Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,646 Year: 4,903/9,624 Month: 251/427 Week: 61/103 Day: 5/14 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why is Faith so Important to God?
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 61 of 88 (433033)
11-09-2007 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by bernerbits
11-08-2007 5:39 PM


Impossibility of recognizing that it's impregnated of originally Roman terminologies
bernerbits writes:
Except the NT wasn't written in Latin or Hebrew. It's written in Greek and Aramaic.
Hi,
To state that the original manuscripts of new testament would have been first written in Aramaic is a form of saying, without evidence, that there wouldn't be Ancient Hebrew Language in the time they were written.
And to state that those manuscripts would have been first written in Greek is a form of saying that 1st. the Greek would have come first and then the Ancient Roman Language,
for, according to the doctorates in theology --the supposed spiritual authorities--, 2nd. the apostles would have supposedly written in Greek even when a letter wasn't addressed to Greek speaking people.
Why would the protestant doctrines of faith have been having the habit of saying that (1st. and 2nd)?
In order to not to recognize that the protestant doctrines of faith have been founded firm into the sand of the same versions of new testament, whose translation belonged in a same Roman compilation of mastercopy that was transcribed according to those ordinations and under the authority of the spiritual ministry of Rome.
That non-recognition has been a part of the protestant intents
to legitimate the originally Roman doctrine of credere (doctrine of faith).
The protestant directives have remained the same: To not recognize the spiritual ministry of Rome as being the one that had ruled over the authority to make compilations of new testament for over a 1,000 years;
To not to recognize the presence of Roman deeds in the versions of new testament: every spiritual terminology --e.g. battesimu (baptism), vaticyniu (baptize), credere (credit), fides (faith), cristu... -- that is not present in the Ancient Testament;
To not to recognize the Roman origin and nature that those terms were first utilized in the ancient Rome, even if it is needed to omit the existence of the Ancient Roman Language, by substituting the word Roman, in every discussion, with the term Medieval Latin (which is the most ancient Latin), but the apostle Paul did not write or speak Medieval Latin.
protestant doctrines of faith will admit many things..
but that the versions of new testament they utilize belonged in a Roman compilation of new testament, which was made impregnated of originally Roman terminologies,
isn't one of them.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : to
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : lightgreen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by bernerbits, posted 11-08-2007 5:39 PM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by bernerbits, posted 11-09-2007 4:10 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 62 of 88 (433034)
11-09-2007 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel
11-09-2007 4:04 PM


Re: Impossibility of recognizing that it's impregnated of originally Roman terminolog
Yeah, except for all your rationalizing, it's a fact the earliest known manuscripts of the new testament are in Greek and Aramaic.
The vernacular of the Jews in first century Rome was Koine Greek, NOT Latin. This is well-established. Re-read your Jewish history please.
Edited by bernerbits, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-09-2007 4:04 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-12-2007 12:53 PM bernerbits has replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 63 of 88 (433531)
11-12-2007 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by bernerbits
11-09-2007 4:10 PM


