How is faith in God attained?

[nds1]

Adstar, I'm just saying David had like 14 wives. They were previously Saul's wives, so I don't think they lacked much in the looks department. Then he pulls a Kobe Bryant and cheats on all of them.

But the penalty fit the crime I guess. God had all of his innocent wives raped in public so everyone could see. Further, Bathshebas's innocent son was killed because of the sin of another. On the other hand, that son got a free pass to heaven so its not too bad of a deal.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Adstar, I'm just saying David had like 14 wives. They were previously Saul's wives, so I don't think they lacked much in the looks department. Then he pulls a Kobe Bryant and cheats on all of them.

But the penalty fit the crime I guess. God had all of his innocent wives raped in public so everyone could see. Further, Bathshebas's innocent son was killed because of the sin of another. On the other hand, that son got a free pass to heaven so its not too bad of a deal.

Oh...The wonder of it all!

What a great model of justice for us all to follow, Yes?

For some strange reason David was immune from the penalty of the Law. You know, that whole death-by-stoning-unless-you-are-the-king, Law. Hmmm... Well he had faith after all... ...So he could sin whenever he wanted without penalty of the Law. Funny how they still do this kind of thing even today.

Suddenly, I understand Christianity! :bugeye:

 

[nds1]

Adstar, Ice,

To me, 80% of what determines what someone's religious or political views will be is the religious and politcal beliefs of their parents. I am a conservative. Both my parents were conservative, my father especially. So, therefore I became a conservative as well since I was led to conservatism starting from a young age. I'll be the first to admit that. Let me restate: 80% or greater of the reason that I am a conservative is because my father was.

Now if my father worked in a union, I would support the union and it would sound perfectly logical to me. If my father were a liberal I would have liberal viewpoints and no one could persuade me otherwise, just as no one could persuade me to liberal viewpoints on many issues right now. IT IS IMBEDDED. Liberalism is absurd to me in many issues, just like conservatism is absurd to liberals in many issues.

The same thing clearly and undoubtedly is true of religion and religious beliefs. If I grew up in the middle east under a Shiite family, there is an 85% chance I would also attain those religious and politcal viewpoints of my Shiite parents and other relatives.

80% or more of what determines what a child's religious beliefs will be is:

1) The relgious beliefs of their parents, cousins, grandparents, and other relatives. Children trust everything their parents say and it becomes imbedded whether they like it or not.

2) The religous beliefs of the culture and vast majority of the society of that person's region. If the dominant religion in that persons town, state, village, or general region is Islam, then they will also become Islam. This is because of the mindset of, "If everyone else believes it, it must be true." To humans, because of our limited scope, it seems like the local area around us represents the views of the entire world since there is no way for us to see the entire world.

3) The social pressures and implications of leaving that religion. If someone leaves a religion which their family and relatives and society around them fully believes in, then that person is suddenly looked down upon as the scum of the earth. They are an immediate outcast and their whole world and stability crumbles into pieces. So why not avoid all of that and simply keep the relgion you inherited at childbirth?

For example, if a huge flood hit a local area and the people lost power and there was water all around them, they would think the whole world was flooded. The same idea applies to religious beliefs.

That's it. If I was born in the Mid-East under an Islam family, with Islam relatives, living in a purely Islam land, then all other religions would seem absurd to me. I would say, "What?! Jesus is the Son of God?! LMAO! That is so absurd, how could those people believe that he was more than just another prophet. Wow, they must be brainwashed."

And nothing would be able to convince me otherwise. The Islam beliefs would be imbedded in my brain and everything else would be absurd.

So the point is, as much as many Christians believe that having certain mental beliefs in your mind a is a pre-requisite to going to heaven, I believe God would also consider the situation of each person and how much of a chance they really had of converting from another relgion once imbedded in their brains.

 

[Cris]

Cyperium,

If strong logic is applied with limited knowledge, then we get a very crude and unmeaningful world.

The inverse of course is to not use logic which results in illogical conclusions which we see here as faith and religion.

Your error is to confuse logical conclusions with the perceived need to reach a conclusion no matter what.

Strong logic would dictate that limited knowledge is inadequate to form a reliable conclusion and leave the question open. I.e. there is no requirement to always have a yes or no answer and that dont know is entirely logically acceptable.

 

[Cris]

To sam et al,

Faith in a god or a religious concept remains entirely a matter of suspending logical and reasoned thinking. That some scientists also believe in a god is a good example that they choose to suspend the ability to reason logically in those instances.

