rainbow walking

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
It sounds to me as if you are equivocating knowledge with proof.


CTME: No I’m not. Knowledge is not proof, it is closer to the word “data”. Proof is knowledge with the added belief that it is either true or false or some other objective or subjective opinion associated with it.

Rw: As I read thru your reply you still maintain that faith, in order to be genuine, must be held without any prior knowledge of the object that faith is being invested in. Choosing to believe in God is to arrive at a conclusion concerning His existence as well as other factors about Him. Without some basic knowledge being conveyed about God how can one choose to believe?


CTME: What you seem to miss is that “proof” can be true only in the mind of the person claiming X, while in fact, it is false or invalid, yet in the mind of the person it constitutes proof enough to believe XYZ.


Rw: Proof of a claim is something that is arrived at evidentially, deductively or inductively. If the evidence is sufficient to establish a conclusion you can say the claim has been proven. Until this stage is reached the claim is nothing more than a premise. But the premise must convey some information to be considered. Whether the truth of the data conveyed can be conclusively established will determine if the claim has been proven or is still a premise.


CTME: In your dog saving story the dog is X which allowed to then believe in YZ (Gods intervention and thus, existence). You believe that the dog was guided by God whereas I believe it was just instinct preprogrammed in the dog. You degree of proof and mine are different.

Rw: The testimony was offered as evidence, not as proof. I know of no study that can establish my dog’s behavior to have been instinctual. This would require him to have an automatic built in knowledge that hornets build hives and can deliver injury or death if disturbed and that this injury or death also applies to humans. This is a level of instinctual knowledge you would be hard pressed to demonstrate for a canine, especially when I’ve seen dogs display no inherent fear of bees. Additionally this would have required a level of knowledge capable of recognizing a danger before it became so along with the ability to conceive of a method of prevention in the brief span of a few seconds. I didn’t get stung. I wasn’t crying out for help. There was nothing in my behavior to alert or alarm my dog yet he still acted to prevent me from colliding with the hive.

While I concede that my dog may have acquired the knowledge of the potential harm bees could inflict by some previous experience with them, this still doesn’t address the more complicated layer of knowledge required to recognize the danger to me prior to my actual collision and step between me and the hive in a threatening manner to prevent me from colliding with the source of danger. I owned this dog until he died, (about 6 years), and in all that time he never again displayed such a depth of intelligence nor had he done so prior to that one incident.

rw earlier: Certainly no one could be expected to believe something before they have some basis in knowing what they are asked to believe. Could I believe in purple pixies before I ever heard of purple pixies?

CTME: Yes, if you had Faith as detailed in the Bible, you could. That is my point here. Do you have faith that they can exist or will you need some type of “proof” or basis for the belief in Ppixies?

Rw: You appear to be missing the point. Where in the bible does someone display faith without some knowledge of what it is they are expressing that faith in and why? In fact, many of the biblical patriarchs are actually displaying less faith and more obedience than people today. In almost every case where someone displays faith it was generally because they had already heard from God in some manner so they weren’t exactly expressing faith in the sense of believing that the direction they received actually came from a living real God but more in deciding if they will follow the directions given on the basis of trusting that this God will perform His promises. It’s more of an obedience trust type of relationship. The question of God’s existence isn’t part of the challenge.

In the case of pixies I first must have some knowledge that such a concept represents something comprehensible enough to consider. I can’t just wake up one day and decide to believe in something I’ve never heard of or had any knowledge of conveyed to me. This is not a reasonable qualification for genuine faith.

Additionally, if I had proof, faith would become a moot issue. On the other hand if I had evidence to suggest the possibility I would likely weigh it and give it careful consideration before I made a decision.

If a purple pixie appeared to me and gave me explicit instructions to perform a certain task I would have to decide whether to comply or not. If I comply I am being obedient more than acting on faith. If a man comes along telling me about purple pixies and tells me I must perform a specific task to demonstrate my faith in these creatures…that would be an act of faith.

