Originally posted by
Muffit
Wow, almost missed this one. I think it's a terrific subject and very
brave of you Bombadil.
That's a pity. I don't feel brave, but I do know that talking about faith can get people angry. To some extent the fault lies with uncivil people of faith, who provoke a negative reaction. But the flip side of that is people who, having been offended by somebody of faith, subsequently attack anybody else who admits having faith. That is not really any different than if I had once been offended by a person who was black/white/male/female/foreign/old/young/whatever, and thereafter pre-emptively attacked anybody who was a member of the offending group. It just isn't civil. So maybe I am being a bit of an idealist for believing that conversation about faith can be civil. I don't mind being accused of idealism. Or even convicted of it.
Faith does not proselytize for gain, as we often misuse it. Like Truth, we simply hold it out, like a gesture; if it is taken, we should feel no false pride or reward.
Beautifully said. I have always considered this one of the strongest arguments for the objective truth of Christianity. No, really. Bear with me here. We all are familiar with the figure of the charismatic but dishonest religious leader or founder who advances his cause in order to become rich, influential, popular, or whatever. But the early leaders of the Christian movement gained no such reward for their efforts. In fact, they often died. If they had been guilty of stealing Jesus' body in order to fake a "resurrection" (as is often charged), it is not plausible that they would have knowingly continued the deception after experiencing the negative results they endured. Their tenacity in the face of fierce opposition persuades me that they were convinced of the factuality of what they proclaimed. And the sheer number of "insiders" argues against insanity or other irrationality; one or two or three crazy leaders could perhaps hold together a conspiracy, but hundreds of people is too many for conspiracy to be a plausible explanation. They proclaimed, not for gain, but because they were convinced that the things that Jesus taught were actually true, and that he had actually risen from the dead.
BSG tried to reintroduce the world to what Aristotle began burying ages ago.
What good is knowledge for knowledge' sake? What good is it to know how the heart works, if in finding out you abdicate from ever using it? Or worse, ignore it and purposely hurt other hearts in that quest!
Excellent point. Sometimes people (even Christians!) fight merely to uphold their personal interpretation of what "knowledge" is actually "true", and not because that knowledge has any practical benefit for others. But Jesus came to bring a knowledge that heals the broken and lifts all people up, not just a privileged few.
Mankind will never be free until we look at others with our heart and not our "intelligence". . .
Beautiful poetry, Muffit. Not "myth", but poetry. Truth.
Philosophy meant the Love of Knowledge, not the emotionless amassing of it. BSG gave us, for one shining moment, a brief taste of that; faith for the sake of Faith, love for the sake of Love, hope for the sake of realizing the previous two.
Well, yes, but also, so as not to accidentally contradict your previous thought, all of these for the sake of lifting up actual people in the real world. BSG may be a work of fiction, but it mirrors real ideas that have consequences in the real world. Faith, hope, and love are real qualities that connect us to a real God and that really connect us to each other.
Affectionately to all,
Muffit
First class, Muffit! First class! 
