Bible versions

[water]

Just wondering Jenyar, if you could tell us your position on that. Also do you believe the Bible to be inerrant?
/.../
I'm quite sure I "know better" than others when I don't pretend there aren't theological interpolations in the texts. I also don't pretend to know what should be interpreted as allegorical and whatshould be interpreted as literal. I also know better than to assume writers are inspired when they themselves based their faith on hearsay, secondhand information.Therefore I know better than to make assumptions on faith (faith in what?) that their message is (essentially) true.

Which argument would *you* go for (I know the stuffy theologies, I'm interested in whyt *you* think here, or we can't have a discussion):


1. The Bible is inerrant, therefore what is says is true.

2. The Bible is to be treated as inerrant, therefore what it says is to be treated as truth.

3. The truth exists independently of the Bible, but the Bible *can* tell us something about this truth and it *can* help us recognize it.

4. The Bible is inherently errant, therefore it is to be discarded.

5. Only some parts of the Bible are errant and only those are to be discarded, but the rest accepted.

Same question: Faith in what?

God.
Life.
Love.
And such.


* * *

Also, I have so more questions - requests:

1. Please give me *your* definition of "faith".
2. What is the source of one's faith?
What was the source of your faith when you were an active Christian?
What would be your ideal source of faith (if different than in times past)?

 

[cole grey]

I don't know about JENYAR, but sticking up for one of those 5 choices about the bible would be *impossible*for me. Maybe more people would consider the bible "inerrant" if we could understand it. I would have to say its communication to the human mind is quite hit-and-miss.
WATER's next questions are very good ones.

Also, I have so more questions - requests:

1. Please give me *your* definition of "faith".
2. What is the source of one's faith?
What was the source of your faith when you were an active Christian?
What would be your ideal source of faith (if different than in times past)?

 

[Brutus1964]

If the Bible contains errors, they are only errors in detail. Not errors in substance. The principles taught in the Bible are correct. The Old Testament was designed to point the way to Jesus Christ without being too obvious. The new Testament is to teach of Christ and have faith in him. The details are not as important as the principles taught.

 

[Jenyar]

I suggest everybody read up on the so-called doctrine of inerrancy, otherwise it will only end up being used as a strawman on both sides of the argument.

EDIT:
I may not agree with all the conclusions and wording of the above-mentioned link, but it gives a pretty good overview. However, for more specific treatment I recommend the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and this comprehensive article on Inspiration & Inerrancy, which shows how difficulties are dealt with. For example:

There are a number of real difficulties in the text which without further information we are unable to answer fully. Dewey Beegle cites about a dozen, mostly dealing with the variant numbers between Kings and Chronicles. Many of these have been answered by Edwin Thiele in his Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Some difficulties still remain. We must remember Warfield’s comment here:

. . . it is a first principle of historical science that any solution which affords a possible method of harmonizing any two statements is preferable to the assumption of inaccuracy or error—whether those statements are found in the same of different writers. To act on any other basis, it is clearly acknowledged, is to assume, not prove, error. (Warfield, Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. 439)​

 

[cole grey]

I pulled this out from JENYAR's link

"A century later British theologians, who saw the universe as rational and orderly, taught that the truth of the Bible was as self-evident as the truths of nature known through Newtonian science."

funny, how many people think the ideas they hold are "self-evident".

 

[Jenyar]

In most cases, it only means that it is "evident to self". The challenge is to make something one considers evident, evident to others. And the trouble is that nothing is really "evident" anymore -- our worldview doesn't allow for many things to be axiomatically evident anymore. But people still accept certain things. What we are concerned with now is that we don't just accept things arbitrarily, but methodically.

 

[water]

Jenyar,


This is from your link:

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Article XIX.

WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.

WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.​

1.
WE AFFIRM that a confession of the full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith.

*Which* Scripture -- which Bible?
The "ideal" Bible?


2.
WE DENY that such confession is necessary for salvation.

This is odd, to say the least.

But it is not all that remote to the premise I've been working with -- that a Bible (an actual Bible that one has, be it NIV or KJV or whichever) is not to be treated as the source of one's faith, and, I add, not as the justification of one's faith.
That one's faith can be "the right one" without actually calling upon a Bible as its source and justification.

