Righteousness through faith
-
beliefs, faith...u are just playing with words as usual......and christians dun go church just to get blessings....stupid!
Originally posted by casino_king:
Noted, but where I disagree with you is that
1. [b]relationship is the ongoing journey even to our graves and beyond. You start the relationship through Faith, not beliefs.
2. When the relationship first starts it will blow your mind but after a while (Obedience is a non issue because) you will be like:
You: "If I do your this will I get all the bessings and riches in the world?"
God: "No, do you still want to do it?"
What do you think your answer will be? Nothing will be able to tear you away from the love of God.
What am I talking about?
Genesis 22:1 It happened after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" He said, "Here I am."You see Abraham talking to God? Not praying, mind you. talking to.
"It is enough. Now, O Yahweh, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers." (I King 19:4). Do you see this person asking God to kill him?
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"(I King 19:9) Do you see God talking to this person who wanted to end his own life? If there is anybody who is not worthy for God to talk to, he would be a very good example.
They have a relationship like that with God through Faith. Do you see any continous beliefs in God there or a relationship?
I am only giving you these examples because you can find the rest yourself. I am here telling you that God is still the same and will have a relationship like with them, with you. Stop giving yourself excuses that the times are different and so on. Stop giving yourself excuses that you and they are different.
The only difference is that they had Faith in God and you do not. So what is Faith in God?[/b] -
This is about as nutty as arguing that crimson is not anything like red.
Belief in God does not equal faith (as we would define it totalluy), but faith in God certainly requires belief to begin with. Having a brain does not equal intelligence, but intelligence certainly requires the presence of a brain.
I do find it very strange how CK could go into the details of the argument while missing out the obvious. But as I said, I do not think for a moment that he ever has had a valid case. -
Tthe critical question is, "Do you believe with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength that there is only one God?"
If yes, then Have Faith in God. -
Yes.Originally posted by casino_king:Tthe critical question is, "Do you believe with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength that there is only one God?"
If yes, then Have Faith in God. -
You are arguing over words, not over ideas. There is nothing to talk about.
-
It is not about words or ideas. It is like puberty. Children can argue over the meaning of words and ideas over the concept of puberty.Originally posted by SocialOutcast:You are arguing over words, not over ideas. There is nothing to talk about.
An adult, observing people talking about puberty knows straightaway who is a child and who is an adult.
Your comment tells me straightaway that you have never been born again. You might even be a fervent believer of all the Christians concepts and fervent worker in church. You might even be an expert in interpreting the bible.
Just like a child, no matter how well verse the child is in the concept and how well the child understands puberty, if he has not reach puberty, it is pointless.
To reach puberty you must come of age, to be born again, you must have Faith in God. -
Originally posted by casino_king:
Seems to me that you simply cut and paste messages from some websites and try to sound like an "intellect" ? Hrmm....paste properly next time ok ?
Noted, but where I disagree with you is that
1. [b]relationship is the ongoing journey even to our graves and beyond. You start the relationship through Faith, not beliefs.
2. When the relationship first starts it will blow your mind but after a while (Obedience is a non issue because) you will be like:
You: "If I do your this will I get all the bessings and riches in the world?"
God: "No, do you still want to do it?"
What do you think your answer will be? Nothing will be able to tear you away from the love of God.
What am I talking about?
Genesis 22:1 It happened after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" He said, "Here I am."You see Abraham talking to God? Not praying, mind you. talking to.
"It is enough. Now, O Yahweh, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers." (I King 19:4). Do you see this person asking God to kill him?
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"(I King 19:9) Do you see God talking to this person who wanted to end his own life? If there is anybody who is not worthy for God to talk to, he would be a very good example.
They have a relationship like that with God through Faith. Do you see any continous beliefs in God there or a relationship?
I am only giving you these examples because you can find the rest yourself. I am here telling you that God is still the same and will have a relationship like with them, with you. Stop giving yourself excuses that the times are different and so on. Stop giving yourself excuses that you and they are different.
