By Faith. Why?

[Redemptionsong]

Justification by faith was prophesied by Habakkuk when he said, 'but the just shall live by his faith' [Habakkuk 2:4]. Of course, it's not that people hadn't lived by faith before the coming of Jesus Christ, because we're told in Hebrews 11 that Abel 'offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain', and he did so 'by faith'. Thereafter, a long list of Old Testament figures lived by faith.

Is there a difference between the faith shown by the OT figures, and faith shown by 'born again' believers in the NT? Can we say that the object of faith is the same?

To my understanding, Paul is correct when he says, 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law' [Romans 3:28]. This does not mean that works are not important, only that works must follow faith.

I have taken to wondering why it is that Hebrews 11:6 says, 'without faith it is impossible to please him [God]'.

It seems to me that God initiates our trust. God is love, 'a God of truth and without iniquity' [Deuteronomy 32:4]. He raises his own as an only son, admonishing and correcting but always in the spirit of love. The upbringing provided by God allows the son to become a loving example of the Father's Spirit. The love takes root in the son, and the son's trust is rewarded. Is this the reason that trust, or faith, is so important?

Sometimes a delinquent son seeks to fulfil vain ambitions, and does not heed the loving advice of the Father. Yet the Father, ever faithful to his son, continues to offer him love, knowing that even delinquent sons can repent and return. Earthly existence is short, scripture warns us, and the great reward of faith is eternal life with the Father.

So, what is an atheist doing when he declares that faith in God is without evidence? Is love not the evidence that the Son bears the Father's Spirit?

 

[Audie]

Justification by faith was prophesied by Habakkuk when he said, 'but the just shall live by his faith' [Habakkuk 2:4]. Of course, it's not that people hadn't lived by faith before the coming of Jesus Christ, because we're told in Hebrews 11 that Abel 'offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain', and he did so 'by faith'. Thereafter, a long list of Old Testament figures lived by faith.

Is there a difference between the faith shown by the OT figures, and faith shown by 'born again' believers in the NT? Can we say that the object of faith is the same?

To my understanding, Paul is correct when he says, 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law' [Romans 3:28]. This does not mean that works are not important, only that works must follow faith.

I have taken to wondering why it is that Hebrews 11:6 says, 'without faith it is impossible to please him [God]'.

It seems to me that God initiates our trust. God is love, 'a God of truth and without iniquity' [Deuteronomy 32:4]. He raises his own as an only son, admonishing and correcting but always in the spirit of love. The upbringing provided by God allows the son to become a loving example of the Father's Spirit. The love takes root in the son, and the son's trust is rewarded. Is this the reason that trust, or faith, is so important?

Sometimes a delinquent son seeks to fulfil vain ambitions, and does not heed the loving advice of the Father. Yet the Father, ever faithful to his son, continues to offer him love, knowing that even delinquent sons can repent and return. Earthly existence is short, scripture warns us, and the great reward of faith is eternal life with the Father.

So, what is an atheist doing when he declares that faith in God is without evidence? Is love not the evidence that the Son bears the Father's Spirit?

" ...faith in God is without evidence"
actually makes no sense. It has no meaning.


Don't be go putting made up nonsense in
others mouths and then criticize then for it.

You might spend some time in, among other
things, contemplation of what constitutes
meaningful evidence.

Three ravens flying at dawn is not good evidence that you will win lottery..
" plausible, feasible, specious" are good words.


Fact is that people through time
and around the world have been loving eachother before and after and not knowing
or caring at all what supposedly happened
in the middle east thousands of years ago.

 

[Jimmy]

Any informed atheist would know evidence isn't required for faith.

 

[Redemptionsong]

" ...faith in God is without evidence"
actually makes no sense. It has no meaning.


Don't be go putting made up nonsense in
others mouths and then criticize then for it.

You might spend some time in, among other
things, contemplation of what constitutes
meaningful evidence.

Three ravens flying at dawn is not good evidence that you will win lottery..
" plausible, feasible, specious" are good words.


Fact is that people through time
and around the world have been loving eachother before and after and not knowing
or caring at all what supposedly happened
in the middle east thousands of years ago.

How would you define 'love'?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Any informed atheist would know evidence isn't required for faith.

Most people who stand by faith in Jesus Christ would say that they arrived at faith. I, for one, was not born with the conviction that Christ was my Saviour.

 

[shunyadragon]

How would you define love?