CTME: If you do need something to base your belief on outside of faith, then your amount of proof and my amount of proof will most likely be different. Why should you believe in purple pixies with XYZ proof and expect me to also when I need XYZABC to believe. After all you didn’t believe with just XY or X or at no level of proof, that would have required faith.

Rw: No one believes anything without some basis for that belief. What you are describing isn’t biblical faith. Most biblical claims are offered as a reason to believe. In the case of my dog I see it as evidence of divine intervention, not proof, since I equate proof with conclusive, undeniable establishment of something as brute fact.

CTME: The rest of your post only proves what I just described above. Your experiences in the story is the basis of your proof that a god exists. Therefore, you believe not by faith but by reasons you laid out plus, I’m sure many other reasons. Reasons and Experiences have nothing to do with having faith, although you mix the word into your story to make it seem to be the missing link between your reasons for belief and the unanswered question of the existence of God. This is a common mistake made by most all Christians.

Rw: My testimony doesn’t constitute proof but only subjective experience which I offer as evidence. I don’t expect it to conclusively prove the literal existence of the object of my belief but only to justify my belief that God does exist. And faith is action based belief. Action requires reason even if the reason is irrational.

Faith is not without substance and indeed cannot be else it isn’t faith at all but some form of delusion. The substance of faith is contained in reasons and experiences. Faith expressed produces experiences that justify or nullify ones faith and reason for believing. If the question of God’s existence could be conclusively established either way faith would cease to be an issue. If I could PROVE God’s existence I’d have no further reason to BELIEVE since I would now KNOW conclusively. If you could PROVE God’s non-existence I would have nothing left to BELIEVE and again faith would cease to be an issue.

CTME: The problem still exists that until all forms of proof are removed as a basis for Faith, an atheist can not be expected to believe in God since there is not enough proof (at least in the minds of the atheist)

Rw: I was going to ask what forms of proof are available either way. Proof is not quantitative but qualitative. If sufficient evidence exists to conclude a matter can it not then be said to have been PROVEN? But sufficient evidence does not exist to positively conclude the matter.

If I am reading you correctly it sounds like you are trying to establish a basis for belief absent any reason for it. It’s a way of saying that faith in God is blind and irrational, unless it comes by direct revelation from God, but this just isn’t true. Many evidences offered to justify belief in God are grounded in subjective experience, still others are inductive arguments, but all such evidences can themselves be accepted or rejected on the basis of belief.

Most atheists don’t just take a position that they are absent a belief in god but they generally wind up taking a positive posture that no god exists to believe in which finds its expression in anti-theism and is ultimately agnostic in nature. The textbook definition simply posits an atheist to be without a belief. No reason is given or implied. I have rarely ever heard an atheist say they just can’t or don’t want to believe. Most attribute their position to a lack of convincing evidence that a god exists to believe in.
Is it absolutely necessary for something to exist to gain any benefit from it?

Since atheism is the default condition of all humans when they are born, if we allowed your claim to represent genuine faith, anyone who God revealed Himself to would have to remain silent on the issue to give God space to induce this genuine faith in others. Any attempt to share this faith would nullify and disqualify the person with whom you shared your faith from ever qualifying for this revelation because they now have prior knowledge. Your definition of genuine faith just isn’t logical or defensible.

CTME: The meaning of Faith can not be this “Missing Link Faith” most Christians have because most people would not find sufficient proof to ever believe.

Rw: The meaning of faith is found when one ACTS upon ones belief. It doesn’t have to be religious either. The Wright brothers displayed genuine faith in the airplane they constructed. Indeed, they attempted flight in spite of previous unsuccessful attempts by others that resulted in death or injury. No man had ever accomplished sustained flight so they had no precedent to reference. They believed it could be done by them in their airplane and they put this belief into action and succeeded to express sincere, genuine faith by putting their lives on the line.

Faith is a cut above belief and belief requires some form of knowledge and conceptualization of what it is one is believing. You can’t divorce these axioms from the equation and still expect faith to be established. I can claim to believe in God till hell freezes over but if I never put this claim into action and express it as something more than just a belief then the sincerity of my claim to be a man of faith could be questioned.

