Is the Charleston church shooting making anyone doubt their Faith?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jesus' actions and sayings were generally witnessed by smallish crowds of illiterate people. That was Jesus' base - the illiterate and the dispossed. None of these illiterate people were writing anything down.

So the traditions were passed on orally -- which you want to dismiss. Instead, you are demanding first-hand accounts inscribed in rock or something. Good luck with that.

I'm guessing you also take a dim view of the Quran, which one guy claimed was dictated to him.

You know what? That's OK. You can take any view you like on these religious sources. And we can the views we like. What I don't understand is why some of you spend hours on a Mom's website spouting nonsense about John.

I'm not the PP you're responding to but your post is interesting. One of the PP's argued that the gospels ARE eye witness accounts. How could that be if they (Jesus's base) weren't writing anything down? I think most people of that era couldn't read or write.

You can have an eye-witness who passes on what s/he's seen orally, no contradiction there. Somebody eventually writes it down, in the case of the gospels between 30-60 years after the event depending on the particular gospel. Then in the 300s there was a process to determine what people at the time thought was authentic. Then 1700 years after that, you have some uninformed people on DCUM arguing about John and whether this process is reliable or not.

Thirty to sixty years after the event is "eye-witness evidence"? Don't memories fade? Also, why then would someone have to determine what was authentic after the fact?

Yes, scientific studies were done on eye-witness accounts, and memories fade quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
gotcha? lol

PP, you are a hot mess. There are many primary sources - as in firsthand accounts - dating back to antiquity that are more ACCURATE than the gospels. Furthermore, the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. They are stories - starting with Mark - on the story of Jesus - with the clear intent of indoctrinating the masses. Matthew, Luke and John copied Mark's version and added their own spin to these so-called accounts. So the gospel is really ONE person's version.

And even IF someone doesn't believe in miracles, s/he would have recorded them, as these "miracles" are anomalies, yes? So if I don't believe in UFOs but I see some odd flying object in the sky, do you honestly think I'd keep it to myself? lol

You eventually saw the towers fall, yes? You've seen the Dec of Ind, right? You've seen footage of the towers from national and international news sources, right? And you've clearly read primary accounts of the Revolutionary War in your history classes.

and with regard to the non-Christian accounts of Jesus? There is still no proof that there was ONE Jesus.

I'm done. If you can't be bothered with other sources, then live in your La La Land and wave to me down below as I burn in hell.

What a hypocrite you are.

You're applying opposite standards to the gospels vs. the Greek and Roman sources you venerate. Did you say primary sources from the Greeks and Romans? Bwahahaha! Don't you realize that many of these were written for rulers/emperors who dictated the contents, and there were no Pinocchio columns in the Post to keep the authors honest? Heck, even Shakespeare probably warped the story of Richard III because Shakespeare was writing under Elizabeth I (although it turns out Richard was a hunchback at least). At least the gospels weren't written for any ruling power, which actually argues in their favor. And do you really have no clue that documents and any footage, like that of the falling towers, can be faked? Really, you had no clue?

And don't get me started on whether we should trust *you* to weigh in on the accuracy of *anything*, including the color scheme of this website, let alone the accuracy of the gospels or classical authors. Why should we listen to somebody who thinks John came from the same authorial tradition as Matthew, Mark and Luke (hello, Q version) when practically every real scholar out there disagrees with you.

Hypocrite. Or maybe you're just not very intelligent. But then we shouldn't expect anything more intelligent from a pot-stirring jerk who calls others a "hot mess", rambles on about "La La Land", confuses being a "primary source" with being "accurate," and thinks that John is just like the other gospels.

Yikes.

Glad you're "done here," you won't be missed.

It's hot in hell - like a trip to the islands!

Anyway, genius, do some research:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

So Jesus died btw. 30 and 33 AD. Mark wrote about Jesus' life 40 years after the fact. I hardly think his memory was that good. And note how long it took John to write his? Therefore, their accounts were not contemporary!

Furthermore, there's no evidence showing that these four men even wrote these accounts themselves. They never mention their names for one. And these were "gospels according to . . . ," which distances the author from the material. Therefore, internal evidence is lacking.

