Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Degrees of Faith?
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 46 of 86 (384414)
02-11-2007 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by JustinC
02-05-2007 11:59 AM


Reason and Faith
Some of the problem is the way you are using the words. Faith and reason have various meanings depending on how you use them.
The definition of faith you want to use is "belief without regard to reason". RAZD's definition of what you are tyring to say is better since it gets rid of the use of the word reason. (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.) This definition is also better since it better represents the origin of this usage.
The definition of reason you want to use is "deductive, inductive, or the empirical", which really isn't a definition of reason, but are forms of reasoning. Reason: power or faculty to think logically, draw conclusions, or make inferences.
Logic is essentially sound thinking.
So when we look back to theology when this meaning of faith (belief without proof) took hold, people were asked to believe what they were told by the clergy on faith. They were told this because they were being asked to believe something that couldn't be substantiated in the Bible or otherwise. So they were either being asked to trust based on God's authority or the clergy's authority.
IMO, this bottoming out you are concerned about has nothing to do with the definition of faith (belief without proof) you are presenting or trust in general. The usage was created to stop people from questioning the clergy. They didn't want to try and justify their statements.
To me it is more like advertising. Using an authority figure, superstar, name, etc. to promote a product. They want people to trust the person or name and not to really look closely at the product.
Can you give a more specific example of the secular dilemma you envision?

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by JustinC, posted 02-05-2007 11:59 AM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 02-11-2007 6:38 PM purpledawn has replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 47 of 86 (384476)
02-11-2007 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by purpledawn
02-11-2007 1:06 PM


Re: Reason and Faith
quote:
Can you give a more specific example of the secular dilemma you envision?
RAZD's definition more accurately reflects my sentiments, so I have no problem using it.
It seems to me that one's worldview is only as strong as its weakest link. We say that religious people are in error because they accept dogma based on faith.
But do we accept things on faith.
For example, do we accept logic based on faith?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by purpledawn, posted 02-11-2007 1:06 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 02-12-2007 4:11 AM JustinC has not replied
 Message 51 by purpledawn, posted 02-12-2007 7:36 AM JustinC has not replied
 Message 53 by Fosdick, posted 03-05-2007 11:39 AM JustinC has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5996 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 48 of 86 (384555)
02-12-2007 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by JustinC
02-11-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Reason and Faith
JustinC writes:
do we accept logic based on faith?
No, I think we accept logic based on evidence; no other system of thinking is as successful at predicting reality. It's the best tool we have. The initial choice for that tool however, before we came across the evidence that we could use to support its use, is surely not logical.

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now." - Arthur C. Clarke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 02-11-2007 6:38 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3684 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 49 of 86 (384558)
02-12-2007 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by JustinC
01-19-2007 3:28 PM


Intuition, maybe?
Maybe instead of 'faith' here you are speaking of intution.
Intuition would be another form of knowing that does not depend on the operation of reason (logic) yet does not necessitate a leap (faith). Intuition would just be one aspect of cognition--the way our minds sort perceptions.
In that case you don't need 'faith' in logic because your mind is wired in such a way as to see logic's validity as self-evident. This is intuitive knowledge.
What if we say 'Life has meaning'? That might also reflect intuitive knowledge. Saying 'Life has meaning because' or 'Life's meaning is', though, would take us away from intuition into other operations. Faith and reason would start coming into play.
___
Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by JustinC, posted 01-19-2007 3:28 PM JustinC has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Doddy, posted 02-12-2007 6:08 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5996 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 50 of 86 (384562)
02-12-2007 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Archer Opteryx
02-12-2007 4:53 AM


Re: Intuition, maybe?
Intuition would be another form of knowing that does not depend on the operation of reason (logic) yet does not necessitate a leap (faith). Intuition would just be one aspect of cognition--the way our minds sort perceptions.
Gut thinking. Or, as Colbert would say, determining the 'truthiness' of something, rather than the truth.
While our brain has the capacity for working things out, we also have inbuilt some (usually) very useful pre-set opinions that we may not want to work out. Distrust of strangers (where getting to know them may often prove disastrous) or or the idea that things are inherently solid (because testing if we can run through objects might not be something we want to test).
Edited by Doddy, : fixed link

"Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Science can destroy religion by ignoring it as well as by disproving its tenets. No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they have few followers now." - Arthur C. Clarke

