Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka:
[ QUOTE ]
but I don't think anyone would categorize this faith as being similar to the faith that Christians claim to have in the belief in God.
[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? Because you can't see or touch it, or there isn't as much empirical evidence?
I'm not sure if you have alot of Christian friends - I do (I'm Korean haha). And I've spoken in-depth with Christian friends and done study on Christian tradition, read the Bible a decent amount etc. etc. I also feel like I have a pretty good sense of what Christians believe, and what their "faith" is.
The fact that Christians truly believe that God is working in their lives everyday, guiding them, that God and Christ are a very *real* part of their day-to-day... puts their faith on par with yours, no?
Simply because you can't get inside a Christian's head, and understand their faith, or their experience, doesn't make it any less valid or make your bio-chemical empirical view any more valid (if that's what you're implying).
-Al
[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't a question of validity. It is a question of how they came upon their belief. I really don't think that I have come upon any of my beliefs by the same process that Christians have used faith to come to the decision that they believe in God. To me, a believe based on faith implies that something beyond logic and rationality and facts were used to make this choice. Isn't this what most people mean when they say it is a faith based belief?
|