Faith v. Evidence

[AMMON]

Considering that the Word of God backs up the Christian gospel, I think it is the right "consideration" to have.

God Bless,
Frankie

That all depends on one's faith in what the "Word of God" really is.

 

[carolbob]

That all depends on one's faith in what the "Word of God" really is.

I'll take the book that was written by several people over a long time, to which there is unsurmountable achealogical evidence.

 

[GOD'S ARMY]

I'll take the book that was written by several people over a long time, to which there is unsurmountable achealogical evidence.

Then you take physical evidence over faith?

 

[carolbob]

Then you take physical evidence over faith?

No, all the physical evidence does is reinforce my faith. The OT prophesies that came true, etc...

 

[He put me back together]

The problem with MOST of christianity, those in the latter-day saints crowd not being special in this area, is that we have this overwhelming misconception that "faith" is an excuse to believe something for no reason, or what's worse, we so very often think that OUR so-called "faith" is an excuse to insist that everyone ELSE believe in something for no reason.

But this was NEVER what the scriptures were referring to. Faith, as it has been translated, is convicition--belief, and particularly in the context of the Bible, Spiritual conviction. In a nut shell? Faith is hearing and believing the Spirit of Elohim. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the word of God" DOES NOT refer to reading the Bible (or the book of Mormon), and then deciding to believe it on a whim. The Spirit is the word of God. Without the Spirit, the Bible is just another collection of ancient writings, with little difference from the Koran or the words of Buddha. Without the Spirit, the book of Mormon is just a book written by a guy in the 1800's who supposed he was a prophet.

But you know...there are millions of us who would jump up and shout AMEN! to those words, and then go on doing the same thing...the only difference is, they'll work up some chill bumps or something and then say that the Holy Spirit told them that everything their daddy taught them was the word of God. Much like the young latter-day saints missionary who sat with me one night said, "I can tell by the feeling in my heart that Joseph Smith was a prophet." (Don't worry...there are plenty of examples of EXACTLY the same thing with baptists, methodists, presbyterians, catholics, and pentecostals where that came from.) A nice guy, a gentleman I wouldn't mind having supper with at all...but in my humble opinion, this fellow obviously had no clue what faith is. You might as well replace the word "faith" with "Spirit" and be left with the same problem.

Hebrews 11 is not a definition of faith. It is a statement about faith, faith already being defined. Faith IS evidence, and it is more reliable than one's eyes. I trust the Holy Spirit moreso than my physical senses--he's ELOHIM, for crying out loud! Faith is evidence...whims are not. But if he hasn't told you what he has told me, do I have a right to insist that you believe it? This is the crux of our problem.

"God has told me this. I'll believe it, no matter what you say, because God is all-knowing, and you see through a glass darkly. I'll trust God before you any day." is totally legitimate, as long as the belief only affects you, and frankly I wish that the christians who post on this forum yacking about how unsupported the book of Mormon is would apply the same standards to their own beliefs. HOWEVER, "God has told me this, therefore you should believe it as well." IS NOT AN ARGUMENT! If God really annointed you to convince me, he would do one of two things:

a) He'd actually speak to me, while you were speaking. If you're banking on that and it doesn't happen, don't be so megalomanic to insist that I'm quenching the Spirit.

-OR-

b) HE'LL GIVE YOU AN ARGUMENT! Is it a crime to ask you to say something that actually MAKES SENSE?

Among human beings, logic is how we discuss things. Sure, lots of the anti-mormon stuff on this forum is just the hot air of a bunch of brainwashed Pharisees stabbing in the dark, making hypocritical standards that their own beliefs don't hold up to. But if your faith means that you don't need to study to show yourself approved...if your faith exempts you from making sense, why are you even on this forum to begin with? Why do you feel a need to apply your illogic to the logic of others, and claim it superior? Jesus argued with logic all throughout the gospels. Would you ignore him because of your "faith?" If discussion is invalid, why are you still discussing? Choose one or the other. Don't sit there wolfing down your cake and lie to me through your teeth, telling me you're saving it for later.

 

[AMMON]

Thank your for you comments, Back Together, I found them to be refreshingly intellectual in forum usually filled with rehearsed rhetoric. You should post more of the same in the other threads. I welcome your insight.

As to your substantive comments, how is it that faith is evidence? Evidence, in the true sense of the word, as I understand it, provides a pure knowledge. If one has a pure knowledge of a thing, one need not excerise faith in that thing for one knows of it completely. Faith, according to my understanding, is believing is that for which there is no, or little, tangible evidence. Faith is believing is a thing because you have had a spiritual (not emotional--big difference) witness of the veracity of the thing, whether it be that God lives, that the Gospel of Mark is a truly inspired work, or that The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ was an inspired work of the ancient prophets in the Americas, which was translated and brought to light by the modern day prophet Joseph Smith.