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Archer Opteryx, posted 02-12-2007 4:53 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3543 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 51 of 86 (384566)
02-12-2007 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by JustinC
02-11-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Reason and Faith
quote:
But do we accept things on faith.
For example, do we accept logic based on faith?
Yes, there are times in life that we accept things on faith (belief without logical or material evidence), but it isn't necessarily blind faith (trust) as you seem to be implying.
If we accept a statement on faith (belief w/o evidence), we are trusting the statement because of the authority or confidence in who presented the statement. Our children trust us daily without evidence.
So in your statement that religious people accept dogma based on faith (religion or trust) should read that they accept dogma on faith (belief w/o evidence). (Yes it matters how you use the word.)
Do we accept logic on faith (belief w/o evidence)? Depends on whether you are talking about the science of correct reasoning or just sound thinking. What are we supposedly accepting?
Sound thinking or correct reasoning are part of being human, there isn't anything to accept. We do judge whether we think someone else is thinking correctly and that is usually based on some sort of evidence whether physical or emotional.
Now do we accept the science of correct reasoning on faith? Again it would depend on what you feel we are supposedly accepting.
Who has the authority to say what is logical and what isn't?
I know I seem picky about how words are used, but many misunderstandings occur when words are used haphazardly and people have different ideas of what is being said. Because of the various meanings behind the words you are using, you need to be specific and not assume everyone is on the same page.

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 02-11-2007 6:38 PM JustinC has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 52 of 86 (388139)
03-04-2007 7:35 PM


Sorry for not consistently engaging this thread. I get spurts of ambition followed by long periods apathy about this topic. But i'm reading Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" and I think he articulates my thoughts more clearly than I am capable, so if it's allowed within forum guidelines I'm going to post verbatim that paragraphs that I think are pertinent.
Whatever its stigma, "intuition" is a term that we simply cannot do without, because it denotes the most basic constituent of our faculty of understanding. While this is true in matters of ethics, it is no less true in science. When we can break our knowledge of a thing down no further, the irreducible leap of that remains is intuitively taken. Thus, the traditionalist opposition of reason and intuition is a false one: reason is itself intuitive to the core, as any judgement that a proposition is "reasonable" or "logical" relies on intuition to find its feet. One often hears scientists and philosophers concede that something or other is a "brute fact"-that is, one that admits of no reduction. The question of why physical events have causes, say, is not one that scientists feel the slightest temptation to ponder. It is just so. To demand an accounting of so basic a fact is lik easking how we know two plus two equals four. Scientists presuppose the validity of such brutishness-as, indeed, they must.
The point, I trust, is obvious: we cannot step out of the darkness without taking a first step. And reason, without knowing how, understands this axiom if it would understand anything at all. The reliance on intution, therefore, should be no more discomfiting for the ethicistthan it has been for the physicist. We are all tugging at the same bootstraps
I may have been equating intuition with faith in my previous posts; i'm not too sure. Is intuition a valid justification for a belief? If not, then I'd say that belief based solely on intuition would be a form of faith.
That's all just semantics. I agree that even though, using my definition of faith, science and religion can both be called "faith-based," I don't think the point is that forceful or profound. That is, I do agree that the secular rational view is more than just an equal alternative to a religous view when discussing matters about how the world really is.
My question, to reiterate the opening post, what makes our faith-based statements, or First Principles if you think "faith" is obfuscating the subject, more reasonable than a theists? Do we keep them to a minimum and only accept the ones we use to manipulate our world, or something to that effect?

  
Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5586 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 53 of 86 (388249)
03-05-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by JustinC
02-11-2007 6:38 PM


Re: Logic and Faith
JustinC asks:
But do we accept things on faith?
For example, do we accept logic based on faith?
Logic evolved as a tool of consciousness to surgically excise the tumors of faith.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by JustinC, posted 02-11-2007 6:38 PM JustinC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by JustinC, posted 03-05-2007 5:54 PM Fosdick has not replied

  
JustinC
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 624
From: Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Joined: 07-21-2003


Message 54 of 86 (388345)
03-05-2007 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Fosdick
03-05-2007 11:39 AM


Re: Logic and Faith
Faith: belief without good justification
Can you justify logic or empiricism without resorting to a circular argument(i.e, you can't use logic to justify logic).
Don't we have to hit rock bottom somewhere in our expanatory framework? Then, wouldn't that be a "belief without a good justification?"
Like I said, I'm really not trying put forth an equivalence of science and religion or reason and faith, I'm just asking how to better articulate the distinction. That is, I obviously believe that a belief in transubstantiation is more irrational than a belief in an objective, ultimately knowable, world. But why?
Some suggestions:
1.) Many faith-based statements of religion are superfluous in explanatory power
2.) Many go against other evidence
3.) The "leaps of faith" we make our ones that we have to make in everyday life. That is, we make no more pressupossitions than any rational person makes everyday when going about their daily business.
Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Fosdick, posted 03-05-2007 11:39 AM Fosdick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Chiroptera, posted 03-05-2007 6:02 PM JustinC has not replied
 Message 56 by PaulK, posted 03-05-2007 6:07 PM JustinC has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 86 (388349)
03-05-2007 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by JustinC
03-05-2007 5:54 PM