There is a disconnection in substituting Roman with Latin
bernerbits writes:
This is well-established.
Hi,
The Modern Roman Language is the ITALIAN LANGUAGE and its origin belongs in the Ancient Roman Language.
therefore its origin has nothing to do with the Latin or Medieval Latin (which is the most ancient form of Latin).
What is it that is well-established if not the bizarre habit of substituting the term Ancient Roman Language with Medieval Latin in the discussions??
There is a disconnection --or crazyness-- in the directives of bringing up the term Latin or Medieval Latin whenever the focus of the discussion is the Ancient Roman Language,
because even if the apostles had written in Greek to the non-Greek speaking people, the main subject here isn't any physical Greek occupancy in the Roman provinces,
but the over 1,000 years of spiritually imposed occupancy in the field of eternal words of Scripture by the Mother (great in size) Roman church and the State of Vatican.
For the puzzling nature of the doctrines of faith--beliefs of the earth has been the spiritual darkness of not seeing with the eyes or of not giving ear to the facts, or of not using the heart to understand all that is Spiritual,
because the doctrines of faiths and abominations have been using the heart for the beliefs in order to believe the spirits of men by seeing the things through the Historicists and doctorates' point of view rather than through the Spirit that interceeds separately.
quote:
During the time that the numbers of verses and chapters were inserted in Scripture, it was not done for the benefit of any Non-catholic priest. Even the Archbishops and Cardinals inserted the verse-chapter division not for the benefit of any Protestant form of Scripture, but one that would please the MOTHER --great in size-- Roman church.
Knowing that the copies of the new testament were not available to the general public in those days, it is viewed that the faith in the belief that the insertions of numbers of verses and chapters would have been done for the benefit of anyone other than the Catholic priests and the ministry of Catholicism itself to take spiritual advantage from, ends up being faiths and abomination of the lie.
When the sign of the Roman cross precede the word IESVS--jesus the understanding is given that both belong in the same spiritually imposed doctrines, and the mark of the doctrine or its doctrinal image is received by who ever does spiritually bow --or pay spiritual reverence to it-- by believing the belief--faith that, in the versions of new testament,
there would have been no possibility of the words '1st. theos--Dio--Deus--god, 2nd. Kristus--Cristu, 3rd. IESVS--jesus, 4th. Lord, 5th. cross, 6th. crucify, 7th. baptism, 8th. faith, 9th. believe--credere; to credit'
to have been standing where it ought not, in order for the accomplishment of prophecy about the abomination--belief that causes desolation and stands,
in the place of the words: '1st. Jehaveh--YHWH, 2nd. Anointed,
3rd. YHWH-SHUA--Jehav-shua, 4th. Adonai, 5th. tree, 6th. suspend, 7th. unction, 8th. emunah--fidelitate--fidelity, 9th. give ear; to retain; to comprehend; to understand; to know -- to give permanence; to remain; to endure'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by bernerbits, posted 11-09-2007 4:10 PM bernerbits has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by bernerbits, posted 11-12-2007 2:09 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

  
bernerbits
Member (Idle past 6030 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 10-09-2007


Message 64 of 88 (433549)
11-12-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by goldenlightArchangel
11-12-2007 12:53 PM


Re: There is a disconnection in substituting Roman with Latin
All the romance languages -- Medieval Latin, Italian, Romanian, Spanish, Portuguese -- derive primarily from an early unified form of Latin, which you refer to as Ancient Roman, which, while you are correct in that it could be called proto-Italian, it could also be called proto-Spanish or proto-Romanian. It's commonly referred to in linguistic circles as Ancient Latin.
any physical Greek occupancy in the Roman provinces
The Jews in the Roman Provinces descended from the Hellenized Jews, of the early Jewish post-exile Diaspora. The so-called founder of the Catholic Church, Simon Peter, is widely agreed to have spoken Greek (although the body now known as the Catholic Church was not established until the 300s), as did most first-century Christians.
but the over 1,000 years of spiritually imposed occupancy in the field of eternal words of Scripture by the Mother (great in size) Roman church and the State of Vatican.
So, I'm confused. You believe the scriptures were written in Ancient Italian because of the authority of the Catholic Church as opposed to all historical evidence to the contrary?
The facts are indisputed: we know that the Hebrews were exiled from the Promised Land roughly 400 BC, and in that time were dispersed among all of Eurasia. Historians and theologians call this the Diaspora. During the ensuing centuries, the Hellenized Jews incorporated Greek culture and language into their own. Jesus was born into a Hellenized Jewish province of the Roman Empire. As a direct result, the earliest Christians spoke Greek and not Latin. Nobody disputes this -- not even conservative Christian scholars.
It wasn't until the Christian church was Romanized in the 300s AD that the ancient Roman translations of the scriptures became "authoritative". If you're going to argue NT Theology based on linguistics, you must use the Greek manuscripts. We have plenty of them, faithfully preserved, and they even pre-date the Catholic Church. Saying the original scriptures are in the Ancient Roman language is simply a lie.
At any rate, we're definitely going off topic and I'm not going to respond to further posts on this thread about the current subject. We can start a new thread to continue this discussion if you would like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-12-2007 12:53 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-12-2007 4:01 PM bernerbits has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 65 of 88 (433559)
11-12-2007 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by iceage
10-30-2007 1:34 PM


Why is faith so supremely important to God
iceage writes:
Why would the creator of the universe, value belief in the unperceivable, to such a degree that it supposedly dictates whether you spend eternity in heaven or hell?
I find myself in the surprising condition, considering I've been a Christian for 25 years, of never having thought about this question. So, as I think about it and read what others have said, I have more questions.
First, does God really require the kind of faith you're asking about? I think of Jesus saying, "If you don't believe me, at least believe the works I do" (Jn. 10:38). He seems pretty willing in that whole passage to allow for an evidence-based faith.
God does ask for a "blind faith" based on what he's said, but I think only after there's already faith in him that's not blind. Abraham, I think, would be an example. God appeared to him first, and it was only after much had happened between Abraham and God that he asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.
That's what I think of when I think of faith. Do you have something suggesting there needs to be a faith in God that's not somehow evidence-based?