The question is, of course, who is to say that one's faith is the "right one". I say only God can do that.


* * *
From the first link:

http://christian-bible.com/Exegesis/inerrancy.htm

Whenever someone says the Bible is inerrant or infallible, we should ask, "Which Bible?" The Protestant Reformation attempted to translate into contemporary language the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testament, but nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship has shown that it is impossible to identify an original Bible manuscript. Moreover, the Bible took different forms within the life of the church and, thus, today within the church there are different Bibles​

This adresses the practical problem one has with Bibles.

In regards to the passage quoted from the Chicago link (and what that article says further), we can then conclude that a Bible (Any Bible? By what Criteria?) is to be treated as a (faitful) representative of the Scripture, and receives its full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy through this relationship of representation.

But what *exactly* are

full authority,
infallibility, and
inerrancy

referring to?

 

[Jenyar]

With different *Bibles* we are in 99% of the cases not talking about significantly different *contents*. The meaning lies not in a word or sequence of words, but in its understanding, its function and purpose. So I would say "authority, inerrancy, infallibility" never simply refers to what is quoted. The confession also states:

By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.​

Remember what we said about words outside a relationship? How they may lose their voice? What authority, infallibility and inerrancy refer to is the fact that we can trust God for His words and their validity. It means recognizing God's authority. What it doesn't say is that we are always perfect and obedient in understanding Him, and therefore we must continually seek to listen and understand his words to the best of our abilities -- to 'love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength' (Mark 12:30).

The relationship is a constant interplay, a dialogue, and we must be careful that our limitations do not limit the effect God's words would achieve. Because sin, in essence, obscures and clouds our knowing and following God.

And I believe this to be an imortant part of the Chicago confession:

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.​

 

[water]

With different *Bibles* we are in 99% of the cases not talking about significantly different *contents*. The meaning lies not in a word or sequence of words, but in its understanding, its function and purpose. So I would say "authority, inerrancy, infallibility" never simply refers to what is quoted.

You do realize that if we are to apply this measure, many, many religious arguments are completely pointless and invalid?

What is more, it takes a person with a lot of self-confidence to not mechanically follow a text, and *yet* keep in mind "that we are NOT always perfect and obedient in understanding Him, and therefore we must continually seek to listen and understand his words to the best of our abilities".

All this looks to me that one already must have a lot of faith before one ever even opens a Bible.
That one must already be a believer before he can become one, so to speak.

 

[Helloween]

inerrancy and infallibility are actually two different things.

inerrant - the bible is mistake-free and contains no errors.

infallible - the bible is a reliable document that tells us what
we need to know for our own salvation and how we should
lives.

take note, you can believe in the infallibility of scripture, and
not in the inerrancy.

the way one approaches scripture has a big impact on what to
believe about translations. first when you make arguments about
translations, keep in mind that they are derived from texts that are
copies of the originals. for instance, the king james was written
largely from the septuagint in the 16th century. the
septuagint is written in greek and was translated from hebrew texts
around 100 AD. in a sense, when you read the king james you are reading
translations of a translation. several hundred years later, the dead sea
scrolls were discovered in a cave in Qumran. the dead sea scrolls
were hebrew writings dated around 100 BC. newer translations
have the Qumran manuscripts to compare with the Septuagint
and the Masoritic texts. does that make the king james version
worse than newer texts? you tell me.

anyway, when you pick a translation, you have to decide what
you want. some translations like the NIV take more liberties in
translating the older texts in an attempt to convey clearer
meaning....the idea being that if someone is going to try to make
sense out of a confusing passage, why not let the experts. other
translations like the New Jerusalem attempt to give the
and english translation to the ancient manuscripts. others are in between..NAS and NSRV.

as for the inclusion of the apocrypha, that's an entirely different
matter which deals with what the church decided was canon. martin
luther had a lot to do with the removal of the apocrypha from
protestant bibles.

anyway, i hope that helps. i tried to give a little background
on how we got the modern bible. if you want to have a debate
about inerrancy (which i do not support), there's a lot more
to be said.

