"I just have faith"=BS

Let's call this BS right now. "It's just my faith."
DS made a great point. How can anyone who does NOT have faith in god, even after intense study of the subject be blamed for somehow not being blessed with this magical "faith?"
Religious folk, as per usual, will state that they are not there to assign blame. But they are lying. They want to blame people who do not hold their personal religious tenants as fact.
They want to turn "god's word" into law.
But then they turn around and say it is their faith.
This is a baldfaced lie. It is not faith. It is a belief system and they do not have just one article of faith but an entire system of ideas, mythologies and constraints.
There is no faith involved. This is a way of covering up the reality of the situation.
"I believe in the resurrection--i just have faith."
But it doesnt stop there.
"I believe Jesus was the son of god."
"I believe there is a hell and eternal damnation."
All of this is faith?
No, this cannot be so. You have seen the light on all of these issues? You KNOW the word of god on everything under the sun, do you?
Let's have some honesty in this forum.
You bought into a system of beliefs and faith has nothing to do with it. You have not experienced this god, you do not know god's mind. All of the rhetoric is absurd.
If you want to admit that you have decided to believe something that has no proof, no logical basis, and no way to intelligently discuss the merits of it, THEN and only then you can begin an honest discussion. Honest and short discussion because it ends when you admit that there is nothing about it which makes sense.
When somebody says it is their faith, call BullS*** on them. Is that word a magic shield? Is that now a sacred word? Faith? Faith protects you from scrutiny and question, does it?
Maybe in your own mind it does. But that word is just a word. It does not add up. it does not equate with an entire system of beliefs and ideologies. It does not answer how you DECIDE which particular doctrine to espouse. How do you decide morally what is right and wrong.
Faith on all counts? Faith tells you when to wake up, how to speak to your children, which version of the bible to read, which branch of your religion to belong to?
Faith, faith in the pope.
Faith in priests.
Thats a lot of "faith" my friends.

"I just have faith" when spoken during a religious debate=a mafioso pleading the 5th.

yours,
-g

[RJT]

gorv,

I’ll respond later to the crux of your post. For now:

[ QUOTE ]
Faith, faith in the pope.
Faith in priests.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don’t have faith in people. We might have levels of trust in folk. Stating such things could lead one to think that you are not very familiar with certain Religions.

RJT

Agreed.

[Darryl_P]

To say I have faith is a true statement, so I don't see what's wrong with it. I suppose your problem is that you think that we think it's a satisfactory answer to your questions. If we don't say that explicitly then why do you assume we think it? Are we obligated to give you answers to your questions that *you* find satisfactory? Maybe you watch too much TV. Maybe you're too accustomed to big bucks being spent on entertaining you and offering you stuff. Maybe you should think about why those guys spend the big bucks and think about what is wrong with *them* rather than think about what is wrong with *us* because we don't spend the big bucks to win your approval.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose your problem is that you think that we think it's a satisfactory answer to your questions. If we don't say that explicitly then why do you assume we think it? Are we obligated to give you answers to your questions that *you* find satisfactory?

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, the fact that you give answers at all is patently dishonest in this realm. This is a realm of discussion and debate. You come into the debate constantly pleading the 5th (ie. saying "its just my faith").
This is unsatisfactory and also a lie.
Faith means nothing. That word has no meaning whatsoever in this context. It means, I refuse to answer your question on the grounds that it may incriminate me. It means, I have no real answer.
It means, I refuse to discuss this intelligently.
I am calling BS on a rationale which is not a rationale.
It has nothing to do with you satisfying me.

-g

What kind of proof would you require to sufficiently prove someone has experienced God?