The only difference is that they had Faith in God and you do not. So what is Faith in God?[/b]
Very frequently, i dont know how your "answers" gel into all of our posts.
"When the relationship first starts it will blow your mind..."
KSM ?!!
Wah lau, you totally lost me. I think you are perfectly suited to act in Lost 3. -
What am I talking about?Originally posted by klydeer:Seems to me that you simply cut and paste messages from some websites and try to sound like an "intellect" ? Hrmm....paste properly next time ok ?
Very frequently, i dont know how your "answers" gel into all of our posts.
"When the relationship first starts it will blow your mind..." KSM ?!!
Wah lau, you totally lost me. I think you are perfectly suited to act in Lost 3.
Genesis 22:1 It happened after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" He said, "Here I am."You see Abraham talking to God? Not praying, mind you. talking to.
"It is enough. Now, O Yahweh, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers." (I King 19:4). Do you see this person asking God to kill him?
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"(I King 19:9) Do you see God talking to this person who wanted to end his own life? If there is anybody who is not worthy for God to talk to, he would be a very good example.
They have a relationship like that with God through Faith in God.
Simple, Direct.
No theology, no what is righteousness through faith; no what is justification by Faith; no what are correct Christian practices, no what are good works...
Simple Faith in God -
And you are Lost.
-
Ok.Originally posted by casino_king:What am I talking about?
Genesis 22:1 It happened after these things, that God tested Abraham, and said to him, "Abraham!" He said, "Here I am."You see Abraham talking to God? Not praying, mind you. talking to.
"It is enough. Now, O Yahweh, take away my life; for I am not better than my fathers." (I King 19:4). Do you see this person asking God to kill him?
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"(I King 19:9) Do you see God talking to this person who wanted to end his own life? If there is anybody who is not worthy for God to talk to, he would be a very good example.
They have a relationship like that with God through Faith in God.
Simple, Direct.
No theology, no what is righteousness through faith; no what is justification by Faith; no what are correct Christian practices, no what are good works...
Simple Faith in God
So what is your experience ? Why not talk about yourself for a change ? And not others ? You talk quite loudly about Faith. But somehow, my heart do not hear you. -
A person in Faith with God will never say what you say.Originally posted by casino_king:Your comment tells me straightaway that you have never been born again. You might even be a fervent believer of all the Christians concepts and fervent worker in church. You might even be an expert in interpreting the bible. -
Can a person without faith ever say much about it?
It can say much about what it appears to be from the outside, but move on to comment on the inside of it and it all becomes nonsense. He seeks to tell people what faith is without having it himself, demanding a standard which he knows is quite impossible and useless as a whole, the the hybrid concept of man as a reasonable animal of flesh and spirit that has to start from some form of dogma to get about knowing and ever having faith in God.
But of course my point was that he never made any sense to begin with, and anyway he is simply creating but another dogma to deal with the concept of God. I deem this minimalistic theism, which if you think about it is as good as no theism at all, or even something worse.
In any case one does not need to take a second to see that even the examples he did draw (oddly enough without authority for he sought to destroy the very authority of the source he drew his example from) actually mean quite another thing from what he said. I do not think that Abraham or Moses for that example, had perfect, or even CKish faith in God (which is actually no faith at all). What they did demostrate was something else entirely, and the fact that they did fall in the faith at times was something CK left out without so much a whisper (should one be surprised for he only accepts whatever supports his theory), lest it breaks his perfect example.
Their shortcomings however, are perfectly expected within the Christian conception of faith. If there was a true kind of faith, you would expect things to happen this way. What is a wonder, is that anything can happen at all in CK's concept of faith. To think intelligently you first need the brain, as much as not all brains become intelligent in the end. CK is doing aking to focusing so much on the concept and value of intelligence and finding the concept of a brain repulsive to the notion of intelligence because it is so much more basal.
