Faith – The First Doctrine of the AntiChrist

[Leo Volont]

Paul doesn't make the equivalence becaues he places love before faith and hope.

I stand by my guess that Paul was using the same ploy used today by the New Agers, that 'wishes can make dreams come true, and if you ain't getting what you want, it is your fault for not wishing hard enough'. Paul was placing the responsibility of his failure to produce the Miraculous on the shoulders of his Congregations by accusing them of having insufficient Faith. Why else have a Doctrine of Faith, if not to use it as a Loophole for the Phooneys? True Mystics don't require Faith. They do the Work and they get the Reward.

I disagree that faith is simply intent. Faith is how someone sees, very much how they come to belief. Belief fulfills faith.

Yes, I even noticed that I began to use the idea of Faith and Intent indistinguishably. I was getting lazy. I meant that where Faith DOES HAVE a legitimate role is in the support of Honest Intent. One cannot be expected to put a great deal of effort into the Work unless there is a degree of FAITH that the Work will have an eventual Payoff. So Faith supports Intent. My problem with Traditional Christianity is that CONFIDENT INTENT (FAITH) is considered equivalent to BELIEF. Its not. We have Christians who know absolutely nothing -- the most Spiritually Ignorant People in the World -- and yet they make all sorts of Claims for their "Faith". They need to realize that just wishing for it, and even being certain that it is really out there somewhere, that all that STALLED INTENT, all that FROZEN POTENTIAL does not 'feed the kitty'. Christians need to seek until they find and they need to knock until it is opened. But Paul shut all that down by declaring that Faith was sufficient. The Early Church Father verfied the damage with quotable nonsense like "Faith is the Proof of Things Unseen". Faith was considered an end in itself. Satanic Sabotage of Christian Teachings.

 

[mis-t-highs]

Dear Chris

Your argument is that both words -- Faith and Belief -- mean the same thing. It is your point that categorical distinctions should not be recognized because most people are too stupid and intellectually blunt to see them. It appears you simply cannot rise up to the intellectual demands of my argument.

I am loathed to understand, how you, and you alone, are right and the rest of the population of this planet wrong, are you a complete moron. (yes you are)
the oxford english and the chambers english dictionary and thesaurus, all have faith, and belief, as cris presented it.
so according to you, all the lexicographers in the world are wrong, and you and your little known random (that says it all)house is right, come man get a life.

 

[Leo Volont]

I am loathed to understand, how you, and you alone, are right and the rest of the population of this planet wrong, are you a complete moron. (yes you are)
the oxford english and the chambers english dictionary and thesaurus, all have faith, and belief, as cris presented it.
so according to you, all the lexicographers in the world are wrong, and you and your little known random (that says it all)house is right, come man get a life.

yes, where the Lexicographers assign the same meanings to two distinguishable words, then I am right in making the the distinction, and they are wrong to gloss them over.

I suppose we must conclude that Dictionary Publishers no longer have integrity and are simply out to please a largely retarded Public who would find a Good Dictionary too hard for them. But they suit you fine.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

Leo : telling everybody your mr perfect again, we are not worthy, my lord god.
I bow to your superiority NOT
if there nothing on this planet you like, then leave it.

 

[okinrus]

mis-t-highs, the english dictionary definitions are pratically irrelevant because the writings are in hebrew and greek *along* with its use in Christian theology. Faith may mean irrational belief in perhaps some other context, but I've never heard any Christian denomination or Church define faith this way.

Leo, is rather overreacting a bit. But definitions of faith and belief with theological context are given below.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm

 

[Godless]

if there nothing on this planet you like, then leave it.

Becarefull there, this one is a bit of a nut, he might just decide to take a few with him...

Rem; Rev. Jim Jones, Dave Koresh, well this nut is capable of something like them two lunatics..



Godless

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Faith may mean irrational belief in perhaps some other context, but I've never heard any Christian denomination or Church define faith this way.