CTME: Therefore, the meaning of Biblical Faith must be the belief in something without regard to proof or having any other basis for the belief; nor can there be any prior knowledge about the subject matter, in other words it must be a true miracle from God to exist.

Rw: This is not biblical or true. While I can believe in anything I choose without proof, claiming that my faith isn’t genuine because I had to have knowledge of what it is I am professing belief in to substantiate my claim is ludicrous. It sounds like you are saying that a true believer is one who went from absolutely zero knowledge of God to belief in His existence without any means of doing so other than a revelation from heaven that told him all he needed to know about God and why he should believe. You are aware that Christ instructed His disciples to go into all the world preaching the gospel, in other words, teaching men who He is and why they ought to believe in Him? This alone devastates your claim.

CTME: And no Christian has this faith since they all were taught, lectured to, or studied the Bible, its doctrines, or concepts before believing. The new testament writers have painted themselves into an impossible corner on this faith thing. They should have left it out.

Rw: This is true, no Christian has likely had his faith activated in this manner, but to make this straw man come to life you must prove that this is the correct biblical path of genuine faith. I await your proof. You must guide me to one single individual in the bible who demonstrated some act of godly faith without any prior knowledge of God or reason for doing so other than because he/she was inspired by God and not influenced by any theistic cultural/regional norms.

E_muse

Happy New Year CTME. I have only just got back from holiday and have been very interested to read this thread.

I find myself intrigued by your definition of faith which you claim to be Biblical. That being - all true faith must be based on no evidence. At least, this is how I understand what you're saying. Your statement quoted above seems to say this bluntly - reasons and experience play no part in belief - according to your definition.

The reason I question your definition is that Christianity was built upon the claimed experiences of Jesus' followers. The most notable experience being his claimed resurrection. Most noteworthy is Thomas - who refused to believe without some evidence - which he was given!

Here we find a clear example of faith and experience working together. Thomas refuses to believe that Jesus is back from the dead until he can touch Jesus for himself. Thomas is given this proof (according to the Gospels) after which he says, 'My Lord and my God'. Obviously this statement is a faith statement but based upon experience.

Interestingly, at no point is anyone expected to believe in Jesus' recovery from death by faith. Paul claims that Jesus appeared to over 500 believers at once and the writer of Acts claims that Jesus presented himself alive by 'many convincing proofs'.

Obviously, it is faith which states that God was responsible for Christ's recovery as this is the unseen element to the story. However, the event itself is not 'believed by faith' by the very earliest Christians as we can understand it.

Whether you believe these claims or not is immaterial to your claim that Biblical faith cannot include experience - as quite clearly it did.

The writer of Hebrews asserts that without faith it is impossible to please God - but this only goes to claim that faith is always required when relating to God and cannot be taken to mean that faith does not involve experience.

Clearly the early disciples are claimed to have experienced something in and through the life of Jesus which enabled them to believe in him and that he was sent from God.

I think a clearer definition of 'Biblical faith' is required here.

critical thinking made ez

Agreed, let us define the usage of the word faith of which I’m centering my arguments on. They are not centered on the normal use of the word Faith as used in many instances. I am confining it to just the real issue of the Faith that Saves. The faith that is the core to all Christians who are instructed to have this faith in order to be saved, in order to have everlasting life.

Can we agree that the faith which is being described above is the faith that Jesus is God and the acceptance of the belief?

I think that the average Christian will agree that this would be a requirement in being Saved and to obtain everlasting life. I will assume for the rest of my argument that we will all agree to this premise.

Before going on any further I will address several people who have brought up the argument of different kinds of faith, and indeed faith that can grow weak, be great, strengthen at evidence as in the case of the Apostles. I am not addressing the mistaken meaning given to the word faith by these passages. It will become apparent that the writer of these books had no clue as to the proper use of the word faith. However, this is moot issue that will be revealed once we know how God would use Faith in a regards to man.

