Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (18303)	7/16/2001 10:10:39 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first. . I find it shocking that a person of your obvious intelligence has never even read the bible. You ought to at least give the New Testament a boo before you dismiss it outright. I've talked about this before. I was raised Catholic. I was taught my religion from a catechism--rote Q and A. There was a Bible in my home, but, to the best of my recollection, no one ever opened it. My religious training was just different from yours, Greg. We didn't do Bibles, we did catechism. There was still prayer in the schools when I was a kid. We would take turns reading from the Bible every day along with the Pledge of Allegiance (which at that time did not contain "under God"}. Mostly everyone read psalms. I went through that section of the Bible and picked out a few I liked and read them when it was my turn. That's all the Bible reading I ever did as a kid. By the time I was an adult, I was no longer religious so there was not much point in picking up a Bible. Over the years, I have developed an appreciation of the value of cultural literacy and thought I should have the Bible under my belt, no pun intended. I went out and bought an easy-reading version, and picked it up a couple of times but just couldn't seem to get started. I no longer see the point. My time on earth is getting shorter and the Bible is very long. If just reading it were enough, I might find the energy, but I think you have to not just read it but study it intently if you want to understand it. I'm just not willing to put in that effort just to round out my cultural literacy. I have never read War and Peace, either. Karen

To: Greg or e who wrote (18303)	7/16/2001 11:19:38 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<<Another view was offered by the Danish philosopher of religion Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855). He concluded that the basis for religion could never be found in history but could only come from faith. If one had faith, then certain historical materials would have religious significance. This has led to the development of fideism, i. e., a complete reliance on faith and rejection of science and philosophy in religious matters.>> infidels.org Greg, this clip demonstrates where I've been coming from. I continue to try to get my head around "faith." Faith is something I don't experience. It seems quite alien to me. It really bugs me when I can't get my head around something so I continue to look for insights into this faith thing. That's all I was doing in my question to you. I was trying to understand why, if you have faith, you feel a need to verify. My limited understanding of faith says that faith should be enough. You keep throwing out historical, logical, scientific arguments and I was trying to understand why. That's all. It's not a question of "characterizing [your] views as illogical, unscientific, and unworthy of [my] respect." I was questioning the necessity of your offering them at all. It's next to impossible for me to put myself in the position of a believer, but I would think that I might respond differently. I think that I might simply say that I believe it because I have been graced by God with faith. Period. So I'm trying to understand why you do otherwise. Your latest post gives me some answers. The answer to that is simply that I was challenged by several people here, that what I believe regarding these matters is untrue. Ascribing untrue beliefs to faith may justify them to you, but it doesn't to me. You seem to be saying that what I believe would be acceptable to you if only I conceded that it wasn't true for anyone other than myself. It's either true or it isn't Karen. Do I seem like the kind of person who believes in what they know to be untrue? Some answers, indeed, but enough? Maybe. It seems to me that if there were some way of verifying the divinity of Jesus and the literal truth of the Bible using the information and tools available to us mortals, by now, someone would have done so and documented it in a way that was clear and obvious to anyone with at least half a brain, which I like to think includes me. The world would have given out a collective cry of "Oh, yes, of course" and we'd all be believing it. But that hasn't happened. The obvious explanation for it not having happened is that it's not possible. I accept that as a given. That leaves only faith to justify those beliefs. You seem to be taking the approach of "have faith, but verify." I'm just trying to understand why. What I think I'm seeing in those last few comments is that you feel the need to confirm that there's nothing in the mortal tool box that would negate what you believe by faith. You won't believe by faith what can be shown to be untrue. That makes sense to me. You can't verify that it's true, but you can verify that it's not patently untrue. Have I figured it out? Karen