If I could approach CK with his own logic the way he uses cannon, declares it noncannon, and then declares what he uses cannon again, I could pretty much twist anything he has ever said to support myself. All I need to do is to pratice the very 'rational', 'scientific' and 'faithful' method of selective ommision, pseudo-intellectualism, circular reasoning, being-the-judge-of-the-universe, and monkey games.
'Faith is not belief!' CK shouts. If that was true he would have been unable to utter a word worth considering. -
In any case if CK has been arguing hard to divorce faith from dogma, then he has failed miserably so far. So far what he has been enforcing is the notion that having faith creates dogma and concepts... which has been perfectly obvious to anybody bothering to live it out.
Moses, Elijah and Abraham never supposed they were worthy of ever meeting God in anyway, but they believed that a large part of their relationship involved defending, doing, or advancing the causes of many things that CK would quite vocally reject as dogma, concepts and ideas.
Elijah was an idealist in a time when everybody was going with whatever 'felt' the most agreeable. Moses passed down the law to us (which by CK's argument would be impossible, especially if a God that deamnds his kind of faith would create dogma to prevent that), Abraham had a very specific and dogmatic mission that he blundered trying to fufill in his own 'faithful' way by using a servant to provide a child. All this it seems, has been dismissed by CK, which is not surprising because no possible evidence against his argument can exist.
Which is really the argument of a madman. If I believed I was the king of england I could construct many self-contained logics to prove my point. Any attempt to demostrate me wrong I could refute because by my logic it would all fall into place as people trying in some conspiracy to deny me my throne. The logic is internally consistent, and virtually impossible to break into. A madman may regard a baseball as the world because of it's roundness (and they both are), but in the end the baseball is not the world.
It seems to me that CK has absolute faith in one god, and that god is himself. This is why he deems himself a worthy judge of all reality, needing to pay no heed to common sense and honest logic (they're human concepts and dogma anyway) to even getting his proper examples.
Is is clear to me that he can accept no other answer except that which appeals to his own brand of universal logic, which on not even a second look, hasn't even begin to be accepted by five people of some sense, let alone being universal at all. -
When people use deceit to argue their case... then it must be pointed out.
When I used other examples and not the bible; there was such a big hooha including from this person. see 15 May 2006 · 05:55 PM page 5
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Search your own hearts for I am not trying to win any argument.
When I asked "Do you have evidence of God?" The Christians insists that they have evidence.
Faith in God; not evidence.
When I say Have Faith in God only and not depend on beliefs and practices; the people here say that they are lost trying to understand what I am trying to say.
Faith in God; not beliefs, no matter how sound; not activities no matter how fervent; Be Born Again.
Search your own heart, if you are trying very hard to hold on to your beliefs; you have not entered into the Kingdom of God. You are not Born Again. Never settle for second best; second best is an abomination to God. -
It's your 'scientific' mind mixing you up. The deciet you created.
I shall now say why:
You seem to assume that people who have faith in God claim that faith based on the evidence they have for God.
You might jolly well have forgotten that these evidences they discovered after they approached science following their conversion of faith to God. A person who is already a Christian may become a scientist later and discover signs in physical evidence that echos of what his faith has already told him, in which case there would be no contradiction at all.
It would be odd however, that one should demand that all reality be against his faith for his faith to be true, that I believe, is an unreasonable demand that God would not bother with.
In the same like, I would believe in the concept of my friend John with or without science. Using terms of biology and atoms to describe why he should be valid in the scientific argument. Even if that is taken away I might not disbelieve John at all, for it would be the personal experience, the very thing that I believed in John for in the first place that made me believe.
So you are correct to say that to believe in God because of science is dangerous, because your faith would then be based on the concept of science and not the eternal and infinite entity. It is no surprise many people became apostates because of science because science has been their god all along, so where it goes where they will go.
It would be in error however to say that, one cannot come to believe in God through science. How the journey is made, if it is made on correct or wrong notions seems to me irrelevant as long as the person finally reaches God. And I believe that person would not be able to call to God unless God had been calling him all along, and working in all kinds of ways to be known. If such a being was omnipotent and omniscient, using our own inperfect science to reach us is hardly illogical, just that it cannot be done by us...