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of proof would you require to sufficiently prove someone has experienced God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I am not asking for proof that someone experienced god. I am asking for their claims to make sense and be reasonable. For that to occur, I would need an explanation of what "experiencing god" means to that person and how that experience relates to their decision making.
For instance, say I prayed to God to save me when I was feeling very low and I then miraculously felt the presence of God.
Okay. Does that mean I now am assured the King James Bible is the edition I should be reading? Do I now understand and KNOW that the resurrection took place?
Or is it more vague...perhaps since I "felt" god's presence I now feel more at ease and believe life has purpose.
In the second case, I still cannot claim any extraordinary knowledge about god's intentions, the validity of the bible, etc. All I can say is that I felt a presence.
While it is not proof, this is a relatively honest answer in my opinion.
The first example smacks of BS. That is, I felt a presence so now I know the King James Bible is the word of God, now I believe in the resurrection, etc.
The majority of religious believers are patently dishonest in that they claim to have knowledge which is impossible to have based on the information at hand. They retreat to a position of "it's just faith" when the heat gets too intense.
I have no problem whatsoever with the divine. I have a problem with liars.

-g

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I am calling BS on a rationale which is not a rationale.
It has nothing to do with you satisfying me.


[/ QUOTE ]

How about expanding on what you think the expanded version of the statement "I just have faith" is?

I can tell you that when I say it it means the following:

A) I believe in God, not because I have proof, but because the totality of my experiences suggests to me that He exists.

B) I am not explaining it all to you because that would take too long. Explaining only bits and pieces wouldn't give a proper picture and, therefore, isn't worth it.

Which part do you think is BS, or what else do you think I mean that isn't in A or B above?

[ QUOTE ]

A) I believe in God, not because I have proof, but because the totality of my experiences suggests to me that He exists.

B) I am not explaining it all to you because that would take too long. Explaining only bits and pieces wouldn't give a proper picture and, therefore, isn't worth it.

Which part do you think is BS, or what else do you think I mean that isn't in A or B above?

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I think you should take however long it takes to explain your beliefs in a way that makes sense, or I think you should not enter debates and discussions in this forum on this topic. Why? Because you can end every discussion with the cop-out: "I dont have time to explain all of my well-thought out, sensible beliefs."

Secondly, you state that the totality of your experience "suggests" that "He" exists. Well that is full of holes already. "Suggests" implies that you are not at all certain. "He" implies that you know god's gender and that you know it is one god as opposed to multiple god's, a life force, etc.
So, I think you need to be more specific or admit that you cannot discuss this rationally or intelligently.
Are you practicing a particular religion? If so, why? What have you experienced that points you to the validity of that religion?
If you take the cop-out (faith) stance, you are a liar. If you answer honestly, it may take you awhile to explain. I, for one, would appreciate the latter.

-g

Many things about God can be logically deduced. Empirical data will tell you God is perfect (If you need proof, I'd be more than happy to tell you some). If He is perfect, He is singular (if something else was perfect, then you would find it's the same as God). Along with perfection, He is unchanging (if He was changing, he wouldn't be perfect, because any change would lead him away from perfection). (Many epistemological philosophies use logical reasoning to know what constitutes God. I've only studied a few epistemological and empirical philosophies, but I'd love to help with what limited knowledge I have.)
We also call God a "He" from tradition...in fact he is genderless. Humanity tends to give unfamiliar things familiar names to make them less "scary". Calling God a "He" or "Our Father" or whatever else is to make Him more personable. In essence, those are imperfect names (But it's much nicer to call Him a "Him" instead of an "it")
As to saying the King James version of the Bible is correct...I don't think the version really matter (NIV, King James, and all that are essentially the same things with slightly different words. The Catholic Bible contains the deutorocanonical apocrphya, and there are other slight discrepancies)
As far as the inerrancy of scripture, I'm still looking for that answer. I've been reading the Bible, and interpretations of it and such, and as far as I know it's very philosophically consistent, and never contradicts itself. (Have you tried reading the Bible? Even if you don't think it's from God, it has some good stuff in it.)

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I think you should take however long it takes to explain your beliefs in a way that makes sense, or I think you should not enter debates and discussions in this forum on this topic. Why? Because you can end every discussion with the cop-out: "I dont have time to explain all of my well-thought out, sensible beliefs."


[/ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with debating sub-points only and not attempting to give a definitive final answer on the entire big issue that everyone should agree with?

