? don't know.
I think faith is more than just sticking a flag in the ground and declaring I believe this. But I agree it does mean believing even if contradicted by the preponderance of the evidence.
Sort of contraducting yourself there. Hebrews 11-1 says;
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Corinthians says;
Cast down thoughts, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of our lord.
This certainly sounds as if faith is valued over evidence and reality.
I am not sure how to describe it to you. I think faith is believing with the heart, rather than the head.
I am not sure what that means. The heart doesn't think, it pumps blood. The only organ in your body that believes anything is in your head. I hate to be blunt. But this is wishful thinking and poetic mumbo jumbo.
I don't "peddle" religion. I don't think religion is something to be peddled like salesperson would peddle whatever he/she is selling. Yes, it can and has been used as a reason to believe is something that is not provable and that can be shown to be false. Of just because something is unprovable and unfalsifiable, not does not automatically make that something, untrue.
Sure you do. If you do anything to attempt to spread your religion, you are peddling it. Don't be insulted. I have been in sales for 40 years.
I suppose one could use faith to justify believing in something false. It could also be used to justify believing is something that is true even when the preponderance of the evidence says otherwise. Sometimes the preponderance of the evidence can add up to the wrong conclusion.
You suppose? If you're a Christian you believe in something on faith that most of the planet does not believe. Most of the people throughout history and in other parts of the world believe or have believed in other gods and other religions. And like you they almost all universally rely on faith for their very different and contradictory beliefs. The fact is
you cannot all be right. But you can all be wrong. Another example of how faith can be used to believe true things and false things.
I'm more a New Testament guy myself. But think there is more true things in the OT than you do. It mentions countries/leaders/events that historians agree are true.
(The new Testament is actually worse..but let's sidestep that for a moment.)
This is called historical fiction. I can direct you to at least a few hundred books that take place in a historical setting. I'm an aspiring, but admittedly poor writer who wrote half a novel taking place in Seattle during the 1960s. There are many dates, characters and events in the book that are real. But the book is fiction.
Take the movie Titanic. The vast majority of the characters in that movie were real life people. Almost all of the events outside the story of Rose and Jack happened. But Rose, her family, her fiance and Jack are all literary creations.
You don't think people made stuff up and passed them off as facts when telling stories around the campfires?
Can you prove that there is no God, that God did not create the universe. I agree if you look at it from a purely logical and scientific perspective, one would not conclude that God existed, not that God created the universe. But If I can not prove that there is no God, that God did not create the universe, then there is that possibility that it is true and that is were faith can come it. I agree it is neither logical or scientific, but there it is.
No, I can't. I also cannot prove there is no Big Foot, Fairies, Leprechauns or Santa either.
Your thinking is all backwards. We and I'm including you, do not use that kind of epistemology on anything other than religious beliefs. Beliefs are not based on what cannot be disproved, but what can be proven. Why the exception for Gods?
What about the ten commandments? surely rules like:
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
That's four out of ten or actually 613. Have you read the other 609 Mitzvohs?
There more than just true locations mentioned in the OT, it also mentions historic leaders and nations and events that occurred. I can certainly understand how one might see Noah and the Ark and Jonah and the Whale as absurd. They may well not be literally true.
May not be? Moses is said to have to lived 950 years. The story of Noah and the Ark is almost certainly a retold version of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Why is it that all these insane miracles took place before science?
And sometimes stories passed down around around campfires can be true, or exaggerated with some truth in them however small, and sometimes they can be wrong. But, if you talking about events that occurred before a people could write things down, stores passed from one person telling another is the best you have.
Sure, some truth may have survived hundreds of thousands of retellings. But there is no epistemological method to know what might have. And therefore no reason to believe any of it.
Let me bring this logic to the New Testament and the Gospels. These are the most valued texts in the New Testament. They are relied on as eyewitness testimonies
Yet they are not. The earliest to have been written, probably Mark is estimated to have been written 3 decades after Jesus is reported to have been crucified. And the other two Synoptic Gospels Matthew and Luke are derived from Mark or all three derived from another source. John is wildly different. All of these books were written 30 to 90 years after the life of the character Jesus. Even if a Jesus existed what are the odds that anything in these books written decades later are an accurate reflection of his words or an accurate account of his life? Seems to me that NONE of it can be thought of as reliable.
You have the right to base your believes on what you choose to. I choose to base some of my beliefs on my faith.
Again, I don't choose my beliefs. They are based on the available evidence and logical reasoning. Faith is not a reasonable foundation for establishing the truth of anything.
When I evaluate abortion or any question, I examine the available evidence and make my conclusions accordingly. But my conclusions are not set in stone. I realize new information may come to light to change it.
This is very different than your faith where you to take a stand to believe in the ridiculous and absurd over the weight of the massive amount of contradictory and scientific knowledge.