We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.

shammah.rcv.googlepages.com

Rose Creek Village

To be great, one does not have to be mad, but definitely it helps. ~Percy Cerutty, Australian track coach, 1952 Olympics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by iceage, posted 10-30-2007 1:34 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by iceage, posted 11-15-2007 8:03 PM truthlover has replied
 Message 69 by pelican, posted 11-16-2007 9:57 AM truthlover has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 66 of 88 (433586)
11-12-2007 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by bernerbits
11-12-2007 2:09 PM


Disconnection in substituting fidelity with belief
bernerbits writes:
You believe the scriptures were written in Ancient Italian because of the authority of the Catholic Church as opposed to all historical evidence to the contrary?
No. Just bringing up that the Hebrew word emunah (fidelity--i.e. the giving of the right of precedency to the word of an only one),
is the word that appears in the Hebrew New Testament,
in all the places where one reads 'faith' in the versions,
because the word emunah--fidelitate/fidelity has been substituted with the word fides(faith)--from the Ancient Roman Language, in the versions of new testament,
and the reason why you have the words'1st. theos--Dio--Deus--god, 2nd. Kristus--Cristu, 3rd. IESVS--jesus, 4th. Lord, 5th. cross, 6th. crucify, 7th. baptism, 8th. faith,
9th. believe--credere; to credit' word faith.
in the place of the words: '1st. Jehaveh--YHWH, 2nd. Anointed, 3rd. YHWH-SHUA--Jehav-shua, 4th. Adonai, 5th. tree, 6th. suspend, 7th. unction, 8th. emunah--fidelitate--fidelity, 9th. give ear; to retain; to comprehend; to understand; to know -- to give permanence; to remain; to endure'.
is because of the fulfillness of prophecy with regard to the mixing of a wine of rejection --i.e. adulterated copies of new testament-- which would have to be overflowed into the unmixed wine of anger --i.e. the pure eternal words as originally written--.
The word fides(faith) is an originally Roman term not because of historical reasons but because the Mother church is an originally Roman congregation. Not Greek.
The Roman occupancy in the field of eternal words of Scripture was a spiritual occupancy (a Roman spiritual ministry--authority),
and this fact alone is opposed to all books from the Historicians which come to say that no Roman occupancy--or spirital authority would have ever imposed their own translation--compilation of new testament upon the world for over 1,000 years.
For in the Ancient Testament there is no reference of words like baptize, baptism, fides, credere and vaticinate as being spoken by the Eternal, as it was previously said to iceage:
quote:
Knowing that in all the books of the Ancient Testament, there is no reference to the word faith as being spoken by the Eternal,
Nor does it appear as being spoken by Abraham and all the Prophets, including all the names of the ancients that are listed in the book of Hebrews, then why does the word faith appear in the versions of new testament as if it was anything important?
The main reason why you have the word faith in the versions of scripture is because of the fulfillness of prophecy with regard to the mixing of a wine of rejection --i.e. adulterated copies of new testament-- which would have to be overflowed into the unmixed wine of anger --i.e. the pure eternal words as originally written--.
There are evidences founded into the Rock of the Hebrews -- the eternal words of YHWH in the Law, the Psalms and the books of the Prophets, proving that in all the places of the New Testament in Ancient Roman Language, the word fidelitate --Heb. emunah-- i.e. Fidelity; constant permanence on remaining firm with regard to the giving of the right of precedency to the word/instruction of an only One--,
has been gradually substituted with the words 'fide' and 'fides' [i.e. faith] in the beginning of the centuries, as well as in the authorized versions of the New Testament in Greek and other languages.
In the Roman-Italian culture, classes and traditions,
the only time that fides [faith] does not mean fidelitate - Heb. emunah [fidelity], is when the word fidelity is utilized not in reference to the things that are inherently spiritual and of the Spirit.
Italian Culture - Si pu contrapporle semmai la haeresis: perché, se fides significa fiducia e fedelt, fidarsi di Dio, essere fedeli a Dio, fondarsi insomma in un’eteronomia... www.ladante.it/.../index.asp?arg=dante&azione=articolo&TipoContenuto=fil e&id=030925_cardini.asp
..perché, se fides significa fiducia e fedelt, fidarsi di Dio, essere fedeli a Dio..
..for, if faith means loyalty and fidelity, then ”to be confident of god’ is ”to be loyal to [the] god’..
According to the Roman culture, class and tradition, whenever the words fides (faith) and fidelitate - Heb. emunah (fidelity) are utilized with regard to all that is spiritual and of the Spirit,
then, according to that point of view, it really does not matter whatever differentiates fidelity from faith.
The same Roman-italian point of view tends to not make that distinction,
in the same reason that the roman-italian class and tradition spiritually tends to not make (or retain) the distiction that differentiates an ornamental or photo image from a spiritual image, while the difference is that the spiritual image is made or utilized for a spiritual purpose--.
That lack of spiritual differentiation with regard to the utilization of images, --whether for spiritual purpose or ornament only--, has been present in the roman-italian general culture, class and tradition and does coincide with the same spiritual tendency that the doctrines of faiths have been inclined to not separate regular emunah--[fidelity between family and brethren] and spiritual fidelity--fidelitate.
A real testimony of spiritual emunah--fidelity is only possible to exist through a real fact and from a real action taken,
but expectations, faith (or belief) in any spirit of god that needs to be believed in order to exist, can be found in any of the brains that are cauterized by religion.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : paragraph