 

[§outh§tar]

God.
Life.
Love.
And such.

Are you that narrow minded?

Those are temporal things to us and they will not hold the test of time. How can you have faith in something which you continue to view and understand differently?

I believe I can't know.

Also, I have so more questions - requests:

1. Please give me *your* definition of "faith".

Faith is knowledge. Knowledge is in the circle. If a=b, and b=c, you can put two and two together.

Like I said, the things people claim to have 'faith' in are continuously distorted not by the things themselves, but ironically by the same people themselves. If your view of the God you believed in ten years ago is not the same as the view of the God you believe in ten years from now, are they the same God? No. Therefore are you having faith? No. They say faith is unwavering, and now we see this to be false. When you move to a bigger circle, your faith moves as well. It stays not the same.

2. What is the source of one's faith?
What was the source of your faith when you were an active Christian?
What would be your ideal source of faith (if different than in times past)?

As a Christian, I guess it was me. I wanted to believe and I believed. (That's an oversimplification).

Truly, it is experience. Experience as we have talked about in the other thread. If you have a powerful feeling inside of you, a 'divine' experience, then that is your faith. If you have had someone close to you die while whispering "Believe in God", that is also a powerful experience. If you meditate on the things of God, that experience can also lead to conversion.

In that sense, we can say some circles merely allow for a belief in God, others require it, and others reject it. Therefore we cannot say God exists or God does not exist as if our knowledge and our faith was static.

 

[§outh§tar]

That authority, infallibility and inerrancy refer to is the fact that we can trust God for His words and their validity. It means recognizing God's authority.

water, this is directed to you and not necessarily at Jenyar.

Remember my example of circular thinking in the Godel thread? The circle about relating belief in the Bible to belief in God? The obviously absurd one?

Well Jenyar has very well proved my point, and I must say, it makes me feel very smug.

 

[water]

Those are temporal things to us and they will not hold the test of time. How can you have faith in something which you continue to view and understand differently?

I believe I can't know.

Because you are thinking like an atomist.

Like I said, the things people claim to have 'faith' in are continuously distorted not by the things themselves, but ironically by the same people themselves. If your view of the God you believed in ten years ago is not the same as the view of the God you believe in ten years from now, are they the same God? No. Therefore are you having faith? No. They say faith is unwavering, and now we see this to be false. When you move to a bigger circle, your faith moves as well. It stays not the same.

In the Gödel thread, I mentioned the metaphor of the ship Argo -- Jason and the Argonauts.

They were sailing with the ship Argo to get the Golden Fleece. The way was long, and the ship had to be repaired, parts replaced. When they reached their destination, not one part of the ship was that of the original ship, yet the ship remained the Argo.
Preservation of identity, wherein identity turns out to be anchored in the form, not in its contents.

What you have faith in is the continuation of identity. The same as most people automatically believe they have one identity, even though they can tell they have changed over time.

While you are arguing from the atomistic position. To allow for that position, one must prevent learning at all costs.

2. What is the source of one's faith?
What was the source of your faith when you were an active Christian?
What would be your ideal source of faith (if different than in times past)?

As a Christian, I guess it was me. I wanted to believe and I believed. (That's an oversimplification).

This is odd. Your source of faith is to be you? And where is God then?

Truly, it is experience. Experience as we have talked about in the other thread. If you have a powerful feeling inside of you, a 'divine' experience, then that is your faith. If you have had someone close to you die while whispering "Believe in God", that is also a powerful experience. If you meditate on the things of God, that experience can also lead to conversion.

This then means that the source of your faith is outside of you?

we cannot say God exists or God does not exist as if our knowledge and our faith was static.

Exactly! Our knowledge and our faith change, in the same manner the ship Argo changed. It changed, but it was called the same anyway.

Remember my example of circular thinking in the Godel thread? The circle about relating belief in the Bible to belief in God? The obviously absurd one?

Well Jenyar has very well proved my point, and I must say, it makes me feel very smug.

Remember my point of aligning two systems?