When I state my beliefs without explanation I am providing information to forum readers. It says to an observer that here is a guy who seems pretty rational and yet he believes in God. That in itself might spark some intrigue in case the reader thought only nutjobs were religious. If the reader then does some Google searches and finds interesting stuff, then an overall good thing came out of it, no?

[ QUOTE ]
Well that is full of holes already. "Suggests" implies that you are not at all certain. "He" implies that you know god's gender and that you know it is one god as opposed to multiple god's, a life force, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

The truth is that I'm not 100% certain, maybe only 95% or so. Yet I choose to live my life as if it were 100% because of convenience and comfort. The difference between 95% and 100% is what I call "belief" or "faith". Probably the game-theoretical optimal strategy would be to constantly carry around a 20-sided die and roll it whenever I did anything. If it came up "1" I'd act as if I were an atheist, and on any other number I'd act like a theist. But I think I'd go nuts doing that so I deliberately make a 5% error to keep my sanity.

As for the use of "He", it's more convention than anything else. I can switch to "it" if you prefer. But I will not switch to "them" because I believe in one god, not multiple gods.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you practicing a particular religion? If so, why? What have you experienced that points you to the validity of that religion?
If you take the cop-out (faith) stance, you are a liar. If you answer honestly, it may take you awhile to explain. I, for one, would appreciate the latter.


[/ QUOTE ]

I practice my own religion which is probably closer to Islam than anything else, but there is a lot of overlap with Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I do not follow any of the customary rituals like attending churches/mosques, fasting, pilgrimage, praying at pre-set times like before meals or at sunset etc. because I don't believe God expects that from me. I believe these rituals have positive effects on others, though, but of course not everyone.

My belief in a supreme being started to come together around the age of 30 (I'm now 38) when I spent a lot of time traveling, hiking in nature, and meditating. I felt a certain interconnectedness between myself and the rest of the living world, and even the non-living natural world (like the mountains, the sun and the sky). I pondered deeply about why I felt these things and reconciled them with what I knew about science or psychology, but there were powerful forces there that went beyond what those fields can cover. Being rational I was always incapable of believing anything that contradicted science, but slowly but surely with trial and error I managed to form a belief system that matches all of my experiences and is consistent with the key tenets of religious doctrines, particularly Islam, but also with logic and science.

There was no single moment when I said "aha", rather it was a period of a few years in which I just felt a powerful symbiosis with everything around me and it was as though God was communicating with me. As I said, I can't prove it really was, but the amount of consistency with everything I've observed leads me to the 95% figure that I choose to upgrade to 100% for convenience.

How's that for elaboration?

[ QUOTE ]
Many things about God can be logically deduced. Empirical data will tell you God is perfect (If you need proof, I'd be more than happy to tell you some). If He is perfect, He is singular (if something else was perfect, then you would find it's the same as God).

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I to deduce from your post that you agree with my premise in regards to the rampant and untruthful use of the word "faith" from religious believers?
You claim there is evidence for your beliefs. Am I to take it then that you will not fall back on the faith argument?
If this is the case and you will not fall back on a "faith" dodge, then I would like to hear your views more completely postulated.
Take me from square one. You deduce god's existence. You deduced its singularity. You deduced also, I take it, that the Catholic Bible is the correct bible. Why not Protestant, why not Morman? The Old Testament predates the New Testament. The Upinshads/Vedas predates all of them. "Extremely advanced, indeed unprecedented and thitherto unduplicated ideas of pure monism are to be found in the early Vedas, notwithstanding clearly monist and monotheist movements of Hinduism that developed with the advent of the Upanishads."-Wikepedia
Please continue to explain why you are assured that this is the most likely explanation. I would like to know how sure you are of your beliefs.
Even the most logically sound argument in favor of your religion, without a direct experience of god, leaves you as mostly ignorant and in the dark about the validity of your beliefs.

[ QUOTE ]
I practice my own religion which is probably closer to Islam than anything else, but there is a lot of overlap with Christianity, particularly Catholicism. I do not follow any of the customary rituals like attending churches/mosques, fasting, pilgrimage, praying at pre-set times like before meals or at sunset etc. because I don't believe God expects that from me. As I said, I can't prove it really was, but the amount of consistency with everything I've observed leads me to the 95% figure that I choose to upgrade to 100% for convenience.