I've already addressed external evidence. However, keep in mind that early on, any references to the gospels were general - referred to as the memories of the apostles. In fact, the names weren't added until the end of the second century. again - not a contemporary account

Yet Pliny wrote directly to Tacitus - contemporary as well as external evidence.

get it?

Literacy was NOT for the masses. I recognize that. Again, that's why Greek plays and pageant wagons were used in a didactic fashion to get the word out to the masses.

With THAT in mind, while there was speculation that these men (if they were indeed real) were literate, it certainly took them long enough to get the word out, eh? and even longer to get their NAMES out . . .

You have no leg to stand on, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
gotcha? lol

PP, you are a hot mess. There are many primary sources - as in firsthand accounts - dating back to antiquity that are more ACCURATE than the gospels. Furthermore, the gospels are NOT firsthand accounts. They are stories - starting with Mark - on the story of Jesus - with the clear intent of indoctrinating the masses. Matthew, Luke and John copied Mark's version and added their own spin to these so-called accounts. So the gospel is really ONE person's version.

And even IF someone doesn't believe in miracles, s/he would have recorded them, as these "miracles" are anomalies, yes? So if I don't believe in UFOs but I see some odd flying object in the sky, do you honestly think I'd keep it to myself? lol

You eventually saw the towers fall, yes? You've seen the Dec of Ind, right? You've seen footage of the towers from national and international news sources, right? And you've clearly read primary accounts of the Revolutionary War in your history classes.

and with regard to the non-Christian accounts of Jesus? There is still no proof that there was ONE Jesus.

I'm done. If you can't be bothered with other sources, then live in your La La Land and wave to me down below as I burn in hell.

What a hypocrite you are.

You're applying opposite standards to the gospels vs. the Greek and Roman sources you venerate. Did you say primary sources from the Greeks and Romans? Bwahahaha! Don't you realize that many of these were written for rulers/emperors who dictated the contents, and there were no Pinocchio columns in the Post to keep the authors honest? Heck, even Shakespeare probably warped the story of Richard III because Shakespeare was writing under Elizabeth I (although it turns out Richard was a hunchback at least). At least the gospels weren't written for any ruling power, which actually argues in their favor. And do you really have no clue that documents and any footage, like that of the falling towers, can be faked? Really, you had no clue?

And don't get me started on whether we should trust *you* to weigh in on the accuracy of *anything*, including the color scheme of this website, let alone the accuracy of the gospels or classical authors. Why should we listen to somebody who thinks John came from the same authorial tradition as Matthew, Mark and Luke (hello, Q version) when practically every real scholar out there disagrees with you.

Hypocrite. Or maybe you're just not very intelligent. But then we shouldn't expect anything more intelligent from a pot-stirring jerk who calls others a "hot mess", rambles on about "La La Land", confuses being a "primary source" with being "accurate," and thinks that John is just like the other gospels.

Yikes.

Glad you're "done here," you won't be missed.

It's hot in hell - like a trip to the islands!

Anyway, genius, do some research:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

So Jesus died btw. 30 and 33 AD. Mark wrote about Jesus' life 40 years after the fact. I hardly think his memory was that good. And note how long it took John to write his? Therefore, their accounts were not contemporary!

Furthermore, there's no evidence showing that these four men even wrote these accounts themselves. They never mention their names for one. And these were "gospels according to . . . ," which distances the author from the material. Therefore, internal evidence is lacking.

I've already addressed external evidence. However, keep in mind that early on, any references to the gospels were general - referred to as the memories of the apostles. In fact, the names weren't added until the end of the second century. again - not a contemporary account

Yet Pliny wrote directly to Tacitus - contemporary as well as external evidence.

get it?

Literacy was NOT for the masses. I recognize that. Again, that's why Greek plays and pageant wagons were used in a didactic fashion to get the word out to the masses.

With THAT in mind, while there was speculation that these men (if they were indeed real) were literate, it certainly took them long enough to get the word out, eh? and even longer to get their NAMES out . . .

You have no leg to stand on, sweetie.

Ultimately Christians don't depend on historical facts or scientific evidence for their belief in Jesus. It's a matter of faith, deep faith, that may occasionally be shaken by facts, but always returns if you're a true Christian and you don't allow cognitive dissonance and empirical information to get in the way. Many people have lost their faith this way, or at least had it shaken for a while, but if you try hard and truly want to believe, you can.