Re: Logic and Faith
quote:
Don't we have to hit rock bottom somewhere in our expanatory framework?
Yes. This rock bottom is called one's set of axioms, postulates, premises, or [/i]basic assumptions[/i]. In logic, statements (theorems) can only be proven using statements previously shown to be true. But you have to have a starting point, though, so you have to start with a set of statements that are assumed to be true without proof (axioms) -- usually chosen because they seem reasonable.
-
quote:
2.) Many go against other evidence
This, I think, gets at the heart of "empiricism".
If evidence seems to be counter to one's belief, one must either
(1) decide the evidence is faulty in some way,
(2) modify the belief to take into account the contrary evidence, or
(3) jettison the belief altogether for one that is in better accord with the data.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by JustinC, posted 03-05-2007 5:54 PM JustinC has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 56 of 86 (388350)
03-05-2007 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by JustinC
03-05-2007 5:54 PM


Re: Logic and Faith
If we reject logic we reject all meaning. So we cannot prove logic without assuming logic - indeed the whole concept of proof is meaningless if we do not. Indeed, as Chiroptera says proofs in the fullest sense are logical proofs, that depend on axioms and rules which cannot themselves be proven - including the laws of logic.
However I would add that in my view it is possible to justify the laws of logic. To explain how and why they work. They are not so much facts taken on faith as linguistic and intellectual tools of proven value. Thus there is justification, but not proof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by JustinC, posted 03-05-2007 5:54 PM JustinC has not replied