Which is my contention in the first place. One seems to assume that faith in God is a personal activity of reaching Him, but it seems to me more of a letting ourselves to react in the right way when He reaches us. Your veto is that our faith should be a certain personal conduct that appeals to this God while rejecting as much as possible any notions that could possibly in error, seems to me a purest veto of sorts based on a human understanding of how faith should ever work in human effort.
I have but a few notions that I do know. That He is Good (or we shall have no hope or motivation of reaching Him) That He is able (so it can be done) That He loves (or He shall not bother with it). In that sense the person with wrong conceptions of God may jolly well be closer and more faithful then the person who soughts to purify his conceptions of faith in God. In a sense it is about the seeker and what God decides to do with him.
As for starting with beliefs:
When I think of Singapore I may get a mental image of Kovan MRT station, but of course I know that is not what Singapore is all about. It is the starting to base ones whole notion of Singapore on Kovan MRT that is the danger. The other danger it seems to me, soley yours... and that is to just focus on the word S.I.N.G.A.P.O.R.E. and to believe in it in lieu of any concepts. Both dangers it seems to me, are not faith in God. Kovan MRT is certainly in Singapore and deserves no dropping in concept when it comes to thinking about Singapore. All the same simply focusing on the shady and cloudy concept of Singapore can't go very wrong at first... but it can't go very right either. Eventually anything that can't go very right will go very wrong. -
So said one needs beliefs to have faith, that is something I must state.
True enough having faith in beliefs in that thing might not be the same as having faith in that thing itself. But if that thing and the belief are the one same thing, having faith in the correct belief would be having faith in the thing.
It seems you have confused the concept of belief as an action, with belief as a noun.
I may put my faith in a jar also in the belief that it is unbreakable. Now if the jar breaks and I still put my belief in the concept of unbreakability then my faith has been incongruent with the reality of the jar. But if the jar is unbrekable, then the concept of unbreakability is one and the same with the jar, and when I believe in that jar I ought to believe in its unbreakability.
The unknowing and unassuming pure faith (as you advertise) also smuggles in one assumption: that God is unknowable. And for the unknowing and unassuming faith to hold true that unknowability of God has to stick with Him. In doing that one has already admitted one preconception of God that one is basing one entire faith-posture on. I do not see it unreasonable why other religions may sought to stick other preconcepts, unless of course, they are not justified.
There are religions that believe that God is fully knowable (deism), their faith posture would be quite different, but not internally invalid. One needs to consider their positions with logic. -
If you say that then you are saying that there are ways to know God besides Faith in God?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:It would be in error however to say that, one cannot come to believe in God through science. How the journey is made, if it is made on correct or wrong notions seems to me irrelevant as long as the person finally reaches God. And I believe that person would not be able to call to God unless God had been calling him all along, and working in all kinds of ways to be known. If such a being was omnipotent and omniscient, using our own inperfect science to reach us is hardly illogical, just that it cannot be done by us...
It is not about personal conduct. It is about being born again. Born again through Faith in God (not beliefs in God no matter from which source or you end up with an idol in your head.)Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Which is my contention in the first place. One seems to assume that faith in God is a personal activity of reaching Him, but it seems to me more of a letting ourselves to react in the right way when He reaches us. Your veto is that our faith should be a certain personal conduct that appeals to this God while rejecting as much as possible any notions that could possibly in error, seems to me a purest veto of sorts based on a human understanding of how faith should ever work in human effort.
That is conceit. You presume to know... not that it is not true, not that that is not the experience of people who are having a relationship with God.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I have but a few notions that I do know. That He is Good (or we shall have no hope or motivation of reaching Him) That He is able (so it can be done) That He loves (or He shall not bother with it). In that sense the person with wrong conceptions of God may jolly well be closer and more faithful then the person who soughts to purify his conceptions of faith in God. In a sense it is about the seeker and what God decides to do with him.