1. God gives every man a fair chance at becoming a believer.
I feel most Christians will agree to this statement. We won’t include a handful that he may indeed not give the chance to since it would not change the argument I’m making. So if we included the words “almost every man” it would still work.
2. In giving man, this chance at believing, most of you have agreed that some amount of proof, evidence, actions, testimony, witness to a miracle, experience etc (we’ll call them occurrences for the rest of the argument) has played a part in forming the foundation to having the faith.
a. The faith you now have did not exist before such occurrences in your life.
3. You have proven to yourself that these occurrences prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is God.
4. God create these occurrences in your life as you do believe that in premise (1) that God gives everyone a chance to believe. You have admitted that the chance he gives are based on these occurrences. Yet you the individual, had to make the final call on whether they constituted valid proof enough for your new-found Faith. You didn’t just start believing without a certain amount or degree of these occurrences.

Here comes the problem and the Question ...
If God gives everyone a chance to have faith under the previous premises, why doesn’t it occur to the millions that don’t believe? Millions die every year who would tell you that they never had enough proof (occurrences). This is a clear violation of Gods own word where he clearly tells us that every man is given a chance. There can not be any blame set on man for not having faith if the initial occurrences did not prove it to the individual’s own mental acceptance.

Therefore Faith, if we assume that every man is given a fair opportunity to believe, must obtain Faith through a different method than just these occurrences. And if faith doesn’t come by a level of proof, then it must come in another form. The problem is what form?

To believe in something with no level of proof is moronic. Yet we are not allowed any level of proof since many of us are holding out for solid proof before having faith, yet all religious scholars agree, that there is no conclusive proof to the existence of God, so how can we be expected to have the Faith? You Christians have faith based on some level of proof you are satisfied with.

Here comes the next problem. If Faith cannot be given by the occurrences / proof, then those who claim to have faith by these means have a False Faith. They really believe by proof, not faith. For without the proof your faith is dead. Therefore it is impossible for you to follow the biblical direction to live by faith. Impossible for you to be saved by your Faith since you have a false faith, you live by proof, you are saved by Jesus by your proof of the faith.

Since I have now made my argument for faith not being able to involve any type of personal occurrences or proof, we seek to the bases of Faith by avoiding the problems discussed above and yet by the rule that every man will be given the chance to accept Jesus as God (have Faith). A person would only be able to acquire Faith through a revelation and it must happen to all men sometime before their death. The person that it happens to must recognize that this is a direct appeal from God and it must be clear to the point that the rejection could not be made by a lack of evidence/belief.

How else could Faith be offered to every man to a point where there is no doubt that it is the truth and it is from God. Anything less would not be a fair chance.

excreationist

critical thinking made ez:
Are you taking your New Year's Resolution seriously or not? I think you aren't seriously trying to believe - maybe just so you can prove your point.

Ted Hoffman

previously posted by critical thinking made easy..

"...Here comes the problem and the Question ...
If God gives everyone a chance to have faith under the previous premises, why doesn’t it occur to the millions that don’t believe? Millions die every year who would tell you that they never had enough proof (occurrences). This is a clear violation of Gods own word where he clearly tells us that every man is given a chance. There can not be any blame set on man for not having faith if the initial occurrences did not prove it to the individual’s own mental acceptance. "

jaliet:First of all, not all xstians believe that Jesus is God. There are those that believe that Jesus is the Son of God e.g. the Jehovahs Witnesses.

Secondly, concerning God not giving some of us a fair chance, there are those that die while too young or those that die at birth. A Jehovahs witness once told me that the (first)1000 years after the first resurrection those of us who had what u call a fair chance will "rule"(whatever that means) with christ (while the devil is locked away) then after the K years, there will be a second resurrection for those you feel did not get a fair chance and the devil will be released to tempt them. This is found in Revelation chapter 20. So you see, God had thought of all that. Your "loophole" was sealed eons ago.

About Rainbow Walkings experience as a 7 year old, I see many holes in his reasoning (divine intervention) and I am starting a new thread based on it in the Science and skepticism forum. I had a similar experience - "near death" - in a way though it was a human being that saved my life, I hope RW will participate in it.
All are welcome in that thread.