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by bernerbits, posted 11-12-2007 2:09 PM bernerbits has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 67 of 88 (434123)
11-14-2007 3:48 PM


Real Bishops do totally dispense with the need of having faith
Hi,
Updating to the Ancient Original Definition
Bishop -- from the Ancient Roman verb. bispare; to investigate; to search accurately,
this is the real significance and original definition of bishop; one who interviews, investigates, inquires for the truth, or simply one that searches to know more while exploring the field of eternal words, like Joshua and Caleb were the appropriate bishops/spies for the children of Israel to know more about the promise land.
While being a bishop, feel free to always investigate and inquire for a narrow door/scroll as originally written, which is not possible to be found by belief, credere, giving of spiritual credit nor any religious system either, but by listening, having ears to hear YHWH's words, knowing that you can hear and ascertain spiritually, and then hear beyond what has been presented at the large door of religion and doctrines of faiths.
Real bishops know that in a case of spiritual darkness (faith--fide; belief--credere), the yeast/spiritual fermentation of capitalizing a 'g or 'e' in order for to make it more acceptable won't help, because the capitalization does highlight that nothing can be done with the word 'elohim' when it is pronounced or spoken.
quote:
There is no possibility that the Kadhosh of Israel would have supposedly self-designated as god/elohim --a common generic designation of deity in the Near East,
because the word Kadhosh means Holy”Separated, to be regarded with Holiness, which is the opposite of utilizing or attributing a common generic designation. Even in the ancient ages the word 'god/elohim' has been utilized generically to refer to deity.
If YHWH did self-designate as 'god', or 'elohim' --a common generic designation for deity in the middle eastern--,
then there would be no difference at all between the first and the second commandment,
because the only difference is that in the first commandment YHWH gives you the instruction for you to not have that which did already exist in those days: the spirit of demon/god/elohim or the spirit of any unclean spirit that would let itself be called by the term god/elohim--,
while in the second commandment YHWH gives the instruction for you to not do that which the sons of men (the religious ones) had the habit of making and creating to themselves for a spiritual purpose.
in the first and second commandment,
I AM's instruction is not only saying that you shall not worship creatures,
but that you shall not spiritually bow nor serve before any type of god/elohim, which means: you shall have no religious worshipping system or anything that the religious system calls by the word 'god/elohim'.
The designation god/elohim was attributed to Kadhosh by the ministry of the dragon: the scribes and priests (the religious ones),
and the authors of the doctrines of faiths, beliefs and abominations of the earth.
For the Word become flesh said to the religious ones --the scribes and priests-- 'the demon is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants'.
By putting the words 'I AM your elohim'
in the place of the words 'I AM your love'
the scribes have closed the door --the scrolls of Ancient Testament
and have kept the door sealed up,
so that they do not enter
nor let others to enter either.
In a sentence that says 'any man/woman other than me'
it is possible for you to substitute the words man or woman for a word of generic significance like 'person': 'any person other than me';
But if it is comprehended that in the term 'any god/elohim other than me' it isn't possible for one to substitute the generic word 'god/elohim'
with any of these words of Unsubstitutable value: 'Self-existent', 'Kadhosh/Most Holy', 'Eternal' and 'Of The Highest Order',
then one might view that the word 'other' from the adulterated version of first commandment stands where it ought not, because of the systematic locking of the door/scrolls
of the Law/Torah by the lying pen of the scribes.
Since the above words of unsubstitutable value ['Self-existent', 'Kadhosh/Most Holy', 'Eternal' and 'Of The Highest Order']are impossible to substitute with common generic designations like 'god' or 'elohim',
also there is no possibility of the Kadhosh of Israel having utilized the term 'god other than me' in the first of the ten commandments as originally written;
Because if the word 'other' was a part of the first commandment as originally written then that would be the same as to promote a generic and common designation of deity to the level of word of Highest and Unsubstitutable value, and that would be the same as to say 'you shall not call upon any Self-existent (or Eternal) other than me'.