God is not Singapore, God is not cheese.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:As for starting with beliefs:
When I think of Singapore I may get a mental image of Kovan MRT station, but of course I know that is not what Singapore is all about. It is the starting to base ones whole notion of Singapore on Kovan MRT that is the danger. The other danger it seems to me, soley yours... and that is to just focus on the word S.I.N.G.A.P.O.R.E. and to believe in it in lieu of any concepts. Both dangers it seems to me, are not faith in God. Kovan MRT is certainly in Singapore and deserves no dropping in concept when it comes to thinking about Singapore. All the same simply focusing on the shady and cloudy concept of Singapore can't go very wrong at first... but it can't go very right either. Eventually anything that can't go very right will go very wrong. -
I'm not sure if any of your replies could not be also applied to you. It is no good to pick out my disease when you have the very same ones you paint me to have... unless we should sought to slit our own throats. The very same accusations of pride and preknowledge you apply to me may jolly well sit in well with the many preknowledges you have sought to set up. Of course I do not deny your right to preknowledge or assumption, for I do not believe it can be excluded for beginning any rational process... you seem on the other hand, to dissent from that opinion strongly.
The real question it seems to me is not if anybody claims to have preknowledge or assumptions, but if whose assumptions are more valid and true. It is my case, and one I believed I have proved quite extensively, that your basic assumptions (and entire case heneforth) are quite seriously flawed.
As for the thing about God is not cheese, this indeed is a curious thing that has been going on for a while. But I shall not speak about it as invalid at all for it seems you have completely erased the line between concept and noun, abstract and actual. Now I have to dissent strongly from you and say that the point about God and cheese is still quite valid, for it was never meant to be a singular 'nounitic' argument. Somehow you can't see the difference.
It is somewhat embarrassing that I ought to use the concept of cheese or even Singapore to illustrate God. But if you have been thinking of me equating God to cheese and Singapore then you are quite mistaken.
Simply put I was not describing God through cheese of Singapore, but rather human interaction with concepts that are quite in the noun. It is my assertation that we cannot know anything about anything if we do not first start out with an assumption of a first and non reductable first principle.
In the way I put our actions when translation to God may very well be similar or even be exactly the very same actions as translating to a piece of cheese or a nation. This is not to say that the objects are the same or ever were the same to begin with. I may speak the same word 'boot' with the same movement of mouth and motor skills, but I might mean kick with one word, and the noun with the other. This was what I was trying to illustrate, but by some curious method it seems you have mixed it up.
First and foremost all I can say is that due to being carnal and finite creatures, it cannot be avoided that we are going to relate to God in some ways, quite the same as we relate to a piece of cheese or a nation. And that is, by thinking about them. Where we differ is that you say that this can, and should be avoided while I think it is quite intractable and not really a sin at all, and also I have pointed out that you solutions don't really offer an alternative at all, but rather push back the question of similiar actions and concepts back (which is to your case).
Far from being above religion, it seems your personal brand of faith is yet another religion. One that claims to be yet again the one true one. How it is judged is another matter entirely, but all I can say is that it is not logically consistent. It is okay if you want to carry on believing in it in lieu of logic, but certainly not me. If that is the case, then there was never really any argument to begin with at all, we are on totally different levels to begin with.
You need not bother with all this at all. But of course I do because my commitment is to a logical defense of faith, but for an irrational stance there can be no logical rescue, only submission. If all logical answers are wrong for you, then it logically goes to say that there are no logical answers for you and any answers will be proved wrong by your logic. There is no fight to begin with.
All I am here to do is to simply demostrate the inadequacies of your own system to the public, mostly for their sake.
On a footnote, you mentioned God, Cheese and Singapore and their invalid usage to illustrate differences in relations of faith (because cheese is not God), but I might need you to enlighten me on the time when you used to concept of a human wife to demostrate the difference in relations of faith.
