Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Tart]

Faith is so important in Christianity. For example, righteousness has been summed up by living faithfully "Just as it is written, "the righteous shall live by faith"", and id say that is a good summation of righteousness (which we could discuss if you wish). And I really believe it is by Faith that we shall be saved by Christ, even though after I read the Bible I was convinced of its claims to be true through my reasoning, it was by Faith that I put my trust into Christ as a personal savior. As Jesus said that through a seed of faith, God can change your life and "move mountains"...

The passage you are talking about deals with a bunch of the stories that may be hard to believe, and certainly God has made foolish the wisdom of the world (1 Corinthians 1)... But id like to suggest to you one thing, that Christianity is not trying to convince people of false claims by using faith, faith is a much different thing then that. It is a way to trust in God through your day to day life, and not a way to believe in false claims. For example, Paul wrote;

"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." (1 Corinthians 15)

So notice what Paul said. He says if this didn't actually happen, then Faith is useless and even more so they are false witnesses, or liars.

Alright. So, was Christ actually resurrected from the dead? What method did you use to determine if your answer to that question is true? Has that method been demonstrated to be reliable?

Ya, it has certainly changed my life with the real power of calling on God, which you probably wouldn't understand...

But for discussing this with you, you'd probably want some kind of evidence, in which case I think the resurrection is not only the best explanation of the evidences for Christianity, but it is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of Christianity

[EarthScienceguy]

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

The writer of Hebrews describes faith the following way.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen."

Those that believe in naturalism have to have faith that one day science will come up with a series of theories that will describe creation of our universe and life in naturalistic terms. Even though at the present time there is not even a workable idea. Even though there is no workable theory that does not stop naturalist they faith and that faith is the evidence that these theories exist even though there are no theories today.

Naturalist have much more faith than I could have. I am way to cynical to have that much faith in science.

Anyone that believes in naturalistic theories use faith to support their beliefs.

[bluegreenearth]

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

The writer of Hebrews describes faith the following way.

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen."

Those that believe in naturalism have to have faith that one day science will come up with a series of theories that will describe creation of our universe and life in naturalistic terms. Even though at the present time there is not even a workable idea. Even though there is no workable theory that does not stop naturalist they faith and that faith is the evidence that these theories exist even though there are no theories today.

Naturalist have much more faith than I could have. I am way to cynical to have that much faith in science.

Anyone that believes in naturalistic theories use faith to support their beliefs.

Equivocation fallacy. Try again.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 202 by bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth, I'm really going to hold you to the obligation of replying with some kind of evidence to support your assertion that I questioned you about in post 199. You even said this was a "Fact" in bold print. This is one of the rules of this forum, to support your claims with evidence... If you do not have the actually verses and passages in the scripture, you would need to say that and still present the evidence that led you to believe what you asserted. Either that or you are going to have to retract the statement as a fact.

Here is the forum rule

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 202 by bluegreenearth]

You know a workable theory for the creation of the universe or life? Really. Let's here it then.

[bluegreenearth]

bluegreenearth, I'm really going to hold you to the obligation of replying with some kind of evidence to support your assertion that I questioned you about in post 199. You even said this was a "Fact" in bold print. This is one of the rules of this forum, to support your claims with evidence... If you do not have the actually verses and passages in the scripture, you would need to say that and still present the evidence that led you to believe what you asserted. Either that or you are going to have to retract the statement as a fact.

Here is the forum rule

You do realize that this isn't a chat room and that people don't always immediately respond to posts don't you? I'm currently collecting the requested information and will post it when ready. Your patience will be appreciated.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 202 by bluegreenearth]

You know a workable theory for the creation of the universe or life? Really. Let's here it then.

How does pointing out your equivocation fallacy place a burden of proof on me to provide a theory for the creation of the universe or life?

[Tart]

bluegreenearth, I'm really going to hold you to the obligation of replying with some kind of evidence to support your assertion that I questioned you about in post 199. You even said this was a "Fact" in bold print. This is one of the rules of this forum, to support your claims with evidence... If you do not have the actually verses and passages in the scripture, you would need to say that and still present the evidence that led you to believe what you asserted. Either that or you are going to have to retract the statement as a fact.