How's that for elaboration?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your elaboration. I think the majority of religious believers would assert that you are incorrect in your practices and going to hell or whatever passes for hell. An aside; do you believe in hell?
Your overall philosophy seems pretty tame and basicaly self-referential. This is quite different from the norm. I don't know that its consistent or logical to have mashed all these religions together and then claim a %95 certainty.
But thats your deal. My issue is with posters (and people) who claim to have information regarding the validity of a particular religion and then fall back on a
"faith" dodge.
You seem to bypass all of this by creating your own religion and stating that it works for you. I dont doubt it. I doubt that the exact god that you've found is the god that actually exists. If I was to bet money on it, i dont think i could conceivably put any on your position.
But you are nonoffensive in your views.

g

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the majority of religious believers would assert that you are incorrect in your practices and going to hell or whatever passes for hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

Without knowing much about me, maybe, but I'm quite sure I'd be able to convince most of them otherwise using language that they can relate to.


[ QUOTE ]
An aside; do you believe in hell?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it's also rather tame compared to what others claim of it. I believe in varying degrees of hell depending on how poorly one lived one's life, but not the absolute version involving eternal suffering.

[ QUOTE ]
But thats your deal. My issue is with posters (and people) who claim to have information regarding the validity of a particular religion and then fall back on a
"faith" dodge.


[/ QUOTE ]

I know it can be frustrating that often people aren't as articulate as you'd like them to be, but with a positive approach of asking questions, ignoring their attacks, and trying to read between the lines, I think you'd get better responses than by accusing them of BS-ing.

Mind you your accusation got a lot out of me so maybe it's not so bad after all /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

It looks to me like you have some unreasonable expectations for the discussion of philosophy and religion. The bottom line is people will believe what they find to be an attractive world view. The fact is, no belief system at all is going to be able to "prove" its fundamental postulates (if you could prove them, they wouldn't be fundamental). One simply takes what works for your own particular psyche.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Many things about God can be logically deduced. Empirical data will tell you God is perfect (If you need proof, I'd be more than happy to tell you some). If He is perfect, He is singular (if something else was perfect, then you would find it's the same as God).

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I to deduce from your post that you agree with my premise in regards to the rampant and untruthful use of the word "faith" from religious believers?
You claim there is evidence for your beliefs. Am I to take it then that you will not fall back on the faith argument?
If this is the case and you will not fall back on a "faith" dodge, then I would like to hear your views more completely postulated.
Take me from square one. You deduce god's existence. You deduced its singularity. You deduced also, I take it, that the Catholic Bible is the correct bible. Why not Protestant, why not Morman? The Old Testament predates the New Testament. The Upinshads/Vedas predates all of them. "Extremely advanced, indeed unprecedented and thitherto unduplicated ideas of pure monism are to be found in the early Vedas, notwithstanding clearly monist and monotheist movements of Hinduism that developed with the advent of the Upanishads."-Wikepedia
Please continue to explain why you are assured that this is the most likely explanation. I would like to know how sure you are of your beliefs.
Even the most logically sound argument in favor of your religion, without a direct experience of god, leaves you as mostly ignorant and in the dark about the validity of your beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I personally believe in essence your entire life is faith based. So if you take the questioning back far enough, you'll fall on faith (such as faith in science, mathematics, and other such axioms). But I also believe that my gathered beliefs work well enough that I won't have to fall back on faith.
I believe that your definition of faith, and the definition of those who use the argument "it's just faith" are different. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow...but I couldn't even imagine how to prove that. In logic there are times you have to make assumptions (i.e. I am alive. Humans are rational beings. Etc. In philosophy it’s known as “a priori”, or universally true). After you assert you are alive, you can make “a posteriori” statements which use deductive reasoning (assuming you can reason). In essence, how do you know you’re alive? It’ll come down to faith that your mind can reason your existence. (These subtle cause and effect situations can be found in statements such as “I think therefore I am.” You need faith to argue that you can think.)

