I agree with you Leslie, it is an interesting subject to ponder. I just don't want to be pushy.
I'm not in the least bit offended by open, honest and considerate conversation. You have no idea how refreshing it has been for me to find you guys, and a message board where so many different subjects can be discussed.
I might get back to you about the whole issue of the concept of faith (as opposed to what the faith is in). There's something stirring in my memory - something that was explained to me about two different kinds of faith, but it's hazy right now. Only if you're interested of course. I wont be offended if you're not.
I don't want to get too preachy, but it has been put to me that Christianity, as one example of a religion, is not a scientific issue, but a legal one, because it's basis is in writings that claim to be eyewitness testimonies. A couple of Harvard trained prosecution lawyers attempted in the 1940s to prepare a case against the Gospel writers - Matthew and John in particular - to basically prove that their so-called eyewitness accounts wouldn't stand up in a modern court of law. They applied every appropriate principle of American law to their case and in the end had to declare the Gospels to be legally admissable evidence. It was simply up to the "jurer" to consider the testimony, test it every way they could, with every argument they could, and then come to a decision.
I've never got a hold of the book, I've only heard of it. I should get my act together and try to locate a copy.
I'm never offended by sensible questions about my faith - I always hold that Biblical Christianity is the thinking man and woman's faith. That is as opposed to State-run and or institutionalised "Christianity" that dictates and demands unquestioning obedience. That can never be a good thing, I could never trust something that doesn't permit me to think.
As it says in the Bible, "Come, let us reason together."
Post a Followup