Ted Hoffman

On second thoughts, I will start the new thread here at Existence of Gods

rainbow walking

CTME: Before going on any further I will address several people who have brought up the argument of different kinds of faith, and indeed faith that can grow weak, be great, strengthen at evidence as in the case of the Apostles. I am not addressing the mistaken meaning given to the word faith by these passages. It will become apparent that the writer of these books had no clue as to the proper use of the word faith. However, this is moot issue that will be revealed once we know how God would use Faith in a regards to man.

Rw: Well, you’ve certainly gone out on a limb with the above statement. You wish to jettison any reference to the use of the concept “faith” by any of the apostles because it doesn’t support your contention, not because it is improperly applied. You’re going to have to do more than just claim it a moot issue because the remainder of your argument doesn’t support this contention.

CTME: 1. God gives every man a fair chance at becoming a believer.

I feel most Christians will agree to this statement. We won’t include a handful that he may indeed not give the chance to since it would not change the argument I’m making. So if we included the words “almost every man” it would still work.

Rw: Maybe you are referring to this text:

Romans 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

I can only assume that you mean “most men” have the capacity to believe. If not, then the only other way to interpret your statement is that you mean “almost every man” will have, at some point in his life, the OPPORTUNITY to believe. This needs clarification but I can address both possibilities.

According to Paul every man has the CAPACITY to believe. So anyone who claims they are not equipped with the necessary human components to believe are mistaken. In fact, what men lack is a capacity to KNOW in an absolute sense. Knowledge itself is logically defined as a “justified true BELIEF”.

For you to say God gives almost every man a fair chance and to mean it in a sense that God somehow makes an appeal to almost every man’s capacity to believe is quite a stretch. For one thing this ignores the commission given to the church to go into all the world making disciples. Clearly there are places on this planet where men live who’ve never heard of God or Jesus. So your “almost every man” dwindles and loses steam here.
The fact of the “great commission” is also evidence against your premise since it is clear that God intends man to have a hand in the activation of our “measure of faith”.


CTME: 2. In giving man, this chance at believing, most of you have agreed that some amount of proof, evidence, actions, testimony, witness to a miracle, experience etc (we’ll call them occurrences for the rest of the argument) has played a part in forming the foundation to having the faith. The faith you now have did not exist before such occurrences in your life. You have proven to yourself that these occurrences prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is God.

Rw: The CAPACITY to believe is an integral part of the man. Who or what he invests that MEASURE of FAITH in is what is in question here. Two things are required for a conversion.

1. Knowledge of a God expressed in some comprehensible manner and attributed to some experience in the questioner’s life. A believer using the bible as a reference to explain or attribute the experience to God generally communicates this.

2. A willingness on the questioner’s part to accept the explanation and participate in the rites associated with the conversion process. The real battle ensues around this “WILLINGNESS”.

It is a commonly held theistic axiom that the Holy Spirit is actively participating in the process from start to finish although how this participation is effected is not clearly defined. The closest thing to an explanation of this phenomenon is found in the gospels where Jesus uses a parable to describe the binding up of the strong man, (satan), in order to evict him from his house, (the man’s person, heart, life). Jesus, in these parables, represents this binding up as the work of the Holy Spirit allowing the man unrestricted freedom to make his decision. This is further predicated on the claim that, prior to conversion, all men are bound by the god of this world and thus prohibited from making a clear choice.

Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.
28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.


This is further expanded upon when Jesus describes what can happen to a person who is set free to decide but fails to do so:

Matthew 12:43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation.

Conversely, when a man actively invests his measure of faith into believing that God does not exist that too is not entirely his choice. According to Jesus, diabolical forces that work to foster and sustain this condition, influencing the person’s internal filters such that his WILLINGNESS to consider his options are restricted and hampered, cultivate this investment into anti-theism.


CTME: 4. God create these occurrences in your life as you do believe that in premise (1) that God gives everyone a chance to believe. You have admitted that the chance he gives are based on these occurrences. Yet you the individual, had to make the final call on whether they constituted valid proof enough for your new-found Faith. You didn’t just start believing without a certain amount or degree of these occurrences.