I do not deduce the Catholic Bible is the correct version of the Bible (even though I am Catholic). I wouldn’t mind reading King James, or NIV, or the NAB. It's the same as other christian denominations with the same original Hebrew/Greek words.

I grew up Catholic, and would like to say am pretty knowledgeable in their actual beliefs (I went to Catholic private school from pre-k up through highschool). As a Catholic I was taught that good/moral people will go to heaven. (i.e. a good buddhist, a good muslim, a good mormon, a good protestant, even a good athiest). I was also taught that it's easier to be a good person if you're of Christian faith, but it is not ABSOLUTELY necessary (but essential none the less). The Catholic faith isn't necessarily the CORRECT faith, but it's the right one for me personally.

In response to Upinshads/Vedas scriptures being around longer than christian ones: I am not very well versed in that, but as far as I know they are not philosophically consistent, while the Christian Bible is. The Christian Bible is shown to be the one true scripture as an “a posteriori” conclusion (a conclusion from deduction). The only way humanity can see if any literature is true, or correct is by “a posteriori” arguments. From my knowledge of philosophy, science, and basically every single experience of my life says that the Christian Bible is true.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian Bible is shown to be the one true scripture as an “a posteriori” conclusion (a conclusion from deduction).

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate on this a bit.

I agree with the OP that faith is basically BS, but it is powerful BS. It can cripple the greatest minds we have. Therefore, I think it needs to be treated with more respect, for it is obviously worthy of it. Its profound strength is evidence of that.

When somebody says "I just have faith," are they full of BS? Yes. But do they know that? Absolutely not. Telling them so will only offend their sensibilities. Until they decide to stop believing what they want to believe and search for the truth, they will never learn.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Christian Bible is shown to be the one true scripture as an “a posteriori” conclusion (a conclusion from deduction).

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you elaborate on this a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is more of a personal opinion, and it has been gathered from all my research. Scriptural texts that come from hinduism fall apart under philosophical scrutiny with regards to their forms of theism (Specifically involving a supreme being existing as necessary). Buddhist texts have philosophical inconsistencies when views in the light of infinite regress in lieu of reincarnation. Jewish text, while containing the old testament is incomplete in as much as ontological equivalents (The old testament is revealed in the new testament, and the new testament is hidden in the old). This causes me to hold christian scripture in higher regard than other scriptures. (This does not mean we can't learn from the wisdom that can be found in non-christian scriptures)
From personal experience, I have seen certain religions fall apart under extreme scrutiny, while I have seen christianity come out relatively unscathed (in regards to core beliefs). (Once again, this is from all of my personal experience)

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I have seen christianity come out relatively unscathed (in regards to core beliefs)

[/ QUOTE ]

ignoring minor stuff like flat earths and geocentric universes, I still find that giving up on genesis seems a tad scathy. Let's see, what's left, well, I guess the unfalsifiable claims have remained unfalsified, that's a blessing.

luckyme

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
When somebody says "I just have faith," are they full of BS? Yes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really having trouble getting my head around this and so I'd appreciate an elaboration.

In my mind, when we say someone is BS-ing it means they are saying something that isn't true. Also, we usually believe it's intentional, otherwise we'd use less strong language like "that's not true" for example.

But even if it's not intentional, as you suggest might be the case, where is the BS?

Why could you not substitute what I said above, ie:

"A) I believe in God, not because I have proof, but because the totality of my experiences suggests to me that He exists, and

B) I am not explaining it all to you because that would take too long. Explaining only bits and pieces wouldn't give a proper picture and, therefore, isn't worth it."

???

Or do you infer from some peoples' style that they're mean-spirited and just assume they mean something else? If so, what do you assume? An elaboration similar to my A and B above would go a long way in helping me to understand. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
Empirical data will tell you God is perfect ... Along with perfection, He is unchanging

[/ QUOTE ]

We need some kind of award for posts like these. Congrats, you are this week's winner of the SMP [something implying ignorance, stupidity, or a combination thereof) Award!