I am not sure how this question would apply. This is too an open ended question, and has in and of itse;f nothing to do with the question of 'faith.' Every diverse belief or human perspective, from theism yp atheism experiences and views love in various forms from their own perspective . There are many kinds of love.

What is the purpose of your question in context of this thread?

As per the subject of the thread: Faith as defined in the perspective as a subjective belief and without objective verifiable evidence for any of the many diverse conflicting claims of belief based on faith.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I am not sure how this question would apply. This is too an open ended question, and has in and of itse;f nothing to do with the question of 'faith.' Every diverse belief or human perspective, from theism yp atheism experiences and views love in various forms from their own perspective . There are many kinds of love.

What is the purpose of your question in context of this thread?

As per the subject of the thread: Faith as defined in the perspective as a subjective belief and without objective verifiable evidence for any of the many diverse conflicting claims of belief based on faith.

In the Bible, God is defined as 'love' [1 John 8:16].

IMO, faith is a response to love, and is, on that account, wholly connected to love.

I'm now interested to understand whether atheists define love as a power that engenders trust.

 

[shunyadragon]

Most people who stand by faith in Jesus Christ would say that they arrived at faith. I, for one, was not born with the conviction that Christ was my Saviour.

ALL believers in Christianity have their belief based on 'faith' not evidence regardless of their claims of certainty of faith. By far most inherited the their belief from their culture and sense of community and belonging. Some find it as what they are looking for to satisfy their desire for a sense of community and belonging in terms of 'faith' regardless. Even those that claim to 'find' their faith without being raised in the 'faith' grew up in the broader community and culture of the belief.

 

[Soandso]

In the Bible, God is defined as 'love' [1 John 8:16].

Questions, then: Do you think that all non-believers who are married to eachother have no knowledge of what love actually is? If they don't experience real love between eachother, what is it that they experience?

How does using god as a definition of love apply to love as viewed by the greater world in a practical context? If non Christians all agree pretty resoundingly on what love is without god being part of the equation - where does god come in?

 

[shunyadragon]

In the Bible, God is defined as 'love' [1 John 8:16].

[John 8:16] 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

DOES NOT define love in it's many forms and perspectives found throughout the Bible, other scriptures of the world, and the universal perspective of love. It describes one perspective of love from a believers perspective based on 'faith.'.

Still remains a highly selective 'self justified' narrow view of what is 'love.' in broadest sense beyond your specific belief in the Bible only based on 'faith.'

IMO, faith is a response to love, and is, on that account, wholly connected to love.

It is correct that you describe love 'IMO,' because that is all this represents.

I'm now interested to understand whether atheists define love as a power that engenders trust.

Well this response is highly egocentric Indifferent to universal nature of 'love' in humanity and is a rather indifferent cold perspective to those that believe differently,.

Compassionate caring how many diverse conflicting beliefs, including atheists. believe in love which are universal fallible human qualities regardless of what you personally believe based on ;faith.'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

faith

First, a practical definition:

From the perspective of critical thinking, a belief is either justified by sufficient evidence or it is believed without proper justification. Although both justified and unjustified belief are called faith, these are different words spelled and pronounced the same (or different definitions of the same word if one prefers), which leads to ambiguity and equivocation fallacies when the words are used interchangeably in the same context. Having faith that one's car will start is justified if it is based in experience, and is an altogether different word than faith that one will get to heaven.

To my understanding, Paul is correct when he says, 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law' [Romans 3:28]. This does not mean that works are not important, only that works must follow faith.

That says to me that faith is sufficient for salvation. If you were paraplegic but had faith, that would lead to salvation without works. If you lived alone in a cabin far from anybody else but had faith, you are saved. If you are on death row but have faith, you are saved. Faith is all it takes. That's not my position, just my interpretation of the meaning of the words.

I have taken to wondering why it is that Hebrews 11:6 says, 'without faith it is impossible to please him [God]'.

Without faith, it is impossible to believe in gods, since nobody has met the empirical requirements justifying a god belief. And it comes as no surprise that a worldview that can only be held by faith would claim that belief by faith is pleases God more than belief using sufficient evidence.

what is an atheist doing when he declares that faith in God is without evidence?

He's telling you that a god belief requires faith to hold.

Is love not the evidence that the Son bears the Father's Spirit?

No. One can only believe that by faith.

I'm now interested to understand whether atheists define love as a power that engenders trust.