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


Message 57 of 86 (389311)
03-12-2007 3:53 PM


PRESENCE totally exempts the need of believing
Hello,
These are the two degrees of faith [reliance on trust or belief]:
In the first degree one reposes his mind upon what is deemed sufficient support or understanding. [first blind].
In the second degree he utilizes that reliance to become the begetter of his own beliefs, which will lead a second blind until both fall off the stairway.
There are solid supporting evidences proving that in all the places of the New Testament in Ancient Roman Language, the word FIDELIS [i.e. Fidelity/Loyalty] as originally written,
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.
THE SEPARATING ABYSS
While subjecting him/herself under religion or a spiritually imposed doctrine, one tends to not see the difference between the two:
UPDATED definition of FIDELITY - A constant Loyalty; Permanent consistency on remaining true and loyal.
UPDATED definition of faith - Reliance on trust or belief; religious faith; ecstasy of the mind; an uplifting feeling of reliance which exempts the need of total SURENESS [plain understanding of the things and clarification of the facts].
If faith was a type of reliance denoting confidence or intimacy as in a confidential approach, then how can that confidential intimacy be true while the fact itself of having faith exempts the need of applying ALL one's UNDERSTANDING?? For the instruction remains the same:
'Love Jehaveh of the Hosts with all thy strength and with ALL thy UNDERSTANDING[plain comprehension of the things and clarification of the facts]' and 'You shall KNOW/comprehend the Truth and that KNOWLEDGE/comprehension on Who the Truth IS shall set you free'.
and it does not say '..with all thy belief' nor that the belief on the truth will set you free.
There is a separating abyss that differentiates faith from FIDELITY[constant Loyalty];
For it is possible to have faith [reliance on trust or belief] in many things or beings at one time,
while FIDELITY [constant Loyalty] only exists if it is kept to an only one. That is Loyalty/Fidelity: You can not vote in more than one candidate at one time.
Also, it is possible to keep Fidelity that is founded in total SURENESS
[knowledge/comprehension of the proofs and understanding of the facts]
but if it is faith [reliance on trust or belief], then the faith itself exempts the need of applying ALL one's UNDERSTANDING [DEDUCTIVE reasoning of the things and comprehension of the facts].
UPDATED definition of believe - 1st. - to credit or to accept as true the things as they are presented, which means by circumstances other than total SURENESS [understanding of the proofs and comprehension/knowledge of the facts].
2nd. - to be persuaded that truth is accessible by circumstances other than total SURENESS [understanding of the proofs and comprehension/knowledge of the facts].
THE POSTMAN
In the Scriptures as originally written, even in the first manuscripts of the New Testament, all those who were healed were asked the question: ”will you keep FIDELITY to Jehaveh?’ as well as ”will you HOPE only in Jehaveh?’,
but in the versions that proceeded from the spiritual ministry of the beast[spiritual ordination] the question as originally written has been substituted with ”do you believe..?’
For the postman does not show up saying: ”do you believe that I’m the postman?’; nor do you respond to him saying: ”help my unbelief!’
When you see the postman, you do not have to believe whether or not he is the postman. You simply *know he is one because you know first what a postman is sent for.
So is when you see the eternal living Word that became flesh, you do recognize he is true because you recognize his words are not of him, but of the One who has sent him. For it is attested that there is a way [other than believing] for you to know whether he is of Elohim or [that] he speaks of himself. A way through first retaining/keeping the word from the One Who has sent him, and it does not have any involvement with believing, as it is said:
My words are not mine, but [that] of the One that has sent me. If any one desire to practise the Eternal’s will, he shall *know by the same [written] instruction, whether it is of Elohim, or [that] I speak from myself. He that speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but he that seeks the glory of him that has sent him, he is true, and unrighteousness is not in him.
A true postman does not waste time speculating if you believe he is the postman or not. You do recognize he is the postman because he simply does what he came to do. So is every eternal word that comes out of Jehaveh, including the Living Word that became flesh.
The proposal of the Word that became flesh is to be KEPT, to be RETAINED by you; to REMAIN eternally with you; as it is said: ”If you love me you shall KEEP my word’. The true keeping/RETAINING of every eternal word is only possible through UNDERSTANDING, knowledge/comprehension on what that word or instruction means, and it does not have any involvement with belief.
Paraphrased scripture: ”Everything is possible to him that keeps total FIDELITY to Jehaveh’
What proceeded from bestiae obscurae[spiritually imposed doctrine]:
'...everything is possible to him that believes'.
In the Scriptures as originally written it does not say that ”Abraham had a belief in...' nor that ”he had a faith in...'
but that 'Abraham HOPED in...' and that 'Abraham KEPT FIDELITY to...'.
THE MUSTARD SEED. Fidelity is the permanent consistency on remaining true and loyal, which is only possible through KEEPING/remaining eternally and HOPING.
The ends do not justify the means,
and Fidelity is a direct expression of the means through which it is possible to REMAIN:
1st. - permanently/constantly/eternally
2nd. - consistently
3rd. - being true and loyal
The mustard seed is also a solid evidence proving that the word FIDELIS [i.e. Fidelity/Loyalty] as originally written has been substituted with the words 'fide' and 'fides' [i.e. faith] in the versions of the New Testament.
The size of the seed determines how long it will remain on the earth without being consumed by the birds. In no way it will be consumed. For there is no bird bill that could grasp the smallest seed.
Is it faith or FIDELITY? Which word is directly related to mustard seed's duration/permanence time, if not the one that requires time to remain PERMANENTLY/CONSTANTLY LOYAL?
For the parable indicates that the mustard seed itself is directly related to its permanence/duration without being consumed.
Paraphrased scripture: ”If you KEEP a FIDELITY [to Jehaveh] that endures[remains] like a mustard seed...’.
What proceeded from bestiae obscurae [spiritually imposed doctrine]:
'...if you have a faith like a mustard seed...'.
-
PRESENCE totally exempts the need of believing (of having faith) and it can be seen in the words that were spoken to the Samaritan woman:
”You worship what you *KNOW NOT’, which means ”You worship what you believe’.
We worship what we know because the Eternal’s PRESENCE is manifest in the sight of the Hebrews.
When something or someone is present, it is not necessary to believe (to have faith), because you ASCERTAIN. And who ascertains *KNOWS, does not believe.
Therefore, a present Eternal Celestial exempts the faith. For if there is the Eternal Being present, you ascertain that PRESENCE, and therefore, you KNOW that the Eternal Celestial exists, and it does not have any involvement regarding believing.
To make one believe is the strongest ability of the deceiver. For the believer uses the heart alone, which exempts total SURENESS[to love with all the understanding].
When Legion [the demon; father of the beliefs] speaks the lie, ”it’ speaks out of its own nature, for ”it’ is a liar to **itself by believing what ”it’ believes to be truth; ”it’ is the father of the beliefs and does not *KNOW what truth is.
**does not see its beliefs as lies; just like whoever becomes a liar to him/herself by believing what he/she believes to be truth and becomes the begetter of his/her own belief/lie.
This is the purpose of a false elohim: To make one believe and then leave the brain at the door, for no ascertaining is required when all one needs is to believe.
When a man loves the Eternal Celestial with ALL his understanding [which requires knowledge of the Truth and clarification for total SURENESS], then does the presentation of irrefutable, touchable and undeniable proofs anihilate the need for believe?
While inviting Thomas to touch His hands and His side, did the Lamb anihilate Thomas' need for believe?
Paraphrased scripture:
'Come! Place your finger in the prints of my hands and touch my side, and do NOT be a man of credo/belief, but of SURENESS!'
What proceeded from bestiae obscurae [spiritually imposed doctrine]:
'...doubt no longer, but believe'.
.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : ...came to do, instead of ...came for
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : remains
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : has been
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : We worship what we know because the Eternal’s PRESENCE is manifest in the sight to the Hebrews.
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : of