Rw: As pointed out above this premise completely ignores the great commission and the work of the church. Additionally, not every experience or occurrence in a person’s life, that was instrumental in their conversion, is of God. For instance, many people convert to Christianity because their lives are in a mess due to some addiction or criminal activity that they became involved in. Many more convert because of physical maladies and believe God for a healing. I wouldn’t think it reasonable to attribute such occurrences to God or the church.

CTME: Here comes the problem and the Question ...
If God gives everyone a chance to have faith under the previous premises, why doesn’t it occur to the millions that don’t believe?

Rw: False premises lead to false conclusions and erroneous questions.

CTME: Millions die every year who would tell you that they never had enough proof (occurrences). This is a clear violation of Gods own word where he clearly tells us that every man is given a chance.

Rw: Occurrences are evidences not proof. And I would be interested in those passages that support your contention here in reference to “chance”.

CTME: There can not be any blame set on man for not having faith if the initial occurrences did not prove it to the individual’s own mental acceptance.

Rw: Then you are concerned with blame and guilt? The power of the evidence required to overcome an individual’s convictions and render him/her WILLING to accept an explanation that their experiences and occurrences are a result of the CONFLICT between opposing forces of good and evil is not the issue here because the individual is not making the consideration in a vacuum but is actively caught up in the CONFLICT. If this isn’t taken into consideration additional room for error is made available and false conclusions are more likely to be drawn.

Sometimes I get the impression that the skeptic imagines he exists in this bubble high up on a mountain overlooking the entire universe where his mind is nothing more than a complicated computer crunching data and arriving at completely accurate conclusions 100% of the time. This just isn’t the case. Skeptics are right here in the valley of decision along with the rest of us grunts, caught up in the same daily CONFLICTS and living under the same influential ideologies as the rest of humanity.

CTME: Therefore Faith, if we assume that every man is given a fair opportunity to believe, must obtain Faith through a different method than just these occurrences. And if faith doesn’t come by a level of proof, then it must come in another form. The problem is what form?

Rw: These “occurrences” you refer to are not the fulcrum by which the ultimate choice is balanced. These are only the vehicle bringing you to the point in time where a choice becomes necessary and where a refusal to choose is also a choice by default. The real battle is waged at the point of your WILLingness to accept or reject God as the identity behind those occurrences that either changes them or explains them. Whether you want to admit it or not this WILLingness does not stand alone or exist in a vacuum but is under the influence of powers and ideas and principalities of thought processes that must be neutralized long enough to make a prejudice free decision. And the number one prejudice hampering such a state of being is the prejudice that God must somehow PROVE Himself before you will believe. According to the bible this isn’t the way it works. You first believe, then God will prove Himself and bolster your initial step of faith.

CTME: To believe in something with no level of proof is moronic. Yet we are not allowed any level of proof since many of us are holding out for solid proof before having faith, yet all religious scholars agree, that there is no conclusive proof to the existence of God, so how can we be expected to have the Faith? You Christians have faith based on some level of proof you are satisfied with.

Rw: Need I say more? You have quite eloquently verified my previous claim. In your prejudiced thinking God must first conclusively,(and this is often taken to ridiculous heights), prove His existence before you will even consider the possibility.

I have often maintained that nothing short of God’s literal appearance would convince many of you to believe and once this occurred belief would no longer become necessary. A Christian who has faith is a person who first believed and acted on that belief and then began to see the circumstances and occurrences in his life justify or PROVE his faith.

CTME: Here comes the next problem. If Faith cannot be given by the occurrences / proof, then those who claim to have faith by these means have a False Faith.

Rw: No, what you have are false conclusions drawn from erroneous premises.

CTME: They really believe by proof, not faith. For without the proof your faith is dead. Therefore it is impossible for you to follow the biblical direction to live by faith. Impossible for you to be saved by your Faith since you have a false faith, you live by proof, you are saved by Jesus by your proof of the faith.