Being able to think logically in one area doesn't necessitate they use the same approach everywhere. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that a god must exist because an otherwise logical scientist has chosen to disregard logic regarding religion.

 

[Adstar]

So being a vegetarian is a sign of weak faith???

Rom 14:1-3
14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

A person of strong faith knows that they can eat anything and what they eat will not cause them to loose their salvation. But a person weak in the faith will try to avoid meat altogether because of fear of breaking a dietary law. I think Paul was using extremes to reveal the message.

You should know about the kosher dietary laws. And the avoidance of meats like pork in that law. A person who is very unsure of their salvation with go beyond the law and avoid all meats to even be better than the law.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Wow I had to comment that the Al Gore attack was somewhat unwarranted Adstar. Gore strikes me as one of the more concerned politicians, if somewhat naive to political deceptions.

Is that the image he projects to you? Is that the image he projects to gain support from people like you? Is it because he voices your concerns that you automatically lock onto him and support him blindly?

It's an easy technique find out what concerns people and voice the same concerns. Find out the things that people find important and say that it is important to you too. Dumb it down in simple terms to maximise the effect. Then when you ride the support into a position make the most the gravy train as long as you can and laugh at masses that put you there with utter contempt and derision.

You know it does not matter if an american is a theist or an athiest they all seem to have the same cultural reverence towards politicians. I have done all i can to break this mindset in american theists on christian forums but i have not succeeded, I wish they had Jesus as their commander and chief but when it comes to the crunch they all fall in behind their politicians. Loyalty to the kings and kingdoms of this world seems to have first priority for them, even if it means banning a brother in Jesus. Its very frustrating dealing with people who trust in men.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Adstar]

Adstar, Ice,

To me, 80% of what determines what someone's religious or political views will be is the religious and politcal beliefs of their parents. I am a conservative. Both my parents were conservative, my father especially. So, therefore I became a conservative as well since I was led to conservatism starting from a young age. I'll be the first to admit that. Let me restate: 80% or greater of the reason that I am a conservative is because my father was.

Now if my father worked in a union, I would support the union and it would sound perfectly logical to me. If my father were a liberal I would have liberal viewpoints and no one could persuade me otherwise, just as no one could persuade me to liberal viewpoints on many issues right now. IT IS IMBEDDED. Liberalism is absurd to me in many issues, just like conservatism is absurd to liberals in many issues.

The same thing clearly and undoubtedly is true of religion and religious beliefs. If I grew up in the middle east under a Shiite family, there is an 85% chance I would also attain those religious and politcal viewpoints of my Shiite parents and other relatives.

80% or more of what determines what a child's religious beliefs will be is:

1) The relgious beliefs of their parents, cousins, grandparents, and other relatives. Children trust everything their parents say and it becomes imbedded whether they like it or not.

2) The religous beliefs of the culture and vast majority of the society of that person's region. If the dominant religion in that persons town, state, village, or general region is Islam, then they will also become Islam. This is because of the mindset of, "If everyone else believes it, it must be true." To humans, because of our limited scope, it seems like the local area around us represents the views of the entire world since there is no way for us to see the entire world.

3) The social pressures and implications of leaving that religion. If someone leaves a religion which their family and relatives and society around them fully believes in, then that person is suddenly looked down upon as the scum of the earth. They are an immediate outcast and their whole world and stability crumbles into pieces. So why not avoid all of that and simply keep the relgion you inherited at childbirth?

For example, if a huge flood hit a local area and the people lost power and there was water all around them, they would think the whole world was flooded. The same idea applies to religious beliefs.

That's it. If I was born in the Mid-East under an Islam family, with Islam relatives, living in a purely Islam land, then all other religions would seem absurd to me. I would say, "What?! Jesus is the Son of God?! LMAO! That is so absurd, how could those people believe that he was more than just another prophet. Wow, they must be brainwashed."

And nothing would be able to convince me otherwise. The Islam beliefs would be imbedded in my brain and everything else would be absurd.

So the point is, as much as many Christians believe that having certain mental beliefs in your mind a is a pre-requisite to going to heaven, I believe God would also consider the situation of each person and how much of a chance they really had of converting from another relgion once imbedded in their brains.

You where born into a religious family right? You where born into an area where most people are theists right? But you are an atheist right?

