Reading The Bible Properly Can Improve One's Reasoning Skills.

Reading The Bible Properly Can Improve One's Reasoning Skills

Okay, then perhaps it might be an issue of semantics/ terminology.
In the vernacular (secular definition), some people ask "what is your faith": which in this case, means: " what is your religion".

The bible definition, according to Hebrews 1:11, just using the New International Version translation as example: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see": defines faith as the 'confidence'/ 'assurance'.

All actions (buy canned food, cross street, take aeroplane ride, get married ), religions (mainstream) etc are premised upon some form of confidence leading to hope in the action (decision, conduct, ritual etc) thus taken.

So whilst U seem to prefer understanding the term 'faith' as equating to the term (noun) 'religion', the proper definition of the term 'faith' (even as explained in Hebrews 1:11) is more likely akin to the both ubiquitous, organic and broad use of the term 'confidence'.

Of course, there can be false confidence as there is false hope (/false religion too). In every case therefore, according to the proper use of the term 'faith' as I believe: the devil lies in the details: what are the facts behind the situation, what is the explanation (reasons) for the conclusion based upon the facts presented: are the facts complete and the reasons robust?

Just as confidence is most times based upon some reason if not proof no matter how vague, so is 'faith': being a synonym of the word 'confidence'. Your sweeping assertion that "faith is flawed", with the exception of any substantiation, is presumptuous and arrogant if not wrong.

IMHO, reading the bible DOES improve one's command of the English language, if not one's reasoning skills. If U wish to improve your reasoning skills to exceed the current, perhaps starting to read the bible more often might be good for you.

Cheers!

 

Faith is believing something for which there is no evidence, or even despite evidence to the contrary. trust (or confidence) is earned by repeated evidences.

I trust that the sun will come up tomorrow, because for every one of my days of life it has done just that. The sun has earned my trust and confidence.

I have faith that magical beings inhabit the world, and that one day I'll be crowned king of iceland. There is absolutely no valid reason for me to believe either of those things, but it makes me feel good to do so.

 

Kind of like global warming.

 

I think it could be extended to most subjective judgements too. Any idea we create meaning for that has no basis in material fact. We act and live our lives in those faiths.

I have faith in pragmatic functionality. It works out because I don't have to believe in anything that seems useless. I judge the reality of things by what they do. A bit more complicated than basic materialism, but I don't have to throw out subjective experience when I define reality.

 

Incidentally, what do you mean by read the bible 'properly'? is there a proper way to read it that some of us are missing? do you need to sit a certain way, or wear a certain type of hat? what is it?

 

deep

actually it's looks interesting, but at this time of night I don't have the faculties to process it.

 

Approaching bible study with a humble heart and zero ulterior motives. Be willing to learn and not use the bible in some smoke and mirrors conspiracy such as the prosperity bible preachers: just like the radical Islamic jihadist (ISIL/ ISIS) who quote ONLY passages from the quoran/ twist verses to suite their political agenda.

The bible is like good medicine: must be used properly. If not, can cause death or other attendant problems etc.

 

The Koran is a political agenda.

 

Did you read other holy books with a humble heart (whatever that means) and zero ulterior motives? Were you willing to learn? And which other holy books did you read 'properly'? the bhagavad gita? the buddhist sutras? the koran?

In the meantime, what DOES 'humble heart' actually mean?

 

it didn't take long to get a stupid response.

 

It is called an analogy and is appropriate. Actual facts are not important when one has faith, such as the CAGW crowd.

 

actually that is only true of the anti-science right who ignores the reality of it. But go on deflect and derail....

 

This entire OP seems centered around one concept: the bible defines the word "faith" in a certain way, and you think that accepting that definition will "improve one's command of the English language". It would seem that using biblical definitions of words would, in fact, do the opposite. Keep in mind that the bible wasn't even written in English. So using the bible as an English dictionary would be a mistake. If you want to improve your command over the English language, I would suggest starting by using the word "you" in place of "U".

 

The anti-science are those that believe computer models over observational science. After over 100+ failed predictions you think they would catch on but then there is faith.

