Faith is believing in something with no evidence to support it.
It's not a gift, it's a leap of reason. If you have faith in something, great.
But don't run around demanding that others do the same.
What would YOU want to hear at church?
- Thread starter adopted
- Start date
Faith is believing in something with no evidence to support it.
It's not a gift, it's a leap of reason. If you have faith in something, great.
But don't run around demanding that others do the same.
If there were no Bible and no eye-witnesses of the resurrected Christ, you'd certainly belly-ache to the Christians about that. But a Bible has been preserved through thousands of years, so you'll find fault with the concept of eye-witnesses. As the Master Teacher said, "We played the flute for you, and you did not dance; we sang a dirge, and you did not mourn." Make up your mind, what do you want, what shall it be?
As for pulling an "expert" out of your hat, I can do that too, and we'll be pitting our experts against each other and we won't solve the debate, will we? There are prophecies about false converts to Christianity who fall away because they never were genuine in the first place. Christ himself referred to these as the stony and the thorny soil. Should I be surprised that an enemy of God writes a book opposing God? and should I be surprised that one such as yourself receives him as your teacher? "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions."
Faith is something that all people have. There are two types of faith. The blind-leap sort, and the "evidence of things unseen" sort. The former is lunacy, and I'll confess to having resorted to it at times. Perhaps we all have. The latter is fully compatible with reason and evidence (as evidence is contained within the definition given by the letter to the Hebrews.)
You are talking about blind faith, and your description is accurate. There is another type of faith, which is vision granted by God, and the author to the Hebrews called it the "evidence of things unseen."
If you visited a room with 4 men born blind, and they told you that "seeing is pretending something is there with no evidence to support it," and that "it's a leap," you'd have to disagree with them, wouldn't you?
Please don't blame me for any guilt you may be feeling. I haven't demanded anything of you.
Last edited:
adopted;1539124 Faith is something that all people have. There are two types of faith. The blind-leap sort said:
Or the verse before the posted one, what's the matter couldn't find it to 'actually check it out yourself'? Not trying to be a jackass but the other part of 'us' is in the 2nd verse posted. You sure you don't have some 'things' that are keeping you from seeing anything sensible in any of the Bible, just to compare it to my 'drugs and alcohol' that makes me never see a wrong in the Bible, at least as far as coming from God. Is that your 'defense' from accepting what I say about Scripture, you have the best version and nobody can do 'better' and if they do then they are on drugs. How many people you meet that should be on drugs and aren't?
Ge:1:26:
And God said,
Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness:
and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle,
and over all the earth,
and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Ge:1:2:
And the earth was without form,
and void;
and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Adopted, there are many Christians on this Forum, and some
of them have posted in this Thread. You have judged and
condemned them along with the Agnostics and Atheists,
as well as anyone else with a different opinion than
yourself, be they of a different religion or none at
all.
I seriously doubt the God of your religion appointed you as
His/Her/It's personal adjudicator in the matter of deciding
and announcing publicly who is or isn't going to Christian
Hell.
If you found comfort in the Christian religion, good for you!
If you think part of that is your effort in recruiting others to
the religion that you have chosen for yourself, you are
failing miserably and alienating almost everyone that
you are interacting with. I'm assuming that's not in
the best interests of your religion, and the reason
I suggested earlier in this Thread that, if you knew your
Pastor well, have that person read through this Thread, as it
might become a valuable tool for personal self-exploration.
of them have posted in this Thread. You have judged and
condemned them along with the Agnostics and Atheists,
as well as anyone else with a different opinion than
yourself, be they of a different religion or none at
all.
I seriously doubt the God of your religion appointed you as
His/Her/It's personal adjudicator in the matter of deciding
and announcing publicly who is or isn't going to Christian
Hell.
If you found comfort in the Christian religion, good for you!
If you think part of that is your effort in recruiting others to
the religion that you have chosen for yourself, you are
failing miserably and alienating almost everyone that
you are interacting with. I'm assuming that's not in
the best interests of your religion, and the reason
I suggested earlier in this Thread that, if you knew your
Pastor well, have that person read through this Thread, as it
might become a valuable tool for personal self-exploration.
No, I look at the verses you post and your interpretation of what it means and I am amazed at how your mind can jump to such conclusions for one thing and how they differ from any other interpretation I have encountered for a second. I have read the bible a few times a long time ago and decided that it didn't make any sense to me, but being a curious type, I looked around to find out why people think it says something important. What I found was the history of both the OT and NT and how both were manufactured using the myths of various other previous cultures, how Constantine ordered the writings of the religions of his time mashed together to fit his political agenda and start a new religion about a deified rabbi. But go ahead and believe whatever you want. Your wasting you life and the study of every minute detail of what amounts to a work of historical fiction is no sweat off my balls. I find the human mind extremely fascinating, especially those who are delusional.