Think of the Bible as a *one-language* dictionary and grammar of a foreign language (like: Urdu, and all the explanations are in Urdu, no reference to any other language, just a book of Urdu). You study that dictionary, and you know all the words, and you can explain what each word means in that very language, as you have learned those explanations in that language.
And you feel powerful, sure you do.

But can you speak the language? If someone who speaks it speaks to you, can you reply?

No, you can't. You know only that ONE system, that of Urdu, and you have no way to align it with some other system.
In this case, your knowledge of Urdu is circular.

But if you then take an Urdu-English dicitionary, and study that, then you will be able to align the two systems -- and then you will be able to translate, you will be able to understand, you will be able to speak. Your knowledge of Urdu won't be circular anymore.

Same with religion. If you treat it as a closed system without any relation to other systems of knowledge, it will be doomed to circularity and self-referentiality. And you will NOT UNDERSTAND IT. It will be useless to you. It will be just a heap of something memorized that you can sometimes brag with, but it will be deaf and mute to you.

But as soon as you align it with other systems of knowledge, things in religion will make sense, and you will be able to speak it.

What you have indeed proven in your argument with Jenyar is that you are the one used to treat religion as a closed system, without translation. This is why it makes no or little sense to you. You would not see God's work in this world -- because you have confined your understanding of religion to be a closed system.
It was the Urdu to you that you know only from that one-language dictionary and grammar. You haven't begun with your translating yet.

There is no reason for you to feel very smug.

 

[Prester John]

inerrancy and infallibility are actually two different things.

inerrant - the bible is mistake-free and contains no errors.

infallible - the bible is a reliable document that tells us what
we need to know for our own salvation and how we should
lives.

take note, you can believe in the infallibility of scripture, and
not in the inerrancy.

the way one approaches scripture has a big impact on what to
believe about translations. first when you make arguments about
translations, keep in mind that they are derived from texts that are
copies of the originals. for instance, the king james was written
largely from the septuagint in the 16th century. the
septuagint is written in greek and was translated from hebrew texts
around 100 AD. in a sense, when you read the king james you are reading
translations of a translation. several hundred years later, the dead sea
scrolls were discovered in a cave in Qumran. the dead sea scrolls
were hebrew writings dated around 100 BC. newer translations
have the Qumran manuscripts to compare with the Septuagint
and the Masoritic texts. does that make the king james version
worse than newer texts? you tell me.

anyway, when you pick a translation, you have to decide what
you want. some translations like the NIV take more liberties in
translating the older texts in an attempt to convey clearer
meaning....the idea being that if someone is going to try to make
sense out of a confusing passage, why not let the experts. other
translations like the New Jerusalem attempt to give the
and english translation to the ancient manuscripts. others are in between..NAS and NSRV.

as for the inclusion of the apocrypha, that's an entirely different
matter which deals with what the church decided was canon. martin
luther had a lot to do with the removal of the apocrypha from
protestant bibles.

anyway, i hope that helps. i tried to give a little background
on how we got the modern bible. if you want to have a debate
about inerrancy (which i do not support), there's a lot more
to be said.

Which strongly suggests the bible is neither inerant or infallible. This is evidenced by the thousands of different Christian sects, many with fundamentally different interpretations of the bible.

 

[Helloween]

well...you have to be careful. translation and interpretation are two different things.
translation merely involves the act of re-writing the ancient texts into a modern understandable language.
interpretation occurs when someone goes to draw meaning from the bible
...which can be a very difficult task considering the fact that some of the old testament writings
were first written down some 3000 years ago. a lot changes about the way people
write over 3000 years.

anyway, that's not the point. i believe you are correct in pointing out that
this info suggests that the bible is not inerrant. there are many who
would argue against that conclusion, but i'm not one of them. on the
other hand, it does nothing to suggest that the bible is not infallible.

"infallible - the bible is a reliable document that tells us what
we need to know for our own salvation and how we should
lives."

 

[Prester John]

I disagree, multiple different interpretations of the same text implies some have got it wrong. There are big differences in understanding between many christian sects.