Not in gods. I experience love. I love and am loved, and that is not evidence of a deity to me. Of course, my definition of love in this context might not be yours. The degree to which we love other living things is demonstrated in our behavior toward them - the degree to which we would take risks for or share scarce resources with them.

Think about that in the context of a deity, for whom nothing can be done, and for whom there is no concept of being at risk or having scarce resources. One can value the deity and feel dependence on it, but that's not love, which is manifest in action, not mere feeling, and not related to what the other can do for him. Young children don't actually love their parents as love is defined here. They're too young to have a sense of responsibility to their parents or make choices with their parents' interests in mind. They have that dependent, one-way relationship that Abrahamic believers describe with their god. Loving God in this context means revering and obeying, which is not love as I define it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

ALL believers in Christianity have their belief based on 'faith' not evidence regardless of their claims of certainty of faith. By far most inherited the their belief from their culture and sense of community and belonging. Some find it as what they are looking for to satisfy their desire for a sense of community and belonging in terms of 'faith' regardless. Even those that claim to 'find' their faith without being raised in the 'faith' grew up in the broader community and culture of the belief.

To suggest that there is no evidence for Christian faith is to overlook the Bible as a source of evidence. It was the Bible that convinced me that Jesus Christ was, and is, real. The revelation may have been at a personal level, but the evidence still existed, objectively, in the words of scripture.

The Bible also contains information that can be checked. The history recorded in both Testaments allows for research and validation. How can anyone say that such evidence is not relevant to the claim that the Bible is God's word?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Questions, then: Do you think that all non-believers who are married to eachother have no knowledge of what love actually is? If they don't experience real love between eachother, what is it that they experience?

How does using god as a definition of love apply to love as viewed by the greater world in a practical context? If non Christians all agree pretty resoundingly on what love is without god being part of the equation - where does god come in?

I am not claiming that atheists have no sense of love. But, to my understanding love is a sliding scale. You might, for example, wish to distinguish between the love you have for your car, and the love you have for your mother. You might also wish to distinguish between the love you have for you mother, and the love you have for your boyfriend/girlfriend.

What these forms of human love have in common is that the object of love, or the relationship, is temporal.

I don't think Paul was talking about temporal love when he said, [Charity] 'Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;' [1 Corinthians 13:6]

And Paul was certainly not talking about temporal love when he said, 'That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God'. [Ephesians 3:17-19]

It's interesting that Paul says 'which passeth knowledge', because love is not a matter of the intellect, but a matter of the heart. If, therefore, love is real in the life of an atheist, why is he/she demanding evidence, instead of recognising the need for faith (trust)?

 

[1213]

Justification by faith was prophesied by Habakkuk when he said, 'but the just shall live by his faith' [Habakkuk 2:4]. Of course, it's not that people hadn't lived by faith before the coming of Jesus Christ, because we're told in Hebrews 11 that Abel 'offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain', and he did so 'by faith'. Thereafter, a long list of Old Testament figures lived by faith.

Is there a difference between the faith shown by the OT figures, and faith shown by 'born again' believers in the NT? Can we say that the object of faith is the same?...

I have understood faith means faithfulness, loyalty to God. I don't think there is difference between OT and NT in that.

 

[shunyadragon]

To suggest that there is no evidence for Christian faith is to overlook the Bible as a source of evidence. It was the Bible that convinced me that Jesus Christ was, and is, real. The revelation may have been at a personal level, but the evidence still existed, objectively, in the words of scripture.

The Bible also contains information that can be checked. The history recorded in both Testaments allows for research and validation. How can anyone say that such evidence is not relevant to the claim that the Bible is God's word?

Yes, the Bible contains references of physical information that can be checked, but it also contains many many things things that 'cannot, be checked therefore testimony of those that believe on 'faith' without evidence.' for example miraculous events. This doe not represent research and validation based on 'evidence' for most of the Bible that relies on questions of faith.Again, yes some things in the Bible can be supported by 'objective evidence, but the Bible itself is not 'evidence.'

The Bible for the most part lacks provenance of authorship, and in fact absolutely NO evidence of original manuscripts,

You need to look up the English definition of 'evidence. The Bible in and of itself is not 'evidence.' The Bible is a collection of edited, compiled writings of the beliefs concerning the God of Christianity and Judaism and is NOT objectively verifiable evidence for anything. It is testimony of those that believed at the time of those that believed based on 'faith.'