I do not share the same religion my parent’s brothers and sisters and friends have either. So the belief that we are trapped in the beliefs of the culture that we are born into is nonsense. If that where the case than nothing would change percentages of people who believe in God would never change.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[nds1]

You where born into a religious family right? You where born into an area where most people are theists right? But you are an atheist right?

I do not share the same religion my parent’s brothers and sisters and friends have either. So the belief that we are trapped in the beliefs of the culture that we are born into is nonsense. If that where the case than nothing would change percentages of people who believe in God would never change.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

I'm not an atheist. I am what I am.

But as far as my "product of your environment" post, I never implied that it holds true in EVERY case. Hence the 80% clause.

You are one of the 20%.

 

[IceAgeCivilizations]

Tell that to the millions of ex Hindu now Christian Indians and the millions of ex Buddhist now Christian Chinese.

 

[nds1]

Tell that to the millions of ex Hindu now Christian Indians and the millions of ex Buddhist now Christian Chinese.

I don't speak Indian, nor do I speak Chinese. :fart:

 

[nds1]

Adstar, Cain and Abel make sacrifices of animals and of plants in Genesis. Were they sacrificing to God, or did they have Jesus in their minds when they were sacrificing?

 

[ashura]

Sorry I'm late Adstar. Got caught up with other stuff.

I have not sidestepped your question. I have given you the best answer i can. If what i have revealed to you is not good enough for you then i so be it. I cannot do any more than give you my thoughts.

I'm sorry if I missed it then. Can you help me find it? Let's recap.

I take His message in it's totality. I accept it all. I do not disregard the "good" just because of the part of the message that is harder to digest.

Your response to my pointing out the "bad" in the message. (the bad being eternal torture)

I then asked you

This confuses me. What makes it harder for you to digest Adstar? See for me, it's disgusting because it's basically holding a knife to someones throat, and that's evil/bad/etc. But you shouldn't have any problems with it since you think God's will is pure and good. Why do you say it's harder to digest?

Your response:

Things that are easy to understand are easy to digest quickly. But things that are hard to understand take time.

So is your answer to my original question "Hell is/was hard for me to digest because I can't/couldn't understand it."?

We where talking about oppression. You where putting forward that we are all under the oppression of the lake of fire. I corrected your statement by saying that those who embrace the will of God and have come to the knowledge of the Messiah Jesus feel no fear or oppression by the Lake of fire. I also noted that those who do not believe in the lake of fire cannot be oppressed by information they regard as being a myth or a fantasy. I did say however that those caught up in the bondage of false religion who do not believe in the gift of Gods salvation thought the Messiah Jesus are the only ones who could possibly be living in fear or oppression by their belief in the lake of fire.

I'd like to clarify. I didn't suggest that everyone would be oppressed, but rather everyone is under the threat of oppression. The oppression, or lack thereof, happens in the afterlife. Thus, if you are a believer, of course you wouldn't suffer from or fear that threat, because you've already agreed to the possible oppressor's terms.

And for that part in bold, I'll once again state that I'm referring to the threat of oppression. Mind if I use an analogy? Say there's an invisible gun in front of me. I have no idea it exists, but it's there. And if I turn to my left, I get shot. If I turn to my right, I don't get shot. But since I don't believe the gun is there, I'm not aware of the threat. But it doesn't change the fact that the threat exists. Now, I'm not saying God is an invisible gun. Merely giving an example of why my viewpoint is the way it is. Thus, if we treat the bible as fact, the threat of oppression is still there for atheists/non-Christian theists. It's there for all mankind. Only difference is true believers can see the gun while the rest can't. Doesn't change the fact that the threat is there, theist or atheist, Buddhist or Christian or Muslim.

Your question is worded differently here to my mind. Therefore i will answer this question.

God has provided His will. The two paths are either acceptance or rejection of His will. those who reject His will shall have eternity in the Lake of fire those who accept His will shall have eternity with God. We humans have a Choice to either accept the Salvation on offer by the atoning act of the Messiah Jesus or we can reject the gift of God provided by the Messiah Jesus.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this completely agree with what I said: "ultimately God has only laid down two paths for us, one to heaven and one to hell? And we humans have no choice but to go to either or"?

I have answered your question again and again and i cannot think of another way to say the same thing. If my answers are not enough for you then there is nothing more i can do for you in relation to this question.

I think I need a recap for this one too, as I'm not aware as to where this answer is.

We started here:

Are you afraid of God Adstar?

