Faith

[Nakosis]

Correct... and in the past many years, God has shown Himself to be faithful to me and thus there is a trust built up. However, within the context of both business and God, there are levels of faith. For business, "can I take the next step in authority" or "can I handle this greater deal" etc. For God, it is one level of faith to another level of faith.

My issue is that I get the same results regardless of which God I invoke. I can but faith in whatever. It generally works out. So basically I get the same results, with or without a God involved.

If I saw different results, better results I'd probably be inclined towards putting more trust in a God. Faith really is a motivator to go forth and act, make choices in an absence of knowledge. Something everybody has to face from time to time. If you need a God to put your faith into for motivation then that's what you need.

I can be pretty self-motivated.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, Abel had faith and it was evident in his care in sacrificing whereas Cain didn't.

I think you are using faith in a different way here as in respect. Able had more respect for God. However Cain wasn't really cursed for his lack of respect for God. He was cursed for killing Able.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

See, in this case means to perceive, have had perception of. I suspect your wife has done many things that shows she loves you. So if you're still taking that love on faith, there might be something missing in your relationship.

But faith is tied in with conviction, that's the definition you used. And conviction comes through experience and knowledge.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, no one wants to be a part of the religion that promotes itself as the untruth.

Actually not true. Untrure is a misleading term that even is not good English. You are claiming your view as absolute sense and other Christian belief are apostate. You rage on atheists, and than falsely stereotype supporters of Documentary Hypothesis as atheist.

There are many belief systems and groups do not claim the absolute Truth you are claiming.

 

[Nakosis]

But faith is tied in with conviction, that's the definition you used. And conviction comes through experience and knowledge.

Conviction is just a firmly held belief. No experience or knowledge are really required. I mean, hopefully right? But, there are no requirements for these.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

OK , then. Let's start with faith. I'd like to point out something that often bothers me about the skeptical's take on faith. it's rather insulting to a believer. Faith isn't blind, it's something that is built up through knowledge. Its like the faith one establishes over time in a relationship, with a friend or spouse, for example. You build trust in someone by getting to know them. Because they give you no reason to feel otherwise.

Test even the inspired expression. (Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1-3 / 2 Thessalonians 2:2)

In discussions about the origin of the universe and the origin of life there are those who say that atheists have as much faith as theists because atheists have no evidence for how those things came about. It is pretty obvious many theists also view faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence and knowledge.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I'm offended at the implication that to have faith you must be ignorant.

Perhaps the problem is that you are insulted when someone points out that you are ignorant of something. If you are human, then you are ignorant of something. No human is all-knowing. We should honestly embrace the idea that we are ignorant of many things, and even recognize our fallible knowledge of what we think we do know.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But faith is tied in with conviction, that's the definition you used. And conviction comes through experience and knowledge.

You can have conviction in a belief without any experience or knowledge to back it up.

 

[shunyadragon]

In discussions about the origin of the universe and the origin of life there are those who say that atheists have as much faith as theists because atheists have no evidence for how those things came about. It is pretty obvious many theists also view faith as a belief held in the absence of evidence and knowledge.

From the perspective of science, not atheists, there is objective verifiable evidence concerning the origins of the universe and life. The complete story of origins is not complete and there are many unknowns. Theists and other belief systems have absolutely no objective verifiable evidence concerning the origins of life nor the universe.

Atheism is based on the philosophical assumptions no other spiritual worlds nor God(s) exist beyond our physical existence. Atheism itself does not make any assumption nor claim to know the origins of the universe, life nor humanity. Atheists primarily rely on science for these answers, which are at present inconclusive..

 

[England my lionheart]

OK , then. Let's start with faith. I'd like to point out something that often bothers me about the skeptical's take on faith. it's rather insulting to a believer. Faith isn't blind, it's something that is built up through knowledge. Its like the faith one establishes over time in a relationship, with a friend or spouse, for example. You build trust in someone by getting to know them. Because they give you no reason to feel otherwise.

Test even the inspired expression. (Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1-3 / 2 Thessalonians 2:2)

The problem with faith is that its untestable, like death, people of faith like Islam and christianity have faith that when they shuffle off this mortal coil that they go to a really cool place but nobody has ever come back to give the thumbs up.

You say its insulting "the skepticals take on faith" yet your faith says we're for the big BBQ, in Islam more the once, that's not insulting at all huh.