I am not sure how this is consistent with your argument that my illustration is invalid. Unless of course, you choose to reject your earlier one? -
I am not saying that you equate God to cheese per se; all I am saying is that you cannot use Singapore and Cheese as an analogy when it comes to God. Try to figure out why.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:I'm not sure if any of your replies could not be also applied to you. It is no good to pick out my disease when you have the very same ones you paint me to have... unless we should sought to slit our own throats. The very same accusations of pride and preknowledge you apply to me may jolly well sit in well with the many preknowledges you have sought to set up. Of course I do not deny your right to preknowledge or assumption, for I do not believe it can be excluded for beginning any rational process... you seem on the other hand, to dissent from that opinion strongly.
The real question it seems to me is not if anybody claims to have preknowledge or assumptions, but if whose assumptions are more valid and true. It is my case, and one I believed I have proved quite extensively, that your basic assumptions (and entire case heneforth) are quite seriously flawed.
As for the thing about God is not cheese, this indeed is a curious thing that has been going on for a while. I shall not speak about it.
It is somewhat embarrassing that I ought to use the concept of cheese or even Singapore to illustrate God. But if you have been thinking of me equating God to cheese and Singapore then you are quite mistaken.
Simply put I was not describing God through cheese of Singapore, but rather human interaction with concepts that are quite in the noun. It is my assertation that we cannot know anything about anything if we do not first start out with an assumption of a first and non reductable first principle.
In the way I put our actions when translation to God may very well be similar or even be exactly the very same actions as translating to a piece of cheese or a nation. This is not to say that the objects are the same or ever were the same to begin with. I may speak the same word 'boot' with the same movement of mouth and motor skills, but I might mean kick with one word, and the noun with the other. This was what I was trying to illustrate, but by some curious method it seems you have mixed it up.
First and foremost all I can say is that due to being carnal and finite creatures, it cannot be avoided that we are going to relate to God in some ways, quite the same as we relate to a piece of cheese or a nation. And that is, by thinking about them. Where we differ is that you say that this can, and should be avoided while I think it is quite intractable and not really a sin at all, and also I have pointed out that you solutions don't really offer an alternative at all, but rather push back the question of similiar actions and concepts back (which is to your case).
Far from being above religion, it seems your personal brand of faith is yet another religion. One that claims to be yet again the one true one. How it is judged is another matter entirely, but all I can say is that it is not logically consistent. It is okay if you want to carry on believing in it in lieu of logic, but certainly not me. If that is the case, then there was never really any argument to begin with at all, we are on totally different levels to begin with.
You need not bother with all this at all. But of course I do because my commitment is to a logical defense of faith, but for an irrational stance there can be no logical rescue, only submission. If all logical answers are wrong for you, then it logically goes to say that there are no logical answers for you and any answers will be proved wrong by your logic. There is no fight to begin with.
All I am here to do is to simply demostrate the inadequacies of your own system to the public, mostly for their sake.
On a footnote, you mentioned God, Cheese and Singapore and their invalid usage to illustrate differences in relations of faith (because cheese is not God), but I might need you to enlighten me on the time when you used to concept of a human wife to demostrate the difference in relations of faith.
I am not sure how this is consistent with your argument that my illustration is invalid. Unless of course, you choose to reject your earlier one?
I used humans not to illustrate God... what was I trying to illustrate?
It is natural that people have idols; "preconceptions" whether cast in stone or as a mental note. To come into the Kingdom of God, what must you do with all these idols? -
Footnote: Is having a better and more accurate idol the way to go?
-
Originally posted by casino_king:
I am unable to figure out why, I beg your enlightenment as I could answer you more fully.
I am not saying that you equate God to cheese per se; all I am saying is that you cannot use Singapore and Cheese as an analogy when it comes to God. Try to figure out why.I used humans not to illustrate God... what was I trying to illustrate?
It seems to me the metaphysics of your arguments and mine were very much of the same like and validity.It is natural that people have idols; "preconceptions" whether cast in stone or as a mental note. To come into the Kingdom of God, what must you do with all these idols?