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-12-2007 8:29 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4014 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 58 of 86 (389332)
03-12-2007 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by goldenlightArchangel
03-12-2007 3:53 PM


Re: PRESENCE totally exempts the need of believing
it seems to me, that when god talks about faith, he talks about men and women who either served god at all costs, or screwed up big time, but always cried out to their father. faith isn't talking about 'do you believe in jesus' because "even the demons believe and quake in ferar," but rather, are you assured of the power of god, the blessings of god, the peace of god enough to not let anything you do or anything that happens sway you from opening your heart to him? it speaks of david. this man who took his wimpy little sling to help defend his people --if i remember, against his father's wishes-- when they could not make any new swords. this man who murdered a man so he could steal his wife he'd already slept with. this man depended on the love of god and never stopped conversing with him no matter where he was in life. this is faith. that you know your god so well and are so confident in his promise of maintaining you and forgiving you, that you cry out to him in the depths of your sinfulness--because really, existing is being in the depths of sinfulness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-12-2007 3:53 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by goldenlightArchangel, posted 03-19-2007 5:53 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

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


Message 59 of 86 (389614)
03-14-2007 3:33 PM


THE ROMAN CENTURION’s Fidelity anihilates the need of believing
-
View it; two things that do not match: The ”need of believing(having faith)’, as the imposed doctrines of the earth intend to promote, and Words that are to be kept IMMEDIATELY.
The purpose of the word is to be KEPT and retained, and if the word is to be KEPT IMMEDIATELY (without the need of believing) that only could be possible through FIDELITY/constant Loyalty, as mentioned by the Roman Centurion:
For I also am a man under command, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it.
When the word is to be IMMEDIATELY RECEIVED and KEPT/retained, a true commander does not waste time telling others that they must believe(have faith) in the words he is saying, also if someone truly knows about the PRESENCE of the One that has sent him, he receives and keep those same words in an immediate time, without the need of believing(having faith).
For he knows that ”IMMEDIATELY’ means that one does not have time to believe neither hesitate, not even return his way to ask for help for his unbelief.
-
In the paraphrased text, view the actual words that were spoken to Thomas and the apostles:
Blessed are those who *did not see and even so **RETAINED the words.
-
**RECEIVED/KEPT the words; which means, Blessed are those who did not see and even so did not need to appeal to belief in order to retain the word.
* did not see and even so...; Like everything that is done through true loyalty/fidelity only, without having the need of believing(having faith), as highlighted by the Roman centurion. For the purpose of every word that comes out of Jehaveh of the Hosts, including the Living Word that became flesh, is to be KEPT IMMEDIATELY, which leaves no room for any proposed need of believing.
-
For the things that accomplish with the puzzling nature of Legion[the devil; father of the beliefs] and of the abominations/beliefs of the earth lead to the opposite effect: anything other than the simple IMMEDIATE receiving and keeping of a word as soon as it is spoken.
-
Paraphrased scripture: ”Truly I say to you, I have not found such constant fidelity with anyone in Israel. Many will come from east and west, and recline at the table with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven; but the sons of the kingdom will be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
And JEHAVEH’SHUA, which means I AM IS THE SALVATION, said to the Roman centurion, ”Go home; it shall be done for you according to your fidelity[loyalty].’
-
What proceeded from bestiae obscurae[spiritually imposed doctrine]: ”...as you have believed.’
-
Would it be possible to deceive without making someone believe(have faith)??
-
To make one believe(have faith) is to please the father of the beliefs/lies, the demon.
Brennakimi wrote: ”this is faith. that you know your god so well and are so confident...’
Is this faith[reliance on trust or belief], that one knows the true Eternal Being so well, as Mosheh, Abraham, EliJah and all the prophets of Jehaveh knew and did not even mention the false word ”faith’????
Why did they not speak in allegiance to the falseness that is called faith??; For the Hebrew part of the Scriptures, [the entire Old Testament], REMAINED constantly/permanently with the Hebrews, UNLIKE the manuscripts of what has been called New Testament where the word FIDELIS [i.e. Fidelity/Loyalty] as originally written, has been gradually substituted with the words 'fide' and 'fides' [i.e. faith].
-
THE ABOMINATION [FAITH/BELIEF] THAT CAUSES DESOLATION
While reading the Old Testament you can view that wherever the word abomination appears it can be perfectly substituted with the word ”faith’ or ”belief’:
Example: The Egyptians adored, loved and spiritually reverenced their belief/faith that is the cattle. While eating a heifer, the Hebrews were eating the belief/faith of the Egyptians.
And Meshua/Mosheh[which means Saved from the waters] said, It is not proper to do so; for we should sacrifice the belief/faith of the Egyptians to Jehaveh our Adonai: lo, if we sacrificed the belief/faith of the Egyptians before their eyes, would they not stone us?
-
And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves; because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that [food] is a belief/faith unto the Egyptians.
-
then ye shall say, Thy servants are men that have been occupied with cattle from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers; in order that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is against the belief/faith of the Egyptians.
-
