7thangel

Base on the difinitions. A young child can have a faith having not heard the word of God, or those under the law. That is not true. That is not what I believe. Read Romans 10:17 and Galatians 3:22-25.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Romans 2
25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

You are just misunderstanding Paul. He is not contradicting Christ.



That is just your underestimation of me, 7thangel. Even a sigh is more meaningful than a thousand words.

mike_decock

Exactly. Faith, as the word is defined, requires no knowledge. Faith is belief with the ABSENCE of knowledge.



It is true. I've just given you the accepted definition of Faith. Just because you don't believe it, doesn't make it false.




Faitth is neither substance nor evidence. It is belief without evidence.

He was contradicting Peter who was following the teachings of Christ. It's obvious to anyone who hasn't been blinded by faith.

I'm not understimating you. I'm simply informing you that phrases like "To know love is to know God; because God is love" is uttlerly meaningless to an atheist.

-Mike...

malookiemaloo

I raised a thread some time ago on the origins of atheism expecting everyone to agree that it was a modern phenomenon borne out of affluence.

I fact the general consesus of the non-theists who responded was that atheism is as old as the hills (no and let's not argue how old they are!!). Therefore Isaiah 53:1 would make sense in King David's day.

Also the word 'fool' had a specific meaning which is lost in the translation. It did not simply mean someone who was stupid but denotated someone who was not 'the sharpest tool in the shed' when it comes to spiritual matters. Most Bible translations contain footnotes to this effect.


m

godfry n. glad

I'd suggest that the use of the term "atheist" (or its functional equivalent in whatever language) is quite ancient and meant those who didn't recognize the god of the person using the term.

Keep in mind, the Romans often referred to Christians as "atheists", largely because they refused to acknowledge the civic gods and/or the godhood of dead emperors, keeping exclusively to their stiff-necked adherence of worship of their own Judaic god.

godfry