Pp does not have a factual leg to stand on, but she never did and truly faithful people understand this.

[Anonymous]

People can act in perfectly logical ways in other aspects of their lives, but if their religious beliefs are challenged, they may apply logic for a while, but if things don't add up, they will drop the logic and rely on faith alone. It is a time-honored tradition in Christianity.

Some of the most revered Christian figures, including Jesus himself, have had doubts, but they still come back to the security, peace and everlasting salvation that Christianity offers to those who can make themselves believe..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[It's hot in hell - like a trip to the islands!

Anyway, genius, do some research:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

So Jesus died btw. 30 and 33 AD. Mark wrote about Jesus' life 40 years after the fact. I hardly think his memory was that good. And note how long it took John to write his? Therefore, their accounts were not contemporary!

Furthermore, there's no evidence showing that these four men even wrote these accounts themselves. They never mention their names for one. And these were "gospels according to . . . ," which distances the author from the material. Therefore, internal evidence is lacking.

I've already addressed external evidence. However, keep in mind that early on, any references to the gospels were general - referred to as the memories of the apostles. In fact, the names weren't added until the end of the second century. again - not a contemporary account

Yet Pliny wrote directly to Tacitus - contemporary as well as external evidence.

get it?

Literacy was NOT for the masses. I recognize that. Again, that's why Greek plays and pageant wagons were used in a didactic fashion to get the word out to the masses.

With THAT in mind, while there was speculation that these men (if they were indeed real) were literate, it certainly took them long enough to get the word out, eh? and even longer to get their NAMES out . . .

You have no leg to stand on, sweetie.

Oh get over yourself. You really are a piece of work with the insults and ValleyGirl-speak and whatnot. And you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, which is pretty sad for somebody who keeps claiming so pathetically to be the smart girl in the room.

So you "hardly think that [Mark's] memory is that good." Wow, I'm convinced now! Somebody ranting on DCUM claims to have insight into Mark's long-term memory function, call the Pope, Tammy Bakker and Deepak Chopra! So you're unhappy that Jesus' illiterate followers were incapable of writing things down, and that these stories, which obviously made huge impressions on the actual witnesses, had to wait several decades to be written down. So you don't like that the gospels served as compilations of stories (did you miss that a few pages ago, and that's why you're now insisting that there should be a single author?). In other words, you just don't like the era's historical standards for recording events.

For your own sake: stop ranting already. First, you just look like an ass, with all your babyish insults.

Second, we don't care. We don't care about your opinions on Mark's long-term memory. We don't care that you're dissasfied with the historical standards of 80AD, that you don't like compilations, and that you're raving about how Jesus' illiterate followers should have committed everything to YouTube or something. We don't care that you've at least heard of Pliny or that you can wave your hands vaguely about Greek plays. (But those of us who majored in history snicker when you keep insisting that letters are always and necessarily reliable, while other ancient sources are never reliable. Please!)

We don't care ... because Christians and non-Christians have known all about all of these things for centuries. And Christians--and even many non-Christians, despite their definitional lack of faith--have accepted that these documents, despite being recorded in line with the historical standards of that time, are valuable records of the doings of a man called Jesus.

I notice that I'm the first to reply to the last 3 atheist posts - it's clear nobody else wants to address your childishness and sillness.

Joining them now. Buh bye!

[Anonymous]

I'm more of an agnostic. I would like to believe in a higher being, but just can't. None of the most intelligent people I know are "Believers". If a real scholar with a solid knowledge of history and languages explains his/her faith, that would probably sway me. But all of the "Believers" I know are poor writers who are incapable of truly supporting an assertion; they are less intelligent than the top academics I know who are atheists, and the "Believers" are less educated as well. Their writing is poorly structured and emotionally charged: THAT is childish.

If Jesus wants to save me, he'll have to send a Fisher of Man who is clever and informed, not emotional and cognitively challenged.

Did you hear that? I WANT to be convinced that there is a God. This is YOUR chance to save me and bring another soul to the Lord. If someone here can explain their faith logically, in strong, well-supported, emotion-free writing, I'm ready.