You replied:

Nope. I am in love

I then wrongly cited a biblical quote that had God saying men should fear him. You interpreted that as being a message only to men who are rebellious against God's will, as stated here:

If you read the context of that scripture you will know it was going out to a rebellious people. Not to a people who had accepted the Will of God. The scripture is correct They should have feared Him They should have trembled in His presence. And People in this world today that are in rebellion against His Word should fear Him and tremble. But many don't do they.

I accepted my mistake, and brought you the current quote:

Ecclesiastes 12
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the whole duty of man.

Note the part in bold and underline.

So now that the lovely recap is over, here's the discussion at hand. You say only those who rebel against God should fear him. True believers should feel no fear. I say they should, based on that latest biblical quote. As far as I'm aware, you've never directly responded to this. If you have, then please don't trouble yourself with writing something new. If you could just be kind enough to quote where you stated this in our discussion, I'll be more than happy to read and reread and reread it, and we can go from there. If you haven't answered this query, then could do so now?

Ok Modify your question to this:

In the long run will God oppress every person who rejects the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah Jesus?

Now if you do that then i can answer with a simple Yes

Adstar, I'm a little confused. Can you show me how
in the long run, God will oppress every non Christian
differs from
In the long run God will oppress every person who rejects the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah Jesus?

I can say this because you are not accepting the answers that i am giving you. If you agreed with me then you could accept the answers i gave you when i gave them to you. But you have brushed my answers away and sought to get answers that will assist you to either put forward your position, or justifying your rejection of the God of Abraham.

Well of course. If you agreed with me, then you could accept what I say when I say it to you. That's true for any two persons who are disagreeing. It's the line after that I do have a problem with though. You say I am brushing your answers away. I'm sorry if it seems like that, but I assure you that is not my attention. What I'm trying to do is get some extra clarity from them. I will not deny however that I'm looking for more ways to justify my rejection of God. Who doesn't like to hear that they're right?

What really matters is if you or I can change our minds if we find out we're wrong, or if we can even accept that we are wrong.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cyperium,

The inverse of course is to not use logic which results in illogical conclusions which we see here as faith and religion.

Your error is to confuse logical conclusions with the perceived need to reach a conclusion no matter what.

since atheism lacks a process which can be validated, its not clear how your claims are any more logical

Strong logic would dictate that limited knowledge is inadequate to form a reliable conclusion and leave the question open. I.e. there is no requirement to always have a yes or no answer and that dont know is entirely logically acceptable.

which raises the interesting question why you are confident that god is a socially contrived phenomena

 

[Godless]

since atheism lacks a process which can be validated

Firs validate the claim, "god exists" then we can move on from there. BTW just cause a whole horde of people believe in god, it does not validate it's existence. The only validation for such an entity would be empirical evidence. Furthermore, your claim that "saintly persons" perceive the notion of god, is also not a validation! hence a schizophrenic can also sense the presence of Elvis Presley this clearly means he/she only imagined it, as your "saintly persons" also imagine the presence of god.

 

[Godless]

Will (validate) be your new word now LG?

 

[Zephyr]

For some strange reason David was immune from the penalty of the Law. You know, that whole death-by-stoning-unless-you-are-the-king, Law. Hmmm... Well he had faith after all... ...So he could sin whenever he wanted without penalty of the Law. Funny how they still do this kind of thing even today.

Suddenly, I understand Christianity! :bugeye:

The New Testament starts with proof that Jesus was a direct descendent of David - a requirement for fitting in with certain prophecies.

 

[SnakeLord]

The New Testament starts with proof that Jesus was a direct descendent of David

Curious.. You claim the NT starts with "proof", (it's advisable never to really use that word), that jesus was a "direct descendant of david" and yet jesus is of no relation to joseph, (the descendant of david). The fact of the matter from a biblical perspective is that jesus is not a direct descendant of david.

 

[Zephyr]

Hmm, yes, 'assert' may be a better word than 'prove'. That particular chapter only gives the genealogy from David to Joseph, but I've read that Mary was supposed to be a descendent of David too.

In addition, in the very first verse it refers to 'Jesus Christ, the son of David'. So unless they're saying that Joseph's real name is David (or God's real name is David) they're probably claiming descent from a particular David.

 

[Adstar]

I'm not an atheist. I am what I am.

But as far as my "product of your environment" post, I never implied that it holds true in EVERY case. Hence the 80% clause.

You are one of the 20%.

Ok you might not be an athiest. Whatever you are that is what you are.

lol your statement reminds me of what God said to Moses:

Exodus 3
14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”


All Praise The Ancient Of Days