While making copies of the door/scrolls, instead of reproducing with complete fidelitate/emunah to YHWH: 'you shall have no god before me',
the scribes had been systematically inserting their belief: '...no other gods before me', '...no god other than me',
and '...any other god besides me',
thus confirming what the Word become flesh had left it clear with regard to the offspring of those scribes:
The Message -- Abraham never did that sort of thing. You persist in repeating the works of your father.
Holman Standard paraphrased -- Abraham did not do this! You're doing what your father does.
"We weren't born of sexual immorality," they said. "We have one father”YHWH."
--Paraphrased Transcription--
YHWH'SHUA said to them, 'If YHWH were your father, you would love Me, because I came from YHWH and I AM here. For I didn't come on My own, but He sent Me.
Why can't you understand what I say?
This is why you cannot listen to My word: You are of your father the dragon, and you want to carry out your father's desires; he was made to be a predator from the beginning [of the creation],
and he cannot stay in the truth: because he was not made to know what truth is, [because he was made to be a dragon].
When he tells a lie, he speaks according his own nature of believing what he believes the truth is supposed to be: because he is a believer and father of the beliefs.
But this is why you do not believe me: because I tell you the truth and truth cannot be retained by belief,
Who among you can convict Me of not telling the truth? If I tell the truth, why don't you listen to Me?
Because the sons [first-fruits] of YHWH do listen to YHWH's words. And this is why you don't listen: because you are believers, like your father the dragon.
--Paraphrased Transcription--
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : transcription
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : lightblue
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : ,

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6000 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 68 of 88 (434447)
11-15-2007 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by truthlover
11-12-2007 2:48 PM


Re: Why is faith so supremely important to God
Hi Truthlover....
Truthlover writes:
I find myself in the surprising condition, considering I've been a Christian for 25 years, of never having thought about this question. So, as I think about it and read what others have said, I have more questions.
It has taken me more than 25 years to ask that question.
Truthlover writes:
I think of Jesus saying, "If you don't believe me, at least believe the works I do" (Jn. 10:38). He seems pretty willing in that whole passage to allow for an evidence-based faith.
However Jesus was talking to those who had the opportunity to witness miracles - I wish I had a time machine.
Truthlover writes:
That's what I think of when I think of faith. Do you have something suggesting there needs to be a faith in God that's not somehow evidence-based?
The bible is riddled with the "believe and be saved" message. This probably sums up the message (for that matter maybe the whole New Testament)...
Mark 16:16 writes:
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by truthlover, posted 11-12-2007 2:48 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by truthlover, posted 11-21-2007 3:35 PM iceage has replied

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 5071 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 69 of 88 (434549)
11-16-2007 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by truthlover
11-12-2007 2:48 PM


Re: Why is faith so supremely important to God
truthlover [God appeared to him first, and it was only after much had happened between Abraham and God that he asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac.]
Honestly, why would anyone want a god who would put his children through so much pain to prove a point? Good lord, Abrahams' wife and mother of Isaac must have been completely distraught, never mind Isaac humself. Why is this just accepted and not challenged? This cannot be an all powerful, loving creator to test us so.
No, I think Abraham was seriously deluded. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable now and wasn't then. Patriarchal rule maybe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by truthlover, posted 11-12-2007 2:48 PM truthlover has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 70 of 88 (435549)
11-21-2007 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by iceage
11-15-2007 8:03 PM