LOL, like they are going to admit they are idiots. Your perspective is as absurd as Hitler describing himself as assertively kind and compassionate.

 

[okinrus]

LOL, like they are going to admit they are idiots. Your perspective is as absurd as Hitler describing himself as assertively kind and compassionate.

No, your post rests on a case made by assuming an erroneous definition that Christians don't believe. Faith is seeing with a different sense than reason. This could only be illogical if you believe that everything we know must be determined first by reason. That is an impossibility, however, because reason must based upon premise.

 

[audible]

okinrus and you mate leo
according to the devils dictionary (ambrose bierce 1911)
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

 

[-=T=-]

Heh.. audible.

Humans should keep this in mind:
Religion and therefore faith AND belief are taught.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

No, your post rests on a case made by assuming an erroneous definition that Christians don't believe.

No it doesn’t. Not sure where you acquired that strange notion. I have no doubt that Christians believe what they claim it is just that their belief is irrational - it is belief without evidence and that is the definition of faith.

Faith is seeing with a different sense than reason.

Don’t be silly – it is believing something that can’t be known to be true. Religionists go to great lengths to show that faith is somehow magical or special or as you are trying to portray – some form of sixth sense – this is all because they have no evidence and, as frustratingly to you as that may seem, they have no choice but to be idiotic and believe anyway. They even try to show that faith is somehow divinely inspired or that their deities will reward them for being so irrational. To admit otherwise is to admit they have nothing, but their gullibility does not allow them to reach that point of recognition. Some go so far, like Leo, and try to convince themselves that faith means something else and they do not use faith, or try to argue that most dictionaries in the world are wrong – ludicrous.

Faith simply means believing without evidence – just accept it – that is what it means and it is not magical or special in any way – just illogical and irrational.

This could only be illogical if you believe that everything we know must be determined first by reason.

Why not? Either there is evidence to indicate something is true or one simply doesn’t know. No purpose is served by believing something outside of reason.

That is an impossibility, however, because reason must based upon premise.

And so…..? What is wrong with that? If you can’t form a valid premise (i.e. something based on evidence) then you can’t form a valid conclusion – one simply doesn’t know. That is perfectly acceptable.

 

[okinrus]

And so?..? What is wrong with that? If you can?t form a valid premise (i.e. something based on evidence) then you can?t form a valid conclusion ? one simply doesn?t know. That is perfectly acceptable.

Evidence is different from the logical process. I think irrational means when we make a logical error. In this case it's rather different. Although we occasionally provide inductive evidence for the existence of God, we don't believe in God for these reasons. Instead, God reveals Himself directly to us, providing the evidence needed for that person. We cannot force belief or really for that matter choose, but we can allow this to occur, insofar as this is called choice.

Now all the inductive evidence God could putwithin his creation would not be enough to prove beyond all doubt He exists. If that were the case, His creation would be God.

Why not? Either there is evidence to indicate something is true or one simply doesn?t know. No purpose is served by believing something outside of reason.

Relying on inductive arguments based upon lack of physical evidence seem irrational to me for points noted above. Of course, if there's no God, there's no way you will ever be able to ascertain that God exists, so it's not irrational to hope that God exists. At least, then, we have hope that our knowledge of God would be completed. This is not to say that I cannot provide physical evidence. What it means is that for any miracle, you can always claim fraud, even when there's no proof of fraud.

 

[Godless]

Okinrus: (We cannot force belief or really for that matter choose, but we can allow this to occur, insofar as this is called choice. )

This is something new, call it civilization as for your theists past, people were burnt, murdered, jailed, for speaking against theist rhetoric. And religious dogma was FORCED on the threat of being killed, burnt, or sentence to jail. Aren't we glad now we are civilized?.

Okinrus: (Now all the inductive evidence God could putwithin his creation would not be enough to prove beyond all doubt He exists. If that were the case, His creation would be God.)

