Faith-based beliefs

[William]

There seems to have been a misunderstanding as to the purpose of my first thread on this subject due to the nature of some members making personal comments about other members in their posts, comments which were not directly related to the thread topic, and as a result the thread was locked.

I was using a disclaimer another member often uses, as a means of example - which is not contrary to any of the forum rules - not as a means of personal attack - which is contrary to the forum rules.

Certainly - as can be clearly seen, the OP does not make any such thing as a personal comment/attack or debate against any individual member.

The way I see it, debating is a form of schooling, in which the participants are both teaching and learning, whereas proselytizing clearly has no intention of learning, and in that is not teaching so much as preaching.

Is it fair that individuals use such a platform as a debate forum to preach from, when it is clear that their intention is not to debate at all, but to consistently spam the forum with their particular brand of organised religious indoctrination?

It is clear that the forum rules allow for some proselytizing to occur as a matter of 'par for the course', but when it is clear that individuals are not interested in any actual debate - especially in regard to their own particular sect - and even go to lengths to make disclaimers in order to avoid having to. Does this contravene the rules sufficiently to be dealt with in the same manner as any other type of rule breaking is dealt with?

Faith-based beliefs...Are they debatable?

What do you think?

PS - please don't use the OP question as an opportunity to make personal unrelated comments against other members. Just answer the question the OP is asking.

Thanks.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 28 by brunumb]

Faith allows you to believe something that is in fact true...

If something is in fact true, this implies that it has been evidenced as true. Something which has been evidenced as true, does not (no longer) requires faith of any sort.

And here we have the crux of this discussion: that true faith and belief can only be found in proof, that true evidence is proof, the fallacy that dogs some folk who in fact know that evidence points to a possible truth with a possible proof in the future.

Christians are willing to hold their disbelief in abeyance and hold onto their hope that the proof will be shown without a need for proof now...which is faith. Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, proven.

Christian faith is not belief in a truth without evidence no matter how the secularists define it. Faith is a HOPE in a coming future, and the building blocks of that future while holding the need for proof in suspension.

[ttruscott]

While it is clear that faith and trust and even belief are connected words, they have nuances of meaning that is supported in the Scriptural Greek...in that BELIEF: Strong's G4100 - pisteu, and BELIEVING: Strong's G4103 - pistos seem to have an emphasis of trust that FAITH, Strong's G4102 - pistis does not perfectly reflect, describing more our convictions than our closely related trust.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen S991. 2 Corinthians 5:7 We live by faith, not by sight S1491.

John 20:24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe, S4100. Is this level of proof being demanded excessive, tempting GOD perhaps? Forcing GOD to bow to mans' will? In the non-elect it certainly is but in the sinful elect, not so much.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing S4103. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen S3708 me, thou hast believed S4100: blessed are they that have not seen S1492, and yet have believed S4100.

Jesus meets doubt at the level where the rubber meets the road; proof they can see, that the hand can feel. This is real proof that forces belief. But Jesus also mentions a belief that has not yet been proven and calls it blessed. (Though why John chose to use two words for seen S3708 and S1492 in verse 29 should be explored as he is the consummate word master.)

Also, the 'not by sight' S1491 of Corinthians 5:7 is reflected here in verse 29 'have not seen' S1492 making the correlation between the word 'sight' and the meaning 'without proof.'

30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe S4100 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing S4100 ye might have life through his name....the book was written to provide the evidence for our faith of hope and trust, not for proof.

Is there evidence for His deity and salvation only through Him? Yes, the scriptures and the indwelling Holy Spirit provide the evidence for our belief unto life. But there is NO PROOF ! for us (usually), just the promise of blessings for believing upon the evidence without proof.

Peace, Ted

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by ttruscott]

And here we have the crux of this discussion:

Not at all. The thread is not asking WHY Christians have these faith-based beliefs, but whether such beliefs are negotiable. The crux of the matter, therefore, is that the beliefs - as you write;

Christians are willing to hold their disbelief in abeyance and hold onto their hope that the proof will be shown without a need for proof now...which is faith.

...can be regarded as nonnegotiable, because it is presented as such. THAT is the crux of the matter re the OPQ.

Such faith-based beliefs are therefore, NOT debatable, and thus do not belong in debate forums, and when they are placed there, that equates to the activity of proselytizing.

Both of you posts (31 and 32) are opportunities you have taken to proselytize, and one can clearly show this to be the case, not only by the content, but by asking you the simply question.

Q: Are your faith-based beliefs nonnegotiable?

Based upon your proselytizing posts, they are not, and that is the crux of the matter re the OP.

[polonius]

Perhaps the simplest and clearest distinction between reason and faith is presented in a Wikipedia article on the web.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality

1. Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

2. Fideism holds that faith is necessary, and that beliefs may be held without any evidence or reason and even in conflict with evidence and reason.

[William]

[Replying to post 34 by polonius]

The OPQ is not asking for distinction between reason and faith.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 31 by ttruscott]

Christian faith is not belief in a truth without evidence no matter how the secularists define it. Faith is a HOPE in a coming future, and the building blocks of that future while holding the need for proof in suspension.

Your second sentence contradicts the first. Holding the need for proof (evidence) in suspension is recognition that they actually do not have it now. Hope is desiring or wishing that something will happen. That is quite different from believing that it will.

[William]

[Replying to post 36 by brunumb]

None of which of course, appear to have anything to do with the OPQ, because the argument is not about the definition of those words in relation to one another.

Rather, it is about faith-based beliefs being nonnegotiable.

If hope is desiring or wishing that something will happen, such wishful desire can be regarded by the individual as nonnegotiable, in which case, differing definitions become besides the point any way.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 37 by William]

None of which of course, appear to have anything to do with the OPQ,...

I apologise William, but some posts just demand a response even if not strictly on topic.

[William]

[Replying to post 38 by brunumb]

I apologise William, but some posts just demand a response even if not strictly on topic.

Yes I fully understand Brunumb, but in relation to the OP topic, when we debate on posts which are undeniably proselytizing, we are simply inviting the practice to continue, so prudence in resisting the temptation to do so, will help the process of eliminating the practice from the chambers of debate in future. Sometimes being pro-active involves not getting involved in that way.

Perhaps the better response would be along the lines of;

[font=Comic Sans MS]"The content of your post appears to be proselytizing on issues of faith which are nonnegotiable rather than debating. I am here to debate in this forum, which has been set up for that purpose."[/font]

Point being, a proselytizing post is designed with that temptation in mind...to garner such response. The idea behind getting any response is to be enabled to continuing proselytizing. By understanding this method, we can disable it by not being tempted.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 39 by William]

You are way better at this than I am William. I am just a weak, sinful poster.