Priests have given up on me before, so I doubt any of you can do it. But I'm still a little open. Bring it, Believers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm more of an agnostic. I would like to believe in a higher being, but just can't. None of the most intelligent people I know are "Believers". If a real scholar with a solid knowledge of history and languages explains his/her faith, that would probably sway me. But all of the "Believers" I know are poor writers who are incapable of truly supporting an assertion; they are less intelligent than the top academics I know who are atheists, and the "Believers" are less educated as well. Their writing is poorly structured and emotionally charged: THAT is childish.

If Jesus wants to save me, he'll have to send a Fisher of Man who is clever and informed, not emotional and cognitively challenged.

Did you hear that? I WANT to be convinced that there is a God. This is YOUR chance to save me and bring another soul to the Lord. If someone here can explain their faith logically, in strong, well-supported, emotion-free writing, I'm ready.

Priests have given up on me before, so I doubt any of you can do it. But I'm still a little open. Bring it, Believers.

To answer your first point, I'm 12:22, and I'm a NMSSF. My mom is a mensa member - and she has advanced degrees in (liberal) theology. I know plenty of brilliant believers who have probably twice the capacity for reasoning and expression as that poor poster at 10:28. It's true that we often have to hide our faith at work, because the 10:28s just can't stop themselves and it's not worth engaging. But there are plenty of us smart believers out there.

Yet I don't think I'd want to try to "persuade" you. (And my mom is in her 80s and is struggling now.)

The problem is, belief is just that. Belief means, by definition, means that you can't point to a thunderbolt or a listen to a stentorian voice booming out of the clouds. I think you're looking for incontrovertible proof, correct me if I'm wrong. Yet if it were as easy as saying, "just listen and you'll hear God" then we'd all be believers. Every last one of us would see the incontrovertible proof I think you're looking for, and then we'd all believe, and we'd all do what we were told by this God who sent down the proof.

And then there would be no choice, no free will, and we'd all basically be robots. That might sound pat to you, and I can see that. But to me it's actually better, and beautiful, that we humans continue to face challenges and to have choices.

[Anonymous]

Should probably clarify: NMSSF = National Merit Scholarship Semi-finalist. Haven't tried for Mensa, before 10:28 pops up with some silly snark about how I'm not good enough for Mensa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[It's hot in hell - like a trip to the islands!

Anyway, genius, do some research:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

So Jesus died btw. 30 and 33 AD. Mark wrote about Jesus' life 40 years after the fact. I hardly think his memory was that good. And note how long it took John to write his? Therefore, their accounts were not contemporary!

Furthermore, there's no evidence showing that these four men even wrote these accounts themselves. They never mention their names for one. And these were "gospels according to . . . ," which distances the author from the material. Therefore, internal evidence is lacking.

I've already addressed external evidence. However, keep in mind that early on, any references to the gospels were general - referred to as the memories of the apostles. In fact, the names weren't added until the end of the second century. again - not a contemporary account

Yet Pliny wrote directly to Tacitus - contemporary as well as external evidence.

get it?

Literacy was NOT for the masses. I recognize that. Again, that's why Greek plays and pageant wagons were used in a didactic fashion to get the word out to the masses.

With THAT in mind, while there was speculation that these men (if they were indeed real) were literate, it certainly took them long enough to get the word out, eh? and even longer to get their NAMES out . . .

You have no leg to stand on, sweetie.

Oh get over yourself. You really are a piece of work with the insults and ValleyGirl-speak and whatnot. And you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, which is pretty sad for somebody who keeps claiming so pathetically to be the smart girl in the room.

So you "hardly think that [Mark's] memory is that good." Wow, I'm convinced now! Somebody ranting on DCUM claims to have insight into Mark's long-term memory function, call the Pope, Tammy Bakker and Deepak Chopra! So you're unhappy that Jesus' illiterate followers were incapable of writing things down, and that these stories, which obviously made huge impressions on the actual witnesses, had to wait several decades to be written down. So you don't like that the gospels served as compilations of stories (did you miss that a few pages ago, and that's why you're now insisting that there should be a single author?). In other words, you just don't like the era's historical standards for recording events.

