hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (Charles Hedrick) (09/28/86)
Hi, In article <2964@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP ... writes >> You present as truth what you cannot substantiate ... your version of faith. >> [MIKE ANDREWS] >So you too are admitting the innate weakness of using faith in such an >argument. Faith can't be argued --- only accept it or reject it, share it or hold it in. If anyone can prove what they believe in, they don't have faith. And there are different kinds of faith - faith in yourself, in others, in God, even your dog. And all can co-exist. The difference between them is that there is a reward to faith in God. There is a warmth and acceptance from Him you cannot get from anyone or anything else. >.... Do your >sources win out solely because history is written by the victors? Is that >how truth is formed? ... >Rich Rosen bellcore!pyuxd!rlr What you choose to believe, is what you believe to be truth. What do you believe in? Not what do you disbelieve, but what do you believe to be truth. God Bless, Mike Andrews P.S. I'm moving this discussion over to mod.religion.christian. Hope to see everyone there. [I'd like to try to break folks of the ">" habit. This statement would have stood on its own without the quotes from Rich. I'm posting it anyway because it is brief and I don't want to get too sticky in the beginning. but... I'd like to encourage responses that explore other possible ideas of faith, rather than the rather obvious response, which has been discussed endlessly already, that it's hard to separate this kind of faith from self-delusion. --clh]