As we understand the written word by what we see before us, differences in the intepretation of the text will change our understanding of the text.

 

[Helloween]

you're not disagreeing with me. i don't dispute the fact that people interpret texts
differently. i'm not talking about interpretation or theology. yes, people do read
the bible and form different theologies about it. yes, they do often times disagree.
that is inevitable when you try to extract meaning from ancient writings because
culture, norms and history were so much different back then. i'm not trying to
get into a conversation about interpretation. i'm giving the historical background
of how we got our bible today.

furthermore, from your argument, cannot make any claims about infallibility or
inerrancy. what people believe about the bible has nothing to do with the actual
bible itself. just because you believe that bananas are blue does not make them so.
it's like saying that because scientists have different theories about the same
physical phenomenon the phenomenon itself must be inconsistent.

 

[water]

Which strongly suggests the bible is neither inerant or infallible. This is evidenced by the thousands of different Christian sects, many with fundamentally different interpretations of the bible.

Just because people have very different opinions about something, this doesn't mean that the source and reason of their differences is that very thing.

A book may command how it should be read, but it cannot sanction if it isn't read the way it commanded.
But it is nonsensical to expect from a *book* to regulate its own interpretations and sanction them. And it is nonsensical to blame the book if it doesn't regulate its own interpretations and sanction them.

That a book is accepted and treated as inerrant and infallible is the act of the reader, not the act of the book.

 

[§outh§tar]

Because you are thinking like an atomist.

Think any other way and we fool ourselves.

In the Gödel thread, I mentioned the metaphor of the ship Argo -- Jason and the Argonauts.

They were sailing with the ship Argo to get the Golden Fleece. The way was long, and the ship had to be repaired, parts replaced. When they reached their destination, not one part of the ship was that of the original ship, yet the ship remained the Argo.
Preservation of identity, wherein identity turns out to be anchored in the form, not in its contents.

And so identity turns out to be wonderfully arbitrary. Simply marvelous. We define intelligent and then say we are intelligent. We define free and then say we are free. Marvelous.

What you have faith in is the continuation of identity. The same as most people automatically believe they have one identity, even though they can tell they have changed over time.

While you are arguing from the atomistic position. To allow for that position, one must prevent learning at all costs.

There is nothing false about that position. Better to be honest than to be an arbitrary hypocrite.

This is odd. Your source of faith is to be you? And where is God then?

God is where you want to see Him. In the flower, in the sky, in the failing grade, in the passing grade.

This then means that the source of your faith is outside of you?

Where you don't want to see Him, in the dying child, in the starving babe, He will not be. Like I said, wonderfully arbitrary. We define where God can and cannot be, what God can and cannot do, and then conclude He is there. Marvelous absurdity.

Exactly! Our knowledge and our faith change, in the same manner the ship Argo changed. It changed, but it was called the same anyway.

Because we are hypocrites. For people who claim to be after the truth, for people who claim to be logical, there sure is a lot of bending round the corners and hypocrisy going on.

Same with religion. If you treat it as a closed system without any relation to other systems of knowledge, it will be doomed to circularity and self-referentiality. And you will NOT UNDERSTAND IT. It will be useless to you. It will be just a heap of something memorized that you can sometimes brag with, but it will be deaf and mute to you.

That is the point of religion. To be circular and self referential. The Bible is true because it correctly claims Jesus is God. Jesus is God because the Bible says He is God. Attempting to think for yourself is a definite no-no. Religion obviously breeds ignorance. One of the narrowest of circles I have ever known. It requires you to be ignorant. Pay no attention to those scientists, the Bible is right because God wrote it. Nevermind that it is the Bible which claims God wrote it. (This is actually a defense I have heard)

But as soon as you align it with other systems of knowledge, things in religion will make sense, and you will be able to speak it.

If you want to believe it, you will believe it. If you want it to make sense to you, it will make sense. If you want to see Him, you will see Him.

What you have indeed proven in your argument with Jenyar is that you are the one used to treat religion as a closed system, without translation. This is why it makes no or little sense to you. You would not see God's work in this world -- because you have confined your understanding of religion to be a closed system.
It was the Urdu to you that you know only from that one-language dictionary and grammar. You haven't begun with your translating yet.