So the faith that Thomas demanded is sane and he was right to hold out for 'physical proof' which can only be by Jesus being with you in the flesh at the time the Nations come under judgment. Do we have 'blind faith' in that we have pretty clear descriptions of what is supposed to happen if God is real, that is the whole point of the Bible being given to us, by God.
Please define these two terms in bold letters in your post. The 'unseen' would make it blind faith would it not and does the other one refer to just the OT?
If the 'blessed' have faith without proof thing is exclusive to seeing Jesus's face the faith in the other events that the Scriptures cover also need to be accepted if they are said to be true. The Grand things God did and is supposed to do means it can't be faked, Satan is said to be powerful enough to make fire come down but he can never raise somebody from the grave. You will either see that event happen or you won't. If you do you are going to be alive for the 1,000 years, if not then you are going be alive only near the start of the new earth. It's much more convincing if you read the relevant text yourself.
Again what does that phrase mean to 'somebody from the deep bush'?
I have a hard time accepting the 'blind' part when people who read the Bible are said to be 'children of light', the 2'3 of mankind that die on that day are called the 'children of darkness'. It would see the ones who will die are the ones running on 'blind faith'.
Blind faith is what is required to believe the bible is the literal word of god. There is no other kind of faith involved.
Ron, I have not "judged and condemned" anybody. I have defended the orthodox Biblical Christian religion, and such is expected of every professing Christian. Where others feel judged and condemned is a sign that perhaps the Spirit is beginning a work in their heart, which must first begin with an awareness of a problem/need due to sin. A doctor doesn't blather about a cure unless she first informs her patient of the disease -- it works like that. And if you investigated from the Bible whether I ought to publicly confess these truths, you would find that I ought. If you investigated from history, you would find that better men than me have been put to death for doing exactly what I'm doing -- refusing to deny and choosing to confess the orthodox Biblical Christian religion.
The one I call "Lord" was crucified for speaking the truth. The least I can do is testify to his righteousness. Stephen was killed with stones by Jews for preaching to them from their own scriptures. Guido de Bres was still preaching the Calvinist gospel while pushed off the scaffold by the Roman Catholic hangman. This isn't novel behavior, and your resistance isn't novel either -- in fact, you've presumably got a long way to go before your hatred would lead you to killing me for what I'm saying.
This is a historical conflict that has played out many times in many places, and will continue to do so until the forbearance of God comes to an end.
You're right. I have absolutely no business announcing publicly who is or isn't going to hell. But wait, where have I done that? If you are alive and breathing, then I consider you my fellow man who is 100% as worthy and 100% as unworthy as I am, and 100% as capable of repenting, as I must also do. If I say that sinners must be punished, I include myself. If I say that Christ died for sinners, then I include you. Were I to condemn you, then I should withhold that solution from your ears, and then you may call me the condemning judge.
I cannot recruit anybody. Only those chosen by the Father are lead and kept by the Son. I'm not God. I'm one who worships and with my lips must confess.
If I alienate people, then I am not happy; however, I note that the Master said things so hard to hear that multitudes abandoned him; only a handful remained at times. He wasn't the "Joel Osteen" type who makes everybody feel warm and fuzzy.
If you assume that the "best interests of the [Christian] religion" is to pack stadiums with people who come for the show and leave the back door as fast as they came in the front, then your assumption is wrong. The true Christian religion is mighty offensive, so don't expect less from me. The true Christian religion says that you and I are filthy sinners, worthy of nothing. Then it says that it "pleased the Father" to crush His Son. And you want me to paint some 2012 Canadian airy-fairy-tale love-in and call it Christianity for the masses? I cannot betray my Lord.
Hello MHz,
The "unseen" mentioned in Hebrews 11:1 is referring to "unseen" with the human eyes. But in another manner of speaking, faith is very much about seeing -- about seeing precisely that which is not seen with physical eyes. So, you are right, the "children of light" are all about seeing -- just seeing things that others are blind to (and we ourselves once were blind, as John Newton has us singing all the time -- even the heathen sing his song).
I agree with you that there are serious limitations to Satan's power. For example, he could never take on a physical (material) form. If that were so, then he could have faked the risen Christ.
As for the thousand years -- there I am not an expert -- but I suspect we are already in the thousand years, for our Lord already declared that His kingdom is not of this earth. He is already seated at God's right hand in heaven as King of kings, so why would He condescend again to take up some pathetic earthly throne? I could be wrong here, but I've converted from the pre-millenial thinking to the amillennial. A strict understanding of these things is not essential to salvation, though. And I'm not going to get dogmatic about it, because I could be wrong.
Regards,
Paul
If there were no Bible humanity would might have been spared a lot of horror, but probably not, something else just as bad would have come along. There are no eyewitness accounts of the resurrected Christ. The gospel accounts were written several generations after Jesus death, not by his disciples, that's common knowledge among biblical scholars.