Re: Why is faith so supremely important to God
The bible is riddled with the "believe and be saved" message.
I certainly agree this is true, I just don't think it's a "believe without any evidence and be saved" message.
However Jesus was talking to those who had the opportunity to witness miracles - I wish I had a time machine.
If you need a time machine, then don't worry about it. Must not be true.
The evidence Jesus himself offered for belief was unity among his disciples caused by the "glory" and "word" he had given them. He said it would make the world believe. If his disciples don't have something powerful enough to cause you to believe now, then there is no evidence--according to Christ himself.
My experience is that the Life that moves us where I live is most certainly powerful enough to make the people around us believe. I wish I lived in a purely atheistic society, so I could see how much effect it would have in that environment. No way to tell, though, because we live in the deep south, where most people claim to be believers.
I'm going on a trip tomorrow, so if you respond to this I won't see it for two weeks. I will look then, though.

We cannot direct the wind, but we can adjust the sails.

shammah.rcv.googlepages.com

Rose Creek Village

To be great, one does not have to be mad, but definitely it helps. ~Percy Cerutty, Australian track coach, 1952 Olympics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by iceage, posted 11-15-2007 8:03 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by iceage, posted 11-28-2007 9:34 PM truthlover has replied

  
iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 6000 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 71 of 88 (437112)
11-28-2007 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by truthlover
11-21-2007 3:35 PM


Re: Why is faith so supremely important to God
truthlover writes:
I just don't think it's a "believe without any evidence and be saved" message
....
The evidence Jesus himself offered for belief was unity among his disciples caused by the "glory" and "word" he had given them.
The lack of unity in the interpretation of this so called evidence is one of the reasons I discount it. Given a body of evidence, the better the evidence the more unified will be the conclusions based on it. If you look around there are hundreds if not thousands of very very different interpretations of that evidence. In short, faith is fickle and subjective as the evidence so easily demonstrates.
Jesus said if you don't believe in him then believe in his works and miracles. Well we don't have such miracles to examine just hearsay and documents were we don't even have the originals or were even titled copies until centuries after the events - we don't have a clue who these people were that wrote these works. And interestingly there are not even any disinterested parties to attest to these miracles.
The way I see the Christian question presented, it is like temporal life is one big gullibility contest and you win for the lack of trying.
But I come to this point and step back 30 feet. Why would a God even value such belief? As I pointed out earlier a false religious meme-complex requires faith, God the creator of the universe? hardly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by truthlover, posted 11-21-2007 3:35 PM truthlover has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 11-29-2007 11:04 AM iceage has not replied
 Message 74 by truthlover, posted 12-08-2007 11:14 AM iceage has not replied

  
goldenlightArchangel
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 583
From: Roraima Peak
Joined: 02-11-2004


Message 72 of 88 (437228)
11-29-2007 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by iceage
11-28-2007 9:34 PM


Precedence of credere not present in the Ancients
Iceage,
you wrote: '...said if you don't believe in him then believe in his works and miracles.'
If the justice Courts of the world do request the presence of proof not to work up a belief upon it, then much less does the Law of the Testimony have anything to do with the testimony of credere”belief, because the presence of the proof anihilates the belief substituting it with total sureness:
If I am not doing My Begetter's works, don't recognize Me. But if I am doing them and you don't recognize Me, recognize the works. This way you will know and understand that the Begetter is in Me and I in the Begetter.
Holman Standard: This way you will know and understand .
Precedence of credere not present in the Ancients: . that you may know and believe . ,
Roman mastercopy: . affinché conosciate e crediate...
quote:
When one does not have ears to retain truth by hearing, then he tends to ask for a sign. There is nothing unrighteous about asking to have stones turned into bread. But when one asks to see the signs for the wrong reason: to satisfy his need of credere”belief rather than to recognize them as proof, then a debt to be paid is automatically imputed in his spiritual account by the eternal Justice.
The only way the dragon has to utilize its comparisons is to take ”as true’, which means to credit. With regard to what is spiritual, it is not possible for the spirit of man to credit or take as true without making that same comparison the father of the beliefs”the dragon does; because ”to take as true’ means that a comparison has been made, not to the truth, but to what it believes the truth is supposed to be. It says: ”we is letting it be, we is taking it as true; we is giving credit to it . ’.
Comparison is the only mode the dragon has to differentiate and discern something, by comparing what it sees and hears with anything it has previously seen or heard. For not having truth in itself, it is not possible for the dragon to compare the truth that it hears with a previous one that doesn’t have a place already within it, for it wasn’t made to shelter a first-fruit of truth and light of I AM the Light.
There are so many segments of spiritual warranties in the world, and all segments of spiritual credit are credited to who ever has spiritual credits to give, through the spirits of men and the doctrines of faiths of the earth. The leopard, the Tazmania devil, the leviathan, the dragon, the bear . ; not one of the predator beasts was made to retain truth by hearing, nor to have truth in itself either. Even the craftier one, the dragon, isn’t able to ascertain truth, neither the immediate retaining of knowledge of the truth has a place in it.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : updates

