Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: Martin_Schongauer_and_workshop_-_Doubting_Thomas.jpg (94KB, 600x800px) Image search:
[Google]
94KB, 600x800px
Reminder that until a couple of hundred years ago when christians talked of 'faith' they meant to be persuaded (by evidence).
>American biblical scholar Archibald Thomas Robertson stated that the Greek word pistis used for faith in the New Testament (over two hundred forty times), and rendered "assurance" in Acts 17:31 (KJV), is "an old verb meaning "to furnish", used regularly by Demosthenes for bringing forward evidence." Tom Price (Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics) affirms that when the New Testament talks about faith positively it only uses words derived from the Greek root [pistis] which means "to be persuaded".
>British Christian apologist John Lennox argues that "faith conceived as belief that lacks warrant is very different from faith conceived as belief that has warrant". We are well aware that faith is only justified if there is evidence to back it up." "Evidence-based faith is the normal concept on which we base our everyday lives."
>Peter S Williams holds that "the classic Christian tradition has always valued rationality, and does not hold that faith involves the complete abandonment of reason will believing in the teeth of evidence." Quoting Moreland, faith is defined as "a trust in and commitment to what we have reason to believe is true."
But when the scientific method and modern scholarship came along and demolished all of the previous evidence faith came to be redefined by christians as being something distinct from reason, something to be accepted even in the face of a complete lack of evidence.
>Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths.
>That God's existence cannot be certainly known, and that the decision to accept faith is neither founded on, nor needs, rational justification—may be found in the writings of Soren Kierkegaard.
Modern christians are literal cucks.
>>
>>1955033
To say that faith being given priority over reason is a modern development is ridiculous when Martin Luther was calling reason "a whore" all the way back in the 16th century and the Bible itself defines faith as "confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see" (Hebrews 11:1).
Also it's not like le science and logic have eliminated all the evidence for God, for example the fact that creation exists is evidence that there is a Creator.
>>
>>
>>1955072
>Why?
Exactly.
>>
File: tumblr_mj9sh559611qmxweao2_1280.png (672KB, 1167x897px) Image search:
[Google]
672KB, 1167x897px
>>1955075
Why does that prove the Christian concept of god to be true?
Couldn't there be a universe without a supernatural creator? Couldn't there be a supernatural creator yet Christianity still being dead wrong on what it is? Couldn't the supernatural creator be what the Neo-Platonists called "the ultimate good", yet still find the centrally Christian concept of the trinity to be nonsensically abhorrent? Could life have formed solely through natural processes, not being guided by the supernatural towards one species, somewhere, gaining "full" consciousness? Does the universe even exist?
Think about it, man.
>>
>>1955118
It's just one piece of evidence suggesting that there is a God. If you want evidence that the Christian God specifically is correct I would point to the biblical prophecies that Jesus fulfilled along with the astronomically unlikely development that the worship of an homeless Jewish preacher would usurp the Roman imperial cult. I understand that nothing I've written proves anything but not all evidence is conclusive.
>>
>>1955033
>Trust proddies to pervert the message and the very meaning of the words of the Gospel
The Eternal Protestant strikes again!
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2