These are things for which there is little, if any, tangible evidence (and I mean evidence in the sense that such would be considered evidence by the scientific community and/or a court of law); hence, one must believe in these things through a manifestation of the Spirit of God, which is a spiritual manifestion that occurs through the Holy Spirit and His witness to you by manifesting the same unto your very soul, not your emotions. Thus, how can faith be evidence? Faith, in my opinion, is not evidence in the sense of man, but evidence in the sense of the Spirit of God. And unto each the Spirit of God may make manifest the truth of all things that in Him are. Do you agree?

 

[He put me back together]

Ammon, I appreciate your kind words and your invitation. If I can step over the FIVE BIBLICAL REASONS WHY MORMONS ARE WRONG, I might just do that

Well, at the risk of flying into a tangent, the first thing is that evidence, in the conventional sense of the word, is not directly pure knowledge, neccessarily. Evidence is a piece of pure knowledge that can be associated with a certain connected hypothesis. Thus, what we have deemed "evidence" is not always pure knowledge in the sense that you are speaking. Every single sense that we read is pure knowledge--that's just the axiom of the situation. "I sense" is a pure knowledge. "I smell chicken." is not a pure knowledge--that's a theory based on evidence. What you're smelling may be similar to chicken, but it isn't PROVEN to be chicken by the smell alone.

For instance, if you have a pot on the stove full of water, and you place your hand in the water, it might get burned. The burning sensation is a pure knowledge. "I feel a burning sensation." is an axiom. It is evidence that the water is hot. But it is not PROOF that the water is hot. Heat is one of many things that cause burning sensations. Given the stove, given the kitchen, given the possibility of electricity or gas, anyone in his right mind would conclude that the water is hot. But they wouldn't know the water is hot...it could have a low ph, or maybe it was full of enzymes or nanobots or something. (of course, a buddhist or a nerdy matrix fan might insist that there actually isn't a pot there to get hot in the first place)

Okkkkkkkkkkkkk sorry about that pointless moot-topic drivel. Sometimes I have an itch, and I have to scratch it. Let's talk about faith. Yes, faith is the reception of the Spirit of Elohim, and thus is evidence. Why? Well, let's look at general revelation. With the given precepts: Elohim is Elohim, and it is impossible for Elohim to lie, then if something comes from Elohim, it is the truth. However, the two precepts must be proven, and they are only thus by the revelation of the Holy Spirit in the first place. This, subjectively, is all a believer needs. Objectively, it's a circular argument. Moreover, "Yahweh said it" is another precept. His sheep know his voice, but on an objective forum such as this one, his sheep don't neccessarily know each other. What one little goat in a wool jacket calls "Yahweh," another grass-eating critter might call "Satan..." and yet another will call it "a little voice in your head."

But let's leave that last one alone...I'm sure we all agree that Yahweh is not a little voice in a person's head. That's just silly and childish.

At any rate, faith is belief in what God said. Period. But what many call "God" is really a good feeling, or a security in the traditions of their fathers, or, A PERSONAL WHIM. No matter what, faith is subjective, and not objective. This, essentially, is what James was saying when he said "Faith without works is dead." It doesn't profit the kingdom of God for any of us to go trotting around town shouting "I have faiiiith I have faiiiith I am riiiiight you are wronnng." If God really told you these things, wouldn't you be able to defend it? If you really had faith, would you run around telling how these things were true, and then cop out with a phrase like "Evidence against me is irrelevant, because I have FAITH!" at the very moment when someone challenges what you have to say?

The members of this forum do not know each other personally. There are no real-world works to see, as evidence of faith. Works are in the words of the person. "I have faith, therefore you are wrong." is a copout. A cower to a superior argument, and one that christians very often take. The bottom line is, if you're going to argue, then ARGUE! There's nothing wrong with argument--the gospels are full of Jesus' arguments. But if you're going to sit back and say "What I believe doesn't have to make sense. I have faith," then what are you doing on this forum to begin with?

 

[Doc T]

I'll take the book that was written by several people over a long time, to which there is unsurmountable achealogical evidence.

Carolbob, your statement brings to mind a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

The first one is, If archaeological evidence "disproves" something you believe about the Bible, do you accept the archaeological evidence or your understanding of the Bible?

Secondly do any of these "unsurmountable archeological evidence" prove that Elijah called fire from the sky? Do they prove that Elisha made an axe head float? Do they prove that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego actually survived the fire? Do they prove Daniel survived the Lion's den? More importantly, do they prove Jesus was born of a virgin? Do they prove that Jesus healed the sick? Do they prove that he raised the dead? What if you found proof that Jesus was crucified? Would that prove He took our sins upon himself? Can you prove that He was resurrected? If not, what do these "unsurmountable archeological evidence" prove other than the Bible is an ancient book?

Anyone else that would care to can chime in here also.

Thanks

Doc

~

 

[carolbob]

Carolbob, your statement brings to mind a couple of questions, if you don't mind.

The first one is, If archaeological evidence "disproves" something you believe about the Bible, do you accept the archaeological evidence or your understanding of the Bible?