And I'm sorry if I'm again viewed as an a$$ for this post. But crap like this deserves to be called out. And serious debate with those who rely on outlandish, unsupportable statements has shown to be futile.

[ QUOTE ]
From my knowledge of philosophy, science, and basically every single experience of my life says that the Christian Bible is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is beautiful.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Empirical data will tell you God is perfect ... Along with perfection, He is unchanging

[/ QUOTE ]

We need some kind of award for posts like these. Congrats, you are this week's winner of the SMP [something implying ignorance, stupidity, or a combination thereof) Award!

And I'm sorry if I'm again viewed as an a$$ for this post. But crap like this deserves to be called out. And serious debate with those who rely on outlandish, unsupportable statements has shown to be futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if you disagree, but there is no need to insult me. A simple reading of Plato's theory of knowledge will support those statements. If you want someone more contemporary, try Norman Malcolm. Have you read any epistemology?
Do you have any philosophical background? If so, please tell me why it's wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have seen christianity come out relatively unscathed (in regards to core beliefs)

[/ QUOTE ]

ignoring minor stuff like flat earths and geocentric universes, I still find that giving up on genesis seems a tad scathy. Let's see, what's left, well, I guess the unfalsifiable claims have remained unfalsified, that's a blessing.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

A simple understanding of scripture could solve this minor problem. You must realize that Genesis is written in narrative. Whenever a book is written in narrative, it is strongly meant for it's spiritual aspects.
Christianity makes scientific statements with what is correct at the time. At the time of the Bible being written, they believed the earth was flat/geocentric.
Could you imagine if it was written the world was round? The people would not have taken the scripture seriously, because the world is so "obviously" flat.

The Bible is used as a spiritual tool. And it is very rich in wisdom. It shouldn't be used as a geology textbook.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "unfalsifiable claims". Could you please be more specific?

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "unfalsifiable claims". Could you please be more specific?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the quickest way would be for you to list the "core beliefs of christianity that have come out unscathed" and then I'll likely just be able to say .. "see above for examples of unfalsifiable claims". your move.

oh, you seem not to be aware that your view on the truth of the biblical statements on nature is not in sync with over 50% of american xtrians.
[ QUOTE ]
At the time of the Bible being written, they believed the earth was flat/geocentric.

[/ QUOTE ]
"they"?? xtrians believe the bible to be the word of god not 'they', narative, metaphorical or whatever and most don't take kindly to suggestions they were deliberately lied to ( heck, they can do that to themselves, cheesh).

luckyme

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I know what you mean by "unfalsifiable claims". Could you please be more specific?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the quickest way would be for you to list the "core beliefs of christianity that have come out unscathed" and then I'll likely just be able to say .. "see above for examples of unfalsifiable claims". your move.

oh, you seem not to be aware that your view on the truth of the biblical statements on nature is not in sync with over 50% of american xtrians.
[ QUOTE ]
At the time of the Bible being written, they believed the earth was flat/geocentric.

[/ QUOTE ]
"they"?? xtrians believe the bible to be the word of god not 'they', narative, metaphorical or whatever and most don't take kindly to suggestions they were deliberately lied to ( heck, they can do that to themselves, cheesh).

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

A few core beliefs off the top of my head.
We believe in one God, Who has and always will exist. He created the universe. We also believe that He sent Himself on earth as His son to fulfill the new covenant. (You could just read the Apostle's creed, which is a prayer statings Catholic beliefs)