Geberish!! there's no evidence of god, inductive is merely your own feelings, and wish, hope that your doctrine be true. Objectively by using reason & logic you will come to the conclussion that what you belive now is mythology based on ancient mysticism.

Okinrus: (Of course, if there's no God, there's no way you will ever be able to ascertain that God exists, so it's not irrational to hope that God exists.) Lets call it a whim, a wish that that monstrocity you call god, exists, however it's irrational to believe in that which you don't even know what it is!. Hence your whole premise of believing in some ancient mistical god, is nothing more than ancient mythological taken a bit too seriously.

Godless.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Evidence is different from the logical process.

Any valid logical premise is founded on a fact (evidence).
Logic is entirely dependent on facts.
There are no facts concerning the existing of a god.
It is therefore not possible to form a valid premise concerning the existence of a god.
To do otherwise would be in spite of logic, this is illogical (irrational).

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

God reveals Himself directly to us, providing the evidence needed for that person.

There is no evidence to support that claim. We can also call this active imagination induced by religious indoctrination. This simple self-delusion is dramatically more credible than the requirement of an actual existence of an incredible all-powerful super being capable of creating whole universes.

Your claim is indistinguishable from fantasy. You have no credibility for any alternative.

 

[okinrus]

Any valid logical premise is founded on a fact (evidence).

Chris, not always. For example, someone could choose an arbitrary premise just to show that a condition derives from the premise. As long as he or she uses a valid logical process from the premises, the statements derived from the premises are consistent.

There are no facts concerning the existing of a god.

This in itself is an error because it's an assumption.

It is therefore not possible to form a valid premise concerning the existence of a god.
To do otherwise would be in spite of logic, this is illogical (irrational).

Premises are by nature not usually provable; they are assumed. Hence, you could just well call a mathematician irrational because he or she assumes as premises things that aren't true in the physical world.

This is something new, call it civilization as for your theists past, people were burnt, murdered, jailed, for speaking against theist rhetoric. And religious dogma was FORCED on the threat of being killed, burnt, or sentence to jail. Aren't we glad now we are civilized?.

Godless, this rarely occurred. Besides, there are many examples of atheist doing these things and there are examples of theists doing the opposite.

 

[Godless]

Must you post FOUR times?

Godless, this rarely occurred. Besides, there are many examples of atheist doing these things and there are examples of theists doing the opposite.

I guess you've never heard of the crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, dark ages, et all evidence throughout history, and till present day. Gay bashings, murder of abortion doctors, Mc Veigh of Ocklahoma was a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST!!, need I go on?..

Atheist, no never. These people that you seem to be talking about, were not athiests, they were statists. That is they traded one form of MYSTICISM for another, instead of all knowing god, it was the all knowing government, society, etc.. Nevertheless they were not independent thinkers for these people gave up their rights to governments and or society. for a supposed common "good". The point is they were not atheists. It was ellegal for them to claim a religious devotion.

Godless.

 

[okinrus]

I guess you've never heard of the crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, dark ages, et all evidence throughout history, and till present day. Gay bashings, murder of abortion doctors, Mc Veigh of Ocklahoma was a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST!!, need I go on?..

Gay bashing does not occur too often, and the crusades were, in theory at least, justified because they were reclaiming conquered lands. The murder of abortion doctors seems signficant to the number of abortions.

McVeigh was not even Christian, as described http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.candiotti.otsc/ McVeigh was an agnostic when he committed the crimes

Atheist, no never. These people that you seem to be talking about, were not athiests, they were statists. That is they traded one form of MYSTICISM for another, instead of all knowing god, it was the all knowing government, society, etc.

The fact is that they did not believe in the existence of God, making them atheist. Whether they are called communists or statist does is irrevelant. I could only call Christians who do good Christians and that would be just as evincing of proof as your argument.