The graven images of the gods shall ye burn with fire; thou shalt not covet the silver and gold [that is] on them and take it unto thee, lest thou be ensnared therein; for those things are a belief/faith before Jehaveh thy Adonai.
-
And thou shalt not bring a belief/faith into thy house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it is a cursed thing.
-
Thou shalt not do so to Jehaveh thy Adonai; for every [thing that is] a belief/faith to Jehaveh, he hateth, like things which they have done unto the gods; for even their sons and their daughters have they burned in the fire to their gods.
-
..then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and if it be truth, [and] the thing be certain, that a belief/faith hath happened in the midst of thee, thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the *sword, devoting it to destruction, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And all the spoil of it shalt thou gather into the midst of the open place thereof, and shalt burn the city with fire, and all the spoil thereof, wholly to Yahweh thy Adonai; and it shall be a heap for ever; it shall not be built again. And thou shalt not let anything cleave to thy hand of the devoted thing; that Yahweh may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and shew thee mercy, and have compassion upon thee, and multiply thee, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers; when thou hearkenest to the voice of Yahweh thy Adonai, to keep all his instructions which I instruct thee this day, that thou mayest do what is right in the eyes of Yahweh thy Adonai.
[prophetic code for *sword; the scriptures as originally written]
And ye shall not walk in the customs of the nation which I am casting out before you; for all these things have they done, and they became a belief/faith before me.
-
..and it be told thee, and thou hearest of it; then thou shalt make thorough inquiry, and if it be truth [and] the thing be certain, that this belief/faith hath been wrought in Ishrael, thou shalt bring forth that man or that woman, who committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, the man or the woman, and shalt stone them with stones, that they die. At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death: he shall not be put to death at the mouth of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people; and thou shalt put evil away from thy midst.
-
Cursed be the man that maketh a *graven or *molten image, a * belief/faith before Jehaveh, a work of the craftsman's hand..
*or a religious thing; The prophetic code for *graven or molten image also means doctrinal spiritual image(s); religious statutes.
-
..and because of these beliefs/faiths Jehaveh thy Adonai doth dispossess them from before thee. Thou shalt be perfect with Jehaveh thy Adonai. For these nations, which thou shalt dispossess..
And Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the belief/faith of the Ammonites.
Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh the belief/faith of the Moabites, on the hill that is before Jerrutzsalem, and for Molech the belief/faith of the children of Ammon.
And the high places that were before Jerrutzsalem, which were on the right hand of the mount of corruption, which Solomon the king of Israel had built for Ashtoreth the belief/faith of the Zidonians, and for Chemosh the belief/faith of the Moabites, and for Milcom the belief/faith of the children of Ammon, did the king defile.
And none taketh it to heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire, and have also baked bread upon the coals thereof, I have roasted flesh, and eaten [it], and with the rest thereof shall I make a belief/faith? shall I bow down to a block of wood?
And I brought you into a fruitful land, to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof; and ye entered and defiled my land, and made my heritage a belief/faith.
Ye stand upon your sword, ye work belief/faith, and ye defile every one his neighbour's wife; and shall ye possess the land?
-
And forces shall stand on his part, and they shall profane the sanctuary, the fortress, and shall take away the continual [sacrifice], and they shall place the belief/faith that maketh desolate.
And from the time that the continual [sacrifice] is taken away, and the belief/faith that maketh desolate set up, [there shall be] a thousand, two hundred, and ninety days.
Judah hath dealt with unfidelity, and an belief/faith is made in Israel and in Jerrutzsalem; for Judah hath profaned the sanctuary of Jehaveh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange ‘’god.
-
When therefore ye shall see the belief/faith of desolation, which is spoken of through Daniel the prophet, [what is] **standing where it ought not, in a holy place, he that reads let him understand,
**holy place encoded; HOLY BIBLE; a holy field/place that became desolated; adultered versions of New Testaments,
-
But when ye shall see the belief/faith of desolation standing where it ought not, he that reads let him consider it, then let those in Judaea flee to the mountains;
-
And he said to them, *Ye* are they who justify themselves before men, but the Eternal knows your hearts; for what amongst men is highly thought of is an belief/faith before the Eternal Celestial.
-
on her forehead the spiritual title: Mystery of Babylon - The *Mother of the beliefs/faiths and [spiritual] prostitution of souls of the earth.
* encoded; the only woman[city; congregation; church] that calls herself by the spiritual title 'Mother' - Holy Matrix(mother) Babylonical(which also means 'great' in size) Gothic Romanesque church.
-
And nothing common, nor that maketh a belief/faith and a lie, shall at all enter into it; but those only who [are] written in the book of life of the Lamb.
-
Thank you
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : the word 'leaves'
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : Romanesque
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : abomination where it ought not; in the **holy place: HOLY BIBLE; a holy field/place that became desolated; adultered versions of New Testaments
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : [what is] **standing where it ought not, in a holy place, he that reads let him understand,
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : IMMEDIATE receiving and keeping of a word as soon as it is spoken.