I was raised, and still am a Catholic. Much of what I was taught is different from some fundamentalist christian denominations. I'm arguing the Catholic perspective, which may not agree with what you believe christians believe. What I have read/studied goes back to the CCC (official word of Catholic Church). When doing a reading of the Bible, you must take into account who wrote it, to whom it was written, when it was written, and what style the author used. (Actual people wrote the text, but they are traditionally believed to have been inspired by God. They would write in their own language, their own style, their own idioms, but it would be God's message).
The first five books of the Bible are traditionally thought to have been written by Moses. Most of Genesis is written in narrative. (I.E. Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, etc.) That book has much spiritual wisdom, it shows various covenants God makes with the people, but is not meant to be taken as historical fact. (Some books are written with a historical frame of mind, and are actually quite accurate) (Sorry if this does not coincide with some fundamentalist christian beliefs, but it is what is taught to catholics. Check the CCC if you do not believe me)
There are unfortunately some uneducated Christians who argue ignorantly, and give half truths and such. It seems if I ever have a discrepency, I can always go to the source (the CCC) and I learn the true answer. I am trying to give an accurate representation of the CCC in regards to the Bible.

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A few core beliefs off the top of my head.
We believe in one God, Who has and always will exist. He created the universe. We also believe that He sent Himself on earth as His son to fulfill the new covenant. (You could just read the Apostle's creed, which is a prayer statings Catholic beliefs)

[/ QUOTE ]
For examples of "unfalsifiable claims" see above.

As predicted, your claim that the core beliefs are unscathed could only mean the ones that require proving a negative. Beliefs (core or otherwise)that were testable have be scathed beyond recognition. Some of them seemed mighty core at the time to the people that suffered greatly for disputing them. But, what the hey, I'm glad we resolved it so easily,

luckyme,
if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[ QUOTE ]

Beliefs (core or otherwise)that were testable have be scathed beyond recognition. Some of them seemed mighty core at the time to the people that suffered greatly for disputing them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Could you please give an example, as I do not believe I am familiar with the references you make. I'm still not quite sure with what you mean when you say "state core beliefs." Could you give an example of a core belief?
Thanks

[ QUOTE ]
For examples of "unfalsifiable claims" see above.


[/ QUOTE ]

With regards to your argument of unfalsifiable claims:
If you were to argue this for things such as God existing, then clearly christianity must be an elaborate hoax to deceive people.
How can you believe that people such as Christopher Columbus existed? You've never met him, or met anyone who has met him. His stories, and his effects on the world are known, but those could have been created. It may be an elaborate hoax to deceive.
How do you draw the line on what you believe with regards to unfalsifiable claims?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Empirical data will tell you God is perfect ... Along with perfection, He is unchanging

[/ QUOTE ]

We need some kind of award for posts like these. Congrats, you are this week's winner of the SMP [something implying ignorance, stupidity, or a combination thereof) Award!

And I'm sorry if I'm again viewed as an a$$ for this post. But crap like this deserves to be called out. And serious debate with those who rely on outlandish, unsupportable statements has shown to be futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if you disagree, but there is no need to insult me. A simple reading of Plato's theory of knowledge will support those statements. If you want someone more contemporary, try Norman Malcolm. Have you read any epistemology?
Do you have any philosophical background? If so, please tell me why it's wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. BECAUSE THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DATA ON THE QUALITIES OF BEINGS FROM BEYOND THE UNIVERSE. Wow, that was tough.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Empirical data will tell you God is perfect ... Along with perfection, He is unchanging

[/ QUOTE ]

We need some kind of award for posts like these. Congrats, you are this week's winner of the SMP [something implying ignorance, stupidity, or a combination thereof) Award!

And I'm sorry if I'm again viewed as an a$$ for this post. But crap like this deserves to be called out. And serious debate with those who rely on outlandish, unsupportable statements has shown to be futile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry if you disagree, but there is no need to insult me. A simple reading of Plato's theory of knowledge will support those statements. If you want someone more contemporary, try Norman Malcolm. Have you read any epistemology?
Do you have any philosophical background? If so, please tell me why it's wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. BECAUSE THERE IS NO EMPIRICAL DATA ON THE QUALITIES OF BEINGS FROM BEYOND THE UNIVERSE. Wow, that was tough.

[/ QUOTE ]

There certainly is, have you tried reading Aristotle's cause and effect arguments? They are fulfilled and much better explained by St. Thomas Aquinas.

Besides that, the qualities of the supreme being are generally gotten from epistemological arguments, but all epistemological arguments must have at least one empirical statement.