For your own sake: stop ranting already. First, you just look like an ass, with all your babyish insults.

Second, we don't care. We don't care about your opinions on Mark's long-term memory. We don't care that you're dissasfied with the historical standards of 80AD, that you don't like compilations, and that you're raving about how Jesus' illiterate followers should have committed everything to YouTube or something. We don't care that you've at least heard of Pliny or that you can wave your hands vaguely about Greek plays. (But those of us who majored in history snicker when you keep insisting that letters are always and necessarily reliable, while other ancient sources are never reliable. Please!)

We don't care ... because Christians and non-Christians have known all about all of these things for centuries. And Christians--and even many non-Christians, despite their definitional lack of faith--have accepted that these documents, despite being recorded in line with the historical standards of that time, are valuable records of the doings of a man called Jesus.

I notice that I'm the first to reply to the last 3 atheist posts - it's clear nobody else wants to address your childishness and sillness.

Joining them now. Buh bye!

And the best you can do is to come back with this?

And I'm childish for bringing in evidence?

Good Lord, sweetie - Did you graduate from an accredited college?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[It's hot in hell - like a trip to the islands!

Anyway, genius, do some research:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/gospels.html

Of these then, Mark is the earliest, probably written between 70 and 75. Matthew is next - written somewhere between 75 and about 85, maybe even a little later than that. Luke is a little later still, being written between 80 and maybe 90 or 95. And, John's gospel is the latest, usually dated around 95, although it may have been completed slightly later than that, as well.

So Jesus died btw. 30 and 33 AD. Mark wrote about Jesus' life 40 years after the fact. I hardly think his memory was that good. And note how long it took John to write his? Therefore, their accounts were not contemporary!

Furthermore, there's no evidence showing that these four men even wrote these accounts themselves. They never mention their names for one. And these were "gospels according to . . . ," which distances the author from the material. Therefore, internal evidence is lacking.

I've already addressed external evidence. However, keep in mind that early on, any references to the gospels were general - referred to as the memories of the apostles. In fact, the names weren't added until the end of the second century. again - not a contemporary account

Yet Pliny wrote directly to Tacitus - contemporary as well as external evidence.

get it?

Literacy was NOT for the masses. I recognize that. Again, that's why Greek plays and pageant wagons were used in a didactic fashion to get the word out to the masses.

With THAT in mind, while there was speculation that these men (if they were indeed real) were literate, it certainly took them long enough to get the word out, eh? and even longer to get their NAMES out . . .

You have no leg to stand on, sweetie.

Oh get over yourself. You really are a piece of work with the insults and ValleyGirl-speak and whatnot. And you can't reason your way out of a paper bag, which is pretty sad for somebody who keeps claiming so pathetically to be the smart girl in the room.

So you "hardly think that [Mark's] memory is that good." Wow, I'm convinced now! Somebody ranting on DCUM claims to have insight into Mark's long-term memory function, call the Pope, Tammy Bakker and Deepak Chopra! So you're unhappy that Jesus' illiterate followers were incapable of writing things down, and that these stories, which obviously made huge impressions on the actual witnesses, had to wait several decades to be written down. So you don't like that the gospels served as compilations of stories (did you miss that a few pages ago, and that's why you're now insisting that there should be a single author?). In other words, you just don't like the era's historical standards for recording events.

For your own sake: stop ranting already. First, you just look like an ass, with all your babyish insults.

Second, we don't care. We don't care about your opinions on Mark's long-term memory. We don't care that you're dissasfied with the historical standards of 80AD, that you don't like compilations, and that you're raving about how Jesus' illiterate followers should have committed everything to YouTube or something. We don't care that you've at least heard of Pliny or that you can wave your hands vaguely about Greek plays. (But those of us who majored in history snicker when you keep insisting that letters are always and necessarily reliable, while other ancient sources are never reliable. Please!)

We don't care ... because Christians and non-Christians have known all about all of these things for centuries. And Christians--and even many non-Christians, despite their definitional lack of faith--have accepted that these documents, despite being recorded in line with the historical standards of that time, are valuable records of the doings of a man called Jesus.

