Faith question for Christians

higgy1911 · Post by **higgy1911** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 11:03 am

Christians, what parts of your beliefs are based on faith and what parts are based on scientific evidence.

For instance YEC Christians claim scientific evidence for the flood. I have seen many posters argue that there is scientific and historical evidence favoring the resurrection of Christ.

So what elements of CChristianity are taken on faith alone?

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:20 pm

connermt wrote: [Replying to post 79 by dianaiad]
[
quote]the guy who believes them knows this, how, exactly?

Via the brain

...those who can, who simply take the word of the guy that told them.

A problem religion faces that can't be silenced or changed

If they do the work themselves, yes. Most don't.

Which is why christianity is filled with lazy people[/quote]

You REALLY need to stop taking my quotes out of context, connermt. I was writing about those who believe in stuff they learned in science class.

That said, yes, There are a bunch of theists who do the same thing.

connermt wrote:
...but being religious is considerably harder than being scientific.
No, no it's not because religion is based on HOPE which anyone with a brain is capable of. Religion is seriously easy to accept IF you want to accept it. Anyone can believe anything they want.
Christianity is one (if not the) easiest religion to believe in: nothing tactile, an ever changing belief system, leaders who can't be trusted, text that can be doubted, an ever easy forgiveness concept....It's only as 'difficult' as one makes it.

Connermt....

Stop taking my quotes out of context. Really. Stop.

connermt · Post by **connermt** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:35 pm

[Replying to post 81 by dianaiad]

I was writing about those who believe in stuff they learned in science class.
I suggest you state that plainly so that there's no understanding, no assumption needed. Food for thought
There are a bunch of theists who do the same thing.
Define 'thing'
We don't want to assume now, do we?
Stop taking my quotes out of context. Really. Stop.
If you don't like how we converse, you're free to stop conversing.
I noticed you 'missed' some other things said, so I'll list them here if you're interested:

Quote:
Being shocked by that won't change anything.
Who said anyone's shocked?
Quote:
Define 'forced.'
Demanding through legal, economic or social means to accept one's religion as truth and/or worship it as such.

Thoughts or no?

dianaiad · Post by **dianaiad** » Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:17 pm

connermt wrote: [Replying to post 81 by dianaiad]

I was writing about those who believe in stuff they learned in science class.
I suggest you state that plainly so that there's no understanding, no assumption needed. Food for thought
Indeed. Since I had made it quite plain to whom I was referring in the context from which you took this quote, I find your plaint a bit ironic.

connermt wrote:
There are a bunch of theists who do the same thing.
Define 'thing'
We don't want to assume now, do we?
Try not cherry picking the quotes, connermt. Really. It helps a lot in figuring out what the other guy is really trying to say.

connermt wrote:
Stop taking my quotes out of context. Really. Stop.
If you don't like how we converse, you're free to stop conversing.
Y'know, You are quite right. I am.

Clownboat · Post by **Clownboat** » Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:23 pm

Agreed. Which is why it's easier to be 'religious' than 'scientific'

Dianaiad wrote:I really hate to tell you this, but being religious is considerably harder than being scientific. After all, after you figure out a truth 'religiously,' then you have to do something about it.

Having heard you say this, I think I now understand why you argue from the position that people don't check their sources.
Many may not, but your brush is too broad.

As an X-believer. Being scientific is much more work. Easier from the standpoint that I don't go to church 6 days a week, but much harder once you start caring if your beliefs are actually true or not. Being scientific in this case is not just trusting what someone tells you, unlike how I arrived at my religious beliefs. Sources must be verified IMO, and I don't care if we are verifying what some preacher claims or what some scientist is said to have claimed.

If a person cares if their beliefs are true, they should be source checking. In my experience, many believers have a hope that their beliefs are true, due to this want/hope, checking sources on claims you want to be true is often counter intuitive. Science does not offer a "heaven". If a scientific claim is shown to be in error, your not going to lose out on a heaven and go to a hell over it. This is a big difference.