Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance?

faith in part is an 'evident demonstration of future realities'the evident demonstrations are based on facts. An example that you may understand might be when a marriage proposal takes place. If that proposal is backed up with an engagement ring, then an 'evident deomonstration' has taken place. Though the marriage has not taken place yet, each are assured of the 'future reality' that they will be married.when it comes to religion, the bible provides the 'evident demonstration' thru its record of historical events linked with Gods people. These are too numerous to mention individually but they include things like prophecies and the arrival of the Messiah. The people who wrote these historical facts were eyewitnesses to them and this is why christians today can put faith in their words.there is no cognitive dissonance involved in my opinion.And if you want to argue that we today cannot know if the bible is factual, let me ask you this...Do you believe that a man named Shakespear wrote Romeo and Juliet? If you do, how do you know that he did write it?ORDo you believe that the USA's 'Declaration of Independence' was actually written by Thomas Jefferson? If so, how can you be sure that he did write it and not some other person?Did you personally witness the writing of either? If not, what makes you accept them as authentic documents? Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

right.However, what about the people who witnessed the DOI coming together and being signed?Do you think they had any doubt about how this document came to be or who wrote it?

you silly buggar lol!i wasnt comparing them....i was providing a modern example of what 'faith' is to help ppl better understand the faith we put in the bible.Faith isnt blind. Its based on those 'evident demonstrations' of the past which give us evidence for what is promised in the future.for example - God promises to send a deliverer to save mankind.
2,000 years later and that deliverer appears. So the evident demonstration of the earlier promise was realised in Jesus Christ. This gives people faith that future promises will become a reality because past promises became a reality. This is faith. no, its because those things were brought about by supernatural powers....they were miracles. no offence taken at my end.

You didnt really address the point i was making at all.My point is simple. Why is it universally accepted that Shakespere wrote 'romeo and juliette'?We are living hundreds of years after the fact, and there is not one person alive today who is able to corroborate that 'fact' for us....yet, like the rest of us, im sure you accept that he wrote it. So what makes you accept that he wrote it? Likely it is the 'historical evidence' of the writing.Its for this same reason that a christians accepts the writings of the bible as originating with God. Even though there are no living people who witnessed the writings alive to today to corroborate for us, its the historical evidence that convinces us.Ps.
This is the only similarity between the bible and romeo and juliette: Both are accepted as coming from a particular source even though there is no one alive who can corroborate that for us.

no, it causes them to re-examine what they think they know about Godeg. the six days of creation. Some reasoned that the evidence disproves the earth coming together in 6 literal days and researched more diligently until they discovered that the original hebrew word could mean any length of time. This is why there are some christians who do not accept the 6 literal days of creation.cognitive dissonance has nothing to do with it.

its about understanding what is written and if adapting our beliefs to what is written is rationalisation, then bring it on.Genesis was originally interpreted by someone who did not fully understand ancient hebrew. But its important that our faith be based on accurate knowlege otherwise how can we explain it logically to others?Imagine trying to explain a legal document in a court of law if you dont understand legal terminology. You are bound to get thing wrong. First understand what the terminology means, then you can logically explain it and come to accurate knowledge. Its the same with the bible. Understanding Hebrew is paramount to coming to an accurate knowledge of it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

do not scientists re-interpret their research when new evidence comes to light?why can't those who study the bible do the same? I dont know for sure. I've debated this point with many who continue to believe in the 6 literal days and they do ignore the meaning of the hebrew word. Personally i think they have an attachment to their particular church and so refuse to accept that their church could be wrong. Perhaps they simply dont care...i really dont know the answer to this.

it does no such thing.The word Yom was studied and found to be used in many varied ways in the hebrew language. This gave some people the idea that it does not only mean a 24 hour day.its as simple as that.

you dont seem to understand that its evidence that causes a person to have faithWe see Gods acts of the past as evidence for his acts into the future. We havnt seen the future events yet, but we have faith that they will happen because of what has happened in the past.Abraham was aware of Gods acts of the past and so had faith in what God said about the future.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

We cant say for sure what the exact length of the 'yom' is in Genesis, but we can say for sure that the word means 'any' length. When that is factored into the equation, and we take an honest look at the possiblity that the earth is much older then 6,000 years, then we adjust our teaching accordingly.No one can be dogmatic and say it is 24 hours, and no one can be dogmatic and say that is 1million years. But the physical evidence should lead us to conclude that the word in this instance means a very long time....thousdands of years, hundreds of thousands of years, millions of years or a billion years....it could be any of them.

where's admin when you need them?

sometimes, yes.The written word can tell us part of the story, but sometimes the physical evidence can tell us the rest.One example is the Mosaic law requiring circumsicion to take place on the 8th day of a baby's life. No one knew why that specific requirement was there until the medical profession discovered that a babies production of vitamin K is fully established on the 8th day. This vit k prevents hemoraging.So yes, sometimes the physical evidence adds to our understanding of the written word.

i dont know why this is hard for you to understand, but you are still missing the point.The physical evidence prompted some to really research the word 'yom' in hebrew and they began to understand that the word yom does not only mean a 24 hour day.Yom is used throughout the bible in many contexts of time. So they looked at the physical evidence and realised that the yom in genesis did not have to mean 24 hours. I know you wont accept that explanation because you have fought tooth and nail against it for a long time but its not going to change the fact that the word yom can mean various lengths of time.

not in all cases, no. I certainly wouldnt do that with the account of the flood. If all avenues of understanding the text have been exhausted, then i would uphold the validity of the text. This is the case with the evolution argument. Just because scientists claim that evolution is a fact, im certainly not going to accept their word over the bible.

well the genesis 'day' is an example of such a case. It doesnt change the story of creation....it merely enhances our understanding of what the 'day' was.but we wouldnt do the same thing with a biblical account such as the flood, or the exodus from egypt, or the wandering in the wilderness for 40 years because these are considered historical accounts. We wouldnt change the 'story' as such, but we might change our understanding of some aspects of the story. These would be based on the hebrew words used and the culture/times/customs etc. by text i mean the hebrew language, and yes there are some aspects of ancient hebrew that scholars still havnt got an absolute understanding of. This is because ancient hebrew has not been used in so long. If something comes to light in the future then we would 100% adjust our understanding/interpretation.And yes, there are numerous ways of interpreting the bible but the thing is that interpretation needs to be based on an accurate understanding of the language/customs/times/culture and the rest of the scriptures...unfortunately not everyone takes all these into consideration when coming to an interpretation.my view is that christians who view most of the bible as metaphorical do so because they do not have an adequate explanation...something that makes sense. when you say evolution, do you mean that all life arose from a primordial soup without intelligent direction?If thats what you mean then its in direct conflict with the idea of a creator as i'm sure you are aware. So if a christian believes in this, then they probably dont view the bible as a book from a creator in the first place, and theirfore i would be asking them why they are attempting to interpret something that they dont believe in.Im sure you'd agree that if you want to learn anything, you should learn from someone who actually believes in what they are teaching.