Belief in on of the many variable conflicting beliefs based on the Bible is a matter of faith not evidence. ALL the ancient scriptures of the many diverse conflicting ancient religions of the world contain objectively verifiable evidence, but the scriptures for the most part are based on religious beliefs that cannot be objectively verified.

In conclusion there is no 'evidence' for Christian belief and faith. Like claims of atheism they are not based on 'evidence.'

 

[Redemptionsong]

I have understood faith means faithfulness, loyalty to God. I don't think there is difference between OT and NT in that.

Well, in Matthew 11, Jesus spoke to the multitudes about the prophet John (the Baptist). Jesus said, 'Verily l say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he'.

This must mean that the faith of John the Baptist is inferior to the faith of those that enter the kingdom of heaven in the NT. Or am l wrong?

This leads me to ask about the gift of the Holy Spirit. One of the manifestations of the Holy Spirit [1 Corinthians 12:9] is FAITH! Is the faith of a man the same as the faith of God?!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes, the Bible contains references of physical information that can be checked, but it also contains many many things things that 'cannot, be checked therefore testimony of those that believe on 'faith' without evidence.' for example miraculous events. This doe not represent research and validation based on 'evidence' for most of the Bible that relies on questions of faith.Again, yes some things in the Bible can be supported by 'objective evidence, but the Bible itself is not 'evidence.'

The Bible for the most part lacks provenance of authorship, and in fact NO evidence of original manuscripts,

You need to look up the English definition of 'evidence. The Bible in and of itself is not 'evidence.' The Bible is a collection of edited, compiled writings of the beliefs concerning the God of Christianity and Judaism and is NOT objectively verifiable evidence for anything. It is testimony of those that believed at the time of those that believed based on 'faith.'

Belief in on of the many variable conflicting beliefs based on the Bible is a matter of faith not evidence. ALL the ancient scriptures of the many diverse conflicting ancient religions of the world contain objectively verifiable evidence, but the scriptures for the most part are based on religious beliefs that cannot be objectively verified.

Well, l disagree.

Prophecy is verifiable if it meets with a fulfilment, and in my opinion there are multiple prophecies that find their fulfilment in Christ.

Individual prophecies may not lead to conviction, but when multiple prophecies find their fulfilment in one man in becomes more than a matter of chance.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Young children don't actually love their parents as love is defined here. They're too young to have a sense of responsibility to their parents or make choices with their parents' interests in mind.

I'm not sure l agree with this. It seems to me that children, even when reliant on their parents, are capable of altruism and love. They may not fully understand God's love, but they know what it means to be loved, and they respond with love.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, l disagree.

Prophecy is verifiable if it meets with a fulfilment, and in my opinion there are multiple prophecies that find their fulfilment in Christ.

Individual prophecies may not lead to conviction, but when multiple prophecies find their fulfilment in one man in becomes more than a matter of chance.

This does not answer my post. Please address the issues of my post specifically.

Nonetheless, prophesies are decidedly subjective, For example Jews reject the claims of Christianity concerning the fulfillment of th e Messianic return as Jesus Christ. The Torah is their scripture and originally in their language and tradition. The belief in the fulfillment of prophesy is also very variable and conflicting within the different conflicting divisions in Christianity, and Islam.

In conclusion the the variable and conflicting claims of the fulfillment of prophecies is based on subjective interpretation and NOT evidence.

 

[Redemptionsong]

This does not answer my post. Please address the issues of my post specifically.

Nonetheless, prophesies are decidedly subjective, For example Jews reject the claims of Christianity concerning the fulfillment of th e Messianic return as Jesus Christ. The Torah is their scripture and originally in their language and tradition. The belief in the fulfillment of prophesy is also very variable and conflicting within the different conflicting divisions in Christianity, and Islam.

In conclusion the the variable and conflicting claims of the fulfillment of prophecies is based on subjective interpretation and NOT evidence.

Of course, there are things in the Bible that cannot be verified by observable evidence. This is exactly the nature of love. Outward behaviour can deceive.

The Bible acts as a pointer to the person who is able to provide the subjective knowledge and assurance. How can a person possibly know the truth if they never 'test the water'?

What your argument about the Hebrew Bible overlooks is the fact that all the first Christians were themselves Jews, well acquainted with the Hebrew texts. They also witnessed the life of Jesus and gave their testimony of their encounter. There is really no plausible reason for doubting the sincerity of their word. Even miracles are understandable if God's Spirit is present. Miracles were evident in the Old Testament, but became associated with Jesus and the Holy Spirit in the NT.