 

[Segev Moran]

OK , then. Let's start with faith. I'd like to point out something that often bothers me about the skeptical's take on faith.

The skeptical take on faith (unlike what you describe here):

Faith is a belief of truth without having a sufficient evidence to support that belief.

it's rather insulting to a believer.

Why would someone be insulted by someone questioning he's faith???

Faith isn't blind,

It is blind to evidence.
Not blind as a general.

it's something that is built up through knowledge.

As false as it can be!
(unless we have a very different idea regrading what knowledge is)

Its like the faith one establishes over time in a relationship, with a friend or spouse, for example. You build trust in someone by getting to know them. Because they give you no reason to feel otherwise.

Trust is not based on faith.
Trust is based on knowledge.

You can have faith that your spouse will be with you in the next 10 years.
You can assume based on past knowledge that it is probable you will still be together.

you CANT know that you will still be together after 10 years.

Skeptics is based on probability.
There is no Scientific theory claiming to KNOW something, it is also assumed and always backed up with many predictions.

If a prediction is wrong, the theory is wrong.

If a prediction based on faith is wrong, nothing changes. the faith remains valid

 

[Kenny]

My issue is that I get the same results regardless of which God I invoke. I can but faith in whatever. It generally works out. So basically I get the same results, with or without a God involved.

If I saw different results, better results I'd probably be inclined towards putting more trust in a God. Faith really is a motivator to go forth and act, make choices in an absence of knowledge. Something everybody has to face from time to time. If you need a God to put your faith into for motivation then that's what you need.

I can be pretty self-motivated.

Yes... faith is a universal spiritual force.

Since I haven't called on multiple gods, I wouldn't know. However, since my God is a healer, supplier and Savior in all aspects, I have no need to look for another.

But it works for you!

 

[Hockeycowboy]

For skeptics: read Mark 6:5 and Matthew 13:58.

What do these Scriptures tell you? Jesus couldn't heal skeptics, due to their lack of faith.

How did Peter and the others ever begin to develop faith in Jesus? From what they learned through John the Baptist, John revealing some of the prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus, and John's own testimony.

So, their faith started with evidence given in Scripture, then grew from seeing Jesus' miracles, like the wine at the wedding in Cana.

I guess those at the wedding, and other observers during his ministry, got to see miracles without even knowing Jesus....just being at the right place at the right time. But miracles ceased, when Christianity became established. To experience God's help today, one must be genuine in asking for it.

Without it, you will never experience Jehovah's help. You have to make the first step. With sincerity.

 

[viole]

OK , then. Let's start with faith. I'd like to point out something that often bothers me about the skeptical's take on faith. it's rather insulting to a believer. Faith isn't blind, it's something that is built up through knowledge. Its like the faith one establishes over time in a relationship, with a friend or spouse, for example. You build trust in someone by getting to know them. Because they give you no reason to feel otherwise.

Test even the inspired expression. (Acts 17:11 / 1 John 4:1-3 / 2 Thessalonians 2:2)

Yes, I met many Christians who say the same. They have a personal relationship. They get to know each other. Unfortunately, the conversation with the divine seems to be restricted to the weather or baseball.

Must be, otherwise we should not observe such basic differences between persons claiming to know the same God. For instance

- Death Penalty. No dead penalty
- Young earth. Old earth
- Evolution. No evolution
- Eternal lake of fire. Only termination. No hell
- Everybody saved. Only a few predetermined set saved. Works, faith alone. Etc
- Weapons, no weapons
- Gay marriage, no gay marriage
- People sleep until judgement day after death vs. getting first harp lesson right after death
- Different versions of raptures and end of times
- Etc. Etc.

May ask that during one of those meetings you guys start asking direct questions? For instance: dear Jesus, was Genesis metaphoric? So that we have that settled, at least.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

I can read something in the Bible, misinterpret it, happen upon the wrong sources, it could be spurious, for example. Jesus saying who is without sin cast the first stone . . . never happened. It didn't appear in earlier manuscripts.

Shame, I loved that line. Sort of contradicting, though. If I had been in the stoning squad, I would have inferred logically that Jesus had at least one sin, for He did not throw the first stone, either.

Ciao

- viole

 

[MonkeyFire]

Oh? Doubt, skepticism are essential, central
to science, as I understand it.

How so?

 

[Audie]

How so?

Dont have time for a proper response now.

Part of it has to do with diligence.

Another is that the easiest person to
fool is one's self.