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


Message 60 of 86 (390292)
03-19-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by macaroniandcheese
03-12-2007 8:29 PM


PERPETUAL ETERNAL COVENANT`s SYNCHRONY leaves no room for faith
-
UPDATED transcription of fragment of the letter to the Ephesians:
For it is by the spontaneous graciousness [YAHWEH’s unmerited willing love] that you are saved [declared righteous; having your spiritual account completely and eternally clear, without debts nor credits] through FIDELITY [to the One that has sent the Lamb]. And this [salvation] does NOT depend on anything of your own [does not depend whether on religious reliance(faith) or good works], for it is a gift of YAHWEH.
-
Would a little child hear a word and then spiritually impose a condition by saying that he/she would NOT receive it unless through BELIEVING(having faith) that the word he/she hears is true?
Would the Word that became flesh convince the little child that the word he/she hears is to be received through BELIEVING(having faith) rather than through his/her natural acceptance on saying a YES answer?
-
This is the covenant’s synchrony: That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou YAHWEH art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE.
-
In order to be perfect in ONE,
What is it that is PRESENT in the synchrony between the Lamb and YAHWEH [Who has sent the Word that became flesh] that is exactly what needs to be PRESENT for the COMPLETENESS of synchrony between you and YAHWEH??
The only possible one-word answer is FIDELITY [Total Fidelity to the One that has sent the Word that became flesh],
for if it was faith(religious faith), that would be the same as to say that the Lamb had to believe(have faith) in order TO BE the Word that became flesh.
It is because of that total synchrony on being made ONE, and on being made EQUAL [with regard to the graciousness of a willing love], that the Lamb said ”I will call you ”FRIENDS’, not servants, for the servants do not KNOW what their lord does.
Why would one appreciate to be spiritually a servant [or spiritually a slave], which would coincide with the system [that is called ”hierarchy’] that proceeded from the nature of the wide door of re’Legion and abominations/faiths of the earth?
For there one does not need to KNOW/ASCERTAIN the PRESENCE of the Holy One, because all that is needed there is to believe(have faith; or non-hesitation) that the presence of their system’s elohim might be there. But why would that non-hesitation be needed if in fact the elohim there is a present one?
-
While mining for truth in all of the books from the Ancient Testament, in not one of them is found any instruction saying that one needs to believe(have faith).
Istead, in all of them, the eternal words do attest and instruct that man needs to be constant in loyalty and remain through total FIDELITY to Jehaveh of the Hosts.
For even in the books of the Prophets, while instructing the good News of a perpetual eternal covenant, Jehaveh of the Hosts does not mention anything about believing(having faith). Istead, gives the clear and precise instruction that man ought to be with permanent and constant understanding[knowledge] while remaining into the bond of the perpetual eternal covenant:
I will put my Law [my Words] in their inward parts, and will WRITE it in their heart; And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, KNOW Jehaveh; for they shall all KNOW me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehaveh: for I will pardon their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.
And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant.
In the time that it is said ”all the books of the Ancient Testament’, let the total writings through twenty-five Prophets of Jehaveh, including EliYah and Elishuab, be highlighted. For not one of them did ever relate TRUE FIDELITY[constant loyalty] to any need of believing(having faith). Instead, all of the twenty-five prophesied about the need of man’s total Fidelity for him to be in SYNCHRONY with Jehaveh’s willing love.
Jehaveh`s eternal words in the books of the Ancients are the supporting foundations firm in the Rock [The Scriptures as originally written]. Not in the sand(versions of scriptures and adulterated copies of the manuscripts of the New Testament).
Example: Sefer Tehilim [book of Psalms] that shows up with the word ”pierce’ replacing the words ”seize like a lion’, is a false Sefer Tehilim that belongs to the wide door of religion and abominations/faiths of the earth.
-
THE LAMB - Then and Now
[The acceptance through a LAMB; The Before and After]
-
While living in Ishrael, in ancient times, you could see the tent of the Tabernacle standing. In those days you would take your best lamb, write your name on its forehead and then send it to the altar for him to die in your place.
And you would not have to believe(have faith) nor hesitate, for no believing is needed when all the clear and precise instructions are PRESENT and firm into the Rock[The books of the Law, or of the Prophets or the Sefer Tehilim as originally written];
That when a lamb is sent to die in your place, all one has to do is to keep and retain the words of that instruction by simply RECOGNIZING that YAHWEH declares you righteous. According to all that is firm and supported into the Rock, you were not requested to believe(have faith) nor hesitate, for the instruction does not mention the need of any religious reliance(faith; or non-hesitation), but your RECOGNITION of the facts.