Here is the forum rule

You do realize that this isn't a chat room and that people don't always immediately respond to posts don't you? I'm currently collecting the requested information and will post it when ready. Your patience will be appreciated.

Ya ok, I just wanted to make it clear, as to prevent a dodge..

You can reply here if you wish
viewtopic.php?p=983229#983229

[bluegreenearth]

For example, can you support this assertion with the evidence?
"Pauls character, his theology, and various events from his life are described differently in the letters to Theophilus than they are from his own autobiographical accounts. They also depart from each other on important issues such as the Law, Pauls own apostleship, and his association with the Jerusalem church."

This isn't an exhaustive list but here you go:

In Acts 15:20, James instructs that Gentiles should abstain from the consumption of "food polluted by idols." However, Paul isn't concerned about the consumption of food taken from sacrificial alters and never mentions this decision by James. See Paul's thoughts on this matter in 1 Corinthians 8:7-8 and 10:19-29.

In Acts 15:7 Peter states that "God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel." However, in Galatians 2:7, Paul indicates that Peter had been tasked with teaching the Gospel to the Jews, not the Gentiles.

Paul proclaims himself to be an apostle of Jesus in Galatians 2:8, 1 Corinthians 9:1-2, and in several other instances. However, according to Acts 1:21, one must have "been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us" to be granted the tile of apostle.

Paul indicates the other apostles added nothing to his message (Galatians 2:6). However, Acts 13:31 has Paul acknowledging "those who had traveled with Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem to be of greater importance.

Acts 25:8 has Paul describing himself as a Jew who was doing nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple. In his own letters, however, Paul frequently denies the significance of Jewish law. At one point, he admits to not having a righteousness of his own that comes from the law but through faith in Christ (Philippians 3:9).

Acts portrays Paul as a great orator. However, Paul indicates that people describe his speaking capability as being unimpressive and amounting to nothing (2 Corinthians 10:10).

Acts 8:1-3 records that, before his conversion to Christianity, Paul set out to destroy the church at Jerusalem by removing persons from their houses and imprisoning them. Nevertheless, in Galatians 1:22, Paul states that he "was personally unknown to the churches of Judea."

Acts 9:26 indicates that Paul was brought to the apostles in Jerusalem after his conversion. To the contrary, in Galatians 1:16-17, Paul indicates that he did not go to Jerusalem and "did not consult any man."

Acts 16:1-3 mentions that Paul required a disciple named Timothy to be circumcised "because of the Jews who lived in that area." This would seem to contradict Galatians 2:7 and 2:9 where Paul decided he would preach "to the uncircumcised." Paul's companion, Titus, was not "compelled to be circumcised" in Galatians 2:3. In 1 Corinthians 7:20, regarding circumcision, Paul declares that "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him." Finally, in Romans 2:26, he asserts the irrelevance of circumcision to faith.

In Acts 18:9-10, God assures Paul that he will not be hurt. However, in 2 Corinthians 11:23-25, Paul enumerates many occasions on which he was injured.

In Acts 22:23-29, the commander learns of Paul's Roman citizenship after he is removed from the crowd. However, in Acts 23:27, the commander claims that he rescued Paul because of prior knowledge of his Roman citizenship.

Acts 5:29 has the apostles stating, "We must obey God rather than men!" Meanwhile, in Romans 13:1-3, Paul recommends submitting oneself to the earthly authorities.

Chapter 1 of Acts identifies eleven apostles that saw the resurrected Jesus (Acts 1:13). However, in 1 Corinthians 15:5, Paul indicates that "he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve," for a total of thirteen apostles.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 208 by bluegreenearth]

Well done! Perhaps Paul was correct. He IS a madman.

Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one"I am talking like a madman"with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned.
2 Corinthians 11:23-25

[meanwhile, as bluegreenearth notes, Luke writes:
And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you,
Acts 18:9-10