I notice that I'm the first to reply to the last 3 atheist posts - it's clear nobody else wants to address your childishness and sillness.

Joining them now. Buh bye!

And the best you can do is to come back with this?

And I'm childish for bringing in evidence?

Good Lord, sweetie - Did you graduate from an accredited college?

Grow up. You write like a middle school mean girl. And provide some real evidence, not just your feelings about the reliability of Mark's memory and some anecdotes about Pliny.

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

It shouldn't matter matter if your mom is in MENSA or illiterate, if you're a national merit semifinalist (people really brag about that?) or didn't finish high school. People can believe bad ideas for bad reasons. Smarter people are better than average about trying to reconcile cognitive dissonance but that doesn't mean an idea is correct. What matters is not who's saying it, or where they come from, but why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn't matter matter if your mom is in MENSA or illiterate, if you're a national merit semifinalist (people really brag about that?) or didn't finish high school. People can believe bad ideas for bad reasons. Smarter people are better than average about trying to reconcile cognitive dissonance but that doesn't mean an idea is correct. What matters is not who's saying it, or where they come from, but why.

In the end, being religious - believing in God and Jesus and the miracles - requires faith. I've never heard a believer say any differently including the NMSSF above and her Mensa mother. Almost all believers go through a period of doubting about their religion. Some go through multiple periods during their lives - and they will eventually come back because they have faith. Some say doubt is necessary for a mature faith. Faith is ultimately not affected by evidence. Faith is beyond evidence and reason. It is a gift that not everyone seems to have, but believers think that if you try really hard and pray to god, faith will eventually come to you. That's what happened to them, in many cases.

People with faith pity those who do not have it, because they don't experience the warmth of God and they will not live with him forever after death. They realize that's their choice, however, thanks to the gift of free will that God gave everyone, so humans wouldn't be robots, with everyone going to heaven automatically, because he programmed the ability to believe in God to everyone he created. He didn't do that because he didn't want to make a bunch of believing robots.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's not related to your intelligence level. Some very smart and some very intellectually challenged people have the same deep faith in God. God doesn't favor one type of person over the other. We all have free will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn't matter matter if your mom is in MENSA or illiterate, if you're a national merit semifinalist (people really brag about that?) or didn't finish high school. People can believe bad ideas for bad reasons. Smarter people are better than average about trying to reconcile cognitive dissonance but that doesn't mean an idea is correct. What matters is not who's saying it, or where they come from, but why.

In the end, being religious - believing in God and Jesus and the miracles - requires faith. I've never heard a believer say any differently including the NMSSF above and her Mensa mother. Almost all believers go through a period of doubting about their religion. Some go through multiple periods during their lives - and they will eventually come back because they have faith. Some say doubt is necessary for a mature faith. Faith is ultimately not affected by evidence. Faith is beyond evidence and reason. It is a gift that not everyone seems to have, but believers think that if you try really hard and pray to god, faith will eventually come to you. That's what happened to them, in many cases.

People with faith pity those who do not have it, because they don't experience the warmth of God and they will not live with him forever after death. They realize that's their choice, however, thanks to the gift of free will that God gave everyone, so humans wouldn't be robots, with everyone going to heaven automatically, because he programmed the ability to believe in God to everyone he created. He didn't do that because he didn't want to make a bunch of believing robots.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's not related to your intelligence level. Some very smart and some very intellectually challenged people have the same deep faith in God. God doesn't favor one type of person over the other. We all have free will.

There's a lot to unpack and discuss in your post but my primary response is this: If you define faith as "belief without or in spite of evidence" (and I think you do based on what you wrote) then ANYTHING can be justified by faith. Reread that again. Don't believe Jesus rose from the dead? Just gotta have faith. Did Joseph Smith really find some magic plates from God in upstate NY? Just gotta have faith. Is Mohammed the one true profit? Just gotta have faith. Are there unicorns deep inside the planet of Saturn? Just gotta have faith. Is Superman really based on a real guy who the government cloned in a lab years ago? Just gotta have faith. You see my point. Pick out an idea you think is absurd and I can justify it solely by faith according to your logic. That's the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn't matter matter if your mom is in MENSA or illiterate, if you're a national merit semifinalist (people really brag about that?) or didn't finish high school. People can believe bad ideas for bad reasons. Smarter people are better than average about trying to reconcile cognitive dissonance but that doesn't mean an idea is correct. What matters is not who's saying it, or where they come from, but why.