Secondly do any of these "unsurmountable archeological evidence" prove that Elijah called fire from the sky? Do they prove that Elisha made an axe head float? Do they prove that Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego actually survived the fire? Do they prove Daniel survived the Lion's den? More importantly, do they prove Jesus was born of a virgin? Do they prove that Jesus healed the sick? Do they prove that he raised the dead? What if you found proof that Jesus was crucified? Would that prove He took our sins upon himself? Can you prove that He was resurrected? If not, what do these "unsurmountable archeological evidence" prove other than the Bible is an ancient book?

Anyone else that would care to can chime in here also.

Thanks

Doc

~

Hi Doc,

Don't mind at all. I'm talking about the tangible proof. Buildings, currency, etc...The things that you mention that are not tangible are where physical proof ends and faith begins.

 

[Doc T]

Hi Doc,

Don't mind at all. I'm talking about the tangible proof. Buildings, currency, etc...The things that you mention that are not tangible are where physical proof ends and faith begins.

So what the archaeology does for you is just demonstrate that the Bible is an old book?

Doc

~

 

[carolbob]

So what the archaeology does for you is just demonstrate that the Bible is an old book?

Doc

~

Proof of events, yet lack of it does not dispell my faith either. It is indeed a history book.

 

[Doc T]

Proof of events, yet lack of it does not dispell my faith either. It is indeed a history book.

Not meaning to pick on you Carolbob, but you seem to be the only one replying on this thread. Which events of the Bible do you thing that archaeology proves?

Thanks

Doc

~

 

[skylark1]

Doc,

I don't think that anyone has claimed that archaeology "proves" the Bile, so much as they have claimed that archaeology supports the Bible.

 

[carolbob]

To name a few.....
Caanite gods and goddesses found objects affirm pagan influences on the Israelites. Pool at Gibeon, found in 2 Samuel and Jeremiah. House of Yahweh Ostracon, mentions Solomon's Temple. Jeroboam seal, seals were found for Uzziah, Hoshea and hezekiah. Seals with the names of other kings were also found (Kings 1 & 2). The Moabite Stone, King Uzziah Buiral Plaque (2 Chronicals 26), Siloam Carving (2 Kings, 2 Chronicals)...

 

[repentandbelieve]

As a corollary to the "Burning Bosom Thread," this thread discusses the function of faith in the belief of that which cannot be verified through evidence, or even that which evidence might tend to disprove. As stated in Hebrews, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1.) Hence, faith, in sufficient degree, is evidence of things not seen.

Many awe, and some even disparage, at the faithfulness of many of the posters in here, and as to members throughout the world, to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (incorrectly called the "Mormon Church"). Indeed, how is it that in spite of all the "evidence" that those who dislike or question The Church throw-up in here that we remain faithful? Simple. We remain faithful for we have had a divine witness of the truth in that which we believe, a witness that we cannot deny, a witness that infused us with true faith the Gospel of Jesus Christ, in His saving power, and in His church, even the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Thus, we here talk of lack of evidence of this and that and an abudance of evidence of that and the other, but do you not know that seeking tangible evidence does not strenghthen one's faith? And without faith, how can you believe in the divinity and power of that being, even Jesus Christ the Son of God, which you have not seen? I say that you cannot. And if you rely on the existing evidence to support this divine power, you rely in vain and build your foundation upon the sand, for such is not meant to be made manifest by tangible evidence, but rather through the Spirit of God and through the exercising of faith, pure faith.

Thus, seek no more to sway and tempt those of us who believe in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, which we believe is found in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, with vain references to so-called tangible "evidence," for in such we do not place our faith. Our faith is even as that spoken in Hebrews, namely the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. And like the ancient prophet Moroni who faced death for his beliefs, we shall not recant our beliefs. Moroni stated, "For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their hatred they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ. And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ . . . ." (Moroni 1:2-3.)

I fully echo his conviction, and in not denying the Christ, based on the many holy and peaceful witnesses of the Spirit with which I've been blessed, I cannot deny his Church either, which I firmly believe to be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Faith... you cannot be a Christian without it. And I am a Christian.

Ammon, we both have faith in Jesus and both of us are doing "all we can do" to follow his teachings. I think the main difference between you and I is that you have faith in Joesph Smith and the Book Of Morman and I don't.
Christians belonging to other denominations aren't denying Christ when they don't accept the BOM as scripture. Church membership is not what saves people.

 

[unbound]

Supernatural or paranormal things can not be proven- that is why they are called just that. I find it rather amusing when folks ask me to "prove" it.

What can be proven are things of historical fact about people places and things. If the bible had read like the Lord of the Rings, with made up people, countries, and animals, then no, I could not place faith in something that bears no resemblance to reality. But the bible holds true , even to the very buildings described, so I know that these people lived and died and there are realy Jews, and Romans.

Its pretty simple really. The BoM is NOT reality.

 

[Taki Fritz]

oops. how do I remove this?

 

[He put me back together]

The bottom line is, one fellow says "The BOM is true, because I have faith that it is true." Another fellow says "The BOM is false, because I have faith that it is false." What use do these two men have with this forum? What good does their communication provide? If so-called "faith" nullifies all arguments and all discussions objectively as well as subjectively, why argue? Why discuss? And why study to show yourself approved, if claiming to have faith makes you approved already?