Nevertheless they were not independent thinkers for these people gave up their rights to governments and or society. for a supposed common "good". The point is they were not atheists. It was ellegal for them to claim a religious devotion.

What about the French Revolution?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

okinrus: "Gay bashing does not occur too often,..."
*************
M*W: To what extent do you believe that "gay bashing does not occur too often?" If you think that "gay bashing" only means to kill a gay person, then I disagree. There is a range of discrimination that happens to gay people, male and female, the worst, of course, being brutally beaten to death. It happens more frequently than you might consider.
*************
okinrus: and the crusades were, in theory at least, justified because they were reclaiming conquered lands.
*************
M*W: If the lands in question had been conquered by those other than Roman Catholics, then they rightfully belonged to the captuers. For the RCC to go after conquered lands was just as evil as those who took them from the HRE.
*************
okinrus: The murder of abortion doctors seems signficant to the number of abortions.
*************
M*W: Once again, abortion is legal in the USA. Some states, like California, allow a fetus to be aborted at ANY stage of development. Kansas is another state whose laws are liberal for aborting fetuses. Texas, on the other hand, limits abortion availability to the 26th week but no further than that. I believe Louisiana doesn't permit abortion due to its high catholic population. New York maintains liberal views (and no governmental regulation) on abortion. The murder of abortion doctors has been traditionally performed by nut cases like Rudolph, et al. They are also known as "Christians." It's people like this who impose their religious beliefs on others who are outside the bounds of the law. I don't like abortion. Nobody does. But, it's a fact of life. Abortion is normally done when the fetus is still an embryo. Therefore, it couldn't survive on its own. I am opposed to abortion, even at the 26th week of gestation, because sometimes these fetuses LIVE! It is the doctor, then, who crushes the living, breathing infant's skull. Fortunately, as much experience as I have had in obstetrics and gynecology, I have never witnessed this personally. I feel if it had occurred, I would have done everything I could to save the baby. That is where my conscience lies as well as my love for motherhood and human life.
*************
okinrus: McVeigh was not even Christian, as described http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.candiotti.otsc/ McVeigh was an agnostic when he committed the crimes
*************
M*W: What McVeigh did was unforgiveable, but do you think that his agnosticism helped convict him?

 

[okinrus]

M*W: To what extent do you believe that "gay bashing does not occur too often?" If you think that "gay bashing" only means to kill a gay person, then I disagree. There is a range of discrimination that happens to gay people, male and female, the worst, of course, being brutally beaten to death. It happens more frequently than you might consider.

I've never seen someone beat up someone who was gay. I don't think it happends to often; someone cannot tell on the street whether someone is gay.

M*W: If the lands in question had been conquered by those other than Roman Catholics, then they rightfully belonged to the captuers. For the RCC to go after conquered lands was just as evil as those who took them from the HRE.

The Pope received information that Christians being brutally killed, so he sought to free the lands of Islamic control.

M*W: Once again, abortion is legal in the USA. Some states, like California, allow a fetus to be aborted at ANY stage of development. Kansas is another state whose laws are liberal for aborting fetuses. Texas, on the other hand, limits abortion availability to the 26th week but no further than that. I believe Louisiana doesn't permit abortion due to its high catholic population.

I thought the judges ruled that it was unconstitutional to forbid a women to exercise her rights.

New York maintains liberal views (and no governmental regulation) on abortion. The murder of abortion doctors has been traditionally performed by nut cases like Rudolph, et al. They are also known as "Christians."

It does not seem to be related to the religion that these people belonged to. They simply believed abortion was murder and that killing an abortion doctor might decrease the number of abortions.

It's people like this who impose their religious beliefs on others who are outside the bounds of the law. I don't like abortion. Nobody does. But, it's a fact of life.

You mean death.

M*W: What McVeigh did was unforgiveable, but do you think that his agnosticism helped convict him?

What McVeigh did could be forgiven. I'm not sure what you mean by "agnosticism helped convict him."