For the last time, religion IS a closed system. Religion calls every other system 'heresey' and 'blasphemy'. Those who try to adapt new scientific information and so on to what the Bible says are just what I called them earlier: hypocrites. Bastards who twist what they know and triumphantly call it truth. It sickens me.

There is no reason for you to feel very smug.

I don't need a reason when I have the logic of a believer.

 

[water]

Because you are thinking like an atomist.

Think any other way and we fool ourselves.

No. I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

And so identity turns out to be wonderfully arbitrary.

You are making a strawman.

We define intelligent and then say we are intelligent. We define free and then say we are free.

No, not at all. Where did you get this from?!

What you have faith in is the continuation of identity. The same as most people automatically believe they have one identity, even though they can tell they have changed over time.

While you are arguing from the atomistic position. To allow for that position, one must prevent learning at all costs.

There is nothing false about that position. Better to be honest than to be an arbitrary hypocrite.

So to you, "to learn" equals "being an arbitrary hypocrite"?
What should people be then? Gods? Robots?

Where you don't want to see Him, in the dying child, in the starving babe, He will not be. Like I said, wonderfully arbitrary. We define where God can and cannot be, what God can and cannot do, and then conclude He is there. Marvelous absurdity.

While some people certainly do that, I do not think this is a good way.
It is tailoring god in accordance with your own desires -- but such a god then cannot forgive, save, and most certainly not create the world.

Exactly! Our knowledge and our faith change, in the same manner the ship Argo changed. It changed, but it was called the same anyway.

Because we are hypocrites.

Huh. You surely think all the worst of people and life, don't you?

For people who claim to be after the truth, for people who claim to be logical, there sure is a lot of bending round the corners and hypocrisy going on.

Well, yes.

That is the point of religion. To be circular and self referential.

No. What you are saying is a possible inference to religious tradition, surely. But we don't claim that religious tradition is an example one ought to look up to in every aspect.

The Bible is true because it correctly claims Jesus is God. Jesus is God because the Bible says He is God.

Uh.

Attempting to think for yourself is a definite no-no.

No, there's more to say about this.
The problem is that those people who have become rigid in their thinking in general, believe that anyone who "thinks for himself" opposes them.
"Thinking for yourself" has become synonymous to "rebelling" -- which is not true.

Religion obviously breeds ignorance.

No, this is a non-sequitur.

One of the narrowest of circles I have ever known. It requires you to be ignorant.

You could say the same for any established ideology or "cult" or "movement".
It is about country-club mentality, elitism and power struggles.
The actual verbalized arguments are just a surface, and are just a medium in which those power struggles are carried out.

I think it is foolish to approach such people with well-thought-out arguments. They are not there to defend their religious belief, they are there to defend their social, hierarchical etc. position. It is just that instead of using swords and fire, or bombs, they use words.

If you want to believe it, you will believe it. If you want it to make sense to you, it will make sense. If you want to see Him, you will see Him.

No, not really. There is more to be said about this, see the hiccups thread
(Grand! We have the Gödel thread, the can we thinkthread, and the hiccup thread!)

For the last time, religion IS a closed system. Religion calls every other system 'heresey' and 'blasphemy'.

Certain religious traditions certainly act as closed systems. But this doesn't mean that this is how it should be, it doesn't mean one has to understand one's own spirituality as a closed system.

Those who try to adapt new scientific information and so on to what the Bible says are just what I called them earlier: hypocrites. Bastards who twist what they know and triumphantly call it truth. It sickens me.

No, I'm not thinking of that cheap and selective adaptation of science into religion.

Please go back to the Urdu metaphor.
My point is that unless you live your faith, your faith will be a closed system, deaf and mute.
But in order to live your faith, you must first see if it makes sense to have that faith at all, if you have evidence to support your faith.
And for what is worth, you do can gather evidence that it makes sense, for example, that love and trust do matter in people's lives.

I don't need a reason when I have the logic of a believer.

You do, yes! I just wonder what exacly it is that you believe in, and why.