Rw: And this attempts to dis-allow their initial step of faith in accepting God as the explanation or solution to their occurrences. That a man’s faith is justified AFTER his initial investment has no bearing on how he came to be in a position where this proof became available. Living by faith means living in a constant state of anticipation of further proof and evidence of God’s active role in your life. This doesn’t falsify one’s faith but enhances it and becomes the very fabric of a persons RELATIONSHIP with God.

CTME: Since I have now made my argument for faith not being able to involve any type of personal occurrences or proof, we seek to the bases of Faith by avoiding the problems discussed above and yet by the rule that every man will be given the chance to accept Jesus as God (have Faith). A person would only be able to acquire Faith through a revelation and it must happen to all men sometime before their death. The person that it happens to must recognize that this is a direct appeal from God and it must be clear to the point that the rejection could not be made by a lack of evidence/belief.

Rw: Unfortunately, your arguments do not lead us to the conclusions you wish us to arrive at. Faith is not something given but something we already possess that we decide how it is to be invested. While it is true that some people have made this decision based on a revelation, by and large, most people just make the decision because it appeals to their circumstances. AFTER having made the initial deposit they then begin to realize a return on their investment.

CTME: How else could Faith be offered to every man to a point where there is no doubt that it is the truth and it is from God. Anything less would not be a fair chance.

Rw: Indeed, were God to present Himself to man in a way that was beyond doubt, unavoidably conclusive and undeniably true, why would FAITH even be necessary?

The moment God appeared men would begin to assail Him for PROOF that He is indeed God. But satan would get the first shot at goading Him into proving His extraordinary claim.

Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, “If thou be the Son of God,”

And, of course, the most logical proof would be for Him to perform some trick that defies reality:

Matthew 4:3 … If thou be the Son of God, “command that these stones be made bread.”

And if the first attempt to VERIFY the claim failed to motivate Him a second attempt could be made by threatening His existence:

Matthew 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

And if challenges and threats aren’t working there’s always the BRIBE:

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

Now, after having convinced some men of His identity the next hurdle to overcome would be the temptation to expect Him to magically produce everything needed, from that point forward, for survival. Indeed, were God to actually appear on the scene it wouldn’t be long before man would be begging Him to fix everything and make everyone live happily ever after for all eternity:

John 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled

And, there’s always the problem among men of taking sides and forming cliques and elitist groups that want to force everyone to comply with their position:

Luke 9:52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.
53 And they did not receive him…
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.

And finally, there would always be the ever present danger caused by pride and jealousy prevalent among opportunistic rulers:

John 18:14 Now Caiaphas was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people.

Matthew 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

I close with these thoughts:

John 18:35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done?
36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?

If your new years resolution is sincere and you genuinely seek the truth and you do not hear the truth in His words, what does that tell you?

Albert Cipriani

Dear Emuse,
You said:


Try this one on for size:

Belief is intellectual assent for that which we know.
Faith is belief buttressed by the will to act bodily.

For example, based on the knowledge of the day, people BELIEVED that the earth was flat and people BELIEVED that the earth was round. Only those people who had FAITH in their BELIEF that the world was round or perhaps in that belief's prophet, Christopher Columbus, could sign up for passage to India in the east by going west. Those that merely BELIEVED that the earth was round could not act on that BELIEF, that is, they could not have FAITH enough to actualize their belief by becoming sailors.

Likewise, a mere belief in the existence of God (what Satan has) gets you nowhere. Unless your theism involves all of you, that is your intellect and your will, you do not have FAITH and your belief in God is sterile. Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Albert Cipriani ]</p>

rainbow walking

rw: Very good analogy Albert.

critical thinking made ez

Rainbow Walking:
I really don’t think I can address your last post as it really doesn’t make any logical sense. It appears you don’t understand even the basics of what I am discussing here. If you could just be a little more open to other concepts. I could continue but I feel I am beating a dead horse due to the mass of Christian Doctrine you can't suspend long enough to allow other information to register.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: critical thinking made ez ]</p>