Not if your expert source continues to be the Bible itself, as what you wrote after that seems to suggest. You can't legitimately cite a source in support of its own claims, self-referential arguments don't work. Try your experts if you want, but don't bother with William Lane Craig, he tries to use science to buttress his claims and doesn't understand what he's talking about. He's too easy to discredit.
"Evidence of things unseen" in the metaphorical sense you're using it--assuming you don't literally mean just things that can't be directly observed, but things that cannot be detected at all--is an oxymoron, I see no difference between those types. But none of that really has anything to do with why we'll never resolve this.
Dr. Ehrman, BTW, is not an enemy of god, he just no longer believes in him. I introduced him (Ehrman I mean) just to help get a little historical information into your head, but evidently you'd rather not have that. That's why we'll never resolve this, really; you aren't really paying much attention.
So you're admitting that your God - your version of him - is a total sadistic ba.tard? And yet you STILL want people to look to that God as a being worthy of worship?
I think you just proved that you're working with a few screws loose.
You have to remember, I read lots of Scripture and it is so recent I can almost quote the whole verse (as it is a key word is remembered so finding the verse again is easy now) The God in Heaven only has a verse or three to draw on so it can be quite wrong, then again you have read them to the probability is no longer at '0'.
On the more serious parts like the 24 or so passages that have the phrase 'day of the Lord' in it is nothing that needs any speculation. If you do not have a mental picture already in your memory about what the last 3 chapters say you will find it too violent and hostile and barbaric to be able to say , 'Wow' and be able to keep reading. At least I couldn't when I first started reading those parts, so I stuck to the NT as it was more 'elevating' because there was a 'happy ending for all involved' even the ones being massacred in the OT.
I'd be quite happy for you to 'stump me' or find some sort of conflict in the stuff that is written about. Enoch could be an adults cartoon as 90% is visionary and a fallen angel is about two miles tall. (I know 'too big' but if you travel to the far reaches of the universe and back is it almost too small?) The book is mostly in a chariot cruising around heaven as the angels call home. It isn't speculation that when it says He made the 'worlds' that those places were also meant to be inhabited once the new earth is 'operating' just as the prophecies say.
When I 'speculate' like I did it still has some verses that I didn't post (there should have been 3 to even speculate). When speculation isn't wanted or required then all you should need is a lead-in, like this. A lot of people are concerned about the people in Revelation that are slain by Jesus's sword in that they are forever damned. If I said open your mind up to the ones in Isa:65 that are slain by the sword are the same ones being tormented after that they are the ones alive in the new earth. For me to 'see that connection' was a long time and sometimes finding things is a total accident. If I referenced you to a long passage and I said to read it to make sure I had the context right. A verse might be pretty specific but a passage may have a general theme but it covers several subjects and as you are 'checking things out' you will read bits and pieces that apply to other parts of the prophecy of the use a keyword that you hadn't used yet.
That is the most of it, just a lot of verses to use as fall-back. For prophecies like His return read the 24 passages and no guess work is needed.
You are defending your interpretation of what you think the
orthodox Biblical Christian religion states, as other Christians,
and others have offerered their opinions on the subject.
Perhaps you might reread your own posts in reply to other
opinions, be they from Christians or others, to understand the
reactions you are receiving. If you're not seeing it, then maybe
you could reread them with someone who's judgement you trust,
like your Pastor.
That's all. If in your own mind, it must be everyone else that just
doesn't "get it," as in accepting your interpretation of what you
think the orthodox Biblical Christian religion states, maybe a sit
down with your Pastor isn't such a bad idea, is it?
There's a huge difference between "the" and "your"....& I believe
that's what you're seeing here, but what do I know? Anyway, it's
late and I'm done for the night. Peace out.
If you did that when there are no signs of Him what would you have left for when He is resurrecting all you older relatives and pets and such?
We are in the 'fear God' mode
Re:14:6:
And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven,
having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth,
and to every nation,
and kindred,
and tongue,
and people,
Re:14:7:
Saying with a loud voice,
Fear God,
and give glory to him;
for the hour of his judgment is come:
and worship him that made heaven,
and earth,
and the sea,
and the fountains of waters.
Re:11:18:
And the nations were angry,
and thy wrath is come,
and the time of the dead,
that they should be judged,
and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets,
and to the saints,
and them that fear thy name,
small and great;
and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
I'm not surprised that you think that incomprehensible psycho babble means something to anybody but you.
My gawd, the lord is going to fill the earth with rotting zombie corpses.
The author of revelations was on some bad rye mold. I have heard of people freaking out on bad acid having similar bad trips.
MHz, I don't fear God - or at least, my version of God - however, adopted's version of God is one scary, scary dude.
I may not see signs of a God like Christians do, but I have faith there is SOMETHING beyond our knowledge out there. Call it the Creator, call it God, call it Allah, Zeus, Ra, Osiris, Krishna or Jimbob the Hobo. That's not the total of my faith, but it is there.