I must dissent, simply because not all preconceptions are idols and not all idols are preconceptions. Preconceptions may very well end up as idols if they are by themselves are allowed to be counted on beyond their lawful status.
Hence I must disagree to the statement that 'casting down all idols equals casting down all preconceptions'. And it seems that the very statement of 'casting down all preconceptions' have been taken beyond their lawful logical status.
Granted the Preconception Improper has to be something that has to be cast down, but the Preconception Proper has to be preserved if one has to have any hope of entering into faith in anything at all. Discovering the Preconception Improper/Proper would then be the work that is cut out for us.
Avoiding the question by stating that all preconceptions should be cast down is more jargon then fact, for it in itself relies on a preconception that preconceptions are bad.
I do not for a moment think that faith and first principles were ever seperate, to have faith you will have to have a first principle. Without which no case (logical one at least) can be ever built. It may seem valiant to say a lot of things about this most excellent faith, but at the end of the day it seems to slit it's own throat by commiting the very same mortal sin it accuses other systems of idol-faith of doing, and that is to hold some preconception itself of God, and that is a preconception of the nullity of preknowledge.
It is only possible to hold your creed if you believe in a suspension of logic, in which case I might point out there is no need, nor value in trying to argue your case here as logical arguments applied to refute or support your case are all equally worthless. In a sense all nonsense held has to be taken sola fides but I don't believe Fides Solo is nonsense.
Now I am less interested in the question if God is knowable by us mortals then if He has decided to make Himself knowable in certain ways. Of this I believe so and hence I would not be surprised that some things would not contradict what He truly is.
And as a result, my point and case remains the way it is.
A rejoinder please. -
Was the point of it all to have a better and more accurate idol?Originally posted by casino_king:Footnote: Is having a better and more accurate idol the way to go?
One might throw the opposite question back, is having a more cloudy and non specific mental impression of God the way to go?
When we are seperate creations from the eternal, we are going to regard Him in certain finite, limited, and inperfect ways. Making a man like a mouse means he can't go very wrong... but he can't go very right either.
In any sense I do not believe that was what God made us to be, and in some ways I suspect the belief in the excellence of your method stems from the fact that humans using it can't go very wrong at all on human strength, but it has little to say about God except the explosive experiences it seems to promise, but which I doubt.
And another thing, do you actually pratice what you preach? And what may the result be? And truly if what you say is true, that nothing I should say would be able to stop you at all for God is on your side. On the other hand, those who say some ultimate creed that they want to hold all men to except themselves are guilty of a very great evil indeed. Of which you are I suspect you would evade answering, but I note a serious lack of personal conviction, only intellectual ones.
A rejoinder please. -
And a footnote: Please don't quote my entire post if you choose only to answer a small portion of it. As of that the points you do not reply to still do stand, in any case you might just say that you do not wish to answer them, in which case would save everybody a lot of repetition, and of course leave me free to build upon those points (since they are now not challanged)
And I do notice a curious useage of jargon, might you seek to clarify them that they may be less jargonic? 'Idols in the head' sounds nice, but it's also a semi-mudword relying on Christians natural dislike of idols. One might use them to refute a valid idea in the head unjustly.
It would be good for you to spell out the creeds in detail, as opposed to some notions that leaves you some insurance to slip out of a tight argument.
This is only being intellectually honest. -
You want to know what an idol is? Ask yourself something about God and answer it. You have an idol in your head. You can start praying to that idol in your head; you can do whatever it is you do in honour of that idol in your head; you can do whatever it is that you do in the name of the idol in your head and nothing will come out of it.
Interesting that you can quote:
Zechariah 13 WEB:
2 It will come to pass in that day, says Yahweh of Armies, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they will be remembered no more. I will also cause the prophets and the spirit of impurity to pass out of the land.
Interesting that you can quote verses regarding idols. Do it now, put your Faith in God and be born again. -
i still miss sis.