In the end, being religious - believing in God and Jesus and the miracles - requires faith. I've never heard a believer say any differently including the NMSSF above and her Mensa mother. Almost all believers go through a period of doubting about their religion. Some go through multiple periods during their lives - and they will eventually come back because they have faith. Some say doubt is necessary for a mature faith. Faith is ultimately not affected by evidence. Faith is beyond evidence and reason. It is a gift that not everyone seems to have, but believers think that if you try really hard and pray to god, faith will eventually come to you. That's what happened to them, in many cases.

People with faith pity those who do not have it, because they don't experience the warmth of God and they will not live with him forever after death. They realize that's their choice, however, thanks to the gift of free will that God gave everyone, so humans wouldn't be robots, with everyone going to heaven automatically, because he programmed the ability to believe in God to everyone he created. He didn't do that because he didn't want to make a bunch of believing robots.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's not related to your intelligence level. Some very smart and some very intellectually challenged people have the same deep faith in God. God doesn't favor one type of person over the other. We all have free will.

There's a lot to unpack and discuss in your post but my primary response is this: If you define faith as "belief without or in spite of evidence" (and I think you do based on what you wrote) then ANYTHING can be justified by faith. Reread that again. Don't believe Jesus rose from the dead? Just gotta have faith. Did Joseph Smith really find some magic plates from God in upstate NY? Just gotta have faith. Is Mohammed the one true profit? Just gotta have faith. Are there unicorns deep inside the planet of Saturn? Just gotta have faith. Is Superman really based on a real guy who the government cloned in a lab years ago? Just gotta have faith. You see my point. Pick out an idea you think is absurd and I can justify it solely by faith according to your logic. That's the problem.

I'm sorry, but I discard anything anyone else if they can't spell prophet correctly in a religious forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn't matter matter if your mom is in MENSA or illiterate, if you're a national merit semifinalist (people really brag about that?) or didn't finish high school. People can believe bad ideas for bad reasons. Smarter people are better than average about trying to reconcile cognitive dissonance but that doesn't mean an idea is correct. What matters is not who's saying it, or where they come from, but why.

In the end, being religious - believing in God and Jesus and the miracles - requires faith. I've never heard a believer say any differently including the NMSSF above and her Mensa mother. Almost all believers go through a period of doubting about their religion. Some go through multiple periods during their lives - and they will eventually come back because they have faith. Some say doubt is necessary for a mature faith. Faith is ultimately not affected by evidence. Faith is beyond evidence and reason. It is a gift that not everyone seems to have, but believers think that if you try really hard and pray to god, faith will eventually come to you. That's what happened to them, in many cases.

People with faith pity those who do not have it, because they don't experience the warmth of God and they will not live with him forever after death. They realize that's their choice, however, thanks to the gift of free will that God gave everyone, so humans wouldn't be robots, with everyone going to heaven automatically, because he programmed the ability to believe in God to everyone he created. He didn't do that because he didn't want to make a bunch of believing robots.

If this doesn't make sense to you, it's not related to your intelligence level. Some very smart and some very intellectually challenged people have the same deep faith in God. God doesn't favor one type of person over the other. We all have free will.

There's a lot to unpack and discuss in your post but my primary response is this: If you define faith as "belief without or in spite of evidence" (and I think you do based on what you wrote) then ANYTHING can be justified by faith. Reread that again. Don't believe Jesus rose from the dead? Just gotta have faith. Did Joseph Smith really find some magic plates from God in upstate NY? Just gotta have faith. Is Mohammed the one true profit? Just gotta have faith. Are there unicorns deep inside the planet of Saturn? Just gotta have faith. Is Superman really based on a real guy who the government cloned in a lab years ago? Just gotta have faith. You see my point. Pick out an idea you think is absurd and I can justify it solely by faith according to your logic. That's the problem.

Your point is obvious. What is not mentioned is that some ideas merit faith and others don't. Superman is obviously a story made up by someone trying to entertain people. Religion comes from God.