If you were not requested to believe(have faith) when the lamb that you sent was just a SHADE of the reality, MUCH LESS believing(religious faith) is requested NOW that the REALITY itself is PRESENT in FULLNESS and COMPLETENESS. Much less believing is needed NOW that you have a TRUE REMISSION LAMB constantly PRESENT. Don't it make you feel bad when you're tryin' to find your way home
and you don't know which way to go? In the time that the levee of souls that support a prostitute woman breaks, she will hear the words: ’*Momma you got to go’. [*a Babylonical(great) and Gothic Romanesca momma].
-
THE HIDDEN TREASURE Kept Secret In The Parable
In the beginning of the centuries words from a lot of fragments of scripture were substituted, but the hidden treasure in the parables remains intact, as it is said in the perpetual eternal Covenant: I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the Initial time.
A hidden treasure has been kept secret in the parable of the Unforgiving Official, for it means much more than a mere ”do onto others as you would have them do onto you’. When decrypted through a laconic form this parable reveals once and for all that true forgiveness [remission of sins and TRUE JUSTIFICATION] has NOTHING to do with believing(having faith).
If you are declared righteous or had all your debts pardoned, this is a fact and the only thing that is left for you to do is to RECOGNIZE that you have no spiritual debts to pay nor spiritual credits that could be saved in your account any longer. Your account is completely clear eternally to not pay nor to be paid either.
If the acceptance through which you do RECOGNIZE that, before the graciousness and PRESENCE of the One that has sent the Lamb, is that of a YES from a little child, it has nothing to do whether with believing(having faith) or hesitating.
Does the fact of having been declared righteous give you the right to feed on the believing that you are highlighted or distinguished from anyone that would be forgiven by you??
What differentiates you from any other person that would be forgiven by you??
-
If you understand, ascertain and comprehend that the One who has sent the Lamb is PRESENT, just as the Adonai was present in the parable, and declares that your account is eternally clear, that moment is not proper for a response other than your YES or NO answer.
When forgiveness is given to you that way, as attested in the parable, that is a fact which has no involvement regarding believing(having faith), because there`s nothing you can do besides accepting or refusing what is being given. Any type of acceptance that intends to go beyond that of a little child`s YES or NO answer, is a believing and coincides with the nature of the father of the beliefs/lies.
-
The eternal instruction in the parable of the Unforgiving official prevents one from becoming an accomplice of double oppression:
1st. - The believing that the fact of having been declared righteous highlights or differentiates you from anyone that would be forgiven by you, which is an oppressive arrogance against the Eternal`s graciousness and right to choose, that is the Eternal`s spontaneous will on sealing and sanctifying.
The fact that the Lamb died physically in your place gives the sureness that the times have been abbreviated on behalf of everyone that the PRESENCE of the Eternal Being comes to seal and choose. Justification [to be declared righteous] is just the first step in order for you to be chosen and sealed.
2nd. - Forgiveness is INVALIDATED through believing or thinking that you were declared righteous for having in you an acceptance other than that of the simple YES from a little child. Would any other type of acceptance be in synchrony with the willing love and graciousness of the One who has sent the Lamb??
-
This is the short format of the instruction from the parable of the Unforgiving Official:
Do NOT invalidate that forgiveness by believing or thinking that you were declared righteous for having in you any type of acceptance that highlights or differentiates you from anyone that would be forgiven by you, which means, anything that makes you feel spiritually highlighted or distinguished from anyone, whether through believing(having faith) or good works.
-
THE SPIRITUAL NATURE OF BELIEVING
. But what is puzzling you is the nature of re`Legion`s game.
-
This is why believing is the spiritual nature of the demon[the father of the beliefs/lies]:
I. - You hear the word
II. - but you impose a condition in which you are
III. - spiritually saying that you will NOT receive it
IV. - unless through BELIEVING that what
V. - you hear is true.
And whenever you impose that condition, before the PRESENCE of the Eternal Holy One that watches you always somewhere, spiritually you make it sound like the demon[Legion] is so close to you that even the word you receive could, [according to that imposed condition of whether believing or hesitating], be the demon`s.
-
Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : when her levee breaks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-12-2007 8:29 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-19-2007 6:22 PM goldenlightArchangel has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024