 

Human existence is filled with faith and confidence about many things. We just don't really notice it much. We are hardly logical rational beings,, we just are that sort of being at times. Faith only becomes a problem, with some, when it involved religious beliefs. It takes faith to jump out of a perfectly good airplane, that one will not die this time. We place faith in our children that they will not act stupidly, for otherwise we might worry ourselves or stress out and make our bodies sick. So we all use faith, and most times we don't even know we are doing it. I think it is just a part of being human.

 

indeed. and it's such an inconvenient 'un'truth isn't it. I mean to say, if it were true we'd feel obliged to lift our arses off the sofa and completely change our ease filled and comfortable lifestyles. lifestyles in which every want and need is just a short ride in the SUC away.

 

Science books, those things with facts in them, are much better.

 

I say that the Bible limits reason. So many like to quote Bible passages as irrefutable absolutes... but to me the Bible represents the walls of boxed thinking. In Christianity any reasoning that leads to questions is met with answers designed to bring the questioner beck to the predetermined path. To me reasoning does not stop at a boundary... reasoning asks what is on the other side. Religion dictates the boundary and what is on the other side... for example Heaven or Hell.

 

The Bible is not about Christianity. The New Testament is. The Tanakh (OT) is Jewish scripture. It's emphasis is different.
Boxed walls only exist for those who allow them to exist. If you're prepared to breach those walls with reason there are few barriers. To refuse to accept what is told you but seek answers for yourself, you can find real answers.

 

Keep in mind, however, that there's a difference between faith and hope.

For instance, I'm a Vikings fan. Every Sunday I hope the Vikings will win -- but I have no faith that they will.

So trust, faith and hope, while related, are distinct. And when it comes to religion, faith (the certain belief that something is true) is usually the more accurate term.

I'm agnostic. I may hope there is life after death, but I neither trust that to be the case, nor have faith that it is so.

 

I know some Christians who would disagree. But none the less this does nothing to diminish my argument from post #18

 

I know. But they have never studied or understood the Bible. Most accept what they are told by leaders who have never really studied themselves expect under Christian auspices. In the last decades even some Christians authorities are realising the need to study the OT in the light of the conditions, culture etc that existed when they were written. These things can make a real difference in understanding.

 

Yea, we (I) have to be careful to not get too wrapped up in peripheral nonsense.

I am agnostic also and have little personal use for religious faith. I am fascinated by its persistence though. I find it impossible to believe that something that exist for so long is not somehow necessary to humanity. Historically religions have come and gone, the natural polytheism of the greeks and other early civilizations did eventually fade away. Taoism and buddhism are still going strong, but have no central god. They consider reverence for local gods to be a virtue, but are essentially atheistic, the gods are only as real as the traditions they are connected to. Hinduism is open to any and all gods, and completely closed to humans born outside of it. So jesus is in the hindu pantheon as is Yahweh, but if you were born to a christian family conversion to hinduism makes you a lower class than a leper.

And so on...

Something within humans makes us continue in these beliefs despite the fundamental truth of material reality. Its a little obnoxious for us secular thinkers to assume that little things like evolution or quantum theory are going to make the whole world go "whoops!! Religion? What a crazy idea that was!". Religion was never based (entirely) on material benefit and so material reality is not going to "prove" anything about it. Instead religion is in the realm of idea, which may be just as needed for human life as food and shelter.

 

I actually thought the OP was a joke. I mean, seriously, who reads the bible for gaining more common sense or logic.
It perhaps could improve reasoning skills, what is the reason for this passage that contradicts this other passage.

 

For reasons completely unrelated to its validity, religion may well be an evolutionary advantage. I wrote about this some years back, when I was blogging:
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/03/evolution-of-religion.html

Also some research on the genetics of altruism:
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2007/02/genetics-of-altruism.html

And my defense of religion's place in society:
http://midtopia.blogspot.com/2006/03/agnostic-defense-of-religion.html

I also am a member of a Christian church, primarly because my wife is a seeker, and because I want my children to understand church and religion from the inside, not the outside. Me, I like singing and thought-provoking sermons, and the community service aspect.