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iceage, posted 11-28-2007 9:34 PM iceage has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 501 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 73 of 88 (438166)
12-03-2007 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by iceage
10-30-2007 7:07 PM


While I wait here for a Christian response to this question (btw thanks jar for your input) I just noticed this passage from Hebrews:
"And without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6)
Which correlates quite well with...
"And without faith it is impossible to propagate a false god"
Any Christian want to defend this and tell me where I am wrong...
You ask what appears to be a simple question, but it is not so simple.
First off, faith is not easily defined.
I do not agree with jar. jar has no way of knowing if God requires faith or not. It is by faith that he believes what he(jar) believes.
Yes, God does provide evidence. The bible, the world, the Holy Spirit is all evidence of God. But is it not proof. You cannot prove God, so you must "take a leap of faith" to believe He exists.
Nothing in science is ever "proven".
God is never "proven".
No surprises here.
Once you take that leap, you must continue taking that leap, otherwise you are not really believing. God would IMO take that into consideration. Every ACTION you do for your entire time of belief, or faith, is considered, and judged by God. Faith is love, and many other things which probably please God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by iceage, posted 10-30-2007 7:07 PM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by iceage, posted 01-07-2008 12:10 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 74 of 88 (439347)
12-08-2007 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by iceage
11-28-2007 9:34 PM


Sorry for waiting so long to respond to this, but as I said, I've been in Myanmar for a couple weeks.
The way I see the Christian question presented, it is like temporal life is one big gullibility contest and you win for the lack of trying.
I think the demonstration of Christianity in the United States is pretty strong evidence against it being a religion propagated by God, so it's hard for me to offer a defense for something I think is basically awful.
It wasn't always so. I hope you get to see something different. I've seen a number of "something different" demonstrations of Christianity, enough to find it impossible to deny, despite the falseness and awfulness of most that goes by that name.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by iceage, posted 11-28-2007 9:34 PM iceage has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by The Agnostic, posted 12-22-2007 12:09 PM truthlover has not replied

  
The Agnostic
Member (Idle past 6018 days)
Posts: 36
From: Netherlands
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 75 of 88 (442708)
12-22-2007 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by truthlover
12-08-2007 11:14 AM


I couldn't agree more with the OP! My thoughts exactly.
Why on earth does God value faith in Him above everything else? Why does God not reward good people, generous people, loving people, honest people, and so on?
Why is it faith, that decides whether you get to see heaven or hell?
I think this is highly suspicious, because it is exactly what you would excpect to be the case if somebody "made up" christianity and wanted it to spread.
Religions that don't emphasize faith and conversion of others do not survive and go extinct much like animals go extinct.
quote:
The reason why "faith in God" would be considered important is that "faith in God" is the means supplied by God to man whereby a man is saved. Seeing as there is no other means whereby a man can be saved it seems sensible that the only way be emphasised. Note that "faith in God" is given as a gift from God to man - God doesn't expect a man to believe without his supplying the means whereby the man can do so. God supplies the evidence > man believes.
That is circular reasoning.
You say: God emphasizes faith, because faith is needed to be saved from hell.
The question is: WHY is faith needed to be saved from hell? Why not send the murderers, child molesters and warmongers to hell in stead?
Why not base Judgement on how friendly, loving and kind people are, rather than judging them by their ability to believe things without evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by truthlover, posted 12-08-2007 11:14 AM truthlover has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Arachide, posted 12-22-2007 1:57 PM The Agnostic has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024